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
JoeTheBro said:

With the stupid, stupid, and even more stupid thread/conspiracy theory about the Sandy Hook tragedy, I feel obliged to make this thread about 911. 11 years later people still strongly believe it wasn't a terrorist attack. Meanwhile I've had 11 years to research it and disprove this crazy theory. So basically there are three outcomes of this thread. The first is you will present evidence that can't be disproved in which case I'll admit 911 was probably faked. The second outcome is me discrediting ALL of your evidence and you admitting it wasn't faked. The third and most likely outcome is people will use shady tactics and not actually care about logic sending this thread in a downward spiral of doom. So go ahead, try and convince me 911 is more than meets the eye. I don't want you just posting videos, I want your own thoughts and words.

 

Fellow members that agree it wasn't an inside job can feel free to help prove my point.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "inside job".  Does complete incompetence and lack of execution in most levels of the federal government count? 



The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

Around the Network

I've been following this site for a very long time and considered joining on many occasions, but it was this thread that eventually persuaded me to dip my toe in the maelstrom. I haven't got anything to contribute here because I think there are many open minded posters that have already done so, and done so well. What I will say is that I accept coincidence and many things are 'possible' even if they appear designed. It's all well and good opting for that to favour a view but 'everything' should be evaluated together because it's the weight of ALL that evidence and the proposition that these 'improbablities' happened on the same day in the same place, that makes this debate so compelling. Do I believe that it was an inside job? I don't believe in conspiricy theories, just evidence, so on that level, I can't see there beiing any other explanation.



timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
This is the second time you have posted something not pertaining to my argument. That source claims the wings impacted the Pentagon - photos debunk this notion. Physics debunks this notion. Maybe instead of using some random youtube video and touting is as "expert" opinion (LMFAO) do some ACTUAL research, but you don't quite seem capable of attempting to objectively analyze a particular dataset or find credible sources, so I'll leave you with this gem.

I saw pretty clear evidence of impact beyond the 'hole' in the side of the building clearly lining up with where wings would be. The pentagon is reinforced much better than the towers, so it's very probable the wings were not strong enogh to penetrate the structure and were obliterated instead. In addition, the wings contact with multiple light poles, a large generator, and a ground structure (all of which have photographic evidence), would weaken the wing structure significantly, so the wings would theoretically not do as much damage as in the case of the towers (especially when combined with the fact this is a more reinforced structure). The scenarios are different enough to eliminate the feasibility of direct comparison between structures. A cruise missile would never come in at such a low angle or make such contact with other objects/structures.

Facts:

All but 1 victim of flight 77 were identified by DNA. How is this even remotely possible if DNA is destroyed at much lesser temperatures than even you cited?

It's possible that portions of bodies (the interior of a bone for example) were either not in direct contact with the fire, or were well protected enough to not burn up every bit of DNA, though I don't have a 100% answer on this one. You only need a very, very tiny sample to survive in order to get results. Also, the hottest part of the fire may have been at that temperature, but that does not mean every area where human remains landed also reached that temperature.

Wings do not fold into a plane body when impacting an object; hell the towers themselves completely debunk this.

Again, completely different type of structure for one. There is evidence of IMPACT from the wings, but they have significantly lower kinetic energy and strength than the body of the plane oriented the way it was. We can't directly compare very different types of structures with very different exteriors. The wings impacted the stronger structure and were destroyed without having the kinetic energy to penetrate, while the greater mass/kinetic energy of the plane's body allowed it to penetrate the structure.

The black box data was not ever released to the public. (wonder why?)

Maybe it was destroyed and the data not readable?

No proof that Flight 77 was the plane that impacted the pentagon (assuming one did). In fact, Flight 77 could not have possible impacted the Pentagon at all.

This is too generalized to debate.

"NTSB flight data indicates Flight 77 never dropped below 273 feet! Therefore, Flight 77 could not have crashed into the Pentagon, only 71 feet tall." 

This is based on radar tracking, which is limited near ground level in many areas by obstructions and topography between the radar site and the airplane's location. My understanding is that it dropped below 273 feet and disappeared off the radar (which means it went below radar range for that specific area), hence it was not able to be tracked below that point.

Feel free to keep denying what is right in front of you, I can't be bothered to care what someone believes who is so opposed to research and thinks youtube videos are the works of "experts". lmfao.


My input in BOLD above...

The pentagon is a different type of structure, and it was well known that section had been renovated. Very different scenario impacting a heavily reinforced military structure vs. a standard skyscraper full of standard glass and open office space, so your comparisons to the towers have no basis.

"It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes—enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety. The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows—2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each—that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.[40]"

 

It's lovely to not have to respond to youtube videos. Thank you.

The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 125', the additional indentations are what? maybe 20' tops? If the cabin is 12-13' in diameter, this leaves each wing to extend 55 feet on each side. Not even close. (I do admit there seem to be some impacts).

