[Vote] Who did 911?

[Spendulus]

Every crime is an "inside job". There are people who have some access or authority that they use to do something.

The question with 911 is "who are the inside people, those who abused some access or authority?"

Was it the Muslim hijackers who abused their access to commercial flights?

Was it Zios / Neoscum who abused their access to buildings and perhaps even "access" to Muslim hijackers?

Was it U.S. Militards who abused their access to numerous things?

~~~

Or was it a bunch of scum sucking cancer fucks who had some influence on all of the above groups and carefully arranged for Afghanistan to resume production of a commodity that is largely controlled by the only people who have the ability to brainfuck each of the above groups into believing they are acting on some higher motive?

This is complete nonsense.

The thing to understand about 911 is not theories of how it might not have been Islamic terrorism that killed over 3,000 people, but how it was Islamic terrorism that killed over 3,000 people.

This helps one to understand the major threat to world peace today.

Long ago some very shrew people known as Jews infiltrated our United States government. Whether or not they were really Jews is a big question. But, they did it to control banking and rule the world. Today we have what is known as the Federal Reserve bank. It is destroying the world economy, even as it made the world economy great in past times.

What does this have to do with 9/11? The Jews are basically from the Middle East as far as original heritage goes. Even though their religion is not the wicked thing that Islam is, they can be extremely shrew when they need... or want. The Middle East Muslims have waked up to this shrewdness... which was always in them, but was not active like that of the Jews.

Now our government has been infiltrated not only by the Jews, but by the Muslims, as well. It's the only way Muslims could have pulled off 9/11. It was an inside job. If it was done by Muslims, it's because they have infiltrated our government, like sleeper agents, right under the noses of our Jewish masters, and have done the same kinds of things that our Jewish masters have been doing to us for ages.

In fact, both the Jews and the Muslims were happy about 9/11 for different reasons. People from both groups were seen rejoicing when the Towers came down.

Hey, another "It's the Evil Jews" theorist.

But, unfortunately, there is zero need for "infiltration of the government" for "pulling off 9/11."  There was zero necessity for "an inside job."

Without these premises, your theory collapses.

[1715198683]

1715198683

[1715198683]

1715198683

[1715198683]

1715198683

[no-ice-please]

Long ago some very shrew people known as Jews infiltrated our United States government. Whether or not they were really Jews is a big question. But, they did it to control banking and rule the world. Today we have what is known as the Federal Reserve bank. It is destroying the world economy, even as it made the world economy great in past times.

What does this have to do with 9/11? The Jews are basically from the Middle East as far as original heritage goes. Even though their religion is not the wicked thing that Islam is, they can be extremely shrew when they need... or want. The Middle East Muslims have waked up to this shrewdness... which was always in them, but was not active like that of the Jews.

Now our government has been infiltrated not only by the Jews, but by the Muslims, as well. It's the only way Muslims could have pulled off 9/11. It was an inside job. If it was done by Muslims, it's because they have infiltrated our government, like sleeper agents, right under the noses of our Jewish masters, and have done the same kinds of things that our Jewish masters have been doing to us for ages.

In fact, both the Jews and the Muslims were happy about 9/11 for different reasons. People from both groups were seen rejoicing when the Towers came down.

1) The evidence points to the involvement of Muslims, Zios, etc, not working in concert but each working with only part of the picture.

2) The Muslims involved had been in the U.S. for some time and several of them seem to have had their path smoothed by people in the U.S. government. Among other things some of them had received services and/or training at U.S. military facilities. The evidence seems to be that they were indeed "overenthusiastic" religiously, i.e. "radical", and had been lured into a situation where their patron was not who they thought. Maybe some Saudi told them "We have infiltrated the U.S. government so thoroughly that we can do xyz in America" and the Muslims involved believed they were really involved in a "strictly terror" plot.

3) The Zios involved clearly were one level above those Muslims. The Zios believed evidently that they were in control of the operation and were 'managing' the Muslims. The evidence though is that the Zios were being managed as well.

4) As for those in the U.S. government who seem to have been involved in the planning side, as opposed to merely complicit, they too seem to have been "managed".

5) It's an interesting psychological fact that the more motivated or enthusiastic a person is the more "manageable" they are. But a person who is completely without idealism, without motive etc is difficult to manage, except by force. The types of people who climb to the top of things like the heroin trade are much more qualified 'leaders' than those who climb to the top of more artificial, idealistic organizations, like modern militaries, ideological groups etc. In other words Muslim terrorists, Zios, U.S. uberpatriots etc are like children each screaming "I am king of the mountain", but there are others more clever who send these retarded children to do their practical dirty work.

[protokol]

I do find it interesting how prevalent "these inside job" theories are, yet we're at 34 pages and I haven't seen any logical theory that actually makes sense yet.

Here's a kind of thought experiment that I came up with, where you put yourself in the shoes of a person in charge of the hypothetical "inside job":

So, your mission is to orchestrate a false flag event, the aim of which is to increase the psychological fear of US (and world) citizens, to help get support for illegal wars and occupation of foreign countries, which will allow the US/The West to become richer and more powerful.

You have 3 factors to think about, which follow in what I consider to be order of importance. (I realize there are more factors involved, but these 3 are the really important ones IMO)

A: Chance of getting caught
B: Amount of psychological impact
C: Cost

So, the ideal false flag attack will score low on A and C, but highly on B.

What type of attack would you set up? Would it have any resemblance to 9/11?

Let's consider the classic hypothetical 9/11 false flag, with planes, explosive charges and a pentagon missile. Now, this event scores highly on B, but also scores incredibly highly on A and C.

If you score according to the 3 factors, then this type of complex attack makes no sense. By including explosive charges and missiles (posing as more planes), the orchestrator would be massively increasing the scores on A and C, without significantly increasing the score for B. It would make much more sense to simplify the plan, and just use planes.

I look forward to hearing your hypothetical false flag attacks!

Hello.  I started out asking for the same thing and debunked many varieties of such concepts.  We seem to be at a point now in this thread where various people consider there to have been "more behind it" than Muslim terrorists.  Instead, there are Muslim terrorists doing 9/11 and behind them is the US Government, and The Evil Jews.

While it is possible to debunk various concepts of "bringing the towers down" with physics and chemistry, assertions of additional entities "responsible" for the attacks falls into the general category of Irrefutable Hypotheses.

Yeah you're right, fact is most people who think this way seem to have turned the false flag theory into a belief system.

So, when a piece of evidence that they relied on is debunked, they revert to irrefutable speculation such as "US government is corrupt and benefitted from the event, therefore they must be responsible. You must be naive to think otherwise!"

Of course, this type of hypothesis is ridiculous without actual evidence. By the same logic, Hazmat suit manufacturers were obviously responsible for the Ebola outbreak! 

[Racey]

here its there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks   

What?  You dare bring actual facts into this discussion?

LOL...

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it 

[protokol]

...
So, your mission is to orchestrate a false flag event, the aim of which is to increase the psychological fear of US (and world) citizens, to help get support for illegal wars and occupation of foreign countries, which will allow the US/The West to become richer and more powerful.

...

You don't know what the motive for the attacks was yet.

A person could speculate that the motive was to increase the sale of aspirin in Mexico. In that case the 911 attacks were poorly constructed and a complete failure.

If this wasn't the motive, what do you think was? Most theories I've heard use this as a basic, logical motive for the attacks.

...

You have 3 factors to think about, which follow in what I consider to be order of importance. (I realize there are more factors involved, but these 3 are the really important ones IMO)

A: Chance of getting caught
B: Amount of psychological impact
C: Cost

A: Others getting caught.
B: In the United States "Psychological impact" is not a factor. It's like the "fluffy factor" with pillows. More fluffy? Less fluffy? Who cares. Hard to measure.
C: O.P.M. Other peoples' money. If the 911 organizers were having to buy their own explosives etc out of pocket it would have been a smaller affair.

It's nice to have an academic formula to solve this sort of thing but it must apply.

In any crime first the context. A multibillion dollar business that has always been the domain of militaries and intelligence agencies, more than any other industry, except weapons.

The day before 911 the Taliban had been on track to eliminate opium cultivation. Almost immediately after 911 cultivation started again. It soon surpassed even the record highs of the previous decade.


[/quote

You're missing the point. The idea of this thought experiment is to point out the illogical nature of most of the conspiracy theories. Specifically, many of them assume a overly complex and expensive plan, which doesn't make sense if you put yourself in the orchestrator's shoes.

I don't quite know what your A, B and C factors are about.

If the motive of the attacks was to increase fear (which is the general consensus of truthers), then psychological impact is important. Car bomb = low fear in population. Attack with planes exploding, buildings collapsing and 3000 deaths = higher fear in population.

Even if you believe that this has something to do with opium, the psychological impact still matters as it would increase public support for a war in the Middle East, and subsequent US occupation, allowing exploitation of the opium trade. Still, without any evidence, your line of reasoning seems to be flawed. A coincidence does not a theory make.

[protokol]

If this was an inside job like many believe, those that perpetrated the whole thing aren't likely going to ever be prosecuted until the afterlife.

Agree.  U.s. government job, so they could get away with civil rights violations in the name of national security.

There are many conspiracy theories out there that supports this argument. I also believe it was insiders job planned by us govt but executed by terrorists

Perhaps non-U.S. terrorists played a part, but they couldn't have done anything if the U.S. Air Force had not been temporarily deactivated from the inside. Thus it was more than simply executed by foreign terrorists. It was also executed by American terrorists in government and the military.

Yes this is a crucial part and fact of the evidence, Air force is to be the ready to anything, they have deployments of tactics thatt shoudl be kinda "instant".

But they were told not to interact, this all could have been stopped , there were even jets on air that were told to not get involved.

So why if you country had a chance and knew that and were the planes were why on earth would you pull back your defences that are specially trained for this situations.

if you can't smell the bullcrap that the goverment is given then people who are this blind is part of the terrorism and are terrorists  because they are capable of doing anything if they are told so to do.

Wrong.

There were no armed jets available and in the air.

The several jets that were in the air were not given instructions to ram the hijacked aircraft.

I personally think this was correct, given that the history of hijacked aircraft had never been to use them as missiles.

Yeah, this is a ridiculous line of reasoning. You can't just start shooting commercial airliners full of civilians out of the sky, especially if you're not sure exactly what's happening on board. Too much risk of political backlash - imagine the crazy theories that people would be spouting if the army had shot down the planes.

[popcorn1]

I do find it interesting how prevalent "these inside job" theories are, yet we're at 34 pages and I haven't seen any logical theory that actually makes sense yet.

Here's a kind of thought experiment that I came up with, where you put yourself in the shoes of a person in charge of the hypothetical "inside job":

So, your mission is to orchestrate a false flag event, the aim of which is to increase the psychological fear of US (and world) citizens, to help get support for illegal wars and occupation of foreign countries, which will allow the US/The West to become richer and more powerful.

You have 3 factors to think about, which follow in what I consider to be order of importance. (I realize there are more factors involved, but these 3 are the really important ones IMO)

A: Chance of getting caught
B: Amount of psychological impact
C: Cost

So, the ideal false flag attack will score low on A and C, but highly on B.

What type of attack would you set up? Would it have any resemblance to 9/11?

Let's consider the classic hypothetical 9/11 false flag, with planes, explosive charges and a pentagon missile. Now, this event scores highly on B, but also scores incredibly highly on A and C.

If you score according to the 3 factors, then this type of complex attack makes no sense. By including explosive charges and missiles (posing as more planes), the orchestrator would be massively increasing the scores on A and C, without significantly increasing the score for B. It would make much more sense to simplify the plan, and just use planes.

I look forward to hearing your hypothetical false flag attacks!

Hello.  I started out asking for the same thing and debunked many varieties of such concepts.  We seem to be at a point now in this thread where various people consider there to have been "more behind it" than Muslim terrorists.  Instead, there are Muslim terrorists doing 9/11 and behind them is the US Government, and The Evil Jews.

While it is possible to debunk various concepts of "bringing the towers down" with physics and chemistry, assertions of additional entities "responsible" for the attacks falls into the general category of Irrefutable Hypotheses.

Yeah you're right, fact is most people who think this way seem to have turned the false flag theory into a belief system.

So, when a piece of evidence that they relied on is debunked, they revert to irrefutable speculation such as "US government is corrupt and benefitted from the event, therefore they must be responsible. You must be naive to think otherwise!"

Of course, this type of hypothesis is ridiculous without actual evidence. By the same logic, Hazmat suit manufacturers were obviously responsible for the Ebola outbreak! 

lets put it 1 way your the IDIOT..
NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON.. end of story 100% NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON.
you are the stupid person..SHOW ME PROOF OF A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON..
Your so full of shit its unreal...say what ever you like about the towers building 7 oh and building 7 was blew up..but what ever you say DON.T INSULT ME BY SAYING A PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON..
making out people are stupid because we know 9/11 was an inside job..
YOU ARE THE BIGGEST DICK BRAIN NOB HEAD TOSS POT I KNOW OF..
go and lick bushes plums you wanker..
FUCKIN INSULT ME YOU PRICK..

NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON
www.youtube.com/watch?v=70s75fher0E

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKeObtr-H8k

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BktTBfUZYTg

NOW DEBUNK THAT TIT BRAIN
THE PLANE DOES NOT FIT THE HOLE AND THE BUILDING IS STILL STANDING..
ITS YOU THAT IS A DICKHEAD..
GOT MY BACK UP YOUR COMMENTS.. 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB SO FUCK YOU CUNT..
at least if your licking your governments ass hole ..don.t say nothing about 9/11 let it be..
BUT DON.T MAKE OUT WHAT I SEE IS ALL IN MY HEAD....TOSSSERRR

[popcorn1]

If this was an inside job like many believe, those that perpetrated the whole thing aren't likely going to ever be prosecuted until the afterlife.

Agree.  U.s. government job, so they could get away with civil rights violations in the name of national security.

There are many conspiracy theories out there that supports this argument. I also believe it was insiders job planned by us govt but executed by terrorists

Perhaps non-U.S. terrorists played a part, but they couldn't have done anything if the U.S. Air Force had not been temporarily deactivated from the inside. Thus it was more than simply executed by foreign terrorists. It was also executed by American terrorists in government and the military.

Yes this is a crucial part and fact of the evidence, Air force is to be the ready to anything, they have deployments of tactics thatt shoudl be kinda "instant".

But they were told not to interact, this all could have been stopped , there were even jets on air that were told to not get involved.

So why if you country had a chance and knew that and were the planes were why on earth would you pull back your defences that are specially trained for this situations.

if you can't smell the bullcrap that the goverment is given then people who are this blind is part of the terrorism and are terrorists  because they are capable of doing anything if they are told so to do.

Wrong.

There were no armed jets available and in the air.

The several jets that were in the air were not given instructions to ram the hijacked aircraft.

I personally think this was correct, given that the history of hijacked aircraft had never been to use them as missiles.

Yeah, this is a ridiculous line of reasoning. You can't just start shooting commercial airliners full of civilians out of the sky, especially if you're not sure exactly what's happening on board. Too much risk of political backlash - imagine the crazy theories that people would be spouting if the army had shot down the planes.

blah blah blah  

so what is dick cheny saying they did what..here is your proof plant pot ..oh now they admit it  

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q

fuckin insult me cheeky twat prick cunt
so what you say is bullshit ..oh i suppose cheny is lying now

[Racey]

If a plane did hit the Pentagon it must have been the smallest plane ever built.
Its otherwise known as a missile

[no-ice-please]

...So, when a piece of evidence that they relied on is debunked, they revert to irrefutable speculation such as "US government is corrupt and benefitted from the event, therefore they must be responsible. You must be naive to think otherwise!"...

The "debunking" has entirely depended on an "appeal to authority" fallacy. "I am an expert and I say xyz".

The "conspiracy" side has offered the same.

The problem here is that so many "mainstream" experts are on the "conspiracy" side.

Creating straw men to target, as you do with "they revert to irrefutable speculation..." only makes a person wonder why you are using deficient logic. Have there really been a lot of people whose 911 position is based on "US government is corrupt and benefitted from the event, therefore they must be responsible. You must be naive to think otherwise!"? Honestly? Are there really a lot of people using that argument, or are you trying to blow smoke?

There are lots of concrete pieces of evidence that each of the mentioned groups had something to do with 911. But instead of answering those questions you make the above absurd comment and answer it instead.

Were Muslims involved?
Many pieces of evidence say so, including the people observed boarding the planes as a loose group were identified.

Were Zios involved?
Many pieces of evidence say so, including some young people who said on a talk show that they had been sent to monitor the explosions.

Were U.S. government types involved?
Many pieces of evidence say so, including that in a very high security post crash scene numerous pieces of paper appeared on the ground that would have been in the hijackers pockets, suggesting not only that someone dropped them but that others deliberately ignored the absurdity of paper surviving almost undamaged while the body the paper was on did not.

No one has said that any particular theory is proven, and especially no one has offered as proof the simple fact of irrefutability, as you imply. But the "official story" has been refuted to the satisfaction of almost anyone who studies the evidence.

So at this point we have the following
1) The official story is not supported by evidence. You may support it, but the evidence does not.
2) There are numerous alternate theories, depending on the background of the person theorizing. The most popular are "The U.S. government did it" or "The Zios did it".
3) Again, there is plenty of evidence pointing at Zios and U.S. govt types. Too much evidence, as mentioned before.

...
So, your mission is to orchestrate a false flag event, the aim of which is to increase the psychological fear of US (and world) citizens, to help get support for illegal wars and occupation of foreign countries, which will allow the US/The West to become richer and more powerful.

...

You don't know what the motive for the attacks was yet.

A person could speculate that the motive was to increase the sale of aspirin in Mexico. In that case the 911 attacks were poorly constructed and a complete failure.

If this wasn't the motive, what do you think was? Most theories I've heard use this as a basic, logical motive for the attacks.

As I've said previously, the evidence points to a hierarchy of motives.

At the top you have a group of individuals who have in common the heroin trade, a multi billion dollar business that comes with other benefits. These individuals are in governments and out. They belong to many nationalities, religions etc, but the top leaders are not nationalistic nor religious except in a strictly clannish way. It has always been like that in those industries.

One level lower you have people "using" the heroin trade for other motives. These are the leaders of the Muslim hijackers, the Zios, the second tier of "government types" involved etc. These people see the industry, i.e., heroin, as a tool to further some ideology which they frame as defensive.

One level lower than that, the true ideologues. The Muslim who wants to destroy the great satan. The Zio who wants to act on the best national motives. The U.S. govt stooge who understands that Jesus has some secret plan that justifies killing innocent people etc.

Yeah, this is a ridiculous line of reasoning. You can't just start shooting commercial airliners full of civilians out of the sky, especially if you're not sure exactly what's happening on board. Too much risk of political backlash - imagine the crazy theories that people would be spouting if the army had shot down the planes.

You are refering to the aircraft that went down in Pennsylvania. Everything about the downing is consistent with it having been hit by an air to air missile, and not consistent with a normal accidental crash.

Of course a pilot is not told on a daily basis t shoot down civilian planes. They aren't told "Whenever you see a suspicious airplane just shoot at it".

But on 9/11 there was obviously a group of hijacked planes crashing into major targets and your comment seems to be deliberately ignoring that context.

[Spendulus]

here its there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks   

What?  You dare bring actual facts into this discussion?

LOL...

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it 

Congradulations, this is much better looking than other links that have been provided.

It's the same basic arguments, though.  The "Evil Jews".  Notably lots of facts and references completely missing.   Presents "Innuendo" as "Evidence."

Seems to purport that Evil Jews planted explosives, too.  So as far as the physical aspects of the theory this is pretty much bunko - assuming the planes were a cover for the explosives going off.

Well, does working the Web trying to spread the Evil Jews Theories pay well?

Just curious.

[protokol]

When you put everything together that happened that day, there is no way that 9/11 could NOT be an inside job, at least in part. Probability is entirely against it.

In addition, some of the pure science of some of the things that happened may be entirely accurate. But when you add the way that the things happened, pure science doesn't apply.

NO.

Science and math apply where ever they apply without qualifications.

You may not LIKE the fact that stastistics rules the behavior of a slot machine.  You may think it's a valient adventure, man against slot machine, and if you pick the right one - if you carefully watch it and size it up - your intuition will will.

It will not.  The machine operates on very simply principles and all the crap in your head does not change it one bit.

Perhaps you've simply been fooled by randomness?

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I agree. Science and math apply wherever. But take this example to see what I mean.

There are a bunch of circumstances that you can apply science and math to. They are represented by the following smileys.
 

Each circumstance has some science and math that can be applied to it to show what the circumstance is all about. However, when science and math are applied to one or more of the circumstances acting in concert, the result of the science and math may change the outcome from what it would be if you applied it to each circumstance individually. But...

Even if the science and math produced the exact same outcome or result in concert as would have happened individually, the understanding of what happened changes with observation of the many simultaneously, as opposed to observation of each individually without the others taken into consideration.

When you combine all the circumstances of 9/11, simple science and math of the individual parts does not give you the same observation as received when you observe each circumstance alone. The combination shows an inside job, whereas any one of them alone might show pure happenstance.

The things that happened on 9/11 did not happen alone, all isolated from each other. They happened in connection with each other in ways that would be impossible to happen without 9/11 being an inside job.

You're being confused by statistics. Don't worry, we humans find certain statistical outcomes hard to imagine - just look at The Birthday Problem.

It doesn't make sense to assume an event is very unlikely if you use certain statistics after the event occurred, especially if you are incorporating an initial unproven hypothesis. In your case, I think you're cherry-picking what seem like unlikely events (such as the falling WTC7, and the way the main buildings fell) to fit with your preconceived hypothesis of an inside job.

These events are only "accumulatively important" if there is some underlying concrete link - you can't use them as evidence for an initial hypothesis based on the hypothesis itself. If there was some underlying concrete evidence for the initial hypothesis, then this type of circumstantial evidence could be valid and could even strengthen the case.

As it stands, the various statistics are not linked, so the the final combination does not point to significantly more likelihood of an inside job.

Here's an analogy about how events can seem more unlikely when we misinterpret the stats:

A guy accidentally falls off a cliff. 10,000 people die worldwide in this way (arbitrary figure). Shit happens.

But then someone says "But he was wearing blue socks and sandals! Only 1 other person has ever fallen off a cliff wearing these." And someone else says "That's really unlikely, Maybe he was pushed. He went to this nearby shop the same day which sells blue socks and sandals, bet they've got something to do with this MURDER!"

Do you see the parallel? The first guy took an irrelevant statistic to make the event look more unlikely than it was, and the second guy took this unlikelihood to question the "official story" of accidental death, and to link the event spuriously to another party.

[Spendulus]

When you put everything together that happened that day, there is no way that 9/11 could NOT be an inside job, at least in part. Probability is entirely against it.

In addition, some of the pure science of some of the things that happened may be entirely accurate. But when you add the way that the things happened, pure science doesn't apply.

NO.

Science and math apply where ever they apply without qualifications.

You may not LIKE the fact that stastistics rules the behavior of a slot machine.  You may think it's a valient adventure, man against slot machine, and if you pick the right one - if you carefully watch it and size it up - your intuition will will.

It will not.  The machine operates on very simply principles and all the crap in your head does not change it one bit.

Perhaps you've simply been fooled by randomness?

http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/

I agree. Science and math apply wherever. But take this example to see what I mean.

There are a bunch of circumstances that you can apply science and math to. They are represented by the following smileys.
 

Each circumstance has some science and math that can be applied to it to show what the circumstance is all about. However, when science and math are applied to one or more of the circumstances acting in concert, the result of the science and math may change the outcome from what it would be if you applied it to each circumstance individually. But...

Even if the science and math produced the exact same outcome or result in concert as would have happened individually, the understanding of what happened changes with observation of the many simultaneously, as opposed to observation of each individually without the others taken into consideration.

When you combine all the circumstances of 9/11, simple science and math of the individual parts does not give you the same observation as received when you observe each circumstance alone. The combination shows an inside job, whereas any one of them alone might show pure happenstance.

The things that happened on 9/11 did not happen alone, all isolated from each other. They happened in connection with each other in ways that would be impossible to happen without 9/11 being an inside job.

You're being confused by statistics. Don't worry, we humans find certain statistical outcomes hard to imagine - just look at The Birthday Problem.

It doesn't make sense to assume an event is very unlikely if you use certain statistics after the event occurred, especially if you are incorporating an initial unproven hypothesis. In your case, I think you're cherry-picking what seem like unlikely events (such as the falling WTC7, and the way the main buildings fell) to fit with your preconceived hypothesis of an inside job.

These events are only "accumulatively important" if there is some underlying concrete link - you can't use them as evidence for an initial hypothesis based on the hypothesis itself. If there was some underlying concrete evidence for the initial hypothesis, then this type of circumstantial evidence could be valid and could even strengthen the case.

As it stands, the various statistics are not linked, so the the final combination does not point to significantly more likelihood of an inside job.

Here's an analogy about how events can seem more unlikely when we misinterpret the stats:

A guy accidentally falls off a cliff. 10,000 people die worldwide in this way (arbitrary figure). Shit happens.

But then someone says "But he was wearing blue socks and sandals! Only 1 other person has ever fallen off a cliff wearing these." And someone else says "That's really unlikely, Maybe he was pushed. He went to this nearby shop the same day which sells blue socks and sandals, bet they've got something to do with this MURDER!"

Do you see the parallel? The first guy took an irrelevant statistic to make the event look more unlikely than it was, and the second guy took this unlikelihood to question the "official story" of accidental death, and to link the event spuriously to another party.

That's all partly true HOWEVER - If I refute the statement "It's highly unlikely that being struck by a jet loaded with fuel would cause a skyscraper to fall" and show that in fact it's entirely likely it would, that is falsified and doesn't even add to the likely or unlikely accumulation of odd statistical events.

I would argue that the alleged accumulation of odd statistical events is actually not even odd and does not accumulate much at all.

EG, some people start a war.  On the first day of the offensive "odd things happen."

Really?  What the hell would one expect?

[BADecker]

01/01/0000
Nothing happened.

01/02/0000
Nothing happened.

01/03/0000
Nothing happened.

01/04/0000
Nothing happened.

↓↓↓ - Nothing happened.

09/07/2001
Nothing happened.

09/08/2001
Nothing happened.

09/09/2001
Nothing happened.

09/10/2001
Nothing happened.


09/11/2001

An airplane crashes into North Tower and brings it down even though it is designed to withstand a plane crash.

An airplane crashes into South Tower and brings it down even though it is designed to withstand a plane crash.

Building 7 collapses for no reason.

An airplane crashes into the ground, but the crash hole is way too small, debris is scattered over several miles, there is no debris that resembles an airplane.

An airplane crashes into into the Pentagon, but leaves little debris, and no engine holes in the place where it crashed.

There are all kinds of cellphone calls from the airplanes when there couldn't have been because the phones were out of range of the cell towers.

In addition, there are tons of oddities about the whole day regarding the plane crashes and the building collapses. Google "Americans for 911 truth." Visit http://www.ae911truth.org/ and http://www.911truth.org/the-top-40-reasons-to-doubt-the-offical-story/ and many more in the Google search.


09/12/2001
Nothing happened.

09/13/2001
Nothing happened.

09/14/2001
Nothing happened.

09/15/2001
Nothing happened.

↓↓↓ - Nothing happened.

The present.
Nothing happened.


Yup! That 9/11 day was just an ordinary day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqiDd2KA1U

[Spendulus]

01/01/0000
Nothing happened.

01/02/0000
Nothing happened.

01/03/0000
Nothing happened.

01/04/0000
Nothing happened.

↓↓↓ - Nothing happened.

09/07/2001
Nothing happened.

09/08/2001
Nothing happened.

09/09/2001
Nothing happened.

09/10/2001
Nothing happened.


09/11/2001

An airplane crashes into North Tower and brings it down even though it is designed to withstand a plane crash.

An airplane crashes into South Tower and brings it down even though it is designed to withstand a plane crash.

Building 7 collapses for no reason.

An airplane crashes into the ground, but the crash hole is way too small, debris is scattered over several miles, there is no debris that resembles an airplane.

An airplane crashes into into the Pentagon, but leaves little debris, and no engine holes in the place where it crashed.

There are all kinds of cellphone calls from the airplanes when there couldn't have been because the phones were out of range of the cell towers.

In addition, there are tons of oddities about the whole day regarding the plane crashes and the building collapses. Google "Americans for 911 truth." Visit http://www.ae911truth.org/ and http://www.911truth.org/the-top-40-reasons-to-doubt-the-offical-story/ and many more in the Google search.


09/12/2001
Nothing happened.

09/13/2001
Nothing happened.

09/14/2001
Nothing happened.

09/15/2001
Nothing happened.

↓↓↓ - Nothing happened.

The present.
Nothing happened.


Yup! That 9/11 day was just an ordinary day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drqiDd2KA1U

Actually your rendition here is remarkably similar to Nassab Taleb's introductory story in "Black Swan," about the turkeys.

Read a summary of it here.

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/talebs-thanksgiving-turkey.html

You see, the facts you have presented imply the exact opposite of what you think they do.

[popcorn1]

flight 93

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q

so now explain the phone calls on the hijacked plane made to loved ones..
remember the passengers on the plain tackled the hijackers and brought it down..
but now Dick Chaney saying he give the order to shoot it down..
so what is the story..
 
a cliff and blue socks and sandals  
No your a plant pot with gozzy eyes because you don.t see what i see..
Hmmm unless i don.t see what i see and i am not even here and i am imagining my whole life..
So i could be in the MATRIX..

[popcorn1]

this is USA AND UK  
WATCH
www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPM6tWQYhYQ

www.youtube.com/watch?v=utRKKOUHA4A ...YES WE KNOW IT DOES
 
was you in the pentagon when a suppose plane hit..well this women worked there FACT..WHY WOULD SHE LIE MORE TO LOOSE THAN GAIN BY LYING...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIy9hjB3DGk

NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON

[Spendulus]

flight 93

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q

so now explain the phone calls on the hijacked plane made to loved ones..
remember the passengers on the plain tackled the hijackers and brought it down..
but now Dick Chaney saying he give the order to shoot it down..

So?  It didn't get shot down.

What difference does it make what order he gave?

Two situations.

1.  "Fire at my command."
2.  "Fire at will."

#1 is almost always the way things work, look at how engagement in Afganishtan was handled.

So he set a standing order, more like #2.  But your video leaps then to the conclusion that "giving the order" implies "they shot it down on his order."  That makes NO SENSE.

[no-ice-please]

flight 93

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q

...
but now Dick Chaney saying he give the order to shoot it down..

...

What difference does it make what order he gave?

...

There is no problem with Cheney taking responsibility for shooting down that jet. It is part of his job to take the flak for stuff like that.

There is a problem with nameless faceless bureaucrats saying "Let's pretend the jet did not get shot down. Let's pretend it crashed on its own".

As much as Cheney may not be an appropriate person for his job at the time, his logic is fine. Three jets had hit heavy populations. The quick response is to shoot the fourth jet.

Would someone argue that it should not have been shot down? That would be the intelligent discussion, not "whether" it was shot down.

[popcorn1]

flight 93

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q

so now explain the phone calls on the hijacked plane made to loved ones..
remember the passengers on the plain tackled the hijackers and brought it down..
but now Dick Chaney saying he give the order to shoot it down..

So?  It didn't get shot down.

What difference does it make what order he gave?

Two situations.

1.  "Fire at my command."
2.  "Fire at will."

#1 is almost always the way things work, look at how engagement in Afganishtan was handled.

So he set a standing order, more like #2.  But your video leaps then to the conclusion that "giving the order" implies "they shot it down on his order."  That makes NO SENSE.

He says he gave the order to shoot down a plane that was heading for Washington..
You work for something to do with government..spendy i know you do

plus explain the worker in the pentagon she said no plane hit the building..now she was there..
so now explain..
Dick chaney give the order to shoot a passenger plane that was heading to washington..
now ok lets say it was nothing to do with 9/11 ..
someone posted that imagine the government saying they shoot a passenger plane down there be hell fire..it be all over the news..
well he did say it and no its not a fake video..
try prove me wrong on the pentagon you just will not do it..


So?  It didn't get shot down.

What difference does it make what order he gave?

Two situations.

1.  "Fire at my command."
2.  "Fire at will."

and he said none of the above he said he gave the order to shoot the plane down..
after 3 had already gone into buildings..
So spendy go in the bathroom and give your ears a good clean because your not hearing the video properly..
its all done for money and power.. to lower the population of what ever people they don.t like..
keep the people in check..and to have slaves..yes this is all done by the super rich END OF STORY..

so what we need to do is invent something everyone wants and then you can join them..
you can order everyone around whiles wearing your smoking jacket.. ok yar
 
oh i forgot to say make sure it does not upset one of the super rich businesses or your a dead duck
as bush says money trumps peace