Was 9/11 an inside job?

submitted by Blackbrownfreestuff from self.debatealtright

It's possible the official narrative is true. Radicalised arab muslims attacking western monuments to jewish power does seem plausible and many 9/11 truther myths have been debunked. On the otherhand, I wouldn't put it past neoconsevative politicians and their jewish handlers to stage the perfect false flag to serve their interests. Officials also haven't provided solid explanations for WTC 7 or the pentagon footage. A skyscraper in china was recently engulfed in flames and didnt collapse. Sauce

It also seems implausible, but not impossible for someone who isn't a pilot to fly into the pentagon. That was a whole in one shot on a par 4.

all 25 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Check out Ryan Dawson's stuff on 9/11, no schizo stuff just combs through the evidence to find Israeli fingerprints everywhere.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is there a better option than this. I am not seeing a lot out there after googling?

https://youtu.be/q9VNHFLsqfE

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He has appearances on TDS and The People's Square iirc

You can also go to his website ancreport.com

[–]LarrySwinger2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yes, it was most definitely an inside job. I'll go through a couple of discrepancies chronologically. A passenger airplane would fall apart if it'd fly at the height and speed that was presented. Even if the flight was technically possible, there's no way amateurs could perform such a flight. A lot of top pilots claim they wouldn't be able to fly a plane into a building like that. Fire has never caused a building to collapse before or after 9/11, and it would definitely not have that effect on the twin towers. They were built to withstand a plane impact. The buildings contained an inner structure that'd remain standing on its own even if the floors had collapsed. It clearly wasn't a normal collapse. Rather it was a controlled demolition with explosions inside the building going off to make it look like a collapse. The evidence of that is found in the numerous videos of the collapse: flashes of explosions are seen below the point where the collapse is taking place, there are molten beams, and debris is ejected horizontally. In fact, the debris ends up covering Manhattan. The weight of the rubble is only a fraction of the building that had been above it. That doesn't happen with a normal collapse. And the timing of the collapses are more consistent with controlled demolition. It only takes slightly longer.

There are lots of resources on all of this. Loose Change is a classic still worthy of recommendation. Richard Gage's presentations are great and focus purely on the science of the collapses. Christopher Bollyn should be especially of interest to this community, as he focuses on the connection with Israel.

A talk about 9/11 by David Chandler, purely focused on the physics. The 9/11 Masterpiece - Christopher Bollyn connects every dot.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

A lot of top pilots claim they wouldn't be able to fly a plane into a building like that.

The Japanese were doing suicide air attacks 56 years earlier. It was called "Kamikaze".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze

Many of them were successful and hit large aircraft carriers that were considered mobile and had AA guns firing back at them.

Static buildings are far easier targets to crash into than that.

[–]LarrySwinger2 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Their testament takes the speed of the planes into account, which was 750 km/h. Kamikaze pilots flew at less than half that speed.

In 2001, nobody was prepared for a hijacking to turn into a suicide mission. Most terrorists back then only demanded money. But since the hijackers killed the pilots first, they were looking for shock value.

All you're saying by this is that it was plausible for people to have such intentions, which I agree with. But I showed that the nature of the attacks was very different, that it wasn't simply a matter of flying airplanes into buildings. Even that part would've been impossible. Note also that the planes would've been intercepted soon after getting off the planned course. There are mechanisms in place for that, but somehow they didn't function on 9/11. I also show that something other than plane impact caused the buildings to collapse. The fact that there were apparent plane impacts alongside actual collapses demonstrate that the attacks were far more advanced than any terrorist organization is capable of. It isn't simply about whether or not anyone was prepared for a suicide mission. It's about whether or not Al Qaeda could have carried out what we've seen happen. This is how psychological operations work: they develop a surface story which suffices to the unquestioning, and then it's hard to accept any different explanation.

Terrorists normally claim responsibility for their attacks, often beforehand. If the purpose is to instill people with fear, it's essential to do this rather than distance yourself from it. So can you explain why Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Their testament takes the speed of the planes into account, which was 750 km/h. Kamikaze pilots flew at less than half that speed.

Japan built the Cherry Bomber during WW2, which could go as fast as 1,000 km/h before the pilot killed himself reaching its target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_MXY-7_Ohka#Design_and_development

"The final approach was difficult for a defender to stop because the aircraft gained high speed (650 km/h (400 mph) in level flight and 930 km/h (580 mph) or even 1,000 km/h (620 mph) in a dive. Later versions were designed to be launched from coastal air bases and caves, and even from submarines equipped with aircraft catapults, although none were actually used in this way. The Allen M. Sumner-class destroyer USS Mannert L. Abele was the first Allied ship to be sunk by Ohka aircraft, near Okinawa on 12 April 1945.[6][7] "

All you're saying by this is that it was plausible for people to have such intentions, which I agree with. But I showed that the nature of the attacks was very different, that it wasn't simply a matter of flying airplanes into buildings. Even that part would've been impossible. Note also that the planes would've been intercepted soon after getting off the planned course.

I edited my post but once again, in 2001, hijackers were seen as demanding money. It was never a popular belief they were prepared to kill themselves instead of landing. The voice recordings made note of this. The hijackers told the passengers to stay in their seats and that they will return to the airport. But since they actually killed the pilots first, only they knew it was a suicide mission and wanted to keep everyone deceived.

