The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[Regnad Kcin]

It's as if you didn't read my first post, hence why you made no rebuttal to it. Your paper trail business is just laughable. 100%. Laughable. One-hundred-percent. 50% X 2 = 100% + laughable = 100% laughable.

What is this, "I know you are but what am I?"

Look, sport, you have taken little time and made as much effort to deal with the OP. We both know why that is, don't we. You cannot. Your unwillingness to provide a calm, measured analysis to the varied points owes to your continually operating under a spell of personal incredulity. Things to you just "seem" a certain way, so you hand wave away all else until your wrists are swollen with fatigue.

But fine, toss out the element of a paper and electronic trail (which, again, would be significantly enormous) if it makes you tingle. Removing a few lbs from the two-ton weight resting on your chest isn't going to really help you to breathe all that much easier.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

What isn't possible is that this operation was impossible.

Only in the theoretical sense that nothing is impossible so long as it doesn't violate the laws of nature.

But you're arguing a semantic point. The probability of all the elements of even the most basic inside job theory proposed being pulled off without so much as a trace of hard evidence is so vanishingly small that for all intents and purposes, it's impossible. It's 100%* impossible.


*+0/-some vanishingly small decimal that may as well be 0

Precisely, from start to finish.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

All of that assumes the the operation would have been carried out according to your expectations and presumptions. It's possible you underestimate the rigidity of the organizational structure at play here. If indeed that possibility is reality, then your calculation of the possibility of the success of the overall operation is invalid.

Just like there's a red Vespa outside that Starbucks on the Moon.

What, don't you believe me?

 

[triforcharity]

It's sort of like me coming home one day and my parents spontaneously deciding "Hey, 1337m4n, we've decided to grant you legal ownership of every single penny and every single possession we own".

While not technically "impossible" in the sense that it doesn't defy any laws of physics, I'm not about to posit the probability as anything higher than 0%

Unless they're (God forbid) dead. I would blame it on the cat if that happened.

 

[Dragon37]

Here at JREF, which you're probably well aware of at this point, the burden of proof is always on whoever they have labelled a Truther, even if they start assinine threads such as this.

The burden of proof is always on the "prosecutor". In this case most people here are defending an established theory that has a large volume of (scientific)data to support it. Those that come to challenge it have to be able to back what they say. The challenger is the prosecutor and the theory is the defendant.

Even if it means proving that a 9/11 conspiracy (in whatever form) is not impossible. Oh, btw, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't, because here at JREF they also beleive that a low probability equals an impossibility.

Sorry I must disagree with you on this one. For something to have any sort of probability attached to it there must first be some reasonable data to derive probability from. Low probability does not equal impossibility here but because something is not impossible doesn't mean it is any more probable.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Love how you got so specific there.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'd be careful with public v private events

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

... the first is a private class.

And how do you think we know about Tonkin and Cambodia?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[dtugg]

Development of nuclear weapons and other technology for instance.

The Manhattan project was revealed to the public few years after its creation. And it wasn't a particularly well kept secret anyway since the Soviets had spies inside the whole time.

Invasion plans. Etc.

Revealed after the invasion

Also the Gulf of Tonkin incident and secret war Cambodia during Vietnam war.

What do you mean?

Do you have any examples of many members of the government conspiring together to commit high treason and keeping the secret indefinitely?

 

[dtugg]

LOL. The government has kept far more challenging secrets then 9/11 in the past, that were subsequently revealed when they felt comfortable doing so. For example things with regards to wars- they kept thousands of plans secret during WW2 that were more challenging to keep then the truth about 9/11, for example.

LOL. Keeping plans during wartime secret from you enemy is more difficult than passing off the controlled demolitions of two of the largest buildings in the world as fire induced collapses on live TV without leaving behind any incriminating evidence whatsoever. And twoofers wonder why sane people don't take them seriously.

You really think its beyond the capacity of the CIA or Mossad to destroy a building and get away with it?

Why don't you tell us how it could be done. If you give a rational response, you will be the first twoofer to ever do so.

 

[piojunbabia]

I think many would agree that 911 is a conspiracy. Even in my place they have mentioned in schools and in my class before. 911 is a conspiracy.

 

[dtugg]

I think many would agree that 911 is a conspiracy. Even in my place they have mentioned in schools and in my class before. 911 is a conspiracy.

Sure. One man can't hijack four planes and fly them into buildings.

 

[dtugg]

Operation Northwoods. Hmm. Never heard of it. You're the first twoofer to ever bring that up.

 

[dtugg]

So we know with certainty that the government is capable of keeping an attack secret at least until the event occurs.

OMG. They're evil.

The only question remaining is whether they're willing and capable of pulling of such an attack in a false flag fashion convincingly. The CIA certainly is willing and thinks they could do so, as proven by the released documents regarding Operation Northwoods (can't post links, search it in google and it's on Wikipedia):

As I recall, this was a US military plan and didn't call for killing any American citizens. So all it really proves is that some military officers 50 years ago came up with a stupid idea. Yeah so what.

The plan in question wasn't implemented, but it could have been,

Yeah, and pigs could come flying out of my ass.

and if it had been implemented do you think knowledge of it would have ever been allowed to surface?

It almost definitely would have been found out and it would have been a disaster. Even though it didn't call for killing American citizens.

If they're capable of a false flag operation,

You certainly haven't established that they are capable of doing it.

the only question remaining is whether they're psychopathic enough to enact one. Since they proven willing to do things substantially more immoral then a false flag operation, it would seem odd for them to take a moral stand on that matter.

Which of these things are high treason which would get them executed if caught?

So, if they're both capable of a false flag operation and willing to enact one- the only question remaining is whether 9/11 was one, but theirs certainly no question that it would have been possible for them to do so.

Nope. We have to still examine the facts of the case. Even if the government was perfectly willing to murder three thousand American citizens so they could go to war to steal oil from Iraq or whatever you nutjobs believe the motive was, the facts of the matter show it is 100% impossible that they did it. You could prove me wrong by giving a coherent narrative which fits the evidence about how it went down. But you won't. Because it is impossible. Because George Bush didn't blow up the WTC.

 

[dtugg]

I have examples of attempts to do so that failed, most notably Watergate under Nixon and Iran-Contra under Reagan. I don't have any examples of attempts to do so that were kept indefinitely because by definition if they were kept indefinitely I would not know of them(duh).

However it seems unlikely that they would ever try to keep things like Watergate and Iran-Contra secret if attempts at conspiracy never/almost never succeeded. Furthermore while Watergate was revealed it was a close run thing- Nixon could have gotten away with it, and if he had we wouldn't know of it even today.

So you've got nothing. BTW, neither of those things involved the actors committing high treason and risking a death sentence if caught.

No it isn't. The American public:
-doesn't possess potent and independant spy apparatuses like foreign nations do
-Wants to trust the government, whereas wartime enemies know not to trust us.
-Will kneejerk dismiss any allegations government conspiracy they hear, since they want to trust the government and the mainstream media(their primary source of info) is in cahoots with the government-

So it is only the American public that hey have to keep the secret from? And since the American public doesn't have a spy agency, the CIA/Jews can just blow up skyscrapers on live tv without anybody being the wiser besides some morons on the Internet?

 

[piojunbabia]

Sure. One man can't hijack four planes and fly them into buildings.

yes, of course... what i mean is that, there is an inside job...

 

[Dave Rogers]

yes, of course... what i mean is that, there is an inside job...

Well then, the vast majority of people don't agree with you, all the evidence that actually exists (as opposed to the spurious evidence that's made up by denialists) indicates that the attacks were planned and executed by militant Islamic jihadists with allegiance to al-Qaeda, and nobody has been able to propose a scenario for an inside job that isn't patently ridiculous. Please feel free to try to be the first.

Dave

 

[aggle-rithm]

It's sort of like me coming home one day and my parents spontaneously deciding "Hey, 1337m4n, we've decided to grant you legal ownership of every single penny and every single possession we own".

While not technically "impossible" in the sense that it doesn't defy any laws of physics, I'm not about to posit the probability as anything higher than 0%

Yes! There are physical impossibilities, and then there are practical impossibilities. Most people can glean the difference in meaning from the context.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I can save you a lot of trouble, Truthers, by telling you what your problem is.

Do you know what your problem is, Truthers? I'll tell you.

You tend to take the consequences of a series of events and then work your way backwards to come up with an explanation that makes sense to you.

There are two problems with this approach.

1. The explanation that makes sense to you, personally, isn't NECESSARILLY the best possible explanation.
2. The Universe isn't constrained by what makes sense to you, personally. How could it be? It's been around far longer than you have.

In other words...and this is a big "reveal" coming up...you guys aren't as important as you think you are.

Sorry to be the one to tell you.

Now, eat your cookie. Go on about your business. By the time you get out of here, you'll feel as right as rain.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Operation Northwoods. Hmm. Never heard of it. You're the first twoofer to ever bring that up.

Isn't that a sample database used by Microsoft to teach schemas?