9/11=Inside Job

[JoeMama]

Any reactions to this video. It says alot of really interesting things about terrorism, about the war, and about the actual day of 9/11.

I'd be delighted to know what people think, anyone who is enlisted, off-duty, on leave, or involved at all with active US military in the middle east, or surrounding area.


My only skeptism lies here.

The actual news footage of the buildings falling down shows close-ups of the walls literally exploding outwards, with random explosions up and down the buildings. The entire buildings "seemingly," appear to fall from the top downwards, with what in my opinions looks highly similar to a controlled demolition. Plus, the buildings burned for a little over and a little under an hour, then collapsed in free-fall speed. Other buildings have burned for hours, some even close to a day, and not collapsed. Even buildings, that have indeed, been hit by planes.


I'm obviously no expert, but the footage is to say the least, convincing.

For the recond, I'm fairly neutral on the subject. Just interested in your opinions.

[Nono]

Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z.... We've had this discussion over and over and over and over and over.

But here's a gargantuan mystery: The Missing Video. We're supposed to believe that Joe's post is accompanied by a video, but in fact there is absolutely no evidence on this thread of its existence.

Coincidence? I think not!

[Charlatan]

What did the governmnet have as an incentive? destroy their own buildings and then spend tirllions on a war? Wouldn;t they rather save the money for themselves? The war costs too much to have been an inside job, so what would they gain from a war? IS this a Christain Jihad or something?

[Nono]

Ah but Charlatan, what do you mean by "cost"? Think about it. The Iraq war may have cost the American taxpayers three trillion plus dollars. But Bush's cronies hardly pay taxes, so what do they care?

Think rather of Halliburton, etc. Iraq and all the rest of the post-911 hysteria (the burgeoning "homeland security" industry and so on) have been one huge exercise in transfering funds from public coffers into private pockets.

Read Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine.

[crimethinker]

Quote by: Nono Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z.... We've had this discussion over and over and over and over and over.

I haven't. All I ever see in "9/11 Conspiracy" threads is someone present a few parts of the theory and someone else call the entire 9/11 Truth Movement, all the books and documentaries, rubbish, or say that it's all been refuted over and over and over and over again. Whereas I've seen hardly anything refuted, yet have participated in several of these kinds of threads.

Perhaps the points of movies like Zeitgeist or whatever video JoeMama is on about have been refuted completely. There's still no way to definitively prove that the 9/11 attacks weren't essentially perpetrated or planned by the government, or that the government didn't simply allow it to happen.

JoeMama: Like you said, you're not an expert. I'm sure what you describe as evidence that 9/11 was a government plot can be explained in some other way, though I haven't heard it or can't remember it. Maybe someone would like to?

A lot of 9/11 Truthers like to talk about how the building was in "free-fall" and looked very much like a controlled demolition, or about how jet fuel doesn't melt steel. Indeed, it doesn't; but it weakens it a lot, and if the top several stories fell onto the next and so on, I can imagine the building collapsing pretty fast... When several stories of steel come crashing down what's going to stop it but the ground?

As for the so-called "explosions": weren't those debris falling from upper stories into lower ones and blasting out the window or something? I remember hearing something like that.

Anyway, that's the best I could come up with.

[Nono]

You can imagine the compression within each successive storey as the combined weight of the building above crushes it. That'll make stuff pop out in a puff.

CT, if you're interested in convincing refutation you should look back at the various threads and the contributions by RickSP and Sonart.

[Judicator]

Quote by: Nono Ah but Charlatan, what do you mean by "cost"? Think about it. The Iraq war may have cost the American taxpayers three trillion plus dollars. But Bush's cronies hardly pay taxes, so what do they care? Think rather of Halliburton, etc. Iraq and all the rest of the post-911 hysteria (the burgeoning "homeland security" industry and so on) have been one huge exercise in transfering funds from public coffers into private pockets. Read Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine.

If it was really just about funds from public coffers into private pockets, wouldn't this best be accomplished by public spending at home? If you spend money abroad it seems you waste a lot more resources (thus less profit for private contractors) than just blowing it at home. Buy everyone in the US a GM car or something...whatever.

I'm personally shocked that Americans, who often hate the idea of foreign aid, are/were so willing to support a war to "spread democracy" or "get oil" (could have bought a lot of oil for $600bil) or "find nukes" (damn you slow UN commission, we cant wait .5 more years, we want to know NOW!).

[Nono]

Quote by: Jud If it was really just about funds from public coffers into private pockets, wouldn't this best be accomplished by public spending at home?

No. You really should read Klein's book. To get away with blowing truly gargantuan sums of money (that ultimately flow into your cronies pockets) you have to scare the bejeezus out of people. They'll panic and give you carte blanche, as happened after 911.

And if you can get them foaming at the mouth and howling for war, you're really off to the races. In a war (see Vietnam) the sky is the limit. You can always justify further and further spending on the grounds of "national security".

Then get the media to crucify anyone who protests.

[Disinformant]

Quote by: Charlatan What did the governmnet have as an incentive? destroy their own buildings and then spend tirllions on a war? Wouldn;t they rather save the money for themselves? The war costs too much to have been an inside job, so what would they gain from a war? IS this a Christain Jihad or something?

wait, what? Believe it is inside or not, its irrelevant to me, but understand just how much money and power was made on 9/11. Think about Larry Silverstien, only several week long owner of all THREE buildings downed in NY. Now, he has admitted, twice, that building 7 was a demolition. He took out a RECORD insurance policy on those buildings, after hiring Bush's brother's security company for security. He owns no other buildings near by, only the three destroyed. Then there was the millions in put options on the airline companies prior to the attack, greater than any other put option spike in airline history, which paid out in droves. Then, there was the passing of the Patriot Act where Bush used an anthrax scare on the Capitol building to rush it through congress without being read. The Patriot Act, PDD51, John Warner Defense Act, etc all gave the President power beyond the constitution that has been transfered to Kissinger trained president Obama. They were also able to go to war, twice! In war they gave no-bid contracts to their friends, essentially draining the economy.
Don't think of Bush et al at tyrannical dictators. Thats a false image. Think of them as conmen or pirates, who are robbing us blind by any means.

[Disinformant]

great post disinformant, if only someone read it.

[Nono]

Yes, I read it. And I basically agree. (But do you have any source for your claim that Larry Silverstein stated this publicly? I doubt it.)

But the Busheviks exploiting the thing doesn't mean that it was an inside job. It's just an example of disaster capitalism, as Klein says.

[Dan_77]

Quote by: JoeMama The actual news footage of the buildings falling down shows close-ups of the walls literally exploding outwards, with random explosions up and down the buildings. The entire buildings "seemingly," appear to fall from the top downwards, with what in my opinions looks highly similar to a controlled demolition.

And I assume you have graduate-level education in engineering, architecture, or physics? Or, you work for a demolition company and have worked on the actual controlled demolition of many buildings, and know what is involved?

Or, are you simply allowing your confirmation bias to form your opinion?

Plus, the buildings burned for a little over and a little under an hour, then collapsed in free-fall speed. Other buildings have burned for hours, some even close to a day, and not collapsed. Even buildings, that have indeed, been hit by planes.

An analogy:
I hit a car windshield with a baseball bat. It breaks. Someone else hits a different car windshield with a different bat. It doesn't break. So because theirs didn't break, it makes what I did impossible?
Of course not.

Merely because system A did not respond like system B does not make system A a fake.

I'm obviously no expert, but the footage is to say the least, convincing.

Convincing to you, the admitted non-expert. Not convincing to anyone who is, hence NIST report, 9/11 Commission report, Skeptic Society investigation, FBI, Popular Mechanics, and every other full-scale investigation, all undertaken by actual experts, coming to approximately the same conclusion.

Quote by: crimethinker I haven't. All I ever see in "9/11 Conspiracy" threads is someone present a few parts of the theory and someone else call the entire 9/11 Truth Movement, all the books and documentaries, rubbish, or say that it's all been refuted over and over and over and over again. Whereas I've seen hardly anything refuted, yet have participated in several of these kinds of threads.

You have to go back years. Most 9/11 Denier debunkers figured out well over 5 years ago that 9/11 Deniers aren't interested in the truth, they're merely interested in whatever confirms their preexisting bias.

Perhaps the points of movies like Zeitgeist or whatever video JoeMama is on about have been refuted completely. There's still no way to definitively prove that the 9/11 attacks weren't essentially perpetrated or planned by the government, or that the government didn't simply allow it to happen.

There's still no way to definitively prove that you aren't a blood-sucking alien from the planet Zorba, here to kill us all. Does that mean we should execute you?

It's called Ockham's Razor and "proof beyond all reasonable doubt".

