Was 9/11 an inside job?
- Thread starter nadroJ
- Start date
TP Rich said:
I stand corrected, okay. However, "research" isn't limited to finding arguments at conspiracy sites and backing them up with selected pieces of statistics. It's about understanding the principles behind what happened, then looking at ALL the evidence, THEN drawing a conclusion.
Well, the building was struck at an angle, so the gap wouldn't have been as wide. This video sums it up excellently. Note the lack of ALL CAPS, exclamation marks, shady music or poor grammar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQk ... re=related
Also, as seen in the video, whatever hit the Pentagon surely knocked over several lamp posts with some force. These are not plasma-cut off, or slit off by hydraulic cutters, but were struck at high speeds by something, as is evident from the photos in the video. The video also shows photos of what clearly is plane debris, in a resolution higher than 4*4px.
Also, security cameras don't film in HD. The camera in question was meant to supervise whatever happened by the security booth. Simply put, the Pentagon wasn't at all prepared for this type of attack (well, the struck section of the building happened to be reinforced prior to the event, that has to be said). Nobody had ever imagined an attack like this. Plane hijackings were nothing new, but they usually ended with a hostage situation. Nobody was prepared for a suicide attack from a civilian airliner, in peace time. Nobody watched the sky. It was the unexpectedness of the attack that made it so effective.
Well, wreckage was salvaged afterwards. At some point, a United Airline plane hit that field. There were eye-witnesses to the crash. DNA of the passengers was found. Of course, debris isn't visible on all the photos taken there afterwards, but using that to "debunk" the crash is about as intelligent as saying, for instance, that some guy wasn't present at a party because he doesn't appear in all the pictures from the event.
I don't see a reason to doubt the titanic amount of evidence gathered, even if a government did gather it (who else would?). Would you say the London or Madrid bombings were inside jobs? Princess Diana's death? 22/7? The attack on the school in Beslan? Michael Jackson passing away? The sinking of the Titanic? The assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary? Just google "[event] + inside job", you're almost guaranteed to get results. People love a good conspiracy theory, the feeling of being correct when everybody else is wrong or unknowing. And conspiracies sell quite well too.
Also, without government... well, I guess you could have a look at Somalia or rural parts of Afghanistan. They haven't had a government for some twenty years (or some few hundred years in the case of Afghanistan). In short, nobody to take care of healthcare, education, national defense, law and order, civil rights, etc. Works just about as well as you'd expect.
You're looking at the building from the wrong angle, at the wrong time, and dismissig the shower of concrete and steel that peltered the side of the tower when the North tower came down. And again, the properties of steel aren't limited to "solid" and "liquid". You have thermal expansion (ask your Chemistry teacher), crystallization, and that the amount of Carbon in the steel (Steel is basically an alloy of Iron and Iron Carbide, plus some "free" Carbon) varies with the temperature. Heat up steel, and it gets softer (ask your Chemistry teacher again), to the point that it can't hold the strain any more.
Here, have fun reading:
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1 ... Cpaper.pdf
Okay, then, how "should" the buildings have collapsed? Tipping over like a tree felled by a lumberjack, perhaps? For that to happen, you need a pivotal point capable of withstanding the weight of the section above it, as well as a force pushing the top section off balance. Look up the term "center of mass", as well as the previous posts in this topic. Simply put, if you cut off all the supports holding such a heavy structure up on one side, the weight of the top section will be distributed over to the other half, and if they can't stand the weight, they will bend and the top section will fall straight down before it gets time to topple.
Demolition by airplane involves using an airplane to cut some important supports, controlled demolition involves using explosives to cut some important supports. The "falling into rubble" part happens either way. And the motion would almost always be straight down. Gravity and all that jazz, you know.
Bottom line, I'm still open to the notion that the US government were behind the attacks. I don't believe it personally, but I'm not totally against the idea. However, don't try to tell me that planes weren't involved. If somebody within in the US government wanted to stage something like this, they could just pay al-Qaeda to hijack planes through some discreet third party, and make sure the terrorists got through security unhindered. Neither effort, expensive technology or unusual amounts of secrecy would be required. They could even set out rumours of controlled demolition later to throw the world off-trail.
Smithy
Strata Poster
TP Rich said:Now THIS is a thread I can really get into!
Until UC or Furie comes along, makes a monster post and you whinge that it's your opinion or you just don't bother replying in general, right?
WHATISTHISIDONTEVEN.
Right.
First of all, if it's only 15%, it's not ''common'', is it?
Secondly, even suggesting that what holds you argument up is this ''common'' sense, already suggests to me that you know nothing, nada, zilch, about engineering.
I'll give you this detail. I'll be 'blunt'.
Give me some solid, sound, factual evidence.
Not pictures.
Not questionairres.
Not horrifically poor comparisons.
Give me some facts.
