Conspiracy Theory Proof 9/11 was an Inside Job?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheStinger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Posts
12,700
Likes
1,295
Location
Barcelona, Catalonia.
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Penguins, Aston Villa, Adel Utd.
I have not read the entire commission report, but I seriously doubt more than a hundred people in the world have read the whole thing. But reading excerpts from it, it becomes clear that the commission was sent in with the mandate to explain how these buildings were brought down by a bunch of extremists with planes.

If you go into an investigation with one idea, no matter how obvious it may seem (Occums Razor and all that jazz), the ability to objectively consider any other way that something occured is thrown out the window.

You get scientists and engineers to be consultants and ask them the question, is it possible that the burning jet fuel weakened the structures enough to initiate a complete and outright collapse of the buildings.

Now, because this has never happened before in the course of human history the results of such an event would be based on pure theoretical science and if every condition for such an event was to be met, then sure it could be possible. And we have to accept that it was possible because well, it happened.

But what are the odds of every single piece of the theoretical puzzle actually occurring? Pretty astronomical I would imagine, considering that with 110 storeys of material the chances of just the top half of the building collapsing sideways are probably the same as the entire building collapsing. And yet they didn't - twice.

Did the commission do any sort of investigation apart from a mere passing fancy into whether an outside source other the planes contributed to the collapse of the buildings?

If you as an investigator walk into a room where there is a dead guy with a bullet in his head and the gun laying in his hand, the obvious conclusion is suicide. But you have to investigate all other avenues of his death and look at all the evidence around. It might be murder.

Unfortunately much of the evidence that could have been useful to the investigation 18 months later had either been dumped, destroyed or was witheld because of national security.

Seems like they were hamstrung with the mandate of find this as a case of hijacked planes flying into the towers or don't bother submitting your report.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Emu

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Posts
3,417
Likes
3,171
Location
.....
AFL Club
Geelong
The entire 9/11 truth movement is based on reverse science - Come up with a claim and then make the "evidence" fit what you want it to - discard everything that doesn't. You people need medication.
 

tombomb

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Posts
1,943
Likes
2,593
Location
melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
The entire 9/11 truth movement is based on reverse science - Come up with a claim and then make the "evidence" fit what you want it to - discard everything that doesn't. You people need medication.
Not just over the counter stuff though, need something very strong - I recommend seeing a GP first.

As long as they spend about 30 seconds talking about what 'really' happend on September 11, the doctor should have enough info to write out an appropriate prescription.
 

bomberclifford

Importer/Exporter
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Posts
21,117
Likes
55,766
Location
Cerebral Cortex
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
I would imagine, considering that with 110 storeys of material the chances of just the top half of the building collapsing sideways are probably the same as the entire building collapsing. And yet they didn't - twice.
For the building to fall sideways, the damage would have needed to be lower down the building so that the integrity of the structure above the impact zone was maintained past the point of the collapse of the impact zone.

Rather than being the least likely manner in which towers the size of the WTC would collapse on themselves, it seems to me that, given the position of the impact in relation to the height of the buildings, the way they collapsed would be the most expected result.
 

TheStinger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Posts
12,700
Likes
1,295
Location
Barcelona, Catalonia.
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Penguins, Aston Villa, Adel Utd.
For the building to fall sideways, the damage would have needed to be lower down the building so that the integrity of the structure above the impact zone was maintained past the point of the collapse of the impact zone.

Rather than being the least likely manner in which towers the size of the WTC would collapse on themselves, it seems to me that, given the position of the impact in relation to the height of the buildings, the way they collapsed would be the most expected result.
I'm not saying the entire building would topple over sideways, I am saying the top 25 floors could have toppled sideways.

The findings are based on the supposition that the weight of the top 25 floors falling onto the rest of the building caused a cascading structural weakening all the way down the structure. But the building was not made from paper that was easily crushed, it was built with strength at its core.

So once the initial drop has occurred and the inertia created has been imparted on the rest of the building, the force will disipate as the floors start to slow its progress. Especially seeing as some of the weight from the top floors was breaking off to the sides and falling away from the building. The weight did not accumulate exponentially on the rest of the building.

