Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

I think YOU should describe in YOUR own words, in just a few brief sentences, what _YOU _ claim happened. In detail, but briefly.

Cthulhu has already done so for his scenario, which I agree with.

If you can't say anything detailed, fuck off, moron.

Originally Posted by ENT

There you have what?
Have you gone stark raving mad?

Nope, he's spot on -- because two pages ago we had posted the "ACCURATE" seismographic readings, correlating EXACTLY with a Boeing 757 hitting a reinforced concrete building, and verified, accurate passenger manifests from that flight.

You, as usual, ignored those, and now you look silly.

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

ENT is this an act or are you really this focking stoopid?

He really is that stupid. Medication yo-yo. Happens.

Ever wonder why his family won't have anything to do with him?

Oh, right ENT, they are "just busy"

Just for the record, here's my personal view of what happened on 9/11 and afterwards:

- 19 Saudi nationals trained to hijack and fly planes, with the intent of using the planes as weapons against the Pentagon, the WTC, and another US gov't building (Capitol, White House). This is nothing new - these lunatics keep trying and once in a while, manage to blow themselves up and damage US property (USS Cole, Lebanon Embassy, First bombing attempt at the WTC,....)

- the outgoing Clinton administration passed on all available intelligence to the incoming Bush administration. The Bush administration dismissed any such intelligence and warnings.

- the secret service and the CIA *had* become aware of suspicious behavior and chatter that indicated some operation was apparently being planned or underway. Any such suspicion was forwarded to Bush' Attorney General John Ashcroft who dismissed it - as he was more concerned about forced morning prayers that protecting the nation. (note: this wasn't intentional, it was merely stupid).

- the operation was able to be pulled off with a 75% success rate by the 19 Saudi nationals, mostly despite their being idiots. A credit to the mastermind behind their training (who turned out to be Khalid Sheik Mohammed), who knew that he had to execute a plan while relying on uneducated morons.

- the plane in Pennsylvania went down and was destroyed en-route when the passengers realized what was going on, and basically started over-powering the hijackers. Facing defeat, the crew that had locked themselves in the cockpit barreled the plane straight into the ground.

- the other three planes hit their targets.

- back then, as I was watching the twin towers burning, I recall turning to my friend in the living room, and mentioning "if they don't get these fires under control within the hour, those towers will collapse into themselves". I said so because I knew the upper steel skeleton section of the towers was not protected by flame retardant and heat reducing materials, due to changes in the 1968 building codes. Whatever thin veneer of spray on coating was probably compromised by having a 500,000 ton plane slam into it. As such, I knew that the heat and damage generated was enough to weaken not just the steel (making buckling easier) but that it would loosen the steel bolts securing the structure.

- understanding of structural factors involved made it clear to me, that once 2-3 floors gave way and collapsed the rest of the building would collapse into itself. Which is exactly what happened 45 minutes later. So, none of this came as any sort of surprise - subsequent collapses of surrounding buildings also came as no surprise, considering WTC 7 burned continuously for 6-7 hours, and underground foundation structures were seriously damaged by the collapse of the twin towers, causing subsequent damage and collapse of surrounding structures.

- I do believe systematic cover-ups followed the events of 9/11, but those were the typical cover-ups of those in charge (John Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al) to protect their own asses as well as to protect The President from any implications of *incompetence* and willful *negligence* (notice the two words I used : *incompetence* and *negligence* - not complicity).

- I also believe that the official commission's findings, while largely accurate, greatly simplified the actual course of events in the interest of providing closure, protecting national security, and protecting other individuals from being implicated for negligence and incompetence. Thus, to me, the official story is something I do not pay much attention to.

At the end of the day, the confessions, boastings and admissions by Bin Laden, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Zacarias Moussaoui, and others provide sufficient support for that portion of "the official story" (furthermore to be referred to as TOS).

That's about it - in a nutshell, my view on what happened can simply be summarized by:

"Complacency does not equal Complicity!" or, in short "Complacency, not Complicity!"

Hey Truthers, Shut Up!

Would you believe there are still people who think 9/11 was a controlled demolition, and are still pushing their case 8 years later? I was surprised too. They're called "Truthers" (Twoofers), and in general they latch on to whatever conspiracy theory happens to be in vogue at the time, jumping ship to the next one as soon as you prove what they've been saying is complete horseshit.
I myself recently encountered someone who firmly believes the whole thing was a huge conspiracy. So I started digging for information to counter his claims, and you wouldn't believe the wealth of documentation and evidence I found. And he's still not convinced; imagine that.
Wacky (and real) 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

• The Government killed the passengers of the 3 flights that hit, and put them on Flight 93 to get rid of the bodies.
• Flight 93 was shot down by an Air Force jet
• Flight 93 never existed
• Space laser
• Jews

The Pentagon was hit by a missile!

