This CIA Report Proves 911 Wasn't an Inside Job.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod

Not really.

What I said is true, the American military industrial complex and the related intelligence complex do have access to some of the most talented and intelligent people in the world, they also have access to the most advanced technology.

Sorry, but that's an appeal to "magic stuff" any way you slice it.

Basically you're admitting that you don't know who has the expertise and technology to pull off the entire fantasy that encompasses 9/11 truth beliefs. But truthers use this appeal as some sort of logic chain that has validity.

It doesn't.

If one wants to claim that the towers were CD using cutter charges, or by outright shattering steel, or as one fantasist here has claimed - that every floor at the towers had their concrete blown to dust and out the windows, there are laws of physics that cannot be broken. Explosives result in a high velocity release of gas. This gas must be at a sufficient velocity and volume to produce the desired effect. This gas release results in noise that is indirect relation to the work done by the explosives.

No appeal to "magic stuff" can get around that fact cuz while truthers can claim "magic stuff" did it and we don't know the properties of it, we DO know the properties of steel and concrete.

See, that's where the equation fails. In order to appeal to magic, then the properties of the thing that this magic stuff is acting upon must also be unknown or at least poorly understood.

The properties of steel and concrete are well understood.

So your appeal to "magic stuff" is easily debunked as rubbish.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod

I also don't think the stealth planes etc. are what would be considered "deep black projects", those we never get to hear about, that is where you'll find the exotic stuff.

This is also self defeating and it debunks your beliefs.

Do you even know why?

a reply to: lexyghot

I didn't come here to argue the details of 9/11, if you wanna talk about impossible physics perhaps you as a believer in the OS should look yourself in the mirror.

I commented on the fact that some people here seem to project their inadequacies on the most advanced intelligence network in the world. If you think they're a bunch of useless clowns, then by all means explain to us why that is and why we should believe you. We already know why they're the most advanced -so it's on you to explain why they're so hopelessly incompetent- they have the highest budgets, they work with the most advanced technology and the most qualified people, and they work for the most powerful people.

Obviously I don't have positive proof for any of the deep black projects, but I don't have positive proof for you being a human either, you could be an annoying bot designed to produce OS clichés for all I know.
But at the end of the day, different levels of compartmentalization is as obvious to most of us here as secret and top secret classifications are, as well as the fact that you're probably not a bot at all and that you probably really believe American intelligence agencies are bumbling fools.

And that's why I'm calling you naive because you seem incapable of moving an inch beyond your laughably stringent protocols for empirical evidence, even in obvious situations where they're incredibly limiting and redundant, might as well be needlessly skeptic of everyday claims your neighbours or family make.

a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse
The problem with buildings being built with the explosives from the get go is there are many trades that work on these projects and I think it would be noticed..no way could everyone be in on it. I feel there were shenanigens but damned if I know.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
When it comes to 9/11 I think this report does serve to remind us that the government cannot keep a secret.

Now when it comes to 9/11, I am not one of the false flag waving thermite ranting and Gage loving zombies who seems to suck up all 9/11 conspiracies into one huge cesspool of ignorance.

HOWEVER!

Lets assume for a moment that 9/11 was a inside job.

Well all this report actually proves as far as that goes is that the government cannot keep a secret forever.

Now if I was one of the Gage loving zombies I would argue that just because the secret has not been exposed yet does not mean that the secret does not exist.

I have always said I go were the facts will lead me regarding 9/11, be it a false flag op or 19 guys looking to spend some time with 72 virgins. As such I must remain open to the idea that there could be a 9/11 secret that is yet to be exposed that could "prove" a false flag.

I should also probably point out that it is highly unlikely that such a secret exists and to base ones entire beliefs on 9/11 on the possibility that this secret does exist is absurd.

Good post.

My whole deal is (really) that regardless of my gut feelings, I think it's wise to try and maintain some degree of objectivity. You can't be so desperate to prove your suspicions that you don't want to see things that don't fit your theory. This is basically the flaw with those who just accept the official story on faith alone (people who refuse to even look at anything that casts any doubt on TOS). Faith is not enough to justify anything other than persistent suspicion.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

This is basically the flaw with those who just accept the official story on faith alone (people who refuse to even look at anything that casts any doubt on TOS).

All these conspiracy theories make much less sense than the OS.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: BrianFlanders

This is basically the flaw with those who just accept the official story on faith alone (people who refuse to even look at anything that casts any doubt on TOS).

All these conspiracy theories make much less sense than the OS.

No argument there. But the point is that most of the people who accept TOS just accept it on pure faith and they don't want to hear anything that might challenge it. That kind of tunnel vision is never good. There should always been room for alternative views. Any truth movement should be open to the possibility that parts (or all) of TOS might be true.

My gut feeling is that the truth might just be an insidious mix of fact and fiction that is much more inscrutable than "The whole thing is a complete lie".

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: lexyghot

I didn't come here to argue the details of 9/11, if you wanna talk about impossible physics perhaps you as a believer in the OS should look yourself in the mirror.

And right here is why truthers are caught in a loop. You don't understand the physics, and so therefore there must be, in your mind, "magic stuff" is the only thing that can explain what happened.

There's no magic or secretive things at work. Everyone with an education NOT based on what they think they've learned off a conspiracy website understands the processes that led to the collapses.

I commented on the fact that some people here seem to project their inadequacies

The inadequacies are in knowledge and understanding of the physics at work. This is the first step down the road to truther beliefs. Invariably, once I get a truther to start talking about the collapses and steer the conversation towards the physics and engineering aspects, it very nearly always boils down to this : the collpases didn't "look right" to them and THEN they started looking for an explanation. The internet is swamped with all these alternative views that attempt to explain it, like fake, reinforced planes cuz a regular 767 couldn't of penetrated the towers, or explosives everywhere cuz the stronger lower part would of halted the collapse progression. But these are nothing more than simpleton stories meant to convince the simple minded, and are hatched by likewise simple minded activists that don't care if what they are telling others is correct or not. So, by the time someone gets around to seeking out the REAL story, the typical truther has convinced themselves that the alternative view is correct. And unfortunately, an explanation of why the alternative views are wrong is not understandable to them. But this makes sense, cuz they couldn't understand it in the first place, and rather than choosing a real path of education, chose the internet to be their guide.

If you think they're a bunch of useless clowns,

I don't think that.

But your view appears to be that they are infallible. Nobody is infallible.

Obviously I don't have positive proof for any of the deep black projects,

And yet I would bet that you will continue to stand by your statement.

And that's why I'm calling you naive because you seem incapable of moving an inch beyond your laughably stringent protocols for empirical evidence.

Stringent eh?

SO how do you feel about truthers calling for clear videos of the plane that hit the Pentagon, saying that this is the only thing that will convince them, all the while absolutely ignoring all the other lines of evidence that also proves that the 757 hit the Pentagon? How do you characterize that? Stringent? Ridiculous? I call it a defense against their religious belief that 9/11 was an inside job. The cognitive dissonance it would take to ignore the other evidence is simply unfathomable to the rational.

The rejection of evidence is rampant in trutherdom. It must make you gag at the thought of it.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

No argument there. But the point is that most of the people who accept TOS just accept it on pure faith and they don't want to hear anything that might challenge it.

I don't think that we do at all.

It's just that the challenges to it border on insanity.

The only sensible challenges that I can see off hand are:

1- the identity of the hijackers due to the possibility of faked id's. But does it matter to the OS? Nope. the hijackers died, They were a part of Al-Quada. That's all that matters.

2- that the ext columns led the collapse on the towers, and may have been core led instead. But does it matter to the OS? Nope. Impact and fire damage caused the collapses. It would be of significance to structural and fire engineers only.

3- that the floor beam pushoff of the girder that connected to column 79 resulted in the collapse of 7. But does it matter to the OS? Nope. Unfought fires resulted in the collapse of 7.

originally posted by: lexyghot

I don't think that we do at all.

It's just that the challenges to it border on insanity.

Perhaps. But every theory I've ever heard of has been immediately written off as insane (with no time for thought) by most of those who support TOS. That doesn't sound like objectivity to me. It sounds like people who have their minds made up. Again, that's faith, IMO. And faith is fine, I guess, if you aren't interested in wading through rivers of uncertainty and unpleasant thoughts. And I'll note (for the record) that I don't blame anyone for that (assuming that's the reason).

Confronting even the possibility of uncertainty is not a fun thing to do for any length of time. Anyone who ever has should know that. I mean, let's face it. Even the thought that 9/11 might be anything like "an inside job" is the kind of thing most people would probably not even encounter in their worst nightmares. I wouldn't blame people for not wanting to think about the can of worms that opens up. I have had quite a few nightmares about 9/11 over the years (a sad consequence of studying the footage and story so closely) and they always wake me up.

A lot of it does sound crazy but so what? If you could go back in time to the first day of September in 2001 and you tried to tell people what was going to happen (and what the consequences would be), most people would have called you crazy. In a world in which something like 9/11 can even happen, it's hard to imagine too many things that are impossible. Slightly implausible? Sure. But again, you have little to lose by by asking hard questions other than the comfort of not having to think about things that most people don't want to think about.

Alas, I think 9/11 is the kind of thing we're still really too close to. I think it's going to be a long time before anyone can truly give it the objectivity required to consider all reasonable possibilities. For example, these days, people tend to discuss JFK calmly and somewhat objectively. If you mention 9/11 conspiracies anywhere, people come out of the woodwork to tell you to shut up. Emotions are still pretty high. If you mention it anywhere there will undoubtedly be quite a few who saw it happen live on TV. Not so with something like JFK. I wasn't even born until the 70s so the JFK thing is (while powerful) more of a fascinating curiosity to me than an emotional argument for or against. I don't discount the possibility that it happened just the way they say it did and I don't totally discount the possibility of some kind of conspiracy.

The moon thing is something I tend to think of as a silly conspiracy theory but again, I don't feel the need to try to silence people who are interested in it.

People will be talking about this for probably 50-100 years.

a reply to: lexyghot

Yeah, you do seem very intent to drag me into a technical discussion of 9/11, and to be fair that is more on topic than my little divergence.

I however, was commenting on the competence of potential conspirators and their access to resources that we don't even know the full capabilities of.

I didn't enter this discussion to argue 9/11 tit for tat as I find the debate tedious in the extreme, so do find someone else that will fill your need for spirited debate as I'm not up to it.

Yes, I stand by my statements. Do you? Do you really imagine there not to be different levels of compartmentalization in the world of black projects? We know for a fact that there are different Special Access Programs. It's practically a given, it's that special kind of obviousness, that to deny it would be a crime to reason because of the sheer likeliness of it existing.

I like to approach some of these subjects from an occult point of view as it's pretty obvious to me that certain groups of power brokers are practicing occultists and often belong to such societies(see Bohemian Grove & Skull & Bones).

Of course, you'd probably find that even more laughable than mundane conspiracy theories like 9/11, and to that my answer would be the usual condescending dig of high and mighty occultists at 'normal people', that of referring to them as vulgar.
So, to reciprocate your feelings of our supposed failure to comprehend the OS, you are but vulgar sir. I'm afraid your vulgarity has clouded your otherwise fine judgement, I regret to inform you that my perspective and the truth of it is beyond your current understanding. Better luck next life.

Now that that is out of the way, we don't have to go through the motions and we can spare ourselves the tediousness of it all.

Here's a medal for trying though!

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

Perhaps. But every theory I've ever heard of has been immediately written off as insane (with no time for thought) by most of those who support TOS.

The problem with that statement is that we are not writing any theories off with no time for thought. The truth is, we've heard them before and have already researched them and found them to be false, usually because the one making the claim does not even understand what the OS says.

I'll give you an example :

A truther makes the statement that jet fuel can't melt the columns therefore it was an inside job. Well, the NIST report doesn't claim that so why give it any serious consideration? It makes more sense to point out that the claim is insane.

Here's another more subtle argument : you can do a superficial examination of the NIST report and it says that the sagging trusses pulled in the ext columns. The truther argument is that the trusses and their connections aren't strong enough to do that. Now, while that claim is true, a more in depth examination of the NIST report says that the sagging trusses aren't the only thing that resulted in the 54" of inward bowing. So once again, a misunderstanding of the report/physics involved results in the claim that 9/11 was an inside job. And it's all cuz truthers don't either understand what it says or are not interested.

That doesn't sound like objectivity to me.

How can you say that when people like me give credence to "some" truther claims like the 3 I outlined above?

Confronting even the possibility of uncertainty is not a fun thing to do for any length of time.

I see truthers not wanting to confront the possibility that they're wrong.

I have had quite a few nightmares about 9/11 over the years (a sad consequence of studying the footage and story so closely) and they always wake me up.

It sounds like you have been indoctrinated.

A lot of it does sound crazy but so what?

So then it can be disregarded as rubbish. Especially when truthers use their own failure to understand what the NIST report actually says as a prop for their crazy claims.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod

Yeah, you do seem very intent to drag me into a technical discussion of 9/11, and to be fair that is more on topic than my little divergence.

That's because a discussion of the technical aspects would expose you as someone that probably doesn't even know what the NIST report says, yet still doesn't believe it.


You have definitely built yourself an unassailable island to prop up your views on 9/11.


Magic stuff explains away the need for you to discuss why your beliefs are not reasonable nor logical.

a reply to: lexyghot

SO how do you feel about truthers calling for clear videos of the plane that hit the Pentagon, saying that this is the only thing that will convince them,

They have seen video of a plane hitting WTC and don't believe it. So how would a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon make any different to them?

It's like they are still in shock. They can't believe it.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: samkent

9/11 was either one of two things.

1. An inside job

Or

2. Our leadership are complete ignorant morons.

Take your pick but both options are a disaster for this country.

Number 2. It is sad, but true. I mean do you REMEMBER the Bush Presidency? The man single handily jump started the career of SOOOO many comedians. Frank Caliendo comes to mind.

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

Perhaps. But every theory I've ever heard of has been immediately written off as insane (with no time for thought) by most of those who support TOS.

The problem with that statement is that we are not writing any theories off with no time for thought. The truth is, we've heard them before and have already researched them and found them to be false, usually because the one making the claim does not even understand what the OS says.

No. Just no. I've been around since day one and I was around when almost no one had heard any of these theories (yet). The problem IS that the kind of people who typically ridicule conspiracy theories were already doing it before they'd ever heard any of them. Because that's the kind of people they are. They make up their minds immediately what they are going to believe.

Now again. There are people who do the same thing on the other side. That was how this exchange started. I was pointing out that if you want to be any better than those who support TOS merely on faith, you have to try to be objective.

Maybe you personally took the time to listen to the theories and weigh them in your mind but you need to realize that most of the people who wrote off the conspiracy theories did so immediately. Primarily because they didn't want to be ridiculed. And also because many of them didn't/don't have the technical knowledge and thinking skills to give it an objective look.

But really. It was always like this. I remember sitting at my desk after work the day 9/11 happened and reading the arguments that were already taking place online. Building 7 hadn't even gone down yet before some people had decided to make fun of conspiracy theories and some people had decided it was a conspiracy.

In the years since then, I have talked to many people who have clearly never had an objective thought about the alternative theories because you can tell from the things they say that they have never really paid enough attention to them to clearly understand what was even being said. If you even suggest 9/11 might not have been what it appeared to be with most of those people, they will immediately come at you with talk about tin foil hats or something. They typically will not even wait to hear what you have to say. That is my issue.

If you want to say "no controlled demolition" because you have listened to the theories and have at least tried to give it a fair look, that's fine. No one can ask any more of you than that. Just understand there are a lot of people who have been plugging their ears and shouting down anyone who raises any questions since day one. Those people have never really listened to any of the theories they ridicule. They don't want to. Mostly (I think) those people do not want to have any room for doubt. And again, I understand that too.

a reply to: samkent

South Park hit the nail on the head on 9/11 blunders imo

www.youtube.com...

I thought that was funny.

How many "more genuine" torture genius are there exactly?

Does anyone boasts about it, they were all inexperienced at one time, torture is simple, you practically drown people or cause them horrible pain till they tell you what they know to stop it (or anything the torture guys wants to hear true or not, jurys out on that one i think). Well i mean i guess, im not a professional.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

No. Just no. I've been around since day one and I was around when almost no one had heard any of these theories (yet). The problem IS that the kind of people who typically ridicule conspiracy theories were already doing it before they'd ever heard any of them.

And again, I think you are not thinking clearly about how guys like me respond.

I wasn't around in the "early days" of the discussion, so I don't know what was said. But I know that if I would of read that some truther was saying that "jet fuel can't melt steel and therefore 9/11 was an inside job" I would of dismissed him instantly as an idiot, and if the membership agreement allowed it, told him what a stupid #ing ignorant idiot he is for believing the propaganda from some stupid #ing ignorant bastard that wrote that the columns needed to melt for the towers to collapse. It wouldn't of taken but a second to come to that conclusion.

Some of us are smarter than truthers and got our knowledge on other places than the interwebz. You'll just have to face that fact.

And also because many of them didn't/don't have the technical knowledge and thinking skills to give it an objective look.

Perhaps a few don't. But zero truthers do.

If you even suggest 9/11 might not have been what it appeared to be with most of those people, they will immediately come at you with talk about tin foil hats or something. They typically will not even wait to hear what you have to say. That is my issue.

Has it occurred to you that if everyone says you're wrong, then perhaps you're wrong?

You seem to be saying that what you think has validity cuz you, and to everyone else, ONLY you say so.