Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

Once upon a time when I was a kid...I was playing with a neighbor girls fancy water pistol...brand new it was...she was in the house getting something for us to drink...I dropped it and it broke...I put the pieces together (a very cunning child I was) in such a fashion that it all looked intact. I set it right where she was sitting...knowing that if she so much as touched it, it would fall and then she would think she broke it. It worked flawlessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can i laugh please? AHAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahah

You don't even need to pay'em just give them means and they'll be happily to oblige, esspecially when one invades their lands with no reason, bombs their families with no reason, kills many more who had nothing to do with them and then.... some unorganized group of men takes over 3 major airplanes with such ease i could it at the time, so yeah entire event was fishy from the day i watched it.

so are you saying the planes were hijacked by the islamic fundamentalists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you don't have a reasoned opinion than all you have is simple (humble) opinion with no evidence required. That's fine, as long as you don't try to pass it on as knowledge.

Stop. This thread is for reasoned opinions, once I finally see one, then we can look as the warrants for that argument. So, I don't want videos, links to documents, pictures of alleged thermite residue, etc.

All I am asking for, for now, is a reasoned opinion. I almost got one but it was missing a warrant;

Unnamed officials in the "world banking system", working in secret, planned and controlled the 911 attacks. p1

Wars cannot be waged without substantial financial banking p2

There are private, unregulated banks who make their rules p3

Thus, the 911 attacks were planned and controlled by the "world banking system" Main conclusion

This is not a sound argument. The three premises do not support the main conclusion. It is a non sequitur fallacy, it does not follow.

Fine...go play with yourself then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post

Edited by Nuke_em

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i'll tell you again CIA most likely made the access to airplanes easier... maybe they paid them maybe they havent, but i think they had something to do with them getting on board the planes... otherwise i don't see how unorganized group of barely speaking english men hijacked anything im off from here always hated this topic too many holes in entire event and people still think it was outside job.

Edit: You 2 didn't even bother to read what US gained from such a play. What it traded for that attack.

Edited by Nuke_em
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine...go play with yourself then.

If all you have is a simple opinion fine, you can join Silverthong and drop out of this thread and go back to your other 911 threads.

But this is important stuff, people should know how to reason effectively. The argument that truthers make is an inductive argument, specifically a causal argument. In order to establish a cause-effect relationship you have to do two things;

1) show that the cause preceded and was spatially connected with the effect.

2) that the effect would not have occurred without the cause.

I don't even have to examine the evidence for 1 because 2 is false, it's quite possible that the 911 attacks would have occurred without the secret workings of unnamed financial officials in the "world banking system". Unless of course you can establish that it could not have occurred without the above plot.

Let me help you a bit. I'll grant you that that wealthy individuals and groups sometimes make money on warfare. But just establishing a correlation between two things does not establish a causal connection.

"I am always exhausted when I come home from work. My cats always greet me at the door when I get home. Although there may be a perfect correlation, I cannot conclude that my cats caused me to get tired. There are other factors involved.

The two factors that I cited though are independent.

Hope that helps.

Edited by redhen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One would expect the buildings to fall a certain way...not straight down...not in a puff of smoke...literally.

Look at this picture...explain to me how huge chunks of concrete are shot out 600 yards away, severely damaging other buildings...and yet the 'building' is reduced to dust...in mere seconds...falling at free fall speed.

tower_zpsd11b5da3.jpg

Does that not look like an explosion to you?

Nope! Add to the fact that no bomb explosions are evident in the photo, and I have seen and heard many explosions in Vietnam. There was no evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings, nor detonation wires nor blasting caps nor evidence of structural pre-weakening which is required before a building can be demolished. There was no detection of bomb explosions on local seismic monitors nor heard. When you hear a real bomb explosion you will notice the difference.

The preparation of explosive demolition takes many months, not in one day or a weekend, and if the explosives are not firmly attached to the structure, the building will not collapse as evident in the photo of WTC1 in 1993 when a huge bomb failed to destroy the building.

WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

Some people have the wrong impression that you can simply place a bomb in a steel structured building and the building will collapse without adequate preparation. Try looking at all of those bombed out buildings in Iraq that were struck by multiple bombs and cruise missiles yet they remained standing. The windows, and in some cases, parts of the walls were blown out, but the structures remained unaffected because the blast waves simply flow around the structural columns.

The people who have been pushing 911 conspiracy theories do not have the knowledge nor experience to know when they are being duped by CT videos and websites. A clear example is where they were duped by a hoaxed video of WTC7 despite many warnings the video was hoaxed.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people have the wrong impression that you can simply place a bomb in a steel structured building and the building will collapse without adequate preparation. .

...and then other people believe 100 story buildings will collapse into dust at free fall speed, while projectiles of concrete are 'falling' two football fields away, without any adequate preparation...it's mind boggling...but I digress...you are disallowed from talking about the actual evidence in this thread...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

joc, you are required to learn actual physics before you can talk about it.

Thanks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's mind boggling...but I digress...you are disallowed from talking about the actual evidence in this thread...

Not so. I have said that I will examine physical evidence after I see a complete, reasoned, causal argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What can not be proved? that the planes were unlawfully seized by a group of men with intentions of murdering everyone on board?

What other "logical" explanation can you give for the planes crashing into the towers let alone the other 3 planes not landing at their intended destinations???

There are many logical explanations about the airplanes, if you're willing to examine them.

Close examination of details, hours of poring over information provided by the government and other sources, reveal many things, among them that 2 aircraft that morning at Boston called Ground Control using the callsign United 175.

Now what a coincidence, eh?

And that the Shanksville coroner was encouraged by the FBI to "be a team player." And that there was no Boeing at Shanksville.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so. I have said that I will examine physical evidence after I see a complete, reasoned, causal argument.

Okay...I'll give you my argument.

To go to war with China....or significantly reduce the Rise of China as SuperPower.

The reasoning is this. China needs Iran. China gets 22% of their oil from Iran. China is becoming a Global Superpower.

We simply cannot wait for China to become a major SuperPower. We must set ourselves up for a war with China.

How do we do that? What catalyst for war with China is necessary and what is our window of opportunity? At the same time we know there are Islamic Jihadists attempting to blow up the WTC....they tried it once and failed. They have elaborate plans to fly hijacked airplanes into buildings. What if we allow them to do that? So what then? We put out the fires...reconstruct the damage...is that in and of itself a catalyst for war? What if we wire the buildings with explosives...wait for the terrorists to hit...when they do, bring both buildings down in an instant before the eyes of the whole world? THAT is a catalyst for war with whomever we choose to find as responsible.

But how does that get us into a war with China? Part of my reasoning is that this is a chess game...move pieces here...move pieces there...then...set up for checkmate. Knowing the other pieces on the board...it is not a stretch to predict what other countries will and will not do.

What did 911 get us toward War with China? We destroyed a very real threat...The Taliban/Alqueda in Afghanistan and set ourselves up with boots on the ground. Then we turned our eyes on Saddam...the world wasn't focused on the buildings anymore...the eyes of the world turned to Iraq. Shock and Awe...a war founded on the concept that...we cannot wait for another 911 and so Preemptive Striking is now okay. Fast forward just a bit...we have 150,000 troops on the ground...in an undeclared war with Iran's insurgency. The Bush doctrine was...if you are a terrorist country..if you house terrorists...we are coming after you. Why didn't we then go after Iran? Because it wasn't time to do that...you can only use the capital you gain from one False Flag so far before Red Flags start going up. So, now we have a military presence in the region...no Sada-am stopping anything...and Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon and their President has threatened Israel with destruction.

This is where 911 got us so far. Now, the question is still...how does this get us into a war with China?

I would suggest that Iran will achieve a nuclear weapon and even if they don't use it...a false flag of a nuclear explosion on Israel will happen. This will be catalyst for War with Iran. China will simply have no alternative but to enter that conflict and then the world will view China as the aggressor and The USA as the hero. And even if China doesn't...they lose significant capability through the loss of oil...or we continue to sell oil to them with a prearranged contract to substantially lessen our debt to them.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...I'll give you my argument.

To go to war with China....or significantly reduce the Rise of China as SuperPower. (Main conclusion)

China needs Iran. p1

China gets 22% of their oil from Iran. p2

China is becoming a Global Superpower. p3

We simply cannot wait for China to become a major SuperPower. p4

We must set ourselves up for a war with China. p5

How do we do that?

Ok that answers why.

Now who is "we", and how did they cause the 911 attacks, that no one else could possibly be responsible for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and then other people believe 100 story buildings will collapse into dust at free fall speed, while projectiles of concrete are 'falling' two football fields away, without any adequate preparation...it's mind boggling...but I digress...you are disallowed from talking about the actual evidence in this thread...

The videos show they were slower than freefall speed or did you miss the debris outpacing the collapse itself?

Edit to add this page

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and then other people believe 100 story buildings will collapse into dust at free fall speed, while projectiles of concrete are 'falling' two football fields away, without any adequate preparation...it's mind boggling...but I digress...you are disallowed from talking about the actual evidence in this thread...

It is evident in the videos the WTC buildings are not falling at free fall speeds. You can see debris falling and outpacing the collapse itself, which is a clear indication the buildings are not falling at free fall speeds at all. Seismic data also confirmed the buildings did not collapse at free fall speeds and it is no real mystery as to why objects are projected away from the buildings especially when there are objects bouncing off one another like billiard balls..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didnt fall at free fall, but it was pretty damn close.

The top of one of the towers tilted HEAVEY to one side as it began to fall. Clearly it was going to fall along side the building, choosing the path of least resistance. Then suddenly it was as if all resistance (the building under it) was removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay...I'll give you my argument.

To go to war with China....or significantly reduce the Rise of China as SuperPower.

The reasoning is this. China needs Iran. China gets 22% of their oil from Iran. China is becoming a Global Superpower.

We simply cannot wait for China to become a major SuperPower. We must set ourselves up for a war with China. How do we do that? What catalyst for war with China is necessary and what is our window of opportunity?

Why do so when China is a major trading partner of the United States? On another note, war is expensive and a drain on our economy. Due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we spent billions of dollars and will continue to spend billions more in the coming decades in support of disabled veterans of those wars and to add, the loss of life in the thousands. In addition, the U.S. military is now facing a serious cutback in its budget.

At the same time we know there are Islamic Jihadists attempting to blow up the WTC....they tried it once and failed.

Which goes to show what happens when a steel framed building is not properly prepared for an implosion demolition.

They have elaborate plans to fly hijacked airplanes into buildings. What if we allow them to do that? So what then? We put out the fires...reconstruct the damage...is that in and of itself a catalyst for war? What if we wire the buildings with explosives...wait for the terrorists to hit...when they do, bring both buildings down in an instant before the eyes of the whole world? THAT is a catalyst for war with whomever we choose to find as responsible.

There were no planted explosives in the areas where the aircraft struck the WTC buildings, otherwise planted explosives would have detonated as soon as the aircraft impacted the buildings, and since there were no secondary explosions noted in the videos, it was very clear there were no planted explosives at the time of the impacts.

What did 911 get us toward War with China? We destroyed a very real threat...The Taliban/Alqueda in Afghanistan and set ourselves up with boots on the ground. Then we turned our eyes on Saddam...the world wasn't focused on the buildings anymore...the eyes of the world turned to Iraq. Shock and Awe...a war founded on the concept that...we cannot wait for another 911 and so Preemptive Striking is now okay. Fast forward just a bit...we have 150,000 troops on the ground...in an undeclared war with Iran's insurgency. The Bush doctrine was...if you are a terrorist country..if you house terrorists...we are coming after you. Why didn't we then go after Iran? Because it wasn't time to do that...you can only use the capital you gain from one False Flag so far before Red Flags start going up. So, now we have a military presence in the region...no Sada-am stopping anything...and Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon and their President has threatened Israel with destruction.

This is where 911 got us so far. Now, the question is still...how does this get us into a war with China?

I would suggest that Iran will achieve a nuclear weapon and even if they don't use it...a false flag of a nuclear explosion on Israel will happen. This will be catalyst for War with Iran. China will simply have no alternative but to enter that conflict and then the world will view China as the aggressor and The USA as the hero. And even if China doesn't...they lose significant capability through the loss of oil...or we continue to sell oil to them with a prearranged contract to substantially lessen our debt to them.

You have to remember that China has nukes, so who in their right mind is going to initiate a nuclear war as if it were a game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didnt fall at free fall, but it was pretty damn close.

Not even close. Did you see the seismic data on the WTC collapse?

The top of one of the towers tilted HEAVEY to one side as it began to fall. Clearly it was going to fall along side the building, choosing the path of least resistance. Then suddenly it was as if all resistance (the building under it) was removed.

There was no way the top of the building was going to fall off to the side of WTC1 and it is all well within the laws of physics as to why that was not going to happen. Those who think so do not understand the specifics of the collapse itself, hence they created another unfounded conspiracy theory because they did not do their homework properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didnt fall at free fall, but it was pretty damn close.

The top of one of the towers tilted HEAVEY to one side as it began to fall. Clearly it was going to fall along side the building, choosing the path of least resistance. Then suddenly it was as if all resistance (the building under it) was removed.

nearly twice as long is pretty close?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok that answers why.

Now who is "we", and how did they cause the 911 attacks, that no one else could possibly be responsible for?

Let's examine that question in the context of the first Why. Was this a short term strategy or a long term strategy? It is interesting that Bill Clinton was asked by the Somali's to take Osama Bin Laden and he wouldn't do it. It's also interesting that his administration tied the hands of the CIA and the FBI so that they could not 'share' information in a real time setting. Consequently the 'dots' were never connected.

Let's look at a couple of other things here from the Bush Administration.

Several floors were upgraded in both towers shortly before 9/11.

The company that upgraded those floors was Turner Construction Company.

Turner Construction Company also occupied the 38th floor of WTC 1.

Turner Construction Company helped plan and oversee the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome in 2000.

Turner Construction Company participated in the collection and disposal of the steel wreckage of the WTC towers following 9/11.

The CEO of Turner Construction Company from 1999-2006 was Tom Leppert. He then became mayor of Dallas, Texas.

President George W. Bush appointed Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert to the President’s Commission on White House Fellows.

Bush's new house in Dallas is about a mile south of Tom Leppert's.

So...it seems that the plan was long term, spanning two different administrations.

It would therefore seem to indicate that 'others' outside of the Presidential Close Circle were the planners and that the Presidents were just used as implementers of the plan. Let's also point out that Bush's father was head of the CIA, vice-president to Reagan, and then President and that he waged war against Iraq.

I would think then that George H Bush would be one of the one's privy to the plan.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's examine that question in the context of the first Why.

No, you need to be able to establish who caused the 911 attacks, specifically. All these things you said were interesting may be but you must be able to show a causal relationship between the "who" and the attacks.

Again, you make independent claims or inferences, you must show how the two are related, not just " It is interesting that Bill Clinton was asked by the Somali's to take Osama Bin Laden and he wouldn't do it."

That does not support your argument that "we need to take China out".

So, can you reveal to us who "we" is? And how "we" caused the 911 attacks?

In all seriousness, I hope some people here can contact some friends or professors (there should be lots of them) who believe that 911 was an inside job, and can construct a causal argument.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's examine that question in the context of the first Why. Was this a short term strategy or a long term strategy? It is interesting that Bill Clinton was asked by the Somali's to take Osama Bin Laden and he wouldn't do it. It's also interesting that his administration tied the hands of the CIA and the FBI so that they could not 'share' information in a real time setting. Consequently the 'dots' were never connected.

Let's look at a couple of other things here from the Bush Administration.

Several floors were upgraded in both towers shortly before 9/11.

The company that upgraded those floors was Turner Construction Company.

Turner Construction Company also occupied the 38th floor of WTC 1.

Turner Construction Company helped plan and oversee the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome in 2000.

Turner Construction Company participated in the collection and disposal of the steel wreckage of the WTC towers following 9/11.

The CEO of Turner Construction Company from 1999-2006 was Tom Leppert. He then became mayor of Dallas, Texas.

President George W. Bush appointed Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert to the President’s Commission on White House Fellows.

Bush's new house in Dallas is about a mile south of Tom Leppert's.

So...it seems that the plan was long term, spanning two different administrations.

It would therefore seem to indicate that 'others' outside of the Presidential Close Circle were the planners and that the Presidents were just used as implementers of the plan. Let's also point out that Bush's father was head of the CIA, vice-president to Reagan, and then President and that he waged war against Iraq.

I would think then that George H Bush would be one of the one's privy to the plan.

Nothing there that offers a valid reason to fly airliners into buildings. There was no way the government could have concocted anything on the level of 911, and not get caught. After all, how long did it take for the specifics of the Watergate scandal to be revealed to the whole world?

We didn't go to war when terrorist bombed WTC1 in 1993. We didn't go to war when terrorist blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We didn't go to war when terrorist bombed the USS Cole. We didn't go to war when North Korea hijacked the USS Pueblo. We didn't go to war when North Korea shot down our EC-121 over international waters. We didn't go to war when Pan Am was bombed out of the sky.

In regards to the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was warned of the consequences but he failed to heed the warnings of the international community and as a result, he paid a heavy price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing there that offers a valid reason to fly airliners into buildings. There was no way the government could have concocted anything on the level of 911, and not get caught. After all, how long did it take for the specifics of the Watergate scandal to be revealed to the whole world?

We didn't go to war when terrorist bombed WTC1 in 1993. We didn't go to war when terrorist blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We didn't go to war when terrorist bombed the USS Cole. We didn't go to war when North Korea hijacked the USS Pueblo. We didn't go to war when North Korea shot down our EC-121 over international waters. We didn't go to war when Pan Am was bombed out of the sky.

In regards to the first Gulf War, Saddam Hussein was warned of the consequences but he failed to heed the warnings of the international community and as a result, he paid a heavy price.

So why did they go to war over this attack? Surely that reinforces the idea that war was the preferred outcome BEFORE the attacks?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you need to be able to establish who caused the 911 attacks, specifically. All these things you said were interesting may be but you must be able to show a causal relationship between the "who" and the attacks.

Bush was the head of the CIA...so he had lots of insight on China. His son was President and had close ties with a company that had done demolitions. How are you not seeing a causal relationship there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.