Conspiracy Theory Proof 9/11 was an Inside Job?

[Helicopter Punt]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

WTF

Delivered with such conviction, which makes it even more nauseating. How are they allowed to get away with it?

Not enough people say WTF.

Further support for both my point and ET's lack of comprehension.

Pardon the sarcasm. My point in posting that clip is that I have no alternative explanation as to how that could occur. Do you?

The simple and pertinent point is that coincidences occur in real life, and relatively frequently. The existence of coincidences - manna for the conspiracy theorist including the 9/11 Truthers - means nothing as evidence....You could barely even understand the need to determine motive and opportunity.

Can you explain motive and opportunity with regards to verbatim speeches? If not it must be just a coincidence, no?

 

[EasternTiger]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Debris whisked away and shipped overseas without proper examination

Not true. The removal wasn’t concluded until May of the following year. Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team, saw no problem with the removal. In his testimony to the House of Representatives he said that “The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples”.

I mean, this is a link put up to support the Official Story. And yet, when you actually read it...

And, finally, we have seen painfully that the financial commitment to this investigation simply is not there. It is not uncommon to spend tens of millions of dollars investigating why a plane crashed. But we have yet to spend even a million dollars on this investigation, and the Bush Administration has refused to commit to release the full funding necessary

Resources are always an issue with building performance studies, particularly for one whose magnitude and scale is unprecedented. The total amount of resources being dedicated to support the team's activities is approximately $1 million, which has allowed the team to do the initial reconnaissance of the site and the building materials, begin the process of hypothesis setting, and conduct some limited testing. This raises the question of what amount of money would be sufficient. It is our opinion that $40 million would be a sufficient amount to fully fund a comprehensive study of an event of this magnitude and complexity.

I don't know how much they've spent in 2 theaters of war since 9/11, but surely an extra $39 million to investigate it properly would have been intelligent and prudent?

Am I wrong?

Unless you have something to hide...

 

[EasternTiger]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Not enough people say WTF.

The crux of the whole thread, summed up in one line

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Not enough people say WTF.

Yeah, there are not enough internet heroes...

Pardon the sarcasm. My point in posting that clip is that I have no alternative explanation as to how that could occur. Do you?

Can you explain motive and opportunity with regards to verbatim speeches? If not it must be just a coincidence, no?

Quite clearly that was not a coincidence.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/canada-pm-pinches-howard-speech/story-e6freuy9-1111117633571

Harper's former speechwriter Owen Lippert claimed responsibility for the gaffe and resigned from his job as a researcher for the Conservative Party.

In a statement the staffer apologised for being "overzealous in copying segments of another world leader's speech" and said his bosses at the time were unaware he had done so.

You are trying to suggest that somehow there is more to it. You had no answer so came up with some sort of devious motivation for the speeches - normal conspiracy theorist approach. Your rationale was quite typical actually:

Agreed.

When intelligence 'evidence' links the perpetrators Al quada to Iraq & Saddam and sovereign nation states independently choose to go to war but some of the same words in those nations leaders respective speeches to their own respective parliaments written by their own respective speechwriters overlap it must be a coincidence. Either that or 'independent nation states' are puppets to some scriptwriter behind the scenes.
That a nations leader would read a speech written by an unknown foreigner (with unknown interests) to that nations parliament in order to rally support amongst it's citizens for a war is highly irregular at best and perhaps treasonous at worst. Who is guilty of this - Australia or Canada? {suggestions of conspiracies}

Agreed, far more comforting to use the three wise monkeys approach and put it down to coincidence. {misplaced sarcasm}

 

[Helicopter Punt]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Yeah, there are not enough internet heroes...


Quite clearly that was not a coincidence.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/canada-pm-pinches-howard-speech/story-e6freuy9-1111117633571

You are trying to suggest that somehow there is more to it. You had no answer so came up with some sort of devious motivation for the speeches - normal conspiracy theorist approach. Your rationale was quite typical actually:

I posted a scale ranging from highly irregular at best to perhaps treasonous at worst, however I cannot recall highlighting only one. The only suggesting was done by you Bloods, which you then attributed to me.
I clearly stated I do not have an answer, yet by questioning - which you consider the domain of internet heroes - I got my answer. I don't understand why someone asking a question bothers you so much.

