THE OFFICAL 911 was a inside job thread

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

All that this country has done for you and your freedoms and you all turn your back on it. May gods wrath have mercy on you when your day of judgment comes.
You all should be ashamed of yourselves, consider yourself lucky you were not born in Iraq where we are doing out best to free these people as if you had your way Saddam would still be in power and in Iraq turning your back on and betraying our country carries the DEATH PENALTY!

I will pray for your sad souls and that mercy should be had on your families.

the same country that lets anyone waltz in even though terrorism and another attack on our soil is our primary concern?

I understand maybe Bush has a long term goal of worldwide democracy and peacefully working in unison because in the future there may be issues we will have to face as a world united. But then come Ive never heard him say that? All I hear is him trying to stir up the fear in everyone.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

dont you know they think bush carried a bomb in himself and the planes were imaginary. he also shot a rocket at the pentagon.

I take it that they do not disagree since they have offered no alternative theory.

Either that or the question has them stumped and they are looking at the conspiracy sites to see if anyone has ever bothered to address that issue before.

 

[HitManSE 10+ year member]

I dont really care for conspiracy theories, but a lot of things just dont add up.

The main thing I look at is the speed at which the buildings fell (less then 10 seconds), the fact that a bulk of the fuel burned upon impact (hence the giant fireball) doesnt seem like it would do much to bring such buildings down.

Even if you dont factor in the jet fuel, the planes hit different areas on each tower. Sooo why did the towers start to fall INTO themselves starting from the top? If the floors were really falling in, it should have taken the path of least resistance. Which is to fall over, not fall into itself and stay falling into itself all the way to the ground level.

The chances of it just happening that way is little to none, let alone it happening it under 10 seconds (freefall).

Removing all theories, reasons, and strories from it, and just looking at the building drop that way. Well its just not very likley to happen (without help).

 

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

I take it that they do not disagree since they have offered no alternative theory.
Either that or the question has them stumped and they are looking at the conspiracy sites to see if anyone has ever bothered to address that issue before.

Its already stated who benefitted. I think it just boils down to greed and cutting out the middle man. We have strong ties with the Saudis you know. The long term goal would be continued globalization in Iraq. Saddam wouldnt want that! If China and India become real superpowers there just might not be enough to go around, simple supply and demand. But there is if you have it...

So religion has these fvckers thinking their limp nubs will get wet with 40 virgins so they get coaxed right in. Make sure you get the diabolical masterminds on camera! Even if they failed, if the passengers broke every bone in their bodies and the pilots still had control its possible an outside source could control. But wait its not possible to plant some id's among the chaos, i dont even know how they held up anyway?

You should also know that GWB's cousin was CEO of the security company for the WTC for a couple years leading up to. Talk about having a foot in the door.

Are you going to call the testimonials from the witnesses including firefighters liars?

 

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

im not saying im 100% sold on anything but you have to consider everything, I wouldnt have considered it at all but Bush sometimes looks so **** uncomfortable.

Its like the guys who think Bonds is clean even through his fat head and feet had a growth spurt at age 40.. one way thinkers.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

im not saying im 100% sold on anything but you have to consider everything, I wouldnt have considered it at all but Bush sometimes looks so **** uncomfortable.
Its like the guys who think Bonds is clean even through his fat head and feet had a growth spurt at age 40.. one way thinkers.

Bush has looked uncomfortable forever. If you are honest with yourself I don't know how you could possibly disagree. He should write a book, "How to Look Uncomfortable in Any Situation."

I have asked for a theory about who was involved in the conspiracy and how it was carried out. From what I gather, you are saying that the "who" includes Bush, his cousin and the Saudis.

I am not sure we really got to the "how" -- other than some mention that the planes could have been controlled remotely. I guess we would need to add the various Airlines and the Airline Mechanics Union to the list of co-conspirators.

 

[bds0688 10+ year member]

I think one thing that would help conspiracy theorists' cause is to quit with "brainwashed" or "machine" or other such terms. Mud slinging within the argument doesn't do shit, especially when you are on the side of providing evidence and proof.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

I think one thing that would help conspiracy theorists' cause is to quit with "brainwashed" or "machine" or other such terms. Mud slinging within the argument doesn't do shit, especially when you are on the side of providing evidence and proof.

I agree. I am interested to see if they even have a coherent theory about what they believe happened.

 

[HitManSE 10+ year member]

I agree. I am interested to see if they even have a coherent theory about what they believe happened.

Thats the thing, thats ALL they are at the moment. IF it was an inside job, IMO they did one hell of a sloppy job.

The ONLY thing im personally certain of is the WTC, I just dont see how they dropped as possible. Unless they had assistance that is.

As for WHY... its all a guess. I can throw a few of those into the pot as well but all its going to be is a guess.