TP Rich said:
Hahahahaha, I feel I have to go back and quote myself to respond accurately to this one.
Smithy said:
Why the **** should we do the leg work when YOU are the one making such outlandish claims with ZERO factual backing.
You'll notice I've not actually bothered to question any of your comments regarding 9/11 itself. And there's a very good reason for that. I know you, I've seen how you 'defend' your opinion; doing so would merely be a monumental waste of my time, and given you're the only halfbreed in here holding such an opinion, I have no need to make the effort.
**** it.
tl'dr - You're a **** simpleton.
Oh rofl, in writing this UC came and did exactly what I thought he would. Have fun.
UC is right though, working for a bank at the time I lost people I knew in the buildings we had no idea who made it out and who did not. People need to get their facts right when they are claiming thousands were killed by the government. The facts that have been posted are just rubbish and cannot be used, yet people are being asked to prove it was not an internal job lol.
Yes some people think its an inside job, fair enough. None of the so called evidence matches up and it's 100% impossible to recreate what happened.
Most of us have common sense and know it was not.
There is no way on this planet a government would do this, thousands died and it could have been worse.
Yes some people think its an inside job, fair enough. None of the so called evidence matches up and it's 100% impossible to recreate what happened.
Most of us have common sense and know it was not.
There is no way on this planet a government would do this, thousands died and it could have been worse.
Mark
Strata Poster
I'll be totally honest here and say way back just after it happened, there was soooo much of this conspiracy crap out there that I did start to wonder. I don't know what made me think it, perhaps it was part anger or part fear. Christ it may have even been my age and naivety at the time! It is totally irrational to think that a government would do that to themselves for any motive I know but there I was. Im actually a little embarressed to think that I almost bought into it all, but I am honest enough to admit, that I started to think some of it was making sense. Of course some of theories start to get compelling but that is exactly what a conspiracy theory is. They appeal to sensationalism and controversy, something that humans en masse seem to have a disposition for.
However, in subsequent years, as I have learned more, seen more documented study and actual evidence I agree with UC, Smithy and others. The conspiracy theories are ridiculous and so wholly far-fetched. I don't need to list all the evidence that convinces me of this, since UC has done it all for me. As far as I am concerned, they HAVE supplied enough evidence to disprove the conspiracy. Its that simple!
Say it were all true for 1 second. Think about the damage it would cause if the 'truth' ever got out. I'd go so far as to say that an inside job on that scale would anhiliate the US government in front of the whole world. Just imagine what the backlash from the whole world would be. Do you honestly think the US government would proceed with any plan that had even the slightest risk of something getting out and therefore have such a devasting effect? Not on your life would they. It is totally illogical and frankly ludicrous to think that a government would take such a risk, hence my embarrassment in nearly falling for it all those years ago.
One note. I know this topic can get very heated and very personal for people but I will ask that you at least try and refrain from name calling. It really doesnt strengthen your point. If the topic just disolves into you this and you that its just pointless and will be locked.
However, in subsequent years, as I have learned more, seen more documented study and actual evidence I agree with UC, Smithy and others. The conspiracy theories are ridiculous and so wholly far-fetched. I don't need to list all the evidence that convinces me of this, since UC has done it all for me. As far as I am concerned, they HAVE supplied enough evidence to disprove the conspiracy. Its that simple!
Say it were all true for 1 second. Think about the damage it would cause if the 'truth' ever got out. I'd go so far as to say that an inside job on that scale would anhiliate the US government in front of the whole world. Just imagine what the backlash from the whole world would be. Do you honestly think the US government would proceed with any plan that had even the slightest risk of something getting out and therefore have such a devasting effect? Not on your life would they. It is totally illogical and frankly ludicrous to think that a government would take such a risk, hence my embarrassment in nearly falling for it all those years ago.
One note. I know this topic can get very heated and very personal for people but I will ask that you at least try and refrain from name calling. It really doesnt strengthen your point. If the topic just disolves into you this and you that its just pointless and will be locked.
Late to the party, very busy doing exceptionally complicated technical things that most people wouldn't understand, though I'm sure there's a Youtube video explaining how it's all my fault that begins with the words "I'm not an IT professional, but..." and then claiming common sense
Feel free to keep your common sense, I'll stick with my extraordinary sense thanks
Okay, most of the "answering" has been done by engineers/physicists/chemists already... You know? Those people who start professional journals with phrases like "I am an engineer SO...", or "Being a chemist, I KNOW...", those annoying people who study a single subject for many years and actually know things.
So, I shall come at this from a different angle. You don't actually need to debunk any conspiracy theories from "proof on the ground" level. These people are essentially "Chicken Licken".
An acorn lands on the ground. Having no understanding of the life cycle of an oak tree or gravity, he assumes that the entire sky must be falling down and runs around to tell everyone. It's a typical "see the effect without understand the cause" principle at work.