 

[rayven]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Well of course they investigated themselves. FFS, should they have asked the Ghanian police force to conduct it or something.

The only rebutal i have is that that the UN was asked about the invasion of Iraq and Iraq was blamed by ther Americans of being supporters of al Queda who the americans blamed for 9/11 (forget the fact that al queda are accused of being the afganistan wing of the CIA) and only yesterday it was revaeled that one of Americas chief witness's to apparant WMD that Iraq had lied on behave of the americans and the Un declined the Americans advancements., If the Un is not impartial i must ask why you choose Ghana as an example to back your opinion (the very opinion you at times assert agressivly )

Well, what are the terms of reference then ?

How can you be so sure of your opinion? Terms of reference are what the inqiuries power was, remember the AWB inquiry into Iraq and wheat? That was so dodgy and so smelled of a cover up

There are irregularities with any inquiry, any investigation. Detective work does not pan out like CSI Miami.

Mate i was trained by some some of ausatralias best educaters to policing, what your doing and the way you behave only asks more questions, you just abuse and demean human beings for having the ability to think, im not saying that there was something evil by the americans, i just know that it doesnt add up (fo whatever reasons) and people have the right to question, i think that the way you label and abuse them is worse than the mindset of extremists.....

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

I posted a scale ranging from highly irregular at best to perhaps treasonous at worst, however I cannot recall highlighting only one. The only suggesting was done by you Bloods, which you then attributed to me.
I clearly stated I do not have an answer, yet by questioning - which you consider the domain of internet heroes - I got my answer. I don't understand why someone asking a question bothers you so much.

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that asking leading questions with the conclusion already firmly fixed in your mind is somehow 'searching for the truth'.

 

[madhawkboy]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

What about when Bush and Cheney met for the 9/11 commission's under there own terms?

• They appeared together
• They were not under oath.
• No press of family members where allowed to attended.
• No recording of any kind was allowed
• No transcript was allowed.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Yeah, just keep telling yourself that asking leading questions with the conclusion already firmly fixed in your mind is somehow 'searching for the truth'.

Its on the record. I suggested a range, you highlighted 'treason' to suit your argument even though I clearly posted I did not know, you then ascribed your choice to me and then said your behaviour was consistent with CT approach and quite typical.
There's no need to rewrite history, it all clearly written a few posts above.

The question remains why the hate with asking questions of the government? Are they beyond reproach where the truth is involved?

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Its on the record. I suggested a range, you highlighted 'treason' to suit your argument even though I clearly posted I did not know, you then ascribed your choice to me and then said your behaviour was consistent with CT approach and quite typical.
There's no need to rewrite history, it all clearly written a few posts above.

The question remains why the hate with asking questions of the government? Are they beyond reproach where the truth is involved?

The lesser end of the range was governments being puppets to unknown foreigners with unknown interests. No, no conspiracy assumed there...

And of course, you finished up by demonstrating your inability to think with the absurd misplaced sarcasm about coincidences, which is how you began too.

Naturally, you now finish with the 'hate of asking questions of the government' - combination of strawman and delusion and hero illusion.

Top work. Minds like that are indicative of Truther obsession and distance from reality.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Quite clearly that was not a coincidence.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/canada-pm-pinches-howard-speech/story-e6freuy9-1111117633571

Harper's former speechwriter Owen Lippert claimed responsibility for the gaffe and resigned from his job as a researcher for the Conservative Party.

In a statement the staffer apologised for being "overzealous in copying segments of another world leader's speech" and said his bosses at the time were unaware he had done so.

You are trying to suggest that somehow there is more to it. You had no answer so came up with some sort of devious motivation for the speeches - normal conspiracy theorist approach. Your rationale was quite typical actually:

Here's a straight question ...

