9/11 was not an inside job you morons

TheyKnowMyIP

Until sufficient evidence exists to support this theory, it's a myth. I do not place great faith in people, but I highly doubt the US government planned "an inside job". It's nonsense. What do you reckon, was 9/11 an inside job?

super_furry

I like you. You're funny.

4leto

What brought this up we only had a thread on it in september.

AnamGlas

A month late?

kirving

You got the wrong forum. Therefore, you must always be wrong.

Therefore, 9/11 must be an inside job.

Temptamperu

Go Away.

The King of Moo

Why should I trust the official version of events? :pac:

TheyKnowMyIP

Balls. Late into the game:(

aaronjumper

Yes it was, the planes used were clearly American.

Plazaman

AnamGlas wrote: »

A month late?

10 Years 1 Month too late.

Looking forward to your next thread about those lads on the Grassy Knoll.

Galtee

AnamGlas wrote: »

A month late?

11 Months early.

Chuck Stone

I blame outer space aliens

TheZohanS

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74347651&postcount=1

TheyKnowMyIP

Premature Speculation is exactly that. Speculation.

Wetai

9th of November? I don't think so, either.
September 11th, however ... Personally, I'm not fully on either side of the fence (but falling towards terror attack side), there are some things that make me go "huh", e.g. Building 7 that would make me slightly lean towards inside job.

ejmaztec

Definitely an inside job, the voices in my head are never wrong.

Jesus Wept

Nice logic. You're a myth.

orourkeda

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Until sufficient evidence exists to support this theory, it's a myth. I do not place great faith in people, but I highly doubt the US government planned "an inside job". It's nonsense. What do you reckon, was 9/11 an inside job?

There is evidence to support it.

Whether one subscribes to it or not is one thing but to say there is no evidence supporting it is wide of th emark.

Sanjuro

Of course it wasn't an inside job. After the absolute disaster that was Operation Iraqi Freedom and the post war mess, the lack of foresight and planning, there's no way the US Government could pull off an inside job like 9/11.

orourkeda

Sanjuro wrote: »

Of course it wasn't an inside job. After the absolute disaster that was Operation Iraqi Freedom and the post war mess, the lack of foresight and planning, there's no way the US Government could pull off an inside job like 9/11.

Thats one way of looking at it I suppose.

Kadongy

Didn't Bush disappear to some bunker for a day or two? And wasn't there footage of him looking dumb when he was informed of the attack? These things made him look like a cowardly fool. If there were insiders involved I dont think he was privvy to anything anyway.

Compare the reaction to George VI of the UK, who didn't leave buckingham Palace during WWII.

Wikipedia:

The first German raid on London, on 7 September 1940, killed about one thousand civilians, mostly in the East End. On 13 September, the King and Queen narrowly avoided death when two German bombs exploded in a courtyard at Buckingham Palace while they were there. In defiance, the Queen famously declared: "I am glad we have been bombed. It makes me feel we can look the East End in the face"

orourkeda

Its difficult to imagine it being a set up. The people who believe its a set up have raised some questions that suggest its not as outrageous as it seems but I just cant see it myself

Would it be fair to suggest that they could have done a better job of preventing it though.

seanybiker

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Premature Speculation is exactly that. Speculation.

I used to suffer from premature speculation. Was horrible, I thought all over the place

Stinicker

I believe it was a conspiracy between the Clare U-21 Hurlers and PETA!

orourkeda

LiamN wrote: »

9th of November? I don't think so, either.
September 11th, however ... Personally, I'm not fully on either side of the fence (but falling towards terror attack side), there are some things that make me go "huh", e.g. Building 7 that would make me slightly lean towards inside job.

Its not entirely unreasonable to believe that it is an inside Job. There are aspectsof it that are quite persuasive.

Whether thay are persuasive enough to prove it completely is open to question but they certainly highlight an element of criminal negligence.

landsleaving

9/11 didn't even happen. Were you there? Did you actually see it? You just saw the news man, like the moon landings.

It was filmed on a soundstage in California. True story.

TheyKnowMyIP

orourkeda wrote: »

There is evidence to support it.

Whether one subscribes to it or not is one thing but to say there is no evidence supporting it is wide of th emark.

There is evidence to support the hypothesis. However, there isn't enough evidence to say for certain that the whole thing was a vast conspiracy by the US government to only steal oil from Iraq.

Frankly, I think it's all way overblown. There was mismanagement, but I seriously doubt the Government is evil enough to carry out such an attack against it's people.

Until enough proof is gathered to state for certain it was an inside job, I am leaning on the "not likely" fence.

Saila

LiamN wrote: »

there are some things that make me go "huh", e.g. Building 7 that would make me slightly lean towards inside job.

:pac:

sgb

deja vu

Napper Hawkins

I don't know or care either way but I do feel that it was slightly bizarre that it could even happen in the first place given the supposedly high levels of security in US airports even before Sept 11.

Surely someone noticed something suspicious beforehand no?

orourkeda

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

There is evidence to support the hypothesis. However, there isn't enough evidence to say for certain that the whole thing was a vast conspiracy by the US government to only steal oil from Iraq.

Frankly, I think it's all way overblown. There was mismanagement, but I seriously doubt the Government is evil enough to carry out such an attack against it's people.

Until enough proof is gathered to state for certain it was an inside job, I am leaning on the "not likely" fence.

There may not be enough to prove the conspiracy.

On the other hand there isn't enough evidence to completely support the official story. It's on this basis that the conspiracies persist.

I dont believe it's overblown at all. Some of it is quite thought provoking.

Saila

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNJmwwf7QA

orourkeda

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

I don't know or care either way but I do feel that it was slightly bizarre that it could even happen in the first place given the supposedly high levels of security in US airports even before Sept 11.

Surely someone noticed something suspicious beforehand no?

Thats a fair point, Is there an argument that the US authorities could have done a better job of preventing it or limiting its effect

Saila

lots of the holes the CT guys picked in the official records have been busted by experts, its just sad at this stage get over it guys, there were lots of programs on tv broadcast by the evil lizard men explaining why so to all the arguements the CT's proposed

orourkeda

Saila wrote: »

lots of the holes the CT guys picked in the official records have been busted by experts, its just sad at this stage get over it guys, there were lots of programs on tv broadcast by the evil lizard men explaining why so to all the arguements the CT's proposed

What of these disparities are you speaking about and who were the experts that disproved the conspiracies

TheyKnowMyIP

Imagine the Irish Government trying to pull this off. They can't even cull people scamming the social welfare system in record numbers, let alone coming up with a master plan to dupe people. The government knows less about you then you think. It's Private Enterprise that you want to watch out for with privacy.

TheyKnowMyIP

orourkeda wrote: »

What of these disparities are you speaking about and who were the experts that disproved the conspiracies

They didn't "disprove" anything. It's on the CT'ers to provide a sufficient basis for their claim, not on normals to prove something which isn't there. This is how scientific inquiry works. People believe Science to be all knowing. This is not the case outside of perhaps, say, Mathematics, which can be argued to be not pure science either.

orourkeda

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Imagine the Irish Government trying to pull this off. They can't even cull people scamming the social welfare system in record numbers, let alone coming up with a master plan to dupe people. The government knows less about you then you think. It's Private Enterprise that you want to watch out for with privacy.

They dont need a plan to cod people. They just do it

The_Kew_Tour

Dont think 9/11 was inside job, however I think the US Government were not too disappointed either. They wanted to go to war and 9/11 was perfect excuse.

Saila

orourkeda wrote: »

What of these disparities are you speaking about and who were the experts that disproved the conspiracies

the demolition style collapse - busted

no debris after the plane crashed into the ground - busted

there were lots more, there was a few really good programs around the anniversary on it which explained the CT and then had experts on blowing them to pieces, most were involved in the investigation too

Dotrel

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Until sufficient evidence exists to support this theory, it's a myth. I do not place great faith in people, but I highly doubt the US government planned "an inside job". It's nonsense. What do you reckon, was 9/11 an inside job?

I always consider that terrible day of the 9th of November 2001 as like a Goalkeeper saving shots in a game. He's not 'making' the shots come in on his goal but he doing his bit every game by stopping them hit the back of the net.

Now let's say one day the usually reliable goalie 'accidentally' doesn't save a shot or three? Well then you've got a Bruce Grobbelaar on your hands!

That's my suspicion for 9/11. Basically terrorists are constantly trying to get something like this going but are stopped before they can make it happen by US defense. However on "Brucie Day" (as 9/11 shall now be called) they found a way thru. The rest is trivia.

OutlawPete

I'm with Jed Bartlet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocUxplGLnT4

x in the city

TheyKnowMyIP wrote: »

Until sufficient evidence exists to support this theory, it's a myth. I do not place great faith in people, but I highly doubt the US government planned "an inside job". It's nonsense. What do you reckon, was 9/11 an inside job?

What's the Difference Between 9/11 and a Cow? etc...











You can't keep milking the cow for ten years

orourkeda

Saila wrote: »

the demolition style collapse - busted

no debris after the plane crashed into the ground - busted

there were lots more, there was a few really good programs around the anniversary on it which explained the CT and then had experts on blowing them to pieces, most were involved in the investigation too

a) There are several hundred architects and engineers that still argue for the demolition. Richard Gage etc. Who do we believe and why?

Scuid Mhór

9/11 wasn't an inside job

Scuid Mhór

until the plane hit the building

orourkeda

x in the city wrote: »

What's the Difference Between 9/11 and a Cow? etc...











You can't keep milking the cow for ten years

You can millk afghanistan for as long as yu like

Ally Dick

If this was really an inside job, there would be too many people who would have to be involved in the plot, that it would definitely have been revealed by now.

RonMexico

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuKQkj4AN2w

Saila

orourkeda wrote: »

a) There are several hundred architects and engineers that still argue for the demolition. Richard Gage etc. Who do we believe and why?

thats more of a reflection of piss poor tradesmen and general suspician types
how do you know "There are several hundred architects and engineers that still argue for the demolition" anyway, because you read it on the net

Seachmall

orourkeda wrote: »

a) There are several hundred architects and engineers that still argue for the demolition. Richard Gage etc.

And there are several thousand who agree demolition is not plausible.

Who do we believe and why?

The mainstream majority opinion of the experts because they define the industry, publish peer-reviewed papers and represent the most likely cause given the evidence.