Was 9/11 an inside job set up by the US government?

And to counter that, if you're dumb enough to tarnish every person who might believe in a conspiracy with one brush then you are beyond help. It's very easy to say it wasn't a conspiracy. Very easy. The 9/11 debacle goes so deep that not even those that are willing to accept that it may have been orchestrated by powers higher than government have even touched the surface. 9/11 has been a hugely successful event for the US. Fact. Is it so impossible to believe they didn't no it was going to happen/help it happen? I don't think so.

If you're dumb enough to believe everything the government says is true then you're beyond help. The Iraq war was all lies, doesn't that at least make you THINK for YOURSELF.

Also, look up Operation Northwoods.

Motives for a war with the middle east: money, oil, establish more bases in the middle east, and more money.

ALL of which are easily justifiable without 9/11. Extraordinary risk necessitates extraordinary reward for taking that risk, it just doesn't add up.

What's with thr Muslim conspiracy theories.

There are many questions, but not many answers. I find it hard to believe Bin Laden was responsible - there's a strong case he died in 2001.
But I also find it hard to believe how such a cover-up could be maintained.

In the end, 3000 died in the attacks. MILLIONS died in the aftermath at the hands of the NATO. The West are the real terrorists - how can people not believe this simple fact?

I know what Northwoods was. But the difference there was that the USA was already at war with Cuba, so they had a motive for the acts that were supposedly planned. With regard to 9/11, why would the USA want to START a war with Iraq/Afghanistan? As I said in my original post (and you appear to have conveniently ignored) there is no clear motive for going to war there besides a) revenge for 9/11 as perpetrated by terrorist cells from those countries, or b) sadism, i.e. enjoying seeing people die.

Motives for a war with the middle east: money, oil, establish more bases in the middle east, and more money.

No, I don't believe everything the government says- I've seen the evidence and came to the conclusion on my own.

I didn't mention the Iraq War, which, unlike government claims, was not started due to WMDs- I've seen the evidence and came to the conclusion on my own.

Concurring with what a government says on some issues does not mean I am not a free thinker; unlike disbelieving everything the government says.

Right I'm going to stop you there. You're not going to get very far by coming on to a British forum and saying the West are terrorists.

To put it frankly Al Qaeda started this crap. Every single person that has died at the hands on Nato since 9/11 only has Al Qaeda to blame for it.

This is what makes me question the motives for the Afghan war.

1) A couple of years later, the Iraq was started, based on lies.

2) It was a retaliation to an attack that killed 3000 people. This retaliation killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, many innocents. If the US didn't declare a war, they would have been better off in terms of US deaths (soldiers dying). An entire country's economy has been destroyed as well as essential infrastructure. Great 'democracy' promotion, eh?

3) There are genuine facts surrounding the monetary gain of Bush, Cheney and their friends with the oil companies that they operated with in Iraq (which was a war to stop terror and promote 'liberty'). Why then take oil? Afghanistan has vast amounts of opium - ever wonder where it all circulates from?

I could go on further.
However, when you really think about it the economic gain must outweigh the moral implications caused by such war. None of us are in a position of ruling power so we don't have the 'scales' of decision if you like. War must be necessary if we are to enjoy the economic luxuries that we do, such as posting on a student website about **** which we have no power over! haha

You're creating facts to suit theories, not theories to suit facts.

Investigation 101.

It's not being solidly dis-proven though, don't link me to debunking 9/11 site because some of their debunks are ****ing retarded.

Tower 7 is a bit of a mystery for me.

If you just focus on building 7 alone you would come to that conclusion. Building 7 the 3rd tower to collapse into it's own foot print in the same manner as the other two towers was not hit by a plane. Had some fire on a few floors, that it. But you see it goes against the laws of physics and science for fire to cause a sky scraper to collapse at near free-fall speed (i.e. as if it had no resistance).

I believe it was, just look at the way the WTC building fell. Just totally random and it falls right within its foot print. Buildings dont collapse like that unless they were controlled demolitions. It's a bit of a joke really. What about the black smoke? and the multiple pop sounds that have been picked just before the towers fall and what about the steel core? Fire doesnt do jack to steel foundations and what about the news reports of one the buildings reported to have fallen but didnt actually fall yet? WTF. Then there are photos showing something mounted under the plane and the fact that it looked gray rather than an AA 747 and what about the time delay? If I remember correctly the second tower falls before the first. Plus plenty of other real interesting things I havent mentioned.

It's a long time since I last watched this but I found it very interesting at the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwayjX4ipFc

Which of the debunks are retarded? At the end of the day, you need to have quite extensive knowledge of explosives and structural engineering to make a bold statement such as "WTC 7 fell due to a controlled demolition" or any other conspiracy. Do you have such knowledge? Are you an expert in explosives? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are. In that case, you have to trust someone's testimony on what actually happened.

There are two main categories of people that people choose to trust.
1) demolition experts, structural engineers, the vast majority of whom believe the official story. (http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf - structural engineers explain their view)

2) neckbeard virgins on Youtube, with very little knowledge on either structural engineering or demolitions, making 10 minute poorly edited video clips, with no professional support.

I realise this resembles an argument from authority. But do you really want to take the jump and say you trust group 2 rather than group 1?



lol what??
How can you believe the bush administration to be evil but not the whole US administration to be evil? A false flag operation of this size would require many people to be involved, ergo you have to assume the entire government is evil.

Let me ask you this, do you believe Obama is evil?
I'd wager you probably don't. That's because you like Obama. You don't want to think of him as evil. But if you think one Presidents whole administration is completely corrupt and shadowy, that implies that the next government is still going to be in on it. There will be civil servants under Obama's employment that worked for Bush too.

And why don't you believe 7/7 is an inside job? There are thousands of conspiracy nuts who believe that too. If you asked them about it, they would produce all kinds of "evidence"* to convince you. and yet you would deny that evidence. why deny that "evidence" but not the "evidence" for 9/11 being an inside job ? They are both as convoluted. You are just picking and choosing what you want to believe, rather than actually looking at the evidence objectively and coming to a rational conclusion.

*example of evidence given by conspiracy nuts saying 7/7 was an inside job: http://wideshut.co.uk/77-inquest-analysis-of-new-cctv-and-phone-evidence/
Why do you not believe this, but you do believe 9/11 was an inside job?

u need to see a doctor pal