Learn the Truth about 9/11!

in AppleOutsider edited April 2014

9/11 was an "inside job".

The public has been mislead to believe that some 19 arabs armed with razor blades carried the attack which lead to the destruction of World Trade Center.

This is a lie.

There are a number of documentaries which show that the World Trade Center was destroyed by bombs going off in the buildings and that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a airplane, like a cruise missle.

A decent place to start in learning what really happened is by watching Loose Change on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...29448192753501

However, architect Richard Gage's "How the Towers Fell" video proves beyond any doubt that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21782753292874


  • Reply 1 of 152
    You are an idiot.
  • Reply 2 of 152
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Originally Posted by El Capitan View Post

    You are an idiot.

    Well, spammers always are.
  • Reply 3 of 152
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Ron Paul.
  • Reply 4 of 152
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,020member
  • Reply 5 of 152
    Ron Paul does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. Anyone going on with that point of view has blinders on.
  • Reply 6 of 152
    ... to be locked!

    PS: Just kidding, on the death bed part, that is!
  • Reply 7 of 152
    It is NOT out of the realm of possibility that the government orchestrated and/or facilitated the September 11th attacks as a way to get into a war (i.e. the Iraq war and the "War on Terror" with Afghanistan).

    More investigation could be done, but what would be the point? The government is never going to get caught anyways.
  • Reply 8 of 152
    he's on the wrong forum.

  • Reply 9 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    If anyone wants to argue that 9/11 might have been an inside job, then one of the most convincing places to look is the government's own data and evidence. Here's a couple at random, amongst legions:

    (1) the c.s.v. data, as analyzed by the NTSB from Flight 77's flight data recorder has AA77 at an atitude of >450ft above the Pentagon's lawn (according to the altimeter readings adjusted to msl) during the last 1 second of flight before the termination of data. (!?!). The NTSB has not retracted this data; the plane's instruments are presumed to have been functioning correctly. At this height, 77 could have neither impacted the Pentagon, nor brought down the 5 lamp poles as it traversed the Pentagon's lawn. The "official story" has AA77 coming in horizontally a few feet above the lawn, clipping the lamp poles as well as a large cable-drum and a truck parked in frnt of the building: the security cam video shows some kind of craft trailing smoke (but the type of plane is *not* apparent). The NTSB data is in severe conflict with this version, showing AA77 coming in at a different trajectory in both the vertical and horizontal axes, in which it is far too high to have hit the Pentagon, and it is displaced horizontally away from where the lamp poles stood by a considerable distance.

    Both sources of information are from the US Government. They both cannot be simultaneously correct. One (or both?) is wrong, or a lie. Scientific instruments, as a rule, tend not to follow political agendas.

    (2) June,5, 2006: According to FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb: “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    Hmmm... Isn't OBL prime suspect #1? Think about all the times we all have heard OBL's name in the msm bandied around as the culprit? This has happened, 24/7, for several years since the event; no wonder there's this strong connection forged between the public perception and OBL's supposed guilt. I wonder why President Bush, in hs own words, said:

    "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him"

    Good Lord.

    (3) According to evidence presented by theFBI in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, the Department of Justice (where Solicitor General Ted Olson worked) received NO (i.e. zero) phone calls from Barbara Olson, his wife. Her four alleged calls to him at the DOJ while the plane was en route to (apparently) hitting the Pentagon (via either her cellphone, or AA77's seatback phones (which apparently might not have existed on that plane, according to the 757 service manuals) form a major component in the official narrative. But, to repeat, according to the FBI, there are no records that Barbara Olson talked to her husband, and certainly not on 4 separate occasions, as reported by the 9/11 Commission. (Ted Olson claimed only two calls). Furthermore, Ted Olson changed his story about these calls, twice!

    If the official story is shown to be unreliable (or untrue, or questionable) as regards official evdence, especially that presented in a US court of law during a high profile terrorist case, nonetheless, it warrants questioning the entire oficially sanctioned story. (Which has not yet happened in an official capacity)

    And, as Segovius said.. this Bofors person is a troll, probably out to discredit those who are trying to find out what the fvck happened that morning.

    freakin' idiot
  • Reply 10 of 152
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Originally Posted by bofors View Post

    9/11 was an "inside job".

    Hey, was that you on Bill Maher last Friday?
  • Reply 11 of 152
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post

    He's clearly a government stooge trying to discredit the truth movement.

    As if it needs any help.
  • Reply 12 of 152
    @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
  • Reply 13 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Originally Posted by El Capitan View Post

    You are an idiot.

    Would you call these people idiots?

    Scroll down the home page. Maybe I underestimated your knowledge base? You are presumably more qualified in such matters than a selection of generals, colonels and a wide selection of experienced military folk who have had the guts to look a little further than the Bush Admin sanctioned baby-formula gushing forth from the mainstream media?
  • Reply 14 of 152
    @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    I have this text file on 9-11/World Domination et al for these such occasions...

