9-11 was NOT an inside job

[John Edward Mercier]

It matters who did it if you're going to place your trust in the US government or not.

Not really.

Either they had knowledge/involvement and shouldn't be trusted.
Or they had no knowledge, but should have... the Constitution lists 'provide for the common defense...' as one of duties of government.

Either way the trust has been broken for another generation.

[MaineShark]

I just viewed that popular mechanics threads "debunking" theories.  This is a typical, sloppy cover up.  Only stupid people are expected to buy in to it.  Intelligent people are being told by the coverage, "this is a sloppy coverup."

Ah, so you are "intelligent" and anyone who understands structural engineering, stress analysis of metal structures, and other engineering matters is "stupid," eh?

I'd take a statistical sample of conspiracy nuts and a statistical sample of engineers who oppose your silly conspiracy theories, and compare average IQ's any day of the week.

we all know the government is evil regardless of who did what on 9/11

I have found that most people who believe the government did it .... regard them as more evil than those that accept the government story.

The two groups are not statistical sets.  The conspiracy theorists started out hating the government, in almost all cases, and therefore would be expected to continue hating the government.  Those who do not accept the conspiracy theories (regardless of whether they think the government is being forthright, or covering up other things) run the gamut from delusionally-patriotic folks to those who are simply too intelligent to fall for the obvious falsehoods of the conspiracy theories, and everything in between.  A diverse group like that is bound to include some who trust the government, and some who don't.

Joe

[JustUs]

I just viewed that popular mechanics threads "debunking" theories.  This is a typical, sloppy cover up.  Only stupid people are expected to buy in to it.  Intelligent people are being told by the coverage, "this is a sloppy coverup."

Ah, so you are "intelligent" and anyone who understands structural engineering, stress analysis of metal structures, and other engineering matters is "stupid," eh?

I'd take a statistical sample of conspiracy nuts and a statistical sample of engineers who oppose your silly conspiracy theories, and compare average IQ's any day of the week.

we all know the government is evil regardless of who did what on 9/11

I have found that most people who believe the government did it .... regard them as more evil than those that accept the government story.

The two groups are not statistical sets.  The conspiracy theorists started out hating the government, in almost all cases, and therefore would be expected to continue hating the government.  Those who do not accept the conspiracy theories (regardless of whether they think the government is being forthright, or covering up other things) run the gamut from delusionally-patriotic folks to those who are simply too intelligent to fall for the obvious falsehoods of the conspiracy theories, and everything in between.  A diverse group like that is bound to include some who trust the government, and some who don't.

Joe

Thanks for all your collective prejudice, but why do you think it was NOT an inside job?

[JustUs]

Sounds like you've got a lot of believers in the OCT (official conspiracy theory) on this thread. For why that theory is unsupportable and who did do it, check out http://whodidit.org .

[MaineShark]

Thanks for all your collective prejudice, but why do you think it was NOT an inside job?

What prejudice is that?

I always love how anyone demonstrating the ability to think for himself instead of blindly believing what "authorities" tell him, is accused of being "prejudiced" or other things.  I've never yet met a "Truther" who could address even the most basic questions about the physics involved, and yet they love to call others "stupid" and such.

That dog won't hunt.

If you'd been around for a while, you would know that I have no issue with the notion that certain agents within the government might have convinced hijackers to carry out these attacks.  There's no way to obtain evidence to prove or disprove that claim, at this point in time, so it wouldn't be rational to claim that I know it happened that way, or that I know it didn't happen that way.  I'd say I'm 50/50 on that possibility, based on the shreds of evidence that are available and knowledge of the psychology of government-types.  After all, governments are, by definition, parasitical creatures, and would be perfectly willing to just wait for a convenient attack and then capitalize on it.  On the other hand, governments are demonstrably willing to hurt and kill their own citizens for political purposes, even more so than they are to attack outsiders.  So, as I said, it ends up being roughly 50/50.

That certain elements within the government knew the attacks were in the works, and did nothing, I'd say is bordering on certainty.

However, to say that the buildings were brought down by explosives rather than the aircraft is ludicrous.  The conspiracy necessary to plant that amount of explosives in those buildings could never be kept secret.  And there would simply be no purpose in "framing the guilty."  From a standpoint of physics, the planes were sufficient to cause the observed damage.

The only group that benefits from the claim that the buildings were mined with explosives is the government.  I'd say it borders on certainty that a good number of the major, visible "Truthers" out there are government agents.  No one else benefits from the "9/11 Truth" movement, except the government (politically speaking - lots of those chanting about wanting the truth are really chanting about wanting money from book deals).

Joe

[Faber]

You can tell which threads to skip by looking at the tags.  If they're just a bunch of name-calling ("people with too much time on their hands," "ass-hattery," "conspiracy nuts"), then it's a safe bet that it's just people acting out psychologically.

[MaineShark]

You can tell which threads to skip by looking at the tags.  If they're just a bunch of name-calling ("people with too much time on their hands," "ass-hattery," "conspiracy nuts"), then it's a safe bet that it's just people acting out psychologically.