The wings - again when a rigid body impacts a structure the wings don't fold up - this simply is not even possible. Attempt to recreate this using a bulldozer and a stationary plane and push it toward two walls with a gap for the plane's body. The wings do not fold at all, they would detach undoubtedly.

It certainly is possible that some DNA remained intact, but it is not remotely feasible to suggest that only 1 victim's DNA was not recovered. I am not suggesting that no DNA would remain, simply that all but 1 victim is nearly impossible. The temperature isn't relevant, any fire can destroy DNA regardless of temperature. I'm just using his temperature to show that it's ridiculous to assert that a temperature capable of melting aluminum couldn't eliminate DNA.

Black box was not destroyed - both the data black box and the audio were recovered. (More on this in another point)

"Too generalized to debate" - curious. So you admit this is absolutely feasible?

NTSB flight data actually has nothing to do with the radar, this was taken directly from the black box for flight 77. pilotsfortruth organization sought this data using the Freedom Of Information Act and released its findings.

The rest pertains to using the towers as reference - not needed really. This is simple physics.

Windows - I never mentioned them.

The more evidence I read the more I suspect a different plane impacted the Pentagon than the 757. This is also backed by at least one witness account who saw two planes in the vicinity, and another witness claimed to have seen a military aircraft in the area. 



dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
This is the second time you have posted something not pertaining to my argument. That source claims the wings impacted the Pentagon - photos debunk this notion. Physics debunks this notion. Maybe instead of using some random youtube video and touting is as "expert" opinion (LMFAO) do some ACTUAL research, but you don't quite seem capable of attempting to objectively analyze a particular dataset or find credible sources, so I'll leave you with this gem.

I saw pretty clear evidence of impact beyond the 'hole' in the side of the building clearly lining up with where wings would be. The pentagon is reinforced much better than the towers, so it's very probable the wings were not strong enogh to penetrate the structure and were obliterated instead. In addition, the wings contact with multiple light poles, a large generator, and a ground structure (all of which have photographic evidence), would weaken the wing structure significantly, so the wings would theoretically not do as much damage as in the case of the towers (especially when combined with the fact this is a more reinforced structure). The scenarios are different enough to eliminate the feasibility of direct comparison between structures. A cruise missile would never come in at such a low angle or make such contact with other objects/structures.

Facts:

All but 1 victim of flight 77 were identified by DNA. How is this even remotely possible if DNA is destroyed at much lesser temperatures than even you cited?

It's possible that portions of bodies (the interior of a bone for example) were either not in direct contact with the fire, or were well protected enough to not burn up every bit of DNA, though I don't have a 100% answer on this one. You only need a very, very tiny sample to survive in order to get results. Also, the hottest part of the fire may have been at that temperature, but that does not mean every area where human remains landed also reached that temperature.

Wings do not fold into a plane body when impacting an object; hell the towers themselves completely debunk this.

Again, completely different type of structure for one. There is evidence of IMPACT from the wings, but they have significantly lower kinetic energy and strength than the body of the plane oriented the way it was. We can't directly compare very different types of structures with very different exteriors. The wings impacted the stronger structure and were destroyed without having the kinetic energy to penetrate, while the greater mass/kinetic energy of the plane's body allowed it to penetrate the structure.

The black box data was not ever released to the public. (wonder why?)

Maybe it was destroyed and the data not readable?

No proof that Flight 77 was the plane that impacted the pentagon (assuming one did). In fact, Flight 77 could not have possible impacted the Pentagon at all.

This is too generalized to debate.

"NTSB flight data indicates Flight 77 never dropped below 273 feet! Therefore, Flight 77 could not have crashed into the Pentagon, only 71 feet tall." 

This is based on radar tracking, which is limited near ground level in many areas by obstructions and topography between the radar site and the airplane's location. My understanding is that it dropped below 273 feet and disappeared off the radar (which means it went below radar range for that specific area), hence it was not able to be tracked below that point.

Feel free to keep denying what is right in front of you, I can't be bothered to care what someone believes who is so opposed to research and thinks youtube videos are the works of "experts". lmfao.


My input in BOLD above...

The pentagon is a different type of structure, and it was well known that section had been renovated. Very different scenario impacting a heavily reinforced military structure vs. a standard skyscraper full of standard glass and open office space, so your comparisons to the towers have no basis.

"It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes—enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety. The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows—2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each—that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.[40]"

 

It's lovely to not have to respond to youtube videos. Thank you.

The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 125', the additional indentations are what? maybe 20' tops? If the cabin is 12-13' in diameter, this leaves each wing to extend 55 feet on each side. Not even close. (I do admit there seem to be some impacts).

The wings - again when a rigid body impacts a structure the wings don't fold up - this simply is not even possible. Attempt to recreate this using a bulldozer and a stationary plane and push it toward two walls with a gap for the plane's body. The wings do not fold at all, they would detach undoubtedly.

