Conspiracy Theory Proof 9/11 was an Inside Job?

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Clearly it's not "obvious", otherwise everyone would take it as self-evident, which they don't. This doubt is made possible by the controlled demolition and the control of a small site afterward ensures that any evidence of the demolition "disappears" along with the rest of the debris.

This is incredible nonsense. Apparently it is clearly a controlled demolition but because it is a controlled demolition it creates doubt in the minds of observers that it was a controlled demolition...? A drug-addled mind is a sad thing...

Concerned that they will cause more casualties than necessary, yes. If all you want to do is scare the living shit out of people, you don't need casualties, you need a spectacular event (like the collapse of a building) casualties are incidental and problematic, so why create more than you need to?

Do you understand "terror"?

The original plan called for not many deaths even though they crashed four planes and destroyed or severely damaged four buildings... ?

Be as flippant as you like Bloods, you asked for reasons for controlled demolitions and I've provided 3. How about you try to counter my reasons with rational argument rather than disingenuous questions?

Because your 'reasons' don't warrant rational argument. Those questions go to the heart of why your reasons are nonsense - your reasoning is just illogical and circular justifications for the Truther line of argument and like most of their arguments, have little basis in reality.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

This is incredible nonsense. Apparently it is clearly a controlled demolition but because it is a controlled demolition it creates doubt in the minds of observers that it was a controlled demolition...? A drug-addled mind is a sad thing...
The original plan called for not many deaths even though they crashed four planes and destroyed or severely damaged four buildings... ?
Because your 'reasons' don't warrant rational argument. Those questions go to the heart of why your reasons are nonsense - your reasoning is just illogical and circular justifications for the Truther line of argument and like most of their arguments, have little basis in reality.

It's a pretty simple argument to follow really:

If you come at the question of the collapse of these buildings from an assumption that it was terrorists who did it, then of course it's hard to see why the collapse of the buildings in a controlled manner is necessary or even desired.

If however, you swing your assumption around and start with the premise that it was NOT terrorists (in the traditional sense of the word) but rather a bunch of people who wanted to create maximum terror while causing the minimum possible disruption to their other operations, then controlled demolition becomes an understandable approach.

Anyway, since that question seems to be too hard for you to get your head around, please try answering my latest one:

In a world where skyscrapers are collapsed in an extremely methodical, very carefully controlled fashion in order to ensure that they collapse into their own footprint, how did 3 "uncontrolled" demolitions collapse into their own footprint? And therefore, why do controlled demolitions even exist? Have the demolition companies been conning the entire world all this time?

And perhaps you might try to answer this question without attempting to besmirch my opinions with accusations regarding personal habits? If I am so obviously talking "nonsense", surely this gutter tactic isn't necessary?

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

No, controlled demolition makes no sense in the context of everything else they did and planned, not to mention how they would have achieved it. You think it makes sense because you've already bought into the conclusion that it was an inside job. Your whole argument - like all Truthers - is based on a logical fallacy.

I'm not a structural engineer so I can't explain why they fell into their own footprint. But their collapse was not nearly as neat and tidy as the controlled demolitions I have seen. They showered debris all over the place, which is not something I have seen with controlled demolitions, except when very poorly done. How many buildings have you seen topple over, like you seem to think these should have done? That they happened to fall into their own footprint (which is wrong to start with as it requires a generous definition of footprint) does not mean that every other case of destructive demolition would fall like that. Strange things and coincidences do occur in real life - something that ignorant or poorly read people do not realise, which is abundantly evident amongst Truthers. Still no one has explained why they needed to destroy so many buildings - especially the third one - if it was just a show of terror. Just another example of the lack of substance to Truther claims.

The claims of Truthers and their nonsense arguments and their unshakeable yet blind belief in a conspiracy of gargantuan proportions is something that belongs to either the ignorant, childish or drug addled. There are no other explanations for such a foolish belief. The rubbish spouted in this and previous threads, and the tin-foil hat exponents of those claims support that view.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

No, controlled demolition makes no sense in the context of everything else they did and planned, not to mention how they would have achieved it. You think it makes sense because you've already bought into the conclusion that it was an inside job. Your whole argument - like all Truthers - is based on a logical fallacy.

My argument is based on what my eyes tell me. The implications of what my eyes tell are what I am exploring. You on the other hand are starting with the assumption that planes, explosions and fires caused 3 buildings to collapse and are therefore trying to fit that to YOUR assumption.

I'm not a structural engineer so I can't explain why they fell into their own footprint. But their collapse was not nearly as neat and tidy as the controlled demolitions I have seen. They showered debris all over the place, which is not something I have seen with controlled demolitions, except when very poorly done.

That would be because you've NEVER seen a controlled demolition on this scale. These buildings were just short of 3 TIMES the size of the largest controlled demolition ever before performed, not to mention that there were 2 of them! (the 3rd is inconsequential to this aspect)

JJ Hudson Dept Store Demolition

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.

World Trade Centre

When completed in 1972, 1 World Trade Center (the North Tower) became the tallest building in the world for two years, surpassing the Empire State Building after a 40-year reign. The North Tower stood 1,368 feet (417 m)

How many buildings have you seen topple over, like you seem to think these should have done?

Try reading and understanding my initial point about "toppling", what I actually said is that the top portion (above the impact of the planes) should have at least toppled before starting to fall. This is simple physics and I stand by the question. I never said, nor even suggested, that the entire building should have toppled. In fact, I would argue that the lower halves of the buildings should not have fallen at all!

That they happened to fall into their own footprint (which is wrong to start with as it requires a generous definition of footprint) does not mean that every other case of destructive demolition would fall like that.

It's not wrong at all (see above) regarding the scale of this demolition. These buildings fell into what is a very reasonable definition of footprint.

Strange things and coincidences do occur in real life - something that ignorant or poorly read people do not realise, which is abundantly evident amongst Truthers.

Yep, they do, but deniers like you simply refuse to entertain the possibility that there are simply too many strange and coincidental occurances on that day for them ALL to have been that.

Still no one has explained why they needed to destroy so many buildings - especially the third one - if it was just a show of terror. Just another example of the lack of substance to Truther claims.

Think about it in terms of terrorisation of the population. Take out the very symbols of American power and enginuity in the heart of their most populous city - there's your explanation for 2 of them. There are many explanations for the 3rd in the context of assuming a conspiracy, but I won't bother presenting them here because it's not relevant to my point.

The claims of Truthers and their nonsense arguments and their unshakeable yet blind belief in a conspiracy of gargantuan proportions is something that belongs to either the ignorant, childish or drug addled. There are no other explanations for such a foolish belief. The rubbish spouted in this and previous threads, and the tin-foil hat exponents of those claims support that view.

As I've said before, in terms of the building collapse, which is what I'm concerned with, you need a bunch of hijackers and a demolition team plus their handlers. This is hardly "gargantuan" proportions. Less than 100 people would suffice comfortably, perhaps even fewer than 50.

And there you go again attacking the messengers rather than rationally debating the message. But keep at it, it speaks far more to your maturity than those you are debating.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

My argument is based on what my eyes tell me. The implications of what my eyes tell are what I am exploring. You on the other hand are starting with the assumption that planes, explosions and fires caused 3 buildings to collapse and are therefore trying to fit that to YOUR assumption.

That would be because you've NEVER seen a controlled demolition on this scale. These buildings were just short of 3 TIMES the size of the largest controlled demolition ever before performed, not to mention that there were 2 of them! (the 3rd is inconsequential to this aspect)

Try reading and understanding my initial point about "toppling", what I actually said is that the top portion (above the impact of the planes) should have at least toppled before starting to fall. This is simple physics and I stand by the question. I never said, nor even suggested, that the entire building should have toppled. In fact, I would argue that the lower halves of the buildings should not have fallen at all!

You would argue all of this but you have no basis for it except what you expect as an uninformed observer.

Yep, they do, but deniers like you simply refuse to entertain the possibility that there are simply too many strange and coincidental occurances on that day for them ALL to have been that.

Usual ridiculous Truther nonsense. I've never said that all of the official story makes sense, but rather there is no evidence nor rational argument for the grand conspiracy for the deed to be carried out by the Government or other insiders as the Truthers claim.