What is more likely in your honest opinion?

a) A staffer, completely unbeknownst to his superiors plagiarised a speech from a foreign government official and passed it off as his own work and then resigned in shame when the truth was revealed, or;

b) There was collusion between all parties concerned and they didn't expect to be caught. But once found out, a scapegoat had to be found and the speechwriter either fell on his own sword or was forced to do so with an offer of "resign or be sacked".

In my opinion, the stupidity of the speechwriter would have to be of staggering proportions if we're to assume that there was no collusion. I mean, even high school kids know to change a few words and re-arrange a few sentences when they plagiarise.

For us to accept scenario a) we must assume that someone who works in the political system has no concept of self-preservation, as close to a contradiction in terms as you could possibly get.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Two points:
(i) As a conspiracy theorist, you still look for the most convoluted solution,
and, more importantly,
(ii) What does it matter? There is nothing especially untoward, so why is any of it relevant?

In any case, regardless of conspiracy theories, coincidence, incompetence and simple human error are usually the answers to most of the issues in crises.

 

[EasternTiger]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

A man went into a local tavern and took a seat at the bar next to a female patron. He turned to her and said, "This is a special day, I'm celebrating."
"What a coincidence," said the woman, "I'm celebrating, too". She clinked glasses with him and asked, "What are you celebrating?"
"I'm a chicken farmer," he replied. "For years all my hens were infertile, but today they're finally fertile."
"What a coincidence, the woman said. "My husband and I have been trying to have a child. Today, my gynecologist told me I'm pregnant! How did your chickens become fertile?" she asked.
"I switched *****," he replied.
"What a coincidence," she said.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Two points:
(i) As a conspiracy theorist, you still look for the most convoluted solution,
and, more importantly,
(ii) What does it matter? There is nothing especially untoward, so why is any of it relevant?

In any case, regardless of conspiracy theories, coincidence, incompetence and simple human error are usually the answers to most of the issues in crises.

(i) whereas you, an apologist for power will spin things anyway you can to support your point rather than engage in honest debate.
(ii) the relevance is that when someone provided clear evidence of the collusion of those in power seeking to sway public opinion with exactly the same completely bullshit speech, rather than concede that such things happen, you quote an article where the scapegoat claims that it was all his doing.

In any case, your complete refusal to answer the simplest of questions shows you to be the complete hypocrite that you are accusing others of being.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

A man went into a local tavern and took a seat at the bar next to a female patron. He turned to her and said, "This is a special day, I'm celebrating."
"What a coincidence," said the woman, "I'm celebrating, too". She clinked glasses with him and asked, "What are you celebrating?"
"I'm a chicken farmer," he replied. "For years all my hens were infertile, but today they're finally fertile."
"What a coincidence, the woman said. "My husband and I have been trying to have a child. Today, my gynecologist told me I'm pregnant! How did your chickens become fertile?" she asked.
"I switched *****," he replied.
"What a coincidence," she said.

You are about as mature and humorous as Dave Hughes. And you continue to embarrass yourself on this point.
Now, what was that again...? Oh, yes:

Does your hypocrisy know no bounds.

Lets try and steer this thread somewhere in the direction of a vigorous and respectful debate. Thank you.

You are rapidly losing any credibility you had in this thread. I'm hoping you will begin to contribute to the thread in a mature manner.

Any realistic chance of a show of intelligence from you, or should we let the local mods know you are just derailing the thread consistently at this point?

There's a few posters here engaging in debate. You are merely derailing the thread without adding anything of substance. I would appreciate it if you let them continue rather than pouting and throwing your toys out of the cot. Show some maturity or else leave the thread.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

(i) whereas you, an apologist for power will spin things anyway you can to support your point rather than engage in honest debate.
(ii) the relevance is that when someone provided clear evidence of the collusion of those in power seeking to sway public opinion with exactly the same completely bullshit speech, rather than concede that such things happen, you quote an article where the scapegoat claims that it was all his doing.

In any case, your complete refusal to answer the simplest of questions shows you to be the complete hypocrite that you are accusing others of being.

Off-topic question that you are desperately trying to spin into a conspiracy theory. Quite pathetic really.

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

As I've said previously on this topic, I have no doubt that if the 'interweb' was around in 1914 there would have been just as many websites devoted to the Archduke Ferdinand assassination as a black op by the Austrians. Its pattern exactly fits that used for argument by conspiracy theorists now.

The Archduke's parade was set for Serbian national day - 28 June.
He was advised not to go. He chose to still go.
He was advised to have a large military escort. He chose not to. One of the arguments was that their uniforms were dirty from manoeuvres.

He decided to drive very slowly and in an open-top car.

After the first attack they drove on to the Town Hall. But instead of leaving or increasing security they decided to visit the wounded in hospital, despite assurances their wounds were only minor.

On the way back the driver took a wrong turn that just happened to take them directly to Gavrilo Princip.

Princip was a terrible shot. He had been practising in the woods and people had laughed at him because he always missed his targets.
He took two shots - one hit the Archduke and one hit Sophia, the Archduke's wife. Each shot was fatal.

The Austrians took the opportunity presented by the assassination to invade Serbia.

There is no suggestion whatsoever that it was an inside job by Austria.

To explain the meaning of this example for those who still can't think their way through it, it is to illustrate one of many, many, many unusual coincidences in history and that they happen frequently where they have a large impact on events. To see coincidences in 9/11 and assume that there must be something sinister behind it is just a lazy and ill-informed approach. It is to use post hoc ergo propter hoc as an explanation, which is flawed. To point to coincidences in 9/11 and assume that means something was orchestrating events behind the scenes towards a grander plan is to approach the event like you would a novel or movie.

As I've also said, there is no motivation for the US carrying out 9/11.

Read any book about the Bush/Cheny administration (Angler is excellent) and there is no indication that it was a black op or that the administration desired such an outcome. The problems with the inside job argument is that it makes no sense, as the questions in the Rolling Stone article point to. To use Iraq as a cause for 9/11 simply because they took advantage of it (18 months later though), is to argue again using post hoc ergo propter hoc. But if the aim is to attack Iraq and allow further expansion in the Middle East, why was it not connected properly to Iraq and Saddam? Why instead did they resort to patently weak arguments later in their attempts to connect them? Why were the US not better prepared for earlier military action? Why was it so convoluted and complex, and yet completed without error or leak, but still not perfectly planned with ridiculous oversights, such as the one on connecting to Iraq? And the problems with the rationale for the conspiracy theory continue, yet still cannot be answered even remotely sensibly.

Use of usual soundbites, like 'power', 'money' and 'oil', are meaningless of themselves without linking them into a sensible and achievable rationale with logical objectives, that would see those people undertake such a devastating attack on their own citizens.

Yes, there are examples of countries falsifying attacks to justify their own aggression, but there are no examples of a country undertaking such enormous attacks on their own people, hence there are no precedents to point to on this.

Purely it is an argument from incredulity, silence and ignorance.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Off-topic question that you are desperately trying to spin into a conspiracy theory. Quite pathetic really.

I'm not trying to "spin" anything. I'm merely asking you to hold yourself to the same standards you expect from others. There are countless instances in this thread of you accusing folks of not answering questions. And then, on the back of countless refusals of yours to answer questions of of a slightly obscure nature, I ask an obvious and transparent question in the hope of eliciting at least one answer from you. But you still refuse to answer. Not only that, you also take refuge in the "off-topic" chestnut.

What exactly has been "on-topic" about your last 3 pages of attacks on ET?

A hypocrite accusing people of hypocrisy, is that hypocrisy-squared?

 

[TheBloods]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

I'm not trying to "spin" anything. I'm merely asking you to hold yourself to the same standards you expect from others. There are countless instances in this thread of you accusing folks of not answering questions. And then, on the back of countless refusals of yours to answer questions of of a slightly obscure nature, I ask an obvious and transparent question in the hope of eliciting at least one answer from you. But you still refuse to answer. Not only that, you also take refuge in the "off-topic" chestnut.

What exactly has been "on-topic" about your last 3 pages of attacks on ET?

A hypocrite accusing people of hypocrisy, is that hypocrisy-squared?

I've provided a link for the reason for the incident, but regardless, how does it relate to the topic? I've asked questions directly related to the topic, which have not been answered. Your criticism is ludicrous.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

The lesser end of the range was governments being puppets to unknown foreigners with unknown interests. No, no conspiracy assumed there...

No, that was a separate sentence, which by the way was true. Or are you going to attempt to claim it was a Canadian speech born from Canadian ideas?
The statement I made about the range is also true and you have failed to address it - interestingly considering your accusations below - via a strawman.
I am happy for anyone to read the posts as they stand and decide for themselves who is struggling with logic here.

And of course, you finished up by demonstrating your inability to think with the absurd misplaced sarcasm about coincidences, which is how you began too.

I acknowledged and apologised for the sarcasm a number of posts ago. Are you still hanging onto that? Let it go, hate is unhealthy.

Naturally, you now finish with the 'hate of asking questions of the government' - combination of strawman and delusion and hero illusion.

It is a genuine yet still unanswered question.

Top work. Minds like that are indicative of Truther obsession and distance from reality.

Distance from reality is showcased by your answers to my legitimate questions.
Do you possess the capacity to address a question without going off tangent, pigeonholing others according to your preconceived ideas or engaging in abuse?

It is an interesting topic and I popped in to engage in discussion but posting to you is the forum equivalent of entering the cage of a screaming monkey slinging shit everywhere.
You offer nothing. Your argument not only lacks any semblance of substance, you actually repeatedly engage in the behaviour you accuse others of.
I may or may not be too open minded and would be happy to debate the matter with someone capable of debate. You on the other hand are too close minded. This is not up for debate. The last few pages are littered with overwhelming evidence.
The shame being, this was off to a cordial and promising start.
Meh, enjoy your hate.

 

[EasternTiger]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

You are about as mature and humorous as Dave Hughes.

But twice as cunning.

You're the last man standing ace. There's a reason I've been civil, calling for calm and focus. Not getting sucked into your game.

You'll notice the other debunkers have been slowly and methodically swept aside. You'll also notice no one is running to your defence or agreeing with you. I doubt many debunkers will come back while you're the main man here.

Meanwhile, every post makes you appear more desperate. Nothing you post resembles a clear or concise argument or rebuttal to any of the main points of 9/11.

I'm glad you've stayed the course. I'd encourage to you continue posting in the matter you have been.

Hope it's been as good for you as it's been amusing for me

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

The Austrians took the opportunity presented by the assassination to invade Serbia.

There is no suggestion whatsoever that it was an inside job by Austria.

You cite an example of a government taking advantage of an assassination in which they had no involvement to launch an invasion and generalise that into stating that this example somehow exonerates members of the US government from suspicion of involvement in 9/11.

Does that mean that it's OK for folks to cite the Gulf of Tonkin incident that enabled the Vietnam war and use this to generalise it to implicate members of the US government of involvement in 9/11?

And before you say that the 2 things are unrelated in that if anyone attacked the US in the Gulf of Tonkin it was the North Vietnamese and not some other US forces, please remember that there had to be SOME justification for the Iraq war, which members of the US administration clearly desired. And it just so happened that they almost immediately began a campaign of misinformation linking Iraq to Al Qaeda AND 9/11 (even though such links were patently false to anyone who was paying attention).

So in one instance we have govt officials willing to lie their way into a disgusting and pointless war that cost over 1/2 a million US lives and in the other, we have a group of govt officials seeking to invade Iraq, but with no justification on the horizon at the time. Then, when the opportunity arose for them to lie their way into another disgusting war, they pounced on it.

You might choose to call it a coincidence, but I think it's more than fair for some to call it all too convenient.

As I've also said, there is no motivation for the US carrying out 9/11.

Read any book about the Bush/Cheny administration (Angler is excellent) and there is no indication that it was a black op or that the administration desired such an outcome.

Purely it is an argument from incredulity, silence and ignorance.

While I don't agree with the order in which this author presents them and the site it comes from present some fairly extreme views that I also don't agree with, I think this list nicely sums up what I believe are quite possible motivations for the involvement of some US agents in 9/11:

A recent news article that was otherwise excellent (go read it) contained a curious assertion: that 9/11 truthseeking had failed to produce a sufficient motive for the alleged perpetrators inside the US Government.

The neoconspiracy had many heavy motives for executing a false flag operation that would get blamed on arab terrorists. In reverse order of importance:

5) They probably would have been pleased to note the beneficial effects the rather Muslim-focused War on Terror would bestow on Israel, although this can't have been a primary factor, since Iraq was invaded before Iran.

4) Money is always a powerful motivator. Though the WTC gold heist would appear to be bogus after all, war profits cannot be denied.

3) They clearly harbored some kind of irrational grudge on Iraq specifically, a long-standing obsession. More broadly, the geopolitical importance of the Middle East and the Caspian region would increase.

2) Oil would beckon them even under ordinary circumstances, but this is an extraordinary time. For the first, last and only time in world history, global oil production is about to enter a permament decline. This is called Peak Oil, and if this is the first time you hear about this phenomenon, you are dangerously behind the times - get up to speed, quick. Peak Oil will not be quite the disaster some claim it to be, but it will be catastrophic to the world-view of the neocons - unless they can secure the largest remaining oil deposits, with, say, a huge army in the middle of them.

Deeds that might seem impossible to believe in the normal run of things become quite beliavable at the top of the peak.

But the greatest motive of them all is also the oldest and most far-reaching.

1) Power. Why worry about the details of exactly what they were after, when September 11 gave them a general-purpose excuse to do anything they wanted, globally and domestically?

Do note that you do not have to believe in the idea of Peak Oil. All that matters is that the neocons believed in it - that is the concept of power. When would they have become aware of it, at the latest? During the meetings of the Energy Task Force, the release of whose minutes Dick Cheney fought all the way to the Supreme Court. We do know what some of the graphs in the documents mapped: Iraqi oil wells.

Al-Qaeda ("they hate our freedoms") would have been annihilated as a result of 9/11 if it wasn't for the recruiting boost they get from the Iraq debacle. Instead, the ancient accusing finger of cui bono points directly at the neocons.

 

[Kellythatsit]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

I mean, this is a link put up to support the Official Story. And yet, when you actually read it...
etc, etc, etc.

Masterful quote mining. Should I now post the sections relevant to my argument?

 

[OldBlueFan]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Masterful quote mining. Should I now post the sections relevant to my argument?

Hey KTI, just so you know your efforts aren't completely wasted, I've read some of the links you provided. The one I've read most so far is "Debunking 911", but the sheer amount of information is staggering, so it's gonna take a while to get through it all

However, the analysis that they've provided about the collapses is enough for me to concede that they could have been a result simply of the plane crashes, so thanks for that.

Where things start to become a little shaky for me is when they say "so, we've debunked all these theories about controlled demolition, therefore we've proven that there was no overall conspiracy".

In my view, the fact that the planes could have brought down the towers on their own means that the chances of a conspiracy are actually enhanced.

As you yourself said, if the hijacking AND demolitions had to be arranged, this would mean more participants and more chances of leaks. So, if all that had to be arranged was the hijackings (which is obviously a conspiracy even without any US involvement) and this was obviously achieved, then collusion on the part of US agents needed only have taken the form of support for those hijackings.

The point is, someone was financing and supporting the hijackers. Couldn't this have just as easily been forces inside the US as forces outside?

 

[EasternTiger]

Re: Proof 911 was an Inside Job?

Masterful quote mining. Should I now post the sections relevant to my argument?

You're the one who put the link up. Of course I'm going to quote areas I found concerning. Feel free to just gloss over the parts I quoted though, since it's not relevant to your argument.