9/11 was an inside job
Last week, I rode next to this college guy, and I noticed before sitting down that he was wearing a t-shirt that said something about 9/11. Usually I ignore the silly things people have stated on their shirts, but on a whim I asked him about it. He showed me that it actually said “9/11 was an inside job” and that there’s a lot of evidence pointing to U.S. government complicity in those attacks.
At that point, I didn’t really feel like talking much more about it, but I decided to let my curiousity get the best of me, since I’d heard a little bit about these “theories” recently. He basically said that the twin towers blew up in mid-air and fell at near free fall speed. He said it becomes obvious that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition when you consider the pulverized dust, giant steel beams ejecting outwards, and molten metal found weeks after. Since that conversation, I’ve done some looking into it, and I’ve definitely begun to question…
May 25th, 2007 at 10:31 am
This college guy sounds a lot like one of my friends, whenever we get together we give him a limited amount of time in the beginning (10 or 15 minutes) to talk about his theories and after that the subject is closed so we can actually enjoy ourselves
May 25th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Popular Science did a rather thorough deconstruction (no pun intended) a year or two ago of the 9/11 WTC myths. A lot of the conspiracy theorists don’t understand basic physics or modern skyscraper construction.
May 26th, 2007 at 12:23 am
I’m certainly not an aviation expert by any means. Common sense says to me: plane full of jet fuel, and the pictures of the inpact and explosion, and subsequent collaspses of the WTC says it all. Theories or not, case solved or not, 3,000 souls died in a flash of the pan. No matter who seems to think who is or is not involved in a conspiracy.
May 26th, 2007 at 1:30 am
Good, Tom! A kerosene fire cannot pulverise a building to dust and molten steel. It CANNOT! Look into it and you will soon be convinced that these three buildings came down with explosives, and were deliberately demolished. That much is incontrovertible. Then look into it some more and you will see that all the evidence, EVERYTHING, ALL OF IT, points to Bush and cronies. And that’s what more and more people are saying, that Bush and cronies, i.e., your president and administration, are complicit in the murder of 3000 of their own people. And little Johnny Howard, the prime minister of Australia, supports them and is friends with them. A charming lot!
Robert_Hoogenboom@leftfoot.com.au
Sydney, Australia
May 26th, 2007 at 5:12 am
Geeez, you really are a sheep, aren’t you Robert?
May 26th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Cheap! Refute any of it scientifically. You with your bob-tailed reason are being used by Rove and the rest of them, my friend. They rely on the likes of you to create the confusion they need to get away with murder. And that includes about 3500 thousand Americans in Iraq and about a million Iraqis. I repeat, refute any of it scientifically and logically. That Popular Mechanics article that all of you all refer to all the time was written by a Bush crony. A kerosene fire CANNOT pulverise a concrete and steel building. And TWO kerosene fires cannot POSSIBLY pulverise THREE buildings.
Robert_Hoogenboom@leftoot.com.au
Sydney, Austrralia
May 26th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
What Happened To You ON THE BUS? Can’t this forum be taken up somewhwere else?
May 26th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
While you’re here, what does “Common sense says to me: plane full of jet fuel, and the pictures of the inpact and explosion, and subsequent collaspses of the WTC says it all” mean? There was an hour or so between impact and collapse, in which many, many people heard, felt and were injured by explosions; and recorded them and broadcast them all over the world.
I didn’t start the abuse, “Matt” did. I wrote my comment on Tom’s tale to encourage him and to tell him that if he says “Since that conversation, I’ve done some looking into it, and I’ve definitely begun to question…”, he is right.
Robert_Hoogenboom@leftfoot.com.au
Sydney, Australia
May 26th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Pure Crap.
Most 9/11 conspiracy websites do something called ‘Google bombing” to push the links to their sites higher up on any search list.
Lazy butt students no longer write anything, they clip and paste from any kind of web sites that lead as a result of a Google search.
As a result they only read crap and spew it in return.
Take that dad! Take that mom! Power to the people!
May 27th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Snopes.com, debunker of urban legends. I suggst you read it Robert.
Most of the “science” that you care to mention comes from people who either have the scientific acolades of a five year old or have a personal vendetta against Bush and company.
Consider your source. Who’s the real tool? Does it follow that just because someone isn’t motivated by blind hate and emotion (hardly “scientific”) to get Bush, that he can’t be taken seriously?
May 27th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I said debate the science. Neither of you are doing that. And do the experiment. Go to any derelict building in your neighbourhood and light a kerosene fire two-thirds of the way up and see if the building will pulverise. See if after an hour of burning up high it will suddenly pulverise to dust.
Once again, debate the science. Those were controlled demolitions. Prove me wrong on any technological or scienctific point. Go on. Not by telling me that someone. somewhere proved some fantasy or other, and not by your usual and cheap personal abuse. For example, the collapse of those three buildings was in free fall, which can’t happen without explosives.
The Internet is now full of blow-by-blow expositions, by experts in every field, of how those were controlled demolitions using the most sophisticated means. And then there are all the other points being made. Just google “9/11″, those of you who are hearing this for the first time.
Then we have the question of who did it. Let’s talk about motive, means and opportunity, like they do in a a court of law.
Robert_Hoogenboom (@leftfoot.com.au)
Sydney, Australia
May 28th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
The “science” can be just as easily manipulated as the opinions of those who claim to be steeped in it. That’s the reason I do not discuss it.
Now, a fire burning won’t pulverize concrete, but the downward force of the falling buildings certainly could.
If this was a controlled demolition, wouldn’t the demolition have been done from the ground floor? The amount of explosives that would have been needed to take down buildings of those sizes would have taken weeks to place. It is doubtful that something so massive could have been done so covertly in a busy office building that was used daily.
If the demolition was done from the upper floors, how is it that the explosives could have survived the fire? If I remember correctly, not even the “black boxes” from the airliners survived it. Furthermore, The hijackers flying the places did a bang up job of aiming those planes right where said explosives would have been, given their relative degree of inexperience.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Hi, everybody. This is Tom, the originator of this post. It’s great to see that there is an interest in what I wrote. After posting it, I started thinking that it wasn’t much of a “tale” per se. After all it didn’t include an old, drunken homeless man fondling my leg. The reason I thought it was worthy of a post was not due to its “tale-ability”, since it was just a simple conversation, but because of how that experience has affected me. That simple talk with a stranger has pulled my life in a completely different direction.
I read through all of your comments, and I’d like to make a few quick ones of my own. I’d like to focus on Matt’s most recent thoughts. I thought it was odd how he said that the “amount of explosives that would have been needed to take down buildings of those sizes would have taken weeks to place,” and yet Matt thinks that jet feul can collapse steel reinforced buildings to their footprints in seconds. In his view, there would be no need for explosives or very few since 100% steel buildings are so fragile. Also, downward pressure to me would have difficulty throwing huge beams straight out from the buildings. I also wanted to say how incredible such ignorant hijackers could’ve even come close to the buildings, much less hit them, flying manually as they did. Flying a commercial jet with virtually no real experience is not like playing a flying game on PlayStation 3. I wonder if the planes were actually controlled from the ground like the Global Hawk guidance system developed by DARPA.
I appreciate all of your ideas. Take care.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:06 am
EVERYTHING about the official story is full of holes. Most of those 19 so-called hijackers are alive and well and living in various Middle Eastern and North African countries. How many passengers were there in those planes during those morning flights? 200? So, 4 or 5 hijackers armed with box cutters keep 5 crew and 200 people at bay for an hour while they leisurely, as Tom points out, precision-fly those planes into the Twin Towers (something plenty of VETERAN pilots say they would find difficult to do)? And then there is the case of Building 7, which the British Broadcasting Service at 5 pm that afternoon announced to the world, during a live cross-over to the WTC site, HAD just collapsed while the building was STILL STANDING BEHIND THE REPORTER in full view of the world! Someone must have realised their complete blunder releasing that press release to early, because they pulled the plug on the satellite connection at about 5:15. Otherwise the world would have witnessed the collapse of Building 7 after the announcer had announced THAT IT HAD COLLAPSED ALREADY! Why is it so hard for Bush apologists to believe that your government are complicit in the murder of three thousand people that day? All sorts of experts all over the world say or imply that they are, and the only thing you deniers can do is point to ONE article, written by a Bush crony, which catapulted a little rag from obscurity into the limelight of notoriety, thereby no doubt unbelievable increasing sales.
What would convince you, Matt? A lot of people research the events angry about what is being said and determined to disprove those who say your government did it. And a lot of those reluctantly become convinced that it could not have been otherwise. Black boxes are built to withstand those very events. They were made to disappear, or they are still in some crony’s office somewhere.
Robert_Hoogenboom (@leftfoot.com.au)
Sydney, Australia
May 29th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I’m closing the comments on this one…as Melody points out, it’s getting a little bit off topic.