So was 9/11 an inside job or not? (merged)

[Fountainhead]

Ah, but who's controlling the donkeys?

The king of the donkeys.......Colin Hawkins?

 

[Triggaaar]

Lol you think I'm a right wing extremist or part of isis? Lol that's the funniest thing I've ever heard!

No, he said you're in the same category. ie, gullible. Members of ISIS are fooled into thinking they'll go to paradise and have a load of virgins if they blow themselves up.

Excuse me for questioning tragic events that happen and not simply believing what I'm told

But you aren't questioning the youtube videos you're seeing, you are believing what you're told. You're 100% sure it was an inside job, based on evidence by random people on youtube.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

No, he said you're in the same category. ie, gullible. Members of ISIS are fooled into thinking they'll go to paradise and have a load of virgins if they blow themselves up.

But you aren't questioning the youtube videos you're seeing, you are believing what you're told. You're 100% sure it was an inside job, based on evidence by random people on youtube.

If there's one thing I'm not it's gullible thank you, I was the one that told you all that brexit was all lies remember

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Megazone]

I've been told by some top secret people that Tom Cruise and Ray Winston masterminded the 9/11 attacks from the illuminati headquarters, located at the very top of the magic castle at Disney World. Wake up you morons and smell the coffee!!

 

[Doonhamer7]

I'm a civil engineer (structures wasn't my favourite subject so a bit rusty) and I don't remember much from university but I do remember our structural timber design lectures where the lecturer proved that a timber structure lasts longer than steel (it's against the logic you would think). This is because timber chars and keeps integral strength - steel on the other hand changes properties as it heats - becoming weak, more flexible etc and leading to catastrophic collapse. So if you look at structural steel in any building it is covered on foam coating - this is or fire protection. In the twin towers this would have been partly blown off in the initial crash or after half hour of intense fire given up its property. As said in a response before the floors weren't designed to take the weight of each floor above, so once one or two collapse domino effect is natural effect.

As for conspiracy theory - what was the end game or justification? If US had wanted to go after Bin Laden they could have used the excuse of his previous attack and why would anyone in their right mind go to war with Afghanistan no resources to 'borrow', beaten every army that's ever invaded, long logistics chain, little strategic value, etc. Why not instead make up a story of them having weapons of mass destruction - that might work!

 

[Albion my Albion]

No not an inside job however I do have a suspicion that the plane supposedly downed by the passengers was actually shot down as I can't accept that the American military would allow a 4th plane to continue flying hijacked when they know what had happened elsewhere.

The passengers on that airplane actually talked by mobiles with their relatives and told their relatives that the plan was to rush the cockpit. Maybe the American military shot down the plane before they rushed the cockpit and the relatives assumed that the passengers stopped the hijackers from flying the plane into the White House.

 

[LamieRobertson]

OP said the planes hit the buildings - calm down

OP? Lol....from now on son i am calling you OP

 

[Boys 9d]

Wasn't there a thread on here some time ago where it was claimed that the planes took off from Shoreham Airport?

 

[Deleted User X18H]

All I'll say is this - back in the day I was a claims broker on the Silverstein losses reinsured by Gulf insurance. This was around the time the attack was deemed to be two events. Two catastrophe losses but no single event limit. Within the files on my desk were documents that showed the Silverstein organisation had insisted the risk was written so that if each of towers sustained any kind of damage then indemnity would be separate. Meaning instead of one insurable risk or interest, it would be two. Unprecedented at the time and largely unnoticed by those who took a line on what is know as an obligatory quota share treaty.

 

[LamieRobertson]

All I'll say is this - back in the day I was a claims broker on the Silverstein losses reinsured by Gulf insurance. This was around the time the attack was deemed to be two events. Two catastrophe losses but no single event limit. Within the files on my desk were documents that showed the Silverstein organisation had insisted the risk was written so that if each of towers sustained any kind of damage then indemnity would be separate. Meaning instead of one insurable risk or interest, it would be two. Unprecedented at the time and largely unnoticed by those who took a line on what is know as an obligatory quota share treaty.

You could have stopped there.

 

[clapham_gull]

Watch the video of it coming down u pleb, before 9/11 no building in history had ever collapsed due to fire

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Interestingly one did partially in London in 1968 after a gas explosion. Caused a partial progressive collapse when one floor smashed into other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point#Collapse

The relevance being that structural engineers have said recently that if Grenfell Tower had been build four years earlier - it would "probably" have collapsed due to the fire.

After 1968 - High rise design was changed.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

You could have stopped there.

I would imagine it's we'll beyond your comprehension.

 

[LamieRobertson]

I would imagine it's we'll beyond your comprehension.

Ohhhh........aren't most things you say beyond the average persons comprehension?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Say 10,000 people that were there when they came down saw/heard explosions, compare that with millions of people around the world that just believe what the news tells them, it's not a surprise the 10,000 are called nut jobs.

