[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Maccabee]

I decided to start a thread to ask for evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. A little background on me, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. what convinced me was things like the buildings supposedly falling at free fall speeds, the flash just as the plane hit the towers, Building 7's collapse, etc. I believed because frankly I didn't challenged the evidence presented to me. it wasn't until I decided to challenge and try to debunk my beliefs that i realized how wrong i was. At least so I believe. I'm more than willing to return to believing that 9/11 was an inside job if presented with irrefutable evidence. I'll start off with the claim that the towers feel at free fall speeds. If you watch a video filming the event (I'll come back with an example later), the debris from the tower is actually falling faster than the tower itself. Thus supposedly disproving the free fall claim. Any counter to this?

 

[KevinKohler]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I'll provide evidence it wasn't an inside job, if you want...

 

[zyzygy]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I decided to start a thread to ask for evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. A little background on me, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. what convinced me was things like the buildings supposedly falling at free fall speeds, the flash just as the plane hit the towers, Building 7's collapse, etc. I believed because frankly I didn't challenged the evidence presented to me. it wasn't until I decided to challenge and try to debunk my beliefs that i realized how wrong i was. At least so I believe. I'm more than willing to return to believing that 9/11 was an inside job if presented with irrefutable evidence. I'll start off with the claim that the towers feel at free fall speeds. If you watch a video filming the event (I'll come back with an example later), the debris from the tower is actually falling faster than the tower itself. Thus supposedly disproving the free fall claim. Any counter to this?

No truther has ever come up with a viable alternative theory. There are other threads on this subject.

 

[Thoreau72]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I'll provide evidence it wasn't an inside job, if you want...

I wish you would. :mrgreen:

But I shan't hold my breath waiting.

 

[Thoreau72]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I decided to start a thread to ask for evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. A little background on me, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. what convinced me was things like the buildings supposedly falling at free fall speeds, the flash just as the plane hit the towers, Building 7's collapse, etc. I believed because frankly I didn't challenged the evidence presented to me. it wasn't until I decided to challenge and try to debunk my beliefs that i realized how wrong i was. At least so I believe. I'm more than willing to return to believing that 9/11 was an inside job if presented with irrefutable evidence. I'll start off with the claim that the towers feel at free fall speeds. If you watch a video filming the event (I'll come back with an example later), the debris from the tower is actually falling faster than the tower itself. Thus supposedly disproving the free fall claim. Any counter to this?

Have you considered examining the facts and evidence that support and corroborate the official story?

What sort of knowledge or experience did you have with cell phones using 2001 technology? Did you know that it was 2008 before the cell phone system went from analog to digital? How much experience did you have with cell phones prior to that? Do you understand the limitations of the earlier system?

 

[Maccabee]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I'll provide evidence it wasn't an inside job, if you want...

Sure.

 

[Maccabee]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Have you considered examining the facts and evidence that support and corroborate the official story?

What sort of knowledge or experience did you have with cell phones using 2001 technology? Did you know that it was 2008 before the cell phone system went from analog to digital? How much experience did you have with cell phones prior to that? Do you understand the limitations of the earlier system?

Simple. The majority of the calls were from the plane phone.

 

[mike2810]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

If your read the first 5 post the thread is already drifting away from the OP topic.

No one has ever provide a clear concise alternative explanation for 9/11. The position of "truthers" is the "official" explanation is wrong. Truthers will rarely state another truther is wrong. What we are to believe is all the other explanations are correct.

So "Truthers", provide the one clear concise alternative explanation with sources to prove it. Back to the OP, please prove 9/11 was an inside job. Provide your sources.

 

[mike2810]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I'll provide evidence it wasn't an inside job, if you want...

That is exactly what some want you to do. They don't want to prove it was an inside job. So please stick to the OP. Let us see if they can prove the "inside job" position.

 

[Thoreau72]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Simple. The majority of the calls were from the plane phone.

Another point you cannot prove. Certain facts suggest that American Airlines had cancelled its contract with Airfone months before September 2001.

ANY phone calls made from private cell phones, and there were several, were impossible. If you bother to read the transcripts of the conversations between Betty Ong and her dispatch, and if you know anything about how the airlines operate, you would understand the utterly theatric and unnatural qualities of the conversations.

Not so simple, eh?

Simple and honest would be your answering the question: How much knowledge or experience do YOU have with pre-2008 cell phones?

I do not expect honest or simple answers from a person that still supports the official story almost 17 years after the events. From a person like that, I expect Cognitive Dissonance in full bloom. Thank you for delivering my expectations.

 

[Quag]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Another point you cannot prove. Certain facts suggest that American Airlines had cancelled its contract with Airfone months before September 2001.

ANY phone calls made from private cell phones, and there were several, were impossible. If you bother to read the transcripts of the conversations between Betty Ong and her dispatch, and if you know anything about how the airlines operate, you would understand the utterly theatric and unnatural qualities of the conversations.

Not so simple, eh?

Simple and honest would be your answering the question: How much knowledge or experience do YOU have with pre-2008 cell phones?

