911 was an inside job.

[Taco John]

After watching this, I am once and for all convinced that it was an inside job...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81991288263801


The evidence is way too strong.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

Alright based on that ifno. I'll give you Stewarts plane. But if it took 88 minutes to get fighters up there out in the middle of nowhere why couldn't they even get any off the ground in the case of 9-11 when they had over an hour, despite all the action taking place in heavily guarded areas?

I know the answer to that question already but do you?

And again you said that Stewarts plane was THE ONLY time fighters had ever been sent up to intercept lost, off course or suspicious aircraft. You have not addressed that bullshit statement.

You have also failed to address any of my ~7 or so other very basic questions that I asked several pages back.

You have also failed to address any of Mike Ruperts ~100 or so points on his timeline.

So right now it looks like i'm ahead 107 points to 1.

I'd be interested to hear your response to my answer #7 in post #268.

And the way you are keeping score seems a bit biased. You get points for asking questions that may or may not be based on facts but potential challengers only get points if they prove to you that you are wrong beyond a shadow of your doubt? LOL

[B_Ambuehl]

7. What did the terrorist attacks do to the american conscious? (made them want to kick someone's ass right?) Why was the northwoods document drawn up? (to get the american people to "buy in" to a cuban invasion right?) How much support would american people have had for another middle east invasion WITHOUT the terrorist attacks?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they were willing to go this far to fire up the people, why didn't they plant evidence of WMD in Iraq to avoid the egg they've been wiping off their faces for the past 3+ years and any of the loss of support that has gone with it? It seems to me that planting evidence of WMD would have been a hell of a lot easier than pulling a fake 9/11 off.

Well, somebody obviously ****ed up. Maybe they were so confident that there were weapons of mass destruction that they didn't bother? Maybe they hired a bunch of retards who were supposed to do exactly that but ****ed it all up? Maybe their still buried somewhere? It's not something i've looked into really. All I really know is that the *evidence* of WMDs seems to be based on bullshit so maybe after they got the evidence and the clearance to go over there they no longer gave a shit what they found? who knows.

What isn't debatable is that there was a precedent for the proposition of *tricking* the american people by high ranking officials as the northwoods document shows. Unless someone wants to debate that it doesn't really exist and that it's a conspiracy theory too?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

Well, somebody obviously ****ed up. Maybe they were so confident that there were weapons of mass destruction that they didn't bother? Maybe they hired a bunch of retards who were supposed to do exactly that but ****ed it all up? Maybe their still buried somewhere? It's not something i've looked into really. All I really know is that the *evidence* of WMDs seems to be based on bullshit so maybe after they got the evidence and the clearance to go over there they no longer gave a shit what they found? who knows.

What isn't debatable is that there was a precedent for the proposition of *tricking* the american people by high ranking officials as the northwoods document shows. Unless someone wants to debate that it doesn't really exist and that it's a conspiracy theory too?

Why would anyone debate that? Of course the government tries to trick people. But to extrapolate from that to this uber-complex plot to kill thousands of Americans is extraordinary.

[banyon]

A couple of thoughts here:

There are a lot of unanswered questions about 9-11, and these questions will probably not be answered in the near future. However, when large gaps in explanation exist, people try to fill them with their best speculation. That speculation is not going to necessarily going to be accurate, but many will view at least the attempt at an explanation more plausible than denials and silence from the other side.

Our president is currently embroiled in this NSA spying controversy. A lot of you guys on the right say things like "Well if you have nothing to hide, then what do you have to worry about?" Let em' spy away!

But in even the official version of 9-11, the government confiscated the video cameras from the places that were near the Pentagon. They also had very conflicting reports (from the FBI director himself) whether or not the black boxes were recovered (which they always have been).

So, I think what's good for the goose...what's on the tapes/black boxes?

A lot of you guys have tried to explain away the secondary explosions in the Towers with some sort of theory that the explosions we see are just the glass being blown out by the floors collapsing on each other.

This explanation has a couple of problems, which unless you believe that this video is entirely "photoshopped", aren't explained so easily. 1. direct testimony by people in the video indicates that people were injured by explosions that were nowhere near the jet's impact, like the explosions heard in the basement levels both above and below them (which is where you'd want to set explosives normally). 2. More importantly and more difficult to refute (besides just saying the previous guy is a loon), the "flashpoints" that can be seen that Taco is referring to aren't located directly below the floor that is the next to collapse. They are often several (10-15) floors below the collapsing floor. They also are singular points (i.e., one window, not an entire floor). And on some occasions, there are distinct fireball-ish aspects to them that would not be consistent with pressure and glass being blown out. I understand why Taco empasized this aspect of the film, it is rather stunning.

Lastly, I thought the comparison of the hole in the Pentagon to the photos from when we attacked Slobodan Milosevic's hideout with a cruise missile were pretty telling. Why is the grass undisturbed on the Pentagon lawn?


Just some thoughts. Again, these are just unanswered questions, there may be perfectly valid explanations, and I am interested in hearing them.

I have attached a crude diagram of what I am talking about with the "flashpoints" for those that were unable to view the video. Feel free to ridicule and lambaste it, but I'm still perplexed by what's on the video.

[banyon]

FYI, I don't think anyone still knows who started the Reichstag fire.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by banyon

A couple of thoughts here:

There are a lot of unanswered questions about 9-11, and these questions will probably not be answered in the near future. However, when large gaps in explanation exist, people try to fill them with their best speculation. That speculation is not going to necessarily going to be accurate, but many will view at least the attempt at an explanation more plausible than denials and silence from the other side.

Our president is currently embroiled in this NSA spying controversy. A lot of you guys on the right say things like "Well if you have nothing to hide, then what do you have to worry about?" Let em' spy away!

But in even the official version of 9-11, the government confiscated the video cameras from the places that were near the Pentagon. They also had very conflicting reports (from the FBI director himself) whether or not the black boxes were recovered (which they always have been).

So, I think what's good for the goose...what's on the tapes/black boxes?

A lot of you guys have tried to explain away the secondary explosions in the Towers with some sort of theory that the explosions we see are just the glass being blown out by the floors collapsing on each other.

This explanation has a couple of problems, which unless you believe that this video is entirely "photoshopped", aren't explained so easily. 1. direct testimony by people in the video indicates that people were injured by explosions that were nowhere near the jet's impact, like the explosions heard in the basement levels both above and below them (which is where you'd want to set explosives normally). 2. More importantly and more difficult to refute (besides just saying the previous guy is a loon), the "flashpoints" that can be seen that Taco is referring to aren't located directly below the floor that is the next to collapse. They are often several (10-15) floors below the collapsing floor. They also are singular points (i.e., one window, not an entire floor). And on some occasions, there are distinct fireball-ish aspects to them that would not be consistent with pressure and glass being blown out. I understand why Taco empasized this aspect of the film, it is rather stunning.

Lastly, I thought the comparison of the hole in the Pentagon to the photos from when we attacked Slobodan Milosevic's hideout with a cruise missile were pretty telling. Why is the grass undisturbed on the Pentagon lawn?


Just some thoughts. Again, these are just unanswered questions, there may be perfectly valid explanations, and I am interested in hearing them.

I have attached a crude diagram of what I am talking about with the "flashpoints" for those that were unable to view the video. Feel free to ridicule and lambaste it, but I'm still perplexed by what's on the video.

Heh. Another lefty.

[Chiefs Express]

Originally Posted by patteeu

If they were willing to go this far to fire up the people, why didn't they plant evidence of WMD in Iraq to avoid the egg they've been wiping off their faces for the past 3+ years and any of the loss of support that has gone with it? It seems to me that planting evidence of WMD would have been a hell of a lot easier than pulling a fake 9/11 off..

Good point. What I see as the biggest problem in America today is the seperation of values between the democrats and republicans. It isn't just political differences anymore, it's pure hatred. Both sides are involved and neither will back off.

If there is another civil war in America I hope it starts between those two groups in their respective chambers. Maybe then we can elect new senators and congressmen that might be able to see past the differences of party and make some kind of progress for the country.

[Saulbadguy]

Jesus ****ing Christ.

I consider myself a liberal, but

It's not about "believing the media". Its common ****ing sense.

1. Motive? Metrolike said "Contracts for Halliburton, approval rating for Bush." I don't think the millions (billions) of dollars of damage done to both the city, and the US economy, and the thousands of lives lost could equal that.

2. How could you keep all those involved quiet? Nearly impossible for such a thing of this magnitude. Especially considering most of us liberals consider Bush as a bumbling dumbass (Yeah). How could he concoct such a scheme?

3. The video is interesting, but there isn't much data on "what actually happens" when jetliners ram in to huge buildings.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Jesus ****ing Christ.

I consider myself a liberal, but

It's not about "believing the media". Its common ****ing sense.

1. Motive? Metrolike said "Contracts for Halliburton, approval rating for Bush." I don't think the millions (billions) of dollars of damage done to both the city, and the US economy, and the thousands of lives lost could equal that.

2. How could you keep all those involved quiet? Nearly impossible for such a thing of this magnitude. Especially considering most of us liberals consider Bush as a bumbling dumbass (Yeah). How could he concoct such a scheme?

3. The video is interesting, but there isn't much data on "what actually happens" when jetliners ram in to huge buildings.

Shut the hell up; you're ruining my theory!

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by banyon

A couple of thoughts here:

There are a lot of unanswered questions about 9-11, and these questions will probably not be answered in the near future. However, when large gaps in explanation exist, people try to fill them with their best speculation. That speculation is not going to necessarily going to be accurate, but many will view at least the attempt at an explanation more plausible than denials and silence from the other side.

Our president is currently embroiled in this NSA spying controversy. A lot of you guys on the right say things like "Well if you have nothing to hide, then what do you have to worry about?" Let em' spy away!

But in even the official version of 9-11, the government confiscated the video cameras from the places that were near the Pentagon. They also had very conflicting reports (from the FBI director himself) whether or not the black boxes were recovered (which they always have been).

So, I think what's good for the goose...what's on the tapes/black boxes?

A lot of you guys have tried to explain away the secondary explosions in the Towers with some sort of theory that the explosions we see are just the glass being blown out by the floors collapsing on each other.

This explanation has a couple of problems, which unless you believe that this video is entirely "photoshopped", aren't explained so easily. 1. direct testimony by people in the video indicates that people were injured by explosions that were nowhere near the jet's impact, like the explosions heard in the basement levels both above and below them (which is where you'd want to set explosives normally). 2. More importantly and more difficult to refute (besides just saying the previous guy is a loon), the "flashpoints" that can be seen that Taco is referring to aren't located directly below the floor that is the next to collapse. They are often several (10-15) floors below the collapsing floor. They also are singular points (i.e., one window, not an entire floor). And on some occasions, there are distinct fireball-ish aspects to them that would not be consistent with pressure and glass being blown out. I understand why Taco empasized this aspect of the film, it is rather stunning.

Lastly, I thought the comparison of the hole in the Pentagon to the photos from when we attacked Slobodan Milosevic's hideout with a cruise missile were pretty telling. Why is the grass undisturbed on the Pentagon lawn?


Just some thoughts. Again, these are just unanswered questions, there may be perfectly valid explanations, and I am interested in hearing them.

I have attached a crude diagram of what I am talking about with the "flashpoints" for those that were unable to view the video. Feel free to ridicule and lambaste it, but I'm still perplexed by what's on the video.

Yeah, genious. I have altered your crude diagram with my hypothesis.

[Chiefs Express]

Originally Posted by banyon

...

I have attached a crude diagram of what I am talking about with the "flashpoints" for those that were unable to view the video. Feel free to ridicule and lambaste it, but I'm still perplexed by what's on the video.

Your diagram does not seem to match up with the video I've seen from 9/11. I cannot view the fake one TJ put up at work, I may watch it and compare it to what I remember from the original videos. I did have a few clips saved on my hard drive but I haven't viewed them for some time.

First, IF there were explosions inside the WTC, who determines that it was Bush that had them set? Do you not think there is the remotest possibility that if OBL was going to go as far as he did that he might have some contingency plans just in case the planes did not topple the towers in the same manner that he attempted in 1993?

I am totally amazed that anyone besides the most whacked out liberal could even think, let alone accuse, the administration of orchestrating the attacks on 9/11. (That tells you where I place TJ and his tactics when it comes to the President and the administration.)

Civil and Structural Engineers explained much of what happened using scientific methods and forensic engineering shortly after 9/11. I don't understand everything that I read regarding the failures in the structure of the WTC, but it was not ridiculed by other engineers and engineering groups.

There are far too many people that would doctor a video to cast aspersions on the government for political reasons. The current level of hatred that the democratic leadership show should be plain enough for anyone to see. The democratic party is killing itself off and they have no recourse but to try to discredit anything related to the republican party.

The video is fake.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Yeah, genious. I have altered your crude diagram with my hypothesis.

[banyon]

Originally Posted by Chiefs Express

First, IF there were explosions inside the WTC, who determines that it was Bush that had them set? Do you not think there is the remotest possibility that if OBL was going to go as far as he did that he might have some contingency plans just in case the planes did not topple the towers in the same manner that he attempted in 1993?

I am totally amazed that anyone besides the most whacked out liberal could even think, let alone accuse, the administration of orchestrating the attacks on 9/11. (That tells you where I place TJ and his tactics when it comes to the President and the administration.)

The video is fake.

Yeah...that's what I said before you started jerking your knee.

Originally Posted by banyon

Just some thoughts. Again, these are just unanswered questions, there may be perfectly valid explanations, and I am interested in hearing them.

So, yeah, if terrorists wanted to blow up the towers, why wouldn't they try to get at the foundations? That's what they tried to do the first time. So yeah, it could just as easily be their op. as it could be da debil Bush.

As for the video being fake...it is composed of live feeds from Fox and CNN, so there are original copies to verify it against.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by banyon

So, yeah, if terrorists wanted to blow up the towers, why wouldn't they try to get at the foundations? That's what they tried to do the first time. So yeah, it could just as easily be their op. as it could be da debil Bush.

Because it didn't work the first time. And, security in and around the garage was greatly increased after 1993.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Donger

Because it didn't work the first time. And, security in and around the garage was greatly increased after 1993.

Did that security include bomb sniffing dogs?