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

Simply down to changes in air pressure on the lower floors as the building collapsed down towards them, forcing out windows and alike which could be mistaken for explosions (otherwise they would surely have been visible before the tower started to collapse and not after it started and as the collapse got near to those floors as it was already going down, why wait until then to set off these explosives?)

And yes i know it's a wind up thread but it's been enjoyable and a good way to pass the time until the season starts and / or we sign a few new players

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Interestingly one did partially in London in 1968 after a gas explosion. Caused a partial progressive collapse when one floor smashed into other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point#Collapse

The relevance being that structural engineers have said recently that if Grenfell Tower had been build four years earlier - it would "probably" have collapsed due to the fire.

After 1968 - High rise design was changed.

I was going to see if anyone had quoted that one, gas explosion causing a partial collapse is perfectly understandable scientifically. Grenfell not falling, even slightly, is also explained scientifically but building 7 is not only not explained, but NIST gave up trying to and ended up being forced to support the official story.

The truth is that the biggest crime scene ever was dismantled and destroyed as soon as possible, so no steel was tested for thermite or any other incendiary devices. But there is evidence to suggest that thermite was used in the buildings. Science also tells us that it wasn't possible for the fires to be burning to the temperature required to melt steel. The official explanation for the collapse of the towers is a joke, and the problems with the official story mount as you actually investigate it.

I've long since been fascinated by 9/11 because it's the single biggest man caused catastrophe of my life time, there's been nothing on that scale since. I've watched all the videos, read the official report and a few other books and I'm currently reading "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin which doesn't talk to the specifically theories but it talks to the whole story of 9/11 and the evidence to suggest that the official account is lacking in reality. For anyone who hasn't done the research, I'm talking about the re-financing of the insurance policy on the towers to cover them separately against acts of terrorism, I'm talking about the put options purchased in United and American Airlines' stock in the days before 9/11 (which would pay out massively if there was a big drop in their share prices - which there was), I'm talking about the re-wiring work in the South Tower the weekend before 9/11 which caused all CCTV and power to be cut to the top section of the building and I'm talking about all of the communications and warnings that the CIA and other agencies had received prior to 9/11 about the specifics of what was coming.

There's too much incompetence in the official story for it to be believable and there are too many genuine questions and inconsistencies based on eye witness testimony, testimony of the people involved on the day (Rumsfeld, etc) and there are too many coincidences for it to be believable. Some people say, "there are too many people who would have known too much for a cover up to be possible" - well, a lot of people do know their small part in the puzzle which resulted in the attacks.

Personally, based on all the research I've done personally, it's my opinion that the American government knew an attack was coming and stood down the airforce and stood down their usual protocols to allow it to happen as a pre-text for war. I watched Bush in some primary debates and he used language he would later use after the attacks and there are documents drawn up in the year before 9/11 which specifically talk about the need for "a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbour". Another thing that people don't know is that Saddam Hussein was beginning to sell petrol in the Euro currency, beforehand all petrol sales were in USD which underpins the entire US economy. By changing to Euro, the American economy would have been severely damaged. 9/11 was used to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq (despite their lack of involvement in 9/11, blame the Saudi's and Pakistan) and put a stop to petrol sales in Euro. I believe that nobody knew how many lives would be lost, and that there was genuine remorse about it but they allowed it to happen for the greater good.

But bottom line, 3,000 people died. That is a staggering number of people, including one of our own. So for all the theories and the talk of uncovering the truth, this fact needs to be remembered and considered because ultimately, that's the reality of the day. The worst day.

Hillsbrough's victims had to wait more than 20 years to get the full truth and realistically, 9/11 will take a lot more than that but I believe that in my life time (I'm 29 currently), the truth will come out and it will be what has been claimed all along because the facts speak for themselves, whatever the official account may say.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

I was going to see if anyone had quoted that one, gas explosion causing a partial collapse is perfectly understandable scientifically. Grenfell not falling, even slightly, is also explained scientifically but building 7 is not only not explained, but NIST gave up trying to and ended up being forced to support the official story.

The truth is that the biggest crime scene ever was dismantled and destroyed as soon as possible, so no steel was tested for thermite or any other incendiary devices. But there is evidence to suggest that thermite was used in the buildings. Science also tells us that it wasn't possible for the fires to be burning to the temperature required to melt steel. The official explanation for the collapse of the towers is a joke, and the problems with the official story mount as you actually investigate it.

I've long since been fascinated by 9/11 because it's the single biggest man caused catastrophe of my life time, there's been nothing on that scale since. I've watched all the videos, read the official report and a few other books and I'm currently reading "The New Pearl Harbour" by David Ray Griffin which doesn't talk to the specifically theories but it talks to the whole story of 9/11 and the evidence to suggest that the official account is lacking in reality. For anyone who hasn't done the research, I'm talking about the re-financing of the insurance policy on the towers to cover them separately against acts of terrorism, I'm talking about the put options purchased in United and American Airlines' stock in the days before 9/11 (which would pay out massively if there was a big drop in their share prices - which there was), I'm talking about the re-wiring work in the South Tower the weekend before 9/11 which caused all CCTV and power to be cut to the top section of the building and I'm talking about all of the communications and warnings that the CIA and other agencies had received prior to 9/11 about the specifics of what was coming.

There's too much incompetence in the official story for it to be believable and there are too many genuine questions and inconsistencies based on eye witness testimony, testimony of the people involved on the day (Rumsfeld, etc) and there are too many coincidences for it to be believable. Some people say, "there are too many people who would have known too much for a cover up to be possible" - well, a lot of people do know their small part in the puzzle which resulted in the attacks.

Personally, based on all the research I've done personally, it's my opinion that the American government knew an attack was coming and stood down the airforce and stood down their usual protocols to allow it to happen as a pre-text for war. I watched Bush in some primary debates and he used language he would later use after the attacks and there are documents drawn up in the year before 9/11 which specifically talk about the need for "a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbour". Another thing that people don't know is that Saddam Hussein was beginning to sell petrol in the Euro currency, beforehand all petrol sales were in USD which underpins the entire US economy. By changing to Euro, the American economy would have been severely damaged. 9/11 was used to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq (despite their lack of involvement in 9/11, blame the Saudi's and Pakistan) and put a stop to petrol sales in Euro. I believe that nobody knew how many lives would be lost, and that there was genuine remorse about it but they allowed it to happen for the greater good.

But bottom line, 3,000 people died. That is a staggering number of people, including one of our own. So for all the theories and the talk of uncovering the truth, this fact needs to be remembered and considered because ultimately, that's the reality of the day. The worst day.

Hillsbrough's victims had to wait more than 20 years to get the full truth and realistically, 9/11 will take a lot more than that but I believe that in my life time (I'm 29 currently), the truth will come out and it will be what has been claimed all along because the facts speak for themselves, whatever the official account may say.

Well said, you're gonna get barrels now though

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Well said, you're gonna get barrels now though

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

I've formed my opinions based on the evidence I've seen and read. I reject some of the things mentioned, holograms instead of planes for example - that one loses me. But it's interesting to me as well that [MENTION=1991]hove born&bred[/MENTION] spoke about the insurance policy because that's one of my call outs from the whole thing. 9/11 isn't just what happened to the towers or the Pentagon (don't get me started, the official story is MENTAL), but it's about what happened before and after.

If you find yourself with a spare 1:51dd, there is a YouTube video combining all of the air traffic control recordings which are very interesting and potentially damning. The military were not properly informed and usual operating procedure was not followed. The official story talks to the hundred and something examples of suspected hijackings and the steps taken in the year previously to 9/11, but on that day the usual procedures were not followed and even when planes were scrambled, they weren't from the nearest airforce bases or sent in the right direction (the irony of your username strikes me most here).

There's an interview with Trump either on the 12th or 13th September 2001 and he speaks very candidly about his disbelief about the whole day. I think there's a good chance that, come September when everyone is thinking about 9/11 again, he'll say and/or do something which will bring it all back to the forefront of American media. The facts do not support the official story and like Hillsbrough (on an enormous scale) the truth will eventually be told. It's too important for the truth not to come out eventually.

 

[Triggaaar]

If there's one thing I'm not it's gullible thank you

But based on some youtube evidence, by people who say they're engineers etc, you're 100% sure that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sorry but that does seem pretty gullible.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

But based on some youtube evidence, by people who say they're engineers etc, you're 100% sure that 9/11 was an inside job. I'm sorry but that does seem pretty gullible.

Alright 90% Christ you spend your whole life on here going through people's posts with a fine tooth combe

Sent from my SM-A310F using Tapatalk

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Simply down to changes in air pressure on the lower floors as the building collapsed down towards them, forcing out windows and alike which could be mistaken for explosions (otherwise they would surely have been visible before the tower started to collapse and not after it started and as the collapse got near to those floors as it was already going down, why wait until then to set off these explosives?)

And yes i know it's a wind up thread but it's been enjoyable and a good way to pass the time until the season starts and / or we sign a few new players

Is that supported by anything? Have you seen the videos pointing out the expulsions from all corners of the buildings as they collapse? Global collapse on that scale was not seen before 9/11 and it hasn't been seen since. The reality is that nobody has sufficiently been able to explain the causes of the collapses, and because the steel was removed as soon as possible and melted down in China, the true reason for the collapses will never be known but those buildings were structurally redundant in that they could hold up to three times the weight that they actually were. They were built to be strong and stable and they should have remained standing after being struck by planes in the manner that they were.

The collapses are all wrong, and then the random collapse of building 7 (I say random because there's no reason to think it should collapse - but everyone on the ground knew that it would) later in the day (by the way, it was reported as having collapsed before it actually did. The BBC reporter talking about the collapse has the building in question over her left shoulder throughout the shot) is not explained either. There were fires across a few floors but global collapse? Crazy, and not explained.