Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
  1. #1
    Rookie Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9

    Default 9/11 an inside job? yay or nay?

    Honestly, at first i thought this idea was just too far fetched to be true but as i became open minded to this particular subject and started exposing myself to documentaries such as loose change my opinion quickly shifted.

    What do you guys think?


    Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it feels like an hour. Sit next to a pretty girl and an hour seems like a minute THATS LIFE!

    -- Albert Einstien

  2. #2
    Rookie Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    93

    Default

    I have seen a few of the web documentaries, and while they make some good points, I don't buy it. Although the stuff about the Pentagon is very interesting, like lack of plane wreckage at the site.



  3. #3
    Junior Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Have seen both loose change and the many dozens of rebuttals for it. The only convincing thing in the entire loose change video is that they say something like "the hole in the pentagon was 19 feet wide, how could it have been a plane". Then they talk about the lack of wreckage at the pentagon. From what I've read, the assertions about the Pentagon are outright lies and distortions. The hole was reported as being over a hundred feet wide by investigators at the scene and there was plenty of wreckage. Nothing said about the wtc is convincing. They give the melting point of steel and then tell you the temperature jet fuel burns at.

    The problem is, the steel doesn't have to melt for the building to collapse. It just has to lose enough strength that the building will collapse on its own.

    Anyway, I haven't seen anything remotely convincing about any of the videos and sites making the assertion 9/11 is an inside job. They rely on very dubious methods...which is obvious, like people at the scene's eyewitness reports when they're in harms way. Almost all of the evidence points to Attah, and the 19 hijackers...the main culprit Bin Laden has never denied it and has even taken credit.

    Why shouldn't that be good enough for a thinking person? Particularly when the alternatives are so weak.



  4. #4
    Rookie Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by happychris
    I have seen a few of the web documentaries, and while they make some good points, I don't buy it. Although the stuff about the Pentagon is very interesting, like lack of plane wreckage at the site.

    So if you dont buy it, what conclusion did you draw from the wreckage, or lack thereof, at the pentagon?


    Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it feels like an hour. Sit next to a pretty girl and an hour seems like a minute THATS LIFE!

    -- Albert Einstien

  5. #5
    Rookie Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vegasboy
    Have seen both loose change and the many dozens of rebuttals for it. The only convincing thing in the entire loose change video is that they say something like "the hole in the pentagon was 19 feet wide, how could it have been a plane". Then they talk about the lack of wreckage at the pentagon. From what I've read, the assertions about the Pentagon are outright lies and distortions. The hole was reported as being over a hundred feet wide by investigators at the scene and there was plenty of wreckage. Nothing said about the wtc is convincing. They give the melting point of steel and then tell you the temperature jet fuel burns at.

    The problem is, the steel doesn't have to melt for the building to collapse. It just has to lose enough strength that the building will collapse on its own.

    Anyway, I haven't seen anything remotely convincing about any of the videos and sites making the assertion 9/11 is an inside job. They rely on very dubious methods...which is obvious, like people at the scene's eyewitness reports when they're in harms way. Almost all of the evidence points to Attah, and the 19 hijackers...the main culprit Bin Laden has never denied it and has even taken credit.

    Why shouldn't that be good enough for a thinking person? Particularly when the alternatives are so weak.

    What conclusion did you draw from the windows popping from the LOWER levels of the building? Certainly the pressure cause by the plane couldnt be that great.

    and if you can provide a video of a rebuttal that you think addresses most of the point brought up in loose change i would greatly appreciate that. I am guilty for not looking at the other side of this subject.


    Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it feels like an hour. Sit next to a pretty girl and an hour seems like a minute THATS LIFE!

    -- Albert Einstien

  6. #6
    Junior Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Absolutely. Always gotta look on both sides of the issue. I don't have video, but I have some websites that offer point by point rebuttals of most of the issues that were raised. I'll post them tomorrow.

    As scientists say, even in a controlled experiment, there are always things that are unexplained. This is something that has no precedent in American history so there's no basis for comparison.

    The best way to do figure out if it was an inside job or not is to do a point by point comparison of the two possible causes. On the one hand the U.S government, and on the other hand, Al Qaeda. When you start laying out the evidence side by side, you see how much relatively stronger the case is for Al Qaeda operatives. But if you only start from the conventional theory and try to pick holes in it, you're really only being contrarian and not really proving any other plausible cause.

