9-11 was an inside job

[MaineShark]

A libertarian is not simply someone who can score well on the World's Smallest Political Quiz, but someone who can question authority with such vigor and reason that one deserves the title.

The blind belief "Truthers" have for their "official" pet theory really demonstrates critical thinking...

A rational person examines all possibilities and weighs the likelihood of each.  A rational person does not decide that one way was the only way it could have happened, and then proceed to ignore any evidence to the contrary.  That is not rational behavior.

If "Truthers" were rational, they would be able to answer the very basic question I keep asking: why would anyone bother demolishing a doomed building?  What possible gain would there be in engaging in a conspiracy of epic proportions, when convincing a few suicidal terrorists to crash some planes would be more than sufficient?  It simple fails the common sense test, and no "Truther" has been able to demonstrate any reason for the more-complex route which they claim (despite all evidence) is what happened.

Joe

[jaqeboy]

A libertarian is not simply someone who can score well on the World's Smallest Political Quiz, but someone who can question authority with such vigor and reason that one deserves the title.

The blind belief "Truthers" have for their "official" pet theory really demonstrates critical thinking...

A rational person examines all possibilities and weighs the likelihood of each.  A rational person does not decide that one way was the only way it could have happened, and then proceed to ignore any evidence to the contrary.  That is not rational behavior.

If "Truthers" were rational, they would be able to answer the very basic question I keep asking: why would anyone bother demolishing a doomed building?  What possible gain would there be in engaging in a conspiracy of epic proportions, when convincing a few suicidal terrorists to crash some planes would be more than sufficient?  It simple fails the common sense test, and no "Truther" has been able to demonstrate any reason for the more-complex route which they claim (despite all evidence) is what happened.

Joe

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about the movement of independent investigators trying to solve a crime. If you want to query some 911 Truth folks and do a head count of how many are libertarians and advocate arming pilots and passengers, come on down to the Conspiracy Cafe in Cambridge when they resume in the new year - we'll be carpooling down. That way you can do more than just be a master at baiting people. You might even enjoy yourself!

[jaqeboy]

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth have started a newsletter called the Blueprint at http://www.ae911truth.org/newsletter/. That's a first issue - might have to join to get subsequent issues, not sure.

[MaineShark]

You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about the movement of independent investigators trying to solve a crime. If you want to query some 911 Truth folks and do a head count of how many are libertarians and advocate arming pilots and passengers, come on down to the Conspiracy Cafe in Cambridge when they resume in the new year - we'll be carpooling down. That way you can do more than just be a master at baiting people. You might even enjoy yourself!

Yeah, I always go to Cambridge to find gun lovers!

Joe

[alohamonkey]

A rational person examines all possibilities and weighs the likelihood of each.  A rational person does not decide that one way was the only way it could have happened, and then proceed to ignore any evidence to the contrary.  That is not rational behavior.

You talkin' bout yourself there, chief?

[MaineShark]

A rational person examines all possibilities and weighs the likelihood of each.  A rational person does not decide that one way was the only way it could have happened, and then proceed to ignore any evidence to the contrary.  That is not rational behavior.

You talkin' bout yourself there, chief?

About being a rational person?  Absolutely.  I'm a strictly rational person.  There's not anything I would ever take on faith.

Joe

[alohamonkey]

A rational person examines all possibilities and weighs the likelihood of each.  A rational person does not decide that one way was the only way it could have happened, and then proceed to ignore any evidence to the contrary.  That is not rational behavior.

You talkin' bout yourself there, chief?

About being a rational person?  Absolutely.  I'm a strictly rational person.  There's not anything I would ever take on faith.

Joe

It seems to me that you take the "official" story of 9/11 on faith.  I don't understand how you can't even entertain the idea that WTC 7 was possibly brought down by explosives.  Like Jaqeboy said, even NIST and other government agencies aren't sure how it collapsed, but you seem to faithfully believe the "official" story.  The way it collapsed looks very similar to some of these examples:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/29/year.ender.explosions.wivb

As for your question before, I think explosives might have been used to ensure total destruction of 3 buildings.  WTC 1 and WTC 2 for the dramatic effect necessary to propel us into an illegal war (for the record, I'm not entirely convinced explosives were used in these buildings).  WTC 7 to destroy any remaining evidence of the conspiracy.  There were a lot of offices with sensitive information housed in WTC 7 in addition to Giuliani's "bunker" including:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_7#Tenants
"At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[24][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[24] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[24] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[24] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][25]"

[MaineShark]

It seems to me that you take the "official" story of 9/11 on faith.

It seems to me that you don't even bother reading people's posts to determine what they think, before lumping them into categories...

Just for one example...

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).

I don't understand how you can't even entertain the idea that WTC 7 was possibly brought down by explosives.  Like Jaqeboy said, even NIST and other government agencies aren't sure how it collapsed, but you seem to faithfully believe the "official" story.  The way it collapsed looks very similar to some of these examples:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/29/year.ender.explosions.wivb

I can entertain any idea.  The size of the conspiracy necessary to mine those buildings with explosives, however, puts that idea at an extraordinarily-low probability.

As for your question before, I think explosives might have been used to ensure total destruction of 3 buildings.  WTC 1 and WTC 2 for the dramatic effect necessary to propel us into an illegal war (for the record, I'm not entirely convinced explosives were used in these buildings).  WTC 7 to destroy any remaining evidence of the conspiracy.  There were a lot of offices with sensitive information housed in WTC 7 in addition to Giuliani's "bunker" including:

Fire bombs would be more than sufficient to destroy sensitive data.  Anything truly sensitive is pre-mined with small charges, just in case.

The buildings were going to collapse based upon the structural damage and fire due to the aircraft impacts.  If they only 98% collapsed instead of 100%, would that change things with regard to Bush going to war?  Hardly.

And explosives wouldn't ensure anything, as the blasting controls could easily be destroyed prior to detonation by the fire and the impacts, themselves.  Imploding buildings is a precision thing, not something you whip up over a weekend and hope it survives hours of fire before setting it off.

The risk/benefit ratio just doesn't make sense.  The risk of getting caught installing the explosives, or having someone blab, or them not actually going off and, therefore, being found intact (among many other risks) just doesn't balance out with the supposed small benefit of ensuring that the collapse was slightly more total than it otherwise might be.

Any coverup regarding the structure is more likely to hide shoddy construction or somesuch.  Shoddy construction on government projects is pretty common, and would put them at risk of major lawsuits.  Let's imagine that they didn't use proper fireproofing on the structure, so it failed even more easily than it should have.  That's entirely within the realm of common things that are done by the government (or allowed by the government to be done by subcontractors).  And it would certainly explain the hasty movement of evidence.

And wouldn't require a preposterously-massive conspiracy created for the purpose of ensuring that something inevitable would happen.

Much more sensible.

I have little doubt that certain members of the government at very least knew the attacks were coming, and sat on the intel.  But these particular claims about the structural failure being the result of explosives and missiles and such are just nutty.

Joe

[Lloyd Danforth]

I haven't read much of anything here, but, I don't see Joe accepting the government's version of 911

[alohamonkey]

Let me rephrase that . . . to me, it seems that Joe believes the "official" story of the collapse of the buildings on faith. 

[jaqeboy]

Here are Peggy Brewster's (of Northern New England 911 Truth) pics of the Boston Tea Party event of 2 weeks ago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/86749204@N00/collections/72157603573502176/

[coffeeseven]

Worth a look:

http://www.cairnsblog.net/2007/12/tale-of-three-broadcasters.html

I am one of growing number of people around the world who believes the western mass media is deeply dishonest about some very important topics...

He brings up salient points. I totally forgot about the BBC's Jane Standley's precog skills. 

[coffeeseven]

Simon Moore calls Jane Standley about WTC-7.

[youtube=425,350]P3B1dRN2xvg&NR=1[/youtube]

[MaineShark]

Let me rephrase that . . . to me, it seems that Joe believes the "official" story of the collapse of the buildings on faith.

Clearly.  That's why I've discussed the collapse from an engineering and physics standpoint.  Because I take it on faith.  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense!

Joe

[jaqeboy]

I totally forgot about the BBC's Jane Standley's precog skills. 

Yeah, and also Aaron Brown, reporting a full hour before 7 collapsed. Only he was hip enough about the NYC skyline to just look back and see it was still there, so he mentions something about "the confusion", etc.

I just want to know who wrote the news stories for them to read...

We know that US Army psychological operations had placed people in CNN sometime back... I wonder if anyone is putting the pieces of that story together. Oops, I'll go read your link...