Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Do you guys go to a course, and does it require you to FOLLOW all the classic disinformation guidelines?

Here is my assessment : as their intelligence and analytical abilities are (so obviously) sadly lacking, they have replaced these qualities with animal cunning.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

We sure are -- though honestly, admit it, it's kinda fun how they keep shooting self-goals with their links?

It IS rather, isn't it ? Though a little sad, like thrashing in tennis the neighbourhood kid who can't really play it.

The sad part is that ENT seems to be some kind of academic....albeit in Anthropology. He has in fact made some interesting posts in this area, but as soon as he tries to analyze anything, foot appears in mouth.
.
.
.

LD and Cthulhu being stupid again.
First trying to debunk a demolition theory with one of coke and meltos at WTC, then nano-termites bringing down buildings.
You seem to be lost.

Now that information refuting your contentions arrive, you both simply resort to ad hominem attacks.

If you can, give reference to info. supporting the view that the engine found at the Pentagon was in fact that from a Boeing 757-223 that was AA Flt 77 on 11/9/2001.

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!"

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Here is my assessment : as their intelligence and analytical abilities are (so obviously) sadly lacking, they have replaced these qualities with animal cunning.

How so? Animals are at least successful when cunning. Rarely do you see wild animals fail so spectacularly.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

Originally Posted by ENT

He's the only witness so far to say that a plane hit a light pole, and the undamaged hood on his car doesn't support his version of events.

The timeline he gives for that incident doesn't indicate that an airliner knocked a light pole into his car, then crashed into the Pentagon, either.

You really should make the effort to review my links, instead of dismissing them off-hand. ;-)

So, you admit light-poles were knocked over. Several of them.

What knocked them down?

Originally Posted by ENT

Now that information refuting your contentions arrive, you both simply resort to ad hominem attacks.

Remember those 25 rules of Disinformation - you're back to following them:

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - 911truth.org

So far, you are the only one regularly resorting to direct insults, but this statement is consistent with Rule 2 ("2. Become incredulous and indignant."), Rule 7 ("7. Question motives"), and Rule 22 ("22. Manufacture a new truth"). I'm sure there's other cross-overs.

Originally Posted by ENT

If you can, give reference to info. supporting the view that the engine found at the Pentagon was in fact that from a Boeing 757-223 that was AA Flt 77 on 11/9/2001.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - 911truth.org

Ah, I see you are now warming up Rule 20 ("20. False evidence") - always a crowd favorite.

I have, so far, provided links and supporting materials for all my statements (I even included a super-rare image of nano-termites) - while all you have repeatedly done is to assert and claim there is no proof. Aside from being a text-book case of Rule 19 ("19. Ignore proof presented") and Rule 17 ("17. Change the subject") with some Rule 16 ("16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses") thrown in for good measure - it is not my responsibility to force you to follow links.

So far, when you or another of your cohorts presents a link, I follow it and evaluate it (after all, if I didn't, I wouldn't have come across the gold-mine of the 25 Rules of Disinformation you and HansuMan kept referring to - so, see, I do read your materials ;-)

Don't blame me if you hoist yourself on those petards.

Originally Posted by Humbert

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Humbert again.

Love the author's name. ;-)

Still no reference to any evidences to support your contentions re.Flight 77

You've given pages of ad hominen attacks and debunked official theories though.

Tell us more about your nano-termites though, they sound interesting.

"But as for the simple mechanics of building collapse, it really _IS_ Popular Mechanics stuff" latindancer re. WTC 911.

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Here is my assessment : as their intelligence and analytical abilities are (so obviously) sadly lacking, they have replaced these qualities with animal cunning.

How so? Animals are at least successful when cunning. Rarely do you see wild animals fail so spectacularly.

As ENT has on other threads here. But he keeps coming back for more.

ENT, don't you realize how much diet coke and Mentos would have been consumed by staff at the WTC ??
.
.
.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Someone casually mentioned the Bilderberg. It's funny, because ten years or so ago its existence was denied,

More misinformation, and a great example of the type of sloppy thinking demonstrated repeatedly here ! They were a well-known group, but their meetings were held secretively and privately.

Bilderberg Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read the section entitled "Conspiratorial interpretations of Bilderberg Group activities"

Originally Posted by Cthulhu

So, you admit light-poles were knocked over. Several of them. What knocked them down?


So far, you are the only one regularly resorting to direct insults,

Originally Posted by ENT

If you can, give reference to info. supporting the view that the engine found at the Pentagon was in fact that from a Boeing 757-223 that was AA Flt 77 on 11/9/2001.

I have, so far, provided links and supporting materials for all my statements (I even included a super-rare image of nano-termites)

Nano-termites!

The Pentagon video seems to shows some sort of craft with a white con-trail hitting the building, after approaching from the general direction of the downed light poles. It's not big enough to be an airliner, though.

This possibly downed the light poles.

Since only one jet engine was found at the Pentagon site on 9/11, the indication is that a single engined aircraft struck the Pentagon.



-----
"But as for the simple mechanics of building collapse, it really _IS_ Popular Mechanics stuff" latindancer re. WTC 911.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Someone casually mentioned the Bilderberg. It's funny, because ten years or so ago its existence was denied

It's not a singular thing - but a meeting of a group of people, though named after the hotel (singular).

Bilderberg Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most common reference is "Bilderbergers", though previously known as "Werewolves on Wall Street".

I see you use the 25 Rules of Disinformation Template as well.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation - 911truth.org

Originally Posted by Latindancer

ENT, don't you realize how much diet coke and Mentos would have been consumed by staff at the WTC ??

Do you think it was enough to make them fart the WTC over?






"But as for the simple mechanics of building collapse, it really _IS_ Popular Mechanics stuff" latindancer re. WTC 911.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

[
There was never any oil to secure in Afghanistan, per se....they're chasing the broad oil fields in Central Asia. The proposed pipeline, expanded military bases, general US imperial occupation, etc, etc...

The Empire expands.

Yup, Afghanistan was only about control of Opium/Heroin.

You have an inside job to do......in my pants.

Originally Posted by ENT

The Pentagon video seems to shows some sort of craft with a white con-trail hitting the building, after approaching from the general direction of the downed light poles. It's not big enough to be an airliner, though.

This possibly downed the light poles.

Since only one jet engine was found at the Pentagon site on 9/11, the indication is that a single engined aircraft struck the Pentagon.

American Airlines has no single engine aircraft in operation - because the ground was littered by debris, constituting and consistent with a Boeing 757

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation

I suggest you click the link and read what's there. There's even some pretty color pictures and diagrams.

The engine is the type used in the Boeing 757. Pieces of both engines were found.

Case closed.

ENT is a bullshitting, bat shit crazy idiot. Case closed

Originally Posted by Latindancer

ENT is a bullshitting, bat shit crazy idiot. Case closed

Now, now - there's no need for Rule #5, y'hear?

By the way, there's an "illuminati'ng" meeting later on, are we going to see you there - you know, usual secret place where we receive our secret instructions.....

Yes yes...I have the latest intel on ENT's whereabouts from his ISP, so we can navigate a "stupid bomb" to his house in the South island of New Zealand.

Usual rhetorical smarty pants bull from the herd.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Usual rhetorical smarty pants bull from the herd.

Ah, Rule #7, with a bit of Rule #5 thrown in for good measure.

I really must thank ENT and HansuMan for providing links to this list.

FBI footage of missile hitting Pentagon.


FBI footage: missile hits the pentagon - YouTube


"But as for the simple mechanics of building collapse, it really _IS_ Popular Mechanics stuff" latindancer re. WTC 911.

Leaked Video of Cruise Missile Hitting Pentagon on 911 DOWNLOAD & RE UPLOAD - YouTube