9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

Hey don't bring that logic and engineering into this discussion. Wild emotional speculation only!

just bringing everyone back into reality a little bit but continue on

Originally Posted by rjskalet

yea and i respect your opinion because everyone is entitled to one. i wasn't attacking your claim, just offering another perspective.

And I respect that, I really do. Again, I have no idea what happened on 9/11, or why. I'm just saying I don't understand the backlash against people questioning it.

the western world, and specifically America, is the symbol of all that is evil and wrong in the world. If you're a fundamentalist extremist and think you can get away with a major attack on that symbol in order to reinforce your way of thinking and put yourself into a major position of power in your circle, why not?

this wasn't the first attack on a world trade center, or the first time al qaeda had attacked U.S. interests.

I remember reading something about Gary Condit engineering the entire attack to draw the media away from him during the Levy murder investigation. That one really cracked me up.

Originally Posted by Bartacus

And I respect that, I really do. Again, I have no idea what happened on 9/11, or why. I'm just saying I don't understand the backlash against people questioning it.

yea i agree. i mean technically everything in life is questionable, whether people want to except it or not, it just so happens that people are not willing to except the fact that the theory could be true. on another note though, since this is in the past and is 11 years old so why are we still questioning it?

You understand that al qaeda is not full of peace-loving hippies that just want everyone to get along right? and that, at the ideological organizational level, they are not content with sitting back and allowing what they perceive to be evil to go unchallenged. It's not like they went from small town mountain thugs to world terrorists overnight. The leaders of that organization had, and have, the hatred and conviction in them to carry out the mass murder of people that they see as evil. Which is, realistically, anyone the western world, or anyone that reflects those ideas.

Read Zawahiri's book if you want to see just how far out there some of them are.

Originally Posted by Bartacus

My god man, give America a just cause to fight, and NO country can stand up to them.

It's that kind of arrogance that got us into this situation in the first place, sir. Should we skip to the end here and start calling you Vissini?

The other question is this: even if you could prove it and make everyone believe you, what would you do with it? How would it change the world?

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

the western world, and specifically America, is the symbol of all that is evil and wrong in the world. If you're a fundamentalist extremist and think you can get away with a major attack on that symbol in order to reinforce your way of thinking and put yourself into a major position of power in your circle, why not?

this wasn't the first attack on a world trade center, or the first time al qaeda had attacked U.S. interests.

I remember reading something about Gary Condit engineering the entire attack to draw the media away from him during the Levy murder investigation. That one really cracked me up.

But really, what do they gain? What does ANY extremist gain by that? You just poke the world's deadliest hornet's nest, and those hornets will pursue you to the ends of the earth. So unless you have a spaceship...

BTW, the reason I'm posting here is because your government has a history of setting up stuff like this. Once you start reading up on Operation Northwoods and stuff like that, it's hard NOT to suspect that something else was going on there on 9/11.

Originally Posted by MrAdventure

It's that kind of arrogance that got us into this situation in the first place, sir. Should we skip to the end here and start calling you Vissini?

he's right, though. On a traditional battlefield, there is no one that can go toe-to-toe with the U.S. military.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

The other question is this: even if you could prove it and make everyone believe you, what would you do with it? How would it change the world?

i like that question and that is kind of along the lines of what i was thinking. even if it were proven true or not, this is something that happened 11 years ago and i am pretty sure that many of the families that were effected by this event would not want to know that their own country killed their family. why do you still think about this?

Originally Posted by Bartacus

But really, what do they gain? What does ANY extremist gain by that? You just poke the world's deadliest hornet's nest, and those hornets will pursue you to the ends of the earth. So unless you have a spaceship...

BTW, the reason I'm posting here is because your government has a history of setting up stuff like this. Once you start reading up on Operation Northwoods and stuff like that, it's hard NOT to suspect that something else was going on there on 9/11.

yes, and when you start reading General X, you really start running down the rabbit hole.

you can read all you want about far out conspiracies, both real and imagined, and come up with whatever hare-brained schemes you want, but the question remains: what's the application? What do you do with the information?

Proclaim yourself king of the internet and paint "I Told You So" on your crown?

Originally Posted by Bartacus

But really, what do they gain? What does ANY extremist gain by that? You just poke the world's deadliest hornet's nest, and those hornets will pursue you to the ends of the earth. So unless you have a spaceship...

BTW, the reason I'm posting here is because your government has a history of setting up stuff like this. Once you start reading up on Operation Northwoods and stuff like that, it's hard NOT to suspect that something else was going on there on 9/11.

they gain the satisfaction that they were able to attack the largest, most powerful symbol of evil in the world.

To show that it can be done.

Originally Posted by rjskalet

yea i agree. i mean technically everything in life is questionable, whether people want to except it or not, it just so happens that people are not willing to except the fact that the theory could be true. on another note though, since this is in the past and is 11 years old so why are we still questioning it?

Because of this thread, and maybe because a LOT of people suspect that something was just "off". Not sure. I'm Canadian, and I didn't lose any loved ones in those attacks, so I'm going to shut up soon. I'm not trying to offend any Americans here, but this discussion is kinda pointless due to the emotions involved, and the fact that none of us will ever have all the facts.

Originally Posted by MrAdventure

It's that kind of arrogance that got us into this situation in the first place, sir. Should we skip to the end here and start calling you Vissini?

I honestly don't understand the Vissini reference. If I wasn't exhausted and sleepless for about 48 hours, I'd Google that. Just too tired man.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

The other question is this: even if you could prove it and make everyone believe you, what would you do with it? How would it change the world?

Excellent question, but I'm not trying to prove anything. All I'm saying is people, ESPECIALLY Americans, should be able to question this stuff without the backlash. I just don't understand the objection to people QUESTIONING this.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

yes, and when you start reading General X, you really start running down the rabbit hole.

you can read all you want about far out conspiracies, both real and imagined, and come up with whatever hare-brained schemes you want, but the question remains: what's the application? What do you do with the information?

Proclaim yourself king of the internet and paint "I Told You So" on your crown?

Operation Northwood isn't a conspiracy theory, it's declassified public information. With a lot of blacked out text.

Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer

he's right, though. On a traditional battlefield, there is no one that can go toe-to-toe with the U.S. military.

But not Afghanistan. The rules have changed.

I have no problem questioning what I'm being fed. Am I wrong to question any source of information, even if it comes from someone who claims to know the truth? I used to work with a rabid 9/11 truther two years ago, and it just gets annoying to hear the SAME information parroted back again and again...

Originally Posted by Bartacus

Excellent question, but I'm not trying to prove anything. All I'm saying is people, ESPECIALLY Americans, should be able to question this stuff without the backlash. I just don't understand the objection to people QUESTIONING this.

the backlash exists not because everyone's drinking the kool-aid and wants to believe whatever the government tells them, but because it's lost in the background noise of every other internet conspiracy theory out there.

It's right up there with fluoride being used as soviet mind control, ancient aliens building the washington monument, and the governments of the U.S., canada, and mexico abolishing their respective currencies, replacing them all with a new currency, and selling it to people at impossibly expensive rates.

Originally Posted by Bartacus

I honestly don't understand the Vissini reference. If I wasn't exhausted and sleepless for about 48 hours, I'd Google that. Just too tired man.

Arrogance personified.

^ I even heard that guy's voice looking at the pic. I need sleep!

Guys, I didn't mean any offense by all this, really. So don't get upset about it. I never should have posted in here to begin with. No tin foil hats here, really. Christ, I don't think any government is worse than ours (Canada I mean, just to be clear).

Originally Posted by MrAdventure

But not Afghanistan. The rules have changed.

Note I said traditional battlefield. Afghanistan is not a traditional battlefield.

But we've still gotten damn good at fighting insurgents, too. We can kick their asses from K-town to J-bad and everywhere in between. They can't run, they can't hide, and they can't fight for long. We dominate the skies and the ground, and, given the chance, can find and defeat anything they come up with to blow us up.

Counter-insurgency is not about killing bad guys, though. It's about winning the people. And some of them still don't like us. Every bad guy has brothers, children, parents, friends. And when we kill the bad guy, some of his friends and family turn against us.

Counter-insurgency is about making the bad guys realize that they're wrong, and that they are fighting against the interests of their own people.

Originally Posted by rjskalet

im sorry but dont you think that the explosions from lower levels could be due to a large amount of stress which causes the structure to explode. the vibrations that traveled through the WTC's structure would travel downwards putting the most amount of stress and strain on the lowest levels, which in turn could cause the structure to essentially explode. just looking at it through a logical/engineering standpoint.

Highly unlikely, considering the way the towers fell. If what you are saying is right, one would assume the bottom of the structure would crumble, and collapse, and the higher levels would fall on top of it. This did not happen.

I think the biggest question I have is that the lobbies were both blown out from explosions. Witnesses said people were actually on fire in the lobby. But the issue I have with that goes two fold. First, for this to happen, the fireball and explosive energy would have to travel the entire elevator shafts which were hermetically sealed. Odd enough thing on its own, but the second part is even more crazy. The second part is that there was no elevator that ran from ground to top of the buildings. It would take 3 transfers to get from floor to roof. So the fire and explosive energy would have to travel down, change elevators TWICE and then blow the lobby, but not the floors directly below the lobby (There were 7 floors that could be reached by elevator below the lobby).

What about that screams "scientific and logic"? Fire decided to go 30 floors down, pause, change direction, and enter a shaft across the way, go another 40 odd floors and blow out the lobby, leaving sub levels 1 through 7 untouched.

If you can explain that, I'll be quiet for the rest of my life. Keep in mind, this was at the moment of first impact, or very close to the moment of impact. The lobby was documented in the Naudet Brothers film first hand once they reached the building. Tiles were thrown off the walls, all the glass was broken, and people were on fire. I have heard a few say it was acoustical energy, or it was "shock waves" but this does not explain the hermetically sealed environment. Basically, if the fire had to change elevators, one would assume that the energy would be expelled at the floor where the change had to happen. You can't say it was either of those two if you account for the change in shafts.

We also know for a fact that the elevators were cable operated and required no channel below for maintenance, as all elevators 12 stories and below are actually lifts using hydraulics, and all 13 and more are cable operated. So there was no shaft below the elevators from the top going to ground level.

This is something that was never brought up before I asked the question, and I still have no answer.