Think about it in terms of terrorisation of the population. Take out the very symbols of American power and enginuity in the heart of their most populous city - there's your explanation for 2 of them. There are many explanations for the 3rd in the context of assuming a conspiracy, but I won't bother presenting them here because it's not relevant to my point.

You can't simply ignore the third one as it is relevant to the point.

As I've said before, in terms of the building collapse, which is what I'm concerned with, you need a bunch of hijackers and a demolition team plus their handlers. This is hardly "gargantuan" proportions. Less than 100 people would suffice comfortably, perhaps even fewer than 50.

And there you go again attacking the messengers rather than rationally debating the message. But keep at it, it speaks far more to your maturity than those you are debating.

The conspiracy is of gargantuan proportions. This is the part you continue to conveniently ignore while continuing to imply it occurred.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

You would argue all of this but you have no basis for it except what you expect as an uninformed observer.

You are arguing with me about whether the collapse of 3 buildings was controlled demolition or not, so with this comment, are you suggesting that you are an "informed" observer on the subject?

If so, please cite some credentials as to that fact ... if not, please concede that you are also an "uninformed observer".

If I am right, and the latter is true, then please also acknowledge that I am basing my opinion on the fact that:

a) the collapses look exactly like every other controlled demolition we've ever seen, and;
b) the collapses displayed the main attribute of controlled demolition, ie. these enormous buildings, for all intents and purposes, collapsed into their own footprint!

Usual ridiculous Truther nonsense. I've never said that all of the official story makes sense, but rather there is no evidence nor rational argument for the grand conspiracy for the deed to be carried out by the Government or other insiders as the Truthers claim.

It doesn't matter how many times you simply assert something as "ridiculous nonsense" without offering your alternative hypothesis for these "unexplained irregularities". I am stating that I think the official story is ridiculous nonsense and offering an alternative explanation.

How about you hold yourself to the lofty standards you expect from others?

You can't simply ignore the third one as it is relevant to the point.

My argument is that the buildings were collapsed via controlled demolition. How is the reason that they also collapsed a 3rd building relevant to my claim that they were controlled demolitions?

The conspiracy is of gargantuan proportions. This is the part you continue to conveniently ignore while continuing to imply it occurred.

I state again that the main events of the day, 4 hijackings and 3 controlled demolitions, do not require a conspiracy of "gargantuan proportions" and many of the resulting events can have simple explanations that don't require a "conspiracy".

Do you think you are likely to answer my latest question any time soon?

You know, the one about why expensive, expert teams of demolition guys who are paid huge amounts of money to collapse buildings in a controlled fashion are needed at all, when an uncontrolled demolition of 2 buildings that dwarf any previous controlled demolitions can be managed in a completely uncontrolled way?

 

[Daytripper]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

You know, the one about why expensive, expert teams of demolition guys who are paid huge amounts of money to collapse buildings in a controlled fashion are needed at all, when an uncontrolled demolition of 2 buildings that dwarf any previous controlled demolitions can be managed in a completely uncontrolled way?

1. Because it wasn't a demolition.
2. Because demolition companies don't generally have access to passenger jets that they can crash into buildings when they feel like it. Insurance companies and city regulators tend to take a dim view of this practice as well.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

I state again that the main events of the day, 4 hijackings and 3 controlled demolitions, do not require a conspiracy of "gargantuan proportions" and many of the resulting events can have simple explanations that don't require a "conspiracy".

How can the 'main events' (i.e. the entire operation) be carried out secretly without any conspiracy and for what purpose? This comes back to the crux of the issue - which is where you entered on this particular line of discussion and have still not presented a sensible argument. Until you present a decent argument, everything about a conspiracy or inside job is nonsense and nothing more needs to be provided to argue against it.

You think it's a controlled demolition (CD) because 'it looks like one', but here are some important points:

"When you demolish a building with explosives, you set the charges to go off in a precise order at demolition time, not in a random fashion for nearly an hour."

"No one... has come up with any plausible explanation of how this massive amount of CD work could have been accomplished."

And then of course, there is this.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

Two types of explosive demolition are carried out: ‘toppling’ and ‘implosion’. Toppling involves the placing of explosive charges to cut out the support structure on one side only of a building, causing the structure to rotate as it collapses, generally into an open lot where it can do no damage. Implosion involves the more symmetrical placing of charges in order to bring the building down symmetrically into its own ‘footprint’. It is the near-symmetrical collapse of the Twin Tower and WTC 7 that has drawn many lay observers to the belief that they were brought down by controlled explosive demolition – ‘implosions’ that could only be achieved by very skilled operators. Unfortunately for the CD theorists the skilled operators – those in the business of carrying out implosions on contracts worth millions of dollars – don’t share this belief.

 

[madhawkboy]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Operation Northwoods... Sound familiar?

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Operation Northwoods... Sound familiar?

Mad...

******ed internet denizens... sound familiar...?

 

[madhawkboy]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Mad...

******ed internet denizens... sound familiar...?

Even though there are the actually documentations on the internet of Operation Northwoods?

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

How can the 'main events' (i.e. the entire operation) be carried out secretly without any conspiracy and for what purpose? This comes back to the crux of the issue - which is where you entered on this particular line of discussion and have still not presented a sensible argument. Until you present a decent argument, everything about a conspiracy or inside job is nonsense and nothing more needs to be provided to argue against it.

It would seem that you're not very good with English comprehension, or this is just the second time that you've deliberately skewed my point. Allow me to spell it out for you.

My point is that the main events were the only conspiracy. Clearly the hijackings were (even you admit that surely?) either by a bunch of "terrorists" or someone who knows and can manipulate the terrorist network. And I am adding the controlled demolition of the towers to the conspiracy. Another task that required a knowledgeable team, but not a large one.

These are the main events to which I am referring and these main events do not require a conspiracy of "gargantuan" proportions.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Even though there are the actually documentations on the internet of Operation Northwoods?

D'urhh... it didn't happen!

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

It would seem that you're not very good with English comprehension, or this is just the second time that you've deliberately skewed my point. Allow me to spell it out for you.

My point is that the main events were the only conspiracy. Clearly the hijackings were (even you admit that surely?) either by a bunch of "terrorists" or someone who knows and can manipulate the terrorist network. And I am adding the controlled demolition of the towers to the conspiracy. Another task that required a knowledgeable team, but not a large one.

These are the main events to which I am referring and these main events do not require a conspiracy of "gargantuan" proportions.

Clearly the hijackings and the 'controlled demolitions' were connected, hence making it a large conspiracy, and then the ability to wire up some of the biggest buildings in the world without anyone discovering it makes it an even bigger conspiracy.

There is still no explanation of who did this or why.

Your case still has no basis.

 

[madhawkboy]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

D'urhh... it didn't happen!

But the fact that is was still official documentations for the US government makes it scary.
And 9/11 does sound eerily similar to Operation Northwood.

Quote from page 9 & 10 of the documents.

"An aircraft at Elgin Airforce Base would be PAINTED and NUMBERED as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft. At a designated time, the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers all boarded under carefully selected aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. Take off times of the actual and drone aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendez-vous point "at desired location"."

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

There are plans for many conceivable and inconceivable ideas at the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. Doesn't mean they would be used. It is ludicrous to suggest that because they created some plan that was rejected nearly half a century ago - and nothing like it since - that it becomes some sort of blueprint or nascent plan for 9/11.

 

[Kellythatsit]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

I appreciate you're coming at this from a debunkers viewpoint Kellythatsit. I just googled Aaron Russo and D Rockefeller and got this pic. If this is indeed a true photo of both, then I'd say they look like friends.

The Rockefeller Russo is talking about is Nick, not David but I concur that photo looks genuine and is reported to be Nick Rockefeller. I notice though that image is originally sourced from infowars.com however, I am willing to take it at face value. Still it proves nothing about what Russo has said except he was friends with a fellow called Nick Rockefeller. It doesn’t prove that he is part of the John D. Rockefeller family, it doesn’t prove that he’s part of the coming NWO or a conspiracy to cover up 911 truth, it doesn’t even prove they were the close, bosom buddies that you’d expect them to be if they are going to share such explosive and deadly secrets with one another. It also doesn’t explain why there is so little other info available on someone who allegedly wields so much power.

Now I'm not sure about you and your friends, but all my close friends have confided in me about confidential work matters, scandals, adultery and other 'secrets' friends usually talk about.

I sometimes roll my eyes when I hear a friend say "I'm going to tell you something, but this is between us..."

When a friend is telling me something in confidence, I don't usually feel the urge to film his confession or call someone else in to bear witness.

Would this include treasonable acts that will eventually kill thousands of country men, not to mention thousands more in an illegal and unjustified war? You are telling me you would just sit by and let this all happen, you’d tell no one until you’re basically on your death bed. Even then, when you do spill the beans, would you go to someone with zero credibility, even amongst those that he preaches to, or would you take it to a genuine journalist who could blow the lid off the whole thing? I would assume Russo would have a lot of contacts in the media he could trust, why not go to one of them? And again, if you were a documentary filmmaker, trying to expose the depths of government corruption and the coming NWO, with a supposedly close friend who is masterminding the whole thing you are fighting against, wouldn’t you be trying as hard as possible to gather some evidence of their dastardly plans. It’s like these ghost hunters that stay in haunted houses with their video cameras yet when an apparition happens to appear they conveniently forget to turn it on!

Whatever was said between these two guys, well no one really knows. Maybe David was showboating, exaggerating or just plain making it up. Maybe he was a bit drunk when he said it, maybe he doesn't give a fat rats clacker if anyone finds out.

Unless you were there, then how would you know the content and context. Can you prove this conversation DIDN'T happen?

No, I can’t prove that. But you can’t prove that the Angel Moroni didn’t appear to me last night confirming that I am the reborn Christ and when I think of blue ribbons the clouds rain Icarus Allsorts on the purple elephants of another dimension. Therefore it must be true. Happy days!!!

If David is indeed a member of the Rockefeller's, don't you think he'd be more likey to be privy to information that isn't available to the common man, like say an impending terrorist attack?

I don’t see why he would know about an impending terrorist attack before anyone else, unless what Russo says is true, which remains to be seen.

I fear getting into a discussion on this subject with you EasterTiger, you have done a lot of research to back up your point of view (whether I agree with it or not) and it is clear after so many long pages of this thread that you are never, ever going to change your mind on this. However, I must object to being called a “debunker”. This infers that I begin with the belief that the comments Russo has made, or the claims of the truth movement are untrue then look for evidence to back this up. However, this is incorrect. I am always skeptical of any unusual claims. The claims that have been made here are quite extraordinary and require some skepticism to be applied which is why I have outlined 5 of the top questions which were just off the top of my head. The statement made by Russo is a great story and truly shattering if true, however without evidence to back this up there is no chance that I can consider it to be genuine.

 

[rayven]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

So if terrorists actualy did this, for what purpose? what were thinking of achieving?

If this was a conspiracy by whoever, what is it was they trying to achieve? for what purpose


Whoever did what was pretty smart, one must remember that when looking for culprits, whoever they are. Then when you have built a hypothetical for both possibilities, see which one fits whats actualy happened since.

Make a hell of an assignment at uni!

 

[Kellythatsit]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

But the fact that is was still official documentations for the US government makes it scary.
And 9/11 does sound eerily similar to Operation Northwood.

Quote from page 9 & 10 of the documents.

"An aircraft at Elgin Airforce Base would be PAINTED and NUMBERED as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft. At a designated time, the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers all boarded under carefully selected aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. Take off times of the actual and drone aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendez-vous point "at desired location"."

No, sounds nothing like what happened on 9/11.

It does sound like one in a hundred theories out there that are not supported by any evidence except an over-stimulated imagination.

A document that was dismissed by the US Government in 1962 seems like poor evidence to pin any kind of theory to, let alone something of the complexity of 9/11.

The only thing the constant referencing of Northwoods highlights is the desperation of the truth movement supporters.

 

[vealesy]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Just a relevant quote from V for Vendetta

V: [Talking to Inspector Finch, Posing as William Rookwood] You already have the information. All the names and dates are inside your head. What you want, what you really need, is a story....I'll leave such judgements to you, Inspector. Our story begins, as the stories often do, with a young up-and-coming politician. He is a deeply religious man, and a member of the conservative party. He is completely single-minded, and has no regard for political process. The more power he obtains, the more obvious his zealotry, and the more aggressive his supporters become. Eventually, his party launches a special project in the name of national security. At first, it's believed to be a search for biological weapons, and is pursued without regard to its cost. However, the true goal of this project is power: complete and total hegemonic domination. The project, however, ends violently. But the efforts of those involved are not in vain, for a new way to wage war is borne from the blood of one of the victims: imagine a virus, the most terrifying virus you can, and then imagine that you, and you alone, have the cure. But if your ultimate goal is power, how best to use such a weapon? It's at this point in our story that along comes a spider. He is a man seemingly without a conscience, for whom the ends always justify the means, and it is he who suggests that their target should not be an enemy of the country, but rather the country itself. Three targets are chosen to maximise the effect of the attack: a school, a tube station, and a water treatment plant. Several hundred die within the first few weeks. Fueled by the media, fear and panic spread quickly, fracturing and dividing the country, until at last the true goal comes into view: before the St. Mary's crises, no one would've predicted the results of the election that year, no one. And then not long after the election, lo and behold, a miracle! Some believed it was the work of God Himself, but it was a pharmaceutical company controlled by certain party members that made them all obscenely rich. A year later, several extremists are tried, found guilty, and executed, while a memorial is built to canonise their victims. But the end result, the true genius of the plan, was the fear. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government, and through it, our politician was appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history...

 

[Kellythatsit]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Just a relevant quote from V for Vendetta
etc, etc

. . . therefore because Alan Moore wrote it in one of his works of fiction it must be true and not only true, but direct evidence of government complicity in the planning and execution of 9/11

Case closed!

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Clearly the hijackings and the 'controlled demolitions' were connected, hence making it a large conspiracy, and then the ability to wire up some of the biggest buildings in the world without anyone discovering it makes it an even bigger conspiracy.

So, you're backing away from your "gargantuan" argument? That's good to see. I also note that you are referring to the same thing twice to make it sound "even bigger". The 'controlled demolition' IS the wiring up of some of the largest buildings in the world. Why do you need to repeat it to "make it an even bigger conspiracy" when you've already mentioned controlled demolition?

So, we've gone from "gargantuan" to "large" and then a feeble verbal trick to make it "even bigger".

Let's just settle on it being a "medium-sized" (of up to 50 individuals) conspiracy once we combine the hijacking with the demolition shall we?

With 19 of these individuals dead, it means that all that is left is to silence (with money or death) another 30-odd individuals. Not an overly difficult thing to achieve in the scheme of things.

There is still no explanation of who did this or why.

Your case still has no basis.

Who? People with the desire to keep the American people in a state of fear and who also stood to gain substantially from the inevitable retaliation that would follow.

Why? Because they stood to gain hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars.

What gets me about the unwillingness to believe in a possible conspiracy is the fact that since 9/11 we have all seen the entire US government apparatus come together to foist a completely fabricated justification for the invasion and destruction of a sovereign nation upon their citizens.

No-one questions this fabrication, everyone knows that the war was illegal and that it has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and thousands of US citizens (as well as consigning many more US citizens to lives of pain, disability and misery).

And yet, they cannot come at the idea that a much smaller group than this might have been responsible for arranging the events of 9/11.

The Iraq war and its consequences make the events of 9/11 pale by comparison and clearly everyone from the government knew that the information and the justifications were bullshit, but no-one spoke up before the war and very few have spoken up since. So why is this conspiracy believed and the other not?

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

So, you're backing away from your "gargantuan" argument? That's good to see.

I also note that you are referring to the same thing twice to make it sound "even bigger". The 'controlled demolition' IS the wiring up of some of the largest buildings in the world. Why do you need to repeat it to "make it an even bigger conspiracy" when you've already mentioned controlled demolition?

So, we've gone from "gargantuan" to "large" and then a feeble verbal trick to make it "even bigger".

Let's just settle on it being a "medium-sized" (of up to 50 individuals) conspiracy once we combine the hijacking with the demolition shall we?

No - it is still a huge conspiracy. How do you wire up the buildings without anyone detecting it - this adds to the size of the conspiracy (not a "feeble verbal trick" - more your feeble comprehension). Exactly as the article suggested.

With 19 of these individuals dead, it means that all that is left is to silence (with money or death) another 30-odd individuals. Not an overly difficult thing to achieve in the scheme of things.

Who does this? How many more people involved to do this?

Who? People with the desire to keep the American people in a state of fear and who also stood to gain substantially from the inevitable retaliation that would follow.

And who are these people? And they are part of the conspiracy too, which makes it bigger.

This is just typical internet tin foil work - 'fill the people with fear and expand your tyranny'.

Why? Because they stood to gain hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars.

Who do and how?

What gets me about the unwillingness to believe in a possible conspiracy is the fact that since 9/11 we have all seen the entire US government apparatus come together to foist a completely fabricated justification for the invasion and destruction of a sovereign nation upon their citizens.

And how weak was that argument shown to be quite quickly and it was against another country, not an attack on its own. When has the latter ever happened before?

very few have spoken up since

Quite a number have spoken up since. That's certainly more than none anyway.

So why is this conspiracy believed and the other not?

Because of its ridiculous nature, exactly as explained in that article which started this line of discussion.

 

[Kellythatsit]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

So, you're backing away from your "gargantuan" argument? That's good to see. I also note that you are referring to the same thing twice to make it sound "even bigger". The 'controlled demolition' IS the wiring up of some of the largest buildings in the world. Why do you need to repeat it to "make it an even bigger conspiracy" when you've already mentioned controlled demolition?

So, we've gone from "gargantuan" to "large" and then a feeble verbal trick to make it "even bigger".

Let's just settle on it being a "medium-sized" (of up to 50 individuals) conspiracy once we combine the hijacking with the demolition shall we?

With 19 of these individuals dead, it means that all that is left is to silence (with money or death) another 30-odd individuals. Not an overly difficult thing to achieve in the scheme of things.

30 people is a gargantuan conspiracy considering only a handful of close confidantes couldn't even keep the Watergate scandal quiet. . . and that scandal didn't involve the murder of thousands of innocent people.

But really, 30 people. Seriously, I think it would take more than that just to wire up the towers, not to mention wtc7.

Equally troublesome are the legions of indirect conspirators, people who supposedly have intimate knowledge of the “truth” yet play a vital role in suppressing it. Chief among these are the investigators charged with compiling the official history of that dreadful day: the members and staffers of the 9/11 Commission; the engineers at NIST, FEMA, and ASCE; and the myriad journalists who have covered the story for more than half a decade. After all, if the “Truthers” could have figured out “what really happened” using only their laptops and deductive reasoning skills, then surely professional investigators backed by nearly unlimited resources would have reached similar conclusions.

Then of course there is also the FDNY and the NYPD who stood by and watched their brothers perish in the buildings so that a few fat cats could become even fatter.

To conclude that at the end of the day there would be only 30 people (thereabouts) needed to threaten/payoff/silence is absolutely, side-splittingly laughable.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

30 people is a gargantuan conspiracy considering only a handful of close confidantes couldn't even keep the Watergate scandal quiet. . . and that scandal didn't involve the murder of thousands of innocent people.

But really, 30 people. Seriously, I think it would take more than that just to wire up the towers, not to mention wtc7.

Equally troublesome are the legions of indirect conspirators, people who supposedly have intimate knowledge of the “truth” yet play a vital role in suppressing it. Chief among these are the investigators charged with compiling the official history of that dreadful day: the members and staffers of the 9/11 Commission; the engineers at NIST, FEMA, and ASCE; and the myriad journalists who have covered the story for more than half a decade. After all, if the “Truthers” could have figured out “what really happened” using only their laptops and deductive reasoning skills, then surely professional investigators backed by nearly unlimited resources would have reached similar conclusions.

Then of course there is also the FDNY and the NYPD who stood by and watched their brothers perish in the buildings so that a few fat cats could become even fatter.

To conclude that at the end of the day there would be only 30 people (thereabouts) needed to threaten/payoff/silence is absolutely, side-splittingly laughable.

I would argue that all these others you mention aren't in on the conspiracy. They believe exactly as you do. I am assuming you are not even a crazily patriotic American, yet look at how difficult you find it to question the "official" version of the facts.

My point is that it would only take about 50 to pull off the hijacking plus the demolition. You don't agree with that, fine, but I never brought all these other people in on it, that was you.