Do you belive 9/11 was a inside job?

Well I don't believe that the US had a direct hand in it. But there is deffenitely something fishy about the whole sittuation. The fact that the WTC were evacuated like a week before it happened. That one building pulled out a huge insurance policy a few days before it happened. The fact that the buildings completely imploded on themselves is **** that was clearly a controlled demolition. I'm a construction manager and there is no way that those towers would have collapsed that way.

So I say that the US knew it was coming and took advantage of it.

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"] What relevance does the Quran have? :sguitarshr3dd3r

Make them look like Islam nuts, seriously do I need to answer such a question? Why don't you go ask them.

It's worth mentioning as "strange" evidence, that seems to add to the reasoning to question "is this planeted evidence" to prove this guys we're radical. The whole islam thing makes no logic. You could say they are just radical and get past the real point though.

The fact that the buildings completely imploded on themselves is **** that was clearly a controlled demolition.

MasterKingMP

[QUOTE="MasterKingMP"]The fact that the buildings completely imploded on themselves is **** that was clearly a controlled demolition.

PannicAtack

Those buildings could have burned for a week and still not collapse. And when they did collapse, they would either topple over sideways, or slowly break down, because each floor needs to collapse on top of each other. Watch a video of a building imploding and compare it, same thing.

Who said there were craters anywhere, prove it.

The fact that the buildings completely imploded on themselves is **** that was clearly a controlled demolition. I'm a construction manager and there is no way that those towers would have collapsed that way.

MasterKingMP

The towers did not "implode". You could clearly see those top floors plowing through.

Conspiracies of this magnitude never exist because the conspiracy requires too many conspirators, of whom at least one would whistleblow and reveal the conspiracy to the public. Anecdotal evidence, half-baked theories, and "expert" testimony by amateurs and psuedo-specialists, and average Joe's with an inflated sense of reasoning are what keeps conspiracy theories alive.

Conspiracies of this magnitude never exist because the conspiracy requires too many conspirators, of whom at least one would whistleblow and reveal the conspiracy to the public. Anecdotal evidence, half-baked theories, and "expert" testimony by amateurs and psuedo-specialists, and average Joe's with an inflated sense of reasoning are what keeps conspiracy theories alive.

philonious_matt

Every major event in history was a conspiracy, someone conspired to do so. So I guess that means nothing has ever happened in the history of mankind. I guess the Reichstag "wasn't" just a fire done by the "Communist Terrorist" then, it just randomly happened.

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"][QUOTE="jamesgj"]

Make them look like Islam nuts, seriously do I need to answer such a question? Why don't you go ask them.

jamesgj

It's worth mentioning as "strange" evidence, that seems to add to the reasoning to question "is this planeted evidence" to prove this guys we're radical. The whole islam thing makes no logic. You could say they are just radical and get past the real point though.

maybe but i doubt it but then agian the government has been tarfeted for few conspiracys for example the shooting of martin luther king jr. now that sounds believeable but 9/11 is a yes and no

The fact that the WTC were evacuated like a week before it happened.MasterKingMP

Huh? Some 3,000 people died, the majority of whom were in the buildings when they collapsed.

The fact that the buildings completely imploded on themselves is **** that was clearly a controlled demolition.MasterKingMP

"Imploded on themselves"? That's a tower "imploding" all the way over to WTC7.

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"] No I am merely asking, why is it worth mentioning? I mean just because they happened to be muslim, does not really have any revelance, besides, Islam forbids such acts of suicide, bu that's another topic lol, I just wanted to know if you were implying anything or not, if you weren't, then I'm sorry lolguitarshr3dd3r

It's worth mentioning as "strange" evidence, that seems to add to the reasoning to question "is this planeted evidence" to prove this guys we're radical. The whole islam thing makes no logic. You could say they are just radical and get past the real point though.

It isn't even that bro, it's that these "debunkers" are just making themselves look bad by making no logic. They think they have the answers to the WTC, and maybe they do. What about all the other strange stuff? What about all the other false wars created by false falg operations? Whats making 911 any different? What about the 9/11 commissioners coming out saying the commission "It was ment to fail", what about the previous head of the CSI coming out? What about reports on WT7 of a empty floor with strange things going on the day before 911? I'm not saying the buildings we're demo'ed I'm just asking serious question which noone has answered that makes any logic. What about the strange transactions with United, and american airlines just before 911? What about the drills that we're happening on the day on 911 with planes running into the WTC in them? What about the left bag with all the evidence left at the airport "somehow"? What about the passport laying on the ground after the planes exploded at ground zero and the pentagon? Wheres the black box? How did they match DNA? How did they find this DNA and a passport, but couldn't find a intact telephone? Why are some of the highjackers reported to be alive? How did the terrorist get on board with fake passports? How did they defeat the most secured building in the world? Why we're they not intercepted in restricted air space that can detect a PENNY? Thats not even half of it.

