Xooxer wrote:

it was testimony from experts in the fields of architecture, demolition, physics, engineering and the like, and their opinions regarding the events on that day.

I'm curious, why are you giving preference to this particular minority of experts and not the majority of experts who believe that the WTCs were not brought down by explosives, and instead were brought down by structural failure due to the damage done by the planes and the fires in the aftermath? What makes these particular experts better-qualified? Including of other experts who have specifically studied the collapse of the WTCs?

Is it perhaps that you agree with them because they agree with you?

It is damning evidence. This topic's video clearly and coherently demonstrates much of the physical evidence seen in key moments of the collapse.

Once again, this alleged evidence is disagreed with by the majority of experts. Can you give insight as to why your preferred experts are correct, as opposed to the majority? After stating your reasoning, can you explain why this reasoning is significantly different from those climate change deniers who cite the minority of climatologists who dispute the evidence of climate change over the majority who do not?

We don't have to explain who did the deed, or why. You have to explain why the official story is correct, something that nobody has ever done, in light of this evidence.

This is akin to those who argue for Intelligent Design and leave out the fact that they all agree it was the Abrahamic God who is the Designer. I.e., someone did it but we don't know who, and your story is wrong.

Our government fails to do this. News agencies fail to do this. Scholars fail to do this. So what is left for it but to rant and rave in every nook and cranny until someone SOMEWHERE finally listens and looks and gets upset and does what we all know needs to be done?

In light of the fact that the evidence you claim supports your position is heavily-disputed, the only good reason we have for another possible group who took down the Twin Towers and associated buildings is motivation, and you're denying even that. Your claims are disputed evidence and bogeymen, and you wish to be taken seriously?

The only people here who seem to have anything worthwhile to say are GatewayRa and Kumorii. The rest of you aren't being serious, and nothing you've said is worth considering. If you have something constructive to add, please do, otherwise, piss off. Your trollish attempts to derail this topic haven't gone unnoticed. *Mods may benefit from the knowledge that threads can be pruned instead of closed*

But whatever. BYOND is the densest place I've ever seen when it comes to this topic. It's really astounding how thick you all are about this.

Ad hominems are pretty cool guy.

It's well beyond obvious at this point.

Obvious to you, perhaps, in light of your biases. To the majority, it is the polar opposite of obvious (and by that, I do not mean that the water is muddled in the least). The majority is not necessarily right, but there's honestly nothing better to work off unless you can claim why your experts are better-qualified.

It's criminal that nothing is being done, and I question the morals of those who still choose to believe the obvious lies we've been told time and time again.

Ah, so you've made this a moral dilemma now. As if the can wasn't wormy enough.

I want to be clear about this: I believe that the US government--and to be even more clear, some part of the US government--had knowledge about the attacks. The most reasonable assumption is that these warnings were not believed and thus not forwarded to those that could have prevented them.

Nevertheless, I do not consider it entirely impossible that those who were aware of them were okay with them happening to provide a casus belli for intervention in the Middle East. The Bush administration, in particular, seemed to have had a (familial, perhaps) grudge towards Iraq. Operation Northwoods, though never followed through with, makes it quite clear that (at least at the time, though probably still) some parts of the US government are okay with the loss of American lives to promote their own goals.

I seriously doubt, though, that if this scenario is the case, they believed such attacks would have been so damaging.

Why do I believe this over the "inside job" belief? Well, the evidence towards the latter is very weak despite the considerable strength in your beliefs. Even outside that, a conspiracy of a few individuals is far, far more believable than a conspiracy of many. Clearly you believe the US government destroyed the WTCs; if you think we honestly can't see that, then your hatred of the users here is even stronger than you've already stated. Such a conspiracy could clearly not be small, as it required the secret planting of explosives throughout the WTCs.

Then why has no member of this conspiracy come to light? Why, in the fourteen years since it happened, have documents not come to light? We've had extremely significant leaks by the likes of Manning and Snowden, and embarrassing documents released by WikiLeaks. These, along with Operation Northwoods above, makes it clear that the US government has in the past, and continues to do so, documents their heinous deeds and plans in great detail. Do you believe that these whistleblowers are also in on the conspiracy? What about the enemies and not-quite-allies of the US, such as Russia or Iran or Israel or China? Are they in on it? Why have they not denounced the US for its "obvious" attack on its own people? Hell, do you think the Pope is involved?

The "Inside Job" conspiracies are absurd in the scale required, but you are too blinded by your own feelings to recognize it.

[Edit]

But in reality, of course, the Ground Zero clean-up was a cover up of the traditional demolition ("tear down") of the WTCs by a demolition company in upstate New York. Total nepotism, I tell you. My buddy, Rick Boggan--we call him Ricky T. 'cause his middle names is Terrence--told me about it. He's got a real bug-eyed look about him like a cricket or mantis or some shit, but he's smart as fuck lemme tell you. Worked on a demo. crew for about two weeks back in '87 and he's always takin' video with his Droid. News casts and shit that showed no towers? Fuckin' camera angles, man.

Vrocaan wrote:

xooxer, i really think the biggest problem is that you literally only come back to byond to post about 9/11 and then disappear for another year.

14 years after the fact, too.

Like I haven't kept up with all of this but seriously why is this blowing up off-topic now of all times lol

I mean is convincing the great people of BYOND (lets narrow that down to the people who live in the U.S. and actually care) that 9/11 was or was not an inside job going to change anything?

It astounds me every time I see people that believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

Kozuma3 wrote:

Lugia319 wrote:

It astounds me every time I see people that believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

I had everyone in my room staring at me because I literally burst out laughing, uncontrollably.

Lugia319 wrote:

It astounds me every time I see people that believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

...God damn it, he said something sensible...

Xoox, you got room on your bench for one more?

GatewayRa wrote:

Popisfizzy wrote:

who have specifically studied the collapse of the WTCs?

That link has the extension of .gov, you know... The same people that tried to justify the science behind the moon landing.

I quit. If you can believe we've put a probe on a fucking comet but not a person on the moon, you're just hopeless.

bush did 9/11 the facts are there. fold your money $5 to $100 biils.

also this:

GatewayRa wrote:

Kumorii wrote:

I quit. If you can believe we've put a probe on a fucking comet but not a person on the moon, you're just hopeless.

Go ahead and quit then. We don't need any more of your strawman arguments.

Hey! That's OUR word. It's haypeople to the likes of you.

People who don't understand space exploration and how important it is upset me. At the time it happened, I understand the technology was cutting edge and it was very hard to believe but the conspiracies for it are just leftover hubris from the original doubters in the 60's, methinks.

Maybe when we finally have a lunar colony by the end of our lifetimes people will wise up. Well, that or claim it's all just holograms projected onto the surface to give the illusion of technological growth so that the aliens from the Signus 5 Expanse will come put us on their intergalactic singing show. Or something like that.

EmpirezTeam wrote:

America actually didn't land on the moon. I look up at the moon every chance I get, and I never see the American flag they supposedly left on it. If they landed on the moon, then where is the flag? Checkmate NASA supporters.

The entire dark side of the moon is actually one of those huge american flags that they fly over auto dealerships. The real moon conspiracy is that the US government keeps the dark side faced away until Obamabin-Laden launches his global invasion of the planet.

When the moon turns, so will history.