Reply to this topic with your top reasons why 9/11
was NOT an Inside Job.
-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------
A summary of the thread will be updated here.
Top Reasons Indicating NOT an Inside Job
-
freedomfiles
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:33 pm
Hmm defend something I don't believe in ? 
- Osama bin Laden confessed to his crime
- Several 9/11 hijackers confessed in written/video wills
- Muslims hate freedom and democracy
- Too many people had to be involved in an inside job
- These people would not all be able in good conscience to keep their mouth shut
- The US government is incompetent, how could they manage to pull this off
etc.
- Osama bin Laden confessed to his crime
- Several 9/11 hijackers confessed in written/video wills
- Muslims hate freedom and democracy
- Too many people had to be involved in an inside job
- These people would not all be able in good conscience to keep their mouth shut
- The US government is incompetent, how could they manage to pull this off
etc.
9/11 was not eventually an inside job because:
- USA administration doesn't need false or true reasons to start wars or issue unconstitutionnal laws. They do what they want whatever are circumstances.
- Threats of Bin Laden and Co against USA through their fatwa in 90's and realisation of some attacks in Yemen, Kenya...
- Some alleged hijacker's passports were found by FBI in the WTC site after the attacks.
- Warnings before 9/11 from foreign intelligence services to US announcing an imminent attack.
- USA administration doesn't need false or true reasons to start wars or issue unconstitutionnal laws. They do what they want whatever are circumstances.
- Threats of Bin Laden and Co against USA through their fatwa in 90's and realisation of some attacks in Yemen, Kenya...
- Some alleged hijacker's passports were found by FBI in the WTC site after the attacks.
- Warnings before 9/11 from foreign intelligence services to US announcing an imminent attack.
-
dilbert_g
[font=Times New Roman]I suggested to Fintan that this point ALSO needs to be studied and addressed, in interest of credibility, because these arguments DO exist. Several university professors of political science and history hacks confronted me in this manner of glib 
skepticism, during a lecture/comment series on Iran (some more overt cheerleading for an attack combined with veiled expressions of resignation over inevitability plus denials of said inevitibility). This is sort of my response to one prof's derision about me "reading too many conspiracy websites" :roll: and response --- he "doesn't believe" it --- to mainstream accusations of malfeasance (oh like CIA analyst desk jockeys complaining of being threatened by Rumsfeld over Iraq intell? accusatory speeches by Brzezinski at Senate.gov?). It was also my recognition that my own website (my baby!) and my own thinking was not quite fully prepared 
to confront this skeptical viewpoint as I thought I was -- esp from "liberals".
from my website:[/font]
There is one key fact which leads me to believe that Sept 11 might NOT have been an inside job. This the matter of the deaths of 658 employees of Cantor-Fitzgerald, [font=Tahoma]with Morgan-Stanley losing about 40, and Merrill-Lynch losing "virtually none".[/font] Cantor Fitzgerald is one of 23 primary dealers who are permitted to trade U.S. government securities directly with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
[font=Arial]Of course it is wholly within the realm of rational consideration that Sept 11 was planned to ACCELLERATE military and economic globalization. Hell, they TOLD us it was necessary, they WROTE about it, that the timetable would proceed at too slow a pace unless there was mass murder and terrorism to propel the process along. Brzezinski wrote that in 1998, as did PNAC and others at AEI. There is no doubt in my mind that they were deeply motivated to have this arranged, and that they had the means and opportunity (control of CIA black ops, control over NORAD and other Air defense).[/font]
So, it is not the nearly 3000 innocent dead victims and many permanently injured that gives me pause [font=Tahoma](so what! Johnson and Nixon killed 30,000 Americans in Vietnam [plus 4 million Asians], under full knowledge that Gulf of Tonkin was a lie)[/font] but rather it is the deaths of so many high-level stock market and money analysts -- this is the main or maybe the only factor that leads me to doubt a 9-11 conspiracy.
[font=Georgia]Does anyone here KNOW that these Cantor Fitzgerald employees were EXPENDABLE? I don't mean expandable as human beings, of course, I mean considered expendable to "the machine" to those people ruthless enough to run this op. Wouldn't a financial "brain trust" like C-F be considered more valuable than their weight in gold? I would think this attack would be considered a major hit against a major insider company. Maybe there is some simple answer which would put this doubt to bed for good.
The "naïve" try to scoff at the very idea that the US govt would do a "self-inflicted wound" like a teenage goth with a compulsion for self-mutilation. I have no doubts about that insofar as "attacking America" which is child's play, but hitting C-F seems like a serious self-inflicted injury, unwise, unnecessary, possibly leading to serious internal blowback, i.e. serious investigations leading to serious charges, even capital charges.
Could it be that top C-F executives -- who are intimately linked to the guts of the Pentagon -- were so much insiders that they authorized the loss of so many seemingly key employees for some "greater good" of conducting the War on Terror? Or that they could have been cowed? Or kept in the dark?
C-F even sued the Saudi family. (Did James Baker block that suit too? Probably.)[/font]
Many other factors strongly confirm a conspiracy, of course, and many other factors pile on somewhat weaker confirmation. This includes that documented evidence of many previous conspiracies to murder Americans for political purposes, some clearly enacted, some modified, some arguably in draft planning stages. Some people like to argue that Operation Northwoods was just like "some Generals doodling". A written, signed plan to commit mass murder IS precisely a murder conspiracy, and high treason as well.
Razor-like precision on "Obvious-Man" facts about Conspiracy -- I mean being prepared to point it out when conspiring IS a conspiracy (I wish I had been better prepared at the right moment) -- might lead to more positive recognition, vs. more backwoods muddy watering. However it is scientifically responsible to plot counter-evidence as well, and i think it is prosecutorial wisdom to jump on that first, to establish credibility and hammer that into position and remove that weapon from the opposition before they get a chance to use it against you.
skepticism, during a lecture/comment series on Iran (some more overt cheerleading for an attack combined with veiled expressions of resignation over inevitability plus denials of said inevitibility). This is sort of my response to one prof's derision about me "reading too many conspiracy websites" :roll: and response --- he "doesn't believe" it --- to mainstream accusations of malfeasance (oh like CIA analyst desk jockeys complaining of being threatened by Rumsfeld over Iraq intell? accusatory speeches by Brzezinski at Senate.gov?). It was also my recognition that my own website (my baby!) and my own thinking was not quite fully prepared to confront this skeptical viewpoint as I thought I was -- esp from "liberals". from my website:[/font]
There is one key fact which leads me to believe that Sept 11 might NOT have been an inside job. This the matter of the deaths of 658 employees of Cantor-Fitzgerald, [font=Tahoma]with Morgan-Stanley losing about 40, and Merrill-Lynch losing "virtually none".[/font] Cantor Fitzgerald is one of 23 primary dealers who are permitted to trade U.S. government securities directly with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
[font=Arial]Of course it is wholly within the realm of rational consideration that Sept 11 was planned to ACCELLERATE military and economic globalization. Hell, they TOLD us it was necessary, they WROTE about it, that the timetable would proceed at too slow a pace unless there was mass murder and terrorism to propel the process along. Brzezinski wrote that in 1998, as did PNAC and others at AEI. There is no doubt in my mind that they were deeply motivated to have this arranged, and that they had the means and opportunity (control of CIA black ops, control over NORAD and other Air defense).[/font]
So, it is not the nearly 3000 innocent dead victims and many permanently injured that gives me pause [font=Tahoma](so what! Johnson and Nixon killed 30,000 Americans in Vietnam [plus 4 million Asians], under full knowledge that Gulf of Tonkin was a lie)[/font] but rather it is the deaths of so many high-level stock market and money analysts -- this is the main or maybe the only factor that leads me to doubt a 9-11 conspiracy.
