Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

Just a question to all the conspiracy theorists here: why, without taking recourse to top-secret information only beknownst to you, is it so inconceivable to YOU that a militant Islamic organization, supported financially by the US during the Cold War and trained in the CIA-school of insurgent terrorism, might have gone rogue after the USSR went belly-up, and put all its efforts in destabilizing the US presense in the Arab world? We know the government spreads virulent propaganda, and once upon a time cigarettes were advertized as benefitial to one's health - but does from this immanently follow that the moon is made of cheese? It's obvious some people benefited unduly from the ensuing War on Terror, as is the case in any war, but is it really so immanent this one had to be 'created'? Were there really no serious antagonistic forces opposing US global hegemony after the defeat of the USSR? Not on the level of nation states, no. But Ron Paul, however else you might feel about that Randroid loon, was entirely right to address the popular resentment in the Arab world at America's one-sided support of Israel and clientilist policies. As far as under-informed Americans go, many people still have a hard time acknowledging many countries rich in natural resources in Africa and the Middle East are run by US-backed dictatorships and plutocracies. And which are only capable of maintaining the status quo thanks to ongoing American military and intelligence aid in fighting off popular insurgencies. I have never understood why conspiracy theorists deem it so unthinkable a militant Islamic-inspired revolutionary group might have pulled this one off. Are Arabs less intelligent than Western caucasians? Are they actually enjoying the American Empire's occupying their land and sucking dry its natural resources while the population gets shit all? Keep in mind that among the 'winners' of the War on Terror would be such an Islamic revolutionary group as al-Qaeda. Beyond Bin Laden's wildest dreams, in fact. They would have managed with relatively low-tech means to provoke the 'Great Satan' into an ongoing and disproportionate military response, and at least sped up America's path towards financial melt-down. You don't need to subscribe to some hokey rightist idea that Islam is 'evil' and 'against freedom' to buy the 'official' version of events as I've sketched above. It suffices to acknowledge that US interests in many countries entail hugely unpopular puppet democracies, in turn birthing insurgency groups not planning on taking their oppression lying down. Is it a more comforting idea that there is a God-like agency behind all of history than to acknowledge the chaotic nature of history? Please, convince me. But again: no 'secret' information (i.e. something a 'connected' friend or family member told you, or a fellow CT believer) and no negative evidence (the fact that it's not been reported in the mainstream press serving as evidence for the conspiracy's existence). See it as an exercise in rational argumentation (a.o.t. calling everyone disagreeing with your idea a 'brainwashed idiot' or something or other).

 

What the hell does that mean? Please re-phrase it in comprehensible English.

Posting videos without explanation other than "See what I mean?" hardly makes you look like a credible source of information. Your videos show a plane flying into a building and exploding. It doesn't look like anything else. There is no evidence that it was anything else.

 

I do

 

the water in the face demonstration is what a physics major expects to happen when bladder tanks burst upon initial impact when striking the outside of the building.

do you know why that is the expected result?

see I explained it in the previous post

Explanation in blue
.

 

That is ridiculous. An aircraft fuel tank does not resemble a balloon, and a glass and steel building does not resemble a human face. You would certainly not expect a plane hitting a building to behave like a baloon hitting a face. That should be obvious to anyone with any intelligence whatsoever.

What are you trying to illustrate with the "They are all wrong with reality." video? Is there a reason why you posted it again? Are you trying to illustrate a point, or do you just believe that your attachment count gives you credibility? It looks to me like exactly what it is: a plane hitting a building, not a ballon hitting a face.

 

I posted answers to that as well. I presume there is no need to explain to an educated crowd what an explosion looks like and the resultant damage?

this is when wtc2 was actually imploded which occurred about 1 hour after the alleged plane strike.

So despite your statement there is a mountain of evidence.

 

the mig clip proves you wrong.

however if you wish to elaborate on how the "fluid dynamics" comparison cannot be made I would entertain it.

 

This post is making far too much sense for this thread.

OBVIOUSLY the poster is an illuminati agent trying to mislead everyone.

 

The Mig clip proves that that particular aircraft, hitting that particular surface exploded in that particular way. If you wish to generalize from that event, then you have to state explicitly what generalizations you are making and justify them logically.

So, describe the structural differences between the ground and a steel building. List all the factors, in chronological order, that contribute to liquid fuel in a damaged tank igniting. How is the timing of the ignition affected by those factors? What determines the spray pattern of the fuel?

 

If you believe that in terms of fluid dynamics they are different or negate the position stated I am still awaiting your explanations.

Dont ask me to make your case for you please, I wont.

 

before 911 people still had jobs..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_DAQJRanVs"]A Hot Knife Through Butter - YouTube

 

I am asking you to make YOUR case.

There are numerous reasons why two fuel explosions would be different. Even a conspiracy nut should be able to think of serveral of them. But since you obviously can't, let me help you...

The materials of the respective fuel tanks. Their shapes. The speed of impact. The angle of impact. The mechanisms of deceleration. Those are just for starters, dealing with the mechanism of rupture of the tanks and therefore the resulting spray patterns. Then there are factors affecting ignition: The fuel volumes, The types of fuel. The proximity of ignition sources.