No, no it wasn't. The favourite claim of Truthers is that since a 757 is 40ft tall, but the hole was only 16ft tall, it must have been a missile. What they either fail to realize, or completely ignore, is that a 757 is only 40ft tall if you go from the bottom of the landing gear to the top of the tail. The fuselage, the part that actually penetrated the Pentagon, is only 13ft tall, so 16ft is just about the right size.

But the damage is only one ring deep!

No, the damage is 3 rings deep, almost 4, and the plane entered at an angle, which means the entire fuselage penetrated the Pentagon. That's also why so little debris from the plane was visible on the lawn. Frankly, I'm surprised there was any debris on the lawn.
That's one thing you need to notice about conspiracy theories: they're all built on questions designed to confuse you, using information that's either out of context or, in some cases, wholly fabricated. It turns out someone from a debunking forum did a whole lot of research on the plane that hit the Pentagon, and his information is much more detailed than what I can show here. This page has everything you could ever want to know about the plane that hit the Pentagon. And these aerospace professionals talk about the wreckage.
Incidentally, the answers to the 7 questions in that conspiracy site are:

1. "Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?" Don't have to, since it penetrated all the way to the 4th ring. This is one of those lies I was talking about.
2. "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?" Sure can. Fuselage is 13.5ft high, and the building according to that link is 72ft high. That means the average floor height is about 14.5ft, which is taller than the fuselage. So it makes sense that the plane would only penetrate one floor. This is a misdirection, as the 14.9 yards is misleading; only the fuselage height is relevant.
3. "You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?" Forgetting that the picture is so far away that you can't see any of the debris clearly, the question is moot since the plane completely entered the Pentagon. It would be surprising to have visible debris in a picture taken from that distance. However, there are numerous pictures showing parts of wheels, engines, and fuselage outside the Pentagon. They even found seats from the plane, and have recovered the black box.
4. "Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?" Jet fuel is just a little flammable. I have a better question though: what does this have to do with whether a 757 hit the Pentagon? Maybe he just hated that type of grass, and decided this was as good an excuse as any to take care of it. This is a classic misdirection, making you question things that don't really address the issue.
5. "Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?" Sure can. The wings don't have enough structural support to withstand the impact, and upon striking the building they collapsed in against the rest of the plane, either disintegrating or entering the building along with the fuselage. Airplanes don't leave an airplane shape hole like in a cartoon, they are subject to the laws of physics. The problem here is that the average reader doesn't know enough about physics and airframe design to be able to answer this question intelligently, and that's what the theorists are relying on in order to spark doubt.
6. "Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?" Not his job to know. Also because it wasn't visible, having penetrated the building so thoroughly. Again, misdirection.
7. "Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?" Probably obscured by all that smoke/foam/whatever that's being sprayed. Also not a real question, since there are dozens of pictures that actually do show it.

See what I mean?
The Twin Towers were a controlled demolition!

This is my favourite nutjob theory to debunk, not leastwise because I recently found a document that proves conclusively that it is a physical and scientific impossibility for the Twin Towers to have been a controlled demolition. That paper was written by possibly the most qualified person on the planet to write such a paper, so give it special attention. But let's handle the theories one at a time, shall we? Except where indicated otherwise, these are all answers coming from the paper I just linked.

Seismographs registered explosions before they collapsed

No they didn't. Those are the seismograph readings from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory to the right there. Notice that there's no spikes before the collapses, just smooth readings that start mild, grow as the collapse occurs, and then diminish as it finishes.

But people heard the explosions!

No they didn't, they heard something loud and sharp. In a situation like that, it could have been almost anything.

But you can see them ahead of the collapse!

No, you can see air, dirt and debris being forced out the windows. 70% of a building is air, and when it collapses like that the air and everything else inside is forced to go somewhere. Path of least resistence is through the window, and that's what you saw.

But they fell into their own footprint! That only happens in demolitions!

Actually debris was reported as raining down blocks away, and a sizeable chunk of one tower cut deep in to WTC7. They certainly did not fall into their own footprint.

But they found thermite in the rubble!

First of all, they found trace amounts of thermite in the rubble. Secondly, do you know how to make thermite? I didn't know either, so I looked it up. It turns out the only ingredients are aluminum and rust. That's it. You know what there's a lot of in a tall, old building like that? Aluminum and rust. My money is on the two coming in to contact during the collapse, which would create - you guessed it! - trace amounts of thermite. Mystery solved. Of course, I can't prove this, so it's just a theory.

But no similar building has ever collapsed due to fire!

And neither did this one; it collapsed due to fire and severe structural damage. At the temperatures recorded in the fires, steel loses 90% of its strength. Empirical evidence has shown us that this alone is not enough to bring down a building, but when you hit it with a giant plane first, undoubtedly knocking out supports and warping beams, putting them at odd angles at which they can't support the structure any more, you're going to have the building collapse.
Here's something else people tend not to realize about the collapse: explosions would have forced the structure outward. Someone mentioned that the buildings came down at near freefall speed, so I went looking on YouTube for videos of the collapses, so I could judge their speed for myself. In my searches I happened to find this video, which I will embed below rather than to the side because of how important it is:
Among the things you should take away from this video:

1. The collapse starts at 0:14 and ends roughly at 0:27, which means it fell in about 13 seconds. At freefall speed it would have taken 9.2 seconds.
2. The camera happens to be zoomed right in on the exact point of structural collapse at the exact time it occurred, and you can clearly see the beams slowly give way, twisting inward. In an explosion, they would have moved suddenly away.
3. As the camera zooms back out, you can clearly see beams and concrete being thrown the entire width of the building away from it, and continuing to travel outward as the collapse proceeds; obviously it didn't fall into its own footprint.
4. The collapse begins at the point of the fire, so a demolition would either have required explosives to have been placed at exactly that point beforehand and to have survived the impact and fire without being destroyed, or they would need to have been planted ahead of time with nobody noticing.

Vèrinage - the smaller upper part crushes the larger lower part all the way to the ground, at roughly freefall speed

The other complaint I saw about the Twin Towers was that they wouldn't be able to collapse like that, from the top down, without explosions from underneath. So I went looking for instances where similar collapses have happened, and I learned about something they do in France called vèrinage, which is how they demolish buildings that are surrounded by other structures that would have their windows blown out by the explosions necessary to bring down the building in an implosion. There are no explosions involved in this demolition, just beams being weakened and pulled out place; is this sounding familiar?
But WTC7 was a controlled demolition!

You know what? I'm just going to refer you back to that PDF I linked to. WTC7 had significant structural damage from falling debris, and the demolitions experts who had arrived by that time all said they didn't hear anything that sounded like demolition explosives, and no seismograph picked any up.
Twoofers offer nothing but confusing questions. The problem is they refuse to accept the answers when they are provided, even when they are as clear as day as what I've found. You want to know who brought down the World Trade Center? A bunch of pissed off Muslims who were brainwashed, learned how to fly, hijacked some planes and crashed them in to shit.
Oh, and before I end this, the two things people always end up referring to when arguing 9/11 conspiracy are Michael Moore's movie Fahrenheit 9/11, and an Internet video called Loose Change. Personally, I think mentioning either of those in a discussion about 9/11 should fall under a version of Godwin's Law; you automatically lose. However, here are 59 deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (and Michael Moore's responses where they exist), and another conspiracy theorist's thorough debunking of Loose Change - that's right, Loose Change is so nutjob a video that even other conspiracy theorists think it's bullshit.
So, conspiracy theorists: shut the fuck up already. You're wrong. A plane hit the Pentagon, the Twin Towers came down because planes hit them, and WTC7 came down because it was hit by massive amounts of falling debris. Get over it, and move on to some other event with no mystery to it that you think deserves a conspiracy theory. Your bullshit 9/11 theories only serve to hurt people.
Basically, fuck off.
.
.
.

Ent's keeping us all waiting for his description of events. He does this because it gives him a sense of power.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Ent's keeping us all waiting for his description of events. He does this because it gives him a sense of power.

Yes, undoubtedly carefully planning his next move.

Originally Posted by ENT

Nothing hit the Pentagon. It was all a black ops job idiot.

So what do you claim actually happened at the Pentagon, ENT ? We're all ears.

How did the large hole in the building come about ? How did so many plane parts appear simultaneously inside and outside the building ?

and our resident nutters keep dancing and dancing and dancing

But haven't you heard ? ENT claims to know that

Originally Posted by ENT

Nothing hit the Pentagon. It was all a black ops job, idiot.

We're all sitting in suspense waiting for his brief but detailed account of what actually transpired at the Pentagon.

^^ Quack Quack and LD don't like facts, it distorts their reality and they get really upset and will post for 30+ pages to prove it

Yap as much as you like, doggie. It doesn't change the facts as we have expounded them.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

... and both are still afraid to provide info on their educational background. This is, by the way, very common for conspiracy theorists, who are often from "humble" backgrounds while never having completed any higher education - while most skeptics appear to have a decent educational background which they are confident enough to declare when asked.

