Was 911 an INSIDE JOB?

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?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Bonkey, you are wrong with your assumption.

No, I'm not.

I'm simply reading exactly what was written, and interpreting its exact meaning.

You aren't doing that.

As humanji points out, its a question of semantics. I agree. Its all about accuracy - about understanding exactly what was said, rather than what you want to have been said.

If it makes you any happier...we're all agreeing with you that what was said does not mean that 2/3 of the people believe it was not an inside job. Rather, I was pointing out to you that no-one made this claim in the first place - you created a straw-man and attacked it.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Bonkey, you are wrong with your assumption.



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.

Even if your rotten supposition was correct, why aren't there hordes of tens of thousands at 911 truth rallies?

Kama

If you assume 'inside job', you generally also assume government complicity. Given that, turning up for a demonstration might be seen as foolhardy. There's a line of thought which says that thats what its 'all about', stir up anxiety and feelings of control.


There's a very old meta-conspiracy theory which goes like this:

'Conspiracy theory was developed by the CIA/Illuminati/Gnomes of Zurich to distract attention from foreign policy/distract dissidents/spread paranoia'.

Whatever about the actual truth or otherwise, I think its fair to say there's a latent truth encoded here, that the mindset of 'conspiracy theory' which I usually style as 'conspiranoia' tends to be a debilitating psychological position in regards to effecting social change.

I'm stricto sensu agnostic on Conspiracy Theory; I don't think I have any special epistemological position with which to judge, but on Robert Anton Wilson lines I think paranoia can be a constructive hermeneutic as long as you don't start eating too much of your own bullsh*t.

This is my fave recent article on 911 Truth/Conspiracy Theory btw, its addressed primarily to True Believers, and I recommend it highly:

What Really Happened on September 11th, 2001

One thing everyone can agree on—from diehard Fox News Faithful to dedicated Infowar Initiates—is that September 11th, 2001 is a day that changed the world forever. I am of the opinion that all of these people are full of **** and engaged in a circle jerk of mutual delusion. That is offensive language, but I mean it with all of my heart. I would like you to know that I have spent five months working on this article. I am not blowing off steam or throwing a tantrum. I am of the opinion that both sides of the 9/11 debate are full of ****, and here is why:


Source

Brainsturbator

bonkey

Kama wrote: »

There's a very old meta-conspiracy theory which goes like this:

'Conspiracy theory was developed by the CIA/Illuminati/Gnomes of Zurich to distract attention from foreign policy/distract dissidents/spread paranoia'.

Indeed. I've often commented that if I were a top dog in the NWO, with a hand in plotting 911, I'd hire me a chunk of people to spread a wildly-varying chunk of theories about what "really" happened. I'd run some viral marketing campaigns to ensure their "word" got spread widely enough, and ultimately do everything I could to ensure that if anyone ever made a valid criticism, the reaction in general would be immediate association with my crazies-for-hire, and thus dismissal.

Kama

Yup Bonkey, and thats a A: plausible and B: popular meme. Even better, its classic self-referentiality Strange Loop territory. I hear that one first in the early 90's, heard it in some slightly different recombinations since.

Its a widespread narrative within conspiracy theory as a genre, and if they weren't to begin with, someone is now...Its a variant on Rule 34, I guess...

Diogenes

Kama wrote: »

Yup Bonkey, and thats a A: plausible and B: popular meme. Even better, its classic self-referentiality Strange Loop territory. I hear that one first in the early 90's, heard it in some slightly different recombinations since.

Its a widespread narrative within conspiracy theory as a genre, and if they weren't to begin with, someone is now...Its a variant on Rule 34, I guess...

The flaw with this idea is just how shoddy and poor the "anti NWO conspiracy theorists" are.

If we are to suppose that there was a NWO who were as brilliant and flawless as they could carry out 911 in a brilliant coup, would they really hire the collection of cranks, crackpots, lunatics, racists, and neo nazis that make up the 911 truth movement.

Its the Oswald paradox all over again. If you wanted a patsy for the assassination of JFK why use a delusional pro communist, thrown out of the military, rejected by the soviets, who was a mediocre shot?

If this guy is supposed to be your patsy you'd at least make him a credible shot.

