Author Topic: 911 was indeed a inside job (Read 5579 times)

240 is Back · « **Reply #50 on:** December 16, 2007, 11:15:51 AM »

911 gives me a headache now. i'm going to watch the bucs play. you kids keep discussing it

OzmO · « **Reply #51 on:** December 16, 2007, 11:47:49 AM »

Quote from: EL Mariachi on December 16, 2007, 11:14:28 AM

You re a good lawyer, just too bad you re defending the wrong sides. How is it so that everything the government says you assume its true? You know how corrupt the government is, dont you? When the government comes with phony bin laden footage, you assume its real and not played? What is the formula of deciding what information is correct?

Are you honestly that naive to think that the ''wealthy bankars'' dont rule the us government? That wars are been started trough them so they can make interest money off the war. I quess you ll scream to give you proof of that
Can you proof to me that it was not an inside job? There is always an excuse to be found to defend your opinion.
Do you gather information at television, and then draw your own conclusions?

And about the witnesses that reported the explosion sounds, they heard explosions, try to get that trough your head, real demolition explosions, please tel me you have something better to offer then claiming that that type of explosians can happen during a collapse, can yu proff that its possible to have massive explosions during a collapse, then prove it.
www.zeitgeistmovie.com have you seen this film? Why would you believe the presidents story, and not the actual workers and witnesses that had something to do with the whole 911? Could it not be that Bush is making a conspiracy ''terror'' theory for his own reasons?

All due respect, you are not thinking objectively and you are taking your and other's assumptions and speculations as fact. I'm also, not defending any side.

I don't take everything the government says as true just as i don't take everything the government says as false. I apply common sense to it and reserve determination when i have enough facts both from outside sources and inside ones.

Quote

You know how corrupt the government is, dont you?

Exactly how corrupt is it? Is it as corrupt as it is in Russia? Is it 100% currupt? If it's corrupt then does that certainly prove 9/11 was a inside job? Where is the government corrupt?

You see, El, you are assuming and connecting your assumptions based on incomplete fact to something that you are speculating on. That's the fallacy of your arguments.

Quote

When the government comes with phony bin laden footage, you assume its real and not played? What is the formula of deciding what information is correct?

How do you know it's phony? When his tapes came out i did not use them as reason to believe he was behind it, actually what did it for me was News sources outside the US.

Now whether he was the only one behind is another story, but because there isn't much evidence on that i don't spend time believing that it is.

Quote

Are you honestly that naive to think that the ''wealthy bankars'' dont rule the us government? That wars are been started trough them so they can make interest money off the war. I quess you ll scream to give you proof of that

I actually believe that to an extent. But not to the extent that implicates that 9/11 was staged.

Quote

Can you proof to me that it was not an inside job? There is always an excuse to be found to defend your opinion.

That's like a creationists argument asking if you can prove that god doesn't exist and because you can't prove it then god must exist. That's stupid, sorry.

Quote

Do you gather information at television, and then draw your own conclusions?

I realize the state of our media in this country and no i don't draw conclusions from it. i use common sense combined with mainstream media and alternative media, and i have a several friends in other countries who tell me what their news is telling them. It's often very different.

Quote

And about the witnesses that reported the explosion sounds, they heard explosions, try to get that trough your head, real demolition explosions, please tel me you have something better to offer then claiming that that type of explosians can happen during a collapse, can yu proff that its possible to have massive explosions during a collapse, then prove it.

Explosions in big buildings are common when they are on fire. THE WTC was very big, with many things and conditions that could cause explosions that would have been indistinguishable from demolition explosions.

El, if you really want to know the truth, approach this as a scientist and a lawyer, would. You'll find that must of the things you assert are pure speculation and that you jump to conclusions based on incomplete info.

240 is Back · « **Reply #52 on:** December 16, 2007, 11:53:10 AM »

El,

the 911 truth video take some leaps of faith, but they do absolutely show things that shouldn't be. Several of the 911 hijackers being trained by the military and staying with an FBI CI? No - that shit smells fishy as shit and should be investigated. in itself, these facts don't prove anything. But they do shoot holes in the official story.

I think Oz is right - we can't convict anyone based upon these oddities. But we sure should investigate. Find out why they were trained by OUR military, who they stayed with and why, etc. For SOME reason, the white house fought the first investigation for 441 days (despite challenger, JFK, pearl harbor investigations starting in about a week each time).

Final word is that the official story STINKS, but we can't convict anyone yet, and need a second investigation. Govt have allowed/assisted attacks before to justify wars and domestic policy, and we can all agree that oil interests and military position have benefited GREATLY from these wars, which 911 permitted. If 911 wasn't their work, it was the neocons wet dream for the plan they completed in 2000.

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #53 on:** December 16, 2007, 05:05:53 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 16, 2007, 10:22:05 AM

Look, there are many videos running around in cyberspace, most of them are over dramatized rookie crap.

If there was a video, and it was conclusive, then we'd have been seeing soo much more of it.

So my point is, if you had one that wasn't of the garbage you see on youtube, then by all means show it, but you don't, because otherwise we'd have seen it before.

And yes, men have been found guilty on less sturdy material, but this isn't about finding a man or a small group guilty, this is about the fantastical notion that hundreds or thousands of people were in involved scamming in the worst attack in US soil in History. A REAL video, would go along way. Not one where someone thinks the reflections on the news helicopters were holographic devices emitting an image of a plane.

get off the delusion pal, your first response was right on... We both freaking know that if I posted a video of the demolition being laid by the actual individuals laying it, that it would constitute the best evidence ever put out and the only thing that would happen is it would be denounced by skeptics as a pure fabrication. Someone like Popular Mechanics would review the material and announce something that looks funny and express doubts then everytime it was played on the net, one would go to the skeptics material as a rebuttal. It then quickly would just become another item tossed around in threads like this before the next point is entered. At this point it's fucking religion to everyone involved. For 90% evidence matters not at this point, minds are made up come hell or high water.

OzmO · « **Reply #54 on:** December 16, 2007, 05:13:34 PM »

Quote from: Berserker on December 16, 2007, 05:05:53 PM

get off the delusion pal, your first response was right on... We both freaking know that if I posted a video of the demolition being laid by the actual individuals laying it, that it would constitute the best evidence ever put out and the only thing that would happen is it would be denounced by skeptics as a pure fabrication. Someone like Popular Mechanics would review the material and announce something that looks funny and express doubts then everytime it was played on the net, one would go to the skeptics material as a rebuttal. It then quickly would just become another item tossed around in threads like this before the next point is entered. At this point it's fucking religion to everyone involved. For 90% evidence matters not at this point, minds are made up come hell or high water.

umm. no.

kh300 · « **Reply #55 on:** December 16, 2007, 05:42:00 PM »

Quote from: Slapper on December 16, 2007, 06:52:25 AM

I will say this in regards to the subject: I was about 200 yards from the WTC when the planes hit the towers. When the first plane hit I went downstairs to get a coffee at a nearby Starbucks, and although AT THE TIME no one knew what had happened (right after the first plane hit everyone kept taking about a bomb going off in the observation deck) all nearby streets were being cordoned off and there were black SUVs all over the friggin streets. I'm taking about 5 minutes after the first plane hit the tower here, not 2 hours. And yes, let it be known, the people driving those cars were wearing suits.

That's one of the things that struck me as odd on that day... well, that and the huge airplane engine "parked" right in front of out building.

you watch too many movies.. do you believe anyone here is going to believe that while committing the most insane and daring conspericy in history. they are going to have guys in black suvs with an airplane engine on stand by? have them swarm in right after the plane hits. in the middle of nyc, full of witnesses? then to top it off they have their infamous black suits on.. lol. your full of shit

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #56 on:** December 16, 2007, 06:20:15 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 16, 2007, 05:13:34 PM

umm. no.

uhm, yea... been doing this so very long enough to know different.

240 is Back · « **Reply #57 on:** December 16, 2007, 06:36:03 PM »

Oz,

early in the 911 debate, people like OReilly and Glen Beck (which most would agree are white house semi-spokesmen) debated the facts/

However, in the last few years that has changed. There are a great deal of things that these talking heads won't discuss anymore. I mean, is Oreilly going to tell dozens of firefighters they're all wrong?

They used the popular mechanics group to defend against anything. Their credibility waned when it came out 1) the editor was Chertoff's cousin, and 2) THey claimed to have evidence that no one else was allowed to see. Aside from a violation of the law, this evidence also claimed things like "All 10 WTC hijackers DNA was recovered and tested by the next day" - I mean, simply impossible stuff they refused to quantify when asked for how they reached said conclusions. PM no longer does interviews - why is this? They'll do fluff pieces but stopped debates.

Oz, there's a ton of evidence out there. I quit following it months ago, but seriously, the media coverage I still see - and they refuse to even LOOK at evidence now. They call it unamerican to even look at movies like this. Why? OReilly debated Loose chnge 2 for years - it was okay then? Suddenly, loose change 3 comes out (with some huge huge smoking guns) and NOW it's unamerican? Explain that.

OzmO · « **Reply #58 on:** December 16, 2007, 06:42:07 PM »

Quote from: Berserker on December 16, 2007, 06:20:15 PM

uhm, yea... been doing this so very long enough to know different.

IDC how long you been doing w/e you think you've been doing, you asked about a video, and I quantified it. If there was a legit video, we'd have seen it now n e way. Had it not been for the rookie you-tube crap i'd wouldn't have had to. Only an idiot wouldn't have answered yes, the same kind of idiot that changes his views and gets sold on anything and everything CT oriented.

No delusion, your view about life and the world may have deteriorated beyond total cynicism and paranoia but mine hasn't. I don't let speculation rule my common sense.

OzmO · « **Reply #59 on:** December 16, 2007, 06:44:26 PM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on December 16, 2007, 06:36:03 PM

Oz,

early in the 911 debate, people like OReilly and Glen Beck (which most would agree are white house semi-spokesmen) debated the facts/

However, in the last few years that has changed. There are a great deal of things that these talking heads won't discuss anymore. I mean, is Oreilly going to tell dozens of firefighters they're all wrong?

They used the popular mechanics group to defend against anything. Their credibility waned when it came out 1) the editor was Chertoff's cousin, and 2) THey claimed to have evidence that no one else was allowed to see. Aside from a violation of the law, this evidence also claimed things like "All 10 WTC hijackers DNA was recovered and tested by the next day" - I mean, simply impossible stuff they refused to quantify when asked for how they reached said conclusions. PM no longer does interviews - why is this? They'll do fluff pieces but stopped debates.

Oz, there's a ton of evidence out there. I quit following it months ago, but seriously, the media coverage I still see - and they refuse to even LOOK at evidence now. They call it unamerican to even look at movies like this. Why? OReilly debated Loose chnge 2 for years - it was okay then? Suddenly, loose change 3 comes out (with some huge huge smoking guns) and NOW it's unamerican? Explain that.

When i see LC3, i'll let you know. In the mean time, i agree, with some of what you just said.

240 is Back · « **Reply #60 on:** December 16, 2007, 06:50:00 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 16, 2007, 06:44:26 PM

When i see LC3, i'll let you know. In the mean time, i agree, with some of what you just said.

It's on google now. I was a little disappointed in it. I mean, it was super complete, and I recognized probably 3 dozen facts - from the mouths of the govt itself - which you could call smoking guns. It's still the INTRO to 911, ya know? Like, very simple. There are now 150+ documentaries on the complex stuff. But LCFC (final cut, or part 3) really does convince the newbie that something smells in the story. Very good movie, but for me, it was a bit repetitive.

I don't think we should even accuse anyone, despite the odd huge August warnings which were ignored). I think another investigation should take place. ANyone who says the first investigation is adequate, well frankly, they're just plain wrong. Tons of evidence has come out, and 4 of the commissioners want a new investigation, one calling it a "complete whitewash"! Plus Keane said there were huge huge pieces they weren't allowed to see, and both chairs want a new investigation.

It's a sad period, but the more time passes, the more it just becomes part of history. 6 1/2 years now. Seems like it was yesterday. Most ppl are pissed when they find out, but hey, what can you do? You tell a few ppl, maybe debate it on a forum, and that's it. The only "win" is that if everyone knows, they cannot pull that shit again for a few decades.

EL Mariachi · « **Reply #61 on:** December 16, 2007, 06:50:21 PM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 16, 2007, 06:44:26 PM

When i see LC3, i'll let you know. In the mean time, i agree, with some of what you just said.

you catch on fast

OzmO · « **Reply #62 on:** December 16, 2007, 06:53:08 PM »

Quote from: EL Mariachi on December 16, 2007, 06:50:21 PM

you catch on fast

You get sold easier than a 5 year old.

240 is Back · « **Reply #63 on:** December 16, 2007, 06:56:02 PM »

El M, did you see part 3?

By the way, El M.... when you come on all strong about it, people who are republicans, and people used to mocking CT, will just think you're nuts.

instead, talk facts.

The man who piloted Flight 77 (that hit the pentagon) used to work in the precise room that was hit with the plane. He had personally ran drills (when working at the pentagon) on a plane hitting, a decade earlier. Not only does this dispel the "We couldn't have imagined this could happen" Rice/Bush tagline, but you have to consider the probability of such a thing happening. Couple in the flight recorder path which said the plane never dipped below 180 feet and the 85 missing videos (FBI admits there were 85) ... you have to ask yourself... Does this make sense?

See, things like that make people think. You don't want to debate hate and anger and yell at us... we're americans and we get defensive. Just talk facts, baby!

noc · « **Reply #64 on:** December 16, 2007, 07:29:21 PM »

Where is part 3. 240?

Hugo Chavez · « **Reply #65 on:** December 17, 2007, 01:54:10 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 16, 2007, 06:42:07 PM

IDC how long you been doing w/e you think you've been doing, you asked about a video, and I quantified it. If there was a legit video, we'd have seen it now n e way. Had it not been for the rookie you-tube crap i'd wouldn't have had to. Only an idiot wouldn't have answered yes, the same kind of idiot that changes his views and gets sold on anything and everything CT oriented.

No delusion, your view about life and the world may have deteriorated beyond total cynicism and paranoia but mine hasn't. I don't let speculation rule my common sense.

Wow, and even Beach Bum said I wasn't one of the crazy CTrs... I have never just bought into theories because they are there and have one by one researched my ass off with a truth goal in mind before leaning one way or another in any given conspiracy. There are several mainstream theories that I do not believe and join skeptics on. I enjoy my daily life despite what I believe of some things, but hey, thanks letting me know I've "deteriorated beyond..." Look, I do not think it's unreasonable at all for these people to know what kind of evidence you're wanting, when you ask, because I've seen my fair share of decent to good evidence although not a smoking gun, dismissed immediately... So I think it's fair to say at this point you and many others need a smoking gun of astounding clarity. If I'm wrong, please by all means list 3 hypothetical items that would "do it for you" That way we won't waste anymore time until we get that special item... I wonder why some of you guys believe there was a conspiracy with the Kennedy assassination? I mean really, where's the OMG Holy Crap smoking gun? There's not one... What we have with that is an amassed bulk of gathered facts that lead many to conclude conspiracy, not any different than many have come to believe about 9/11... In fact there is closer to a smoking gun with 9/11 than Kennedy. Actually several items that are closer and they have all simply been dismissed and laughed at.

OzmO · « **Reply #66 on:** December 17, 2007, 08:13:25 AM »

Quote from: Berserker on December 17, 2007, 01:54:10 AM

Wow, and even Beach Bum said I wasn't one of the crazy CTrs... I have never just bought into theories because they are there and have one by one researched my ass off with a truth goal in mind before leaning one way or another in any given conspiracy. There are several mainstream theories that I do not believe and join skeptics on. I enjoy my daily life despite what I believe of some things, but hey, thanks letting me know I've "deteriorated beyond..." Look, I do not think it's unreasonable at all for these people to know what kind of evidence you're wanting, when you ask, because I've seen my fair share of decent to good evidence although not a smoking gun, dismissed immediately... So I think it's fair to say at this point you and many others need a smoking gun of astounding clarity. If I'm wrong, please by all means list 3 hypothetical items that would "do it for you" That way we won't waste anymore time until we get that special item... I wonder why some of you guys believe there was a conspiracy with the Kennedy assassination? I mean really, where's the OMG Holy Crap smoking gun? There's not one... What we have with that is an amassed bulk of gathered facts that lead many to conclude conspiracy, not any different than many have come to believe about 9/11... In fact there is closer to a smoking gun with 9/11 than Kennedy. Actually several items that are closer and they have all simply been dismissed and laughed at.

I may have got a little carried away here and i apologize. But i did preface deteriorated beyond with "may have". What would i need to believe they put bombs in the WTC's? Good question. Independent (non government and "untouchable") legit 3rd party investigation that laid out scientific evidence in the debris and others things such as video, testimony, records etc... But it's too late for all that.

OzmO · « **Reply #67 on:** December 17, 2007, 09:16:08 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on December 16, 2007, 11:15:51 AM

911 gives me a headache now. i'm going to watch the bucs play. you kids keep discussing it

And just think.... you used to be like the energizer bunny when it came to 9/11

OzmO · « **Reply #68 on:** December 18, 2007, 08:16:52 AM »

You know, 240, El and company, This last Saturday for the first time ever, someone talked to me about 9/11 being an inside Job. I was at a local farmer's Market in the morning buying some fresh seafood, and fella approached me passing out leaflets about 9/11.

1st time I ever seen or heard anything outside, the media and the internet about it.

240 is Back · « **Reply #69 on:** December 18, 2007, 08:32:57 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 17, 2007, 09:16:08 AM

And just think.... you used to be like the energizer bunny when it came to 9/11

i know right? It was without a doubt more than those 19 pricks... I mean, if WTC7 collapsed from a controlled takedown (as video shows they were warned and the 20 second countdown), then that means the building was wired with explosives at some point. kh300 conceded yes, it was a controlled demo, as have many others.

When was it wired? Couldn't have been ON 9/11, cause you don't carry explosives into a raging fire. Before? Okay. So "someone" wired a building containing SEC, FBI, Mayors office, and secret service with bombs, and they didn't care?

So there's more to it than 19 assholes. Yeah, it's probably classified, probably for the better good, and certainly way above our pay grade. But WTC7's takedown means there were more than 19 people at work on 9/11 bringing down buildings.

loco · « **Reply #70 on:** December 18, 2007, 08:36:28 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 18, 2007, 08:16:52 AM

You know, 240, El and company, This last Saturday for the first time ever, someone talked to me about 9/11 being an inside Job. I was at a local farmer's Market in the morning buying some fresh seafood, and fella approached me passing out leaflets about 9/11.

1st time I ever seen or heard anything outside, the media and the internet about it.

Isn't there a group in the US dedicated to spreading the news that 9/11 was an inside job? A friend of mine in the US told me he was driving down the road and saw a couple of intersections that had traffic cameras. Somebody had sprayed painted the control box for all the cameras with "9/11 was an inside job."

OzmO · « **Reply #71 on:** December 18, 2007, 08:37:13 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on December 18, 2007, 08:32:57 AM

i know right? It was without a doubt more than those 19 pricks... I mean, if WTC7 collapsed from a controlled takedown (as video shows they were warned and the 20 second countdown), then that means the building was wired with explosives at some point. kh300 conceded yes, it was a controlled demo, as have many others.

When was it wired? Couldn't have been ON 9/11, cause you don't carry explosives into a raging fire. Before? Okay. So "someone" wired a building containing SEC, FBI, Mayors office, and secret service with bombs, and they didn't care?

So there's more to it than 19 assholes. Yeah, it's probably classified, probably for the better good, and certainly way above our pay grade. But WTC7's takedown means there were more than 19 people at work on 9/11 bringing down buildings.

There's some other questions you might want to ask about that.

Why?

Why demolish the building? For what purpose?

It's a government building housing SEC, FBI offices, they would have a legit reason to seal it form the public. There would no reason to "pull" it.

OzmO · « **Reply #72 on:** December 18, 2007, 08:40:29 AM »

Quote from: loco on December 18, 2007, 08:36:28 AM

Isn't there a group in the US dedicated to spreading the news that 9/11 is an inside job? A friend of mine in the US told me he was driving down the road and saw a couple of intersections that had traffic cameras. Somebody had sprayed painted the control box for all the cameras with "9/11 was an inside job."

Wow. I'm sure there is a group or groups, this fella i met belonged to some group i think. I never read it, i was busy with my Mom who's visiting for the holidays and left it in my flannel shirt. Just remembered it this morning.

That's was the first time outside, TV and the internet and Popular Mechanics I've heard anything about it.

240 is Back · « **Reply #73 on:** December 18, 2007, 08:42:30 AM »

Quote from: OzmO on December 18, 2007, 08:37:13 AM

There's some other questions you might want to ask about that.

Why?

Why demolish the building? For what purpose?

It's a government building housing SEC, FBI offices, they would have a legit reason to seal it form the public. There would no reason to "pull" it.

Enron and other investigations had all their paperwok moved to WTC7 right before 911. THese investigations were crippled by the lost evidence, and those missing minutes of "Cheney meets Lay in 2001" were never released.

Plus, many believe that WTC7 was the command central for what was happening at the WTC1/2, if you believe they were controlled demolitions (as more and more scientists and physicists and engineers now do). Each building dropped as the fires subsided and 4 choppers met overhead and mics picked up 9,3 booms several seconds before collapses started. THis had to be controlled from somewhere. Was it WTC7? Perfect view and impervious to damage. who knows.

Remember tho - all 7 buildings of WTC were destroyed. WTC1,2,7 collapse. 6 had a huge crater unexplained. Others were fires and reports of massive blasts and of course, smoke rising before anything fell.

History is gonna have a field day laughing at us for 911.

OzmO · « **Reply #74 on:** December 18, 2007, 08:57:22 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on December 18, 2007, 08:42:30 AM

Enron and other investigations had all their paperwok moved to WTC7 right before 911. THese investigations were crippled by the lost evidence, and those missing minutes of "Cheney meets Lay in 2001" were never released.

Plus, many believe that WTC7 was the command central for what was happening at the WTC1/2, if you believe they were controlled demolitions (as more and more scientists and physicists and engineers now do). Each building dropped as the fires subsided and 4 choppers met overhead and mics picked up 9,3 booms several seconds before collapses started. THis had to be controlled from somewhere. Was it WTC7? Perfect view and impervious to damage. who knows.

Remember tho - all 7 buildings of WTC were destroyed. WTC1,2,7 collapse. 6 had a huge crater unexplained. Others were fires and reports of massive blasts and of course, smoke rising before anything fell.

History is gonna have a field day laughing at us for 911.

That's pretty speculative 240. Even then, no reason to blow it. they had legit reason to seal it and no way to predict if anything would hit it from the WTC's.