What happens is that Chicken Licken has his acorn of proof. If I said to him "that's a tiny tree waiting to grow", he'd say "but I've seen trees and they're huge and nothing like this, that's just stupid". So I'd have to explain about how trees grow, photosynthesis, capillary action, osmosis and perhaps even the quantum physics bound within photosynthesis. I may have to start explaining about evolution.
The problem is, Chicken Licken doesn't really understand this, because "common sense" says that you can't grow giant oaks from tiny acorns. So he asks "Goosey Loosey", a kind of "Furie Curie says that acorns can just fall from the sky and the reason is because they grow into oaks!". Goosey Loosey says he's been around the farm yard for ten years and has never seen such a thing (okay, he lives on the other side of the farm were there are no trees, but we won't mention that as it might make people doubt him). So Chicken Licken presents that on a website that proves that acorns can't grow into oaks.
He then approaches Swanny Lonny who agrees that acorns can't fall from the sky because there can't be such a thing as gravity, after all, he can fly. If something as huge and lumbering as a swan can fly, then an acorn could very easily. It must have been pushed down by that evil Foxy Loxy.
All of a sudden you have a bad guy doing all of this.
The point is that you need to start from the other side. It's cause and effect, so you look at the cause to begin with.
Why is Foxy Loxy (George W Bush) throwing acorns at the farm animals? If he wanted to, he could simply just kill anyone he wanted, but instead went to great lengths to chuck nuts about. And let's face it, Foxy Loxy isn't the one chucking nuts about here.
Why kill 7,000 people in a massively extravagant multiple attack on your own people? Was it to try and justify a war? If it was, then why make such a huge lie when you could have just said "our intelligence services have evidence that there are nuclear arms in Iraq". It's a more elegant lie and does the same job with no loss of life. The US citizens didn't need a massacre to jump into a war. So what is the reason?
That's your "cause", once you have that you can then start to build up a profile of what happened and does it fit the cause. The problem is that people are using the effect and building a cause from it; "acorn on head, sky must be falling". The issue is that for it to work, you have to ignore experts on the subjects involved.
There's a "source" you quoted which said "I called some aircraft pilots and asked them and they said..." That's not evidence. Who were the aircraft pilots? What exactly did they say? Do you have the transcript of the interview? What is the experience of those pilots in area being questioned? Were they really 757 pilots or crop dusters pilots?
Yet when an expert in plane crash forensics presents a 200 page document of evidence and findings based on 20 years of professional learning and experience, they're ignored "because they must be working for government". When the evidence is debunked, call in the conspiracy. The problem is that everything relies completely on the conspiracy being true. Something nobody can actually prove, or even justify other than "the government is evil". It's all acorns being stacked to prove a cause rather than looking at the cause and seeing how well it fits the effect.
1. Some grainy CCTV and hearsay proves that the government conspired to murder thousands of their own people.
2. A terrorist organisation with a history of hatred towards the American people organise themselves well enough to create a hideous act of terrorism (which they are famed for) create a series of attacks that pan out exactly as we see them panning out, backed by both the terrorists involved and experts who studied the aftermath for official documents describing precisely what happened using professionalism, science, experience and above all intelligence.
The latter works without any need for anything to made up. You don't need imagination for it to work simply because it's true. As soon as you need to start inventing things, it starts to fall apart.
Imagine the two arguments as pyramids. The "it was a terror attack" argument is a normal pyramid with a wide, square base. The conspiracy theory is trying to demolish the pyramid starting at the point and working down. It chips away here and there, but the pyramid as a whole remains solid.
The conspiracy argument turns the pyramid upside down. It's already unbalanced with the huge "the rulers of the world are under control of the Masons" theory on the top that everything goes back to, but people debunking the conspiracy chip away at the point. One chip and it all falls down. So the conspiracy theorists rebuild it the same way again with a new argument, and it collapse again. There's no solid foundation so the argument can't sustain any damage.
The problem is confounded by conspiracy theorists using rubber mallets to chip away and everyone else is using a jack hammer against their pyramid.
Again, people need to learn about burden of proof. Anyone who believes this was a terrorist attack doesn't need to "prove it". It IS what happened and has been proven by experts. Until experts disprove it, that's what happened. So far, there hasn't been any expert proof that disproves anything.
Was that long enough? Good job Pokemaniac and UC covered ground before me
TP Rich said:
Feel free to keep your common sense, I'll stick with my extraordinary sense thanks
Okay, most of the "answering" has been done by engineers/physicists/chemists already... You know? Those people who start professional journals with phrases like "I am an engineer SO...", or "Being a chemist, I KNOW...", those annoying people who study a single subject for many years and actually know things.
So, I shall come at this from a different angle. You don't actually need to debunk any conspiracy theories from "proof on the ground" level. These people are essentially "Chicken Licken".
