9/11 Inside Job

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

Where is JTF? This thread was tailor-made for him.

Since when did using just a tad of common sense become “blind follower”?

And when did believing every nut job conspiracy theory become proof that you can actually think on your own?

Somebody tell me again - Why did Bush (or whoever was behind the fake deaths, fake crashes, and strategic demoliton placement) do it? Oil? That seems to have backfired. Unless it was his secret plan to drive gas prices to $2.00+.

It must be the evil Jew that has gained from all the fakery that has been perpetrated.

Hedo - you’re full of shit. There is no way that the Twin Towers could have fallen on their own. The Jews had to go place oridnates in order to take down a building of that size.

62

A couple of questions for the “propaganda nuts” (that’s you people who believe everything that the government tells them and nothing from other sources) and the “conspiracy nuts” (that’s you a-holes who believe nothing that the government says and anything you read on that paragon of veracity: the internet):

  1. Do you believe in a liberal media conspiracy? If so, do you think that the possible 9/11 conspiracy is a liberal plot to bring down the president?

  2. Does anyone actually think that the entire government was “in on it” to try to “get us?”

What I’m trying to illustrate is the very real possibility that so-called conspiracies are NOT, in fact, the work of a monolithic “THEY,” but, instead, the work of various factions that vie with one another for control. This post may win me the proverbial GROW!, but it seems to be a better answer for the incomplete theory of the attacks proffered by the government.

But, even if the nuttiest conspiracy is actually right, is there anyway we’d find out? Probably not. Thus, this is all an exercise in weirdness and time wasting. If there is a conspiracy, they win.

63

Well, the later identified conspiracy, which doesn’t blame the US government, but instead elements that want to get the US to clean up the middle each, has a much more plausible plot at least.

And no, you don’t have to believe something to talk about it. If it is wrong, then you should point out WHY it is wrong, not simply hurl invective. I see a lot of moral outrage, but no substance.

If you want to convince the conspiracy nuts, then you’ll have to point out flaws in their beliefs, so that they can see them. Otherwise they’ll keep wearing their tinfoil hats.

64

It was a conspiracy. Islamofacists infiltrated our homeland, recieved schooling at our institutions, hijacked our planes and killed thousnads of innocents.

How is that so unbelievable, or inplausible, that we need to find other groups to blame so we that might absolve these murderous cowards?

65

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Where is JTF? This thread was tailor-made for him.

Since when did using just a tad of common sense become “blind follower”?

And when did believing every nut job conspiracy theory become proof that you can actually think on your own?

Somebody tell me again - Why did Bush (or whoever was behind the fake deaths, fake crashes, and strategic demoliton placement) do it? Oil? That seems to have backfired. Unless it was his secret plan to drive gas prices to $2.00+.

It must be the evil Jew that has gained from all the fakery that has been perpetrated.

Hedo - you’re full of shit. There is no way that the Twin Towers could have fallen on their own. The Jews had to go place oridnates in order to take down a building of that size.[/quote]

RJ

You got me. Those pesky Zionists again:)

66

[quote]It was a conspiracy. Islamofacists infiltrated our homeland, recieved schooling at our institutions, hijacked our planes and killed thousnads of innocents.

How is that so unbelievable, or inplausible, that we need to find other groups to blame so we that might absolve these murderous cowards?[/quote]

Sigh, I really don’t want to be arguing on behalf of the conspiracy nuts.

However, the concept that the Arabic world was framed - by faking identities - is one that is at least interesting.

It wouldn’t have to be an inside job to be a frame up.

The only inside conspiracy I could imagine after that point would be to hide the fact that a frame up of that type could be carried out.

Note the words “interesting” and “imagine”. I’m not suggesting this is my belief, so go attack the theories presented, not me.

67

[quote]TriGWU wrote:
Conversation for the sake of conversation. It is interesting what conspiracy theorists can come up with. The same goes with the walk on the moon. It’s just interesting, I never said it was true.

I had a close family member die in the WTC. I think I have a right to entertain it for the purpose of discourse and nothing more.

My father is a retired Vietnam vet and I plan to enter the military for my medical residency. I serve each week as a volunteer firefighter/emt.

I also currently have adopted a soldier in Iraq and have encourged many of my fellow students to do so.

And if someone told me I had to die tomorrow to save your freedom to accuse like that, I’d do it. So watch who you point fingers at.[/quote]

Good post man

68

[quote]vroom wrote:
The only inside conspiracy I could imagine after that point would be to hide the fact that a frame up of that type could be carried out.[/quote]

Is evryone forgetting that UBL has taken credit for the attacks? That he basked in the glow of the twin towers and gloated about this? Has it been lost on the “blame the Jew crowd” that the same folks tried a very similar attack back in 1993?

Maybe UBL is a Zionist.

I would much rather just attack you, vroom. It’s like going coyote huning.

69

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1119118706920.fake-osama.jpg

ummm no…

look at the picture. the guy on the left is the “Osama” on the tape in which he gloated about the twin towers. On the right is a known image of what Bin Laden really looks like, taken from the NY Times… Notice the difference in what they look like (nose, skin color, ears, shape of head).

This of course does not mean that it was an inside job… but it DOES mean that the U.S DID fake evidence to blame ppl according to what was more beneficial to their goals.

In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot." - FBI director Robert Mueller , April 2002 (Sydney Morning Herald. (Reprinted from Los Angeles Times) The Plot thins as FBI hunts for evidence. May 1, 2002)

On December 20, 2001, the German TV show Monitor (the “60 Minutes of Germany”) found the translation of the “confession” video to be not only “inaccurate”, but even “manipulative”. Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini and Professor Gernot Rotter made an independent translation and accused the White House translators of “writing a lot of things that they wanted to hear but cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it.”
(German Media: bin Laden 'Smoking Gun' Tape Translation Inaccurate)

I was living in Jordan at the time this tape supposedly surfaced (after the US govt found it having been “forgotten” in a VHS player in Afghanistan)… there were huge debates all over the Arab world as to the authenticity of the video. Most agreed that it is definitly fake. And remember, Jordanians hate Osama, he tried to blow up 5 hotels in Jordan one night, and later al-Qaeda men were caught attempting to detonate a chemical bomb that would have wiped out tens of thousands of Jordanians… so no one is trying to defend him… it was simply obvious from the video that it was fake.

Later on, an audio tape supposedly from Bin Laden surfaced… Swiss scientists analyzed the voice on it, comparing it to 20 other known audio recordings of Bin Laden… they said they were 95% sure that the tape was fake, according to voice analysis. (Swiss scientists 95% sure that Bin Laden recording was fake | World news | The Guardian)

remember i’m not saying the thing was an inside job, i’m saying that the U.S did attempt to take advantage of the situation by faking evidence.

70

[quote]battlelust wrote:
As emotionally wrecking as the September 11th attacks were for all of us, I, for one, am disturbed by the continued attempts to stifle investigation and discussion through emotional invective and partisan name calling. So I’m going to try my hand at it.

I think that this issue really comes down to whether or not, given all past examples (COINTELPRO, Northwoods, the Gulf of Tonken incident, etc.), you trust the government to not use its enormous power against you. Even if these allegations about the worst terrorist attack on US soil are true, does it mean that our government sought to do evil? No. I don’t believe so. But herein lies the danger of putting idealists in power: history has shown that they can and will rationalize any means to reach the ends that they believed to be qualitatively GOOD (Lenin, Clinton, Nixon, etc.).

Additionally, practical men and women will always be at a disadvantage to the idealists, regarding truth, in these situations. Would the experts quoted by Popular Mechanics want to keep their credibility and their livelihood? Or, similarly, would the cognitive dissonance of learning that the country we all love is being mistreated by those who we entrusted to protect us be something that you could handle? [/quote]

I think this is a great post that seems to have been glossed over. Do I think that alot of the conspiracy thory stuff is wacko–absolutely. The point is this though. History has shown that time aand time again, supposedly great men and governments have done some seriously fucked up stuff and outright lied to their people to achieve their own agenda. It doesn’t matter who you voted for or any of that if you can’t at least hear out and try to weigh out the merits of a theory and then decide if its BS or not, then you are a sheep. Everyone of you that immediately go to the tin foil hat comments and say that any discussion of this kind is nutjob talk are fucking sheep. I’m not saying that I agree with the original article that is being questioned at all. But why is it so hard to even ponder for a second that, in light of what history has shown us, there could be some shady dealings with certain people in our government involved in this horrible event. Again not “they”, not “the man”, not even “Dubya”. But if there are theories that the web involves more than just “those crazy islamofascists” then yes putting that theory to task and examining is needed. Just dismissing any wrongdoing by telling people they are nutty and need to get some tin foil is ignorant and just as waked as the people they attempt to snub.

71

There is always going to be a segment of the population who believes in this conspiracy crap. Those folks would be well served to look into medical treatment for paranoia… and stop listening to or at least believing in everything Art Bell discusses on his late night radio show.

72

When I watched buildings being demolished on the history channel they used shaped charges that had to be perfectly aligned on either side of a support beam to cut it.