Quote by: Disinformant wait, what? Believe it is inside or not, its irrelevant to me, but understand just how much money and power was made on 9/11. Think about Larry Silverstien, only several week long owner of all THREE buildings downed in NY. Now, he has admitted, twice, that building 7 was a demolition. He took out a RECORD insurance policy on those buildings, after hiring Bush's brother's security company for security. He owns no other buildings near by, only the three destroyed. Then there was the millions in put options on the airline companies prior to the attack, greater than any other put option spike in airline history, which paid out in droves. Then, there was the passing of the Patriot Act where Bush used an anthrax scare on the Capitol building to rush it through congress without being read. The Patriot Act, PDD51, John Warner Defense Act, etc all gave the President power beyond the constitution that has been transfered to Kissinger trained president Obama. They were also able to go to war, twice! In war they gave no-bid contracts to their friends, essentially draining the economy. Don't think of Bush et al at tyrannical dictators. Thats a false image. Think of them as conmen or pirates, who are robbing us blind by any means.

How about we think of why on earth we would believe a word of that mess when you provide no proof of any of it.

[crimethinker]

Quote by: tivodan1116 You have to go back years. Most 9/11 Denier debunkers figured out well over 5 years ago that 9/11 Deniers aren't interested in the truth, they're merely interested in whatever confirms their preexisting bias.

I definitely understand how that works, but I sure would appreciate it if people who disagree with 9/11 Truthers would actually cite something.

By the way: Why do you call them "9/11 Deniers"? I understand you want to cast them in a bad light and all, but they're not denying 9/11..

Quote by: tivodan1116 There's still no way to definitively prove that you aren't a blood-sucking alien from the planet Zorba, here to kill us all. Does that mean we should execute you? It's called Ockham's Razor and "proof beyond all reasonable doubt".

Sure. But I hope you agree that that claim is slightly more frivolous than what 9/11 Truthers propose, at least at its most basic level.

You may not be familiar with it, but in posting in this thread I'm defending something I don't agree with. I think positions of power attract bad people, and I think there's a historical precedent for this kind of thing, but I've watched plenty of "documentaries" and read plenty of articles and I think the cards are decisively stacked against the 9/11 Truth Movement.

But guess what? I don't know, you don't know, and no one who isn't involved in the running of the world on a very high level knows. Pretending otherwise, to me, is quite absurd.

I'd just like people to acknowledge that, educate themselves, and be open to every possibility. (Obviously we can't be open to every possibility, but in the case of the 9/11 Truthers, there is actually some evidence that supports their claim, or, at the very least, some spooky details and some unanswered questions that should make people think critically and sceptically of the government's account of the 9/11 attacks.)

[Nono]

Quote by: crime Why do you call them "9/11 Deniers"?

I think I can answer for tivo here. Because "Truther" implies that they possess the Truth, unlike the rest of us.
A bit like Bush calling himself a Christian or Stalin calling himself a communist. How pretentious of them.

I understand you want to cast them in a bad light and all, but they're not denying 9/11.

Disingenuously legalistic of you, c.
Got any better suggestions?

[crimethinker]

Quote by: Nono I think I can answer for tivo here. Because "Truther" implies that they possess the Truth, unlike the rest of us.

I know "Truther" isn't accurate either, but it is generally, as far as I can tell, their self-ascribed title, and I try to honor that.

[Nono]

I don't (see Bush and Stalin).
If I announce that I'm Jesus Christ reincarnate, will you "honor" that?

[crimethinker]

If you find their title of choice so unacceptable, then what do you propose we call the little rascals?

[Cruella]

Dingbats

[Nono]

Inside-job believers. OK, it don't have that uhh.. ring to it. But we are striving for accuracy here, aren't we?

Just to get back to the topic for a sec (forgive me), we will never know the full story about 911, just as we never will about Dallas '63

But anyone who believes that 911 was organized by the same guys who "organized" the Iraq war and the rest of the Bush administration probably can't ride a bicycle.

[crimethinker]

Quote by: Nono Inside-job believers. OK, it don't have that uhh.. ring to it. But we are striving for accuracy here, aren't we?

I believe so. I was looking forward to calling them "Dingbats", but "inside-job believers" seems OK too. Plus for accuracy.

Quote by: Nono Just to get back to the topic for a sec (forgive me), we will never know the full story about 911, just as we never will about Dallas '63

In all likelihood, yeah.

Quote by: Nono But anyone who believes that 911 was organized by the same guys who "organized" the Iraq war and the rest of the Bush administration probably can't ride a bicycle.

No, they're not always intelligent (or sensible) people, but their main contention isn't entirely baseless, and we should always be wary of our government, inside-job believers or not.