9/11 was an inside job.
Obviously...Wake up, America!
Side Score: 379
|
 |
Wrong, I trust my government.
Side Score: 430
Winning Side! |
 |
 |
|
This falls into the category of "how many suspicious things must be revealed before the mounting questions tip the balance away from the official story?" By the official story I mean the explanation profferred by a government or other overarching body, and it always holds much more sway with the general public. But when presented with an "official story" about anything, I would encourage everyone to investigate the possible motives that the establishment would have for pushing this particular version of events. In the case of 9-11, the official story serves so many purposes for the establishment that it starts to look very much like the event was a benefit to them and their associates. Just look at the Reichstag fire in 1933. It was blamed on communists and helped Nazi Germany consolidate power under Hitler. Once you start to accumulate enough advantages from a so called negative event, is it that much of a leap to actually think that the ones standing to gain were involved? Isn't it strange that the interests of radical Islam parallel the interests of the Bush administration so closely? Global unrest has allowed the Bush administration to impose so many of their policies, is it so hard to imagine him and his business partners pumping their fists in the corridor of the White House? Posted 203 days ago
The Gov't lied to the US to get them into WWI, WWII, Vietnam as well as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. With Iraq/Afghanistan being the most recent, how did the US get its people to agree to such a thing? 9/11...that's how. For those who haven't seen the movie Zeitgeist, watch these clips to see how the gov't lied and put everything in place. Zeitgiest (The 9/11 Myth) Clip1
Posted 198 days ago
It was an inside job for no other reason other than 20 floors of a building cannot destroy and pulverize 80 floors. Just think about that for one moment. If you turn the building on its side and smashed 20 floors against 80, which side would win?? Well i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but gravity ain't that strong...and you can't say it was a pancake collapse because that wouldn't take no 10 seconds as reported by the 9/11 omission report. In Addition, imagine for a moment that halfway through the "collapse" you were to draw lines up the edges, you would see that 75% of the material is outside the building, so what was pushing on the remaining so much that it could destroy all the way down to the ground? I don't subscribe to anything but science. I don't let things like "the government could never do that" or "it would be impossible for them to keep it a secret". That has nothing to do with what we see. People (and especially politicians) LIE , Science doesn't!! So please ask yourself, do I believe what a government of Men tells me, or do I believe what unbiased science tells me?? Think for yourself. How could investigating be bad?
Supporting Evidence:
Look Mommy, that building is collapsing due to fire.
(www.911review.com)
Posted 187 days ago
Your 'science' argument fails to factor in the difference between live and dead loads, and inertia. 20 floors may not be able to collapse 80, but they didn't need to. All they needed to collapse was the floor beneath them. Then those 21 floors, now with some inertia building up, smash the next one. And so on, and so on. As for the drawing lines down the collapse, how can you determine how much debris was there with any accuracy, considering all the dust in the air? Posted 181 days ago
I think the greatest scientific argument that can be made is that jet fuel cannot burn anywhere near the temperatures needed to compromise a steel structure of such integrity. That is why oxyacetylene and oxyacetylyne torches are used to weld steel. They burn at much higher temperatures. Furthermore, if we take the arguement that the steel lattice distorted before failing, one would witness some horizontal force twisting when, and during the building's decline, spreading the debris over a much larger area. To your proposition of inertia, this implies that there is momentum, however, if I recall correctly, the buildings actually stood for a few decades before hand, and for half an hour after the plane(s) hit, whence cometh the inertia? Posted 179 days ago
KKitching's argument is pseudoscientific rubbish. All three collapses progressed at very close to free fall speed. That means there was no gathering pile-driver and no smashing into floors- that would cause the block of floors above to slow well beneath free fall speed. And it is VERY clear, visibly clear in the video of the collapse even DURING the collapse that almost the entire building is pulverised before it gets chance to impart energy on the building below it. The excessive dust covering a huge portion of mahattan island is NOT explained by gravitational collapse and fires. Something has to impart huge amounts of explosive energy in order to force the concrete apart in that manner. I refer you to Macqueen's speech and video at 911blogger.com The free fall speeds prove anticipatory removal of structural resistance BEFORE the building mass hits its. Any resistance left stops it being free fall. Posted 178 days ago
Both chairs of the 9/11 commission have stated publicly that the Kean Commission was inadequate and even interfered with. The evidence is legion. Scientist from across the spectrum are coming together on this and Dr. Stephen Jones has now proven that a derivative a thermite was found in debris and dust from the incident. There are witnesses, and video evidence for secondary explosions and molten metal that were excluded from the report. Quite frankly we couldn't possible get to all the question and evidence that need to be brought forth. Obvious foreknowledge, dubious wargames, pentagon cameras, the shankville crash... we could go on and on. I'll end with an utterly useless fact : 90-100 million dollars spent to investigate Bill Clinton's blowjob --- 11-16 million used to investigate 9/11. Posted 181 days ago
Where to begin? A lot of people I have spoken to have trouble getting past the sheer madness of it. They never get to examining the actual facts of that day because, how could our government do that to it's own people? And what would they have to gain? Is government complicity in 9/11 a crazy notion? Yes. But no crazier than some of the other crap they have cooked up. Case in point: Operation Northwoods. Now declassified, the Northwoods documents detail a covert psychological operation intended to rally foreign and domestic support for military intervention against Cuba. (Starting to sound familiar yet?) The operation included, among other things, this little gem: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba...casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." You mention Operation Northwoods. What has a declassified Cold War-era document, with no planned fatalities, have to do with a peacetime plan to evoke a war with casualties ranging from 2,000-30,000 at peak WTC hours? Why is it so hard for people to see things the way they are now? A man with a $15 air rifle in a book depository or sixteen Saudis with box cutters can change the course of history? Everything is a conspiracy to give power to Israel or an international banking syndicate these days. If Bush wanted to go to Iraq, he wouldn't have fought Afghanistan in the first place. In fact, why even publicize the conflict? Why not just fight a covert war like the Contra scandal or funding the Mujahadeen? If Bush wanted to go to war in the Middle East, it's not like he'd need a big precedent. This is the THIRD Persian Gulf War in less than two decades. I fail to see why this conflict would need a "false-flag" event that could only be completed by bribing or 'brainwashing' thousands of government employees who stand to gain NOTHING from this. Why would the members of the FAA or NSA want to see their friends in the Army go to Iraq and get killed? What's the point of this coverup? You say this is "no crazier" than Operation Northwoods. That was a false-flag event that would see NO loss of life, and even that was rejected for being to far fetched. Why do you think it's a declassified report? Because the Government never put any amount of thought into it! Posted 198 days ago
It doesn't prove it. There could be perfectly reasonable, scientific explanations why the buildings fell - I just don't think there's enough evidence either way to prove the causes beyond a doubt. I think considering the events without adequate evidence will bear no fruit. Instead, we should focus on the concrete facts and aspects which can be proven beyond a doubt. E.g. Why hasn't the Pentagon released the video showing the plane? Clearly, they have it. Why has the flight recorder data not been turned over to air crash investigators and scientists? Why was WTC7 collapse not mentioned in the official account when it's destruction was linked with the tower collapses? Why did Bush and Condoleeza's advisers instruct them to lie when they said they hadn't envisaged terrorists using planes to attack American civilian targets? Posted 161 days ago
was there a reason to invade Iraq? A reason to invade Afghanistan? A reason to go into Vietnam? I mean, real, valid, sensible reasons. No. Is there a reason to think that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Gov? Yes, since in all other decisions regarding national security and belligerent action the US government has acted irrationally, hence if attacking your own people seems irrational to more than 50% of the public, then it has more than 50% chance for it to have been a decision taken by the gov. Posted 203 days ago
We can start from a few uncontroversial facts: - It was a conspiracy - 3 steel framed buildings with all floors remaining collapsed - America has many enemies - The global competition for oil is ballooning - The perceived anti-Western population of Muslims are concentrated in oil-rich regions of the Middle East - The entire world's economy is based on oil for fuel and manufacturing - Subterfuge, sacrifice and coercion are the historic staple strategies for successful empire building - No photographs of flight 77 have been released by the government despite the Pentagon and surrounding buildings bristling with CCTV - The collapse of WTC7 is not mentioned in the 9/11 commission's report - Iraq/Saddam Hussein had nothing whatever to do with 9/11 - Civil liberties of Americans have been significantly curtailed We must always ask cui bono? with any event within the sphere of human influence. It's simply in our nature to secure the watering hole, protect our family etc. Posted 187 days ago
How it was (most probably) done: 1. Don't build the buildings properly in the first place (X-beams left out due to rushing). 2. Get some R/C planes. 3. While before, fill the buildings with thermite & igniters so when ignited in time they cause the structure to fall in on itself to minimize outside damage. 4. Drop the air-defenses for the time needed to do the job (eg: turn off SAMs and divert interceptors somewhere else). 5. Have a training exercise running at the same time, to confuse the lower echelons of the Air force. 5. Do the job. Posted 203 days ago
I'd just like someone to show me where to buy one of those planes with impervious steel & concrete-slicing wings, and a nose which can puncture an entire building and come out the other side in tact, and which disintegrates completely post-impact. |