Since all of the world trade centers support beams were on the outside I think the charges would have been visible.

It’s retarded to make comparisons between the world trade center and fires that have affected much smaller buildings. The forces on a building that tall are much higher.

The sad thing is that these conspiracy web stories are recieved by some as factual information.

There is so much of this stuff out there, that real stories just get lost in all the chatter. It’s a real disservice to the public interest.

73

[quote]vroom wrote:
Well, the later identified conspiracy, which doesn’t blame the US government, but instead elements that want to get the US to clean up the middle each, has a much more plausible plot at least.

And no, you don’t have to believe something to talk about it. If it is wrong, then you should point out WHY it is wrong, not simply hurl invective. I see a lot of moral outrage, but no substance.

If you want to convince the conspiracy nuts, then you’ll have to point out flaws in their beliefs, so that they can see them. Otherwise they’ll keep wearing their tinfoil hats.
[/quote]

Exactly!

And we get free entertainment.

74

With the incorigble amount of corruption in the FAA and NTSB it isn’t close to impossible for the hijackers to do what they did.

75


The real targets.

76

as someone who understands a little bit about jet fuel and operating temperatures, I got news broseefus, that shit can burn REALLY hot.

Did you know that special Platinum/Nickel superalloys are used in jet engines because they are the only alloys that can withstand the heat that is created? Did you know that these superalloys are also capable of withstanding heats nearly triple that of stainless steel (like in a skyskraper)?

Now, interestingly, these super high heats in jet engines are created by having a large amount of compressed air mixed in with the jet fuel, thus making the exhaust hotter.

Now, lets think back to the time of the German Me-262 jet fighter from WWII and the British Meteor. Both of these aircraft used some of the first succesful jet engines ever developed, and they operated at a compression ratio of about 3.14, which really isn’t all that much (3 times atmospheric pressure). The trick here is that at high altitudes, such as up around 25,000 feet, the air pressure is VERY low compared to sea level. So we can say that the operational air pressure in an early jet engine was slightly over that at sea level, and the heat that was generated was VERY capable of melting stainless steel.

As a matter of fact the German engine used a very ingenius active cooling system for their turbine blades, to prevent them from melting. Also an important consideration is that just because an alloy doesn’t melt, doesn’t mean that there isn’t some INCREDIBLE changes going on.

It’s obvious that the steel in the WTC was heated to a very high temperature, probably around a thousand degrees Celsius or about 1800 degrees Farenheit. At this temperature most steels go through changes at the atomic level, and the crystaline structure of the steel can change dramatically, from FCC to BCC.

This change at the atomic level gives the alloy a completely different strength and ductility. In order to keep this from happening, a steel would need to be used that would not undergo a phase change, and this would need to be considered in the construction of the building. I do not know for certain what type of steel was used, but odds are that there were most likely rivets, bolts, and welds that weren’t of a single phase steel, this would all compromise the integrity and the strength of the building at extremely high temperatures (which it probably wasn’t designed for).

77

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
This was a long read, but chilling. If you didn’t read it, it has nothing to do with the Bush administration being behind any type of cover up…

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm

Just reposted the link from above for the lazy, not a new link.

I could not get through the whole disgusting anti-semetic thing.

I think the American Patriot Friends Network is a far right wing white supremacist type organization. Please correct me if I am wrong.

How many people actually buy into this shit? Do you want to buy a bridge?
[/quote]

Believe me, politics makes a lot more sense when you take into account the activities of the ‘chosen’. The best place to start in researching the entire phenomenon is learning about fractional reserve banking. It was/is such a swindle you will wonder why it is allowed to continue and is seldom mentioned.

Why is Anti-Semitism is such a dangerous charge compared to say, being called anti-asian? Think about it.

78

compromised integrity at high temperatures, plus high temperatures equals failure.

'nuf said.

79


http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/170105womanwaving.htm

If the heat could “melt” the steel, it can surely kill any human within reach… not so hot after all…just click the above link to see the woman waving for help.

80

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor (impact floors of the south tower were 78-84) sky-lobby: “We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that’s when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.”

Doesn’t sound like Donovan Cowan was standing in a burning pool of jet fuel.

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the south tower: “The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I’m covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I’m digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway.”

Doesn’t sound like Stanley Praimnath was in a burning pool of jet fuel, either.

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: “Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That’s how I got so burned.”

Doesn’t sound like Ling Young was in a burning pool of jet fuel, either. One suspects that 10 or 15 minutes in a a burning pool of jet fuel would have lead to the demise of the survivor Ling Young.