[font=Georgia]Does anyone here KNOW that these Cantor Fitzgerald employees were EXPENDABLE? I don't mean expandable as human beings, of course, I mean considered expendable to "the machine" to those people ruthless enough to run this op. Wouldn't a financial "brain trust" like C-F be considered more valuable than their weight in gold? I would think this attack would be considered a major hit against a major insider company. Maybe there is some simple answer which would put this doubt to bed for good.
The "naïve" try to scoff at the very idea that the US govt would do a "self-inflicted wound" like a teenage goth with a compulsion for self-mutilation. I have no doubts about that insofar as "attacking America" which is child's play, but hitting C-F seems like a serious self-inflicted injury, unwise, unnecessary, possibly leading to serious internal blowback, i.e. serious investigations leading to serious charges, even capital charges.
Could it be that top C-F executives -- who are intimately linked to the guts of the Pentagon -- were so much insiders that they authorized the loss of so many seemingly key employees for some "greater good" of conducting the War on Terror? Or that they could have been cowed? Or kept in the dark?
C-F even sued the Saudi family. (Did James Baker block that suit too? Probably.)[/font]
Many other factors strongly confirm a conspiracy, of course, and many other factors pile on somewhat weaker confirmation. This includes that documented evidence of many previous conspiracies to murder Americans for political purposes, some clearly enacted, some modified, some arguably in draft planning stages. Some people like to argue that Operation Northwoods was just like "some Generals doodling". A written, signed plan to commit mass murder IS precisely a murder conspiracy, and high treason as well.
Razor-like precision on "Obvious-Man" facts about Conspiracy -- I mean being prepared to point it out when conspiring IS a conspiracy (I wish I had been better prepared at the right moment) -- might lead to more positive recognition, vs. more backwoods muddy watering. However it is scientifically responsible to plot counter-evidence as well, and i think it is prosecutorial wisdom to jump on that first, to establish credibility and hammer that into position and remove that weapon from the opposition before they get a chance to use it against you.
-
dilbert_g
They can START wars but they still need lots of gullible morons (Straussian and Tri-Lateral terminology) to sign up to fight, and needs lots of cowed Military officers, politicians, etc. to SHUT UP and GO ALONG. Of course they need good propaganda. Otherwise they would not spend so much money and effort on psywar.- USA administration doesn't need false or true reasons to start wars or issue unconstitutional laws. They do what they want whatever are circumstances.
Attacks in Yemen, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, all had evidence of Inside Job Too, involvement in planning by Ali Mohammed in particular, leading to FBI/CIA foreknowledge. At Vinnell base in S.A., Khobar Towers(?), someone had to have the passkey to the gate. In addition, John O'Neill was blocked repeatedly from investigating Yemen.- Threats of Bin Laden and Co against USA through their fatwa in 90's and realisation of some attacks in Yemen, Kenya...
Some unnamed anonymous passerby found a passport that flew out of someone's shirtpocket and flew though the giant fireball to land on the ground near WTC. They handed it to an NYC cop and walked away. Really.- Some alleged hijacker's passports were found by FBI in the WTC site after the attacks.
Foreign intelligence services or US intelligence services --- what's the difference? Point is, CIA either runs them or is intimately involved with them, influencing them, training, providing weapons and equipment and money. This includes foreign intelligence services which helped us create Al-Qaeda and includes Al-Qaeda itself -- a kind of raghead CIA special ops division --- to the degree that Al-Qaeda actually exists in numbers, as opposed to just video simulation and newsprint.- Warnings before 9/11 from foreign intelligence services to US announcing an imminent attack.
That was in the 80's. In the 90 's, the CIA-jihadist front relations changed of configuration because goals of war have changed. Maybe the Ali Mohammed track of investigation can bring more light about this.dilbert_g wrote:Foreign intelligence services or US intelligence services --- what's the difference? Point is, CIA either runs them or is intimately involved with them, influencing them, training, providing weapons and equipment and money. This includes foreign intelligence services which helped us create Al-Qaeda and includes Al-Qaeda itself -- a kind of raghead CIA special ops division --- to the degree that Al-Qaeda actually exists in numbers, as opposed to just video simulation and newsprint.- Warnings before 9/11 from foreign intelligence services to US announcing an imminent attack.
-
dilbert_g
I'm aware of Ali Mohammed. I'm aware that the 90's configuration as they say -- the random bombings and whatnot --- differed from the 80's in Afghanistan. I'm aware that allegedly the CIA trained the Muj, and that Al-Qaeda was a semi-separate side-project (like Treeincarnation is to B4NIn the 90 's, the CIA-jihadist front relations changed of configuration because goals of war have changed. Maybe the Ali Mohammed track of investigation can bring more light about this.
) which actually put off some of the regular Taliban fighters who had no interest in attacking the USA, and I'm aware that Al-Qaeda operatives came in handy in the Balkans (armed by Iran, I read).Of course just as any "blowback" theorist, I'm aware that the "goals of war" as you say changed, in the sense that there was no more Soviet Union, but I kinda see this whole Cold War/Globalization thing as one continuum, with the downfall of the USSR just being one interim phase leading into the Balkans and now the Eurasian "region of percolating violence" as Brzezinski said.
Can you explain further?
I still think that the "warnings" from foreign intell about a pending Al-Qaeda attack were either
a) totally red herring
b) some intell people below the top black ops level duped by the "chatter" and other intell they were receiving.
Warnings = LIHOP. Bush let the (real) terrorists do it.
Yours IS a decent entry for this topic top reasons why 9/11 was NOT an Inside Job, and needs to be handled, but in my own egotistical mind, I think that's been done and handled on this forum at least in the sense that global intelligence is really every bit as interconnected as global finance, so these outside warnings seem like a diversion and part of the incompetence meme.
-
LonePunman
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 5:22 am
This thread poses a good question.
The whole question of 9/11 etc. poses a gambit for the loyalty of possibly uneducated or uncommitted readers (the public).
On this basis, you could divide the 'reasons' into two categories:
(1) reasons convincing to ordinary people.
(2) reasons that are scientifically convincing to disinterested scientists.
The question also calls into play one's personal worldview on two levels:
(3) Theoretical: this subdivides into two more convenient categories:
a) reasons convincing to believers in a(n ethical) God, e.g. Christians/Jews
b) reasons convincing to an atheist/agnostic.
(4) Pragmatic: How does each choice affect me personally?
a) reasons that imply the adoption of a world-view
b) reasons that imply the adoption of a personal policy or action.
Other categories could be devised.
But it is important to understand what a person is buying with each of the various theories and options.
-------------------------------------------------------
(1) Lets start with reasons convincing to ordinary people.
That would be the great unwashed masses like myself, and include the working-class and possibly a majority of the 'middle-class', which has been eroded in wealth and power by the elite for decades.
The first question that pops into mind is this:
Why would the people in power bother? Don't they already own everything? Don't they already rule the world?
The reality of this fact is felt every single day by a poor person. Its no joke for him to ask: Why would rich people shoot themselves in the foot? To scare us?
If it is just a case of the "super-mafia" reorganizing itself, or engaging in some destructive game for the fun of it, this is totally believable. But why should poor people care? Unless we are in the wrong place at the wrong time, its not likely to affect us any more than it already does being bent over and abused and run into the ground so that the rich can lay around running pedophile rings with our kids.
A question remains, even for the very slow and imperceptive:
Bush and his buddies already control the world's largest military combine. They have enough nukes to turn the world to ashes. They raise us like tulips so they can have their own harems of little girls and boys, and do horrible things to them.
So why create a "New World Order", when you already HAVE one?
The conspiracy theorists have no adequate explanation for this, THAT CONVINCES a POOR person the 'conspiracy' has any real meaning. We already KNOW Guilani is a mafia don. We already know Bush is a pedophile. How does a 9/11 conspiracy clarify or add anything at all?
--------------------------------------------
(2) Reasons convincing to a scientist
As a scientist I have some objections. No theory for the first 4 years or so was satisfactory to me. I saw the videos of the plane-crash and the "collapse".
But where indeed WERE the steel core, and where did it go? It wasn't until five years later that conspiracy theorists had seriously taken a CONCRETE core into consideration. I must confess I too did not see any ideas that were scientifically convincing until this was brought up.
Now, with a CONCRETE core, my brain has kicked into forward gear again. Of COURSE there were huge pyrclastic clouds. Of course most of the debris was dust, not steel.
But people HAD been claiming it was a demolition based on the argument that the "STEEL" core could not have collapsed. Now this theory itself collapsed before my eyes.
As a scientist I was angry with myself for not seeing a plausible explanation (ANY explanation) for the buildings' fall. NOW it seems trivial and obvious in hindsight.
But I had put a variation of this theory in front of myself for ages already. Of course the buildings collapsed. They were built in New York, by the Mafia. No doubt EVERYTHING to do with these buildings was "below code" and no doubt horrific cuts in cost were done that were dangerous and stupid, all for money.
But all this makes a 'conspiracy theory' much more difficult to sell.
Occam's razor: "Why say conspiracy, when STUPID explains so much?"
All of this indicates that there may be scientific explanations for many physical details that for not so surprising political reasons will not be examined.
Thus the current 'conspiracy theories' suffer the perenial problem of science: there are always more plausible theories than there are facts to explain.
I will post later on "Other (Conspiracy/etc.) Theories".
------------------------------------------------
(3) Theoretical Problems:
This is never adequately addressed by conspiracy theorists. It goes far beyond local political explanations for motive and purpose etc.
Fundamentally, if there is a God (of the Judaeo-Christian type), then sure, fight for the right, and do your personal best to be honest, but in the end, why worry?
Bush will be brought before the Hall of Judgement and the neocons will be cast into the Lake of Fire. What is the problem?
If there is no God, then as a poor person, why should I care? What basis do I have to found a moral/ethical theory of action? Where should I put myself on the self-constructed ethical plane or dimension I have created?
Why not join the Neocons and get a big load of cash, live in a gated community that keeps out other riff raff like myself, all competing for power and resources? Isn't it Darwinian Law in the end? If Bush and Neocons can be pragmatic, why can't I?
If its a crappy power pyramid, why not make the best of it?
They've already legalized torture and suspended Habeas Corpus, and armed the National Guard with tasers. Maybe even if I don't want to be rich, I should just live in the woods and quietly retire.
Conspiracy theorist simply don't offer any motivation to care, let alone believe their claims.
---------------------------------------------
(4) What if I don't have a world-view, a belief-system, a plan?
What does a conspiracy theory expect me to buy into?
It seems to become a kind of "war of the worlds" scenario, complete with aliens.
Bush and the Neocons have been 'assimilated' and probably have alien implants, little pods like night of the living dead.
The whole town, heck, the whole govenment has been taken over by the slimey aliens. But I can't even qualify for a handgun, if I could even afford it. Just what the heck am I supposed to do?
I might as well just lay around in some basement apartment, smoking grass.
Can't anyone offer anything of any use to a poor person who might want to help himself and others?
This is why religion is infinitely more convincing than any conspiracy theory, and has more utility, even if it is a total illusion or lie. Who cares if I think my wife is beautiful when in fact she's as homely as a donkey?
Aren't I better off believing in something better than the big phallus of George Bush?
This is not facetious or funny post. I am deadly serious.
The biggest reasons against believing in a conspiracy or 'inside job' are the world-view one must adopt and the questionable utility of contract.