Even if it is true that the weakening of the structure caused it to fail onto itself, the force could have petered out by about the 50th floor. I say could, because as we know the whole thing came down. Did it happen like they say? Well, theoretically it possibly could have. But there are so many unanswered questions that don't fit into the equation as written that it cannot be the only way the buildings collapsed.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Posts
1,032
Likes
1,233
Location
Rainy Park City
AFL Club
West Coast
Did you even watch them? Rhetorical, because we know you never would. And BECAUSE of that, you end up waving the flag of saying real-world investigation, real-world science, that directly disproves NISTs findings, to be 'unreliable/unqualified'. It's basically "lalala'ing".

And you guys are the ones who think they're correct in labeling everyone "imbeciles", "morons", "nuts", "idiots". It's like a thing now, just bandy those words about to the truth movement as tho it qualifies your stance, no need to discuss science yourselves.

It's quite sad the deluded feeling of smug validity that you guys carry yourselves around with on this topic, when in reality you're all actually clearly shown up and seen as the deluded and scientifically incorrect.
Post something real that can be referenced.

YouTube videos are the last place I'd look for real scientific studies - and no I haven't watched them because they are of little use in any debate of this kind. Sure they grab you, pull you in but that is their nature, they are highly manipulative and unless you are equipped with the necessary experience and understanding of the subject matter to remain objective you are always going to be influenced by it. As I said it is their nature.

You reference how more and more people believe 911 to be an inside job of some sort - as if this is some kind of proof that the truth movement is vindicated in it's beliefs. A funny fact is that most of the world also believes that evolution is an invention of man or at the very least the debate between 'Darwinism' and creationism is an equal and valid argument. It is not. One has evidence supporting it the other has only faith.

It is the same here.

You talk of the NIST report as 'toilet paper', and claim incorrectly that it has been 'debunked' numerous times. You've even claimed that the NIST has re-written the report on several occasions. This is simply not true, but I guess this is all you can do - spread mis-truths and myths. Deep down you know you can't back up what you are saying with any real evidence and resort to YouTube videos to support you - hoping that no one will actually go and do a little bit of research into it.

The sad fact is that most people won't.
 

GG.exe

Killer on the Road ™
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Posts
96,629
Likes
51,243
Location
In every girl's wet dream
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Ravens-Raiders-Dolphins
You admitted you haven't and won't watch those real world scientific experiments/analysis videos I posted. So, naturally, you can't possibly provide any worthwhile debate on that subject matter, until you do. It's okay for us truthers to have to read the links etc you and other O/Sers ask us to read, but it's not okay for you guys to.

The irony/stupidity of your side in that is that you squeal constantly about "providing evidence" and we do, but you refuse to watch, read them. "Oh it's a truther site, or youtube video, that is below me, lalala."

This is why pretty much all of you are laughably sad individuals, scared, and also not even in any field of vocation related to science or engineering or aviation to provide actual debate and perspective. Because if you were, you would acknowledge very quickly that a lot of what NIST and the commission stand by is invalidated by science, that science supports a lot more the truthers side.

There were a few in the previous Osama thread, a guy in aviation, and he was duly highly respected for his input tho he was sitting on the fence, or leaning towards whatever side.
 

bomberclifford

Importer/Exporter
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Posts
21,117
Likes
55,766
Location
Cerebral Cortex
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
You admitted you haven't and won't watch those real world scientific experiments/analysis videos I posted. So, naturally, you can't possibly provide any worthwhile debate on that subject matter, until you do. It's okay for us truthers to have to read the links etc you and other O/Sers ask us to read, but it's not okay for you guys to.

The irony/stupidity of your side in that is that you squeal constantly about "providing evidence" and we do, but you refuse to watch, read them. "Oh it's a truther site, or youtube video, that is below me, lalala."

This is why pretty much all of you are laughably sad individuals, scared, and also not even in any field of vocation related to science or engineering or aviation to provide actual debate and perspective. Because if you were, you would acknowledge very quickly that a lot of what NIST and the commission stand by is invalidated by science, that science supports a lot more the truthers side.

There were a few in the previous Osama thread, a guy in aviation, and he was duly highly respected for his input tho he was sitting on the fence, or leaning towards whatever side.
I've read this three times and I still don't know what point you're trying to make.

Are you suggesting that reading/watching 'Truther' propaganda is credible evidence and that choosing not to take notice of it makes one 'scared' and 'stupid'?
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Posts
1,032
Likes
1,233
Location
Rainy Park City
AFL Club
West Coast
You admitted you haven't and won't watch those real world scientific experiments/analysis videos I posted. So, naturally, you can't possibly provide any worthwhile debate on that subject matter, until you do. It's okay for us truthers to have to read the links etc you and other O/Sers ask us to read, but it's not okay for you guys to.

