.

Edited June 26, 20169 yr by Steele1925

No I do not think it was an inside job, knowing if it was wouldn't have changed anything and all that matters is remembering the innocent and the brave that had there lives taken away for no reason.

I Agree with vic here. No. End of story..

(Again, this is MY opinion. Do not hate me for saying this.)

It's not opinion, it's fact.

 

Same opinion here, I do believe that the US government was aware of the possible incoming attack but did nothing to prevent it.

That doesn't necessarily mean that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. What if the French government was aware of the terrorist attacks a few months ago? Does that mean it was an inside job? No, there's always risk of a terrorist attack. 

Inside job:

 

1. a crime committed by or with the assistance of a person living or working on the premises where it occurred.

 

Does not match the situation of 9/11.

MODERATOR NOTICE

Moved to Politics, Current Events, and Society.

Inside job:

 

1. a crime committed by or with the assistance of a person living or working on the premises where it occurred.

 

Does not match the situation of 9/11.

I don't understand how this is so difficult to understand. This isn't an opinionated subject, it's factual. 9/11 was not an inside job. There is nothing to debate here. It's fact.

.

Edited June 26, 20169 yr by Steele1925

That doesn't necessarily mean that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. What if the French government was aware of the terrorist attacks a few months ago? Does that mean it was an inside job? No, there's always risk of a terrorist attack. 

Well, when I read what I posted again, I state I agree with Steele on the fact that 9/11 was not prevented by the US government on purpose, not that it was caused by the US government. I didn't say that, anywhere at anytime. Just to make the things clear.

Not this again. T.T

Well, when I read what I posted again, I state I agree with Steele on the fact that 9/11 was not prevented by the US government on purpose, not that it was caused by the US government. I didn't say that, anywhere at anytime. Just to make the things clear.

Right. This isn't what people are discussing. What people are arguing about is whether or not the government is directly responsible for 9/11, not if the government knew that 9/11 was possible. Everyone should agree that the US government had some sort of prior knowledge of 9/11, but the US government did not directly cause 9/11. Some are saying the government placed bombs and such, bull shit.

Right. This isn't what people are discussing. What people are arguing about is whether or not the government is directly responsible for 9/11, not if the government knew that 9/11 was possible. Everyone should agree that the US government had some sort of prior knowledge of 9/11, but the US government did not directly cause 9/11. Some are saying the government placed bombs and such, bull shit.

 

And I agree on that, as I said, they did not cause 9/11, thus showing my disagreement with the OP, so I believe I'm actually discussing what people are discussing, from my point of view at least.

.

Edited June 26, 20169 yr by Steele1925

"Mercury is good for you / Vaccines are safe and effective, no side effects / Iraq has nukes / Guns are dangerous, and people who own them are terrorists / Returning Veterans should be forced to live in Sanitariums for our safety / Yes the power plants are leaking but it might be good for your skin / The Freedom of speech is dangerous and needs to be taken away / The Fluoride in Tap Water is good for you! / People who don't trust the Government should be put in camps (no joke, Eric Holder - 1986) / I'm not a Crook / I did not have sexual relations with that woman / Cigarettes make you younger (I hate that I smoke) / Alcohol makes you smarter / 9/11 was not an inside job" -United States Government

 

Why do you still believe a word that they say?

I hate the US government, plain and simple. However it doesn't take a substantial amount of evidence to know that 9/11 was cause by terrorists.. Foreigners hijacked planes and rammed towers.. not much science to it.

.

Edited June 26, 20169 yr by Steele1925

I encourage you to read my previous posts. I agree with you completely. There was a stand down by our government though, which makes it an inside job. Again, in a previous post I've explained why this is. But people really did die, and two planes really were rammed into two buildings, resulting in their destruction. We all know this, and can agree. Al Qaeda was responsible, but they're not the only ones, as explained in another previous post. Thank you and have a good one.

You too, I agree that the US government knew an attack was imminent, or could happen. I just don't agree that the US was directly involved, as in placing bombs.

To be honest, the "bush did 9/11" thourry is just like this.

 

 

Emergency Appeal There is an emergency taking place in New York City, and by extension the whole USA:

 

• Ground Zero is radioactive, and 70,000 people have acquired cancer from it.
• Brave people have recently filed lawsuits against the media for its fraudulent news footage.
• There is mounting concern that the new claimants, as well as some new 911 Truth activists, have been recently assassinated.

 

Warning

 

Speaking up about 911 is important but risky. If you are new to 911 Truth, try to start out by flying under the radar. Make sure your friends know what you are doing.

 

Here is how you fight back

 

• Many lives are at stake. Hurry! Download and distribute the following:
• 
  
• 9/11 fax. (Fax it; hand out photocopies; email it and send it out! Archives: 1* 2* 3* 4
• September Clues, Part 1. (It is very difficult to find on Youtube.)
• Oh God!
• Study the science that refutes the 911 planes.

Bullshit.

, as explosives do on big buildings that have to be destroyed.

 

Didn't the plane explode? There you go. It collapsed. It didn't explode floor by floor. It came tumbling down if you don't understand.

Ok finally time to state my opinion in this debate. If you disagree, that's fine, but I please...please urge you to back up your claims with evidence if you are gonna counter argue me. 

 

First off, there is just so much wrong with the official story, I don't even know where to begin

 

1. The Phone calls from the 9/11 flights are almost impossible. Tipcally, cell phones stop working after an altitude of 10,000 ft (keep in mind this is for modern new cell phones, let alone phones from 2001) and the cruising altitude of the Boeing 767 is 35,000 ft. The fact that even one phone call got through is a miricale, let alone several, some that went on for 30 min+

 

2. I'm sure most of you have heard this already, but the amount of Jet fuel in both Boeing 767 airplanes was not enough to melt the steel beams of the World Trade Center. On top of that, some of the jet fuel was used already (because the plane uses fuel to get from the airport to New York) and 75% of the jet fuel that remained in the airplane was burned off instantly in the explosion when it hit the tower.

 

3. Even if the steel beams did melt, the collapse of the top floors of the World Trade Center would not cause the rest of the building to crumble with it. Even if it did, it would certainly not fall straight down to the ground like we saw in 9/11

 

4. World Trade Center 7, a building that was part of the World Trade Center complex, was a building that collapsed on 9/11/2001 around 5:00, despite the building not being hit by an airplane and did not suffer enough structural damage to the point of collapse.

 

5. Both World Trade Centers were built to survive multiple impacts from airplanes the size of Boeing 777, which are bigger than the Boeing 767 that Hit the World Trade Center

 

6. There where around 87 cameras working and online at the time the plane hit the pentagon, yet we still have not seen clear footage of a plane hitting the pentagon (key word here "clear")

 

7. When Flight 93 crashed into Pennsylvania, most of the plane was vaporized and only small fragments, and an impact crater where found, even though there have been similar plane crashes that did not completely vaporize the plane. Not to mention the crash of space shuttle Columbia, which disagreement on re entry from thousands of feet, yet still had larger crash fragments that the ones on Flight 93.

 

9. Non of the Black boxes of any of the 9/11 airplanes where found, but yet a passport of one of the terrorists that was made of paper, survived both the plane crashing into the World Trade Center and the collapse. 

 

I could literally write a paper on the many things wrong with the official 9/11 report. However, there are some things wrong with the conspiracy, I will admit. 

 

If you disagree, fine, if that's what you believe, then that is what you believe, but please don't start raging, and please I urge you, if your gonna refute me please back it up with some evidence. I'm not trying to be mean here, for all we know you could be right.

 

I feel sorry for anyone that lost any friends or family in the 9/11 attacks

There's a shit ton wrong with the official report the commission published. The Government isn't being totally truthful about something; but what, No one knows. But if a group that hates the hell out of the western world and is willing to blow themselves up over it, takes responsibility for it, why would anyone doubt them? 

There's a shit ton wrong with the official report the commission published. The Government isn't being totally truthful about something; but what, No one knows. But if a group that hates the hell out of the western world and is willing to blow themselves up over it, takes responsibility for it, why would anyone doubt them?

Well either because they're liberals, don't know anything about 9/11, or they're stupid. This isn't an opinionated subject. It's fact that terrorists are responsible for 9/11.