Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

Nice try, but no cigar. You immediately lay in with is-so arguments as to the impossibility of doing anything without the government knowing, and the way 'aristocrats' just can't help themselves doctoring history. Frankly, your response only confirms my suspicion w.r.t. conspiracy theorists. Namely that, as a special subset of religious zealots, they are both cognitively incapable of imagining their standpoint as anything short of gospel truth, while at the same time incapable of any kind of reflective thought regarding their conviction. I realize that asking you to do something you are psychologically incapable of doing (reflecting on the rationale to your belief) is asking the impossible, hence a bit mean. But you have to realize that this entrenched dogmatism puts you, intellectually, on the same level as the former president G.W. Bush. You divide the playing field up into righteous believers like yourselves, and a large, undifferentiated group of 'official story dupes' who can never hope to provide anything of value in this debate. I'm sorry if this offends people, but I can't help feeling conspiracy theorists are, intellectually, victims of a business-run education system stressing 'out-of-the-box-thinking' without providing much in the way of foundational understanding on which to base subsequent thinking. It's like pushing students to 'express themselves' without providing them with a rudimentary grasp of grammar. I'm not saying conspiracy theorists are stupid - I acknowledge it takes more intelligence and imagination to consider such matters than your average Joe Sixpack is capable of. But their grasp of history and the forces involved in creating the present, is often horribly lacking, no doubt owing to the be-all-end-all explanation to everything under the sun: the Illuminati diddit! The American literary theorist Frederic Jameson has qualified conspiracy theory as 'the poor man's cognitive map', and I have to agree. Which isn't to say that conspiracy theorists aren't onto 'something', some repressed truth - namely the awesome, ongoing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a historical elite, the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the current political economic system - but that by focusing all their effort on things that will forever remain moot (the existence of a shadowy cabal of occultists, aristocrats and reptilians), they only succeed in weakening popular opposition to the self-appointed masters of our time. Who are, contrary to conspiratorial belief, quite candid about their intents and endeavors. Just pick up a copy of Forbes or Quote and you can read all about what they have in story for the little guy. Now I understand, based on how things are going, why conspiracy theorists would feel they are living under such an oppressively totalitarian regime that it becomes inconceivable anyone could so much as fart without the government knowing about it. But you have to understand this is, despite the ongoing 'advancements' in profiling and surveillance technology, an intentionally cultivated impression. 'They' want you to believe this, and to adjust your behavior accordingly. It's common management knowledge fearful, paranoid people need a minimum of policing. They've already got a cop in their head! It's like the CCTV camera's which have become common not just in public areas or shops, but the workplace as well. Nominally these are there for 'security' purposes, but everyone understands they are really there for management to keep an eye on employees. The thing is many aren't even operational, and certainly not constantly monitored. But just their presence alters human behavior. The same, of course, goes for the Society of Control as a whole: it's the illusion of the all-seeing eye that counts. Whether an actual all-seeing eye in the sky exists is certainly of less practical significance than the fact we behave as if there does. Based on my - incomplete, but to the best of my abilities 'informed' - understanding of the world, I'd say it's unlikely a God as stipulated by the major world religions exists. You can never know for sure that in some Nth dimension, completely disconnected from our corner of the universe, yes, there He is, the bearded man himself. But if you hold the claims of organized religion to scientific scrutiny, it does seem less likely anything resembling known models of intelligence created the universe. But though I don't agree with its metaphysical truth-claims, I take religion seriously. Karl Marx famously declared religion 'opium for the masses' - meaning a soothing fiction to distract them from their real-life misery. But I take a darker view: religion is founded on the psychology of paternal rule and subordination. It is, in a word, the original human-controlling technology on which all modern surveillance systems are modeled. Thou shalt FEAR the all-seeing eye of the father, and not even THINK about questioning its authority. Which is yet another reason why I suspect conspiracy theory to be but a (barely) secular religion: for all its concern with the 'evil elites', 'world governments' and 'satanic monarchists', they tend to turn a tellingly blind eye to the most immediately visible manifestations of tyranny today: global 'limited liability' corporations and the administrative echelons of global capital. As such, conspiracy theorists are little more than 'useful idiots' to a business- and finance-run pseudo-democracy. To quote Thomas Pynchon: 'If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about the answers'.

 

ariekanibalie, for all we know, Zzap , might just be yanking peoples chain.

 

The architects of the construction in the late 60s early 70s when the buildings were built designed and engineered these buildings to withstand the largest full fueled aircraftat the time, the Boeing 707. The planes that crashed into the towers were larger, but not drastically larger. You'd think they would have lasted longer than a day before crashing to the ground.

