9/11 Debunked

[Flex]

Little do you know that I've read through each of your reports. I also have an explanation for each of them, but I havn't had time to respond. Why don't you try reading one of mine for once? Better yet, why don't you ever answer one of my questions? (I run through each and every question you ask, no matter how ridiculous they are.) Mine just get skipped, because you don't have any evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Flex]

I've asked this before, why are the steel beams cut on a precise angle? This isn't meant to be a "aha, I'm right" It's a question.

As I've said before, all you have are questions (which all can be answered). Yet, somehow you know for a fact that 9/11 was an inside job.

I've already proved you wrong on this before, but since you frequently skip vital information (a common 9/11 twoofer quality). I'll answer it again.

This is after forgetting these facts about WTC 1 & 2's collapse

-Had zero similarities to a controlled demolition
-The buildings fell from the TOP-DOWN, never in history has that happend in a controlled demoltion
-Never has a building 1/2 as tall ever been used in a controlled demoltion (this would be a hell of a time to start)
-In a controlled demolition, there is always a series of loud bangs before the building collapses (not at the trade center)
-Not one person reported seeing explosives in the buildings (it would take months to get enough explosives in the buildings to bring them down)
-If this was a controlled demoltion, where's the series of flashes/squibs before it begins to collapse?
-What the fuck does an angled cut beam have to do with a building that fell from the TOP-DOWN?
-Each building had steel beams fall as far 400-500 feet away from its footprint, that would never happen in a controlled demoltion
-Thermite has never been used in a controlled demoltion



Everything else will be responded to shorty.

 

[Samoan-Z]

After reading this thread every theory i believed in just failed.

 

[Flex]

After reading this thread every theory i believed in just failed.

Much respect for actually reading the thread.

 

[Samoan-Z]

Can't argue the facts.

 

[Ironslave]

Can't argue the facts.

There were some good posts for sure. I still don't believe the "official" story, but mostly with regards to how the attack was planned/carried out. I'll check out JREF and see what other threads are there.

 

[Flex]

I'll check out JREF and see what other threads are there.

I'd rather you visit a few debunking sites. I didn't get any of my information in this thread from JREF, JREF is just an intelligent discussion forum. These are the sites I'd recommend.

www.911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page
www.wtc7lies.googlepages.com
www.911myths.com
www.debunking911.com
www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Main_Page


Just look how in-depth Mike Williams goes into Norman Mineta's account on September 11th. You'll find that Williams is not one sided, if something isn't conclusive he'll admit it.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

 

[Samoan-Z]

Hell you should never believe an offical story, how ever the theories I have heard, Flex... over killed, ressurected, killed again and ran over with the steam roller of facts, then took a shit on it, then pointed and laughed at it's defeat! So now I gotta find a new theory so I can have a grudge against the government.

 

[Eli80Cal]

Great Debate! Let me start out by saying that I do not totally buy the official story, but my reasoning is a bit different. Here is why. Compare the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, and 9-11. All are supposed unprovoked attacks on the US. All led to wars (including creating popular support for unpopular wars) The first three have been pretty much shown to have been avoidable/provoked (anyone read through the NSA's declassified Gulf of Tonkin file? http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/) All also led to incredible changes in banking and government involvement. History only repeats itself.

In defense of the official story however, the best proof I have seen that 9-11 was not government sponsored was simply how well it went. When was the last time the feds did anything that well?

 

[Flex]

Great Debate! Let me start out by saying that I do not totally buy the official story, but my reasoning is a bit different. Here is why. Compare the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, and 9-11. All are supposed unprovoked attacks on the US. All led to wars (including creating popular support for unpopular wars) The first three have been pretty much shown to have been avoidable/provoked (anyone read through the NSA's declassified Gulf of Tonkin file? http://www.nsa.gov/vietnam/) All also led to incredible changes in banking and government involvement. History only repeats itself.

In defense of the official story however, the best proof I have seen that 9-11 was not government sponsored was simply how well it went. When was the last time the feds did anything that well?

But your making it sound like any terrorist attack that is in the end successful, has to be an inside job. So I take it you don't question the 1993 WTC bombing since it was not successful? These arn't "a bunch of dumb Arabs living in a cave" as many conspiracy theorists like to portray, Osama Bin Laden is very intelligent and this was a well executed attack.

The 19 hijackers were well trained, they were hand-picked by Bin Laden, and were willing to kill themselves for their cause.

Until 9/11 there had never been a commercial airliner used as a missile. Not one person could have imagined someone would hijack them and intentionally fly them into a building using jet fuel to bring them down.

Can you at least give a reason for doubting the official story other than "it worked?" Flight 11, 175, and 77 were a success. Flight 93 was a failure, they waited too long to take over the plane.

 

[Flex]

Did you browse any of the sites I posted James?

If so, what do you think.

 

[Samoan-Z]

, Osama Bin Laden is very intelligent and this was a well executed attack.

Great point, Bin Laden is not only intelligent he hold a reglious title granting him supernatural amount sof command within the mulim world wand with that his networth is estimated to be in the multi-millions. Bin Laden isn't living in a cave right now of course he is cautious but trust me with his current condidtions and etc. he is living great right now. He has every resource available to plan and execute these attacks.

 

[Eli80Cal]

But your making it sound like any terrorist attack that is in the end successful, has to be an inside job.
.........
Can you at least give a reason for doubting the official story other than "it worked?" Flight 11, 175, and 77 were a success. Flight 93 was a failure, they waited too long to take over the plane.

I stated, "In defense of the official story", meaning a successful attack was NOT an inside job.

I am fully aware of the level of intelligence of the Hijackers. I have never questioned that. (I am terrorist response trained by an Ex-CIA agent. I do not underestimate the threat or their ability.) Ever read the Al Qaeda handbook? These people are very bright and resourceful.

