Posted on 02/15/2016 5:36:10 PM PST by jessduntno
Given their small numbers, occasional libertarian pandering to the âinside jobâ morons yields no theoretical benefit greater than a few additional comments on a YouTube video.
Worse, theyâve actually made intelligent discussion more difficult. Questions about the governmentâs lack of readiness for 9/11, for example, now carry the unmistakable whiff of fringe kookiness.
So do demands for basic government transparency, like calling for more of the 9/11 Commission report to be declassified. Mention this idea and some people will move away before you start ranting about the moon landing being fake.
Thatâs too bad, because some accountability has been lost in the inside job nonsense. Before we gave the federal government new powers in the aftermath of the attacks, it would have been helpful to know how many of their existing powers werenât used properly.
We do know a bit about dots that werenât connected, threats that might not have been taken seriously enough, visa applications that should have been rejected. But undoubtedly there is more.
Far from exposing the truth, the 9/11 truthersâ nuttiness has made political and bureaucratic ass-covering easier. By making the issue government malevolence, they distracted from an important discussion of government competence.
Not my theory nor do I subscribe to it. I just don’t take most things the Federal Government says at face value. Used to, not anymore.
When a bat hits a ball it is called impulse, no high rise building is designed to take an impulse like a jumbo jet flying smack dab into it. If you look at the photos of the building being hit by the jet you can actually see the building bend at the impact. The impact damaged some of the major load bearing members, and the fire did the rest. Jet fuel is not gasoline at the pump. Standard jet fuel has an octane rating of 100, and can burn at up to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel loses about 50% of its strength at just 550 degrees Fahrenheit. The combination of the impulse, and the fire caused a load failure and the floors began to pancake.
If you want to read something that may change your mind about 9/11, or at least give you serious doubts about the official story, read Rebekah Roth’s “Methodical Illusion” and “Methodical Deception”.
She was a 30 year flight attendant and later a pursor on international flights (Sr Flight Attendant). She retired shortly after 9/11 and spent over a year looking into details that the media missed. Read the book, then tell me “truthers” are wrong.
Most conspiracy theories fail simply because the people and logistics needed to pull off the conspiracies are well nigh impossible to achieve.
But of course, the conspiracists reason backwards....they know the Bush admin was evil and was looking for an excuse to start a war in the middle east, so they must have been in cahoots with the terrorists. Then they figure out how.
Antle is right...these people want to believe the worst. No amount of facts and logic will dissuade them.
Well, by Gawd she must be an expert on explosives, tensile strength of steel, engineering, physics, and whole lot of other things concerning skyscrapers and what would make them fall. /s
It may not have been an inside job, per se, but people at the highest levels of our government knew it was going down and did nothing to stop it. So call it a de facto inside job. The government is owned and operated by criminals. There is no lie they will not tell, and no crime they will not commit.
So then....
“Trump, as he has done multiple times throughout this presidential race, invoked the Iraq War as a way to criticize Jeb Bush for his brotherâs actions. âThe World Trade Center came down during your brotherâs reign, remember that,â Trump told Jeb, eliciting boos from the audience. Then regarding former president Bush starting the unpopular Iraq war, he said, âThey lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none.â - Donald Trump
The Washington Post reports that in a 2008 interview with CNNâs Wolf Blitzer, Trump said that Nancy Pelosi, who was Speaker of the House at the time, should have pushed for Bushâs impeachment because of his management of the Iraq war. When asked why, Trump replied, for â[getting] us into the war with lies,â a sentiment he repeated on Saturday night. However, the next morning during an appearance on ABCâs This Week, he said, âI donât even think about it.â - Donald Trump
Though he previously depicted Bushâs actions as deliberate, on Sunday morning he distanced himself from those statements. On NBCâs Meet the Press, Trump backed away from his past impeachment calls, saying, âIt may not have been impeachable because it was a mistake.â - Donald “Tell it like it is” Trump
Does any of the above apply? Is that why so many people are enthusiastic about the donald? He believes the top didn’t do anything either...well, until he got the sober up the next morning...or something.
When Ted Gunderson, the former head of the FBI, says that he was wrong in saying that 9/11 was an inside job, then I might change how I feel. He ought to have a pretty good idea as to just what was happening in DC and NYC.
She doesn’t look at the destruction of the towers. Only looks at the transcripts of the flight attendants and the behavior of the passengers. She even got the radar data for that day. She doesn’t really investigate anything about the buidings. Which is why her analysis is so interesting.
Read the book before you start making jokes. Or listen to an interview with her on youtube (caravan to midnight is one, hagmann is another.)
Building 7 - 47 story skyscraper - that was home to all the alphabet security agencies fell because parts of the neighboring towers fell on it. Then fell at free fall speeds. Funny as it was announced live on the news that it collapsed while it could still be seen standing in the background on 9/11. Ridicule and mocking and ad hominum attacks are definitely preferable to reason.
Utter bullsh*t. Put up or shut up.
I guess you can’t answer the question. Is that it?
There was a question?
No they aren't.
Yes they are.
"Governments never lie to their citizens about anything. Especially about major incidents that lead to military action."
That fact that governments sometimes lie in no way validates any nutty conspiracy theory you want to believe in.
I don’t trust your figures as they pertain to the strength of steel under heat. My oven doesn’t have any problems remaining strong at 600 degrees and steel columns on a skyscraper are much sturdier than my oven. Why the bullshit?
Jamie Gorlick memo. Done.
Oh.
Here you go
When a bat hits a ball it is called impulse, no high rise building is designed to take an impulse like a jumbo jet flying smack dab into it. If you look at the photos of the building being hit by the jet you can actually see the building bend at the impact. The impact damaged some of the major load bearing members, and the fire did the rest. Jet fuel is not gasoline at the pump. Standard jet fuel has an octane rating of 100, and can burn at up to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel loses about 50% of its strength at just 550 degrees Fahrenheit. The combination of the impulse, and the fire caused a load failure and the floors began to pancake.
Postedd by Do the Math Doug right before I saw your drivel. Didn’t think it was necessary to anser. I just would have said “are you shitting me? These jets were FULL of fuel.” His naswer is more complete. I guess that was pretty much such a dumb ass question, you were joking, too.
Are so!
Yes, there was. Why did building seven come down? It was not struck by either of the planes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.