    The hallmark of any type of historical revisionism is a burden of proof that is unattainable. There will always be things that are unexplained, even about events that unfold in broad daylight.



  7. #7
    Junior Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Here you go.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

    http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

    I have others but I hear these aren't bad. Also consider what I said about burden of proof. If it wasn't Bin Laden, and you believe it was the government, how much evidence do you have to make a positive case against the government



  8. #8
    Rookie Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vegasboy
    Here you go.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

    http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

    I have others but I hear these aren't bad. Also consider what I said about burden of proof. If it wasn't Bin Laden, and you believe it was the government, how much evidence do you have to make a positive case against the government
    ok guys, i have thoroughly and i promise thoroughly read ALL of these documents and i could buy MOST of the things they were saying(which shocked me). However!, a trend amoungst these document is that they dont provide a believeable scenario for the collapse of building 7(the 47 story building that collapsed that no one really hears about.)

    I read that falling dubris from WTC called internal fires in the building that ignited fires in the buildings, exploding gas tanks, and yadda yadda yadda. My question is, how can dubris from a 100+ story building cause internal fires from the lower level of the building? Its there guys... check it out. AND!! there is a video of Larry Silverstein(the man who had over $1million of insurance on those buildings) admitting to the fire department to pull building 7 because they couldnt contain the fire.

    His exact words were pull it....pull it huh? as if all buildings have explosives set at the right place in case of a disaster, lmao.


    Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it feels like an hour. Sit next to a pretty girl and an hour seems like a minute THATS LIFE!

    -- Albert Einstien

  9. #9
    Junior Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Larry Silverstein actually got something like 5 billion dollars in total for the destruction of WTC and building 7. But why shouldn't he? He had an insurance policy that offered him this protection, and his company paid something like 3.5 billion for the leasehold.

    So I'm to believe that someone with a net worth presumably in the billions of dollar blew up three buildings in order to make 50% more or something....in the process killing thousands of innocent people. There were tons of workers at ground zero, and tons of people who were looking for people through the wreckage. If the buildings were rigged with explosives, somebody would have known about it.

    But as I said about building a case. Who are we building a case against? Larry Silverstein or the U.S government? We have to draw up something plausible in terms of what actually happened. It's not enough that he said something suspicious. And nobody investigates fraud better than insurance companies. If they were being defrauded out of billions of dollars by a company, they'd protect their assets before the lives of the deceased.

    I have trouble believing that investors would blow up three buildings; be able to orchestrate what looks like planes flying into two of them just for insurance money. Until further notice I'm inclined to believe it was Al Qaeda. But the fact that we now have two alternative culprits is enough to make me suspicious of where we're headed.



  10. #10
    Rookie Poster
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vegasboy
    Larry Silverstein actually got something like 5 billion dollars in total for the destruction of WTC and building 7. But why shouldn't he? He had an insurance policy that offered him this protection, and his company paid something like 3.5 billion for the leasehold.

    So I'm to believe that someone with a net worth presumably in the billions of dollar blew up three buildings in order to make 50% more or something....in the process killing thousands of innocent people. There were tons of workers at ground zero, and tons of people who were looking for people through the wreckage. If the buildings were rigged with explosives, somebody would have known about it.

    But as I said about building a case. Who are we building a case against? Larry Silverstein or the U.S government? We have to draw up something plausible in terms of what actually happened. It's not enough that he said something suspicious. And nobody investigates fraud better than insurance companies. If they were being defrauded out of billions of dollars by a company, they'd protect their assets before the lives of the deceased. (very true)

    I have trouble believing that investors would blow up three buildings; be able to orchestrate what looks like planes flying into two of them just for insurance money. Until further notice I'm inclined to believe it was Al Qaeda. But the fact that we now have two alternative culprits is enough to make me suspicious of where we're headed.
    That point you've made is very, very true. I didnt even think of it that way. But you have to admit, pull it...very suspicious. And you also made a good point at the end as well. To this day i scratch my head at why are we still in afganistan and what's with the increasing turmoil with Iran. And I believe there is an hidden objective for us being in Iraq. Other than oil of course because that has already become clear.


    Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute and it feels like an hour. Sit next to a pretty girl and an hour seems like a minute THATS LIFE!

    -- Albert Einstien

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •