The Student Room Group

Do you believe 9/11 or any other terrorist attack in the West was an inside job?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by AliRizzo
Wow you really are grade A ****ing stupid aren't you. Please, I beg of you, don't reply to this until you read your first two paragraphs again. How are you equating being recognised for your religion to being recognised for your nationality? Religion requires belief, nationality does not you absolute moron.

And yeah, if it wasn't obvious enough for your feeble mind. Duh.


You proved my point, thank you and it was easier than expected
That's a shít poll you've got there. Simple 'yes' and 'no' options would be good.
No, I blame 9/11 on Anne Robinson. :yes:
Original post by Synchyst
Can someone also please explain to me how a steel corrugated skyscraper comes down in less than an hour as a result if jet fuel. At this point basic physics was thrown out the window.


Sure

1. Plane impacts building, kenetic impact of plane compremises structure and supports. Impact also fractures escape stairwells and most experior supports on impact and opposite side.
1a. Remaining supports are damaged and strength degraded.
2. Fine mist of avation fule is sprayed everywhere and finely mixed with air.
3. Mixture ignites, causing an exposion.
4. Remaining fire protection, fire resistant coatings and fire partitioning walls are blown away by explosion.
5 Aviation fuel burns burns at 1,030°C in air and can reach 2,230°C.
6. Fire melts remaining aluminium (melts at 660°C) support trusses.
7. Tower collapses.

Remember that support materials are under great load. If they are compremised even as little as 10%, you could see collapse. It depends what margins the engineers who built the structure worked to.

Aluminium or steel doesn't need to completely melt to fail. It only needs to become hot in order to start loosing its strength.

Also, the remaining supports after the impact are now suppoting ~200% of their design weight, even before the fire. This lowers your temperature failure point even more.

Also, it's not as if buildings haven't collapsed due to fire before, many have and they didn't even have a plane fly into them.

Even if there wasn't any fire at all it was probably still only a matter of time before the structures failed.

There you have it.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Lattoo
Why are you singling out Muslims?


You can see from the pole results why...
Original post by Zantetsuken
That's a shít poll you've got there. Simple 'yes' and 'no' options would be good.


I find the results quite revealing. Although I must say I'm relatively suspicious of 25% of people answering being muslims.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Synchyst
Lol. If only you knew. This is why they would kill their own people.

ImageUploadedByStudent Room1448157945.558605.jpg

Iraq had nothing to do with the inside job of 9/11. They prepared this very sophisticated event carefully with the help of the Israeli Mossad. The target was Saddam. Why Saddam you may be ask?

Because Saddam decided to sell his gold and Oil in the Euro instead of the Dollar. This brought devastating consequences for the U.S economy and and an excuse was needed to take down Saddam. Hope this answers your question OP.

There are more than a billion other reasons why it was an inside job.


Saddam also invaded two of his neighbours, threatened a third, used chemical weapons against their own people, tried to assissinate George Bush Snr and broke his nuclear non proliferation treaty obligations.
Original post by AliRizzo
They're not our 'brothers' you ignorant fool, they are murderers. Like I posted to the other guy, I didn't say it is definitely a conspiracy, it might well be delusional terrorists, but his stance was annoying and ignorant.


Yeah? So why are so many Muslims (and moderate ones at that) so determined to delude themselves that it wasn't Muslims? Why is it that every single time Islamists commit an attack there's always countless Muslims saying it's CIA or Mossad? Even when there's absolutely no evidence it's an inside job (ie with 9/11) they still won't give up claiming it was anybody besides fellow Muslims.

Why are Muslims far more likely than any demographic to throw all evidence out the window so that they can keep shifting the blame for 9/11 onto The West instead of the terrorists.

It's so transparent.
Original post by The Blue Axolotl


It might be "silly" to question the official stories, it might even be eccentric, but it's always good idea to ask questions, and I want answers.


Yeah, it's OK to question the official stories but how about you show the same scrutiny towards the conspiracy theories? I've honestly never once met a conspiracy theorist who has done so and that's why they are still believe all their nonsense.

The stuff you'd posted above regarding the Pentagon and building 7 is a case in point. It's all been debunked a billion times over the years.