It certainly is possible that some DNA remained intact, but it is not remotely feasible to suggest that only 1 victim's DNA was not recovered. I am not suggesting that no DNA would remain, simply that all but 1 victim is nearly impossible. The temperature isn't relevant, any fire can destroy DNA regardless of temperature. I'm just using his temperature to show that it's ridiculous to assert that a temperature capable of melting aluminum couldn't eliminate DNA.

Black box was not destroyed - both the data black box and the audio were recovered. (More on this in another point)

"Too generalized to debate" - curious. So you admit this is absolutely feasible?

NTSB flight data actually has nothing to do with the radar, this was taken directly from the black box for flight 77. pilotsfortruth organization sought this data using the Freedom Of Information Act and released its findings.

The rest pertains to using the towers as reference - not needed really. This is simple physics.

Windows - I never mentioned them.

The more evidence I read the more I suspect a different plane impacted the Pentagon than the 757. This is also backed by at least one witness account who saw two planes in the vicinity, and another witness claimed to have seen a military aircraft in the area. 

Perfect example of why responding to you is absolutely useless.

'Let's recreate a plane flying into the Pentagon at 500 mph with a stationary plane being pushed by a bulldozer'

So sCiEntIfiCal!!!1!!!

 

the additional indentations are what? maybe 20' tops?

Who can argue with such precise data? Your arguements are to exact for me.....



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

These conspiracy theorists just conveniently forget that Osama Bin Laden and Al Queida claimed outright responsibility for 9/11........but noooooooo ITZ TEH GOVERNMENTZ!!!!



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network

Why did the police officer say that building 7 was about to 'blow', Larry Silverstein give the order to 'pull' (a well know demolition term for detonation), witnesses see smoke at the base of tower 7 before it fell, witnesses hear explosions, BBC announce it had fallen 20 minutes before it actually did (with Video evidence to back that up), molten metal burn for weeks after the incident, Barry Jennings say that he had to step over dead bodies (before the collapse) and more importantly, why the hell DID it collapse?

'These conspiracy theorists just conveniently forget that Osama Bin Laden and Al Queida claimed outright responsibility for 9/11........but noooooooo ITZ TEH GOVERNMENTZ!!!!'

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US

You clearly take Osama Bin Laden at his word, so there you go.



Figlioni said:

Perfect example of why responding to you is absolutely useless.

'Let's recreate a plane flying into the Pentagon at 500 mph with a stationary plane being pushed by a bulldozer'

So sCiEntIfiCal!!!1!!!

 

the additional indentations are what? maybe 20' tops?

Who can argue with such precise data? Your arguements are to exact for me.....

If you held even a modicum of understanding of simple physics you would realize that speed is not relevant in such an experiment. I won't even begin to explain why since you seem incapable of even simple concepts. lmfao.

The measurements for the impact itself aren't even accurate, they were never measured. Everything is taken from the photographs...you really are quite silly.

Go back to Youtube University. The adults are having a conversation.



No joke read the headline as 'was 911 a inside joke' ... I was going to say if it is Its a weird fracking joke!



dsgrue3 said:
Figlioni said:

Perfect example of why responding to you is absolutely useless.

'Let's recreate a plane flying into the Pentagon at 500 mph with a stationary plane being pushed by a bulldozer'

So sCiEntIfiCal!!!1!!!

 

the additional indentations are what? maybe 20' tops?

Who can argue with such precise data? Your arguements are to exact for me.....

If you held even a modicum of understanding of simple physics you would realize that speed is not relevant in such an experiment. I won't even begin to explain why since you seem incapable of even simple concepts. lmfao.

The measurements for the impact itself aren't even accurate, they were never measured. Everything is taken from the photographs...you really are quite silly.

Go back to Youtube University. The adults are having a conversation.

Yeah, go c/p some more nonsense from tr00thar sites. Those places are filled with intelligent adults....

 

I assume these people are all lying:

Eye Witness Testimony

Lets look at some eye witness testimony sticking only to people who saw a plane hit the building, and not look at people who saw an airliner, but didn't see an airplane hit the building because they looked away or were too far away (behind a hill, behind a building, etc) to see it actually hit the building.


"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn�t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001

"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001

 

All liars I tell you!



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

Gribble said:

Why did the police officer say that building 7 was about to 'blow', Larry Silverstein give the order to 'pull' (a well know demolition term for detonation), witnesses see smoke at the base of tower 7 before it fell, witnesses hear explosions, BBC announce it had fallen 20 minutes before it actually did (with Video evidence to back that up), molten metal burn for weeks after the incident, Barry Jennings say that he had to step over dead bodies (before the collapse) and more importantly, why the hell DID it collapse?

'These conspiracy theorists just conveniently forget that Osama Bin Laden and Al Queida claimed outright responsibility for 9/11........but noooooooo ITZ TEH GOVERNMENTZ!!!!'

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US

You clearly take Osama Bin Laden at his word, so there you go.

So much of this is wrong. So wrong.



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