I do not expect honest or simple answers from a person that still supports the official story almost 17 years after the events. From a person like that, I expect Cognitive Dissonance in full bloom. Thank you for delivering my expectations.

Bolded shows how truthers work. They dont actually show that the claim is true or just that it suggests or hints at then run with that as if it were true and make a hole CT based on an unproven claim arguing that it is a proven CT because they used an unproven claim as a starting base

BTW if you are wondering HD saw it in a newspaper or on TV or perhaps even the internet but it was scrubbd afterwards (they sure do spend a lot of time scrubbing sites that HD visits dont they?

 

[mike2810]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Seems there are no takers who want to "prove" 9/11 was an inside job. That is not surprising.

 

[zyzygy]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Seems there are no takers who want to "prove" 9/11 was an inside job. That is not surprising.

There never are.

 

[KevinKohler]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Sure.

How many people, how many levels of government would have to be in on this? An Air Marshal would have ruined the entire op, so are we to believe it was simple luck there weren't any on these flights? No, orders would have had to be given. And the demolition team that set up these buildings? How many folks would that involve? High hundreds, perhaps even thousands, would have had to be complicit, here. Yet, no leaks? No whistle blowers?

I call BS.

 

[gamolon]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Certain facts suggest that American Airlines had cancelled its contract with Airfone months before September 2001.

This is a lie.

The fact that that this claim is a lie is also the reason why you provided no links or information to support it. Why? Because there is none.

 

[psikeyhackr]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I decided to start a thread to ask for evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. A little background on me, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. what convinced me was things like the buildings supposedly falling at free fall speeds, the flash just as the plane hit the towers, Building 7's collapse, etc. I believed because frankly I didn't challenged the evidence presented to me. it wasn't until I decided to challenge and try to debunk my beliefs that i realized how wrong i was. At least so I believe. I'm more than willing to return to believing that 9/11 was an inside job if presented with irrefutable evidence. I'll start off with the claim that the towers feel at free fall speeds. If you watch a video filming the event (I'll come back with an example later), the debris from the tower is actually falling faster than the tower itself. Thus supposedly disproving the free fall claim. Any counter to this?

The problem is that you use the word "BELIEVE" too much.

Believing, Suspecting and Knowing are three different things.

It is usually difficult to KNOW because it is often difficult to get enough accurate and verifiable information, especially when some people are bombarding you with contradictory information.

Suspecting can be nearly as difficult but it means you still have a degree of uncertainty probably because you can't get the information that is necessary to solve the problem.

Belief is for religion, therefore stupid by definition.

So our problem is the physics of skyscrapers. With 9/11 we are dealing with two skyscrapers having 110 levels above ground and six levels below ground. Doesn't that mean that every level must support the weight of all of the levels above it? So why doesn't every scientist and engineer that has thought about this expect to be told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

The 9/11 Affair is scientific nonsense.

The problem is figuring how an airliner could destroy a 110 story building in less than 2 hours. I have suggested a simulation of the north tower that removed 5 stories, 91 thru 95, and dropping the top 15 on the lower 90 and simulate the destruction. If 15 stories could not destroy 90 then we know there is some kind of problem with the official story. The Conservation of Momentum alone presents a problem for the collapse time.

I strongly suspect that an airliner could not possibly have destroyed either of the towers. :roll:

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel. They could not do virtual models. So why don't we have physical and virtual models of the north tower collapse from multiple engineering schools after SEVENTEEN YEARS (minus 3 months)?

 

[mike2810]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The problem is that you use the word "BELIEVE" too much.

Believing, Suspecting and Knowing are three different things.

It is usually difficult to KNOW because it is often difficult to get enough accurate and verifiable information, especially when some people are bombarding you with contradictory information.

Suspecting can be nearly as difficult but it means you still have a degree of uncertainty probably because you can't get the information that is necessary to solve the problem.

Belief is for religion, therefore stupid by definition.

So our problem is the physics of skyscrapers. With 9/11 we are dealing with two skyscrapers having 110 levels above ground and six levels below ground. Doesn't that mean that every level must support the weight of all of the levels above it? So why doesn't every scientist and engineer that has thought about this expect to be told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

The 9/11 Affair is scientific nonsense.

The problem is figuring how an airliner could destroy a 110 story building in less than 2 hours. I have suggested a simulation of the north tower that removed 5 stories, 91 thru 95, and dropping the top 15 on the lower 90 and simulate the destruction. If 15 stories could not destroy 90 then we know there is some kind of problem with the official story. The Conservation of Momentum alone presents a problem for the collapse time.

I strongly suspect that an airliner could not possibly have destroyed either of the towers. :roll:

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel. They could not do virtual models. So why don't we have physical and virtual models of the north tower collapse from multiple engineering schools after SEVENTEEN YEARS (minus 3 months)?

You left out the fires that occurred after the impact by the airlines.:lamo

So please address the OP that it was a "inside" job.

 

[psikeyhackr]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You left out the fires that occurred after the impact by the airlines.:lamo

So please address the OP that it was a "inside" job.

Are you saying that you think the impact and fires could do more damage than COMPLETELY REMOVING FIVE LEVELS?

The "Inside Job" business is about who did it.

Trying to figure out who did it when you cannot figure out what happened is totally idiotic.

PS - Sorry, I hit reply before I logged in. You are on my ignore list.

 

[mike2810]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Are you saying that you think the impact and fires could do more damage than COMPLETELY REMOVING FIVE LEVELS?

The "Inside Job" business is about who did it.

Trying to figure out who did it when you cannot figure out what happened is totally idiotic.

PS - Sorry, I hit reply before I logged in. You are on my ignore list.

We have discussed the collapse many time. The thread is about proving it was an "inside job".

That is fine that I am on your ignore list.

 

[zyzygy]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The problem is that you use the word "BELIEVE" too much.

Believing, Suspecting and Knowing are three different things.

It is usually difficult to KNOW because it is often difficult to get enough accurate and verifiable information, especially when some people are bombarding you with contradictory information.

Suspecting can be nearly as difficult but it means you still have a degree of uncertainty probably because you can't get the information that is necessary to solve the problem.

Belief is for religion, therefore stupid by definition.

So our problem is the physics of skyscrapers. With 9/11 we are dealing with two skyscrapers having 110 levels above ground and six levels below ground. Doesn't that mean that every level must support the weight of all of the levels above it? So why doesn't every scientist and engineer that has thought about this expect to be told the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level?

The 9/11 Affair is scientific nonsense.

The problem is figuring how an airliner could destroy a 110 story building in less than 2 hours. I have suggested a simulation of the north tower that removed 5 stories, 91 thru 95, and dropping the top 15 on the lower 90 and simulate the destruction. If 15 stories could not destroy 90 then we know there is some kind of problem with the official story. The Conservation of Momentum alone presents a problem for the collapse time.

I strongly suspect that an airliner could not possibly have destroyed either of the towers. :roll:

In 1940 it only took 4 months to build a model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel. They could not do virtual models. So why don't we have physical and virtual models of the north tower collapse from multiple engineering schools after SEVENTEEN YEARS (minus 3 months)?

Your opinions have been thoroughly debunked here many times before. Where is you complete alternative 911 theory?

 

[zyzygy]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Are you saying that you think the impact and fires could do more damage than COMPLETELY REMOVING FIVE LEVELS?

The "Inside Job" business is about who did it.

Trying to figure out who did it when you cannot figure out what happened is totally idiotic.

PS - Sorry, I hit reply before I logged in. You are on my ignore list.

Off topic.

 

[rjay]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

How many people, how many levels of government would have to be in on this? An Air Marshal would have ruined the entire op, so are we to believe it was simple luck there weren't any on these flights? No, orders would have had to be given. And the demolition team that set up these buildings? How many folks would that involve? High hundreds, perhaps even thousands, would have had to be complicit, here. Yet, no leaks? No whistle blowers?

I call BS.

They were all murdered to shut them up. It looked like a 1000 accidents though. At least that is what I heard

 

[YorkshirePete]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I decided to start a thread to ask for evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. A little background on me, I used to believe 9/11 was an inside job. what convinced me was things like the buildings supposedly falling at free fall speeds, the flash just as the plane hit the towers, Building 7's collapse, etc. I believed because frankly I didn't challenged the evidence presented to me. it wasn't until I decided to challenge and try to debunk my beliefs that i realized how wrong i was. At least so I believe. I'm more than willing to return to believing that 9/11 was an inside job if presented with irrefutable evidence. I'll start off with the claim that the towers feel at free fall speeds. If you watch a video filming the event (I'll come back with an example later), the debris from the tower is actually falling faster than the tower itself. Thus supposedly disproving the free fall claim. Any counter to this?

I think the site devoted to actual structural engineers says it wasn't a conspiracy

 

[gamolon]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The problem is figuring how an airliner could destroy a 110 story building in less than 2 hours.

Above is your first problem with your line of thinking. An airliner did NOT destroy a 110 story tower. When a house burns down and it is found that a cigarette started the fire, do you run around saying that a cigarette destroyed the house? No you don't.

 

[gamolon]

re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The problem is figuring how an airliner could destroy a 110 story building in less than 2 hours. I have suggested a simulation of the north tower that removed 5 stories, 91 thru 95, and dropping the top 15 on the lower 90 and simulate the destruction. If 15 stories could not destroy 90 then we know there is some kind of problem with the official story. The Conservation of Momentum alone presents a problem for the collapse time.

I strongly suspect that an airliner could not possibly have destroyed either of the towers. :roll:

Why are you questioning if an airliner could destroy a tower and then pose a simulation for dropping 15 stories on 90 stories below to see if an airliner could destroy the tower?

I suppose if I cut down a tree with an axe and the tree fell on my tool shed and destroyed it, according to you, I would be right in saying that the axe destroyed my tool shed?