People into the conspiracy theories claim they are "just asking questions" like you're earnestly trying to get to the truth. But that's not true is it? Because you only accept the answers that fit into the story you've already decided is the right one, which is that it was Bush/the lizard people/CIA/Mossad/Jews/Illuminati. If all the evidence in the world supported the official story (which it does) you won't accept it.

So don't try to pretend it's "just asking questions".
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ellie0497
I find it interesting how most Muslims think it's an inside job


It feeds into their cognitive dissonance that The West is the cause of all problems in the world and that Muslims are incapable of doing such things.
Reply 90
Noam Chomsky put it best when he shut down a 9/11 conspiracy theorist:

[video="youtube;3i9ra-i6Knc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6Knc[/video]
(edited 8 years ago)
I believe it couldn't all have been a conspiracy, terrorism is too much of an issue to try to cover up
Original post by KimKallstrom
It feeds into their cognitive dissonance that The West is the cause of all problems in the world and that Muslims are incapable of doing such things.


The same could be said for the non-Muslims (primarily) believing it's not an inside job...
If someone provides me reasons for why the fire exist doors were locked, why the fire alarm wasn't working and why the lifts were 'out of service' (where Bush's brother was in charge of 'modernising' the lifts) I would be convinced.
Original post by KimKallstrom


The stuff you'd posted above regarding the Pentagon and building 7 is a case in point. It's all been debunked a billion times over the years.



It has? Where's your evidence then?
To be fair, I didn't know passports were completely fire proof before 9/11
An Ex-Navy seal soldier Ken O'keefe explains why 9/11 was an inside job.

http://youtu.be/gfXecU3v-70

Stop calling a conspiracy theory when tons of evidence is being smashed in your face over and over again.

FireFighters in both towers said they heard bombs go off every 10 minutes on the floors. And why is it the owner of both these towers sold them both a month before the attack?
Original post by MatureStudent36
Saddam also invaded two of his neighbours, threatened a third, used chemical weapons against their own people, tried to assissinate George Bush Snr and broke his nuclear non proliferation treaty obligations.


He invaded Kuwait. He did not use chemical weapons against his own people. Please provide the evidence for this.
Original post by Pegasus2
Sure

1. Plane impacts building, kenetic impact of plane compremises structure and supports. Impact also fractures escape stairwells and most experior supports on impact and opposite side.
1a. Remaining supports are damaged and strength degraded.
2. Fine mist of avation fule is sprayed everywhere and finely mixed with air.
3. Mixture ignites, causing an exposion.
4. Remaining fire protection, fire resistant coatings and fire partitioning walls are blown away by explosion.
5 Aviation fuel burns burns at 1,030°C in air and can reach 2,230°C.
6. Fire melts remaining aluminium (melts at 660°C) support trusses.
7. Tower collapses.

Remember that support materials are under great load. If they are compremised even as little as 10%, you could see collapse. It depends what margins the engineers who built the structure worked to.

Aluminium or steel doesn't need to completely melt to fail. It only needs to become hot in order to start loosing its strength.

Also, the remaining supports after the impact are now suppoting ~200% of their design weight, even before the fire. This lowers your temperature failure point even more.

Also, it's not as if buildings haven't collapsed due to fire before, many have and they didn't even have a plane fly into them.

Even if there wasn't any fire at all it was probably still only a matter of time before the structures failed.

There you have it.


Some of your points are flawed. Explain to me how jet fuel fire melts steel. There was a skyscraper in taiwan burning up so much it didn't collapse for 26 hours yet we have the same case in the twin towers and they come down in just 45 minutes. How?
I'm very embarrassed that I used to believe it was an inside job. It only takes a minute of rational thought to come to the conclusion that a cover-up would be an incredibly convoluted process, and that with some further research you'll find all the scientific explanations to what happened to the buildings etc.

I can't tell you how much it annoys me when I talk to some 'truther' and they throw me the same **** like "Watch Loose Change", or "jet fuel can't melt steel beams". If you don't have all the information and have an inherent rebellious attitude to general consensus, then of course a one-sided documentary of misinformation will convince you of something frankly ridiculous.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending