9/11 was an inside job and I'm pissed

[somedude]

You know, this video really bothered me for a few reasons. I know that's what it was supposed to do but it really has had me pretty upset since I saw it. It's alot worse than that french-made vid from a few years back that talked about the plane that crashed into the pentagon "disappearing".

I'm not a scientist or any shit like that. But I guess that fires that burn in open air couldn't have made the WTC topple like it did, right? At first I thought maybe the plane didn't explode on impact, therefore it was still mashed inside the building and still burning. A plane exploding can be pretty damned significant, so if it were to blow up while burrowed into the structure then that should be enough for implosion.

What bothers me is the "squibs" they were talking about. I don't know if it's edited or not because I honestly don't remember seeing it the day I saw the towers fall, but that shit looks nasty. What else could make those things pucker out of the building like that besides bombs? I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything but...

[Danny0990]

i cant help but reply


====QUOTE
How so? He was just some billionaire. Why would the government risk it? The way I see it, they had a shitload at stake. Why risk it by approaching some billionaire?

Oh hey, my. Larry sir, we'd like to kill a couple thousand new yorkers with some bombs in your building. It'll make you money. You in?

It's not like they could've just went up to him on the streets, they must've had some reason to beleive he'd want to be in on it, and I can't find anything linking him to either the US or the afghanis.

=====

he had a HUGE profit from that deal, wouldnt you say?

====
QUOTE
We're not talking about lies, we're talking murder. Not even the same league.
====
what difference does it make wether people died or not? you were being deceived to believe it.

===
QUOTE
How about a big boom like you see at OTHER demo sites? I was referring to IRL demos and such. The ones with the nice flashes, the loud thudding bangs, then the loud sudden wham of buildings slamming into the ground
====

speaking of which, what was up with the pentagon? the plane hit it and made an almost perfect sphere in it...i didnt know an impact from a plane could make such a neat shape.

apparently that plane never hit the pentagon but an explosion went off at an area of the pentagon that was already evacuated.

====
QUOTE
Oh, and as I pointed out earlier, they "heard" explosions. They "heard" bangs. What's to say that wasn't the sound of metal tearing apart, the separate tanks in the 767 catching, some computers exploding, or some other source? Where there's smoke there may be fire, but where there's a boom, there's not always an explosion.
===

well sudden sounds of exploisons were heard by firefighters before the wtc collapsed.

===
QUOTE
What's to say it wasn't pulled down to prevent a fire spread? From what the official statements said, the building was empty and the structure was unsound. It could've been dropped to prevent more buildings from catching.
===

i pointed that out because they cant get their story straight.
it was going down either way to destroy evidence

===
QUOTE
Whereas they said the hijackers were afghanis since, what, 9/13/01? Probably earlier. I don't recall hearing anything about iraq's supposed involvement with Al-Queda until there were plans to invade iraq being made public.
===

when all the airports were shut down osamas family were flew from the US to the middle east

===
QUOTE
I'll admit the government isn't exactly a bunch of boy scouts, but mass murders and conspirators? I'm not completely on board for that one.
===
and again, you're cutting them too much slack. with the amount of power they have they're not afraid to get their hands dirty.

[Dr Mario]

What bothers me is the "squibs" they were talking about. I don't know if it's edited or not because I honestly don't remember seeing it the day I saw the towers fall, but that shit looks nasty. What else could make those things pucker out of the building like that besides bombs? I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything but...

Jet fuel, in vapour form or under heavy compression, burns fast enough to produce explosions. Couple that with the steel buckling from the combination of heat and pressure, and you've got a reasonable explanation.

[Raype]

he had a HUGE profit from that deal, wouldnt you say?

Yes. But would every person on the face of the earth take a couple billion when you're already wealthy to an insane degree over helping murder a bunch of people?

You can't just pick a co conspirator out of the yellow pages. If he went public, it'd have been a nightmare. Assuming he was in on it and it was a plot. Why would they spend months getting everything in place and risk having some guy go public with the plans? Now the idea is that he could in theory have been connected with the government, and that's how they knew he'd go for it. But I can find NOTHING linking him to the US government, nor the Afghani government nor a terror group. The people who would've been in on the whole deal.

If the government is so careful and precise as to be able to pull this shit, why take the risk of getting some nobody from NYC who you couldn't pick from a lineup of rich dudes involved?

Money is the reason he'd be for it. Sure. But why him. Why not bill gates or donald trump? Why not someone else? Why not someone who is more closely connected to the government and loyal to the various secret and not so secret groups?

I find it hard to believe this guy was randomly chosen for no good reason and they took a chance with him simply because they believed all rich people are greedy bastards who won't exploit the story of the century for everything it's worth (if all this evidence was in his buildings and stuff, he could've made quite the case. That's front page of TIME stuff here, US government plot foiled by Billionaire with a conscience? Come on, most people would kill for that kind of publicity.)

what difference does it make wether people died or not? you were being deceived to believe it.

Government propaganda and lies from the higher ups is nothing new.

Plowing planes full of people into a crowded office complex is a whole different thing. Now you referenced Northwoods a couple times. Couldn't they have just as easily done something like that? A couple drones here, some altered news footage there, some arabs in Iraqi/afghani uniforms tossed in for good measure, the stage is set without a single death. Why 9/11, why killing civilians? It could've just as easily been staged. Or a terror attack on a government building in a major city getting blown up that was already long since evacuated, if that's what you'd prefer. They had no real reason to wipe out those people over a somewhat more "humane" method of propaganda.

As you pointed out later, there's a lot of claims about the pentagon being a rigged attack. Why not something more like that. Sure it lacks the punch of those towers, but it sure would've given a reason for war with the right press on it (I'm sure the pent attack would've gotten more attention were it not for the towers getting destroyed)

speaking of which, what was up with the pentagon? the plane hit it and made an almost perfect sphere in it...i didnt know an impact from a plane could make such a neat shape.

apparently that plane never hit the pentagon but an explosion went off at an area of the pentagon that was already evacuated.

*extra info pending*

Hey, I'm tired, cut me some slack *wacko* . Yeah, the pent attack is probably the fishiest part of the whole 9/11 thing. And some big post when I've had time to dig up some info on it (and caught some Z's in the meantime) is in order.

well sudden sounds of exploisons were heard by firefighters before the wtc collapsed.

But nobody in the building earlier that got out mentioned seeing explosives.
Nor anybody in the building during the "attacks". The equipment takes time to set up. Clearly it would've been hard for someone to get into the building with the rescue teams, set everything up, and detonate in the span of a half hour. So where and when could these explosives have been set? Demo equipment isn't exactly "toss bomb, hit button, watch it go boom!". A proper rigging can take at least a couple hours. And it's not exactly easy to hide that kind of thing. Not to mention if it were a demo job, the people involved in "pressing the buttons" were probably inside the building or not far from it. I find it hard to believe that nobody saw a single one, or that someone would suicide bomb a building full of people just so some rich dude can make some extra green.

Plus all that was stated was "sounds of explosions". That could've just as easily been fuel igniting, floors starting to cave, or any other number of phenomena. Plus it was "firemen". All it takes is one saying he thought he heard explosions, then suddenly EVERYBODY is claiming to hear it. It could've been bodies or debris hitting the ground (If I remember it right, people were hearing loud bangs for a while earlier, only to find it was people trapped on the top floors taking their chances with a freefall to splat city.) What's to say that wasn't a couple chunks shaking loose before the big fall? (yeah, there's nothing like that on the videos. I'm just trying to make a point)

i pointed that out because they cant get their story straight.
it was going down either way to destroy evidence

Again, lies doesn't necessarily prove guilt. It doesn't look good, but it's not exactly a smoking gun. Plus it could've just as easily been that other guy not getting his story right. It's a two way street.

when all the airports were shut down osamas family were flew from the US to the middle east

Which explains the Iraq connection....how?

All that explains is that the US was making plans with AQ (potentially). Which would've been an invasion of Afghanistan. Not Iraq (which is what we were discussing, how 9/11 is connected to the Iraq war). Also, they deported people who may have been involved with the terror plot. Doesn't exactly scream "they were in on it" to me. It just says "the US is getting people who may want to blow shit up as far away from the US as possible as soon as possible". I suppose one possible parallel I can give would be the rounding up of japanese Americans during WWII. You can say they were rounding them up to give them training to attack north america and then shipping them overseas as part of a conspiracy to end the great depression by creating a war (and thereby fill the pockets of americans, rich and poor), but just because you can make an accusation doesn't mean the accusation holds water. (whoo boy, this is bound to get some bizarre comments...)

Furthermore, just because they're related to a known terrorist doesn't make them accessories. Hell I have a hard time getting my family members to pitch in on some minor construction. Major international conspiracies and terror schemes is a definite no-go (in fact, they'd probably make things harder for me, the bastards....)

and again, you're cutting them too much slack. with the amount of power they have they're not afraid to get their hands dirty.

Governments can only get away with what you let them get away with.

Which is why it's fine for people to ask questions and such of their government to try to keep them in line.

It's just that 9/11 seems WAY beyond anything the government has even CONSIDERED doing, let alone done (at least as far as declassified documents and the occasional government employee turned whistle blower goes)

[Cosmic]

the towers were not only designed to hold an aircraft, but also to hold a fire for a few days before collapsing

The Titanic was "designed" to be unsinkable too. Again, the towers were intended to be aircraft and fire resistant but there's absolutely no way to test something like that until it's too late. Saying that the WTC could withstand a Boeing 707 crash doesn't mean much either since there are so many variants within just that one line of aircraft - different weights, different engines, different sizes... and as Ray, myself and others have tried to explain, 767s are typically much larger than 707s and are capable of flying at a greater velocity. Also remember that the WTC was designed to withstand a 707 coming in for landing, travelling at a relatively low speed of around 180mph with a minimal amount of fuel remaining. The planes that hit the towers not only had a lot of fuel left but were travelling at speeds of 470mph and 590mph respectively. I'm pressed for time at the moment so I'll edit this post later - for the time being I'm going to play the link game too.

http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/

[Rekuja]

the fact is... Iraq + oil = war.

When the oil in Iraq runs out, you won't see Iraq in the news

as for 9/11 lol... honestly, i don't care anymore.. was it osama? was it government? was it jews?

in nearly all these conspiracy videos the information and "video footage" is from the exact day the towers fell.. i love how these amateur video makers add scary music to try and buy peoples attention and somehow put a twist into the story and convince people..

people will be arguing about the WTC for many years to come until some fully proven evidence randomly pops up...

let's quote Ron Paul

"they attack us because we have been over there, we have been bombing iraq for over 10 years"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

you asshats better vote for him! bloody americans

[Evans]

Main reason I don't even participate properly in this synaptic misfire is that it's akin to arguing with an angered child/midly retarded 30 year old. Anything you say isn't right in their mind or doesn't corroborate their ideas, and is therefore wrong. Any answers he has given thus far have been either in the "no, YOU'RE wrong" form or were just poorly structured tangents. I asked him why anyone should waste money investigating this again, with having in mind that pointing fingers at the government would only end up in, at worse, a tiny civil uproar that would be taken care off come the next elections, and what did I get? A rant about a billionaire. Say the government's guilty, what is there to be gained? Fuck all. Nothing will happen, EVEN if conspiracy theorists are right. He then went on rambling about Larry Whomever, a multi-billionaire who made *gasp* more money off a tragedy. News flash, kiddo, people are over the planet gain from tragedies.

- But, hey, just for kicks, what have you got to say to the idea that the explosions people claim to have heard before the crashes were bombs planted by terrorists?

- As it has been pointed out, the Northwood event was a means of scaring people in believing and supporting a particular view. Wouldn't it be an interesting turn of event if it were for terrorists to ACTUALLY attack the US? No no, the US attacked itself, wasting truckloads of money, ruining lives, etc. Of course, you'll say people believed it back then, so why not now? Easy enough, there's a substantial amount of proof that say so. When you can do as much to say that the Government did it, we'll see.

-The Towers were built in 1966-73. Feel free to debate that they can withstand fire and plane crashes all you want, but do so while keeping in mind that that was 40 years ago. Not only has time taken its toll, but so have a fire and bombing. Not to mention all that was pointed out by others regarding the difference in size and speed of airplanes back then and now.

-Do you have anything, really, to base your claims on other than that botched website your school buddy and you threw together last night or that 3-hour-long biased rant?

[Corey]

let me know what youre unclear on and ill be happy to help you dig

and thank you for the advice, i know I smell like cheese.

[Danny0990]

====
QUOTE
Money is the reason he'd be for it. Sure. But why him. Why not bill gates or donald trump? Why not someone else? Why not someone who is more closely connected to the government and loyal to the various secret and not so secret groups?
====

he's a nobody billionaire.
if they picked donald trump or bill gates and one of them spilled the beans then the accusations would be stronger. everybody knows them, killing them after they have made such an accusation would cause an uproar in the US.

===-
QUOTE
Plowing planes full of people into a crowded office complex is a whole different thing. Now you referenced Northwoods a couple times. Couldn't they have just as easily done something like that? A couple drones here, some altered news footage there, some arabs in Iraqi/afghani uniforms tossed in for good measure, the stage is set without a single death. Why 9/11, why killing civilians? It could've just as easily been staged. Or a terror attack on a government building in a major city getting blown up that was already long since evacuated, if that's what you'd prefer. They had no real reason to wipe out those people over a somewhat more "humane" method of propaganda.

As you pointed out later, there's a lot of claims about the pentagon being a rigged attack. Why not something more like that. Sure it lacks the punch of those towers, but it sure would've given a reason for war with the right press on it (I'm sure the pent attack would've gotten more attention were it not for the towers getting destroyed)
====

they wanted to go the extra mile in terms of manipulating america with fear (thats getting redundant, i know, but you keep mentioning lives as though they gave a damn)

==
QUOTE
But nobody in the building earlier that got out mentioned seeing explosives.
Nor anybody in the building during the "attacks". The equipment takes time to set up. Clearly it would've been hard for someone to get into the building with the rescue teams, set everything up, and detonate in the span of a half hour. So where and when could these explosives have been set? Demo equipment isn't exactly "toss bomb, hit button, watch it go boom!". A proper rigging can take at least a couple hours. And it's not exactly easy to hide that kind of thing. Not to mention if it were a demo job, the people involved in "pressing the buttons" were probably inside the building or not far from it. I find it hard to believe that nobody saw a single one, or that someone would suicide bomb a building full of people just so some rich dude can make some extra green.
===

they were told to keep their mouths shut, along with the firemen that found recordings of talks over their communicators (some kept quiet, others spoke out)

according to this theory they planted the bombs a week or so ahead of time before 9/11

===
QUOTE
Again, lies doesn't necessarily prove guilt.
===

it shows a cover up.

==
QUOTE
Also, they deported people who may have been involved with the terror plot. Doesn't exactly scream "they were in on it" to me. It just says "the US is getting people who may want to blow shit up as far away from the US as possible as soon as possible".
===

or they could contained them in a cell for interrogation

and the bush/bin laden family have history together

==
QUOTE
Governments can only get away with what you let them get away with.

Which is why it's fine for people to ask questions and such of their government to try to keep them in line.

It's just that 9/11 seems WAY beyond anything the government has even CONSIDERED doing, let alone done (at least as far as declassified documents and the occasional government employee turned whistle blower goes)
==

read my response with the 2nd quote


===
QUOTE
- As it has been pointed out, the Northwood event was a means of scaring people in believing and supporting a particular view. Wouldn't it be an interesting turn of event if it were for terrorists to ACTUALLY attack the US? No no, the US attacked itself, wasting truckloads of money, ruining lives, etc. Of course, you'll say people believed it back then, so why not now? Easy enough, there's a substantial amount of proof that say so. When you can do as much to say that the Government did it, we'll see.
====

im sure the goverment took a good chunk from the WTC's insurance policy

==
QUOTE

-Do you have anything, really, to base your claims on other than that botched website your school buddy and you threw together last night or that 3-hour-long biased rant?
==
biased? no.
im sure if you did take the time to look at my page you'd have found a good number of sources

[Panda Man]

im sure the goverment took a good chunk from the WTC's insurance policy

So suddenly the U.S. government owns the WTC and had it insured? lol, this is not communism.

I believe the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey technically owned the WTC, along with a few private investors. And Larry Silverstein had the insurance on it

EDIT - The port authority leased it to Larry Silverstein in 2001.

[Danny0990]

So suddenly the U.S. government owns the WTC and had it insured? lol, this is not communism.

I believe the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey technically owned the WTC, along with a few private investors. And Larry Silverstein had the insurance on it

jesus fucking christ on a stick, mike.

[Panda Man]

jesus fucking christ on a stick, mike.

That comment just screams, "Stupid Teenager."

[SegNin]

That comment just screams, "Stupid Teenager."

Which is why it's been removed, since it adds nothing to this discussion.

Basically just spam.

EDIT--
On second thought, this thread is all over the place--some spam, some serious.

So screw it, best to be consistent, so post undeleted.

[Danny0990]

That comment just screams, "Stupid Teenager."

the goverment gets a % from the insurance called insurance tax



ETA: right, out of all the spam thats been put in this thread im the only that gets called on it?

[Panda Man]

the goverment gets a % from the insurance called insurance tax

Really? I've worked at a CPA office for 4 years now and don't recall ever hearing anything about "insurance tax." Are you sure your not confusing that for Life insurance tax shelter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_insurance_tax_shelter

or FICA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll..._United_States

There's also FUTA and SUTA...