By October 11th clean up crews were removing molten steel from the basement levels of the trade centers. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel and maintain it at liquid temperatures for over a month. It's a load of shit.

Oh here's a good one: still waiting for the apartment to collapse at free fall speed. Waiting. Waiting. Hmmmmmm. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1099316n

 

We've already been threw this.

 

That is actually a lie.

YOU would think that, but that's because you don't put a whole lot of thought into it.

 

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

The story...

The WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707. There's very little difference between the 707 and the 767, therefore why should the 9/11 impacts have caused the towers to fall?

 

After 9/11, they interviewed the architect who designed the building. He said there was never a design requirement for it to withstand an aircraft strike.

After the building was designed, he heard about the B-25 that struck the Empire State building in WW2 and decided to see how his new building would hold up. He computed the kinetic energy of a 707 hitting the WTC and calculated that it would absorb the kinetic energy without collapsing. Fuel load and the effects of fire were never a part of that after-the-fact calculation.

And the WTC buldings, both of them, did absorb 100% of the kinetic energy without it leading to the collapse. All the kinetic energy was fully dissipated withn 30 seconds or so, and the buildings continued standing long after that.

 

interesting post


yeh but many do know and cant or wont talk about it.

​

 

the picture posted earlier shows the perimeter explosions about 10 flors apart just like the firemen reported and nist said fire did not cause them to come down, and the pic just above is devastating to anyones mind.

 

:smilielol5: LOL Clearly something devastated your mind, because that was a dandy non sequitur.

 

That's fucking rich, aire'. So, anyone who believes the testimonies of firefighters, paramedics, and first responders on that day is somehow jumping to conclusions about how the buildings were brought down.

Are you even aware of their testimonies? And if so, what do you make it them?

And on a related issue, what do you make of the 9/11 Commision's decision to not use any testimonies from any of these first responders?

Nothing out of the ordinary there, huh?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAMlF3KO1vs&feature=related"]Fuck 9/11! Get Over It Already! - YouTube
911, the great con job..

 

Huh, actually some real good points in that video. I'm a fan.

 

norad thwarted 67 aircraft hijackings before 911, yet did nothing to stop 4 planes..

 

I wasn't disputing any of that. The link backs up what you have said.

To be fair, 'Able to withstand a plane hit' is not a lie - but not the whole truth.

 

it wasnt designed to withstand termites either

 

I stated what I believe and you stated what you believe. Not here to argue just to answer the question as the title states.


"Yes, was not an inside job. I have read every conspiracy theory on it because I found it fairly compelling fiction. But none of the fact the truthers have hold up to any sort of scrutiny. And when presented with conflicting information, they simply deny the information which back up their narrative.

Trying to present facts to a person who believes that the two towers weren't brought down by planes, is as pointless as trying to present evidence that the world is 4 billion years old to a new earth creationist. I on the other hand, have no dog in this fight, could be convinced that it was a government plot, and simply don't because the truther evidence isn't good. "

 

ALL OF THE TROOFERS ITT, PLEASE TO BE DOING SOME THINKING. I know it's hard and I know it hurts and I know it tells you things you don't want to hear, but I assure you it's worth it.

 

actually, not really.

the notoriously unsound judgement and memory of people on the ground during a traumatic and climactic confusing event, while compelling, is generally considered less reliable than the testimony of scientists, experts and structural engineers. this is why its very hard to convict anyone of anything based on eyewitness accounts in criminal trials, they are unreliable to the point of being almost useless, and that's usually when confronted with a reasonably familiar situation, and not blinded by a huge cloud of dust.

i'm unfamiliar with a lot of the eyewitness testimony, although ive read one or two accounts and i did watch that shite-geist film where, for the most part, quotes were taken completely out of context (when your film starts being a bit far-fetched, just play the requiem for a dream score or "clubbed to death" and people won't realise that you aren't being entirely objective with the facts ) but the ones ive seen mostly just seemed to be people saying that they thought they heard bombs in the buildings, or explosions. well, a skyscraper collapsing floor by floor is gonna make a series of loud noises, a skyscraper full of closed rooms, electrical transformers etc, many of which i would imagine would sound like explosions. add to this the fact that people, upon hearing an explosion and knowing that they were in the middle of a terrorist attack, pretty much immediately think "bomb" and fatigue, confusion, respiratory problems, fear (perhaps most of all.) and you have all the ingredients of a tasty "unreliable witness" soup.