The irony/stupidity of your side in that is that you squeal constantly about "providing evidence" and we do, but you refuse to watch, read them. "Oh it's a truther site, or youtube video, that is below me, lalala."

This is why pretty much all of you are laughably sad individuals, scared, and also not even in any field of vocation related to science or engineering or aviation to provide actual debate and perspective.

There was a few in the previous Osama thread, a guy in aviation, and he was duly highly respected for his input tho he was sitting on the fence and/or leaning towards the O/S.
The difference between posting things such as links to the official reports or news articles that back up my arguments is that they can be cross referenced and checked for facts as any quotes, statements and findings are fully footnoted.

YouTube videos (and Prison Planet) don't do this. Instead they will make statements such as (this is a very basic example to illustrate my point) "2+2=5" and anyone who couldn't do the maths or has no background in maths would just accept what it says because the presenter claims to be a mathmatician. Granted, some would go away and research mathematics a little until they are satisfied and in this case find it is incorrect, but most won't because they wouldn't probably know where to start.

The other problem with YouTube videos is that it is difficult to stay objective when watching them, more so than reading a report or even a news article. It is easy to pulled and swayed by a moving image. They move so quickly that you aren't given a chance to think about what is being said, in the end, no matter how stubborn, you are always influenced to some degree.

The rest of your statement/rant I don't think is worth responding to
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GG.exe

Killer on the Road ™
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Posts
96,629
Likes
51,243
Location
In every girl's wet dream
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Ravens-Raiders-Dolphins
bomberclifford....

Doesn't surprise you didn't understand, seeing as we're referring to the low percentile IQers on the O/S side.

It's far worse that you guys promote "Popular Science" and the NIST and Commission reports as credible evidence or counter-evidence.
 

GG.exe

Killer on the Road ™
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Posts
96,629
Likes
51,243
Location
In every girl's wet dream
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Ravens-Raiders-Dolphins
The difference between posting things such as links to the official reports or news articles that back up my arguments is that they can be cross referenced and checked for facts as any quotes, statements and findings are fully footnoted.

YouTube videos (and Prison Planet) don't do this. Instead they will make statements such as (this is a very basic example to illustrate my point) "2+2=5" and anyone who couldn't do the maths or has no background in maths would just accept what it says because the presenter claims to be a mathmatician. Granted, some would go away and research mathematics a little until they are satisfied and in this case find it is incorrect, but most won't because they wouldn't probably know where to start.

The other problem with YouTube videos is that it is difficult to stay objective when watching them, more so than reading a report or even a news article. It is easy to pulled and swayed by a moving image. They move so quickly that you aren't given a chance to think about what is being said, in the end, no matter how stubborn, you are always influenced to some degree.
How about you watch the first two videos I posted (the 9/11 Experiments ones) with an objective mind and let me know your opinion on them, point out any stuff you want to debate, or disagree with. If you refuse to, then your posts against them are untenable.

You mention how the problem is they'll just state things with no cross-reference etc. But if you watch these kinds of videos or read the posts I quoted before, which are all referencing real world factual science, then you would understand that science does debunk the O/S. There's no getting around the facts such as the stuff re: jet fuel, molten steel, etc.
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Posts
1,032
Likes
1,233
Location
Rainy Park City
AFL Club
West Coast
bomberclifford....

Doesn't surprise you didn't understand, seeing as we're referring to the low percentile IQers on the O/S side.

It's far worse that you guys promote "Popular Science" and the NIST and Commission reports as credible evidence or counter-evidence.
lol . . . whatever mate, have a good weekend
 

bomberclifford

Importer/Exporter
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Posts
21,117
Likes
55,766
Location
Cerebral Cortex
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
bomberclifford....

Doesn't surprise you didn't understand, seeing as we're referring to the low percentile IQers on the O/S side.

It's far worse that you guys promote "Popular Science" and the NIST and Commission reports as credible evidence or counter-evidence.
Wow. Mind numbing.
 

TheStinger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Posts
12,700
Likes
1,295
Location
Barcelona, Catalonia.
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Penguins, Aston Villa, Adel Utd.
To be honest, I don't think that it is possible anymore to have any sort of a reasonable debate between both sides of the argument. Especially with people so far apart on the issue.