Similarly with the truth movement, why would you make the best scientist be a mormon who has never published a single physics paper? Why would your main architect, be someone who makes basic factual errors. Why would you make your champion be a disgraced professor of theology who admits he "hasn't got a theory, he's just asking questions"

Mahatma coat

Sorry Diogeness, did you not read the preceding posts, or do you have a different version of the english language to the rest of us on which to base your conclusions? or are you just being willfully Obtuse again?
re read the posts about disinfo, I think you'll find that you have made their point

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Sorry Diogeness, did you not read the preceding posts, or do you have a different version of the english language to the rest of us on which to base your conclusions? or are you just being willfully Obtuse again?
re read the posts about disinfo, I think you'll find that you have made their point

I thought Diogenes made a very good point indeed.

And considering the level of paranoia amongst 'truthers' I think Kama and Bonkey made an interesting point too, although I'm with Diogenes on the actual implications of that.

Kama

If we are to suppose that there was a NWO who were as brilliant and flawless as they could carry out 911 in a brilliant coup, would they really hire the collection of cranks, crackpots, lunatics, racists, and neo nazis that make up the 911 truth movement.

Coz to discredit them and Stop teh Truth, kk? Also, as my linky was about, 911-Truth is a (SRS!) business, and certain memes worked well as The Product, others didn't. Target market of nutters, more nutters are well known. Most sensible people won't get into CTheory, either because its inevitably Strange Loop territory, or because its more comfortable not to ask yourself if the world isn't ok at root.

Given that disinfo, by its nature would contain Strange Loops, I don't see how its a 'flaw'...you could always say 'that shows how advanced they *really* are' and so forth. Also flawlessness would be a level of idealization that I don't think is healthy. I'd settle for competent. Think less '1337 Mast0r Plan' more 'ad hoc collage'. Available materials, Useful Idiots.

Of course, the assumption of an omnipotent master group seems most likely to be paranoid projection stemming from a lack of human agency in modern societies onto any convenient 'hook'; Jews, bankers, Bilderbergs, etc. Totalizing conspiracy theory is, inevitably imo, Wrong. However, it doesn't follow that this means conspiracy theory per se is Just Plain Wrong because 'They Are All Like That'. Thats argument-by-contagion, also pretty pathological stuff. Conspiracies have happened, historically. There is a certain degree of historical foundation to false flag incidents. Assassinations happen. And so forth.


For a shake-and-bake 'conspiracy' gedankenexperiment, try this:

1: Rather than thinking about a huge group of Lizards who secretly rule all, kk, be poetic and read Icke as metaphor (he isn't being metaphorical, but that doesn't matter). Look at it as the old lizard territorial brain, think of cold territorial people without basic mammalian hugs and loves.

2: Ok, now think about the arguments of people like The Corporation.
Accept provisionally for the argument that there are a lot of functional sociopaths in the world. By functional, I mean they don't get caught, and gravitate up through hierarchies due to affinity-advantages offered by a lack of affect, and general ability to screw people over effectively.

3: Now look at signs of concentration of power in the world, such as The Superclass (coming-out party for the Illuminati Power Elite or wha?) and the concept of Super-Empowered Individuals. Technological mediation and hierarchy allow a little agency to go a looong way.

4: Assume sociopaths can level to the top, or even near it, that there isn't a 'glass ceiling' for nutters. Ponder the possible effect of *just one* super-empowered sociopath in the modern world, a Bateman who doesn't lose it all the time. Now think maybe there's a few of em.

5: ????????

6: Wake up scared each morning.



Like said, agnostic on details and 'Truth'. Gibson said that in the age of information overload, we have no choice but pattern recognition; the risk here is apophenia. And always the caveat that, much as in politics and religion, once people lose their sense of humor, they've lost the plot ^_^

Kama

Of course any true paranoid would avoid the ultra-surveilled net completely, since even inadvertently revealing the Plans of Our Dark Masters from Dagon could result in arrest, detention, and occult sacrifice! Therefore any 'True Believers' are intelligence sock-puppets, Useful Idiots, or passive consumers. Stands to reason!

Any convincing CTheory is almost certainly disinfo to muddy the waters; an obvious attempt here would be RigInt. Its very plausibility suggests efficient information control, and that the site still exists suggests government complicity. Also C. Wright Mills was under the direct control of the Aquarian-Cetacean-Lemur Triads when he wrote the Power Elite.

The reconfiguration of war-fighting doctrine 'to support a low-intensity world war of unlimited duration against criminalized segments of the urban poor' Source in context of continuous wealth concentration in a small proportion of the world population should cause no one to lose sleep.

Honestly though, I'm kinda with Greg Palast on most of this stuffs. Given how balatant most elites are about what they are doing, chasing after possibly-maybe-awful stuff seems a bit of a distraction, and distracts from actual political action. Its a pleasantly ineffective substitute for actually doing anything to improve the world; you get the moral surety without the sweat and tears of real work.