    First a few history lessons on World Domination:

    "The Money Masters"


    "The Power of Nightmares"


    "Bill Moyers: The Secret Government"


    Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study, Report Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 94th Cong., 1st sess., August 21, 1975


    REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES - Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century (PDF)


    "Robert Newman's History of Oil"


    Bush Family:

    "The Panama Deception"


    "Meet the Carlyle Group"


    "Bush Family Fortunes"


    Dick Cheney:

    Frontline: "The Dark Side"


    Donald Rumsfeld:

    Frontline: "Rumsfeld's War"


    September 11th 2001:

    "Frontline: The Man Who Knew"


    "Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Conspiracy Theories"

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...nn+and+teller& hl=en

    Nova's Online Audio Slide Show on the WTC Towers Collapse: DVD "Nova: Why the Towers Fell"


    French Filmmakers Jules and Gedeon Naudet's "9/11"


    "Who Killed John O'Neill?" - One Actor, One Room, Seven Characters: 9/11.


    The 9-11 pilots and the Pentagon Pilot...

    Ask the pilot - In search of the ever-elusive "truth," the pilot takes on the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

    "They had what they needed: Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness"


    Now about World Trade Tower 7 collapse and the term "pull"...

    Listen carefully to the firemen in the video speaking to each other. One says, "It's hotter than Hell in there -" and the other fireman replies, "That's why HE PULLED EVERYBODY OUTTA THERE.". Then another fireman says, "That's definitely 50 stories, it could definitely reach us from here.". What he means is the debris from the eventual collapse of the building. The firemen and Silverstein realized it was going to collapse and "pulled" the operation ("it").


    "To support the controlled-demolition theory, conspiracy theorists attack the official NIST report by insisting that fire doesn't melt steel. What NIST actually does claim is that the fires were sufficient enough to weaken the steel to the point where they would fail - structurally. This video attempts to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theorists one at a time."


    Raw video of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center Tower. Turn up the volume. If this doesn't prove that fully fueled jet airliners flying at 500 mph could not cause structural damage...


    Need evidence from a professional group? How about the Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.

    Link to article...


    Links to the research material, images and simulation videos of the WTC and the Pentagon attacks...


    And for 9|11 reading, here are some peer reviewed documents online:

    "Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1"


    Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths


    There you go. What I've seen and what I've read that I believe to be good alternative resources.

    Controlled Demolition Debunked? (Building Demolition goes wrong):

  • Reply 15 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    This argument will go on ad infinitum. Even if a top official from the Bush Administration (perhaps unable to sleep at nights) came out and described 9/11 as an "inside job", under oath, with a cartload of corroborating evidence, a large section of the population would put him down as a conspiracy loony. Such heinous acts, such as a "self attack" do not map onto such peoples' frames of reference. As far as they are concerned, even the most psychopathic elements within the most rogue administration (such as we have currently) don't attack their own people, even if they have an enormous motivation to do such, and a pre-written agenda that could only happen in the event of a 9/11 style incident.

    We are living in such weird, screwed-up times, that even asking the "wrong" QUESTIONS (you don't have to get anywhere near conspiracy theorizing).. renders one liable to being shouted down by a legion of overpaid, loud and cowardly milksops such as Bill Maher, Penn and Teller, Bill O'Reilly.... you might even get tasered....

    Q. Please tell me Mr. Vice President, why did you lie before the 9/11 Commission regarding your whereabouts on the morning of September 11, 2001?

    A. Security, remove that woman from the building.
  • Reply 16 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member

    More wacko conspiracy theorists...

    c'mon Sego, are you not yet aware of the power of the boxcutter? A couple of these $2.29 weapons can overcome and disable the world's mightiest military machine!
  • Reply 17 of 152
    @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

    Q. Please tell me Mr. Vice President, why did you lie before the 9/11 Commission regarding your whereabouts on the morning of September 11, 2001?

    A. Security, remove that woman from the building.

    \ I thought he was "coordinating" the anti-terror exercise...
  • Reply 18 of 152
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,020member
    Personally I really enjoy pancakes with butter and syrup, preferably made from Bisquick. It has a nice texture and tang. I like them cakey as opposed to flat and stiff.

    Notice the golden color, not like the light brown that the Aunt Jemima batter produces. As for syrup, I like butter syrup, but not light syrup. Of course, the best is real maple syrup. But that's expensive!

    Oh, one more thing:

  • Reply 19 of 152
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

    We are living in such weird, screwed-up times, that even asking the "wrong" QUESTIONS (you don't have to get anywhere near conspiracy theorizing).. renders one liable to being shouted down by a legion of overpaid, loud and cowardly milksops such as Bill Maher, Penn and Teller, Bill O'Reilly.... you might even get tasered....

    Bill Maher is a "cowardly milksop" in your opinion? Because he doesn't like loud-mouth protesters in his audience disrupting HIS show, and general acting like assholes in the process?

    As for "questions"... there are real questions, and then there are accusations merely semantically couched as questions, like "When did you stop beating your wife?" The "truthers" questions are of the latter variety. One must answer to each and every real or imagined discrepancy, oddity, and coincidence, and if one can't supply a "truther" with an answer that completely satisfies said truther, well then... the looming supposed answers like "inside job" and "controlled demolition" are very, very, very strongly implied to be the only real alternatives, and anyone who doesn't buy those explanations is very strongly implied to be either a fool or "in on it" too.

    "Just asking questions". Please, spare me. You get so angry at the media not being honest -- and rightly so in many cases -- but fail to demonstrate honest rhetoric yourself.
  • Reply 20 of 152
    dave k.dave k. Posts: 1,306member
    Since we are on the topic...

    What is the official cause of why Building 7 fell when no plane hit it?
Sign In or Register to comment.