I suppose I could just skip them, but I don't actually care that some punk wants to call anyone who doesn't believe his pet theory "stupid," so I am not harmed by participating, and I do enjoy presenting information for the others who read this and might actually gain thereby.

Joe

[alohamonkey]

I actually thought the tags were sort of hilarious . . . ass-hattery??   

[ConspiracyDebunker]

You "9-11 truthers" already have a thread going; this thread was started for people to post their findings which supports the official story and contradicts all the nonsense and pseudo-science that the "9-11 truth movement" is propagating.

I was hoping to get the discussion going for the official story.
What do you think happened on 9/11?

I've already posted what happened on 9/11--it's so obvious that I can't even begin to believe that people question the official account:

19 fundamentalist Muslim hijackers, directed by Osama bin Laden, took over 4 commercial airliners with box-cutters and, while evading the air defense system NORAD, hit 75% of their targets. In turn, WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 collapsed due to structural failure from fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane that crashed in Shanksville.

The 9-11 Commission found that there were no credible warnings for these acts of terrorism, and multiple government failures prevented any adequate defense.

[ConspiracyDebunker]

Thanks for all your collective prejudice, but why do you think it was NOT an inside job?

However, to say that the buildings were brought down by explosives rather than the aircraft is ludicrous.  The conspiracy necessary to plant that amount of explosives in those buildings could never be kept secret.  And there would simply be no purpose in "framing the guilty."  From a standpoint of physics, the planes were sufficient to cause the observed damage.

The only group that benefits from the claim that the buildings were mined with explosives is the government.  I'd say it borders on certainty that a good number of the major, visible "Truthers" out there are government agents.  No one else benefits from the "9/11 Truth" movement, except the government (politically speaking - lots of those chanting about wanting the truth are really chanting about wanting money from book deals).

Joe

You tell it like it is, joe!

[kola]

the 911 commission report DID NOT not address several key issues. (whether by pure intention or sheer ignorance).

thus, their claims give the impression of no wrongdoings. aka "freak accident"

As usual, this beloved, (cough) goobermint,  "official" report is full of loose ends.

Kola

[John Edward Mercier]

I would say the nineteen terrorists maybe engaged in a little 'wrongdoing'.

[JustUs]

I would say the nineteen terrorists maybe engaged in a little 'wrongdoing'.

19 ALLEGED...

Note that CNN began reporting that it looked like it might be the work of Osama bin Laden less than an hour after the first plane struck. That started the "it must be bin Laden" thread in the media.

Note that the first report that they were "Arabs" was a 2:06 AM September 12th conversation between Ted Olson (Solicitor General of the United States) and a CNN reporter, though Olson never appeared in an audio or video interview. He claims he got a call from his wife Barbara, who was on Flight 77. The call turned out to be one that was impossible. This planted the "Arabs" thread by "eyewitness" testimony (albeit 3rd hand). See Mother of all Lies about 9/11 http://www.vialls.com/lies911/lies.htm

Note that in his September 13th press conference, AG John Ashcroft named the 19 suspects, then shyly added "...but keep in mind these passports may have been forged or stolen [not a direct quote]". This shored up the "it was Arabs" storyline (if you ignore Ashcroft's caveat).

Note that the BBC (or Guardian, I forget which) reported on the 6 or more of the 19 Ashcroft suspects that reported to their embassies and said "Hey, that's not me, but my passport was lost (or stolen) a couple of years ago in Cairo (or elsewhere)". That blew the whole storyline to bits if anyone was paying attention.

Mercier - if you believe it was the 19 guys Ashcroft says it was or if they were even Arabs, or it was even hijackers at all, what do you use to verify that belief other than the fascist pig Ashcroft?

If this basic storyline won't hold water, how do you believe anything that follows from that?

[jaqeboy]

I actually thought the tags were sort of hilarious . . . ass-hattery??   

Yeah, is there a smiley for that? I mean, do you have to drop trou and sit in the hat? Kat, is there an ass-hat dealie? Here's some guys with hats, but they all seem to be wearing them on top!

[coffeeseven]

I actually thought the tags were sort of hilarious . . . ass-hattery??   

Yeah, is there a smiley for that? I mean, do you have to drop trou and sit in the hat? Kat, is there an ass-hat dealie? Here's some guys with hats, but they all seem to be wearing them on top!

I prefer moonbat.

The reasons for going to war (or escalating the same war really) kept changing. Osama as the 9/11 mastermind, then Rumsfield going on national TV saying "it was never about Osama". Then WMD's, No WMD's, then Sadaam link, then no Sadaam link (and they killed his son why?). Now the reason is because the Iraqi people can't "govern" themselves when it was the U.S. military that destabilized the country.

In retrospect it's all crap. People smell dishonesty. No wonder they can't make reason of 9/11. A Vegas bookie couldn't predict the odds of so many unexplainable things happening at the same time. What are the odds of the first time in history a skyscraper is brought down into it's own footprint by a jet impact and fire? Now times three on the same day except one of the buildings did not get hit. Ya right.