That Larry whateverthehell his name is made over $8 billion in profit to start things off, thats just the tip of it but, im not going to hang onto to that. All the paperwork ect.. in WTC 7 and who knows what else was in there that we didnt know about is another thing. I dont know what the deal was, but WTC had NO reason to drop and how they managed to set it up to "pull it" in a matter of hours is a mystery in itself.

Moving on though, I think the biggest reason was getting the push to go to the middle east and have a legitimate reason to do so. Why? I can only guess the military contracts that generate big $$$$ and I couldnt even imagine what else is going on over there that we dont know about.

IMHO, there is always more going on then meets they eye.

If there was/is a good reason behind it, then so be it. I dont want to swing in too many directions on this, I dont like to discuss it because all it is, is theories. Also why I havnt posted until now.

Some suggestions are WAY out of whack, yet others make sense. Regardless there are no hard facts to back any theories so until something is proven im personally not going to get upset about all this, I do however expect info to eventually come to light. Be they disqualifying most theories, and/or confirming a few.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Thats the thing, thats ALL they are at the moment. IF it was an inside job, IMO they did one hell of a sloppy job.
The ONLY thing im personally certain of is the WTC, I just dont see how they dropped as possible. Unless they had assistance that is.

As for WHY... its all a guess. I can throw a few of those into the pot as well but all its going to be is a guess.

That Larry whateverthehell his name is made over $8 billion in profit to start things off, thats just the tip of it but, im not going to hang onto to that. All the paperwork ect.. in WTC 7 and who knows what else was in there that we didnt know about is another thing. I dont know what the deal was, but WTC had NO reason to drop and how they managed to set it up to "pull it" in a matter of hours is a mystery in itself.

Moving on though, I think the biggest reason was getting the push to go to the middle east and have a legitimate reason to do so. Why? I can only guess the military contracts that generate big $$$$ and I couldnt even imagine what else is going on over there that we dont know about.

IMHO, there is always more going on then meets they eye.

If there was/is a good reason behind it, then so be it. I dont want to swing in too many directions on this, I dont like to discuss it because all it is, is theories. Also why I havnt posted until now.

Some suggestions are WAY out of whack, yet others make sense. Regardless there are no hard facts to back any theories so until something is proven im personally not going to get upset about all this, I do however expect info to eventually come to light. Be they disqualifying most theories, and/or confirming a few.

Not being a smartass at all, but I take it you are talking about the owner of the buildings. (I honestly have not studied this so I don't know whether the owner was an individual or whether he was a principal in a corp or what).

But that brings up an interesting point ---- the insurance proceeds. Someone mentioned earlier that the owner had just added a terrorism rider to the policy. I don't know whether that is true or not but I would be shocked if the owner did not feel as though he had plenty of reason to have this coverage dating back until at least the last time terrorists tried to blow these very same buildings up. You remember this guy //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/santa.gif.e1ec9cf2e0a0dd232ad35aa594a126d0.gif right?

More importanty, I am sure that good old fashioned arson was not covered by the policy. And yet it sounds like the insurance carrier has paid that claim. Do you think that the carrier just rolled over and paid 8 billion in light of any credible evidence that the owner was involved in a conspiracy that was really responsible for the destruction of the buildings?? If you know anything about insurance companies (and I am sure you do) then you know **** well the carrier would have spent at least 4 billion to investigate and deny that 8 billion claim.

I am not prepared to deny common sense and jump to the most unlikely of conclusions (that our government was involved in a gruesome mass murder of its own citizens) simply because the buildings fell differently from what I might have guessed they would have. Given the fact that I have no background in physics or engineering I think that it would be incredibly arrogant of me to give my hunch such weight. In my opinon, the fact that someone with no training in these or related fields does not understand how or why the buildings fell in the manner in which they did is no where near enough to justify ignoring the obvious facts concerning what happened in preference of believing some outlandish conspiracy theory.

The insurance carrier, however, had the means and certainly the motivation to investigate the destruction of those buildings in order to prove that the owner was responsible. Since they did not deny the claim on the grounds of arson I take it the carrier was unable to prove such facts.

Or should we add the insurance carrier to the growing list of co-conspirators?

 

[HitManSE 10+ year member]

Yes I was referring to the owner of the buildings, he had just acquired (from my understanding of it anyway) a 99 year lease just 6 weeks prior to 9/11 and made sure he was excessively insured and that terrorism was indeed 100% covered.

You're right about the insurance company, insurance is only for indemnity & from past experience they do almost anything to return as little $ as possible. All its supposed to do is return the insured to a financial state equal to their state prior to a peril (not including deductible, and thats if you're lucky) . Now unless this guy actually spent $8 billion I dont understand how he made profit off of this. I think he spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $160 million, which isnt exactly chump change but still very far from $8 billion. You shouldnt be able to profit from insurance, so im not sure how that happened.

So I guess that too can be added to the growing list of things that dont make sense. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Thats the reason I say everything is just a theory.

