Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

[scott3x]

I agree. It's just that some people want to believe that certain events that clearly -were- conspiracies aren't just because they believe the government wasn't involved.

i dont know what you mean by that.

For one, I mean that 9/11 is a conspiracy regardless of whether you go for the official story's arab hijackers or the idea that it was an inside job; people had to conspire together to make it happen.

 

[scott3x]

Well apparently you hadn't learned that the government had changed its mind on the lone assassin theory, so I guess you didn't read Crossfire. Still, I'm glad that you've taken an interest in it.

the supreme court isn't "the government" scott.

I never said it was, although it is a branch of government.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I dont know but when an investigation is conducted at crime scenes they dont ask 'where are the physicists'. You should have went to school and became an investigator or something similar.

.
The physicists are way too busy.

There are just SO MANY crime scenes where 1300 foot buildings have collapsed the physicists just can't keep up.

You will have to schedule an appointment with them.

psik

 

[leopold]

I never said it was, although it is a branch of government.

well don't say "the government" when you mean the supreme court.
actually the supreme court is the highest department of one branch, the judicial.

 

[scott3x]

I dont know but when an investigation is conducted at crime scenes they dont ask 'where are the physicists'. You should have went to school and became an investigator or something similar.

The physicists are way too busy.

There are just SO MANY crime scenes where 1300 foot buildings have collapsed the physicists just can't keep up.

You will have to schedule an appointment with them.

psik

Laugh . Fortunately, atleast one physicist has made the time to look into the matter thoroughly; Steven Jones.

 

[scott3x]

I never said it was, although it is a branch of government.

well don't say "the government" when you mean the supreme court.

I didn't mean the supreme court. I was speaking of the The House Select Committee on Assasinations conclusions in 1979. No idea where John got this Supreme Court idea. I suppose you'll next say that said committee isn't the government either; fine, it's also just a part of government, but it's the part that was charged to find out the truth concerning the JFK assassination. I assume there was this new investigation because enough people found the Warren Commission to be woefully lacking. Its conclusions still leave much to be desired, but it was a step in the right direction, atleast.

actually the supreme court is the highest department of one branch, the judicial.

Good point.

 

[John99]

.
The physicists are way too busy.

There are just SO MANY crime scenes where 1300 foot buildings have collapsed the physicists just can't keep up.

You will have to schedule an appointment with them.

psik

you really dont know anything about criminal investigations. As it stands now your coming across as very immature.

 

[psikeyhackr]

you really dont know anything about criminal investigations. As it stands now your coming across as very immature.

.
You are of course free to provide a list of all criminal investigations that involve the destruction of buildings over 100,000 tons in mass. You can pretend that this is like any other criminal investigation all you want.

Talking about the psychology without being sure about the physics simply demonstrates how idiotic psychologists are. Psychology is the study of not thinking. Education is the encouragement of not thinking.

How are we going to cure the psychologists and psychiatrists of 911 psychosis?

The new global issue confronting mankind. :roflmao:

psik

 

[John99]

i have no idea what you are talking about toofer.

 

[RonWieck]

.
Here we are back to obvious lying again.

Provide a link to where I said something about politics.

And you are constantly demonstrating your lack of knowledge about physics with your constant talk about "real engineers and physicists". You need someone to tell you what to think.

psik

Yawn. You will prance around your obvious agenda until pinned down. Let's see: you pretend that you discovered through magic that the cause of the collapse of the towers settled on by serious researchers isn't true. You couldn't have made your discovery in any other manner, as your discovery relies on nothing recognized by science. You are someone who has no background in physics or engineering and who displays a very poor grasp of those subjects. You boast about your ineducability. Are we supposed to conclude that your total inability to comprehend anything real engineers write is the result of your lack of intelligence, or should we make the more likely assumption that you, like all twoofers, simply can't abide the fact that America was attacked without provocation by jihadists, people who had been attacking American interests for a decade?

YOU desperately need someone to tell you, if not what to think, at least how to think. Thinking is not an activity for which you display any talent.

 

[RonWieck]

Laugh . Fortunately, atleast one physicist has made the time to look into the matter thoroughly; Steven Jones.

Gee, it kind of makes you wonder why his associates are all frauds and his department rebuked him for failure to maintain professional standards. Do you regard his refusal to share his work with other scientists as an example of his thoroughness? How about his refusal to submit any of his "work" for peer-review (no, the shabby pay-for-play vanity journal that published his worthless paper does not qualify)?

 

[RonWieck]

For one, I mean that 9/11 is a conspiracy regardless of whether you go for the official story's arab hijackers or the idea that it was an inside job; people had to conspire together to make it happen.

The jihadist attacks were a conspiracy in the same sense that the invasion at Normandy was a conspiracy. The jihadists declared war on the U.S. in the 90s. The attacks of 9/11/01 were the most spectacular in a series of strikes at American interests.

 

[RonWieck]

I was born and raised in Canada, not in Mexico. Yes, I recently lived there for 4 years, but that's behind me now. It was my father who was born and raised in Mexico and he once again resides there. -He- has certainly put in time in trying to make things better in Mexico. Ever heard of the Tlatelolco Massacre? In case you haven't:

The Tlatelolco Massacre, also known as The Night of Tlatelolco (from a book title by the Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska), took place during the afternoon and night of October 2, 1968, in the Plaza de las Tres Culturas in the Tlatelolco section of Mexico City. It happened ten days before the 1968 Summer Olympics celebrations in Mexico City, when the military and armed men shot student demonstrators. The death toll remains controversial: official government estimates place the deathtoll at 30, while some estimates place it in the thousands. Most sources, however, report between 200 and 300 deaths.​

My father was a young student when it occurred and (fortunately) managed to get out of there before the shooting started. He played a large role in creating a cultural center to commemorate this tragic event. Here's a link speaking of his role, but you'd have to be able to read spanish (He's Oscar Guzmán):
http://www.la-verdad.com.mx/principal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4366&Itemid=168

There is a lot of evidence of official deception that day, as witnessed by the official death toll vs. the reality, for starters. But there's more to it then that; cops posing as students with certain elements to differentiate them from the real students, for instance.. in essence, a mini 9/11. That day, although the students were the ones killed, they were also the ones blamed for it all. Quite a feat, but people were more trusting in their government back then. Same thing concerning the JFK assasination, although now even the government admits that there's no way Oswald could have acted alone; they still haven't gotten to the point of realizing or admitting that Oswald didn't do it at all, but in time perhaps.

You've been caught lying. The "government" does not "admit" that Oswald could not have acted alone. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he did, in fact, act alone. It's funny that people cling to their fantasies about the JFK assassination, although the evidence for Oswald's guilt is simply overwhelming, while evidence for a conspiracy is nonexistent.

 

[psikeyhackr]

i have no idea what you are talking about toofer.

.
And all you can come up with name calling psychological bullshit.

You can't come up with the distribution of mass on a skyscraper you BELIEVE could collapse from the top down.

I demonstrated with REAL PHYSICS, that anyone can duplicate for themselves, that MASS combined with STRUCTURAL SUPPORT stops a falling mass driven by gravity faster than those same supports alone. But you don't have sense enough to ask about the distribution of mass in a skyscraper and then you have the nerve to talk about an INVESTIGATION.

You can't recognize an incompetent investigation in the NIST report.

Ask Wieck "Brain" Ron to show you the data on the perimeter wall panels.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

psik

 

[Headspin]

It's funny that people cling to their fantasies about the JFK assassination, although the evidence for Oswald's guilt is simply overwhelming, while evidence for a conspiracy is nonexistent.

"I saw a man fire from behind the wooden fence"
- Jean Hill.

Will you retract your statement that the "evidence for a JFK conspiracy is nonexistent"?

I suspect that you will just mantra your "no evidence" bullshit, as you consistently do with 911 matters.

 

[John99]

"I saw a man fire from behind the wooden fence"
- Jean Hill.

no wonder you believe in conspiracy theories.

 

[dMx9]

Hell it is probably much safer walking the streets in Iraq than in Scotts old country.

Personalize less, stay on-topic more. Derail much, John99?

 

[John99]

Scott knows what i am referring to so dont try and cause trouble.

 

[scott3x]

Personalize less, stay on-topic more. Derail much, John99?

Scott knows what i am referring to so dont try and cause trouble.

Yes, I do, but dMx has a point; it wasn't on topic. Neither is the JFK stuff, ofcourse. I'm thinking perhaps we could move that part over to the history forum, as Pearl Harbor was over there in the past...

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Personalize less, stay on-topic more. Derail much, John99?

D, like all the Moderators I received your complaint about the quality of the discourse on this thread. I know that I promised--twice--that if I received one more complaint about a debate that I'm not even reading, I would shut it down. However, I find your complaint to be a gross overreaction and I would like YOU to settle down. Yes there have been some personal insults but they were based on reasonable inferences from the things people said. We have to tolerate that on SciForums or we'd all be banned. There has been a little off-topic meandering, but the debate is still moving along. I can't say if it's moving forward because I don't follow it. I have a hard time imagining that this group of amateurs is covering any new ground after so many pages, but I'll be damned if I'm going to read the whole bloody thing in order to make that determination.

I work in the Washington metropolitan area among several million people whose lives were touched by the events of 9/11. I don't think anyone I've met is more than four degrees of separation from a victim, survivor or witness. Neighbor's-daughter's-teacher's-husband, for example. A huge portion of these people work for or with the federal government and know very well from experience that the things it says must not be automatically believed. And every one of them is satisfied with the chain of evidence supporting the conclusion that the Pentagon was indeed hit by an airliner.

So forgive me if I don't feel like spending my time following a debate over what I consider a typical crackpot conspiracy theory by people who don't think the Bush Dynasty already has enough blemishes on its record to be remembered as the most evil family in American history.

That said, as long as I'm here, I will point out some of the things you brought up.

Scott should worry about his own country where a drug war is killing more people than die in Iraq.

John, this is a formal debate. The discourse is held to a higher standard than the rest of this website. If you have evidence to support that assertion, you are hereby challenged to present it immediately, or else you must never make this point again, on this thread or any other.

Hell it is probably much safer walking the streets in Iraq than in Scotts old country.

The same challenge applies to this assertion. You can get away with crap like this on the other boards, but not here. This is not the place for quasi-racist propaganda against a nation.

It is a fact that most conspiracy theories are produced by fiction writers.

If this is indeed a fact, please point us to the reference material for it.

i have no idea what you are talking about toofer.

DMX complained about this, and then admitted that he doesn't know what "toofer" means. Apparently they don't have Google in the country he lives in.

Toofer is a slang word for a Canadian, named after the way their beer is packaged. As far as I can tell it's not considered an insult.

So:

JOHN. Dial it back please, and stop making extraordinary assertions without providing extraordinary evidence. That's a violation of the Rule of Laplace, a cornerstone of the scientific method.

DMX. Settle down, Beavis. This is not a university.