Now, with plenty of obvious factors that could make two explosions different, you are asserting that they ought to be exactly the same. So what evidence is there to support your claim? The video evidence supports two different explosion patterns, as one would logically expect.

So where is your data supporting your contention that any two explosions must necessarily be identical? You must have data on all of the factors I listed in order to claim that they should be identical. Where is it?

Since you are making a claim that is contrary to the only evidence available, you have a rather extraordinary burden of proof. You must have extraordinarily good data. Let's see it.

FAIL! You lose.

 

wow!

thats a lot of "stuff" you r cypherin.

that said I bet you have a bullet proof explanation why we see no fuel fire outside until well after the nose of the plane sticks through the opposite side of the building. (which is just another one of those "official" physical impossibilities you will need to explain)



from your own video fire comes out the side long before it comes out that big gaping hole. In fact all I see is gray cement dust coming out of that gaping hole.

I am sure you must have some law of physics that supports your theory?

 

Any takers? Anyone? Bueller?

 

I notice you still didn't address my questions. Loser.

 

Just a question to all the conspiracy theorists here: why, without taking recourse to top-secret information only beknownst to you, is it so inconceivable to YOU that a militant Islamic organization, supported financially by the US during the Cold War and trained in the CIA-school of insurgent terrorism, might have gone rogue after the USSR went belly-up, and put all its efforts in destabilizing the US presense in the Arab world?

Thats one hell of a run on sentence! LOL
First the governments version IS a conspiracy theory never proven outside their kangaroo show tribunals.
Next no its not conceivable since this operation required knowledge of the highest levels of government to pull off.
The imperialist operation was designed to take over not destabilize


We know the government spreads virulent propaganda, and once upon a time cigarettes were advertized as benefitial to one's health - but does from this immanently follow that the moon is made of cheese?

Yes!

It's obvious some people benefited unduly from the ensuing War on Terror, as is the case in any war, but is it really so immanent this one had to be 'created'?

The aristocracies operate that way, how else can they force a land grab? History never really changes much.

Were there really no serious antagonistic forces opposing US global hegemony after the defeat of the USSR? Not on the level of nation states, no.

Sure there is

But Ron Paul, however else you might feel about that Randroid loon, was entirely right to address the popular resentment in the Arab world at America's one-sided support of Israel and clientilist policies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8


As far as under-informed Americans go, many people still have a hard time acknowledging many countries rich in natural resources in Africa and the Middle East are run by US-backed dictatorships and plutocracies.

Including America!

And which are only capable of maintaining the status quo thanks to ongoing American military and intelligence aid in fighting off popular insurgencies.

Yes OWS, Waco, MLK, JFK, the sovereign man movement all have to be put down!

I have never understood why conspiracy theorists deem it so unthinkable incorrect choice of words, you meant to say unlikely.... a militant Islamic-inspired revolutionary group might have pulled this one off.

Impossible

Are Arabs less intelligent than Western caucasians? Are they actually enjoying the American Empire's occupying their land and sucking dry its natural resources while the population gets shit all?

The monarchy signed into it.

Keep in mind that among the 'winners' of the War on Terror would be such an Islamic revolutionary group as al-Qaeda. Beyond Bin Laden's wildest dreams, in fact. They would have managed with relatively low-tech means to provoke the 'Great Satan' into an ongoing and disproportionate military response, and at least sped up America's path towards financial melt-down.

Nope it was a gamble the US took to gain world domination

You don't need to subscribe to some hokey rightist idea that Islam is 'evil' and 'against freedom' to buy the 'official' version of events as I've sketched above.

Very True

It suffices to acknowledge that US interests in many countries entail hugely unpopular puppet democracies, in turn birthing insurgency groups not planning on taking their oppression lying down.

Including in America.

Is it a more comforting idea that there is a God-like agency behind all of history than to acknowledge the chaotic nature of history? Please, convince me.

Except for your apparent belief binny pulled it off you pretty much nailed it.

But again: no 'secret' information (i.e. something a 'connected' friend or family member told you, or a fellow CT believer) and no negative evidence (the fact that it's not been reported in the mainstream press serving as evidence for the conspiracy's existence). See it as an exercise in rational argumentation (a.o.t. calling everyone disagreeing with your idea a 'brainwashed idiot' or something or other).

Most of society today is brainwashed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

you have in the end however the same problem as the other guy. you only acknowledge a CT if it does not include the government whos version is not only a CT but never to be proven accurate on any level.

see perkins who admits it.

 

they are moot until you establish a basis.

 

I've been thinking about the best way to get word out about this terrible conspiracy.

I've come the the conclusion that the posters here should buy sandwich boards, stop shaving and yell incoherently at passers by.

 

Do you have any idea just how ridiculous you sound with that pompous lawyer-geek talk?

You really have no idea of the difference between fact and fiction, do you? You don't understand the difference between evidence and make-believe. If you don't have facts, you just make 'em up. They did tell you about Santa Claus, didn't they?

The "basis" is that things are as they appear. The 767 hit the WTC. The video is evidence of that. The eyewitnesses support the video evidence.

If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it. A Mig crashing at the Paris airshow is not evidence until you can show some incontrovertible connection to the events of 9/11. I have suggested several lines of inqurey that you could pursue to investigate its suitability as evidence, but you conveniently chose to change the subject. That is dishonest.