Now, I too have no background in physics or engineering, so I cant say im an expert on that matter. The building thing is just a common sense thing to me, ill let someone whos well versed in physics do the explanation //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif IMO, I still say the way the buildings fell (not just 1, but both the same way) just doesnt seem possible.

If the building were to fall into itself, it should have met resistance from the floors below being that they wernt damaged. I can understand that it would accelerate with the accumulated weight of debris for each floor plus gravity but even then 2 things are wrong. 1 is it should have taken longer then 8-9 seconds, at least 45+ seconds, (with each floor slamming into the next aka path of most resistance) from the top floor to the ground 8-9 seconds is about as close to free fall as you're gonna get.

The 2nd thing is how it held its balance and fell straight down. IF it met resistance (which I think it obvious it didnt) it should have swayed to any direction but straight. Falling into itself is the path of most resistance, thats just not how things go. Either it should have taken a lot longer to fall, forcing itself through each floor OR just falling over. Neither happened, but as you said that doesnt hold much weight and is just another guess.

Even though IMO it holds some sense //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

 

[HitManSE 10+ year member]

To me the bottom line is this, while some things do stand out as odd or fishy and some theories might make a bit of sense, no one has any hard facts. So I dont get with 911 truth conventions are all about because there isnt any truth if there arnt any facts.

In the end, theories arnt facts. As much as some would like them to be, they just arnt.

 

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

But that brings up an interesting point ---- the insurance proceeds.

I would be shocked if the owner did not feel as though he had plenty of reason to have this coverage dating back until at least the last time terrorists tried to blow these very same buildings up.

He has only been the owner for a couple of years.

More importanty, I am sure that good old fashioned arson was not covered by the policy. And yet it sounds like the insurance carrier has paid that claim. Do you think that the carrier just rolled over and paid 8 billion in light of any credible evidence that the owner was involved in a conspiracy that was really responsible for the destruction of the buildings?? If you know anything about insurance companies (and I am sure you do) then you know **** well the carrier would have spent at least 4 billion to investigate and deny that 8 billion claim. ?

I dont know jack about insurance but I read he got double the money because they were regarded as 2 separtate attacks.

I am not prepared to deny common sense and jump to the most unlikely of conclusions (that our government was involved in a gruesome mass murder of its own citizens) simply because the buildings fell differently from what I might have guessed they would have. Given the fact that I have no background in physics or engineering I think that it would be incredibly arrogant of me to give my hunch such weight. In my opinon, the fact that someone with no training in these or related fields does not understand how or why the buildings fell in the manner in which they did is no where near enough to justify ignoring the obvious facts concerning what happened in preference of believing some outlandish conspiracy theory.

Noones opinion on here matters, but dont testimonials from structural engineers and demolition experts carry any weight? Where are the arguments from others with expertise to counter?

I will say the same thing Im not expert so I cant draw a conclusion but you have to consider all these coincidences because they are all facts.

The families of the victims werent experts either so along with the rest of us we deserved a full report by a real commission. I havent heard or read a review of the commission or the report to be fully cooperative and detailed in its investigation. Shortfunded, misdirected, and 28 pages omitted by Congress.

I imagine it would only take a handful to carry it out. The Arabs already worked with us once albeit for a very short time during the russian afghani conflict. Tim Osman haha. just look over the thread and it might clear who else could have been in. And Ive seen enough greed and shadiness over the local newscasts and tabloids to know theres such a thing as a ****ed sellout.

For the first time in history a VP takes control of our virginia based air defense NORAD and sends it to florida the day before the attack? Perhaps it was noticed the minute the planes went off course but there was nothing that could be done?

There were a couple of i think F14's that stayed behind. At least one was on the trail of the 4th plane. There is also Donald Rumsfeld on videotape with a slip of the tongue saying the plane was shot down.

Marvin Bush the CEO of the security agency for the WTC?

Its not all that unfeasible.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Heres some just for you. Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of all 3 collapsed buildings, faced a 6 billion dollar task of asbestos removal in the buildings, then weeks before the catastrophe he increased his insurance policy and reworked it to specifically include acts of terrorism and to give him the rights to rebuild the property if it was destroyed.

Hitman mentioned that Silverstein had just acquired the lease on the WTT a few weeks before 9/11. Assuming that is correct, what is the significance of the stayTuned's statement quoted above? It is another obvious example of a CT trying to manipulate facts to create the illusion that something sinister occured.

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

Noones opinion on here matters, but dont testimonials from structural engineers and demolition experts carry any weight? Where are the arguments from others with expertise to counter?

Actually, I do not automatically defer to any expert's opinion. I am fairly certain that at this very moment there are dozens of "experts" getting their ***** handed to them under cross examination. As for your question about experts on the non conspiracy side -- it is my understanding that there are plenty of them out there. As I said before, these esoteric arguments are really far from being persuasive.