Was 911 an INSIDE JOB?

God Of Radio

There are people living in the U.S. who REALLY think 911 was an inside job.

If you live in a place where you think your Government is that crooked, why not leave?



Watch your back, Dick Cheney! Actor Ed Asner, former Dallas Cowboy Mark Stepnoski, and formerly famous hip hop group Arrested Development are leading a petition drive to get a referendum on New York City’s November ballot that would establish a new 9/11 investigation. If the group, called 911 Truth, can collect 30,000 signatures before September 4th, the City Council will be required to consider the measure, which calls for an investigative panel with subpoena authority.

Former Senator Mike Gravel (who would join the panel along with former senator Lincoln Chafee, Asner and 9/11 widow Lorie Van Auken) tells NY Mag that “the original commission didn’t get to the bottom of anything. We need to investigate from scratch.” Among the “Top 40” reasons the group gives to doubt the official story of 9/11, from their website:

* "Al-CIA-da?" The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists.
* Flight 93. Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why?
* Pentagon Strike. How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away.

They currently have over 25,000 signatures from New York City residents, and volunteers are fanning out around town, with another (rival?) group, We Are Change, staking out the World Trade Center site (pictured above). So are they just a crowd of unhinged conspiracy theorists locked into a reflexive, anti-establishment world view that’s as paranoid as it is adolescent? Or, rather, vigilant citizens with the clarity see through the all jingoistic lies that thinly veil Dick Cheney’s treasonous agenda? Discuss.

jimmycrackcorm

as far as i'm aware Porsche did design the 911 by themselves.

SkepticOne

God Of Radio wrote: »

There are people living in the U.S. who REALLY think 911 was an inside job.

Apparently around a third believe in some form of inside involvement in the attacks. This must have been very frustrating for the Democratic campaign in the last US election who would have been unable to pander to them without being ripped apart (rightly, imo) as nutjobs. In a small way, I think the 911 conspiracy theorists, by creating a paranoid group that could not be communicated with, helped Bush get back in.

mike65

I did it.

Mike.

drunkmonkey

God Of Radio wrote: »

If you live in a place where you think your Government is that crooked, why not leave?

Proabably because the can't afford to, i'd say most of them were caught in the easy credit trap or live below the poverty line.....a bit like Ireland really, we'd all love to live somewhere sunny, we all know the government is crooked but were all to skint to pack up and leave....

Democracy, Trapping people since 1916...

oscarBravo

Moved from Politics.

God Of Radio

Good point about being trapped. But it sure is silly to think about. Oh I forgot, most people don't have any common sense.

Kernel

This has been discussed many times here, and the general consensus was yes, it was indeed an inside job.

humanji

It's hardly a general consensus.

Kernel

humanji wrote: »

It's hardly a general consensus.

True, there are a few dissidents, but they seem to be dissident about everything really...

Flamed Diving

1/3 of Americans believe it was an inside job...

So that means 2/3 dont believe the above. Which is the general consensus?

drunkmonkey

Flamed Diving wrote: »

1/3 of Americans believe it was an inside job...

So that means 2/3 dont believe the above. Which is the general consensus?

General consensus is that the Americans don't know their arse from there elbow:P

amacachi

General consensus is that you don't know your "there" from your "their".

Overheal

I'm definitely skeptical, but not convinced one way or the other.

Nick_oliveri

The problem with the official story is the man in a cave impression it gives. I believe this is the reason many have questioned it at one time or another. There is questioning and coming to conclusions. Inside job is a conclusion. Yes there may be a lot of coincidences, unanswered questions, but "what it looks like" and proof are two seperate entities.

Id be more interested in politics and democracy, whats the new radical idea/political evolution/ is there one?, whats next, who's next and whens the next invasion...

God Of Radio

Good point about "THERE" . . . NOW who doesn't know their ass from their elbow?

It wasn't a conspiracy.

Anything big that's ever happened in the World has been questioned.

Kernel

Flamed Diving wrote: »

1/3 of Americans believe it was an inside job...

So that means 2/3 dont believe the above. Which is the general consensus?

