Was 9/11 an inside job?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, he was not a commercial pilot and claims to have a Bachelors degree in engineering on his Linkedin and from 38years ago.  The dude writes new age religion books for a living.  How you do not see that this is a problem is beyond me?

Huh? I know you're older than the average Atlas poster, but you are really this shocked that I don't think him writing "new age religion books" is a problem?

I am a Catholic, but I don't really care what this guy's religion is. It's certainly not germane to the thread topic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how he's unreliable unless you have proof that he lied.

In addition, I am more interested in discussing actual issues related to 9/11, not the details of Nila Sagadevan's life. For example, that article of his which I posted addresses a few such issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

9/11 was no screw-up on the part of the U.S. government.

[Gustaf]

Libertas, you're still ignoring my question: if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

Muslims may have hijacked the planes. But they didn't bring the towers down.

People are easily fooled. The government knew that the overwhelming majority of people would just accept whatever story they put out uncritically. There are even useful idiots who do the regime's job for them in attacking any questioning of the 9/11 story as unpatriotic/retarded/offensive/etc. We see that on display right here in this thread. People don't want to believe that they've been lied to- and that they've fallen for the lies- by our oh-so-benevolent government that's always looking to protect us.

As P.T. Barnum said...you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

No, see, now you've done your little mistake again. You're still not answering my actual question, so I will try and ask it a third (or is it a fourth time?):

if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

You're claiming that the US government planned to do this and then blame it on Muslim terrorists. Then why did they do it in a way that you claim could not have been done by Muslim terrorists and then cover it up with a method you claim is physically impossible? Why not do it in a way that would have been feasible for Muslim terrorists?

[patrick1]

I am shocked to see that you have such a low threshold on whom you consider an subject matter expert.  I dont give a fig who he prays to or how he does it.  As an aside and work of advice,  you run the risk of getting your papers and work torn apart if you use shabby sources.  
Despite what I see as an attempt to shift the conversation, he is unqualified to speak proficiently as an engineer, and him being rather flaky is just humourous gravy.

Do I really need to send 5 google links of people debunking him step by step?  Shouldn't you do this automatically when you forming your opinion or do you only read self reinforcing material to our already formed opinion?

There were opportunities that could have stopped 9/11 and these were missed.   Sadly, soon enough another attack will slip through. Hopefully this time we can come toward a more mature and reasoned response.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, you're still ignoring my question: if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

Muslims may have hijacked the planes. But they didn't bring the towers down.

People are easily fooled. The government knew that the overwhelming majority of people would just accept whatever story they put out uncritically. There are even useful idiots who do the regime's job for them in attacking any questioning of the 9/11 story as unpatriotic/retarded/offensive/etc. We see that on display right here in this thread. People don't want to believe that they've been lied to- and that they've fallen for the lies- by our oh-so-benevolent government that's always looking to protect us.

As P.T. Barnum said...you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

No, see, now you've done your little mistake again. You're still not answering my actual question, so I will try and ask it a third (or is it a fourth time?):

if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

You're claiming that the US government planned to do this and then blame it on Muslim terrorists. Then why did they do it in a way that you claim could not have been done by Muslim terrorists and then cover it up with a method you claim is physically impossible? Why not do it in a way that would have been feasible for Muslim terrorists?

I already answered this question. Whether the Muslim terrorists were actually capable of pulling it off was irrelevant; all that mattered was whether the people could be made to think that the Muslim terrorists were capable- and in fact, responsible- for the attacks. Judging by the poll results, obviously they could.

[Gustaf]

Libertas, you're still ignoring my question: if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

Muslims may have hijacked the planes. But they didn't bring the towers down.

People are easily fooled. The government knew that the overwhelming majority of people would just accept whatever story they put out uncritically. There are even useful idiots who do the regime's job for them in attacking any questioning of the 9/11 story as unpatriotic/retarded/offensive/etc. We see that on display right here in this thread. People don't want to believe that they've been lied to- and that they've fallen for the lies- by our oh-so-benevolent government that's always looking to protect us.