You ask if I don't question the 1993 WTC attack because it was not successful. There is a huge amount of debate on this attack as well, and the Government's knowledge prior to the event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emad_Salem which only would go to support government involvement leading to bad plans.

I have no doubt that the terrorists did not expect the attack to go as well as it did.

I am not stating that George Bush signed off on the attack or anything like that. Look up the Lusitania and the Gulf of Tonkin, ( I am assuming you are familiar with Pearl Harbor.) My point is that it would not be the first time our country has sacrificed sheep to further a cause.

 

[Flex]

My point is that it would not be the first time our country has sacrificed sheep to further a cause.

It has, and I'm not denying that. But, it doesn't mean this specific event was an inside job.

If it was an inside job, they wouldn't risk it in front of every news channel in New York City (referring to Flight 175). The attack only made the U.S. defense look weak, thus it would make no sense for them to be performing it upon themselves. The amount of people that would be needed to pull of an inside job as far as Ironslave is demonstrating would be into the tens of thousands; far too risky and honestly.....would be plain stupid.

There are people that will always suggest 9/11 was inside job no matter how much proves the contrary, plus they have no evidence. In the end, it's pointless to debate without evidence.

 

[Eli80Cal]

But, it doesn't mean this specific event was an inside job.

I have never said I thought 9/11 was an inside job. It was stated above by you or IS that you "either believe the official story or you don't." All I said is that I do not believe the official story. Do you believe the official story? The unanimous commission report?

What it boils down to for me is I think we had some prior government knowledge of the attack, and a failure to act. Whether that failure to act was intentional (IE, allow it to occur for what it will allow us to do) or unintentional is what the debate is in my mind. The ideas of misfeasance and malfeasance come up. Pearl Harbor was not an inside job, but there was government compliance. A security assessment was done of US interests in Beirut prior to the bombing there in 1983 (after the other bombings in the area). The assessment was not heeded, due to it being potentially embarrassing for the higher ups that the facility was not secure. Does this make it an inside job? Not at all. It also does not excuse or reduce the fact that American lives were lost for less than pristine political motives.

Think about the changes that have occurred since 9-11, the new laws passed. Illegal wiretaps, cell phones as listening devices, CIA-google dossiers. (The part that irks me the most is not that the feds are doing this, but the lack of outrage when people find out about it. Our rights are not being taken from us. We are willfully giving them up.) As libertarians, I think we can agree on the fact that 9-11 has been exploited beyond belief by those in power to further personal and political agendas, and to further governmental control over out lives. Fear has always been a control tactic, and a highly effective one (Look at Hitler's Enabling Act.) My point is that yes, I agree with you that the Gov. being behind the 9-11 attacks as part of a massive cover-up is highly unlikely. I do find it not nearly as unlikely (and actually find it quite believable) that the government would allow an attack to happen in order for the flood gates to open. (like we have done multiple times in the past.) I don't think anyone (Terrorist or government) would have imagined that both towers would fall, nor the loss of life it would create.


Any further thoughts on the 1993 WTC bombing, and government knowledge or involvement in that?

 

[Flex]

I have never said I thought 9/11 was an inside job. It was stated above by you or IS that you "either believe the official story or you don't." All I said is that I do not believe the official story. Do you believe the official story? The unanimous commission report?

What it boils down to for me is I think we had some prior government knowledge of the attack, and a failure to act. Whether that failure to act was intentional (IE, allow it to occur for what it will allow us to do) or unintentional is what the debate is in my mind. The ideas of misfeasance and malfeasance come up. Pearl Harbor was not an inside job, but there was government compliance. A security assessment was done of US interests in Beirut prior to the bombing there in 1983 (after the other bombings in the area). The assessment was not heeded, due to it being potentially embarrassing for the higher ups that the facility was not secure. Does this make it an inside job? Not at all. It also does not excuse or reduce the fact that American lives were lost for less than pristine political motives.

Think about the changes that have occurred since 9-11, the new laws passed. Illegal wiretaps, cell phones as listening devices, CIA-google dossiers. (The part that irks me the most is not that the feds are doing this, but the lack of outrage when people find out about it. Our rights are not being taken from us. We are willfully giving them up.) As libertarians, I think we can agree on the fact that 9-11 has been exploited beyond belief by those in power to further personal and political agendas, and to further governmental control over out lives. Fear has always been a control tactic, and a highly effective one (Look at Hitler's Enabling Act.) My point is that yes, I agree with you that the Gov. being behind the 9-11 attacks as part of a massive cover-up is highly unlikely. I do find it not nearly as unlikely (and actually find it quite believable) that the government would allow an attack to happen in order for the flood gates to open. (like we have done multiple times in the past.) I don't think anyone (Terrorist or government) would have imagined that both towers would fall, nor the loss of life it would create.


Any further thoughts on the 1993 WTC bombing, and government knowledge or involvement in that?

Great post. Repped.

I don't take one bit of the 9/11 commission "hook, line, and sinker" as James likes to put it. I'm not going to argue against anyone that simply states they don't believe the entire official story. But, if you're going to make outrageous conspiracy theories that can be proved wrong, I will.

 

[Flex]

Now I still find it perplexing that the video doesn't show a massive 767 crashing into the pentagon, or any massive engines. (Maybe it was in the big box with the blue tarp they carried out, who knows).

 

[Eli80Cal]

I dont know how to rep people Flex (Yeah, I know, I suck) but you deserve one for the documentation. I had a lot more questions and doubts before reading this thread. I have shown a lot of this info to a lot of friends (who all share similar views) It changed a few minds. All I can say to all libertarians....Keep spreading the word.