Physic conflicts the 9/11 goverment fairytale

[MrCapitalism]

As for the allegedly possible 140% over the maximum Boeing 767 speed - well, I would call THIS a level flight, don't you?

 

 

1 - why this photo is not consistent with the video record, showing the dive of the incomming flight 175?

 

So what's the deal with this, man?

 

You present an image and assert that it shows an aircraft in level flight. I agree with you, which you use as an argument to proclaim the airplane cannot produce enough thrust to achieve the impact speed in level flight?

 

You then state that the video record shows the aircraft in a descent at the point of impact....

 

You've just invalidated your argument that the aircraft cannot reach the speed in level flight.... it is not in level flight..

[A4E]

You then state that the video record shows the aircraft in a descent at the point of impact....

In 2001 the ability to doctor video footage and also to manipulate 'live' video footage was available.

 

From this mark in september clues, we can see that one or more 'live' videos from the day had to have been either doctored or manipulated.

 

After the event, anyone with sufficient video editing abilities would have been able to insert a plane image/animation, and hire actors to play out exhagerated emotions around a microphone. Example here.

 

So video records is something that cannot be trusted to be authentic regardless, unless it can be proven that no computers or humans had any chance of doctoring them.

 

I have gone through alot of different stuff around 911, so feel free to ask questions and I will try to answer them.

[MrCapitalism]

In 2001 the ability to doctor video footage and also to manipulate 'live' video footage was available.

You neglected the implications for the aerodynamic arguments.

[A4E]

You neglected the implications for the aerodynamic arguments.

That is because:

1-I didnt really follow what you guys were talking about.

 

2-I consider it kinda meaningless to talk about something that is hard to prove being there. Pilots for 911 truth can offer insight about that.

 

3-I am trying to avoid getting into arguments, because arguments about 911 are almost certain to turn ugly and personal quite fast, and I am afraid of what might happen then. One consequence could be that noone will be allowed to talk about 911 or any other radical topic, which would be tragic imo. I know that ugly arguments are less likely to happen here, but you never know. I just want to calmly convey my thoughts, share information, and let other people do the same.

[bootoo]

who did it and what did they do?

 

9/11 is for conspiracy videos the new friday 13th for horror movies. If you don't watch a conspiracy video on that day you support the enemy 

[A4E]

who did it and what did they do?

 

Excellent question. It is easy for people like me to fall into a trapdoor of conclusions, so I am not going to pretend that I know.

 

They still have not changed the FBI.gov page on Osama bin laden. That page does not even mention 911.

 

If we compare 911 to a bank robbery, then like a bank robbery, different people would be required to pull it off. A driver, a lookout, a mastermind to plan it all out, perhaps someone to distract the workers in the bank, and possibly someone proficient in explosives. And also perhaps someone who are good at selling a story of an escape goat, so that the real people implicit in the robbery will be further ignored.

 

We hear about crimes where the perpetrators are not found or have not been able to be convicted even with years of investigation, but imagine that you robbed a very wealthy bank for millions of dollars. And then you see on TV afterwards on the same day that they say they already know who did it, here is his name, which isnt yours, and have an idea where this mastermind is, and who all the complicit people were and how they broke into the bank, and even what tools they used. Not only that, but that there is no reason to even mention any possibility of an investigation. Wouldnt that be awesome if you were the actual bank robber?

 

Experts from many fields can tell you that there are many things wrong with the official conspiracy theory, and that is where my focus has been. The 'truther' community has its problems, but what we all agree on is that a real investigation is overdue.

 

If you want your head to blow up, you can watch this video.

 

You can see a more lightweight report on the issue in this video.

 

I am not offering those videos because I insinuate that they have the answer, but because they will be far better than me at giving a good overview, which can give you a lead.

[yagami]

A conspiracy of this magnitude would require a level of competence that is well beyond those in the government sector. 

 

It's also completely unnecessary. All that blood thirsty government officials would have to do to get a successful attack on the US and get a war going is to let down their guard and look the other direction for a while.

I disagree. I dont think the US at the time had any enemies capable of actually making us want to go to war on their own. I think the enemies are created by us through our actions overseas and that if this was the governments doing they did a really crappy job of executing this. There are lots of engineers and scientist that have spent quite a lot of time picking apart all the inconsistencies in the official story. In the end it doesn't really matter to me. Im just going to spread the message of peaceful parenting and hope the world isn't over by the time our work here at fdr comes to light.

[JeanPaul]

 In the end it doesn't really matter to me. Im just going to spread the message of peaceful parenting and hope the world isn't over by the time our work here at fdr comes to light.

This is great philosophy. Once kids have been peacefully parented, then, there won't be any more conspirationists and terrorists anyway. Bush and Bin Laden were beaten and yelled at when they were kids. This is a scientific fact.

 

But let's face it, the idea that it was not the missing planes that hit the towers is such a ridiculous claim. And what did "they" do the missing planes then, blow up with a missile? And these many terrorists that were onboard, what were they there for? And what about the phone calls given by the flight attendant describing what was going on?

[Triumph]

....

Not going to dispute whether the government did it or not.  But if you want to understand how the steel beams failed, you need to understand the process of annealing.  The short version is that High tensile steel at +800F is very bad.  Fire Proofing steel only slows the process but won't stop steel from annealing.

[TheBen]

Not going to dispute whether the government did it or not.  But if you want to understand how the steel beams failed, you need to understand the process of annealing.  The short version is that High tensile steel at +800F is very bad.  Fire Proofing steel only slows the process but won't stop steel from annealing.

 

This would be a good enough explanation for me if the steel melting was the only contested issue that happened that day.  Unfortunately there are hundreds of other points that would have to be addressed as well.  And this idea of annealing does not offer an explanation for building 7(the 3rd building that came down that day in textbook demolition fashion).

[luxfelix]

The following video is not as in-depth on the scientific evidence, but relevant starting at 1:17:00 (it's one of those documentaries about developments and innovations in human domestication... it's good if you are fuzzy on history, but it's also loooong...   ).

 

There's also a dark comedy moment about double-speak at 1:35:00 (and earlier about news report stage sets to support the PR campaign for the Gulf War...).

[JeanPaul]

The following video is not as in-depth on the scientific evidence, but relevant starting at 1:17:00 (it's one of those documentaries about developments and innovations in human domestication... it's good if you are fuzzy on history, but it's also loooong...   ).

 

There's also a dark comedy moment about double-speak at 1:35:00 (and earlier about news report stage sets to support the PR campaign for the Gulf War...).

So now, they used a nuclear bomb to blow the WTC. The state must be very imaginative.

[luxfelix]

So now, they used a nuclear bomb to blow the WTC. The state must be very imaginative.

 

Picture01

 

It's hard to tell if you're being sincere or not.

 

I could be wrong, but your last post might be a straw-man fallacy.

 

(It's okay, I know I've done this before too. It just takes some practice.   )

[JeanPaul]

I am sincere saying that this whole conspiracy theory is ridiculous. Thinking that the building s were hit by some kind disk, that the films were doctored by CNN, that the recording of callers from the planes where fake, etc. is grotesque. And now, the conspiracy theorists are sure that a miniature nuclear bomb was used. The State is very bad overall, they get do anything right, as we all know. If you all still believe in these disk, video editing and nuclear bomb, then, you should find another culprit: Roswell, ET, you name it.

[luxfelix]

I am sincere saying that this whole conspiracy theory is ridiculous. Thinking that the building s were hit by some kind disk, that the films were doctored by CNN, that the recording of callers from the planes where fake, etc. is grotesque. And now, the conspiracy theorists are sure that a miniature nuclear bomb was used. The State is very bad overall, they get do anything right, as we all know. If you all still believe in these disk, video editing and nuclear bomb, then, you should find another culprit: Roswell, ET, you name it.

 

Thank you for your opinions.

 

I'm guessing we at least share common ground when it comes to the idea that the official story is inaccurate?

[st434u]

This idea that the State can't do anything right because it is so inefficient is completely misguided in my view. The State does plenty of things right. The State is very efficient at stealing money, at forcing people to do what they want, at preventing people from doing things that threaten the State agents's power (and that of their backers). If you can't see how 9/11 fits perfectly in that scheme of things, you should take a look at history; i.e. the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Shelling of Mainila, the Gleiwitz incident, the Manchurian incident, Operation Northwoods, etc.

 

I'm not saying that just because the US State benefitted from 9/11, that therefore they carried it out themselves. I have plenty of other reasons to believe that they did it, as explained in the almost 2-hour presentation I posted here. What I am saying is that the idea that they couldn't have done it even if they wanted to is what is ludicrous, rather than the other way around.

[luxfelix]

This idea that the State can't do anything right because it is so inefficient is completely misguided in my view. The State does plenty of things right. The State is very efficient at stealing money, at forcing people to do what they want, at preventing people from doing things that threaten the State agents's power (and that of their backers). If you can't see how 9/11 fits perfectly in that scheme of things, you should take a look at history; i.e. the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Shelling of Mainila, the Gleiwitz incident, the Manchurian incident, Operation Northwoods, etc.

 

I'm not saying that just because the US State benefitted from 9/11, that therefore they carried it out themselves. I have plenty of other reasons to believe that they did it, as explained in the almost 2-hour presentation I posted here. What I am saying is that the idea that they couldn't have done it even if they wanted to is what is ludicrous, rather than the other way around.

 

What are the odds? 

 

http://www.keepcalmandposters.com/posters/13634.png

[JeanPaul]

So, you all believe that the videos were doctored by CNN, that no planes hit the WTC, that planes were vaporized somewhere else, that a nuclear bomb was used and so on? What about the terrorists, where they all brainwashed using the most advanced techniques, so that they do not remember that they actually did not participate in 9/11?

[TheBen]

So, you all believe that the videos were doctored by CNN, that no planes hit the WTC, that planes were vaporized somewhere else, that a nuclear bomb was used and so on? What about the terrorists, where they all brainwashed using the most advanced techniques, so that they do not remember that they actually did not participate in 9/11?

 

"We" are all individuals that each have our own opinions about this event.  So if it is your goal to group us all together into a collection of crazy "conspiracy theorists" that blindly believe in a groupthink notion of what happened that day then you will find that to not be the case here.  Speaking for myself, I really don't know what happened that day.  All I really know is that the 9/11 official story fairytale is certainly not the truth.  And concerning the bolded text from your comment, I can't decipher what you are trying to ask there.  Are you talking about the hijacker terrorists or some other group of bad guys that the government needs to garner public sentiment in order to wage their wars?

[shirgall]

This kind of problem happens all of the time.

 

There should be a distinction here similar to the distinctions given to the Bible. There is an official Bible, stories of apocryphal gospels that were not voted into the official Bible during Constantine's era (most likely because it did not serve political interests), and a bunch of things that are just simply unknown.

 

Similarly, there's the official account of 9/11, the material that was left out of the report because it offended at least one political interest on the congressional committee, and a bunch of stuff that was just not known or verifiable.

 

For a more recent example, look at the death of Robin Williams. There's the official account of his death. The coroner's report clearly states that no "illegal" drugs were found in his system. But we all suspect that there were some perfectly legal things in there that contributed to the situation.

 

Almost every significant event with political impact has this problem. Can we just agree to distrust what we cannot or did not experience and move on?

[pretzelogik]

How can we be certain that the video and photographic images that support the narrative are not simply digital creations, fabricated in advance and prestented as "live"?  If the images purporting to have captured the same event at the same time dramatically conflict with one another, which ones are "real"?  Would it be possible for six free lance photographers to coincidentally stand within arm's length of one another and click their shutters in the same 1/1000th of a second to capture high speed motion from exactly the same perspective?  And later have this same image credited to six different photographers in separate publications?

 

What is the chain of custody of the video and photographic evidence?  Does it's presence on a major network sanction its status as authentic, prima facie, with no further need for investigation?

 

Is it reasonable to assume that the media could not create and air "news" stories the same way any other network program is created and aired, empolying all the visual creation techniques of a Hollywood studio?

 

Is the purpose of the news to inform, sell advertising or manipulate public opinion?  What is the media's relationship to the military?

 

These questions should be digested and pondered before moving on to verifying or debunking the phisics of melting steel and the like.

[JeanPaul]

Did the American land on the moon? This may sound like a trick on my side but the incentive to stage it for the Americans at the time, during the cold war, was even higher than for 9/11.

[tritonx]

Building 7, seriously... this is some weird shit...

 

Just saying...

[JeanPaul]

Why would your conspirationist blow building 7?

[A4E]

Why would your conspirationist blow building 7?

If I continue on a bank robbery analogy, then building 7 would perhaps be equivalent of finding the getaway car on fire, and then not taking it into consideration, nor investigating it.

 

Or lets say that 6 hours after the bank robbery was made, a jewelry shop on the opposite side of the street lost all of its jewelry, and they say on tv that the bank robbers came back, still holding the moneybags from the bank, and grabbed all the jewelry with them, in broad daylight.

 

And then some crackpot nutjob starts asking questions why they were still holding the moneybags from the bank and also why they came back after just robbing a bank on the opposite side of the street with no apparent fear of police being there.

 

Your question "Why would your conspirationist blow building 7?" is a good question, but not really a proper question imo. Something more relevant would be -How did a large steel building with some office fires and superficial damage lose all of its support structure and fall down into itself and become dust, and why?

 

Sorry if im not able to answer your question. I just dont want to fall into a large trapdoor labeled 'Larry Silverstein'.

[NotDarkYet]

Vietnam.

 

We already have proof that the US government has killed millions of people.

 

911 is small beans compared to that.

[GregMerwe]

This is my almost 10 year investigation in to 911 and the conclusions. I hate to discuss 9/11 because it is so over discussed and such a cliche conspiracy theory and i hate that persona that cliche of a conspiracy theory nut. Unfortunately i think it is a vital to changing social economic and philosophical paradigm to know the truth about the world and to be able to convince other people of the truth yourself.


The short explanation is that 9/11 was three controlled demolitions and four missiles. With wtc 1 and 2 being new top down uncoventional building demolition and wtc 7 being a conventional building demolition. The no plane based on my research has a collaborative evidence and supports the witness testimonies as well as the impact holes are consistent with a missile impacts. With 1 and 2 most likely a tomahawk style missile while the pentagon was a russia missile or a missile from a helicopter. Shankesville/flight 93 was a missile blowing up a trailer from a small jet.


I will tell you what it took to convince me outside of my own research/investigations.


The who and the why. This documentary includes some information that i don't agree with however it is still a valuable addition to the list.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

Pilots for 9/11 truth

No planes theories:

 

Joseph Keith, the aurospace engineer who invented the boeing shaker system, a boeing test system. He made a 11 min audio piece explaining in plain english why no planes was used on 9/11. That was the final nail in the coffin for me on that theory.

 

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keith_081607_planes.mp3

 

September clues covers the media fakery on the day. This i think is what people struggle to accept the most. The roman imperial cult modern day manifestation. It was an Italian man named Simon Shack that 8 years ago spotted the fakery and decided to point out, check out all the videos on his channel.

Then we have another researcher, a video/audio expert, who in my opinion took simon shacks research to the next level and proved without a doubt that the videos of planes was completely fraudulent.

The same guy created a 3 hours long video that covers the 9/11 truth movement and the 911 story from demo to no plane.

This of course leaves most people with a lot of questions, that to be honest i have answered online many times in the past at length.

The other doc is the pentacon. That covers the pentagon incident specifically. This docs first version's witness testimony clearly pointed towards missile impact at the pentagon. The next version, the only one to be found on youtube is ambiguous about what it was. I don't know if you have ever heard about the list of deaths of 9/11 witnesses, another depressing story that must be told.

The truth is that the cover up of 9/11 was just as much a big operation as the day itself.

In my opinion the pentagon incident is the smoking gun of the 9/11 lie. We have 6 reported dead on the day and a clear exit hole incident a missile impact. The post impact buildings looks suspiciously like it was blown up post impact with cutter charges to further increase the appearance of damage. This can be observed by the symmetrical destruction that is synonymous with cutting charges. The evidence also supports the narrative of a "post impact collapse" at the pentagon. The final death figures at the pentagon 120 dead. Beyond extremely suspicious, audacious i would say. What happened there, especially when after the fact we found out coincidently that the same part of the building hit by a missile (plane lol) was actually recently renovated to improve missile impacts. I honestly do think it was some sort of hierarchical takeover that occurred on that day.

I did not cover all points in this post, i tried to summarise it to get the most information in to as little as possible.

 

To be honest I did cry when I realized all of this. I just sat their balling my eyes out at the state of the world.

[A4E]

Thanks for the post GregMerwe. Dont think I've seen the Psy Opera video. Seems to lay it all out nicely. Watching it now.

[jvincent]

Wow. This thread absolutely dropped my jaw. The ignorance of physical principles is simply staggering. It sounds like, in your quest to resist what you think are the sheeple instincts so common in your lesser opponents, you've wound up tricked way harder than they were ever in danger of being. Sometimes the obvious answer is that because it's true, folks.

 

Full disclosure: I'm a licensed, professional engineer in the aerospace industry and I hold BS degrees in mechanical engineering and theoretical mathematics.

 

1) Aluminum can absolutely cut steel.

• Under some conditions and therefore admittedly not often. Most alloys of aluminum are too soft to be useful for abrasive tooling, so while I agree that there's no reason to expect to find aluminum blades on anything that isn't silverware, that's not the same as the stunningly ignorant claim that it can't be done. It's literally 100% as ridiculous to claim that as it was for Rosie O'Donnell to say that never in human history had fire melted steel. Briefly, in this case the aluminum got to win by virtue of coming into the fight with the steel pillars with overwhelming kinetic energy. The velocity term in the kinetic energy equation is squared, and all that energy had to go somewhere. Again, briefly, it went into the steel pillars as a kind of load that they were not intended for, and they failed. That's what happens.

2) This isn't even really a point, but I'll address it anyway.

• You seem to be hung up now on the nature of the failures that you don't believe could have occurred at all, but setting that aside for a moment, an airplane is not a solid object. The space between the wing ribs is essentially hollow, so if one of these bubbles happened to hit a particular pillar, the pillar would slice cleanly through the spars and control surfaces, severing the wing at that point and leaving only deformation instead of of complete failure visible in the pillar. This did not happen often, as you can see in the photo, but it would be more odd if it didn't happen at all. The severed wing section, by the way, would continue into the building on its own. Newton's First Law. Also, the nature of metallic fracture mechanics do not provide for your "push in" theory. The pillars would laterally flex under the crash shear until they passed out of their elastic load strain, at which point they begin to deform and ultimately fail. At such a speed, this would happen beyond fast. The external pillars that were going to fail would have done so in thousandths of a second. Remember that fundamentally, metals are crystalline materials.

3) You can absolutely "simply fly into" buildings.

• Admittedly the airplane isn't going to survive the encounter, but that was the point. They flew the jets into the buildings in the hopes of causing them to collapse. You've got some pictures of airplane getting beat up by mild accidents and it's true that that happens. I have personally designed thousands of fixes for mild to severe service damage on a half dozen models. However, that does not even begin to prove that these jets couldn't also have damaged the building. Firstly because you can literally watch it happen on Youtube, but also, check out your bird up there. He's pretty dead. Newton's Third Law.

 

4) Not so punchy, really.

• Again, I'm not sure I understand your point here. The B-25 was a tiny bomber meant to carry a very small payload at a relatively low speed. Even if, while lost in the fog and unable to see where they were going the bomber pilots had it at its top speed for some reason, there's no evidence to suggest it carried enough energy to penetrate the building. Your argument seems to be that since a single B25 couldn't accidentally bring down the ESB, a pair of much larger and heavier jets at much higher speeds couldn't intentionally bring down the WTC. It's absurd on its face. These things are unrelated. As for your engine comments: modern turbofans contain much more empty space than the turboprops of old. They are hot and heavy, but would not neccessarily punch cleanly through the building like a bullet through a gummy bear. They are, after all, attached to the airplane. Finally, steel may not melt at 980C, but you do not need to melt steel to cause failures in structural members that currently under load. The fact is that the fire persisted long enough to overcome the design limitations of the fire resistant material sprayed on the members themselves. This caused them to soften enough that they would no longer be rated for the load conditions they were under, leading to sudden, catastophic, and cascading failures. Just like we all saw.

5) Crash speeds were not even difficult.

• Familiar with potential energy? Drop a rock off a building, and it's going pretty fast when it hits the ground. The same rules apply to planes. It may be that the plane is designed to fly straight and level at a certain speed for a given altitude, but diving and achieving an overspeed condition is not hard at all. Such a condition is outside design performance limitations and very unsafe, but not necessarily fatal. A plane diving overspeed into a building is in no way implausible; it wouldn't even be hard to do. Check out SilkAir 185.

6) You are beyond delusional...

• ...if you honestly believe that your wake vortex theory invalidates the videos, eyewitness accounts, and the accounts of those tasked with the cleanup and reconstruction. People now have terrible cancers and lung diseases from breathing the air in that place. Seriously, I could go over the math here, but I'm so disgusted that I'm just going to say this: get a goddamn life.

Or at least a basic background in math, science, and writing.

[A4E]

Full disclosure: I'm a licensed, professional engineer in the aerospace industry and I hold BS degrees in mechanical engineering and theoretical mathematics.

 

 ...This caused them to soften enough that they would no longer be rated for the load conditions they were under, leading to sudden, catastophic, and cascading failures. Just like we all saw.

 

Awesome! Finally someone who have the credentials and the opportunity to lay this to rest. I would really have loved it if everything that was proposed that day could have been explained with rationality, logic, evidence and math. Sadly I and many others have been unable to do so.

 

But now you are here!! And you say that it happened as it was presented. And I expect that you have considered foul play, but that you have figured it all out and it happened the way it was presented on TV. Great!  Really, thanks!! I really respect that you have the capacity to come to this conclusion.

 

I have many questions, but lets narrow them down for now, would you mind telling me and everyone else the absolute details and mechanics on how the 2 highrise steel buildings collapsed after the floors of the plane impact led to "sudden, catastrophic, and cascading failures." like you said. When those floors had "sudden, catastrophic, and cascading failures", what happened after that? How did the 2 towers collapse? Could you please tell us details on this? I expect you know the full details on the structure of the 2 towers and how they were built, and of what materials. I would really appreciate it if you could explain in detail how both of these huge structures collapsed. Please.

[mrhumpty]

This thread saddens me.

 

My Grandfather who was still alive at the time knew they would fall.  He was a structural engineer for most of his life.

 

I watched the second plane hit with my wife on the Today Show in my bedroom.  I'm certain they didn't manipulate everybody at NBC who had randomly switched to a live feed right beforehand.  I remember distinctly, My wife said "Is that plane"  Me "looks like it" *boom* it hit.

 

My friend from college was driving to the pentagon when the plane flew nearly overhead.  He helped pull people out of the rubble.

 

Seriously, the whole point of Anarcho Capitalism/Libertarianism etc. is that government isn't capable of pulling of complex things.  The coordination required to pull of what is detailed in this thread is not possible.  If you believe it is you better become a statist ASAP.

 

Sure, a bunch of contractors put in explosives.

 

The planes were hijacked and taken somewhere nobody knows about.

 

Aircraft Controllers were paid off.

 

10s of civilian videos were doctored and those owners and those in the videos were paid off.

 

The SEC/CIA/etc.etc. all acted in unison to doctor records, etc. etc. w/only a few people talking

 

Engineers from all over the globe back what happened.

 

Sure, that happened.

[A4E]

This thread saddens me...

 

I would like to make you aware that you made a perfect strawman. And also that you are (intentionally or not) trying to appeal to everyones emotions, and to specifically make people in my camp feel bad and immoral. It did not work on me, but I empathize with all the others who you might have hurt.

[pretzelogik]

I implore anyone with any curiosity about September eleventh to visit the below link and review the video content that was broadcast that day with fresh eyes:
 
https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911#/
 
Below is a frame grab from the NBC feed in the 9:00 -9:10 am segment (mentioned above), supposedly taken from a helicopter:

 

This shot is impossible.  For the foreground (the hardware and text on the helicopter equipment) to be in focus as it is, the WTC in the distance would have to be totally out of focus and vice versa.  This effect can ONLY be achieved by layering two video clips, one containing the foreground and one containing the background.

 

The 9/11 imagery presented on that day is full of such anomalies, including missing floors and windows of buildings, hand drawn imagery, impossible shadows, visible layer masking lines, etc., all of which can be verified at the above link.

 

The imagery that was broadcast as live (I believed it was at the time) was created in advance and provides the most complete and direct explanation for the physics in question.

[Romulox]

For those in the 9/11 truth camp: If you successfully convince someone that 9/11 was in fact an inside job, what conclusions do you hope for them to reach?  Am I correct in assuming that convincing someone that 9/11 is an inside job is not an end in itself but a means to an end; that is, to have them reach a conclusion regarding the morality of the state?

 

Putting it another way, at the end of a conversation about 9/11 truth, how do you hope the following sentence ends? "You make a very convincing argument, and I now believe 9/11 is an inside job; therefore..." 

[A4E]

For those in the 9/11 truth camp: If you successfully convince someone that 9/11 was in fact an inside job, what conclusions do you hope for them to reach?  Am I correct in assuming that convincing someone that 9/11 is an inside job is not an end in itself but a means to an end; that is, to have them reach a conclusion regarding the morality of the state?

 

In my opinion it is misleading to suggest that the government or the state was behind the false flag staged event. In my country, when I have talked about this, other people might even say something like "Do you really think that americans would do this to themselves.", which is even more misleading. No, most likely criminal and corrupt people in, and outside the government, played their part on that day.

 

Investigation into who the culprits were and prosecution of them should be done. However, it is not the truthers main goal to find the culprits, but to inform everyone else of how just about everything that was proposed, (the official conspiracy theory that was ready on the same day within an hour), cannot be explained with logic, rationality, evidence, or physics.

 

You say "If you successfully convince someone that 9/11 was in fact an inside job,". But it should first be applied the other way. It is a fact that most people were duped on that day, including me, but to my knowledge, noone has been successfully explained that 911 was in fact an outside job, we just accepted that it had happened without asking how.

 

What I mean is that I never saw a documentary on TV explaining to me how the terrorists were able to maneuver a plane in such high speeds and so precise, when only 1 out of 10 experienced pilots was able to recreate it in a simulator. Or in the same documentary absolute details on how entire scyscrapers turn into dust when some floors high up lose the ability to carry the load of the floors above. Maybe jvince will be nice enough to tell us everything about that. Or how the entire air defense failed to respond, (which is easy to explain when you know that there could not have been any planes.), or how some terrorists in each plane were able to hold x amount of passengers and pilots and cabin crew at bay, with box cutters. Were any of these things explained to you? Did everyone reach a rational, logical conclusion based on evidence, or is it safe to say that the official conspiracy theory became so prevalent because it was presented on TV everywhere, all day and for weeks afterwards, and everyone then collectively agreed on it?

 

 

 

Putting it another way, at the end of a conversation about 9/11 truth, how do you hope the following sentence ends? "You make a very convincing argument, and I now believe 9/11 is an inside job; therefore..."

 

...terrorism from cavemen is a far less threat to anything, and we should focus on the real terrorism from governments who are steered towards made up enemies by people like Dick Cheney, who start wars and kill millions of civilians in the process. I will check out what this Stefan guy has to say, since you tell me he does not want a government. And there are some forum members there, who say that just about everything is, or might be a hoax or staged. Now that I know that 911 was such an obvious staged event, I will look into those other official claims put out throughout history and other recent events so that I dont have to go through life being duped by all sorts of lies which will affect my ability to have a peacefull, productive, prosperous, open minded, and enlightened life. And in doing so, I will make an example for other people to take control of their own lives aswell, instead of letting propaganda push them around.