As P.T. Barnum said...you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

No, see, now you've done your little mistake again. You're still not answering my actual question, so I will try and ask it a third (or is it a fourth time?):

if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

You're claiming that the US government planned to do this and then blame it on Muslim terrorists. Then why did they do it in a way that you claim could not have been done by Muslim terrorists and then cover it up with a method you claim is physically impossible? Why not do it in a way that would have been feasible for Muslim terrorists?

I already answered this question. Whether the Muslim terrorists were actually capable of pulling it off was irrelevant; all that mattered was whether the people could be made to think that the Muslim terrorists were capable- and in fact, responsible- for the attacks. Judging by the poll results, obviously they could.

Irrelevant? How on Earth would that be irrelevant? You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. What was the motive for picking a way that was, as you say, completely ridiculous and an obvious lie? Surely, they didn't choose this strategy just to allow you to easily realize that it must be a conspiracy?

Imagine you're Bush and Cheney and whoever else was in on this, and you sit around discussing how to go about it. Presumably you come up with the idea of doing controlled demolition. Then someone points out that this is not good because everyone will realize that Muslims couldn't have done it that way. The next logical step for me would have been to say "right, let's do it another way". You seem to think that they thought "well, let's pretend they did it by planes and set off two simultaneous events that must be perfectly coordinated or else we're screwed"* and then NO ONE thought it would be a problem that it was actually, according to you at least, physically IMPOSSIBLE to do it that way. Why would they think the first part was a problem, if the second wasn't?

*This brings me to another problem, no two other problems:

1. How did they get all these bombs into the Pentagon, which preusmably would have some security?
2. How come no bombs went off where the 4th plane was supposed to crash (Capitol Hill)? Why didn't anyone find those bombs?

[SPC]

Ironic that Libertas of all people believes that governments aren't incompetent and that only the government could have been precise enough to fly planes into buildings. Although I've always been curious as to how the passports of the accused were somehow left intact.

[GMantis]

The more massive a conspiracy, the more likely it is to fail. And in this case it would have to be very massive indeed:
http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm
Of course, knowing about the attack and not preventing requires less participants and it can be covered up with claims of incompetence (and vice versa). But that's not really the definition of inside job.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Libertas, you're still ignoring my question: if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

Muslims may have hijacked the planes. But they didn't bring the towers down.

People are easily fooled. The government knew that the overwhelming majority of people would just accept whatever story they put out uncritically. There are even useful idiots who do the regime's job for them in attacking any questioning of the 9/11 story as unpatriotic/retarded/offensive/etc. We see that on display right here in this thread. People don't want to believe that they've been lied to- and that they've fallen for the lies- by our oh-so-benevolent government that's always looking to protect us.

As P.T. Barnum said...you can fool some of the people all of the time; you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can never fool all of the people all of the time.

No, see, now you've done your little mistake again. You're still not answering my actual question, so I will try and ask it a third (or is it a fourth time?):

if the government faked this then why did they do it in a way that muslims couldn't possibly have done it and tried to fake that it was done in a way that no one could have done? Why not just do it in a way that would have been possible for Muslim terrorists and leave it at that?

You're claiming that the US government planned to do this and then blame it on Muslim terrorists. Then why did they do it in a way that you claim could not have been done by Muslim terrorists and then cover it up with a method you claim is physically impossible? Why not do it in a way that would have been feasible for Muslim terrorists?

I already answered this question. Whether the Muslim terrorists were actually capable of pulling it off was irrelevant; all that mattered was whether the people could be made to think that the Muslim terrorists were capable- and in fact, responsible- for the attacks. Judging by the poll results, obviously they could.

Irrelevant? How on Earth would that be irrelevant? You're making absolutely no sense whatsoever. What was the motive for picking a way that was, as you say, completely ridiculous and an obvious lie? Surely, they didn't choose this strategy just to allow you to easily realize that it must be a conspiracy?

Imagine you're Bush and Cheney and whoever else was in on this, and you sit around discussing how to go about it. Presumably you come up with the idea of doing controlled demolition. Then someone points out that this is not good because everyone will realize that Muslims couldn't have done it that way. The next logical step for me would have been to say "right, let's do it another way". You seem to think that they thought "well, let's pretend they did it by planes and set off two simultaneous events that must be perfectly coordinated or else we're screwed"* and then NO ONE thought it would be a problem that it was actually, according to you at least, physically IMPOSSIBLE to do it that way. Why would they think the first part was a problem, if the second wasn't?

It is, as I said, irrelevant. It didn't matter how the government did it; all that mattered is that the government could convince the people that Muslims did it. If the people could be made to believe that that's how things went down, then the government gets away with it, period. Using propaganda, controlling information and ideas, that's where the real battle was.

They knew even if it was technically impossible, only a few would dare to question, and those people would be trivialized and powerless. And that's exactly what happened. The questions were too little, too late, as the regime had already successfully started two wars, implemented police state measures, started torturing people, etc., etc., basically transforming the entire political landscape for the United States and much of the world on the basis of a falsified event.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What bombs into the Pentagon?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What are you talking about?

Anyway, quite a strange coincidence that the only plane that didn't make it to it's alleged target was the one headed for politicians rather than regular people.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Ironic that Libertas of all people believes that governments aren't incompetent and that only the government could have been precise enough to fly planes into buildings. Although I've always been curious as to how the passports of the accused were somehow left intact.

I've never said government is incompetent when it comes to killing people. That's government's specialty.

The more massive a conspiracy, the more likely it is to fail.

On the contrary, there's a point on the curve at which things become easier to succeed the larger they are. Too big to fail, so to speak.

"The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one."
--Adolf Hitler

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's one of the worst attempts at "debunking 9/11 truth" I've ever seen. Plenty of cops and firemen have questioned the government's story, along with many people who lost loved ones on 9/11. Of course the top brass bureaucrats at the NYPD and FDNY aren't going to officially denounce their superiors as liars. That means nothing.

And the media? You mean the same media which uncritically beat the war drums for that other Bush conspiracy theory now exposed as a lie, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? That was another Big Lie once commonly believed by Americans, and back then people were attacked for questioning that claim just as 9/11 Truthers are today.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Yes, quoting a great libertairan leader who dared to oppose the fascist regimes of Stalin, Churchil, and Roosevelt!

[Gustaf]

Oh, I assumed you had at least rudimentary knowledge on the subject matter at hand. My mistake.

There was 3rd plane that crashed into Pentagon. At least according to the government conspiracy theory. There was also a 4th plane which crashed into Pennsylvania somewhere, supposed to have been headed for Capitol Hill.

I'm assuming that these attacks were also controlled demolition. Or did they actually use only planes for those attacks according to you?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

No. Even if I think he would have done it if he'd ever had the capacity to think of it, George Bush was just too much of a dumb bastard to ever mastermind something that massive.

George Bush would not have had to have personally masterminded the logistics of such an operation, anymore so than he personally ordered the particular battle tactics being used on the ground in Iraq.

That doesn't mean he's absolved of responsibility for things that went on under his authority.

so, you're a truther?!

[SvenssonRS]

9/11 was no screw-up on the part of the U.S. government.

This is where I have to get involved again, to disagree. If it was the U.S. government who orchestrated it all, it was most definitely a screw-up, and I'll tell you why.

If it was them, I would hope that they would have at least been competent enough to come up with a more believable cover story.

Now, believe me, I'm not defending Bush's administration here, since I know for fact that they used 9/11, either way, to fire up their wars. On the contrary, I'm questioning its competence, since I'm of the belief that their playhouse was too collectively stupid and inept to plot something of such magnitude. But even if they were, I pose a second question: why would they ever try and take down their own national symbols of wealth and military might? I don't see what they would have to gain from attacking the Pentagon, really, the headquarters for their own personal wars. It just doesn't make sense to me, why they would ever shoot themselves in the foot like that and not come up with a damn sight better excuse than the official one.

(Disclaimer: I would fully support a new investigation into the matter, if it ever had a chance of happening.)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No (normal)

[Badger]

The contempt I have for Libertas's "argument" is outmatched only by the other six silent inside job voters. Have some balls, you cowards! If you really believe this S%it than at least don't allow Libby to carry all your water for you.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Mabye they're doing it in protest to how stupid this topic is.

[Badger]

Mabye they're doing it in protest to how stupid this topic is.

The thought had occured to me that they're joke votes, but I sincerely doubt that holds for all half dozen.

[??????????]

Badger, I've always believed that we have twice more real lurkers then posters. I know it's impossible to prove but that's my theory.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Oh, I assumed you had at least rudimentary knowledge on the subject matter at hand. My mistake.

There was 3rd plane that crashed into Pentagon. At least according to the government conspiracy theory. There was also a 4th plane which crashed into Pennsylvania somewhere, supposed to have been headed for Capitol Hill.

I'm assuming that these attacks were also controlled demolition. Or did they actually use only planes for those attacks according to you?

Well Libby is no longer posting, but I believe the standard conspiracy theory excuse is that it was actually a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon and the plane over Pennsylvania was just shot down. Of course neither explanation makes much sense and violates tons of physical evidence and footage (usually just handwaved by saying that that all is part of the conspiracy as well, some lady who took pictures of United 93 has gotten tons of death threats from the Truther crowd.) but then again what about these theories does make sense? I would like to hear Libby explain how you shoot a cruise missile and scramble a jet to shoot down a plane without anyone finding out and more importantly WHY one would bother to do so when they've already destroyed the WTC.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Badger, I've always believed that we have twice more real lurkers then posters. I know it's impossible to prove but that's my theory.

     Some poll results are really inexplicable otherwise. I've always thought it weird how the white supremacist position usually gets about 15% in polls here, even though there do not appear to be nearly that many (or any at the moment) on the forum.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Stark and his Stormfront buddies may be lurking.

[??????????]

Well Libby is no longer posting

What a travesty!

[Gustaf]

Oh, I assumed you had at least rudimentary knowledge on the subject matter at hand. My mistake.

There was 3rd plane that crashed into Pentagon. At least according to the government conspiracy theory. There was also a 4th plane which crashed into Pennsylvania somewhere, supposed to have been headed for Capitol Hill.

I'm assuming that these attacks were also controlled demolition. Or did they actually use only planes for those attacks according to you?

Well Libby is no longer posting, but I believe the standard conspiracy theory excuse is that it was actually a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon and the plane over Pennsylvania was just shot down. Of course neither explanation makes much sense and violates tons of physical evidence and footage (usually just handwaved by saying that that all is part of the conspiracy as well, some lady who took pictures of United 93 has gotten tons of death threats from the Truther crowd.) but then again what about these theories does make sense? I would like to hear Libby explain how you shoot a cruise missile and scramble a jet to shoot down a plane without anyone finding out and more importantly WHY one would bother to do so when they've already destroyed the WTC.

Why shoot down a plane in Pennsylvania? That makes no sense either. But I guess trying to debate our respective interpretations of this nonsense is kind of pointless.

[specific_name]

I voted no for the recorded, since the lurkers were mentioned or at least the semi lurkers. 9/11 truth can't really win out unless you share the worldview and accept as self evident that all important events are the product of central planning by the globalists, the cabal or whatever. Monetary conspiracies appear to be more in vogue at the moment.

[fezzyfestoon]

Ironic that Libertas of all people believes that governments aren't incompetent and that only the government could have been precise enough to fly planes into buildings. Although I've always been curious as to how the passports of the accused were somehow left intact.

That's my favorite.