9/11 was an inside job

[The Kilted Heathen]

Of course, NIST specifically shunned any analysis of any evidence that contradicted their worst-case scenario models for the Towers, that contradicted their assumptions that the Towers would explode downward as they did after the Towers were supposedly "poised for collapse," or anything that occurred after either of the buildings began moving.

So they engaged in faulty analysis. Why are you hocking their report, then?

Read closely what I said. I never claimed that "FEMA's report was rejected". I did not promote anything from the FEMA Report that was rejected by NIST or that is remotely disputable.

And now you're contradicting yourself.

For the 2 NIST rejected FEMA's "floor pancaking" hypothesis. Do you know why?

You still haven't explained your lone perpetrator theory or how all those separate events were caused by a single person.

Probably because I never said such a preposterous thing. If you're going to be putting words in my mouth, then we've really nothing to discuss here, nous.

A number of high-rise steel-frame buildings have suffered much greater structural damage than any of the 3 WTC buildings, and none of them have collapsed as a result, much less exploded downward.

Ah, the same crack-pot website. Yet none of those buildings are near as tall as the WTC (where the wind would have more affected internal structures not meant to resist them), none have the same structural shape as the WTC, and none had a friggin' plane crash into them. I mean, hell, one of the buildings cited is in Los Angeles, and is reinforced against earthquakes.

 

[Nous]

So they engaged in faulty analysis.

So, you don't have a coherent explanation for the destruction of the 3 WTC buildings, or the findings I've cited here of temperatures much higher than burning offices materials or of nanothermitic material in the 9/11 dust?

Read closely what I said. I never claimed that "FEMA's report was rejected". I did not promote anything from the FEMA Report that was rejected by NIST or that is remotely disputable.

And now you're contradicting yourself.

False. Nothing I've said here contradicts anything else I've said. That's why you can't quote any two contradictory statements I've made.

Probably because I never said such a preposterous thing.

What preposterous thing are you saying? You claim that the events of 9/11 were not the product of a lone perpetrator and or conspiracy. What's left but something preposterous?

Don't you think it would just be easier if you were to just try to learn what a conspiracy is? I linked to thread I started for people like you. Was that all above your pay grade?

Ah, the same crack-pot website. Yet none of those buildings are near as tall as the WTC (where the wind would have more affected internal structures not meant to resist them), none have the same structural shape as the WTC, and none had a friggin' plane crash into them. I mean, hell, one of the buildings cited is in Los Angeles, and is reinforced against earthquakes.

NIST and FEMA both claimed that the 3 WTC buildings "collapsed" due to the effects of the brief fires. Apparently you disagree with that in favor of your own idiosyncratic ideas.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

False. Nothing I've said here contradicts anything else I've said. That's why you can't quote any two contradictory statements I've made.

I literally just did. I don't think you even know what you're arguing for, nous. Gods help you with that.

Add: A conspiracy is something illegal, like a government plotting to attack it's own people. Not a foreign power conducting an attack on a nation outside their own; they're not bound by our laws, so what would make it illegal?

 

[Nous]

I literally just did.

False. That's why you are unable to quote two sentence that contradict each other.

Add: A conspiracy is something illegal, like a government plotting to attack it's own people. Not a foreign power conducting an attack on a nation outside their own; they're not bound by our laws, so what would make it illegal?

Tell me at what point in reading the following (which is the OP of the thread I started for people like you) that you become confused or don't understand:

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to act in concert in order to accomplish an illegal purpose, or some purpose that is not in itself illegal but is to be accomplished by illegal means. Pettibone v. United States(1893). A person need not commit the agreed-upon illegal act in order to be guilty of conspiracy, as the crime is consummated by the agreement. However, many statutes require that at least one person commit some overt act in furtherance of the plot. The agreement between two or more persons that constitutes a conspiracy can be proven by either direct evidence or inferred from circumstantial evidence (such as an overt act in furtherance of the plot).

The US Code contains dozens of statutes that criminalize various forms of conspiracies, including the general conspiracy statute 18 USC § 371, which outlaws conspiracy to commit any other federal crime. Charges and convictions for conspiracy are among the most common charges and convictions under federal law. Convictions under 21 USC § 846, which prohibits the illegal manufacturing, distribution, dispensing or possession of controlled substances, is the third most common federal conspiracy conviction, with approximately 5,000-10,000 convictions as a lead charge in a given year (according to my rough extrapolation from monthly figures). Convictions under 18 USC § 371 as a lead charge generally total more than a thousand per year (according to my extrapolation), and total among the top ten most common type of conviction.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln was the result of a conspiracy:

Occurring near the end of the American Civil War, the assassination was part of a larger conspiracy intended by Booth to revive the Confederate cause by eliminating the three most important officials of the United States government. Conspirators Lewis Powell and David Herold were assigned to kill Secretary of State William H. Seward, and George Atzerodt was tasked with killing Vice President Andrew Johnson. Beyond Lincoln's death the plot failed: Seward was only wounded and Johnson's would-be attacker lost his nerve.
​

The interception of and 23 stab wounds that killed Julius Caesar were part of a conspiracy:

On the Ides of March . . . of 44 BC, the conspirators staged a game of gladiatorial sport at Pompey's theatre. The gladiators were provided by Decimus Brutus in case their services were needed. They waited in the great hall of the theatre's quadriportico.[9] Mark Antony, having vaguely learned of the plot the night before from a terrified Liberator named Servilius Casca,[10] and fearing the worst, went to head Caesar off at the steps of the forum. However, the group of senators intercepted Caesar just as he was passing the Theatre of Pompey, located in the Campus Martius (now adjacent to the Largo di Torre Argentina), and directed him to a room adjoining the east portico of the Theatre of Pompey.[11]

According to Plutarch, as Caesar arrived at the Senate, Lucius Tillius Cimber presented him with a petition to recall his exiled brother.[12] The other conspirators crowded round to offer their support. Both Plutarch and Suetonius say that Caesar waved him away, but Cimber grabbed Caesar's shoulders and pulled down Caesar's toga. Caesar then cried to Cimber, "Why, this is violence!" ("Ista quidem vis est!").[13] At the same time, Casca produced his dagger and made a glancing thrust at the dictator's neck. Caesar turned around quickly and caught Casca by the arm. According to Plutarch, he said in Latin, "Casca, you villain, what are you doing?"[14] Casca, frightened, shouted "Help, brother!" in Greek ("ἄδελφε, βοηθεῖ", "adelphe, boethei"). Within moments, the entire group, including Brutus, were stabbing the dictator.
​

There is no other logical account for the confluence of acts described in these two assassinations except as the outcome of conspiracies. People do not act in such concerted and complex ways by accident.

Yet, according to the claims and suggestions of a noticeable portion of people (not only Americans), conspiracies just don't happen. “Conspiracy theories” are spoken of as theories that are inherently false. Either explicitly or implicitly, the phrase “conspiracy theory” is often used to mean something like “a crazy falsehood”. One can find the claim all over the internet, including on this board, that conspiracy theories about the events of 9/11 have been “debunked”--e.g., a 4 minute YouTube video uploaded in 2007 is entitled, “9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked,” and that's exactly what the video claims to do. So how the hell did a lone perpetrator crash four different jetliners into buildings and the ground, killing everyone on board, including the pilots? Talk about “crazy falsehoods”. Apparently among those claiming that “9/11 conspiracy theories have been debunked,” there is simply no consciousness of the fact that the official government story about the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory, where numerous people agreed to perform illegal acts, with most of the alleged plans apparently being accomplished that day. Zacarias Moussaoui was charged with and convicted of 6 counts of conspiracy in relation to the events of 9/11; as the Fourth Circuit recounted in reviewing his appeal, “In December 2001, Moussaoui was indicted for his participation in the conspiracies that led to the 9/11 attacks.” United States v. Moussaoui, (4th Cir. 2010). It would be difficult to say something more idiotic than that 9/11 conspiracy theories have been debunked. Yet numerous people have said just that.

So what is the origin of people's flippy, erroneous ideas about conspiracies? There surely was and some motivation or reason (other than sheer ignorance) for employing an idea of “conspiracy” that is contrary to the concept in the law. What is or was that motivation or reason?

One can easily get the impression that the explanation goes something like this: People propose conspiracies for important national or world events that are not easily refuted but, if true, would destroy one's worldview (e.g., the conspiracy may imply that authorities were not truthful). So, as a way to psychologically deal with that dilemma or the uncomfortable facts, one portends that conspiracies don't happen and/or that “conspiracy theories” are inherently false. Does that sound about right?​

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

False. That's why you are unable to quote two sentence that contradict each other.

Okay I'll do it again. Pay attention:

NIST rejected FEMA's "floor pancaking" hypothesis. (add: the very premise to their report)

I never claimed that "FEMA's report was rejected".

OH, and then there's also this one:

Chapter 2 of FEMA's Report notes that the debris field was 400-500 feet from the base of the Towers: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf And Figure 1-7 in Chapter 1 shows exterior columns located outside the debris field: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

I did not promote anything from the FEMA Report that was rejected by NIST or that is remotely disputable.

You have contradicted yourself at least twice.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln was the result of a conspiracy:

But of course it was; a US citizen murdering his president.

The interception of and 23 stab wounds that killed Julius Caesar were part of a conspiracy:

Again, of course it was; Roman citizens and members of Senate murdering their Emperor.

Both of those are clearly citizens acting out against the laws of their nation. Not a bunch of pissed off Arab Islamic extremists attacking a foreign nation in an act of war.

 

[Nous]

Okay I'll do it again. Pay attention:

It is you who needs to pay attention and read closely. These 2 sentences are both true, and do not contradict each other.

NIST rejected FEMA's "floor pancaking" hypothesis.

I never claimed that "FEMA's report was rejected".​

OH, and then there's also this one:

And none of these 3 sentences contradict another:

Chapter 2 of FEMA's Report notes that the debris field was 400-500 feet from the base of the Towers: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf And Figure 1-7 in Chapter 1 shows exterior columns located outside the debris field: https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf​

I did not promote anything from the FEMA Report that was rejected by NIST or that is remotely disputable.​

But of course it was; a US citizen murdering his president.


Again, of course it was; Roman citizens and members of Senate murdering their Emperor.

Both of those are clearly citizens acting out against the laws of their nation. Not a bunch of pissed off Arab Islamic extremists attacking a foreign nation in an act of war.

So you didn't understand the first sentence: "In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to act in concert in order to accomplish an illegal purpose, or some purpose that is not in itself illegal but is to be accomplished by illegal means." And nothing else after that?

What do you think the following first sentence and the quoted sentence from the Fourth Circuit are referring to here:

Zacarias Moussaoui was charged with and convicted of 6 counts of conspiracy in relation to the events of 9/11; as the Fourth Circuit recounted in reviewing his appeal, “In December 2001, Moussaoui was indicted for his participation in the conspiracies that led to the 9/11 attacks.” United States v. Moussaoui, (4th Cir. 2010).​

 

[Nous]

Why oh why is anyone who doesn't understand what a conspiracy is posting on a debate board on any topic, especially making claims about conspiracies?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

These 2 sentences are both true, and do not contradict each other.

FEMA's "pancake hypothesis" was - as I mentioned - the very core of their analysis for how the towers fell. NIST rejected this, and thus their report.

And none of these 3 sentences contradict another:

You used FEMA's report to validate your inclusion of steel debris being found up to 500 feet from the towers. Ergo you promoted their report, which was rejected by NIST.

Goodbye, nous.

 

[Nous]

FEMA's "pancake hypothesis" was - as I mentioned - the very core of their analysis for how the towers fell. NIST rejected this, and thus their report.

False. NIST did not reject FEMA's report; it only rejected its hypothesis about what caused the Towers to "collapse" and destroy themselves. NIST did not reject FEAM's claims about the size of the debris fields, where exterior columns were found, the A36 steel flange, or hundreds of other items in FEMA's report. And none of my sentences contradict another one.


Perhaps this is just all too embarrassing to address:

So you didn't understand the first sentence: "In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to act in concert in order to accomplish an illegal purpose, or some purpose that is not in itself illegal but is to be accomplished by illegal means." And nothing else after that?

What do you think the following first sentence and the quoted sentence from the Fourth Circuit are referring to here:

Zacarias Moussaoui was charged with and convicted of 6 counts of conspiracy in relation to the events of 9/11; as the Fourth Circuit recounted in reviewing his appeal, “In December 2001, Moussaoui was indicted for his participation in the conspiracies that led to the 9/11 attacks.” United States v. Moussaoui, (4th Cir. 2010).​

 

[Revoltingest]

So far you haven't added any explanation of the findings I've noted that are unexplained by NIST's or FEMA's reports.

You're correct on that count.

You haven't added any explanations that you are even willing to repeat for those who don't have the time to dig through the thread. Someone who actually has explanations for these findings would be happy to provide them for all to see and understand.

There's no point in repeating what was ignored, misunderstood, or just denied.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you are arguing that you are unable to account for the findings from which it is deduced that the temperatures in the WTC buildings on 9/11 were much higher than those produced by open-air office-materials fires. Is that correct?

It seems your reading comprehension isn't any better than your understanding of physics.

 

[Stevicus]

One can certainly infiltrate as a member of the public in areas where the public is allowed.
But this would not be true for maintenance & management. In the landlording business,
security & liability are of great concern. So workers are identified & known to each other.
Rigging a building for demolition would be noticed. Unknown workers would be noticed.
Even on crappy commercial properties like mine, we monitor cameras. We monitor work.
Even my tenants monitor suspicious activity (because people are always trying to get away
with something.)

On a small property with only a few employees, it would be easier to spot someone who doesn't belong, but in a building like the WTC where there are thousands of people going in and out every day, it would be a different matter. I doubt they even had metal detectors at the entrances back then (unlike airports, where they should have been paying attention). There have been countless instances of terrorists planting bombs in buildings where they obviously went unnoticed until they went off.

Not sure what kind of surveillance or monitoring they had at the time. Would they have been able to retrieve the footage after 9/11? That seems doubtful, unless the recording was done at a remote location.

If it's so secret, then how do you know all about it?
The information came out afterwards.

Well, it was a bit hard to hide after we dropped the bombs which ended the war.

Participants talked about it.

Our government talked about it when they announced it, but I think the participants would have been required to keep quiet about it - especially in the years that followed and we were the only country to possess atomic weapons technology. Little by little, the secrets of the technology started to trickle out to the point where high school kids could learn how to build an atomic bomb. But it would be decades before it got to that point.

This hasn't happened with the 9/11 conspiracy.

Well, in a sense, it already has happened. There is a plethora of websites claiming "9/11 was an inside job," and many people talk about it like it's common knowledge. It's so widespread that someone must be blabbing. For obvious reasons, those who are "in the know" can't just come out and make a public statement, but they might do so anonymously or through third parties. That's the most likely explanation for how these conspiracy theories get started in the first place.

But your claim of the Manhattan Project being kept secret isn't true.
They did indeed try very hard, & with some success to keep it so, but they failed at total secrecy.
Ref....
https://io9.gizmodo.com/secrets-of-the-manhattan-project-were-leaked-a-staggeri-1626524763

All spies had to do was go to church.

Interesting. Well, at least the enemy didn't find out about it in time. I think the Soviets knew about it.

From what I've been able to gather, those who spied on America during the Cold War spent most of their time in public libraries.

I don't claim that secrets cannot be kept.
But even if a secret conspiracy is real, the probability
that it will remain secret is reduced by these factors....
- The number of people in on the secret
- The length of time the secret is kept
- Changing political regimes
- Feeling guilt & regret for one's actions & the results

If we're talking about a government conspiracy or anything involving a large, super-secret organization (such as the Mafia), then we're already talking about a group of people who sign contracts or otherwise pledge to keep the secrets of the organization.

Government employees can be arrested, tried, and imprisoned if they violate that, and members of the Mafia would be killed if they violated omerta.

They could easily kill off witnesses or anyone untrustworthy who might spill the beans.

They can destroy, falsify, or fudge the evidence so that even if someone did come forward with an accusation, the evidence they bring might be questioned (which seems to be the case here).

As for regime changes, a lot of interesting information came out after the fall of the USSR, and even the US released some of the Cold War era secrets. But we haven't had any such regime change in the US, so many secrets still remain hidden. The longer they remain secret, the less likely they'll ever come out, as there will be fewer and fewer people who will even remember.

It is extraordinarily improbable that such a massive & complex conspiracy with so
many participants both in & outside of government over nearly 2 decades would
still have not a single confesser or snitch. Note how difficult it is for government
to keep secrets in the age of Wikileaks.

Yes, although it hasn't escaped notice just how utterly upset governments have become over the existence of Wikileaks. Governments don't want their dirty laundry put out there.

Those who actually come forward or snitch are a rare breed, actually. That's why those who do receive such attention and notoriety, such as Snowden. Most people would be afraid to come forward.

Of course, that's not to say that there probably aren't those out there blabbing and gossiping with family and friends, which is probably how such stories leak out to begin with. But by the time they get to the level of public attention, they're addressed as "rumors" or "conspiracy theories."

Far from being a red herring, it's the best explanation for what we observe.

But if one eschews technical analysis of what happened, one can believe anything.
Perhaps God smited the buildings using magic. (Anger at our blasphemous ways.)
I can't disprove that one either.

Well, as I see it, either the terrorists did it, or it was an "inside job," as many have alleged. Either one could be true, regardless of how the buildings were destroyed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why not? What's wrong with quoting the experts who have written papers published in the peer-reviewed literature to refute your claims?

"Peer-reviewed."

 

[Revoltingest]

On a small property with only a few employees, it would be easier to spot someone who doesn't belong, but in a building like the WTC where there are thousands of people going in and out every day, it would be a different matter. I doubt they even had metal detectors at the entrances back then (unlike airports, where they should have been paying attention). There have been countless instances of terrorists planting bombs in buildings where they obviously went unnoticed until they went off.

Not sure what kind of surveillance or monitoring they had at the time. Would they have been able to retrieve the footage after 9/11? That seems doubtful, unless the recording was done at a remote location.

Ever managed a large commercial property?
Planting an isolated bomb, as you suggested, would be possible.
But we're talking about rigging the entire building for controlled demolition.
It's a very involved & invasive process. It would not go unnoticed.
Metal detectors not needed.

Well, it was a bit hard to hide after we dropped the bombs which ended the war.

The Manhattan Project leaked from multiple sources even before dropping the bombs.
But the 9/11 conspiracy is still airtight almost 2 decades later? Not doable.

Our government talked about it when they announced it, but I think the participants would have been required to keep quiet about it - especially in the years that followed and we were the only country to possess atomic weapons technology. Little by little, the secrets of the technology started to trickle out to the point where high school kids could learn how to build an atomic bomb. But it would be decades before it got to that point.

The project was leaked in process, requirements to keep it secret notwithstanding.
There were just too many people involved.

Well, in a sense, it already has happened. There is a plethora of websites claiming "9/11 was an inside job," and many people talk about it like it's common knowledge. It's so widespread that someone must be blabbing. For obvious reasons, those who are "in the know" can't just come out and make a public statement, but they might do so anonymously or through third parties. That's the most likely explanation for how these conspiracy theories get started in the first place.

If the criterion of many people talking about a conspiracy makes it real,
then this would mean every popular conspiracy theory is true, eg, the
cars that run by burning water, the military using alien technology,
government suppression of spinning mercury vortex anti-gravity fields.
No, that's a terrible way to justify a conspiracy theory.

But who claims to have been part of the 9/11 conspiracy, & is now fessing up?
None of the conspiracy theorists had any involvement in it.

Interesting. Well, at least the enemy didn't find out about it in time. I think the Soviets knew about it.

This feels like detente about government not being able to keep even the most sensitive of secrets.

If we're talking about a government conspiracy or anything involving a large, super-secret organization (such as the Mafia), then we're already talking about a group of people who sign contracts or otherwise pledge to keep the secrets of the organization.
Government employees can be arrested, tried, and imprisoned if they violate that, and members of the Mafia would be killed if they violated omerta.
They could easily kill off witnesses or anyone untrustworthy who might spill the beans.
They can destroy, falsify, or fudge the evidence so that even if someone did come forward with an accusation, the evidence they bring might be questioned (which seems to be the case here).

Yet they couldn't keep the Manhattan Project secret.
And now, info & software leaks abound, despite all the threats wielded by government.

As for regime changes, a lot of interesting information came out after the fall of the USSR, and even the US released some of the Cold War era secrets. But we haven't had any such regime change in the US, so many secrets still remain hidden. The longer they remain secret, the less likely they'll ever come out, as there will be fewer and fewer people who will even remember.

As parties gain & lose control, political hay could be made by releasing info about what the other party was up to. The 9/11 conspiracy would've been approved by either Clinton or the newly inaugurated Bush. Exposing the murderous 9/11 plot would've been done by either Bush or Obama. But they didn't.

But, let's say that Obama kept it secret.
This would make him a heinous criminal for pursuing the conspiracy & the policies it spawned.
Obama....darling of the left? A vile party to a murderous scheme?
Why aren't conspiracy theorists pursuing prosecution of the criminals, Clinton, Bush & Obama?
Oh, I know....they're puppets controlled by the military industrial complex....or the Jews...or the Illuminati.

Yes, although it hasn't escaped notice just how utterly upset governments have become over the existence of Wikileaks. Governments don't want their dirty laundry put out there.

Those who actually come forward or snitch are a rare breed, actually. That's why those who do receive such attention and notoriety, such as Snowden. Most people would be afraid to come forward.

Of course, that's not to say that there probably aren't those out there blabbing and gossiping with family and friends, which is probably how such stories leak out to begin with. But by the time they get to the level of public attention, they're addressed as "rumors" or "conspiracy theories."

Well, as I see it, either the terrorists did it, or it was an "inside job," as many have alleged. Either one could be true, regardless of how the buildings were destroyed.

I'll take the most plausible explanation, ie, that Islamic
terrorists used airplanes to demolish the buildings.


I know that many think this is a racist view because it disses Islam.
Wake up apologists.....radical Islam is dangerous.
(And Muslim isn't a race.)

 

[Stevicus]

Ever managed a large commercial property?

No, but I've worked in a number of buildings that might qualify.

Planting an isolated bomb, as you suggested, would be possible.
But we're talking about rigging the entire building for controlled demolition.
It's a very involved & invasive process. It would not go unnoticed.
Metal detectors not needed.

Isn't it possible that several isolated bombs could have been placed in key positions - not necessarily for a "controlled demolition," but enough to bring down the building?

We're not talking about a government building. It was as public as a shopping mall. Lots of strangers going in and out, lots of tourists. Anyone caught in the wrong area can just pass themselves off as another "lost tourist" and be on their way. And in a building that large, even those who work there probably won't know or recognize everyone. How can they?

The Manhattan Project leaked from multiple sources even before dropping the bombs.

But apparently not enough to endanger the project.

But the 9/11 conspiracy is still airtight almost 2 decades later? Not doable.

Maybe, maybe not.

The project was leaked in process, requirements to keep it secret notwithstanding.
There were just too many people involved.

If the criterion of many people talking about a conspiracy makes it real,
then this would mean every popular conspiracy theory is true, eg, the
cars that run by burning water, the military using alien technology,
government suppression of spinning mercury vortex anti-gravity fields.
No, that's a terrible way to justify a conspiracy theory.

I'm not sure that these qualify as "popular" conspiracy theories. But in any case, I never said that it makes it true. I just reject the notion that a lot of people being involved would make it impossible to keep as a secret. That doesn't stop all leaks, as you've pointed out, but it still allows for the government to do damage control.

I'm not even all that convinced that it would take all that many people to keep it a secret, but hypothetically, if a large government intelligence agency ordered a group of specially-trained agents to sneak in and blow up a building, my guess is that they could probably pull it off - somehow. The government already employs people who know how to do such things, and it doesn't even require alien technology or mercury vortex anti-gravity fields.

But who claims to have been part of the 9/11 conspiracy, & is now fessing up?
None of the conspiracy theorists had any involvement in it.

I haven't studied the personal histories of the conspiracy theorists regarding this.

This feels like detente about government not being able to keep even the most sensitive of secrets.

Secrets might leak out, but actually obtaining enough evidence to prove wrongdoing is a far different matter. That's where most conspiracy theories fall short, since they only have bits and pieces - not enough to prove that anyone was part of any conspiracy.

Yet they couldn't keep the Manhattan Project secret.
And now, info & software leaks abound, despite all the threats wielded by government.

Yes, but we're also inundated with disinformation and "fake news," so even if something does leak out, it could be dismissed as "false" when it really is "true" (or vice versa).

As parties gain & lose control, political hay could be made by releasing info about what the other party was up to. The 9/11 conspiracy would've been approved by either Clinton or the newly inaugurated Bush. Exposing the murderous 9/11 plot would've been done by either Bush or Obama. But they didn't.

But, let's say that Obama kept it secret.
This would make him a heinous criminal for pursuing the conspiracy & the policies it spawned.
Obama....darling of the left? A vile party to a murderous scheme?
Why aren't conspiracy theorists pursuing prosecution of the criminals, Clinton, Bush & Obama?
Oh, I know....they're puppets controlled by the military industrial complex....or the Jews...or the Illuminati.

I really have no idea one way or the other. Maybe it was a government plot, maybe not. I don't make any of this stuff up myself. I just hear about it and read about it and various websites. I don't know where it originated or why it seems to endure - even in the absence of any official acknowledgement or investigation or prosecution.

One possible reason might be the government's track record of deceit and secrecy in the name of national security. Battleship Maine, Gulf of Tonkin - things like that have left a bad taste in people's mouths which brings about mistrust of government. The JFK Assassination seems to be the granddaddy of modern conspiracy theories, and questions still linger and persist about that event. A lot of the early theories cropped up at the same time as the 60s-era protests were heating up, when a lot of people were accusing the government of being up to no good. The revelations about Hoover's FBI, the Pentagon Papers, and then Watergate. So, the idea of government conspiracies has already been planted in Americans' minds for generations - and some of them turned out to be true.

I'll take the most plausible explanation, ie, that Islamic
terrorists used airplanes to demolish the buildings.


I know that many think this is a racist view because it disses Islam.
Wake up apologists.....radical Islam is dangerous.
(And Muslim isn't a race.)

Well, they still could have been dupes or patsies or otherwise working as government agents pretending to be Islamic terrorists.

 

[Nous]

It seems your reading comprehension isn't any better than your understanding of physics.

You haven't demonstrated that I've said anything false about physics or anything else.

I've asked you to account for the evidence of temperatures in the WTC buildings much higher than those produced by office fires. You haven't been able to do so. So what do you do with that evidence? Ignore it?

You also haven't accounted for the evidence of nanothermitic material found in the 9/11 dust. More evidence you have to ignore in order to remain inside the little bubble.

 

[Nous]

Why not? What's wrong with quoting the experts who have written papers published in the peer-reviewed literature to refute your claims?

"Peer-reviewed."

I don't suppose what you're trying to say is worthy of a complete sentence, is it?

 

[Nous]

Planting an isolated bomb, as you suggested, would be possible.
But we're talking about rigging the entire building for controlled demolition.
It's a very involved & invasive process.

You don't have a clue as to how a building might be "rigged for controlled demolition" with nanothermite. It may have been incorporated into an expoxy that was spray painted on stairwells, or in areas accessed by stairwells. Or it may have been in devices that looked like fire alarms. Or may have been boxes placed in the storage rooms on every 5th floor.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've asked you to account for the evidence of temperatures in the WTC buildings much higher than those produced by office fires.

For the third time, phrased a slightly different way: any fully involved office fire is much hotter than the temperature of typical office materials burning in open air.

Maybe it'll get through this time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't suppose what you're trying to say is worthy of a complete sentence, is it?

Your rant didn't warrant a complete sentence, no.

Journal of 9/11 Studies - RationalWiki