No, it was not a conspiracy. Even if there was a shred of evidence to back up such silly claims, what purpose would it serve to kill over 3000 people and risk destroying the US economy?enterawesome

Why kill 38,000 troops and a million civils? Why kill over a million civils on false assumptions? Power, absolute tryanny, money, just plain evil stuff that the average person will not understand.

The economy is a debt based system all money is debt, why remove gold and silver as backing?

Also, I would like to add, what about the proof of thermite and molten iron found at the base of the 3rd building that was demolished that day, and keep in mind, that WTC was made to with stand 23,000 gallons of jet fuel, how does 10,000 melt the stell almost in an hour, is it that you dont want to have the idea that there is more than just "pissed off arabs" that the media loved to point their fingers at? and james, you present some very, very interesting questions indeedguitarshr3dd3r

I try to get off the control demo thing because I think there are questions just as important that have not been answered.

Also, I would like to add, what about the proof of thermite and molten iron found at the base of the 3rd building that was demolished that day, and keep in mind, that WTC was made to with stand 23,000 gallons of jet fuel, how does 10,000 melt the stell almost in an hour, is it that you dont want to have the idea that there is more than just "pissed off arabs" that the media loved to point their fingers at? and james, you present some very, very interesting questions indeedguitarshr3dd3r

Since you didn't read my earlier post in this thread: The Steel did not have to melt. It is not like water, where there is a seemingly clear distinction between the solid and liquid. Rather steel softens... it losses its rigidity... as heat is applied.

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]Also, I would like to add, what about the proof of thermite and molten iron found at the base of the 3rd building that was demolished that day, and keep in mind, that WTC was made to with stand 23,000 gallons of jet fuel, how does 10,000 melt the stell almost in an hour, is it that you dont want to have the idea that there is more than just "pissed off arabs" that the media loved to point their fingers at? and james, you present some very, very interesting questions indeedThePlothole

Since you didn't read my earlier post in this thread: The Steel did not have to melt. It is not like water, where there is a seemingly clear distinction between the solid and liquid. Rather steel softens... it losses its rigidity... as heat is applied.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="MasterKingMP"]The fact that the buildings completely imploded on themselves is **** that was clearly a controlled demolition.

MasterKingMP

Those buildings could have burned for a week and still not collapse. And when they did collapse, they would either topple over sideways, or slowly break down, because each floor needs to collapse on top of each other. Watch a video of a building imploding and compare it, same thing.

Who said there were craters anywhere, prove it.

Jet Engine fuel burns quickly, and burns at 1400-1500, steel needs almost double that to start to get "soft enough for the building to collapse the way it didguitarshr3dd3r

And exactly how soft does steel have to get when the support structure is already considerably damaged from impact and there is that kind of load pushing down on it?

Also, I would like to add, what about the proof of thermite and molten iron found at the base of the 3rd building that was demolished that day, and keep in mind, that WTC was made to with stand 23,000 gallons of jet fuel, how does 10,000 melt the stell almost in an hour, is it that you dont want to have the idea that there is more than just "pissed off arabs" that the media loved to point their fingers at? and james, you present some very, very interesting questions indeedguitarshr3dd3r

No offense, but there are so many things that are incorrect here that I'm not sure where to begin.

Thermite and molten iron was not found at the base of the third building. What was found was sulfur, and conspiracy theorists conveniently leave out the very next line from the person making mention of this fact, which is that it most likely came from the thousands of pieces of burning computer equipment. Furthermore, thermite is a very volatile chemical; it does not cause the clean cuts that were been observed at Ground Zero. Finally, to cause, with thermite, the amount of structural damage in images like this one you would need... how much? About 18,000 pounds of thermite. That's 18,000 pounds of thermite that they would have had to get into the tower and set up without anyone ever noticing a thing.

As for molten iron, a popular image claimed to depict such a thing is this one:

Anyone familiar with the basic law of thermal convection, however, will know that this is completely bunk, and that there is no way they could stand that close to molten iron. In reality, this is simply depicting what was basically a very strong flashlight.

Next, no one has claimed that the steel in the building was melted by the jet fuel. What the jet fuel did was weaken the steel sufficiently to cause total structural failure, and jet fuel absolutely does burn hot enough for this to be possible.

Jet Engine fuel burns quickly, and burns at 1400-1500, steel needs almost double that to start to get "soft enough for the building to collapse the way it didguitarshr3dd3r

Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 F, and 90% at 1800 F. The heat at which jet fuel burns is more than sufficient to cause it to become structurally unsound.

^^ Thanks for the proof, notice how the building was burnt, therefor it has signs of a fire, not it being demolished..guitarshr3dd3r

Also, bear in mind that thermite has never been used to bring down a building.PannicAtack

Well yes, but that makes it all the better, since no one would suspect that that 18,000 pounds of thermite used in the WTC were for demolishing the building... :P

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Also, bear in mind that thermite has never been used to bring down a building.GabuEx

Well yes, but that makes it all the better, since no one would suspect that that 18,000 pounds of thermite used in the WTC were for demolishing the building... :P

Gabu, honestly, (so far you are doing a great job at countering the points we make, props to you!) but dont you think there is something fishy? like this video has some interesting points as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK2rVhOukqM&annotation_id=annotation_293892&feature=ivguitarshr3dd3r

Can you identify anything you particularly want me to address? A 5-minute long video is not something I particularly want to go through point-by-point.

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]Gabu, honestly, (so far you are doing a great job at countering the points we make, props to you!) but dont you think there is something fishy? like this video has some interesting points as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK2rVhOukqM&annotation_id=annotation_293892&feature=ivGabuEx

Can you identify anything you particularly want me to address? A 5-minute long video is not something I particularly want to go through point-by-point.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]Gabu, honestly, (so far you are doing a great job at countering the points we make, props to you!) but dont you think there is something fishy? like this video has some interesting points as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK2rVhOukqM&annotation_id=annotation_293892&feature=ivguitarshr3dd3r

Can you identify anything you particularly want me to address? A 5-minute long video is not something I particularly want to go through point-by-point.

Well I can't think of anything in particular, but about 9/11 in general, don't you see anything fishy? like anything more than just Al-Qaeda operatives somehow managing to do this alone, just looking for some insight.guitarshr3dd3r

Do I believe that more could potentially have been done to prevent it from happening? I would say that is probably the case; it's well-known that Bush received a memo declaring that bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. And Bush and his subordinates were certainly not on their A-game in other disasters as well, such as Katrina.

But do I believe that there is evidence that the 9/11 attacks were planned by, orchestrated by, and carried out by the US government? No, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim. You would have to claim - as some have - that thousands upon thousands of people were all either paid off by the government or threatened by the government to either lie or stay quiet, yet have this bribery or threatening carried out in such a way that not one single person ever had what happened to them go public. If every single person who has ever publicly corroborated the official story was in fact paid off by the government to lie, that would basically make the recent bailout look like pocket change.

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]Well I can't think of anything in particular, but about 9/11 in general, don't you see anything fishy? like anything more than just Al-Qaeda operatives somehow managing to do this alone, just looking for some insight.GabuEx

Do I believe that more could potentially have been done to prevent it from happening? I would say that is probably the case; it's well-known that Bush received a memo declaring that bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. And Bush and his subordinates were certainly not on their A-game in other disasters as well, such as Katrina.

But do I believe that there is evidence that the 9/11 attacks were planned by, orchestrated by, and carried out by the US government? No, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim. You would have to claim - as some have - that thousands upon thousands of people were all either paid off by the government or threatened by the government to either lie or stay quiet, yet have this bribery or threatening carried out in such a way that not one single person ever had what happened to them go public. If every single person who has ever publicly corroborated the official story was in fact paid off by the government to lie, that would basically make the recent bailout look like pocket change.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]Well I can't think of anything in particular, but about 9/11 in general, don't you see anything fishy? like anything more than just Al-Qaeda operatives somehow managing to do this alone, just looking for some insight.guitarshr3dd3r

Do I believe that more could potentially have been done to prevent it from happening? I would say that is probably the case; it's well-known that Bush received a memo declaring that bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. And Bush and his subordinates were certainly not on their A-game in other disasters as well, such as Katrina.

But do I believe that there is evidence that the 9/11 attacks were planned by, orchestrated by, and carried out by the US government? No, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim. You would have to claim - as some have - that thousands upon thousands of people were all either paid off by the government or threatened by the government to either lie or stay quiet, yet have this bribery or threatening carried out in such a way that not one single person ever had what happened to them go public. If every single person who has ever publicly corroborated the official story was in fact paid off by the government to lie, that would basically make the recent bailout look like pocket change.

Why don't you go ask them.

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Do I believe that more could potentially have been done to prevent it from happening? I would say that is probably the case; it's well-known that Bush received a memo declaring that bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. And Bush and his subordinates were certainly not on their A-game in other disasters as well, such as Katrina.

But do I believe that there is evidence that the 9/11 attacks were planned by, orchestrated by, and carried out by the US government? No, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim. You would have to claim - as some have - that thousands upon thousands of people were all either paid off by the government or threatened by the government to either lie or stay quiet, yet have this bribery or threatening carried out in such a way that not one single person ever had what happened to them go public. If every single person who has ever publicly corroborated the official story was in fact paid off by the government to lie, that would basically make the recent bailout look like pocket change.

jamesgj

Why don't you go ask them.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]Gabu, honestly, (so far you are doing a great job at countering the points we make, props to you!) but dont you think there is something fishy? like this video has some interesting points as well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK2rVhOukqM&annotation_id=annotation_293892&feature=ivguitarshr3dd3r

Can you identify anything you particularly want me to address? A 5-minute long video is not something I particularly want to go through point-by-point.

Enlighten us.. How could the government rig a building that size.. Which would take months of planning and placement, as wella s ripping out the interior infastructure to plant the bombs in the correct place.. And no one noticing? How bout the fact that a operation this large would require tens of thousands ot hundreds of thousands of people in the loop? Water Gate, Contra scandel only involved a few dozen people.. And that leaked all to hell.. And htis would bea drop in the pond compared ot this.

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Can you identify anything you particularly want me to address? A 5-minute long video is not something I particularly want to go through point-by-point.

sSubZerOo

Enlighten us.. How could the government rig a building that size.. Which would take months of planning and placement, as wella s ripping out the interior infastructure to plant the bombs in the correct place.. And no one noticing? How bout the fact that a operation this large would require tens of thousands ot hundreds of thousands of people in the loop? Water Gate, Contra scandel only involved a few dozen people.. And that leaked all to hell.. And htis would bea drop in the pond compared ot this.

Alright, thanks for the response, now hopefully tis point entertains you lol, but anyways, how come there were other videos of the plane crashing into the pentagon, yet the FBI confiscated it and left us with a crappy recording?guitarshr3dd3r

I don't know, but I would imagine it had something to do with security and the Pentagon. Given the sheer number of people who testify that they saw a plane, I am rather skeptical of claims that it was to hide the true nature what hit the Pentagon. There is not one single witness on file who actually said, point blank, that they saw something resembling a missile hit the Pentagon. Not one.

No but you tube almost made me think yes.KittenNipples

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"] Well I can't think of anything in particular, but about 9/11 in general, don't you see anything fishy? like anything more than just Al-Qaeda operatives somehow managing to do this alone, just looking for some insight.guitarshr3dd3r

Enlighten us.. How could the government rig a building that size.. Which would take months of planning and placement, as wella s ripping out the interior infastructure to plant the bombs in the correct place.. And no one noticing? How bout the fact that a operation this large would require tens of thousands ot hundreds of thousands of people in the loop? Water Gate, Contra scandel only involved a few dozen people.. And that leaked all to hell.. And htis would bea drop in the pond compared ot this.

..................WE WOULD BE talkinga bout construction as tearing up walls THROUGH OUT THE ENTIRE BUILDING.. Along with using hundreds of miles of WIRING snaking around the building.. read some facts? How bout you READ some facts on how they demolish buildings. There would be no way possible for no one not to notice it..

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]Alright, thanks for the response, now hopefully tis point entertains you lol, but anyways, how come there were other videos of the plane crashing into the pentagon, yet the FBI confiscated it and left us with a crappy recording?GabuEx

I don't know, but I would imagine it had something to do with security and the Pentagon. Given the sheer number of people who testify that they saw a plane, I am rather skeptical of claims that it was to hide the true nature what hit the Pentagon. There is not one single witness on file who actually said, point blank, that they saw something resembling a missile hit the Pentagon. Not one.

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]Alright, thanks for the response, now hopefully tis point entertains you lol, but anyways, how come there were other videos of the plane crashing into the pentagon, yet the FBI confiscated it and left us with a crappy recording?GabuEx

I don't know, but I would imagine it had something to do with security and the Pentagon. Given the sheer number of people who testify that they saw a plane, I am rather skeptical of claims that it was to hide the true nature what hit the Pentagon. There is not one single witness on file who actually said, point blank, that they saw something resembling a missile hit the Pentagon. Not one.

Wasn't the whole 'missile' thing started by none other than Donald Rumsfeld, who, while not an eyewitness, use the word 'missile' when describing the event at the Pentagon?67gt500

I don't know, but something that obviously could have just been a misstatement while momentarily distracted hardly seems like rock solid evidence.

Also, this statement by an eyewitness: "It was like a cruise missile with wings, went right there and slammed into the Pentagon," Mike Walter, an eyewitness, told CNN.-CNN.COM, "67gt500

You left out the first half of his statement, as I've noticed conspiracy theorist websites tend to do:

"I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon."

Not only did Mr. Walter say that he saw a plane, he even specifically and correctly identified that it was an American Airlines jet.