The debate "9/11 was an inside job by the US government" was started by
August 9, 2019, 3:08 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 26 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Edmqnd posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 10 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Miguel and 9 visitors agree.
historybuff, Nemiroff, jrardin12, Atratuscythe, TheExistentialist and 21 visitors disagree.
There are also lots of discussions about democrats running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop, or about how the earth is flat, or about how no one ever went to the moon, or about how president obama was born in kenya. All of those things are lies but a large number of people believe them.
People talk about alot of things, that doesn't make them true.
You don't seem to actually question the credibility of the sources you look at. The 2 sources you provided were a con man and wrestler. Both of whom have made a career out of saying sensational things to make lots of money. Neither one has any relevant expertise in the area they are talking about.
The simplest explanation for something is usually the correct one. Conspiracies do happen, but they are not the norm. So if something looks suspicious, you should look into it under the assumption that it probably isn't a conspiracy. You should question whether the source you are looking at is likely to tell you the truth. For example, does the source directly profit from saying the things they are saying? If so, then they shouldn't be trusted. Does the person have relevant expertise in the area they are talking about? In this case that would be an engineering, architecture, physics degrees or something like that.
But the truth is that most people with expertise will tell you that there really isn't any evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Most of the voices that push this are either conspiracy nuts or people who have a motive in pushing the idea. Often because they want to profit from it, use it to attack people or as a gateway to push other messages they want you to believe. IE if you believe some fringe voice will tell you the truth because they spread a conspiracy theory you believe, and then they tell you democrats are evil and you need to vote republican, alot of people will listen to that message.
I just quoted him, there are many discussions concerning this topic I have seen.
He is an entertainer with no expertise in anything relevant to the topic. He is getting paid to say these things. He had a show where he was paid to say these things. He wrote books in order to get people to pay him money. He isn't a source that is trying to provide information to people. He is a source that is trying to say sensational things in order to make money.
The fact that he makes huge profits from selling these conspiracy theories makes him an unreliable source. Doubly so since he doesn't even have any relevant expertise.
Even if he thought these theories were all lies, he has a financial motive to tell you they are true.
I mean the former Vietnam veteran that has written a book on issues like this where he discloses and talks about public documents and how they can be attributed to these kinds of things.
You mean the former wrestler who was paid to push conspiracy theories? He made huge amounts of money telling people these things. He is not an expert and he is not neutral. He was was a washed up former entertainer who found a way to use crazy theories to make alot of money.
So far it looks like you get all of your information about this from highly untrustworthy sources.
Of course I have Nemiroff, I always believed 9/11 wasn't caused by the government but when people started bringing it up I thought it was a stupid theory until I saw more and more debates about it and I made up my mind, Jesse Ventura was very convincing, and his book as well.
there are many conspiracy theories out there, from 9/11 to flat earth to rothschilds and others.
skepticism and critical though are excellent skills... if you apply them equally to both sides. have you given equal time to videos that debunk this conspiracy as you did to videos that support it?
because i can show you tons of pro flat earth videos that sound logical if you don't question anything they say.
wouldnt the basement be the most structurally strong part of the building, being completely surrounded by earth supporting it? i would imagine something around 10% up, still near the bottom but not all the way against the earth would be the weakest.
"First of all everything you've said is a lie, did you watch the videos I linked?" None of what I said is a lie.
Please point out specifically where I "lied". Yeah; I looked at the videos you linked and again, it's painfully obvious that you cannot discern credible from non-credible sources. You should probably learn to use scholarly databases to do actual research. Go to your local library and ask them how to find credible sources on this subject; they'll show you.
"Trump said he talked to a man that work with buildings and trump himself does work with buildings"
I don't care what Trump says. He's not an expert in engineering, chemistry, fire science, architecture, etc... he has a B.S, degree in ECONOMICS. He is a developer. He doesn't engineer or architect. A window washer "does work with buildings", would you take their advice on structural engineering? Just because Trump "talked" to some random guy that works with buildings doesn't mean anything. Give me the name and credentials of that person since the video you provided doesn't give those details, so I can verify a) what he said and b) that he's an actual expert and not just another developer or window washer. We all know Trump lies about people telling him things so I can't accept that claim at face value without verifying the identity of the person he claims to have talked to. Trump is a habitual liar, citing him as a source on anything is questionable at best.
"if a basement explodes it's likely the whole building will collapse"
You're not understanding the point. While location of a blast is important, we're talking about different YIELDS, different accelerants, different forces, etc... the two events aren't an apples to apples comparison, it's more like an apples to elephants comparison.
The 1,200 lbs bomb in 1993 is absolutely minuscule in terms of potential energy compared to the potential energy of a 350,000 lbs plane traveling at 600 mph loaded with 20,000 lbs of commercial jet fuel. If you don't understand this concept, you may want to read up on some basic physics.
First of all everything you've said is a lie, did you watch the videos I linked? Trump said he talked to a man that work with buildings and trump himself does work with buildings.
And the weakest point in a building is a basement so you dont know what you're talking about, if a basement explodes it's likely the whole building will collapse but it didn't so these were strong buildings!
" Trump works with buildings and he even mentioned a man that works with buildings in the video that explains that could never happen"
Trump is not an engineer, architect, expert on building materials, nor does he have experience/expertise in fire science, chemistry, etc.... The fact that you would cite him as a source says volumes about your inability to identify credible experts in an area.
"in 1993 the basement of the WTC exploded but withstood that, these were strong buildings"
The fact that you're equating the two events in any way shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. How are bombs made of urea, nitric acid, sulfuric acid and other ingredients as well as a nitroglycerin trigger at all analogues to jets weighing 350,0000 lbs, flying at 600 MPH, and carrying approx 20,000 lbs of jet fuel? This analogy again shows you have no idea about the kinds of forces or temperatures were really at play that day.
Trump is a failed developer. The only way he managed to stay in business was to get other people to pay for it so when the businesses went under he didn't lose his own money. Also he was given a huge amount of money by his father. He didn't design buildings. He didn't build them. He hired people to do it. Saying he works with buildings is like saying a window washer works with buildings. Should we ask them their opinion on the structural integrity of steel beams too? Trump has no expertise at all and is a man known to say things that are wildly untrue in order to get attention. I can't think of a worse source to use.
You brought me a video that was obviously tampered with and pretended it was evidence. You brought me one of dozens of people reporting on an ongoing tragedy making a mistake and claimed that a reporter was given information about a massive conspiracy, which makes no sense. You showed an example of a disaster that was half as bad not bringing down the building and saying that for some reason that is evidence that a disaster twice as bad couldn't bring the building down.
The only thing in there that could be considered evidence is the video. But there are only 3 videos of the tower going down. That guy took one of those videos and added lights and sounds to it. The rest is just conspiracy theory and nonsense.
I disagree, Trump works with buildings and he even mentioned a man that works with buildings in the video that explains that could never happen. I brought you a testimony of someone who works with buildings, I brought you a video of WTC 7 collapsing and you said the video was tampered with, I brought you a reporter stating WTC 7 collapsed 26 minutes before it did, in 1993 the basement of the WTC exploded but withstood that, these were strong buildings.
Rather I have brought evidence to support my claim you only said it would be hard to do.
So just to sum up. You provided the hunches and thoughts of people who are very much not experts. I have referenced lots of evidence provided by people who were there and people who are experts. You then repeat your hunches and conspiracies.
Yeah this conversation doesn't seem fruitful as it does not matter what information you are provided. You want it to be a conspiracy so nothing will dissuade you from that.
I believe you're wrong but if I were to answer your latest comment I would've just repeated myself and then you would've just repeated yourself and etc so I dont think that would be a productive discussion.
1) what you are saying doesn't make sense. They saw the attack happen. They then quickly investigated to determine who committed the crime. That does not mean that they had advanced knowledge the attack was coming. It doesn't mean they could have taken action before the attack occurred.
2) Building 7 had taken serious damage to the south side and had been burning for about 6.5 hours by the time the reporter said this. It was definitely within the realm of possibility that building was going to come down and the reporter would have known that. Someone screwed up and said the wrong thing. I've watched politicians and newscasters do this literally thousands of times. It doesn't mean there is some grand conspiracy.
3) i watched both of them.
For the 1st video. trump is not an engineer. He is a con man. His opinion on the structures is irrelevant. He just goes on and on about what he thinks without having any information on the subject. He also thought Obama was born in Kenya, that mexicans are rapists etc. He believes lots of things that aren't true. This video doesn't provide any evidence at all, just the opinion of a narcissistic con man.
For the second one. that video appears to have been doctored. I have seen this same footage from other sources and there was no flash and no explosion sounds. People who were there also reported no flashes or explosions. This guy edited the video to add them in. This is just some conspiracy pushing nut job who doctored footage to try to get views on youtube, it clearly didn't work.