An acorn lands on the ground. Having no understanding of the life cycle of an oak tree or gravity, he assumes that the entire sky must be falling down and runs around to tell everyone. It's a typical "see the effect without understand the cause" principle at work.
What happens is that Chicken Licken has his acorn of proof. If I said to him "that's a tiny tree waiting to grow", he'd say "but I've seen trees and they're huge and nothing like this, that's just stupid". So I'd have to explain about how trees grow, photosynthesis, capillary action, osmosis and perhaps even the quantum physics bound within photosynthesis. I may have to start explaining about evolution.
The problem is, Chicken Licken doesn't really understand this, because "common sense" says that you can't grow giant oaks from tiny acorns. So he asks "Goosey Loosey", a kind of "Furie Curie says that acorns can just fall from the sky and the reason is because they grow into oaks!". Goosey Loosey says he's been around the farm yard for ten years and has never seen such a thing (okay, he lives on the other side of the farm were there are no trees, but we won't mention that as it might make people doubt him). So Chicken Licken presents that on a website that proves that acorns can't grow into oaks.
He then approaches Swanny Lonny who agrees that acorns can't fall from the sky because there can't be such a thing as gravity, after all, he can fly. If something as huge and lumbering as a swan can fly, then an acorn could very easily. It must have been pushed down by that evil Foxy Loxy.
All of a sudden you have a bad guy doing all of this.
The point is that you need to start from the other side. It's cause and effect, so you look at the cause to begin with.
Why is Foxy Loxy (George W Bush) throwing acorns at the farm animals? If he wanted to, he could simply just kill anyone he wanted, but instead went to great lengths to chuck nuts about. And let's face it, Foxy Loxy isn't the one chucking nuts about here.
Why kill 7,000 people in a massively extravagant multiple attack on your own people? Was it to try and justify a war? If it was, then why make such a huge lie when you could have just said "our intelligence services have evidence that there are nuclear arms in Iraq". It's a more elegant lie and does the same job with no loss of life. The US citizens didn't need a massacre to jump into a war. So what is the reason?
That's your "cause", once you have that you can then start to build up a profile of what happened and does it fit the cause. The problem is that people are using the effect and building a cause from it; "acorn on head, sky must be falling". The issue is that for it to work, you have to ignore experts on the subjects involved.
There's a "source" you quoted which said "I called some aircraft pilots and asked them and they said..." That's not evidence. Who were the aircraft pilots? What exactly did they say? Do you have the transcript of the interview? What is the experience of those pilots in area being questioned? Were they really 757 pilots or crop dusters pilots?
Yet when an expert in plane crash forensics presents a 200 page document of evidence and findings based on 20 years of professional learning and experience, they're ignored "because they must be working for government". When the evidence is debunked, call in the conspiracy. The problem is that everything relies completely on the conspiracy being true. Something nobody can actually prove, or even justify other than "the government is evil". It's all acorns being stacked to prove a cause rather than looking at the cause and seeing how well it fits the effect.
1. Some grainy CCTV and hearsay proves that the government conspired to murder thousands of their own people.
2. A terrorist organisation with a history of hatred towards the American people organise themselves well enough to create a hideous act of terrorism (which they are famed for) create a series of attacks that pan out exactly as we see them panning out, backed by both the terrorists involved and experts who studied the aftermath for official documents describing precisely what happened using professionalism, science, experience and above all intelligence.
The latter works without any need for anything to made up. You don't need imagination for it to work simply because it's true. As soon as you need to start inventing things, it starts to fall apart.
Imagine the two arguments as pyramids. The "it was a terror attack" argument is a normal pyramid with a wide, square base. The conspiracy theory is trying to demolish the pyramid starting at the point and working down. It chips away here and there, but the pyramid as a whole remains solid.
The conspiracy argument turns the pyramid upside down. It's already unbalanced with the huge "the rulers of the world are under control of the Masons" theory on the top that everything goes back to, but people debunking the conspiracy chip away at the point. One chip and it all falls down. So the conspiracy theorists rebuild it the same way again with a new argument, and it collapse again. There's no solid foundation so the argument can't sustain any damage.
The problem is confounded by conspiracy theorists using rubber mallets to chip away and everyone else is using a jack hammer against their pyramid.
Again, people need to learn about burden of proof. Anyone who believes this was a terrorist attack doesn't need to "prove it". It IS what happened and has been proven by experts. Until experts disprove it, that's what happened. So far, there hasn't been any expert proof that disproves anything.
Was that long enough? Good job Pokemaniac and UC covered ground before me
reddude333
Giga Poster
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0[/youtube]
Sorry, couldn't resist
Sorry, couldn't resist
reddude333
Giga Poster
^That makes me sad :-(
But oh so very happy someone else has a "good" sense of humor
But oh so very happy someone else has a "good" sense of humor