[Vote] Who did 911?

[btccashacc]

I don't know but would like to know.   
who is 911 ?

[BADecker]

It was an inside job - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnvXnDxiuFY.

[Sapholard]

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

[Spendulus]

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

What?  You dare bring actual facts into this discussion?

LOL...

[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!

[Spendulus]

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.

[no-ice-please]

...
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.

...

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.

[Spendulus]

...
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.

...

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.

For whoever may be interested, here is the wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

I don't see any cause and effect relationship.  Certainly, effects on opium are a SIDE EFFECT of the US war in Afganistan.

But to imply CAUSATION, you'd have to argue that Taliban leaders were not going to deal with the US demands they turn over Bin Laden.  That they were going to protect him, at the cost of the US invasion.

[no-ice-please]

For whoever may be interested, here is the wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

I don't see any cause and effect relationship.  Certainly, effects on opium are a SIDE EFFECT of the US war in Afganistan.

But to imply CAUSATION, you'd have to argue that Taliban leaders were not going to deal with the US demands they turn over Bin Laden.  That they were going to protect him, at the cost of the US invasion.

There is no way to show causation without identifying the characters involved but implying or "showing a likelihood of" causation depends on many factors which, in their entirety, do seem to suggest causation. Your specific example of one of the many is, as usual, horseshit though.

The Taliban are local hill people. They did not know where the U.S. was nor did they care. One day they hear the news that a 'guest' of theirs may have been involved in a crime in that faraway place "the United States". Their response was "Show us some evidence and if it is reasonable evidence we will deliver him". America's response to that offer was the invasion. In other words the invasion was going to happen no matter what the Taliban did.

You have to ask why there was such a priority to invade Afghanistan. Research the Taliban a bit. They are utterly harmless to other countries, including the U.S., even if they are a bit simple and untechnological. Do they kill adulterers? Sure. Don't commit adultery there, or don't get caught. Do they have the slightest interest in bombing any other country? They do not.

[btccashacc]

Who did 911 ?
I don't care. Where is my crack pipe?   

[Spendulus]

For whoever may be interested, here is the wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

I don't see any cause and effect relationship.  Certainly, effects on opium are a SIDE EFFECT of the US war in Afganistan.

But to imply CAUSATION, you'd have to argue that Taliban leaders were not going to deal with the US demands they turn over Bin Laden.  That they were going to protect him, at the cost of the US invasion.

There is no way to show causation without identifying the characters involved but implying or "showing a likelihood of" causation depends on many factors which, in their entirety, do seem to suggest causation. Your specific example of one of the many is, as usual, horseshit though.

The Taliban are local hill people. They did not know where the U.S. was nor did they care. One day they hear the news that a 'guest' of theirs may have been involved in a crime in that faraway place "the United States". Their response was "Show us some evidence and if it is reasonable evidence we will deliver him". America's response to that offer was the invasion. In other words the invasion was going to happen no matter what the Taliban did.

You have to ask why there was such a priority to invade Afghanistan. Research the Taliban a bit. They are utterly harmless to other countries, including the U.S., even if they are a bit simple and untechnological. Do they kill adulterers? Sure. Don't commit adultery there, or don't get caught. Do they have the slightest interest in bombing any other country? They do not.

Okay, so you have now justified the actions of the Taliban in protecting their "Friend" which led to the invasion. 

Now you have no grounds for a conspiracy.

[BADecker]

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.

[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/

[BADecker]

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.

[no-ice-please]

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?

[BADecker]

~~~

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?

I can guess who you are referring to here.

Just remember, like there are many good peace officers throughout America among the bad cops, not all the people who go by the name you are referring to here, are bad people.

[CPNpr]

Another meaningless thread... All applies. You just forget the Aliens, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump since all are suspicious. 

[no-ice-please]

~~~

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?

I can guess who you are referring to here.

Just remember, like there are many good peace officers throughout America among the bad cops, not all the people who go by the name you are referring to here, are bad people.

I am referring to those people at the top of the heroin trade pyramid who decided to salvage an industry that the Taliban had eliminated.

If you are saying there are good and bad people in the heroin business, I agree.

Those who evidently salvaged their interests at the expense of Muslims, Zios and obedient Americans are not "good" heroin dealers though.

As a person who is both American and Jewish I am on the periphery of two of the groups who seem to have been maneuvered into taking the fall for 911.

It is unfortunate that there are still Americans willing to blindly defend the patriotic obedient types who allow this kind of thing, and there are still Jews and ethical Zios who likewise tolerate this kind of thing.

The Muslims have been pretty good about saying "Whoever did it, we are not part of them".

[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.

[BADecker]

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.