Was 9-11 an inside job or not?

[AZCat]

Amazing. So because firemen can commit arson, it's okay to accuse one of arson with no other evidence other than he's a fireman, and firemen can commit arson?

That is what you are doing.

He's not even a fireman - he's a fire protection engineer. Apples and oranges.

 

[Good Lt]

He's not even a fireman - he's a fire protection engineer. Apples and oranges.

So LC is trying to suggest that fire protection engineers are arsonists?

Help us out here, LC, Sparky, anyone.

 

[firecoins]

Did FDNY light the WTC on fire? Is that what happaned? I thought 2 planes crashed into each tower. In fact I have it on video that what happaned. I am sure that wrong and a simple fire started by FDNY brought down the towers. Oh wait! A steel building has never collapse from fire before. Guess it couldn't have been FDNY.

 

[LastChild]

I didn't bring up people in the business of fighting fires in a thread about war profiteering. I'm simply the one who buried any kind of point in bringing it up in the first place. No one is above any investigation.

 

[HyJinX]

oh oh LC...You seem to be going deeper and deeper...

 

[JimBenArm]

oh oh LC...You seem to be going deeper and deeper...

I think this one is more appropriate.

 

[LastChild]

He's not even a fireman - he's a fire protection engineer. Apples and oranges.

Yeah unlike fire engineers and war profiteers right?

 

[funk de fino]

Wrer they part of the same company when they got their no bid contracts? Try to keep up will ya.

yes and Halliburton dropped them cause they were bad press and making very poor profits and indeed in some cases losses. Now who needs to keep up?

The only thing you're getting is owned.

Not using the above arguments he is not

Oh yeah and reported too.

wow

 

[funk de fino]

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030512/editors

During World War II Harry Truman referred to some forms of war profiteering as "treason." When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped to be FDR's running mate in 1944.

This is an exact quote that an ex member Zensmack used recently

I smell an item of footwear

 

[dudalb]

Companies made profit from WWII? HA! That means Pearl Harbor was an inside job!!!!111111!

I am waiting for the Twoofers to recycle the old, "Munitation Makers Were Responsbile for World War One" CT again.

 

[LastChild]

This is an exact quote that an ex member Zensmack used recently

I smell an item of footwear

I smell BULL

 

[funk de fino]

I smell BULL

Same MO, no facts just sarky comments and quickfire random links to sites that have nothing to do with the OP

Just an observation

 

[Darth Rotor]

Not.

DR

 

[Good Lt]

And all this because LC can't answer a yes or no question. Or rather won't answer it.

LC doesn't want to be pinned down by the possibility of being wrong about Trooferism, so he talks and pretends he's "open minded" to both sides, but he's clearly a Troofer and believes 9-11 was an inside job.

Hell, even the investigation is an "inside job."

Unless, LC, you want to answer it.

Were the 9-11 terrorist attacks and inside job - yes or no?

 

[Sparky]

Profiteer. Traitor. The gallows await ye.

Come on, man! I need it to supplement my NWO stipend!

 

[Sparky]

So LC is trying to suggest that fire protection engineers are arsonists?

Help us out here, LC, Sparky, anyone.

What? Was I accused of being an arsonist because of my profession? When did this happen?

 

[Good Lt]

Post 78, my friend. At least, it appears that LC thought you either profited from fires or that you were no different that an arsonist firefighter.

Because we all know you'd never profit from a fire.

Hey - I'm not sure what he was trying to say either. We have a pretty good idea, though.

 

[R.Mackey]

Now it can be told...

It's a yes or no question, Troofers. This is similar to the "straight answer" thread, in that I want you to cut down on the nonsense, the distractions, your inability to see the forest through the trees, etc.

Just answer the question with a simple yes or no. Can you do it?

Was 9-11 an inside job or not?

Back on the first page of this thread, I remarked upon the simple, decisive genius of this deceptively innocuous question. I wanted to give the conspiracy believers the full opportunity to answer before commenting further.

There is a right answer to this question. Two right answers, in fact. The few who gave their half-hearted responses found neither of them.

Here's why.

1. Either there was a Government cover-up, or there wasn't.

This seems straightforward, right? It should be obvious that only one of the two can be true. However, this also means that it was "inside job" or not. If it wasn't an inside job, there's no cover-up, since there's nothing to cover up. If there was a cover-up, it must have been an "inside job."

2. Government reports unambiguously state that there was no "inside job."

The 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST Report, etc. all describe, completely and in detail, the mechanics and the actors of September 11th. They do not leave much room for uncertainty, and where they do, these unknowns are tightly confined -- exactly how money was moved in al-Qaeda's shockingly low-cost operation, for instance, or the specific pull-in forces exerted by sagging floor trusses. There is no possible way to view these reports as inconclusive.

3. The only logical answers to the original question are "yes" and "no."

An answer of "yes" is acceptable, because there is no logical contradiction in the reports.

An answer of "no" is also acceptable. While this answer raises the question of exactly how or why the answerer knows otherwise, it is nonetheless logically consistent -- the answerer also has to throw out the reports completely, and this is consistent with the "cover-up" hypothesis. Poster Max Photon gave this answer, and while I find his explanation for how he arrived at that answer to be absurd, his answer is at least theoretically legitimate.

The answers typically given by conspiracy believers, and given again in this thread, however, are neither. They are "I Don't Know," and "We Need A New Investigation To Find Out."

Total nonsense. This answer only reveals that the respondent has no idea what those reports actually contain. Either those reports are correct, or they are very, very wrong. There's no middle-of-the-road answer. Anyone responding in this fashion reveals, without any uncertainty, that he or she is arguing from ignorance.

The consequences of the non-answer are a special case of an argument I've made elsewhere, regarding the charges of Dr. Jones and Dr. Griffin, among others -- their "findings" allegedly refute NIST, etc., yet they are so vague that they can't even determine whether explosives, thermite, or both were used; in what quantities; where; when; or why? Sure they do.

Once again, to the OP, well played.

 

[Trigood]

For that matter, every building fire is started by the fire department.

After all, who benefits from building fires?

As Montag says in Fahrenheit 451, "Well, it's a job just like any other. Good work with lots of variety. Monday, we burn Miller; Tuesday, Tolstoy; Wednesday, Walt Whitman; Friday, Faulkner; and Saturday and Sunday, Schopenhauer and Sartre. We burn them to ashes and then burn the ashes. That's our official motto."

 

[Good Lt]

Once again, to the OP, well played.

Thank you, RMackey.

You nailed and articulated better than I ever could what I was going for.

And LC provided exactly what I had hoped and wanted him to.

As noted previously, Max "got it." His conclusions are insane, but at least he's unequivocal and harbors no delusions about what he believes.