The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

atavisms said:
That means all of those thousands of connections had to let go in a very systematic way. (for the upper right corner of the building: the first 100' of it's descent is indistinguishable from freefall) when the only time those features have ever been seen (ever) were during implosions?
Click to expand...
You're wrong. Implosions don't make the buildings fall at that speed. You're welcome to prove me wrong though.

If at all, the speed of fall would prove it can't be an implosion, if previous history was an indication of anything as you seem to imply.

ETA: And the giving way of all the supports at the same time is characteristic of many collapses too, which makes you doubly wrong.


atavisms said:
As such, the onus is clearly on anyone saying otherwise.
Click to expand...
The above is just an example that shows how the burden of proof is yours if you claim CD.


atavisms said:
Fires cause gradual asymmetrical damage. Steels regains its strength when the fuel source burns up... Its absurd.
Click to expand...
Indeed, fire caused gradual asymmetrical damage. Which doesn't mean anything about the way the towers fell. More on this below.

Steel doesn't regain its strength when the fuel source burns up; it regains its strength when it cools down to a safe enough temperature. It's your claim what is absurd.

In the case of WTC7, I haven't read it in the reports (maybe it's there, I haven't made a thorough read) but I've read someone who said that the thermal isolation had the reverse effect to the desired one: some elements that were heated due to heat conduction retained their heat longer because of it.


atavisms said:
It is evidence the supports (which in a skyscraper are extremely robust) are no longer present.
Click to expand...
No. It is evidence that the supports (columns) all give way at basically the same time. That is what is expected if the top block is solid enough and heavy enough. Because of its weight, it can't topple over: inertia prevents it. Assuming it's solid enough, it won't fall in pieces or partially as it has happened to other buildings (including implosions).

Ever heard of load redistribution? It's what happens in a building when a column or more stop to offer their support. All buildings are designed to work that way. When one of these elements fail, the load that it had to bear is redistributed among the remaining elements. That is an almost instant process.

Now imagine what happens if the load is too big to be supported by the remaining columns. That's what happens in most collapses, by the way: the load is bigger than what the columns can support.

Have trouble imagining it? I'll tell you. As quick as a snap, when the element fails the rest try to absorb the load that it was carrying. Since, by hypothesis, it was too big for them to bear it, they fail all at basically the same time.

atavisms said:
Solid and supported (much less highly redundant) structures do not fall through themselves.
Click to expand...
Here's evidence that contradicts your statement:





ETA: This is the only attempt I will make at educating you on the mechanisms involved, unless you accuse receipt and modify your claims accordingly, or prove me wrong convincingly.
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
ETA: This is the only attempt I will make at educating you on the mechanisms involved, unless you accuse receipt and modify your claims accordingly, or prove me wrong convincingly.
Click to expand...

He is neither interested in being educated nor proving you wrong. He already has his mind made up; it was made up on 9-10-2001.
 
Sabretooth said:
Don't you know? GWB did it to go to war for oil and $$!
Click to expand...

Yes, Pres. Bush and the nefarious oil cartel seems to be a common theme but, as anyone who ever took an economics 101 course knows, if this was the motivation for going to war it was due to incredibly bad advice given to people who had no concept of how their own businesses operate (as the events that transpired afterward clearly demonstrate). Not to mention that Afghanistan has no oil.

But that does not answer the question, which was: why attack the Twin Towers (and the other targets) using a complicated, cumbersome scheme laden with opportunities for discovery by any underachiever sitting in his mom’s basement banging away at his computer while mom washes the skid marks out of his Capt. Picard underoos?

If attacking Iraq was the objective then there are a host of other options which would guarantee the same results without massive financial losses, complicated cover up schemes, or large numbers of personnel. Options which are self sealing and highly believable, even to the delusional idiots who believe in death rays from outer space.

Here’s an example I’ve used before.
A small covert unit (let’s say three men and a single link control chain) recruit four young Iraqi students with a history of making either pro-Saddam or anti-US statements to engage in some sort of activity promoting their viewpoint under a false flag scenario. It doesn’t even have to involve murder (to the students knowledge), just something to enable the handlers to control their direction.
On a windy day in New York two parcels containing VX nerve agent erupt in front of the big window at 30 Rockefeller Center and another is introduced into the air conditioning inside simultaneously. Millions of people watching TV observe Katie Couric’s eyes melt along with those of her co-host as hundreds, maybe thousands of others die horribly in full view of the cameras.
The parcels are quickly traced to the four Iraqis who are found dead in their apartment, the victims of yet another VX bomb they were constructing that went off accidentally as it was being assembled.
Material is found on their computer that links them directly to the Mukhabarat and Saddam Hussein, along with detailed plans to conduct similar attacks on Wall Street and other targets.
The VX is chemically identifiable as the exact type used by Saddam against the Kurds.
Meanwhile the handlers are rapidly removed to a safe house in a foreign country where a second team disposes of them, along with the procurement team who obtained the VX in a separate but equally remote safe house.
The second team doesn’t know (or care) who their targets are. If their involvement ever comes to light they can only state that they killed several people out of the country as they have no direct link to the conspiracy. Outside hit men could even be used as they would have no knowledge of their victims activities or true identities.

Now you have a devastating attack that could be directly linked to Iraq, and no living witnesses to refute it. The Twin Towers continues to make big bucks for its owners, the Bush/ oil cartel has its casus belli and war is inevitable. No worries about explosives, thermite residue, etc. being discovered, no need for a huge cover up that could unravel with a misplaced passport. No muss, no fuss.
An airtight operation that costs virtually nothing.

I’m pretty sure if a 60 year old semi-retired bail enforcement agent could envision such an operation, those shadowy evil genius’ working for Bush/Big Oil/ The Gnomes of Cleveland could do the same.
So again, what was “their” motive?
 
LSSBB said:
You left the Joos out, that's the major tune the current pack of twoofers is singing.

Of course, no one can explain why the Joos wanted the U.S. to invade Afghanistan anyway.
Click to expand...

I responded to Sabretooths post. Blame the absence of "Joo's" on him. ;)

It's interesting that while the truthers ae more than willing to endlessly debate over the type, size and color of the shoes worn by the angels dancing on the head of the pin, they have been studiously avoiding this most important aspect of their "theory".

It's like someone proclaiming the efficiency of a three legged table, but blatantly ignoring that one leg is missing. Every time their beer bottle slides off the edge they just wait until they think no one is looking, retrieve the now half full beer bottle from the floor and begin all over.

So let's see what the truthers have so far:
No means to commit the crime:
No physical evidence although there should be an abundant amount of it (UX blasting caps, sections of shock tube, fragments of backing plates, detritus containing explosive residue found blocks from the crime scene, etc).

No witnesses (although it would require large numbers of personnel before during, and after the fact). Almost eleven years have gone by and still not ONE person has come forward and admitted any involvement.

No demonstrable opportunity to commit the crime. The best they can come up with is patently implausible to anyone familiar with demolishing a large structure with explosives.

Oh, and NO BELIEVABLE MOTIVE.

Did I miss anyhting?
 
Last edited:
IMHO the discovery of the passport is some of the best evidence against a conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy then there is no logical reason to plant a passport at the scene. The risk/reward ratio would be way out of whack. Why endanger blowing the cover of you whole operation planting a passport that adds nearly nothing to your narrative. Outside of the minds of a few truthers nobody changed their minds on what happened based on the discovery of the passport.

Other things truthers latch on to are also along these lines, like the downed light poles at the Pentagon. If they were going to fake that crash just claim the plane flew ten feet higher and do away with the light pole problem altogether.
 
I still am adamant that Irish Masons planned the whole thing so U2 could play the greatest halftime show ever at the subsequent Superbowl.
 
Woody- said:
IMHO the discovery of the passport is some of the best evidence against a conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy then there is no logical reason to plant a passport at the scene. The risk/reward ratio would be way out of whack. Why endanger blowing the cover of you whole operation planting a passport that adds nearly nothing to your narrative. Outside of the minds of a few truthers nobody changed their minds on what happened based on the discovery of the passport.

Other things truthers latch on to are also along these lines, like the downed light poles at the Pentagon. If they were going to fake that crash just claim the plane flew ten feet higher and do away with the light pole problem altogether.
Click to expand...

the passport was not ''discovered''
it was false planted evidence for the 9/11 commission (which david ray griffin has called a 571 page lie).
anyone who states otherwise is either-
a, in denial
b, stupid.
 
silver birch said:
the passport was not ''discovered''
it was false planted evidence for the 9/11 commission (which david ray griffin has called a 571 page lie).
anyone who states otherwise is either-
a, in denial
b, stupid.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I am not stupid for insisting on proof it was planted before believing it based on ignorance of wind speed and direction around buildings, probability distributions, and no evidence showing exactly where it was picked up off the ground. Do we need to resort to name calling to get our point across? Who is in denial about Oystein's earlier rebuttal?
 
silver birch said:
the passport was not ''discovered''
it was false planted evidence for the 9/11 commission (which david ray griffin has called a 571 page lie).
anyone who states otherwise is either-
a, in denial
b, stupid.
Click to expand...

Before I respond to your youtube-spamming and this utterly unsupported-by-any-evidence drivel, may I advise you to go back about 4 pages, to january 9th, when many here addressed and refuted the points you made back then? Or can we assume that you concede the refutations? Thanks.

For example, you had insinuated that Arab terrorists carrying passport on an internal flight was somehow suspicious. Could you please either
- explain why you think this is suspicios - do foreigners on internal flights generally not carry passports?
or
- admit that your insinuation meant nothing.
Thanks.
 
Seriously silver birch. You are the one who is either in denial or stupid. I know you're not a snake oil salesman like David Ray Griffin, because you're one of the ones buying his wares.

So. Are you stupid or in denial? And after you answer that perhaps you could address Oystein's post above. Do you still find it suspicious that a foreigner was carrying a passport?
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Before I respond to your youtube-spamming and this utterly unsupported-by-any-evidence drivel, may I advise you to go back about 4 pages, to january 9th, when many here addressed and refuted the points you made back then? Or can we assume that you concede the refutations? Thanks.

For example, you had insinuated that Arab terrorists carrying passport on an internal flight was somehow suspicious. Could you please either
- explain why you think this is suspicios - do foreigners on internal flights generally not carry passports?
or
- admit that your insinuation meant nothing.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

my reasons for not believing the official story are,
1, it seems ludicrous that a passport survived the fire that cremated the hijacker and destroyed the flight recorders in fireproof cases.
2, if a passport did not have to be shown to board an internal flight, would a terrorist on a suicide mission have bothered carrying one anyway?
(unless they needed it to get into paradise and meet their 72 virgins)
 
twinstead said:
Seriously silver birch. You are the one who is either in denial or stupid. I know you're not a snake oil salesman like David Ray Griffin, because you're one of the ones buying his wares.

So. Are you stupid or in denial? And after you answer that perhaps you could address Oystein's post above. Do you still find it suspicious that a foreigner was carrying a passport?
Click to expand...

a snake oil salesman is purely financially motivated
 
silver birch said:
my reasons for not believing the official story are,
1, it seems ludicrous that a passport survived the fire that cremated the hijacker and destroyed the flight recorders in fireproof cases.
2, if a passport did not have to be shown to board an internal flight, would a terrorist on a suicide mission have bothered carrying one anyway?
(unless they needed it to get into paradise and meet their 72 virgins)
Click to expand...

1. you've been shown soft things that survived a space shuttle breakup at mach 20. It is not impossible.
2. You have NO idea why the passport would have been carried. Maybe he was used to carrying it, or maybe he just didn't care. There are possibly a 100 reasons why he had it on him.

So your entire case is based on personal incredulity? Hell, in order for me to believe something like as earth-shattering as that I'd need a bunch of compelling evidence. Simple incredulity sure wouldn't cut it.

You know why YOU are able to do it? You WANT to be suspicious. You already have your mind made up.
 
silver birch said:
my reasons for not believing the official story are,
1, it seems ludicrous that a passport survived the fire that cremated the hijacker and destroyed the flight recorders in fireproof cases.
2, if a passport did not have to be shown to board an internal flight, would a terrorist on a suicide mission have bothered carrying one anyway?
(unless they needed it to get into paradise and meet their 72 virgins)
Click to expand...

1. Paper products survive plane crashes all the time. The flight recorder was a heavier object and would not float in the wind. It likely got pile-driven to gehenna by the falling skyscraper.
2. Why not carry his passport? Was he going to need it later after he survived crashing into a skyscraper?

Ok, next argument from incredulity in response, please. Or will we benefit from rational argument and actual evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom