I believe 9/11 was an inside job now

[Anomalocaris]

Of course 9/11 is an inside job. The fact that real alien tech from Area 51 and the props used to stage fake Moon landings were involved in staging the hit on WTC proves it, right?

[LastPoet]

I mind controlled those airplanes to hit the towers, I live in Portugal and our capital is Madrid. You can bomb us now

[Doubting Thomas]

What about the nutters who claim that no aircraft hit the towers, and the aircraft that people saw were holograms?

I know that's a "company you keep" argument, but you can't deny that the "truther" crowd is filled with more than its fair share of nutjobs.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

What about the nutters who claim that no aircraft hit the towers, and the aircraft that people saw were holograms?

I know that's a "company you keep" argument, but you can't deny that the "truther" crowd is filled with more than its fair share of nutjobs.

I would say the vast majority are. I'm all for being skeptical, but the body of evidence for the official chain of events is so vast and overwhelming is akin to believing the earth is only 6000~ years old.

I remember when the 7/7 bombings occurred in London and the truthers came out of their pits to claim that it wasn't 4 guys blowing up buses and tube trains but the government framing them to ensure the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan kept on going. No evidence, just anecdote, incredulity and 'beliefs'. Reminds me of something...

[Doubting Thomas]

Because it's impossible for pissed off Muslims to do something like that on their own...

[Rayaan]

9/11 was not an inside job.

So, you simply wrote "9/11 was not an inside job" ...

For every 1 expert that the conspiracy theories bring forward to testify about something, you'll find 100 or more that say the complete opposite.

and then you follow that up with a flat out argument from popularity.

I also find it insulting that people think the government could get away with something like this, when they can't run any other part of government efficiently at all.

Not me, because I think that the US government is actually very cunning when it comes to carrying out covert operations for the sake of their own egotistical inspirations, and in making up pre-texts for going to war. The government may not have a very organized system of controlling the country, but it's ability to keep their own people in the dark for a long time is quite remarkable. If you want to learn more about this, then there are many articles and books out there that contain incredible in-depth investigations on this subject and here are just two of them:

Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001

The Shadow Factory: The NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America

You may think that you know well enough, but you probably don't.

It's also ridiculous to think that nobody from inside the government who were involved with an operation of this size (which would have been thousands) has come out with actual physical evidence that the government did it. I mean, Edward Snowden was just a contractor and he managed to steal thousands upon thousands of documents from the NSA. The spying on people's internet use, whilst abhorrent, is not as bad as the mass murder of thousands of people. Someone would have talked.

Yeah ... "someone would have talked" ... someone at least ... but nooooooobody talked.


Nope. You're wrong, Tibs.

"On the contrary there have been literally dozens of whistleblowers from within the intelligence agencies, government, and the private business world who have been utterly ignored by the self-proclaimed skeptics and the corporate and foundation-funded media who realize that this is the biggest Achilles heel of the official 9/11 story."

"Many of them, in fact, have appeared at conferences, filed formal appeals, joined whistleblower organizations, and made themselves available for interviews throughout the past 12 years, but they have been scrupulously shunned by the so-called fourth estate whose monetary interests rely on the 9/11 terror paradigm to justify the ever-expanding warfare/surveillance state."

http://www.corbettreport.com/meet-the-91...leblowers/


And please check out the links there.

Edit: I should point out, 'Susan Lindauer' (mentioned earlier) is not an example of a whistleblower. She has no evidence other than her personal testimony. There is no evidence she ever worked for the CIA (as she claims). A judge found her to be mentally unfit to serve trial twice. Which is more likely, that she worked for the CIA and all her files were deleted (and she never kept anything the CIA gave her), or that she is simply a crazy person?

That is exactly what the CIA wants you to think, i.e. that she was mentally unfit, and I think you're one of the many who fell for this.

And ... in exactly what way was she found to be mentally unfit?

I assume that you just googled her name and then you read about her on Wikipedia which mentions the unproven accusation of her mental state, the claim that she was mentally unfit to stand a trial or hearing about her "crimes" which there was no evidence for either.

Guess what happened later? After five years of indictment without a conviction or guilty plea, the Justice Department dismissed all charges against her in 2009 because they couldn't prove anything to charge her with. So she was correct, apparently. The initial accusation that she was unfit to stand a trial was more likely a devious mechanism to undermine her credibility and her character so that people don't believe her and think that she is just crazy, like you did. The judges indicted her with "secret evidences" of an alleged crime - while repeatedly denying her request to serve a trial - and yet she was subjected to one year in prison in Carswell Air Force Base in Texas and they even threatened her with indefinite detention as well as with forcible drugging ... but again, without presenting any evidence that she was actually guilty or even mentally unfit. And all this suggests that they were doing these things to her just to make her shut up, to stop her from exposing the secrets of 9/11 to the world. And that is the kind of outrageous and fraudulent censorship that whistleblowers often have to put up with.

Listen to her from at least 7:10 to 8:20:





She also wrote a book about her story and about the whole 9/11, where she has described many specific dates, events, and intelligence agencies who unavailingly tried to cover up the "official" 9/11 story.

Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq

Still think that she is "mentally unfit"?


The lady also disclosed some of her discussions with her CIA-handler, Richard Fuisz, many of the things which led her to resign from her position and then come out as a whistleblower, and she also talks about him in the videos that I saw. This matches with the allegation that Richard Fuisz has been a CIA asset long before September 11, and when he was asked about his relationship with the CIA, he said the following:

Between 1994 and 2001, Fuisz and anti-war Susan Lindauer met weekly to discuss her diplomatic contacts in the Middle East, specifically her work related to the lifting of U.S. sanctions against Libya and Iraq. When asked by the New York Times to comment on The Sunday Herald article and on his relationship to the CIA more generally, Fuisz remarked that "This is not an issue I can confirm or deny. I am not allowed to speak about these issues. In fact, I can't even explain why I can't speak about these issues." Fuisz's meetings with Lindauer ended abruptly on September 11, 2001, due to what Fuisz described as an increasingly "seditious bent" to their discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fui...connection

Richard Fuisz being a CIA agent was also reported in a Sunday Herald newspaper in May of 2000 (as I quoted below).

It also acknowledges his connection with Susan Lindauer.

A FORMER CIA agent who claims Libya is not responsible for the Lockerbie bombing is being gagged by the US government under state secrecy laws and faces 10 years in prison if he reveals any information about the terrorist attack.

United Nations diplomats are outraged that the US government is apparently suppressing a potential key trial witness. Diplomats are now demanding that the CIA agent, Dr Richard Fuisz, be released from the gagging order. Fuisz, a multi-millionaire businessman and pharmaceutical researcher, was, according to US intelligence sources, the CIA's key operative in the Syrian capital Damascus during the 1980s where he also had business interests.

http://911review.org/Lindauer/LindauerPa...Herald.txt


The argument that a lot of people bring up to refute the 9//11 conspiracy theories seems to be mostly related to the "Ha, no way ... the government can't possibly pull off such a crazy stunt without anyone else having any evidence that they did it ... the government is way too stupid and messed up already to be able to keep something so big like this still completely a secret from us" kind of reasoning. But that only demonstrates a lack in their own knowledge if anything.

Anyways, thanks for giving me the opportunity to post all these little-known conspiracy gems that I wanted to share with you conspiracy deniers.

And this is only just the tip of the iceberg.

[Aractus]

A friend of mine linked me this video after we yet another discussion on the Illuminati etc etc. and well, since I'm a Free Thinker, I follow the evidence and/or reasoning, and I have to say the evidence is very convincing. *But*, that's not to say I believe the whole spiel about the Illuminati. All I can say is that I believe that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 came down as a result of controlled demolitions. I don't know who did it. I don't know why, and I definitely don't know how they got around to setting up these demolitions.

You're an idiot if you think that 1WTC, 2WTC and 7WTC were destroyed by anything other than 2x Boeing 747's. The other building that were "pulled" (later demolished) were done so because of the extensive damage done from the debris of those three buildings.

>WTC 7's rooftop features fell through first, then the entirety of the building started to fall => evidence of a demolition

Completely incorrect. The collapse begins with the buckling and failure of floors 7-14, followed by the penthouse above it. Ten seconds later the rooftop features fall through the north side of the building.

>WTC 7's collapse was uniform. This is unexpected as the official report said it was caused by fire damage on *one* side of the building. A uniform collapse => demolition

It was not uniform, the penthouse and that entire side of the building collapses 10 seconds before the rest of the building, I'd hardly call that "uniform".

>WTC 7's collapse speed was plotted (from videos) and it's accelerating as if it's free falling. Thus, no resistance was provided by the lower levels of the structure => there must have been no supporting columns anymore => demolition

Wrong again, from the time of the penthouse collapse, it takes 18 seconds to fully collapse, and unlike a CD it does not collapse into its own footprint or anything of the sort.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The argument that a lot of people bring up to refute the 9//11 conspiracy theories seems to be mostly related to the "Ha, no way ... the government can't possibly pull off such a crazy stunt without anyone else having any evidence that they did it ... the government is way too stupid and messed up already to be able to keep something so big like this still completely a secret from us" kind of reasoning. But that only demonstrates a lack in their own knowledge if anything.

Well, apart from that being very true, there are a lot of other reasons that truthers completely ignore in their assessment of the situation.

Including, of course, the massive resentment towards the US built up in several Islamic states by people who aspired (or followed) an ideological premise that sought to utilise their frustrations in a beneficial way to their cause(s). Atta, being one such key and obvious example through his gradual radicalization in Egypt and Germany.

Also, the fact that the 'gains' for the US from 9/11 are spurious if non-existent. Such as:

"Many of them, in fact, have appeared at conferences, filed formal appeals, joined whistleblower organizations, and made themselves available for interviews throughout the past 12 years, but they have been scrupulously shunned by the so-called fourth estate whose monetary interests rely on the 9/11 terror paradigm to justify the ever-expanding warfare/surveillance state"

Why would 9/11 result in this? No doubt it has, but there's literally thousands of other ways that could result in the same. I mean, bracketing out the fact you've quoted what appears to be a foregone conclusion (that an expanding surveillance op was the ultimate aim, which of course, has nothing to back it up), why would crashing the planes be viewed as the best way to achieve such a thing? Why not just crash the plane into the White House? A lot less damage, just as much (if not more!) impact. The WTC are/were no way near as sacred to the US image than the White house itself, so it seems crashing something into the WTC was a bit superfluous.

Or, alternatively, they could have just detonated lots of bombs around NY. Same effect, maybe even the same casualties, but arguably a lot less planning required. There are countless scenarios which could have resulted in the same thing. I just question why it's always a given that the US authorities, if they did indeed commit the 9/11 atrocities , automatically did so with a gain in mind and these gains were (usually) get oil, increase surveillance, or whatever.

None of what you've provided, whilst very compelling in some instances, and anecdotal in others, constitutes anything towards what I would regard as hard evidence that seriously creates a dent in the 'official story'.

In effect, the claims of 9/11 truthers don't hold up to scrutiny and make a mockery of the real chain of events that led up to 4 planes being set on a collision course with 4 different buildings.

Do you believe 7/7 in London was an inside job too? A lot of people who believe 9/11 was an inside job also believe it was, despite none of their claims holding up to investigation.

[Doubting Thomas]

That is exactly what the CIA wants you to think

Said by every crazy conspiracy theorist ever.

If there's no evidence, or a "witness" appears to be crazy or deluded, it's not because there's no evidence or because the witness is crazy or deluded, it's because the CIA wants you to think so. It's just a way they try to turn non-evidence into evidence.

[Aractus]

Perhaps you should learn about how WTC7 was actually built then, because it wasn't a standard construction, owing to the fact they had to build it over an electricity substation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYzLu7gDbJs

The guy in the video states that it "collapsed in on itself in less than 10 seconds"! Perhaps he should have checked that fact first, it takes approx 18 seconds all told, and certainly didn't collapse "in on itself" as a CD would have, it damaged the surrounding buildings that had to be later demolished. Later in the video they correctly state the the wreckage of the building was not all in one place, and was intermingled with the wreckage from the WTC's and in other buildings that it damaged! It makes you wonder why you would make two completely different contradictory statements in the one video?

Also, someone in the video said that if you let a building burn long enough it will eventually fail - this may be true, but it only burnt for 7 hours, so structural damage has to play a key role in the collapse.