The people who are on the side of the commissions' findings and the official reports are so sick of some of the more outlandish claims for the 9/11 Truth movement (such as There were no planes at all, A C-130 was dropping debris at the Pentagon etc) that they have ceased to listen to any of the more moderate and reasoned claims and questions from sceptics. They would rather think that all the sceptics are crackpots and call them names accordingly.

The 9/11 Truthers however are so against the official report that they fail to acknowledge that at least some of it is fairly accurate, due to some of the glaringly unanswered questions. Their distrust of the government has clouded their judgement on some of the more reasoned findings and are more inclined to saying that anyone who believes the official findings is a sheep, blindly following whatever the government tells them.

But the truth lies in the middle somewhere. There are so many unanswered questions in the reports that cry out for reasoned responses. However, some of the responses are fanciful in the extreme from the other side. We need to have people from both sides who are willing to have a debate on solid, reasonable grounds and not let it descend into petty name calling and fanciful arguments.

And I fear this will never happen, because both sides will end up having at least one person who will try and hijack (pardon the pun) the debate. There is always one. And therefore we will never have all the questions at least looked at rationally and reasonably with all the evidence in front of us.

Mainly because there is evidence that was lost or is now kept as top secret by the government. That is why we cannot believe the official findings, because they never had all of the evidence. And this is why new conspiracy theories continue to crop up all the time.

Too many questions and not enough people in a position to actually do something about it willing to engage properly. We will never know for sure and this argument will go on long after I am dead.

Don't believe me? Ask ten random people "Who killed Kennedy?" Now tell me this won't end up the same 50 years down the track.
 

CamTinley

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Posts
1,039
Likes
73
Location
South Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
West Perth
To be honest, I don't think that it is possible anymore to have any sort of a reasonable debate between both sides of the argument. Especially with people so far apart on the issue.

The people who are on the side of the commissions' findings and the official reports are so sick of some of the more outlandish claims for the 9/11 Truth movement (such as There were no planes at all, A C-130 was dropping debris at the Pentagon etc) that they have ceased to listen to any of the more moderate and reasoned claims and questions from sceptics. They would rather think that all the sceptics are crackpots and call them names accordingly.

The 9/11 Truthers however are so against the official report that they fail to acknowledge that at least some of it is fairly accurate, due to some of the glaringly unanswered questions. Their distrust of the government has clouded their judgement on some of the more reasoned findings and are more inclined to saying that anyone who believes the official findings is a sheep, blindly following whatever the government tells them.

But the truth lies in the middle somewhere. There are so many unanswered questions in the reports that cry out for reasoned responses. However, some of the responses are fanciful in the extreme from the other side. We need to have people from both sides who are willing to have a debate on solid, reasonable grounds and not let it descend into petty name calling and fanciful arguments.

And I fear this will never happen, because both sides will end up having at least one person who will try and hijack (pardon the pun) the debate. There is always one. And therefore we will never have all the questions at least looked at rationally and reasonably with all the evidence in front of us.

Mainly because there is evidence that was lost or is now kept as top secret by the government. That is why we cannot believe the official findings, because they never had all of the evidence. And this is why new conspiracy theories continue to crop up all the time.

Too many questions and not enough people in a position to actually do something about it willing to engage properly. We will never know for sure and this argument will go on long after I am dead.

Don't believe me? Ask ten random people "Who killed Kennedy?" Now tell me this won't end up the same 50 years down the track.
"Some of it is fairly accurate" !! That's hardly a ringing endorsement

It sounds like you don't believe the official report yourself
 

The Emu

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Posts
3,417
Likes
3,171
Location
.....
AFL Club
Geelong
"Some of it is fairly accurate" !! That's hardly a ringing endorsement

It sounds like you don't believe the official report yourself
It sounds like you are delusional with a PHD in armchair pseudo science. Go watch "The conspiracy files 9/11, 10 years on". It's a BBC production (not 3 college dropouts) that answers the main conspiracy movement questions with answers from experts in the field and witnesses who have had their statements taken out of context by the conspiracy theory movement.

It's funny when they were interviewing all the 9/11 truth movement wackos that they all looked exactly like I pictured them - none had any technical background in engineering, in fact one studied philosophy - yet seemed to be an expert in structural engineering. You people are a stupid and severely disconnected from reality. I promote questions and insight into finding the truth, questioning the Government, however one has to accept when the science says something happened a certain way.
 

The Emu

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 14, 2010
Posts
3,417
Likes
3,171
Location
.....
AFL Club
Geelong
however one has to accept when the science says something happened a certain way
Which is why I find your denial to the truth astounding... How can you say that yet continue to suggest it was an inside job?

The tower collapse = explained with scientific evidence, modelling and testimonies from the guy who BUILT the thing as well as numerous experts in structural engineering.

Pentagon being hit by a plane = explained with scientific evidence and photographic proof, modelling which explains impact whole sizes and following collapse by Purdue University, 100's of eye witnesses, including those who had the unfortunate job of seeing and afterwards identifying the charred remains inside the impact zone.

WTC7 = explained with scientific evidence from leading structural engineers, debunked the thermite theory by proving the amount necessary and rigging would require hundreds of people on multiple steel columns (if someone from the inside was caught rigging/doing this and the police were called the whole government would fall and a revolution would occur - this is not reality and they would never attempt such a stupid thing).

The traces of the red substance were not proven to be thermite used for bringing down the structure, and are likely to have come from a paint substance used to cover steel structures (this is explained in the video I mentioned by the BBC from a specialist in the area). The samples used by the truther was 4 out of a possible 1000+, if thermite was in fact used there would be an abundance of samples left, not 4 minuscule pieces out of so many. Tonnes and tonnes of thermite would be required to bring the tower down, as well as an extremely complex ignition system. WATCH THE BBC VIDEO PLEASE.

Phone calls CAN be made from planes, however they are not stable - this explains the reason for so many disconnections from people on the hijacked aircraft trying to make calls to loved ones. These people did exist, they did die and their families are the ones living with the loss. They did not get abducted by Government officials in a random airport and assassinated like so many claim - it really is ridiculous and insulting what some of you morons will claim.

Step outside, accept you are wrong and move on with your life. You are insulting the lives lost of those who had the unfortunate luck of being on those planes, including the ones who fought back and brought the plane down before it killed more lives.

This is a story more of incompetence and a lack of preparedness by the US Government to respond to an attack - a lack of communication between all parties (FBI, CIA, FAA - the list goes on), combined with a plan that was executed very well by the bastard members of Al Queda. You are deluded and I hope one day you can see the light, again go watch the video I mentioned, it is a BBC production just released and you can find it on torrents.
 

evo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Posts
27,424
Likes
17,017
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
It sounds like you are delusional with a PHD in armchair pseudo science. Go watch "The conspiracy files 9/11, 10 years on". It's a BBC production (not 3 college dropouts) that answers the main conspiracy movement questions with answers from experts in the field and witnesses who have had their statements taken out of context by the conspiracy theory movement.
Just watched that, thanks for the heads up. It wasn't too bad.

I love the bit where Gage speculates that the explosives could have been planted when they constructed the building. Hahahahah, it was built in the 1980s. That is what I call patient conspirators.
 

rayven

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Posts
9,967
Likes
1,706
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
PC racing
Mainly because there is evidence that was lost or is now kept as top secret by the government. That is why we cannot believe the official findings, because they never had all of the evidence
It is so simple, release the hundreds off cctv footage of that 757 hitting the most secure facility on earth.......some say there was hundreds of cameras that would of caught that plane.

FBI took all of them almost immeaditely after the hit.

What are they hiding?

I saw this vid about what went on concerning airtraffic controllers that day, i was lead to believe that people have been fighting for years for it to be released and earlier this year it was finaly ordered to be.Media in this country have been publicising very small and selective parts of it this week and claiming it was released recently because of the anniversay remeberances.

This fuels peoples want to know.
 

crowmyzone

Baghdad Kayoosh
Joined
May 20, 2001
Posts
28,850
Likes
23,138
Location
Beetaloo
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Baghdad Bombers
Has anyone listened to or read all the air traffic controller's transcripts? Its really interesting. They were all extremely confused about what was what.
Thats exactly what the war games are designed to do. Ive had first hand experience in this; but it doesnt explain away WTC 7s demise:thumbsdown:
 

rayven

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Posts
9,967
Likes
1,706
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
PC racing
Has anyone listened to or read all the air traffic controller's transcripts? Its really interesting. They were all extremely confused about what was what.
I did and yes it is very interesting, its like a video game where you've done the same level 50 times and you know whats going to happen and are one step ahead of every move....

Interesting bit about the plane circling and when one of the hijacked planes flew over it then turned and headed to new york. exactly like a mission once planed nearly 50 years ago by the Americans, they were going pretend to hijack planes and fly them into buildings in florida and blame cuban hijackers. Then invaded cuba.

Sound familar?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom