Who gives two sh*ts about "proof" regardless of what the government did or did not do that day, thousands of inncoent lives were lost unless you're one of those fools who deny even that fact...

 

I understand you want people to "think" as you put it.  But think about this, if you lost a loved one or a friend in a senseless tragedy...would you want people to debate whether or not the event was "an inside job?"  Would you want that wound ripped open over and over again by misguided people spouting nonsense they cannot prove?  Would you want that event and the memory of your loss to be bandied about as a talking point for a senseless conspiracy?

 

 

There is nothing "new" to be brought into this "topic" as you call it.  Unless anyone here has a time machine or can talk to the dead.  All this thread does is treat the mass murder of thousands of innocent people as a conspiracy!  Which is no only unproveable by anyone here, but completely disrespectful to the memories of those heroes and victims. 

im not saying no body died on September 11th 2001, of course people died, thousands of people died. I'm saying is that it might have been the government that conducted the attacks, rather than a couple of Jihads

 

The proof lies within true patriotism, that is faith in your fellow man and your country, which can lack in citizens. I cannot supply government documents or documents from the organization responsible, but the information in this video, I can, and will always, believe. The same way I believe in my country.

 

There is no need for you to apologize. However, when I see these topics, I am forced to relive the memories of that day. They are painful, and they are, unfortunately, a part of my life.

 

 

With all due respect, it is not the part of participating in a heated discussion that is my particular problem. It is rather that, I must relive the memories of that day every time I see these topics, and I would rather have these conspiracies closed.

 

Instead of discussing what may have been, why continue to go back to looking at the same point in the past? It's like repeating history, still to no avail.

As a collective, international community, I believe we should be able to move on from this event and the painful memories it brings, and look toward a brighter future.

A future where, when we look back, we can take the time to give the lives of the heroic people the respect they deserve, as well as remember the two shining twins.

 

Thank you.

sorry if I brought some painful memories, cant imagine the horror you witnessed

sorry if I brought some painful memories, cant imagine the horror you witnessed

 

That is okay. Like I said, you do not need to apologize.

 

One way or another, the memories will always be there. Whether it be from looking at the undeveloped footprints of the towers (which I believe should have been re-engineered and rebuilt in some form with an indoor memorial), to seeing the city skyline with only one WTC, and not two twins.

 

I will be leaving this thread now, as I have posted all that I would like to share.

 

The proof lies within true patriotism, that is faith in your fellow man and your country, which can lack in citizens. I cannot supply government documents or documents from the organization responsible, but the information in this video, I can, and will always, believe. The same way I believe in my country.

 

There is no need for you to apologize. However, when I see these topics, I am forced to relive the memories of that day. They are painful, and they are, unfortunately, a part of my life.

 

 

With all due respect, it is not the part of participating in a heated discussion that is my particular problem. It is rather that, I must relive the memories of that day every time I see these topics, and I would rather have these conspiracies closed.

 

Instead of discussing what may have been, why continue to go back to looking at the same point in the past? It's like repeating history, still to no avail.

As a collective, international community, I believe we should be able to move on from this event and the painful memories it brings, and look toward a brighter future.

A future where, when we look back, we can take the time to give the lives of the heroic people the respect they deserve, as well as remember the two shining twins.

 

Thank you.

I wasn't saying that at all. I was just stating that these political debate topics only go wrong because people here aren't mature enough to participate. I agree with you though, it is highly offensive, but you can't expect everyone to have common sense, you know?

I wasn't saying that at all. I was just stating that these political debate topics only go wrong because people here aren't mature enough to participate. I agree with you though, it is highly offensive, but you can't expect everyone to have common sense, you know?

 

Ah, okay. I understand what you meant now.

Thanks for your response.

im not saying no body died on September 11th 2001, of course people died, thousands of people died. I'm saying is that it might have been the government that conducted the attacks, rather than a couple of Jihads

sorry if I brought some painful memories, cant imagine the horror you witnessed

 

And I'm saying leave well enough alone, there is no need to dredge back up this tragedy for a pointless debate.  If you can't come up with something more pressing and current to discuss then please don't dig back up a tragedy and a mass murder to entertain yourself, next you'll be asking if Peral Harbor was a false flag... 

 

Some events in history are not meant for debate and in my opinion 9/11 certainly qualifies...

And I'm saying leave well enough alone, there is no need to dredge back up this tragedy for a pointless debate.  If you can't come up with something more pressing and current to discuss then please don't dig back up a tragedy and a mass murder to entertain yourself, next you'll be asking if Peral Harbor was a false flag... 

 

Some events in history are not meant for debate and in my opinion 9/11 certainly qualifies...

Ignorance is a bliss, my friend.

That is okay. Like I said, you do not need to apologize.

 

One way or another, the memories will always be there. Whether it be from looking at the undeveloped footprints of the towers (which I believe should have been re-engineered and rebuilt in some form with an indoor memorial), to seeing the city skyline with only one WTC, and not two twins.

 

I will be leaving this thread now, as I have posted all that I would like to share.

before you leave, I would just like to say that I saw both videos, and the very first and most obvious flaw is that, you cant make a phone call on an airplane. Its not 100% impossible but if you manage to make even one, short phone call on an airplane, consider it a miracle. yet on 9/11, dosens of people where able to make phone calls on multiple planes and some lasted more than 30 min. Doesn't seem right don't you think. But any way, the videos are informative, and did give me some insight on the rebutting side of the issue. 

before you leave, I would just like to say that I saw both videos, and the very first and most obvious flaw is that, you cant make a phone call on an airplane. Its not 100% impossible but if you manage to make even one, short phone call on an airplane, consider it a miracle. yet on 9/11, dosens of people where able to make phone calls on multiple planes and some lasted more than 30 min. Doesn't seem right don't you think. But any way, the videos are informative, and did give me some insight on the rebutting side of the issue. 

I just don't understand what your point is with this evidence. This doesn't prove anything..

And I'm saying leave well enough alone, there is no need to dredge back up this tragedy for a pointless debate.  If you can't come up with something more pressing and current to discuss then please don't dig back up a tragedy and a mass murder to entertain yourself, next you'll be asking if Peral Harbor was a false flag... 

 

Some events in history are not meant for debate and in my opinion 9/11 certainly qualifies...

First off, I wouldn't consider the possibility of our own government killing its own citizens "a pointless debate" because it concerns the safety and security of the American people. This isnt new, Governments killing their own people has happened many times throughout history, why is the US an exception.

 

You want a more current event, how about the fact that Russia might start WWIII anytime soon.

 

I don't want to disrespect the Brave firefighters, police officers, and paramedics that did their job on 9/11. I just want people to find the real culprits of this horrible event

I just don't understand what your point is with this evidence. This doesn't prove anything..

I'm not saying this is the piece of evidence that will without an doubt show that the government did it. All I did was point out the first and most obvious mistake or "plot hole" if you will, in the official 9/11 report. There is a lot more evidence, that shows that government could be behind it, or at the very least, show that scientifically, things don't add up. However the main conspiracy isn't either, I will admit.

well even if there is "proof" of explosion from inside the building the terrorists could have just planted them there to ensure maximum casualties in my personal opinion 

before you leave, I would just like to say that I saw both videos, and the very first and most obvious flaw is that, you cant make a phone call on an airplane. Its not 100% impossible but if you manage to make even one, short phone call on an airplane, consider it a miracle. yet on 9/11, dosens of people where able to make phone calls on multiple planes and some lasted more than 30 min. Doesn't seem right don't you think. But any way, the videos are informative, and did give me some insight on the rebutting side of the issue.

So, those phones built into the back of seats on older planes are just for show? Airfone didn't actually exist? Or do you just not have the slightest idea what you're talking about?

There is no reason why phones cannot function perfectly well from an aircraft; there is this thing known as "radio" that planes traditionally use. Cell phones don't really work at cruise altitude, because you're far from cell towers. But cellular technology is not the only way to transmit phone calls. Air-ground telephony over radio started in the 30s; it's an established radio service (it was in decline before 9/11 and since 2005-2006 they've generally been removed from US planes for being unprofitable, but it was pretty commonly installed before then).

So, those phones built into the back of seats on older planes are just for show? Airfone didn't actually exist? Or do you just not have the slightest idea what you're talking about?

There is no reason why phones cannot function perfectly well from an aircraft; there is this thing known as "radio" that planes traditionally use. Cell phones don't really work at cruise altitude, because you're far from cell towers. But cellular technology is not the only way to transmit phone calls. Air-ground telephony over radio started in the 30s; it's an established radio service (it was in decline before 9/11 and since 2005-2006 they've generally been removed from US planes for being unprofitable, but it was pretty commonly installed before then).

I second this.

It would be impossible for a call to be made at 30.000ft, buts it's a different story if it's on low altitude and close to ground.

The terrorists did not hijack the planes, flew them out in the Atlantic, and then climbed up to cruise altitude.

They mostly stayed over US Soil (And Waters) on a couple of hundred feets altitude. You can make calls from there.

I also heard that the plane in Pennsylvania was actually shot down by the military. Anyone got insight on this?

I also heard that the plane in Pennsylvania was actually shot down by the military. Anyone got insight on this?

Im not sure it was shot down, but I do no that only very small fragments of an airplane where found at the crash site. Plane crashes similar to flight 93, did not bear the same type of wreckage. 

So, those phones built into the back of seats on older planes are just for show? Airfone didn't actually exist? Or do you just not have the slightest idea what you're talking about?

There is no reason why phones cannot function perfectly well from an aircraft; there is this thing known as "radio" that planes traditionally use. Cell phones don't really work at cruise altitude, because you're far from cell towers. But cellular technology is not the only way to transmit phone calls. Air-ground telephony over radio started in the 30s; it's an established radio service (it was in decline before 9/11 and since 2005-2006 they've generally been removed from US planes for being unprofitable, but it was pretty commonly installed before then).

Ok, so, initially, the FBI reported that most of the phone calls made on the 9/11 flights where made from cellphones at an altitude of 25,000 - 45,000 ft, then in 2006 they reported that 35 phone calls where made from and air phone and 2 where made from a cell phone from an altitude from 5,000 ft (at this altitude it would still be unlikely to get phone call through, but not impossible). However there are some inconsistencies with this report, such as the people receiving the calls claimed to have shown the caller id number when the phone rang, not an american or united airlines id, the FBI claims that they could have made a mistake in a state of panic, but it seems unlikely that so many people would make the same mistake. Second, flight 77 was reportedly "not fitted with air phones" (american airlines claimed that Boeing 767s and 777s where fitted with air phones, but not the 757 of flight 77), Tim Wagner stated that "American Airlines 757s do not have o nboard phones for passenger use." and Chad W. Kinder (Customer relations for American Airlines) stated " we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”88" and Boeing 757 maintenance manual dated January 28th 2001 stated “The passenger telephone system was deactivated by ECO [Engineering Change Order] FO878.” 

 

So there you have it

well even if there is "proof" of explosion from inside the building the terrorists could have just planted them there to ensure maximum casualties in my personal opinion 

yeah, but would have been extremly unlikely that a bunch of Jihads could smuggle explosives into one of Americans most beloved landmarks with out getting caught. Its not like the 1993 bombing, where it was just a van full of explosives. Here your talking about tons and tons of explosive material, that have to smuggled into the US, and imagine how much that would all cost.

Ok I've just looked it up and jet fuel cannot melt steel but this article backs up the claim that the jet fuel played a role

http://i.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2u1tvc/where_did_the_jet_fuel_cant_melt_steel_beams/

Edited March 21, 201511 yr by gatekeeper

Ok I've just looked it up and jet fuel cannot melt steel but this article backs up the claim that the jet fuel played a role

http://i.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/2u1tvc/where_did_the_jet_fuel_cant_melt_steel_beams/

 

While it's true that jet fuel cannot melt steel, that doesn't mean to say it cannot damage steel significantly. The immense heat of the burning jet fuel would have caused the steel to expand, causing stress and strain on a structure that had already been significantly damaged by absorbing and dissipating the energy that hit the structure from the momentum of the aircraft (also, remember that the total kinetic energy of an object is E = 0.5 x mass x velocity^2). A combination of these factors could have easily caused all of the structure that was above the impact zone to collapse onto the structure below, which would have been accelerating at 9.81m.s^-1 and would have had a high mass, leading to all the energy pushing down on the remaining structure, which would be unlikely be able to handle all that energy coming down on it.

While it's true that jet fuel cannot melt steel, that doesn't mean to say it cannot damage steel significantly. The immense heat of the burning jet fuel would have caused the steel to expand, causing stress and strain on a structure that had already been significantly damaged by absorbing and dissipating the energy that hit the structure from the momentum of the aircraft (also, remember that the total kinetic energy of an object is E = 0.5 x mass x velocity^2). A combination of these factors could have easily caused all of the structure that was above the impact zone to collapse onto the structure below, which would have been accelerating at 9.81m.s^-1 and would have had a high mass, leading to all the energy pushing down on the remaining structure, which would be unlikely be able to handle all that energy coming down on it.

That was my point