You haven't provided any evidence at all. You have given me random people saying they don't think that is what happened. Yes the building survived a bomb. But like i keep telling you, it is the combination of sudden destruction as well as an uncontrolled fire that brought the buildings down. The bomb did a lot of damage, but there was no fire burning out of control to weaken the remaining support beams. on 9/11 there was sudden structural damage which caused more weight to be distributed to the remaining support beams. Then those remaining support beams got further weakened by fire until they couldn't hold up the weight of the building any more. It is the combination of those 2 factors that caused the collapse.
1: If they identified the guilty ones so fast how come they couldn't have stopped the attack, or at least evacuate the building, if they really are so swift and smooth when it comes to identifying how come they didn't know 2 planes where headed straight at 2 massive?
2: And again none reports a WTC building 7 has fallen when it was only known the massive buildings Twon towers were the target.
3: No, this is I think irrefutable.
https://youtu.be/Rt-ldMj9y9w and https://youtu.be/xr4CsDbRxjA watch both of the videos in a whole. There's your evidence!
WTC took a bomb in the basement and withstood that in 1993 and the basement is what's holding up the whole building. You have provided nothing except for saying "It would be difficult to do" rather I am the one that have provided evidence.
1) I never said they knew before hand. I said that once it happened it would not take long to figure out who did it. The passenger manifests would tell you everyone who was on board the planes. It wouldn't take long to zero in on the terrorists.
2) what is there to defend? A reporter made a mistake in a high stress situation. People make mistakes constantly. Much more so when the situation is tense. If the coverage had been 100% accurate it would have been a miracle. One reporter screwed up, or was told something by someone who screwed up. That isn't particularly suspicious.
3) You have provided no information to support your claim. You just keep repeating that you don't think that is how a building collapses. What you think about architecture isn't evidence of anything. There is no evidence that there were explosives. Video of the collapse doesn't show any explosions. Just the building sag and then collapse. No one heard any explosions, which they would have if someone used explosives to bring the building down. The building took significant damage to the south side. This shifted more weight to the other pillars holding up the building. The sprinkler system didn't work so fires burned uncontrolled for 7 hours. Those fires weakened the other pillars holding up the building. After they took enough damage from the fires the other pillars, which already had more weight that they were supposed to due to the damage, couldn't hold the building up any more.
3) continued - If the building had just had a massive, uncontrolled fire, or just had a massive gouge taken out of the side then it would have survived. The combination of both caused the building to come down. There is nothing odd or suspicious about that.
My point is that with that much manpower it would not be possible to keep it a secret. With that many people in on it, someone would have leaked it. I did look at the evidence. I did watch the video. I don't see anything suspicious. You haven't provided any information that is not explained by the official report.
If the options are a) a completely rational explanation of how a building collapsed backed up with video, eye witness accounts and years of forensic analysis
b) a conspiracy theory with no real evidence, no logical explanation for how they did it, or why they did it, no rational way they could have kept it a secret,
I will stick with the rational explanation.
1: If they already knew why didn't they warn us about it? if they already knew couldn't they AT LEAST evacuated the building?
2: Again that's a big mistake to say a third building has fallen down when there was no plane that touched it, didn't think you defended this so good.
3: Are you serious? A building doesn't fall in 7 seconds due to fire spreading! I'm sorry to say but trying to defend that is stupid. have you watched the video? the only way it could've exploded like that is if you've planted explosives.
Yet they did it anyway, irrelevant how much man power it would've taken, look toward the evidence not the false things the government has indoctrinated you with.
WATCH THE VIDEO OF WTC 7 COLLAPSING AND TELL ME AGAIN THAT WAS DUE TO FIRE!
1) They had a very small pool of possible candidates. They knew everyone who was on those planes. It wouldn't take long to run background checks on them. I'm not sure why you think this would be difficult.
2) You are talking about dozens of reporters on dozens of TV networks reporting this. There was fast paced reporting coming in of a live event. There was no advanced scripting. 1 reporter from 1 network said something that wasn't true. That statement later came true. I'm sure if you watched the feeds from every reporter on that day you would see all kinds of weird or untrue things they said. But the only one statement conspiracy theorists focus on is the 1 reporter who said something they could twist into evidence to support their theory. And I mean why would a reporter have had advanced knowledge? It doesn't even make sense to have told a reporter they were planning the biggest treason in US history. The idea that they were informing journalists about this in advance is stupid on the face of it.
3) again, I don't know why this throws you. That is normal. That is how buildings collapse. you say buildings don't collapse like that, provide evidence of that. All you are doing is repeating your interpretation of things when experts say it isn't true. Or are all the explosive and building experts in on the conspiracy too?
Do you have any idea how many people need to have knowledge of secret operations? It is alot. There is no government secret so deep that there are not hundreds of people who know it. Organizing an attack like that would take significant amounts of co-ordination. But covering it up would be insane. They would have to fake all the evidence to point to Bin Laden. They would have to have men on the ground placing explosives. They would have to control the buildings to make sure no one found the numerous bombs that would be needed. They would need to control all access to the investigation, both in the FBI, the CIA. The investigators would have seen evidence of an inside job. Politicians would have needed to sign off on it. That is the president, the cabinet, members of their staff.
1: Even tho you have the whole government working on it dont you think it would be pretty hard to identify the person's that flew planes into WTC, how could they know so quickly who did that even if the whole government was working on it, makes no sense.
2: You dont make a mistake like that, dont you know how news ankers work? They read everything of a screen, mistakes they can do but none reports that a third building has fallen down 26 minutes before it happened, I mean come on, are you really trying to defend that position?
3: Sorry to say but this last one you struggled, have you watched the video of the building falling? it collapses in 7 seconds, due to fire? that's a joke! and you say people would've heard it, it's pretty hard to hear a smaller building collapsing while there's chaos, people, screaming, people jumping of buildings, buildings much larger then that exploding and even if they did hear the sound could've been mixed up with all this chaos that was happening and who says people didn't hear it? There is no way in this universe that a building could fall like that in 7 seconds due to fire! that's absolutely ridiculous.
First of all how do you know how many people would be needed to allow this to happen? and from what agency's? That's just false claims with no empirical evidence what so ever. I never said the reporter was in on it, that's a straight up lie. The reportes get there information from someone else and they broadcast that, what did you think they say what they want to say? You dont know how many people knew nor how hard it would be to keep that secret, and they have made mistakes, those I just presented to you. You haven't brought anything to the table except for your hypothetical beliefs.
There is a lot of stuff in there.
1) how did they figure out who did it so quickly? i'm not sure. but they would have passenger manifests of the planes and the whole government working on it. why wouldn't they figure it out quickly?
2) a reporter said the tower fell before it did - it was an emotionally charged day. reporters ended up saying lots of things. some of them turned out not to be true. But no one focuses on things they said that turned out not to be true. A reporter made a mistake and said the tower fell when it hadn't. It was an error, not evidence of a conspiracy.
3) Why did the fire spread/why did the building collapse - Several groups have investigated. Other than people saying they just choose not to believe it there has never been any evidence that any kind of accelerant was used to bring the tower down. And if it had been an explosive, there would have been an explosion which everyone within a mile of the building would have heard. There was an investigation and they rationally explained why the building collapsed.
It isn't a matter of what kind of lie you tell. It is a matter of how many people would know it. An operation of this size would require way too many people to be in on it. From the CIA, the FBI, the military, local authorities, reporters (since you seem to think they knew about it in advance), politicians, the staff for those politicians etc. You are talking about hundreds of people being aware of this. 9/11 was one of the pivotal events of modern history. It led to 2 wars in the middle east. If that many people knew that the US government murdered 3,000 of it's own people. Then used those murdered people as an excuse to start 2 wars that killed at least 7,000 more Americans and 10's of thousands of other people, someone would have talked by now. It would have leaked out. It is not possible to keep that kind of info secret when that many people would know.
I'll give you evidence. first of all how come they identified who did it so quickly? How come 26 minutes before WTC 7 fell a reporter said that WTC 7 had fallen? how come WTC 7 fell down in just 7 seconds? they say that fire was spread to WTC 7 now what did they build the building of?, wood? there is no way a building could've fallen down in 7 seconds if there wasn't bombs already planted, I ask you to see the video of building 7 falling and then you can tell me how that happend! and there is no need for thousands o people knowing it, US is controlled by men in black suits! If you want to get away with something make a lie so diabolical none will suspect it of being true.
Do you know how hard it is to keep a secret in government? in order to arrange something like 9/11, there would be hundreds, if not thousands, of people who would have known the truth. That kind of thing cannot be kept secret for long. if it had been an inside job we would know it by now.
But no evidence indicating that it was has emerged. Just a lot conspiracy theories, conjecture, and coincidence.