What's new

Was 9/11 an inside job?

There are odd things about it.

Terrorists crashed two jumbo jets into two of the biggest buildings ever constructed and a third into one of the world's most secured buildings. It's an incredibly unusual event, and nothing has happened like it before or since. Therefore there are bound to be odd things, as it's never happened before.

Hell, there are enough horrific and interesting things that the US has actually done, without the need to make up things they didn't do.

A good example would be in the 50's. The people of Guatamala democratically elected a left-wing president, who decided to take land owned but not used by the American United Fruit Company and their representatives in the country, and give it to the extremely poor population to grow food on for themselves. In 1945 2.2% of the countries population owned 70% of the land but only 12% was being used.

The president also enacted many other social reforms, strengthening the rights of United Fruit workers to form unions. The United Fruit company complained to the CIA, and they started working together on a coup to overthrow the democratic government. The CIA used their muscle to arm and support a violent thug named Armas who overthrew the government and established a military dictatorship.

He banned political parties, reversed the land reforms, and formed a death squad at the advice of the CIA, hunting down and murdering left wing intellectuals and trade unionists. For four decades, right-wing dictators ruled Guatamala and between 140,000 to 250,000 Guatemalans were killed.

All of that is completely true and well-known about. The CIA did the same in Chile in the 1970's and installed Pinochet, who tortured around 35,000 people and killed thousands. The atrocities the United States actually has committed are far worse and more interesting than any hogwash conspiracy bullsh*t. :)
 
Was 9/11 an inside job?

Lol, no, and I couldn't give a toss if it was.
 
It was the jewish lizard people that breath fire and wear top hats and monocles.

Blates, I have video proof in true fuzzy quality format.
 
semicontrolled_demolition.png
 
UC said:
Its actually pretty annoying when people say 9/11 was an inside job. The people that believe this ludicrous story normally won't listen to any sort of logic and just reply with utter rubbish to try and validate their point.

Its no different than saying the holocaust didn't happen. Its all just utter BS.

Bingo.

And bingo to everyone else, except Karen.

Ok did I say that I thought it was an inside job? No I DIDN'T!!!!

I just stated that it was odd how the Towers came down!

That doesn't mean I think it was an inside job!

I'm just making the point of how little metal remained yet there was loads of paper. Surely it would of been the other way round? Paper burns alot easier than metal!

I watched this live on tv, I watched the second plane hit, I watched them fall! It sicken me. I still have papers with the story in them. However it happened, at the end of the day IT SHOULDN'T OF!
 
^I don't understand, what do you mean there was less metal?
 
Well the paper was blown out by the explosion and the shockwave through the building, also blew windows out in lower floors so the paper gushed out the windows (being the lightest thing) and probably kept swirling out because winds at 900ft are quite high. Plus the paper was probably still swirling at that height for ages.

Where as metal hits the floor in seconds because it's metal. Plus after the towers fell the metal got tangled and squashed, so looks smaller.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -photo.jpg

Shows how much metal there was.
 
I was watching a video today of the South Tower collapsing and you can see where the heat was so intense there is molten metal pouring off the side of the building, someone would speculate it's thermite. But obvious it's intense fire melting metal.
 
^Well that's all thermite is really, molten metal, it's just cos the heat is so intense it's a very dramatic effect.

I agree with Dave and UC, and they've both managed to say what I think so much better than I could.
 
I know there are rational explanations for all the things that conspiracy theories use as evidence, but I like it when someone who knows more about this sort of thing than I do explains all this 'evidence' away.

One of the main things about the theory that threw me was that amongst the rubble there were photos of support beams that had clearly been sliced at an angle they are sliced at during controlled demolition. This was one of the stronger arguments for why it was an inside job because the steel structure wouldn't have melted into such a perfect, straight cut.

Can someone explain that away for me so I can be content =]
 
^Well right now I can't think of a completely fool proof answer, but two things:

1) Are you sure they were perfectly straight? Could it just have been that the picture was taken from a distance not allowing a clear enough view of the 'cut'? I'm not doubting you, I just can't recall the image.

2) Could they have been beams that were at angles, supporting cross-braces if you like, that are simply cut from the start and in the tangled mess of debris they look like they're from vertical sections?

Just two thoughts.
 
I really don't know what to think, I do still find it really fishy that a Delta plane was forced to land at Atlanta due to a terrorism scare, and 5 minutes after, United 93 supposedly landed there, and the tail number that the aircraft was said to have, was spotted by airplane enthusiasts too, and I thought it was brilliant timing for the owner of the WTC, a week or so before the insurance for the towers shot up by millions... BOOM! YAY I'M RICHER! and also the government saying "we need a new pearl harbour", and the fact they confiscated the CCTV cameras from the pentagon, and United 93 and American 77 like completely vanished, and their transponders were both turned off for about 30 minutes, perfect time to land at another airport, and send up drones or what ever? But then where did the passengers go, did they have to change their identity... seems unlikely, were they massacred, knowing our planet, maybe.
 
Jools said:
I really don't know what to think, I do still find it really fishy that a Delta plane was forced to land at Atlanta due to a terrorism scare, and 5 minutes after, United 93 supposedly landed there, and the tail number that the aircraft was said to have, was spotted by airplane enthusiasts too, and I thought it was brilliant timing for the owner of the WTC, a week or so before the insurance for the towers shot up by millions... BOOM! YAY I'M RICHER! and also the government saying "we need a new pearl harbour", and the fact they confiscated the CCTV cameras from the pentagon, and United 93 and American 77 like completely vanished, and their transponders were both turned off for about 30 minutes, perfect time to land at another airport, and send up drones or what ever? But then where did the passengers go, did they have to change their identity... seems unlikely, were they massacred, knowing our planet, maybe.

Well yeah, I'm convinced.
 
nadroJ said:
I know there are rational explanations for all the things that conspiracy theories use as evidence, but I like it when someone who knows more about this sort of thing than I do explains all this 'evidence' away.

One of the main things about the theory that threw me was that amongst the rubble there were photos of support beams that had clearly been sliced at an angle they are sliced at during controlled demolition. This was one of the stronger arguments for why it was an inside job because the steel structure wouldn't have melted into such a perfect, straight cut.

Can someone explain that away for me so I can be content =]

You mean similar to this;
aftermath-book-cover.jpg


Where it seems perfectly straight?
The outer shell of the Tower is made of almost a noughts and crosses board steel section and fitted together at the middle, like this:

nist.gif


Then it slots together nice and easy and builds quickly, and even in construction it looks like how it unfortunatley collapsed:
cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.2.jpg


So when it fell it started peeling off each other, and it is quite a sturdy construction, hence why in some videos of the North Tower you can see large sections of it standing before it collapsed eventually.

Now time to remember I do photography not architecture.
 
Could the fact that both (?) towers both continued underground which could also contribute to the whole "not that much debris" argument.

When I went to NY a while ago we did go past ground zero during a tour and it was a really ****ing deep hole there.
 
Top