Wrong, you didn't factor in the undecided.

Dave!

It was 100% definitely, positively, certainly, undoubtedly an inside job.

Not.

newballsplease

ive watched a few of the 9/11 documentarys...there pretty good.

the one about the third building colapsying is interesting.

p.s im not sure how to spell colapsying?! and i couldnt be arsed looking it up!

Gonzales

Was 911 an inside job?

Oh Puhleeease!! :rolleyes:

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

This has been discussed many times here, and the general consensus was yes, it was indeed an inside job.

Yeah er if you look at our pentagon immense thread you'll see the consensus wander into the opposite of your "consensus".

Oh OP, We Are Change New York? One of them is charged with punching a girl in a wheelchair. Les Jameison? those 25,000 signatures, he's been gathering for 8 months, he needs, er another 75,000 to make it on the november ballot.

Now if a third of Americans believe 911 was an inside job surely they good do better than 25,000 signatures in 8 months?

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Yeah er if you look at our pentagon immense thread you'll see the consensus wander into the opposite of your "consensus".

Vocal minority.

Mahatma coat

Oh OP, We Are Change New York? One of them is charged with punching a girl in a wheelchair. Les Jameison? those 25,000 signatures, he's been gathering for 8 months, he needs, er another 75,000 to make it on the november ballot.

you always seem to find the most obscure reasons to pour disdain on people, and lead with that from the start.

I believe there is something in the charter about making the natives restless.

hey maybe the chick in the wheelchair deserved to be punched, you dont know what happened, do you?

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Vocal minority.

Ah yes, the "everyone believes me they're just keeping quiet."

Mahatma wrote:

maybe the chick in the wheelchair deserved to be punched, you dont know what happened, do you?

Can you think of a circumstance were it would be acceptable to hit a teenage cripple?

not yet

I heard a whisper that Tommy tiernan did it.

Kama

When the teen cripple is a zombie?

phenomenon

newballsplease wrote: »

Iv'e watched a few of the 9/11 documentaries...they're pretty good.

the one about the third building collapsing is interesting.

Agreed. But why hasn't there been a public debate on whether 9/11 was indeed an inside job? The fact that crackpots are the only ones discussing it on internet forums discredits the whole possibility. Politicians won't pay any heed to the question, instantly dismissing it as nonsense and thereby avoiding the whole issue.

For anyone interested, check out any of the albums by New York rapper Immortal Technique. Hes part of the 9/11 truth movement and provides some intriguing evidence in his raps of American collusion in the attacks. Hes very intelligent and articulate so don't mix him up with your average idiot rappers you see on MTV.

Frankie Lee

I consider myself a rational individual and I am 100% convinced that the CIA were involved.

Nick_oliveri

phenomenon wrote: »

For anyone interested, check out any of the albums by New York rapper Immortal Technique. Hes part of the 9/11 truth movement and provides some intriguing evidence in his raps of American collusion in the attacks. Hes very intelligent and articulate so don't mix him up with your average idiot rappers you see on MTV.

His Revoution Vol 1 album is good. Fairly gangster and hard hitting. I havent heard anything that new, but the "bush knocked down the towers" song isnt very articulate at all.

wikipedia(edited) wrote:

"Bin Laden" and "Impeach the President"


Before the presidential race in November 2004, the Immortal Technique song "Bin Laden", (also known as 'Tell The Truth'[6]) featuring Mos Def (and later featuring Eminem, using backmasking) and produced by DJ Green Lantern, emerged on Shade 45: Sirius Bizness. However, it took almost half a year until it was officially released on a 12" vinyl single in the summer of 2005. The single also contained a remix of the song featuring hip-hop legends Chuck D of Public Enemy and KRS-One. The song lyrics imply that George W. Bush and previous Republican administrations were largely responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks. This was not meant in a literal sense, Immortal wrote on his website (9/7/05 news post), "I wrote in "The Cause of Death" that Bush was not responsible directly, that he didn't plan 9/11, but he and his definitely benefited from the end result of all those people dying.

