I think this needs its own thread: Controlled Demolition Vs. 9/11

[Severian]

maybe they are just afraid to express freely on this matter and that's understandable.

It's part of social control. It's like living in medieval Europe and having to say that you believe all the claptrap taught by the Church even if you know it's BS. If you didn't profess faith in the fables of the Church and State, you were an outcast.

9/11 fits the same mold. It's akin to an American religion.

[FirstAscent]

Notice what is common about all of these subjects? They are:

- The subject is called a conspiracy theory
- The believer insists the government is pulling the wool over our eyes
- The believer insists the event was masterminded by the government.
- The conspiracy requires whole organizations to remain quiet and lie.
- The so called experts are actually a minority compared to the number of real experts in the field
- If you look closely, you'll see careful editing and cutting of the interviews of the experts
- The believer accuses the public for being sheep.
- The believer has a major distrust of the government.
- The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios.
- The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events).

The last two, taken together, are particularly interesting.

Examples include:

- The Moon landing
- 911
- Even the Colorado shooting (people on this forum think it was faked)
- Assassinations
- Etc.

[bb113]

- The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios.
- The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events).

Well, which is it then?

[FirstAscent]

- The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios.
- The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events).

Well, which is it then?

It's both. The believer is generally inconsistent in his logic.

[Severian]

Notice what is common about all of these subjects? They are:

- The subject is called a conspiracy theory

The government's theory is also a conspiracy theory.

The fact is, the official pet conspiracy theory has just as many holes as anyone else's official pet conspiracy theory.

I don't know what happened but I do know bullshit when I hear it.

The believer has a major distrust of the government.

And many are here on bitcointalk.org because...why? 

[Atlas]

- The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios.
- The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events).

Well, which is it then?

It's both. The believer is generally inconsistent in his logic.

I have never claimed the American government perpetrated this attack. Rather, a well-funded, impassioned and well-organized intelligence agency known as the Israeli Mossad is the likely perpetrator of this attack.

[Bitware]

The Israeli's - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8EweNlo8LA

[interlagos]

- The believer credits the government for masterminding complex scenarios.
- The believer thinks the government is horribly incompetent (except in masterminding these events).

Well, which is it then?

It's both. The believer is generally inconsistent in his logic.

The government is not a single monolithic entity, there are dozens of fractions with their own conflicting interests or so it seems. But the fishy part is no matter what talking head they put at their facade, the gist of the policy never changes despite loud promises of otherwise. Don't you find it suspicious?

Anyway, forget the building 7, why fighter jets weren't scrambled?
Is it really that simple to hit the military headquarters of the most powerful country on Earth?
Just quietly maneuver a commercial aircraft and crash it? Really?
And nobody in the whole country would move a finger? Really?

[Bitware]

Full - http://vimeo.com/39578648

[interlagos]

exactly what burning jet fuel did on 9/11.

There was no burning jet fuel involved with WTC 7.

That's correct. WTC 7 was, in fact, the only collapse of the three that could feasibly have been replicated with explosives. However, the lack of any blast sound on recordings pretty much conclusively rules that possibility out.

The lack of something cannot conclusively rule anything out. It's like saying "No one has seen it, therefore it doesn't exist" Lol.
Didn't it occur to anybody that there are technologies other than explosives to deal with steel support beams without any sound?
Something like high temperature chemical reaction involving thermite?
Oops, haven't heard of that one!

[Atlas]

Many witnesses in and out of the towers reported hearing several explosions. A quick google would show that.

[bitcoinBull]

Many witnesses in and out of the towers reported hearing several explosions. A quick google would show that.

Yes, esplosions heard in the twin towers. But your gif was of WTC 7, which collapsed several hours after the twin towers.

[myrkul]

Many witnesses in and out of the towers reported hearing several explosions. A quick google would show that.

Yes, esplosions heard in the twin towers. But your gif was of WTC 7, which collapsed several hours after the twin towers.

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u2lp4d1GjzE#!

Edit: and this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=fvwp&v=972ETepp4GI

[Atlas]

Many witnesses in and out of the towers reported hearing several explosions. A quick google would show that.

Yes, esplosions heard in the twin towers. But your gif was of WTC 7, which collapsed several hours after the twin towers.

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u2lp4d1GjzE#!

If anything, the type of smoke and flames is a clear indicator of explosives. Similar plane crashes don't result in the same results.

[interlagos]

I bet this 6 minute video sums it up nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6O6sM2Shok

[CoinDiver]

I bet this 6 minute video sums it up nicely:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6O6sM2Shok

Perfect! Both "sides" are insane. The truth almost certainly lies somewhere in the middle.

[benjamindees]

When we say that the government is "incompetent" we mean incompetent at governing, not at blowing things up, lying and killing people.

They seem to be rather good at that.

[drakahn]

The conspiracy theory surrounding 911 is a conspiracy designed to make you doubt that the world is really THAT pissed off.

[Bitware]

I dont KNOW what happened but I know it was not handled as a crime.

I know there needs to be a real investigation, but all the evidence was gone as soon as it was removed from the site.

Government is bad at stuff because the reasons we are given for them doing stuff isnt the main reasons, so they are very inept and inefficient at doing what they say they are going to do.

For instance, if FEMA really were about helping the people, they wouldnt suck at it, so what IS FEMA good at?

Government is a bad nanny and wastes your money.

What is goverment good at?

Violence, fear, intimidation, takings, making laws, enforcing laws, imprisoning offenders, stealing money, tyranny, oppression, etc... they are very good at keeping power and controlling you... their very existence requires these things, so we were supposedly given tools to combat them... how are those tools working for you lately ?

[hashman]

the lack of any blast sound on recordings pretty much conclusively rules that possibility out.

The video evidence of possible demolition charges on WTC 7 is more compelling than NIST's explanation. NIST had to change it's story when a sizable number of physicists and engineers questioned their original report.

How do you explain the absence of a blast sound? And what's wrong with NIST changing their explanation when made aware of facts that contradict their previous explanation? Isn't that what they should do?

Just curious, what spooks are we trying to impress here?  Help me out please I'm not getting it.       

Countless examples of blast sounds which were reported on the news that day and described ad nauseum by eyewitnesses as I'm sure you know, one example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=IzRnjHfMyc0#t=27s

It's not like stating the obvious (controlled demolition) goes against the official story, after all the official story is that it was terrorists, nobody has been charged, nobody has lost their job, investigations of foreknowledge (financial / SEC / Able danger / NIST) have completely destroyed all evidence and its time to move on and do better in the future with a strong fatherland security force right? 

I mean, it's not like I have a clue who was involved and what happened when, but somebody please let me know if it help me somehow to act like a total fucking idiot.  Thanks!