By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Was 911 an inside job?

 

Was it?

No 109 98.20%
 
Total:109
Pemalite said:

Personally, I'm amazed how much "attention" 9/11 gets when the amount of people that died in the incident was relatively trivial compared to other causes.

For example there are about 30,000 firearm-related deaths per year in the USA.
Motor vehicle related deaths account for about 32,000 a year.
On average 10 people per day die from drowning. (Or about 40,000 people since September 11th.)

And yet, all of these have a much much much much higher death toll and receive little/no attention, go figure.

I'm not saying those that perished shouldn't be remembered and respected, but I do think priorities should be changed around and re-focused on other things to save more lives.

9/11 gets much attention not just because of its 3,000 innocent American casualties, but because of its implications on the future of America, which may lead to far greater casualties. Since 9/11, the government has used it as a pretext to take away many of our civil liberties. The Patriot Act, the Military Tribunals Act, end of Posse Comitatus, Department of Homeland Security, leverage for the launching of the two illgeal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, war on terror, etc. This event is the leverage to bring America closer towards a police state, and most Americans sadly don't seem to notice or care. The fact that so many of my fellow Americans have been duped into this false flag operation designed to take away our freedoms and bring us closer to martial law not far removed from Nazi Germany makes me very sad and increasingly difficult to to support my own country.



Around the Network
chris_wing said:

What I'm saying is they knew the attacks were coming, ether because "AQ" was carrying it out or they themselves were going to (I don't know & nether do you).  Once you see it coming and you need a massive disaster to drive the people to war you want to make it as big as possible.  To make it as big as possible you plant steel cutting explosives (I believe thermite is classified as an explosive) in the target so that it turns out as bad as possible with the buildings going down.  If the building didn't go down the emotional impact of the attack would have been much much less.  It wouldn't take thousands of people to place explosives at key points in the building.  A small team with total access could do the job easy.  They weren't stripping the building, they were planting explosives.

As for WMD's in Iraq, they all ready got what they wanted, why tempt fate?

 

So how dout those temps in the rubble?

This theory is even sillier than "the government did it".  So you think the government knew the targets and the day far enough in advance that they could rig two ~1400 ft buildings and a ~600 ft building for demolition?  All with nobody noticing?  Not only that, but they knew exactly where the planes would hit since the buildings failed at the strike zone.  Even more, they managed to create some sort of capsule for this thermite that wouldn't be destroyed by an airliner slamming into it.  You are severely underestimating the logistics of rigging a building of this size for demolition.  Especially doing it while tens of thousands of people are working there daily.

I've yet to see any actual evidence of pools of molten steel in the rubble pile.  There were certainly still pockets that were smoldering, but that's no different from other piles of burning material.  That doesn't provide any evidence for thermite being used.  Especially not in the tiny quantity you have implied they used.  In the broadest definition, thermite could be considered an explosive, but then so is a piece of wood.

Once again, it comes back to "why?".  Why make the plan so complicated?  Why rely on an external enemy to help hatch your diabolical plot?  Why kill thousands of your own people to start a war in Afghanistan when apparently a lie worked just as well for Iraq.  Why bother rigging WTC 7?  Did they also rig 3, 4, 5, and 6?  All of this is just regarding the WTC, there is a whole host of theories for the Pentagon and Flight 93 that further complicate things.



I'm still in doubt about this one. A lot of things sounds like it was a real terrorist attack, but other things sounds like the govnerment was using this terrorist attack for their own use.
If it is really an inside job, I would be stunned about the capabilities of the govnerments/secret services in these times where information etc is only seconds away.

But we have to be honest, govnerments/secret services etc (or the people who are really pulling the strings) have done crazy things in the past to get done what they wanted by blaming others for something they did or ignoring warnings and use those actions for their own purpose.



PDF said:
snyps said:
PDF said:
I don't believe it was an inside job because ...

that;s reasonable.  We went to afganistan to ...

 ...  still far from convinced.


thanks for response



Operation Himmler

"I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth."

Adolf Hitler, 22 August, 1939



Around the Network
PDF said:
snyps said:
PDF said:
I don't believe it was an inside job because nothing that happened afterward lends any real credibility to it being an inside job. Why would we want to go to Afghanistan? If it was an inside job, surely we would have chose another country to use.

If it was an inside job George Bush would not have been reading a book to children when his master plan was happening. He definitely would not have let his fall guy Osama get away. None of it makes sense if it was an inside job. People give Bush administration way to much credit claiming it was conspiracy.


that;s reasonable.  We went to afganistan:

to build a pipeline through it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

to open the opium trade. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1840182.stm

creation of a nationless enemy for pupetual war (profit).  http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/dehumanization

strategic geographical base of operation http://www.mediamonitors.net/ahamin2.html

 

 

it wasn't bush who did it. this isn't partisan.  both parties have blood on their hands.  it's the worlds ruling families in charge of the world trade organization, the international monetary fund, and world bank.  And osama got away because it was important to keep up support for war.. this war was meant to be perpetual.

Wish I would of seen your post before I responded back to the other guy.  Its really late for me so I am going to respond to the rest of  your post tomorrow.

Going off what I know without much research.  I am pretty sure the Oil pipeline was never built.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline

So we stopped Opium in Afghanistan just to give other markets a chance?  Thats really a good reason for going to war?

Surely they could have got Osama once Iraq War was underway.  It would have locked up 2004 election.

 

I have more questions, and I will admit thats the best at answering them I have recieved yet but im still far from convinced.

I must admit that it sounds all so crazy, but I know that before US (with help from other countries) went into war with Iraq (for the second time, but the first time they didn't finished the job, because the goal changed from freeing the people of Iraq, to just have Kuweit for the oil) the regions where already settled with the cooperating countries. The Netherlands and the UK got a part where Shell and BP could get their oil.
If USA would go immediatly after Bin Laden instead of going into Iraq it would made more sense!!Afghanistan is a hard to get country(no one really ever won a war in Afhanistan) but their products and location is very interesting for different reasons. One reason I could think of is the Opium which is used for making morphine, codeine and because a lot of money is earned with these two, when you have the strings about the production you can stop your enemies to earn money of it.(which the Taliban did to get their money to fund their weapons etc)

Don't forget that next to Oil/Gas also Pharma industries is very big.



I'm undecided. On the one hand, I believe 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but the government eventually knew of the plans and still let them happen.

So it might be similar to the Kennedy shooting. Lyndon B. Johnson most probably wasn't the man who ordered or organized the killing, but he knew of the plan at least one day in advance, didn't prevent it, and later took steps to ensure the full truth wouldn't be revealed. Does that make the Kennedy shooting an "inside job"? I wouldn't say so.

But on the other hand, the "they only let it happen"- explanation still doesn't explain WTC 7. I just don't know what to think about WTC 7, and in this case the inside job/controlled demolution theory really seems like the most plausible to me.





I am the black sheep     "of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong."-Robert Anton Wilson

Flight 77 DID hit the Pentagon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1wQ2BJsgx0&list=UUdNkRyt3S0oTQQdzlKJtXyg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=989BqQ0WF2A&list=UUdNkRyt3S0oTQQdzlKJtXyg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTNRkb7AaQk&list=UUdNkRyt3S0oTQQdzlKJtXyg



"Success really is decided at birth, and your life will never be better than it is right now. Sorry about that."

True meaning of a 'New Pearl Harbor'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XebFE_7N-Dk&list=UUdNkRyt3S0oTQQdzlKJtXyg



"Success really is decided at birth, and your life will never be better than it is right now. Sorry about that."