These are questions that 9/11 people rarely address, but they are vitally important to outsiders.
The whole question of 9/11 etc. poses a gambit for the loyalty of possibly uneducated or uncommitted readers (the public).
On this basis, you could divide the 'reasons' into two categories:
(1) reasons convincing to ordinary people.
(2) reasons that are scientifically convincing to disinterested scientists.
The question also calls into play one's personal worldview on two levels:
(3) Theoretical: this subdivides into two more convenient categories:
a) reasons convincing to believers in a(n ethical) God, e.g. Christians/Jews
b) reasons convincing to an atheist/agnostic.
(4) Pragmatic: How does each choice affect me personally?
a) reasons that imply the adoption of a world-view
b) reasons that imply the adoption of a personal policy or action.
Other categories could be devised.
But it is important to understand what a person is buying with each of the various theories and options.
-------------------------------------------------------
(1) Lets start with reasons convincing to ordinary people.
That would be the great unwashed masses like myself, and include the working-class and possibly a majority of the 'middle-class', which has been eroded in wealth and power by the elite for decades.
The first question that pops into mind is this:
Why would the people in power bother? Don't they already own everything? Don't they already rule the world?
The reality of this fact is felt every single day by a poor person. Its no joke for him to ask: Why would rich people shoot themselves in the foot? To scare us?
If it is just a case of the "super-mafia" reorganizing itself, or engaging in some destructive game for the fun of it, this is totally believable. But why should poor people care? Unless we are in the wrong place at the wrong time, its not likely to affect us any more than it already does being bent over and abused and run into the ground so that the rich can lay around running pedophile rings with our kids.
A question remains, even for the very slow and imperceptive:
Bush and his buddies already control the world's largest military combine. They have enough nukes to turn the world to ashes. They raise us like tulips so they can have their own harems of little girls and boys, and do horrible things to them.
So why create a "New World Order", when you already HAVE one?
The conspiracy theorists have no adequate explanation for this, THAT CONVINCES a POOR person the 'conspiracy' has any real meaning. We already KNOW Guilani is a mafia don. We already know Bush is a pedophile. How does a 9/11 conspiracy clarify or add anything at all?
--------------------------------------------
(2) Reasons convincing to a scientist
As a scientist I have some objections. No theory for the first 4 years or so was satisfactory to me. I saw the videos of the plane-crash and the "collapse".
But where indeed WERE the steel core, and where did it go? It wasn't until five years later that conspiracy theorists had seriously taken a CONCRETE core into consideration. I must confess I too did not see any ideas that were scientifically convincing until this was brought up.
Now, with a CONCRETE core, my brain has kicked into forward gear again. Of COURSE there were huge pyrclastic clouds. Of course most of the debris was dust, not steel.
But people HAD been claiming it was a demolition based on the argument that the "STEEL" core could not have collapsed. Now this theory itself collapsed before my eyes.
As a scientist I was angry with myself for not seeing a plausible explanation (ANY explanation) for the buildings' fall. NOW it seems trivial and obvious in hindsight.
But I had put a variation of this theory in front of myself for ages already. Of course the buildings collapsed. They were built in New York, by the Mafia. No doubt EVERYTHING to do with these buildings was "below code" and no doubt horrific cuts in cost were done that were dangerous and stupid, all for money.
But all this makes a 'conspiracy theory' much more difficult to sell.
Occam's razor: "Why say conspiracy, when STUPID explains so much?"
All of this indicates that there may be scientific explanations for many physical details that for not so surprising political reasons will not be examined.
Thus the current 'conspiracy theories' suffer the perenial problem of science: there are always more plausible theories than there are facts to explain.
I will post later on "Other (Conspiracy/etc.) Theories".
------------------------------------------------
(3) Theoretical Problems:
This is never adequately addressed by conspiracy theorists. It goes far beyond local political explanations for motive and purpose etc.
Fundamentally, if there is a God (of the Judaeo-Christian type), then sure, fight for the right, and do your personal best to be honest, but in the end, why worry?
Bush will be brought before the Hall of Judgement and the neocons will be cast into the Lake of Fire. What is the problem?
If there is no God, then as a poor person, why should I care? What basis do I have to found a moral/ethical theory of action? Where should I put myself on the self-constructed ethical plane or dimension I have created?
Why not join the Neocons and get a big load of cash, live in a gated community that keeps out other riff raff like myself, all competing for power and resources? Isn't it Darwinian Law in the end? If Bush and Neocons can be pragmatic, why can't I?
If its a crappy power pyramid, why not make the best of it?
They've already legalized torture and suspended Habeas Corpus, and armed the National Guard with tasers. Maybe even if I don't want to be rich, I should just live in the woods and quietly retire.
Conspiracy theorist simply don't offer any motivation to care, let alone believe their claims.
---------------------------------------------
(4) What if I don't have a world-view, a belief-system, a plan?
What does a conspiracy theory expect me to buy into?
It seems to become a kind of "war of the worlds" scenario, complete with aliens.
Bush and the Neocons have been 'assimilated' and probably have alien implants, little pods like night of the living dead.
The whole town, heck, the whole govenment has been taken over by the slimey aliens. But I can't even qualify for a handgun, if I could even afford it. Just what the heck am I supposed to do?
I might as well just lay around in some basement apartment, smoking grass.
Can't anyone offer anything of any use to a poor person who might want to help himself and others?
This is why religion is infinitely more convincing than any conspiracy theory, and has more utility, even if it is a total illusion or lie. Who cares if I think my wife is beautiful when in fact she's as homely as a donkey?
Aren't I better off believing in something better than the big phallus of George Bush?
This is not facetious or funny post. I am deadly serious.
The biggest reasons against believing in a conspiracy or 'inside job' are the world-view one must adopt and the questionable utility of contract.
These are questions that 9/11 people rarely address, but they are vitally important to outsiders.
fintan, "top reasons why 9/11 was not an inside job"?, sat feb 24 2007,,8 replies,,,well lets see, the government backed nist report ,the cia, the fbi and the police all back the official explanation, which is repeatedly reported by the media, with little or no real dissemination to the contrary.so if i believe and trust in these institutions the outcome is a foregone conclusion. i think it is obvious that the official version of events is false, and from what i gather so do the majority of the good folk who frequent this forum.so what sperates us? our perceptions differ thats the real problem, the majority of the population do not want to believe that agents employed within government agencies, could be allowed to perpetrate such acts of unbelievable cruelty upon its own citizens. there are many reasons for this and they are a sad indictement of modern society. i think this is why most of the dissemination on 9/11 within this forum is about disinfo and psyops,this is where the battle for peoples minds lie, therefore anyone within this forum in charge of their own mind will find it very complexing to answer this question, and for good reason, to answer this, one must revert to the state of self hypnosis that most here found so hard to awake from, without massive self delusion one cannot answer this question to a high degree of satisfaction,so my conclusion is, that my top reason why (most people) believe 9/11 was not an inside job is, because the majority dont believe that agents within the government could perpetrate such an act without being detected. present company accepted.
Due to snow accumulation, our company roof started to sag. I was in the affected area with a consulting structural engineer and our maintenance supervisor doing a damage assessment. I commented that hopefully the building would not collapse like the WTC. The supervisor looked at me and said "It shouldn't, there aren't any bombs.....(he did say it in french and he is a serious family man in his 30's) just goes to show ya.
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Peter
Did the plane hit your building before or after the roof sagged???
Grumpy
Did the plane hit your building before or after the roof sagged???
Grumpy
Wheel yourself out in the streets and demand the truth from these dumbshits.
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa
O dear, taken to drinking and swallowing the pain tablets together eh Grumpy? aAzzAa