Anyone who believes that a jetliner swooped in across the Pentagon lawn (just a few feet above it) and slammed into the second floor windows of the building, leaving no recognizable major parts of the aircraft like the seven story tail section or either of the two huge engines, either of the wings, etc., is the real mental midget. (And for the record, Daffy, yes I have an advanced degree from a Western (G7) University). There's a video that pretty much proves the jet most people saw flying low toward the Pentagon came from the wrong approach (in relation to the actual damage trajectory to the building). In other words, a missile most likely hit the building while the decoy (a real jet) flew low toward the Pentagon, over the expressway, then veered over, and above the Pentagon and away at the last moment (of impact).

Nice to see at least one more fucker happy to put their convictions on the line

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

"Attaboy" - how very patriotic - and also telling of your rank.

My rank? Don't tell me you guys salute each other?

Originally Posted by ENT

Kurt Sonnenfeld's Case.

Kurt Sonnenfeld was the only videographer, who was allowed to film at Ground Zero in New York. He was working for the FEMA.

On New Years Eve 2002, he was arrested for having killed his wife. The story didn't make big headlines in the news, but started some speculations and rumours on the internet. On June 14, 2002, prosecutors dismissed first-degree murder charges against Sonnenfeld in the early New Year's morning shooting death of his wife. Nancy Sonnenfeld, 36, died of a gunshot wound in the head after she and her husband had celebrated New Year's Eve together.

Kurt Sonnenfeld told police that his wife committed suicide. Prosecutors wouldn't comment on specific reasons for the dismissal, but the defense investigation found a note written by Nancy Sonnenfeld which police had not taken into evidence, said public defender Carrie Thompson. "Our investigators found a letter written in Nancy's own hand consistent with a suicide letter, although it was very cryptic," Thompson said. She said the letter said, "What is more beautiful than love and death?" with the word "love" scratched out. "Kurt, please get help." The letter was found behind a framed photograph of Kurt Sonnenfeld. ...

Nancy Sonnenfeld's sister, Amy Leek, said the family knew this was coming but would have no comment on the news. ...

Kurt Sonnenfeld was a videographer who documented disaster sites for FEMA, including the September 11 attacks in New York.
Nancy Sonnenfeld was a manager for BSA Advertising.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...208124,00.html

This is simple enough to figure out. The hero (of your truther story) and his wife argue. She leaves him a note before leaving for work. He saves the note. Later he kills her and plants the "suicide note". The guy is a murderer.

Which one of you is crackpot #1 and which is crackpot #2 and who salutes who first?

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

...

Your Seppo social labels cut no ice. The right wing agenda you want to promote is clear by your posts.

Climate change involving global warming is an established fact, read the science reports on the issue instead of listening to your favourite TV channel.

You yack on about the systematic destruction of our planet as though that has nothing to do ith climate change and its effects.

You must be totally blind to the increasingly destructive weather patterns that have hit both the US and globally. The CO2 level is the key factor tying climate change to destructive natural resource exploitation and how we live.

The 9/11 false flag op was central to causing more degradation of the planet through illegal oil wars and to the curtailing of free speach in America under the new Homeland Security act.

Wake up, man!

There you have it. Global warming threatens the oil companies and their stooges so they staged 9/11.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Yep - NOTHING hit the pentagon.

It's an old building. The brickwork just gave way. Material fatigue, and a bad gas mains.

Al says it could have been a bomb secreted inside the building. That would explain the charred exterior. lol.

^^That's a strange thing to say. Expand on your theory.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The idea is to expose the US government and the GW Bush team for the frauds that they were. Who cares about those fucking planes, or those missiles, or how many were really killed, it's not really the issue. The real issue is the lies and how easy it is to manipulate the public.

In that regard, the Nazi government of 1933 is probably the most interesting thing to study after 911 deception and the US government lies.

So championing kook conspiracies will expose Bush and his gang? I'd think it would cause people to tune you out.

We should have an automated post which hands out a trophy every time someone mentions Hitler or Nazis.

Originally Posted by ENT

^^That's a strange thing to say. Expand on your theory.

There is no theory. It's Al Shagmaster's nonsense.

^^^^ Failed attempt at sarcasm. Good pic. though. The building was collapsed by Pentagon engineers, a well known fact.

The main fire to the north end of the Pentagon started before the alleged crash, and kept burning for two days.

Several explosions went off inside the building.