Do you belive 9/11 was a inside job?

Gabu can you please comment on my post about the office works being untouched? (If you don't mind, I am interested in your response)guitarshr3dd3r

You'll have to give more info, I don't really know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]Gabu can you please comment on my post about the office works being untouched? (If you don't mind, I am interested in your response)GabuEx

You'll have to give more info, I don't really know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE="67gt500"]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?GabuEx

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0&feature=related I must say this was pretty interesting. I don't see how those books/desk whatnot were untouchedguitarshr3dd3r

This one was covered in the article in Popular Mechanics. The wings on a plane are designed for aerodynamics, and as such, they are not very sturdy, and certainly do not survive impacts very well. One wing hit the ground, and the other was similarly sheared off like nothing. Planes do not tend to make cartoon-like outlines when colliding into reinforced concrete, of which the Pentagon is made. The Pentagon was designed top to bottom to be blast-resistant; the WTC, although it was designed to withstand an impact with a fuel-depleted 707, was not a solid concrete building. This is much like the complaint from conspiracy theorists that many windows in the Pentagon survived the impact - of course they did; that was what they were specifically designed to do.

Furthermore, if one expects a plane to ignite those materials, why would one not also expect a missile to do so? It's not as though missiles don't also explode; in fact, that is precisely what they are designed to do.

And furthermore, no one I have ever asked this question to has even attempted to answer it: if we already know that whoever was behind the 9/11 attacks was capable of flying planes into buildings, as we saw with the twin towers at the WTC, then why on Earth would they not also just actually fly a plane into the Pentagon? Why make up an incredibly elaborate fiction that required them to pay off or threaten dozens upon dozens of eyewitnesses, eyewitnesses that included a number of people from the USA Today, who almost certainly would have had enough fame to last a lifetime had they broke the story that a missile had hit the Pentagon? No one can ever answer this question, and the reason why seems, to me, to be obvious: it just flat-out makes no sense to even suggest that someone went to all this trouble just to make it seem as though a plane had hit the Pentagon rather than having a plane hit the Pentagon.

Yeah, I heard the whole statement too, the very day he said it - I was implying that any use of the word 'missile' in the press, concerning the event at the Pentagon, could explain the subsequent confusion...67gt500

Oh, well never mind then, I thought you were using that as an example of a witness who said he saw a missile. :P

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0&feature=related I must say this was pretty interesting. I don't see how those books/desk whatnot were untouchedGabuEx

This one was covered in the article in Popular Mechanics. The wings on a plane are designed for aerodynamics, and as such, they are not very sturdy, and certainly do not survive impacts very well. One wing hit the ground, and the other was similarly sheared off like nothing. Planes do not tend to make cartoon-like outlines when colliding into reinforced concrete, of which the Pentagon is made. The Pentagon was designed top to bottom to be blast-resistant; the WTC, although it was designed to withstand an impact with a fuel-depleted 707, was not a solid concrete building. This is much like the complaint from conspiracy theorists that many windows in the Pentagon survived the impact - of course they did; that was what they were specifically designed to do.

Furthermore, if one expects a plane to ignite those materials, why would one not also expect a missile to do so? It's not as though missiles don't also explode; in fact, that is precisely what they are designed to do.

And furthermore, no one I have ever asked this question to has even attempted to answer it: if we already know that whoever was behind the 9/11 attacks was capable of flying planes into buildings, as we saw with the twin towers at the WTC, then why on Earth would they not also just actually fly a plane into the Pentagon? Why make up an incredibly elaborate fiction that required them to pay off or threaten dozens upon dozens of eyewitnesses, eyewitnesses that included a number of people from the USA Today, who almost certainly would have had enough fame to last a lifetime had they broke the story that a missile had hit the Pentagon? No one can ever answer this question, and the reason why seems, to me, to be obvious: it just flat-out makes no sense to even suggest that someone went to all this trouble just to make it seem as though a plane had hit the Pentagon rather than having a plane hit the Pentagon.

With respect to your question, the Rumsfeld statement got the whole 'missile' ball rolling, which got spun into the whole 'plane didn't hit the Pentagon' deal... the implication was that it must have been a 'friendly' missile - fired by the US government at their own building and the plane story was the cover-up. Research clearly shows that it was an aircraft that hit the Pentagon, unless some other actual evidence should ever arise, to the contrary...67gt500

Well yes, if it was indeed Rumsfeld's comment that started the ball rolling then I can see where it initially came from, but the fact that this has become one of the pivotal points in the conspiracy theorists' arsenal of assertions, in spite of all of the arguments against it, just plain baffles me to no end. Why not stick to assertions that are largely unprovable, like the idea that the CIA was in cahoots with al-Qaeda or something, rather than clinging to every single divergence from the official story they possibly can? It's like they're willing to believe the government did absolutely anything and everything as long as whatever it is does not match the official story, no matter how little sense it makes.

Flight 93 is a lot like this too. "We'll take a missile or an unmanned drone or something and we'll crash it into the middle of nowhere in Pennsylvania... for fun, I guess." Yeah, OK, why not.

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

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

It wasn't just the fire. The impacts from the planes already caused severe structural damage. Building 7 was damaged by the collapse of the towers.

Oh, and you're wrong: The Kader Toy Factory in Thailand did collapse as the result of a fire alone.

No, I don't believe the United States Government would intentionally attack one of its own buildings like that.

You could make the argument that they did it to have an excuse to invade the Middle East, but that is circumstantial and is kind of grasping at straws.

Also, why would the US attack the Pentagon? That makes no sense.

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

What about the collapse of building 7, that made NO sense as to how it collapsedguitarshr3dd3r

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]What about the collapse of building 7, that made NO sense as to how it collapsedPannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]What about the collapse of building 7, that made NO sense as to how it collapsedguitarshr3dd3r

GabuEx also posted a picture of debris hitting the tower, and there were firefighters who described a huge amount of damage done to the building.

Ok aside from building 7, what about this, what could explain the explosion that appeared before the towers fell? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE2V6ajL4F4&feature=channelguitarshr3dd3r

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]Ok aside from building 7, what about this, what could explain the explosion that appeared before the towers fell? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE2V6ajL4F4&feature=channelPannicAtack

What about the collapse of building 7, that made NO sense as to how it collapsedguitarshr3dd3r

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]What about the collapse of building 7, that made NO sense as to how it collapsedMushroomWig

The building was heavily damaged due to the collapse of the other towers.

The building was on fire.

The firefighters knew that it would collapse from this. Are you going to accuse the FDNY of being complicit?

So, what's more likely? That not only was everything completely staged, but a foreign media outlet was in on it and ran the script too soon, or that they simply got word from the firefighters, and in the confusion didn't really understand what was going on?

For that matter, just why would the big bad government go through all the trouble of making building 7 collapse anyway? It was hardly a symbol like the towers or the pentagon.

[So, what's more likely? That not only was everything completely staged, but a foreign media outlet was in on it and ran the script too soon, or that they simply got word from the firefighters, and in the confusion didn't really understand what was going on?PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][So, what's more likely? That not only was everything completely staged, but a foreign media outlet was in on it and ran the script too soon, or that they simply got word from the firefighters, and in the confusion didn't really understand what was going on?MushroomWig

I wonder how many foreigners would be able to tell which building in the complex had which number.

Considering that building 7 was in the background while the story was being broadcast live I doubt they "didn't understand"

I guess they were also blind too? ;)MushroomWig

OK, are you now asserting that the BBC was part of the conspiracy?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Considering that building 7 was in the background while the story was being broadcast live I doubt they "didn't understand"

I guess they were also blind too? ;)GabuEx

OK, are you now asserting that the BBC was part of the conspiracy?

It really is hard to say and I lean more towards yes than no.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Considering that building 7 was in the background while the story was being broadcast live I doubt they "didn't understand"

I guess they were also blind too? ;)MushroomWig

OK, are you now asserting that the BBC was part of the conspiracy?

Perhaps you could explain to me why they were reporting the collapse of a building that didn't even happen for another couple of hours while it was there in the background?MushroomWig

So that's a yes?

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"]What about the collapse of building 7, that made NO sense as to how it collapsedMushroomWig

Perhaps you could explain to me why they were reporting the collapse of a building that didn't even happen for another couple of hours while it was there in the background?MushroomWig

Reporters do make mistakes. Sometimes rather glaring ones. Especially during chaoic times.

Now explain to me why the big bad government would want to collapse a building with seemingly no symbolic importance compared to the towers?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]Perhaps you could explain to me why they were reporting the collapse of a building that didn't even happen for another couple of hours while it was there in the background?ThePlothole

Reporters do make mistakes. Sometimes rather glaring ones. Especially during chaoic times.

Now explain to me why the big bad government would want to collapse a building with seemingly no symbolic importance compared to the towers?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

OK, are you now asserting that the BBC was part of the conspiracy?

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][So, what's more likely? That not only was everything completely staged, but a foreign media outlet was in on it and ran the script too soon, or that they simply got word from the firefighters, and in the confusion didn't really understand what was going on?MushroomWig

the fires themselves burned out within 20 minutesMushroomWig

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]the fires themselves burned out within 20 minutesPannicAtack

I wasn't asking you, I was asking GabuEx, but regardless...it's quite funny how FEMAS own report couldn't even explain how building 7 collapsed, and since the fires themselves burned out within 20 minutes it's also funny how it somehow managed to collapse suddenly hour later while magically looking exactly like a controlled demo. But hey, whatever the government tells you must be right, because after all..they're honest and trustworthy people. ;)

MushroomWig

OK, so I'm assuming that the answer is "yes, I am including BBC in the conspiracy".

Therefore:

- They were able to hide from everyone all of the demolition equipment needed to bring down the WTC, and convince most people the planes brought them down, and suppress thousands of experts who would have known that it was a controlled demolition and could have corroborated the story of the conspiracy theorists.

- They were able to suppress the hundreds of witnesses who saw a missile strike the Pentagon, and instead create the fiction that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

- They were able to suppress the witnesses and the cleanup crews who went to the alleged crash site of Flight 93, and instead create the fiction that a plane had crashed there.

And yet...

They were unable to make sure that the BBC waited until WTC7 had actually fallen before reporting that it had fallen.

And this is proof that the BBC knew they were going to demolish WTC7, a building that held no real significance at all and whose demolition was wholly unnecessary in every way for the purposes of justifying the war on terror.

Is this, really and truly, what you are asserting?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

I wasn't asking you, I was asking GabuEx, but regardless...it's quite funny how FEMAS own report couldn't even explain how building 7 collapsed, and since the fires themselves burned out within 20 minutes it's also funny how it somehow managed to collapse suddenly hour later while magically looking exactly like a controlled demo. But hey, whatever the government tells you must be right, because after all..they're honest and trustworthy people. ;)

GabuEx

OK, so I'm assuming that the answer is "yes, I am including BBC in the conspiracy".

Therefore:

- They were able to hide from everyone all of the demolition equipment needed to bring down the WTC, and convince most people the planes brought them down.

- They were able to suppress the hundreds of witnesses who saw a missile strike the Pentagon, and instead create the fiction that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

- They were able to suppress the witnesses and the cleaup crews who went to the alleged crash site of Flight 93, and instead create the fiction that a plane had crashed there.

And yet...

They were unable to make sure that the BBC waited until WTC7 had actually fallen before reporting that it had fallen.

And this is proof that the BBC knew they were going to demolish WTC7, a building that held no real significance at all and whose demolition was wholly unnecessary in every way for the purposes of justifying the war on terror.

Is this, really and truly, what you are asserting?

And all this when Nixon couldn't even cover up a simple burglary?

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]the fires themselves burned out within 20 minutesMushroomWig

Looking at that I couldn't tell you.Ace6301

Hell no.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Looking at that I couldn't tell you.MushroomWig

They didn't.

There, not only did I try, I succeeded.

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]Looking at that I couldn't tell you.789shadow

They didn't.

There, not only did I try, I succeeded.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Looking at that I couldn't tell you.MushroomWig

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"] That's why you're not an international reporter and they are. ;) Please don't try to tell me the entire BBC staff who were reporting that day couldn't tell the difference between building 7 and any other building in the area.PannicAtack

They didn't.

There, not only did I try, I succeeded.

And it was very unique-looking!

I posted a video of a fire fighter clearly telling the media that Building 7 was beyond saving.....and everyone ignores it.

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]Looking at that I couldn't tell you.789shadow

They didn't.

There, not only did I try, I succeeded.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"] That's why you're not an international reporter and they are. ;) Please don't try to tell me the entire BBC staff who were reporting that day couldn't tell the difference between building 7 and any other building in the area.MushroomWig

They didn't.

There, not only did I try, I succeeded.

I posted a video of a fire fighter clearly telling the media that Building 7 was beyond saving.....and everyone ignores it.

UnknownSniper65