I largely agree with him, flip flop or not.

humanji

Frankie Lee wrote: »

I consider myself a rational individual and I am 100% convinced that the CIA were involved.

David Icke considers himself a rational person and he believes Lizard men did it.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Wrong, you didn't factor in the undecided.

Actually, yes, he did.

Had he stated that 2/3 believe that 911 was not an inside job, then he would be guilty of not factoring in the undecided.

Thats not what was said though. What was said is that 2/3 do not believe that it was.

If you are undecided, then you do not believe.

Sqaull20

Neo knew about it

justcallmetex

the main mind bender for me re the whole 911 is the full and total collapse of both towers in free fall plus the total collapse of a 3rd building not hit by either plane can anybody please explain how this happened???

Diogenes

Perhaps you'd search this forum before raising something thats been rehashed to death.

justcallmetex wrote: »

the main mind bender for me re the whole 911 is the full and total collapse of both towers in free fall

Sigh. They did not collapse at freefall speed.

Youtube any video of the collapse see the debris cloud ejected by the collapse, see the way the cloud moves faster than the towers? Thats freefall speed, ergo the rest of the towers did not collapse at freefall speed.

plus the total collapse of a 3rd building not hit by either plane can anybody please explain how this happened???

Remember that debris cloud I just mentioned. Massive amounts of concrete and masonry were in those clouds, building 7, your third building, was structure by the debris, causing fires and massive structural damage. The building had a unique design, and the fires raged unfought for hours, weakening the supports and causing it's collapse.

It's one of several buildings that was damaged by the WTC collapse several others needed to be demolished in the weeks and months that followed Sept 11th.

Anything else?

justcallmetex

Diogenes wrote: »

Perhaps you'd search this forum before raising something thats been rehashed to death.

Perhaps I can't be bothered


Sigh. They did not collapse at freefall speed.

Youtube any video of the collapse see the debris cloud ejected by the collapse, see the way the cloud moves faster than the towers? Thats freefall speed, ergo the rest of the towers did not collapse at freefall speed.



Remember that debris cloud I just mentioned. Massive amounts of concrete and masonry were in those clouds, building 7, your third building, was structure by the debris, causing fires and massive structural damage. The building had a unique design, and the fires raged unfought for hours, weakening the supports and causing it's collapse.

It's one of several buildings that was damaged by the WTC collapse several others needed to be demolished in the weeks and months that followed Sept 11th.

Anything else?

Nah can do without any more of your arrogance ta! No further questions

meglome

justcallmetex wrote: »

Nah can do without any more of your arrogance ta! No further questions

In fairness to Diogenes we've gone over and over this. So it can get very tiresome when people come in and say the exact same things that have been shown not to be true over and over.

zAbbo

Yup, stick a pot of coffee on, and go back through some of the excellent threads here, a lot of myths debunked.

drunkmonkey

If it wasn't an Inside Job, how else would America have got the justification to launch a war on terror without an attack on it's own soil...
I really believe they would do it to themselves for the greater good....cough, oil.

Diogenes

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If it wasn't an Inside Job, how else would America have got the justification to launch a war on terror without an attack on it's own soil...
I really believe they would do it to themselves for the greater good....cough, oil.

Just because someone (ie the united states) benefitted from an event, directly caused the event. You'll have to give me something better, than motive.

There is overwhelming evidence 19 Al Qaeda operatives carried out 911. What evidence do you have that the US carried out 911?

copeyhagen

Diogenes wrote: »

Remember that debris cloud I just mentioned. Massive amounts of concrete and masonry were in those clouds, building 7, your third building, was structure by the debris, causing fires and massive structural damage. The building had a unique design, and the fires raged unfought for hours, weakening the supports and causing it's collapse.

It's one of several buildings that was damaged by the WTC collapse several others needed to be demolished in the weeks and months that followed Sept 11th.

Anything else?

im not buying that for a minute

Diogenes

copeyhagen wrote: »

im not buying that for a minute

Just humour me, and explain why you're "Not buying that for a minute".

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Just humour me, and explain why you're "Not buying that for a minute".

Because he's not an overtrusting gullible fool obviously. :cool:

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

Actually, yes, he did.

Had he stated that 2/3 believe that 911 was not an inside job, then he would be guilty of not factoring in the undecided.

Thats not what was said though. What was said is that 2/3 do not believe that it was.

If you are undecided, then you do not believe.

Wrong read it again, he said 1/3 believed it was an inside job.. then came to a conclusion that that must imply that 2/3 believe it wasn't.

Flamed Diving

Kernel wrote: »

Wrong read it again, he said 1/3 believed it was an inside job.. then came to a conclusion that that must imply that 2/3 believe it wasn't.

If you are undecided, then you do not believe.

Therefore 2/3's do not believe.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

Because he's not an overtrusting gullible fool obviously. :cool:

I'm no fool and I'm certainly not gullible (fair enough it's just my opinion). It's why when I actually looked at the evidence I've found the people who push these conspiracy theories don't seem to have too much problem ignoring fact. The CT sites are so full of misquoting or downright lies/untruths that whatever you think about the American government they are paragons of virtue compared to some of that lot. And to be honest I wouldn't trust the American government as far a I can throw them and the fact I'd trust the official reports over the conspiracies says it all really.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Wrong read it again,

I'll do better, Kernel. I'll supply the quote from the post:

So that means 2/3 dont believe the above.

Now, having told me to re-read it, lets assume that you did likewise, and see how you interpret that statement...

...then came to a conclusion that that must imply that 2/3 believe it wasn't.

See? You've done exactly what I said you did...misinterpreted his statement exactly as I described.

He did not say "2/3 believe it was not", he said "2/3 do not believe it was".

You are wrong. You misinterpreted what was said, exactly in the manner I described. You equated lack of belief with belief in the negation, where the original post you took exception to did not.

Telling me to re-read it won't change that.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Wrong read it again, he said 1/3 believed it was an inside job.. then came to a conclusion that that must imply that 2/3 believe it wasn't.

Supposing if a third of americans believe "9/11 was an inside job" Two points.

We are change managed to get less than 30,000 people to sign their ballot for a new 911 investigation. The population of NYC is 8 million. 30,000 into 8 million is, what?

Anecdotally 1 in 10 people are homosexual. Would you like to compare the turn out for the last NYC gay pride parade compared to the truther turn out at ground zero last Sept 11th?

Kernel

Bonkey, you are wrong with your assumption.

1/3 of Americans believe it was an inside job...

So that means 2/3 dont believe the above. Which is the general consensus?

1/3 may believe it was an inside job, but that does not mean that 2/3 don't believe it was an inside job, since many of the 2/3 would also be undecided or not have an opinion on the matter. The poster jumps to the conclusions that if 1/3 believe it was an inside job, then 2/3 believe it was not. That is an incorrect assumption, and I'm surprised you do not recognise that tbh.

humanji

You're arguing semantics. If you split the people into 3 groups (A, B and C), it breaks down as this (bearing in mind this is a simplified version):

Group A believe the government were behind it.
Group B are undecided.
Group C believe the government had nothing to do with it.

This means that both B and C don't believe the government were behind it. But it also means that A and B don't believe that the government had nothing to do with it.

Meglome is correct in saying that 2/3 don't believe that the government were involved. This group comprises of those who believe the government are not involved, plus those who are undecided. Those who are undecided don't believe either way (hence their name) and so can be added to either side when counted against an argument.

But as said above, 2/3 don't believe that the government are not involved (comprising of those who definitely believe they were and those who are undecided).

TarfHead

SkepticOne wrote: »

Apparently around a third believe in some form of inside involvement in the attacks.

And the source of that 'fact' is ... ?

SkepticOne wrote: »

This must have been very frustrating for the Democratic campaign in the last US election who would have been unable to pander to them without being ripped apart (rightly, imo) as nutjobs. In a small way, I think the 911 conspiracy theorists, by creating a paranoid group that could not be communicated with, helped Bush get back in.

Oh. I thought Bush got back in cos the majority of US voters thought John Kerry was an inferior candidate, helped, of course, by the Swiftboat Veterans campaign.

God Of Radio

1/3?