The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[dc1971]

I'm afraid I don't see the point of your question. A fire department chief ordering the establishment of a collapse zone doesn't necessarily mean that foul play (controlled demolition) couldn't have been a factor.

It also doesn't mean that two pigeons couldn't have been *********** on an apartment rooftop either!

 

[dc1971]

The 85th Troll Wing of the 9/11 Truth Movement is back on active duty, I see...

It's fun, isn't it?

 

[dannyb]

I see a lot of responses, but no proof that Al-Qaeda was acting independently and without state sponsorship on 9/11.

Anybody got something? Bueller?

Which state? There is evidence linking the hijackers to other nation-states, a more vociferous pursuit of which could have been demanded by a genuine 'truth movement'. Unlike your cult that is oblivious to anything that happens outside of North America.

There ARE unanswered questions left about 9/11, but none of them have anything to do with Truther nonsense that has, in a perverse, helped protect the interests of the US government and other nation-states.

So, instead of continually arguing with people better qualified than you about the collapse of the buildings, why not focus on something real? I'll give you a start: demand the release of the 28-page redaction from Congress's Joint Enquiry into the attacks.

 

[000063]

From John Farmer, Senior Council to the 9/11 Commission:
Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin

What's the soure?

In 2006, The Washington Post reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

...by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

These comments do not mean a thing?! Even the 9/11 Commission knew they did not have the truth!

They suspected.

Most of the os supporters on here, do nothing but belittle anyone who questions anything.
Insults are irrelevant to the topic! You just show your hate, which proves nothing!

You say, while insulting us.

I have spent a lot of time trying to inform myself of the facts by wasting time reading thru these hateful posts, to understand what the hell happened that day, and all I get from most os supporters are insults, and no proof of anything!

Would you care to discuss some concrete facts and theories, then?

I have looked at all sides, researched rebuttals to "the truthers", because I want to get the whole picture, which I probably never will, but it is important to me, to get the facts that are available.

What would you do if you did find by your own research everything including "the crazy truthers" that 9/11 was an inside job? Could you be honest enough to admit it?

Yes. Problem is, the Truthers are an overwhelming minority. They are outnumbered by literally thousands of professionals in various fields for every one of them that exists. Most Truther activity is simply to keep questioning the official story, over and over. They have questions about the answers of others, but no answers of their own. That's why only the craziest of Truthers will actually commit to a theory, like Judy Wood and her space lasers.

 

[000063]

''Have you researched what John Farmer believed really happened? If not, I don't see why you drop his name in the same post where you brag of your research efforts. If you know what Farmer thinks, then the rest of your post makes no sense"


John Farmer "It was the product of a government that doesn't work, and the FALSE STORY put forward about the events of that morning.....
Read between the lines. I don't think he wanted to commit political suicide....or any other suicide.

So he was willing to support the Official Story, except for his statements which you say contradict the official story.

Okay.

Sure, why not? It seems rather fitting to me.

If one qualifies as a "truther" for merely questioning the official story/conspiracy theory, then one must also qualify as a "truther" the moment they defend the official story/conspiracy theory, since neither side has factually proven their case. The government's version of 9/11 events is just as much a theory about a conspiracy as any other.

Except for the fact that it has been proven in a court of law. Legally, it's fact.

& the official story is wrong because...?

& the official story is right because...?

It's so cute how you think that'll work.

Sorry, but a conviction in one of our state-run kangaroo courts doesn't necessarily mean 9/11 couldn't have been a U.S. government inside job.

So any possibility, no matter how remote, is as good as something proven in a court of law for you.

Okay.

 

[Oystein]

''Have you researched what John Farmer believed really happened? If not, I don't see why you drop his name in the same post where you brag of your research efforts. If you know what Farmer thinks, then the rest of your post makes no sense"


John Farmer "It was the product of a government that doesn't work, and the FALSE STORY put forward about the events of that morning.....
Read between the lines. I don't think he wanted to commit political suicide....or any other suicide.

What is the "It" he is refering to?
This quote doesn't answer my question, so I have to repeat it:

Have you researched what John Farmer believed really happened? If not, I don't see why you drop his name in the same post where you brag of your research efforts. If you know what Farmer thinks, then the rest of your post makes no sense.

The answer should, by the way, contain something along the line "19 AQ men hijacked 4 planes, flew into 3 buildings and 1 field, and that, with the fires that follwed, caused a number of buildings to get destroyed". Farmer's main beef, if I recall correctly, is with the part of the story that talks (or doesn't talk) about motives.

Since he is not deep into politics any longer (he's the Dean of Rutgers Law School), there shouldn't be too much of a problem with political suicide.

 

[twinstead]

So any possibility, no matter how remote, is as good as something proven in a court of law for you.

I'm often annoyed by some people defining "kangaroo court" as "a court whose verdict I disagree with". I'll need just a little more than that myself.

 

[Oystein]

SpringHallConvert employs an easy, but actually stupid tactic:

1. Ask a question that implies an unsubstantiated claim
2. Demand that others prove a negative - that your own unsubstantiated claim is not true


Example:
1. "Could AQ not have had support from the US government?"
2. "Prove to me that AQ acted alone!"

In general, it is not easy and often impossible to prove a negative. In this case: Unless we have a complete account of the lives, day to day, of ever AQ member, the known ones as well as the unknown ones, and have full knowledge of all affiliations of all the people that ever aided any of them at any time, we have not proven that AQ had no government support of any kind.

However, that is a silly reversal of the burden of proof.

1. Demand that SpringHallConvert first makes a specific claim, instead of asking of something isn't possible.
2. Demand that SpringHallConvert offer specific evidence to support specifically that claim.

Could look like this:
1. "I, SpringHallConvert, claim that KSM was under direct control of Mr. X and Mr. Y from agency Z when he planned the attacks"
2. "My proof is that whistleblower W wrote this in V: U (with reference to source)"

Something like that.



Won't happen.
Won't happen that anybody asks SpringHallConvert to make specific claims supported by specific evidence
Won't happen that SpringHallConvert commits to any specific claims
Won't happen that SpringHallConvert will present specific evidence.

 

[pgimeno]

It's just, in ten years nobody has created a believable complete alternative version of what happened supported by evidence, all that I've been shown so far is a bunch of unconnected and self-contradicting speculation. Even "the best evidence" I've been shown is poor and does not prove any kind of inside job.

Maybe your case is different and you have a complete alternative version? Post it here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185004

I see a lot of responses, but no proof that Al-Qaeda was acting independently and without state sponsorship on 9/11.

Anybody got something? Bueller?

Nice dodge.

Now let's see if you really have something to say or you are just a troll.

What do you believe happened in 9/11? Just a quick outline.

I'll go first. My belief is that 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked 4 planes, two of which crashed against the Twin Towers which collapsed due to the crash, causing the destruction of the complex, including building 7 later, and of some other close buildings; one crashed against the Pentagon causing more than 120 deaths and the partial collapse of the building, and one crashed on an empty field in Pennsylvania after a fight.

Yours?

Won't happen that SpringHallConvert commits to any specific claims

I'll leave him alone with his trolling if that's the case. For now it's painfully obvious that he's trolling, but I'd like to see if he's able to mantain any kind of serious talk.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Wake me up when someone proves that 9-11 couldn't have been an inside job.

Ah the old religious argument...."prove to me GOD doesn't exist".

next the twoofers will be coming up with their own version of Pascals Wager.

 

[twinstead]

You don't see anybody asking to be woken up when someone prove 9-11 WAS an inside job...talk about an eternal slumber...

 

[carlitos]

Oh yeah, this is important to the discussion!

I'm guessing WAFirefighter or jmh423.

Wake me up when someone proves that 9-11 couldn't have been an inside job.

Where's your proof that it wasn't an inside job?

No.

Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.

Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?​

Ah the old religious argument...."prove to me GOD doesn't exist".

next the twoofers will be coming up with their own version of Pascals Wager.

The truth is dead. Long live the truth.

 

[Brass]

I'm afraid I don't see the point of your question. A fire department chief ordering the establishment of a collapse zone doesn't necessarily mean that foul play (controlled demolition) couldn't have been a factor.

My point is this. If WTC7 was rigged to collapse, then why did the FDNY set up the collapse zone a full two hours before it collapsed? Wouldn't that suggest that due to the large amount of fires and the fact that the building was titled suggest that the FDNY knew it would come down due to those two factors alone?

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

It's entertaining to watch all these government truthers try to defend the official conspiracy theory. Believing what the corporate-owned government and media tells them about 9-11 is like a religious experience for these folks.

Wake me up when someone proves that 9-11 couldn't have been an inside job.

A career in stand-up beckons you.

 

[000063]

It's entertaining to watch all these government truthers try to defend the official conspiracy theory. Believing what the corporate-owned government and media tells them about 9-11 is like a religious experience for these folks.

Wake me up when someone proves that 9-11 couldn't have been an inside job.

Who are you talking to? Are you taking the Ergo route of making generalized statements to the people you desperately hope are listening to disparage your opponents while addressing no specific points or issues?

'Cause that's what it looks like.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

My point is this. If WTC7 was rigged to collapse, then why did the FDNY set up the collapse zone a full two hours before it collapsed? Wouldn't that suggest that due to the large amount of fires and the fact that the building was titled suggest that the FDNY knew it would come down due to those two factors alone?

Is it not possible that WTC7 was rigged to collapse on one hand, while on the other hand the fire department, after having watched two other burning skyscrapers collapse just eight hours before, decided to play it safe and assume WTC7 might come down as well? After all, that's what fire fighters are trained to do. In any building fire scenario, structural failure is always a potentiality. This, however, doesn't mean WTC7 wasn't rigged with explosives or incendiaries. It just means the FDNY was preparing for a worst case scenario.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Burden of Proof [/B]is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.

Examples:

(1)Of course God exists. Has anyone ever proven otherwise?

(2)Of course pink elephants inhabit Mars. We don't see them because they blend in. Can you prove otherwise?

Then the burden of proof is on you to prove that Al-Qaeda was acting independently on 9/11, thereby confirming that the official story/government-approved conspiracy theory is correct.

So, where's your proof? Let me save you the trouble. You've got none.

 

[carlitos]

Then the burden of proof is on you to prove that Al-Qaeda was acting independently on 9/11, thereby confirming that the official story/government-approved conspiracy theory is correct.

So, where's your proof? Let me save you the trouble. You've got none.

If you are serious, start with Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, and then give the 9/11 Commission Report and the transcript from the Moussaui trial a read.

 

[Edx]

Is it not possible that WTC7 was rigged to collapse on one hand, while on the other hand the fire department, after having watched two other burning skyscrapers collapse just eight hours before, decided to play it safe and assume WTC7 might come down as well? After all, that's what fire fighters are trained to do. In any building fire scenario, structural failure is always a potentiality. This, however, doesn't mean WTC7 wasn't rigged with explosives or incendiaries. It just means the FDNY was preparing for a worst case scenario.

No its not possible, beacuse that is not what they said at the time and thats not what they have indicated in over a decade since.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

If you are serious, start with Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower, and then give the 9/11 Commission Report and the transcript from the Moussaui trial a read.

Can you be more specific than this? What piece of evidence will I find in any of those three documents that proves Al-Qaeda was working independently on 9/11 and without the complicity of the U.S. government or any of its intelligence agencies? A quote? An official statement? What?

Can you pinpoint it for me?