Hence, it wasn't until the the 4th hijacked plane that the passengers tried to fight back. They received phone calls that the 3 other planes had intentionally crashed, thus it became apparent they were also going to die if they didn't resist instead.

Edit: And the planes were intercepted, but the fighter jets were poorly prepared. They didn't have time to load any ammunition, so they would have had to physically crash into them to bring them down.

https://www.history.com/news/911-heather-penney-united-flight-93

"As confusion enveloped the briefing room, Penney's commanding officer, Colonel Marc "Sass" Sasseville, locked his eyes to hers and said, “Lucky, you’re coming with me.” They scrambled to the pre-flight area and donned their flight suits. There was no time to arm their F-16 fighter jets, so they would be flying this mission virtually unarmed, packing only their undaunted courage."

I also show that something other than plane impact caused the buildings to collapse. The fact that there were apparent plane impacts alongside actual collapses demonstrate that the attacks were far more advanced than any terrorist organization is capable of.

Edit: In regards to your evidence, the building was on fire for an hour. There was debris, but there was also people inside smashing the windows , which was also causing things to blow out.

Terrorists normally claim responsibility for their attacks, often beforehand. If the purpose is to instill people with fear, it's essential to do this rather than distance yourself from it. So can you explain why Bin Laden denied responsibility for the attacks?

Lying is not out of the question. Especially to pass blame onto someone else or avoid capture. That doesn't mean he is guilty, but famous people have always pretended they did nothing wrong. OJ Simpson comes to mind. And of course, George Bush himself lied about the reasons for invading Iraq, yet still acts like it's not his fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y23mTSviCZo

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Japanese were doing suicide air attacks 56 years earlier. It was called "Kamikaze".

These two situations were not even remotely comparable. The Japanese kamikazes were flying much smaller, much more maneuverable planes than the 9/11 hijackers. There is just no comparison at all to flying 3 ton prop fighters vs 120 ton commercial jetliners. Its the difference between driving a car vs driving a bus. The Japanese Zeros and Vals could turn on a dime and pull many positive and negative Gs.

Static buildings are far easier targets to crash into than that.

No, they actually weren't. The kamikazes were hitting warships in a nose dive or straight in approach, in a very lightweight, very maneuverable aircraft. The 9/11 hijackers were flying commercial jetliners (which are about as maneuverable as an 18 wheeler on ice) into skycrapers while flying at enormously high speeds.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The 9/11 hijackers were flying commercial jetliners (which are about as maneuverable as an 18 wheeler on ice) into skycrapers while flying at enormously high speeds.

They had plenty of time to prepare. The planes took off from the airport, got hijacked mid flight, they changed direction until the buildings were in their line of sight, and then they accelerated towards them.

Amateur video confirms this. The second plane was still in control of the hijackers as they tilted the aircraft so it wouldn't miss.

https://youtu.be/o6t31R4tI10?t=117

Victims inside the airplane also reported that the hijackers were making jerky erratic movements right up until they crashed (via phonecalls).

It's getting very bad on the plane. Passengers are throwing up and getting sick. The plane is making jerky movements. I don't think the pilot is flying the plane. I think we are going down. I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building. Don't worry, Dad. If it happens, it'll be very fast ... Oh my God ... oh my God, oh my God

https://www.newsweek.com/florida-walmart-hijacker-bought-items-fake-bomb-scare-passengers-1623529

By the way, saying a commercial jet is not maneuverable, how do you think they get on the landing strip when they're so high off the ground?

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Loose change was interesting. Some of the ideas presented are valid. Some have been debunked. So far I havent seen a valid explanation for WTC7 or the pentagon.

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I haven't watched Loose Change in 18 years but looking back it seems like misdirection. I don't recall one mention of Israel in that doc.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Even if it was, all the "alternate" explanations I've heard are too schizo.

It was the most documented event of its time. People still had cameras and they literally recorded the attacks from every angle and it's all consistent. We also heard phone calls from inside the towers and the airplanes.

It doesn't leave much room for imagination. Especially since it was 2001, and America was still seen as being untouchable since Pearl Harbor. If anything, it actually proved that the country was vulnerable and let its guard down.

The same thing happened again in 2021. A bunch of third world goat farmers rapidly pushed back the U.S Army and recaptured all of Afghanistan, despite President Biden saying "lol, never gonna happen buddy".

It only looks like a conspiracy because people have high expectations that a once majority white country could never be this incompetent, but the damage was already being done once mass immigration and the civil rights act was passed.

The Arab Terrorists would never have been allowed inside America if the country remained White Nationalist for example...

Edit: And of course, George Bush himself was widely seen as an idiot. How can someone mastermind an attack, but also not know doors?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs-1jR9Ya0U

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I doubt many people think Bush single handidly masterminded the attack. My understanding of the schizo theory is that jewish neocon handlers like Wolfowitz and the boys were masterminds. I don't know if these schizo theories are true, but might be worth listening to?

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's absolutely possible that Jews could have been in direct collaboration or benefitted from the terrorists. But does this mean I must directly credit them for every level of incompetence made by a major power? I must disagree.

If there was another President in charge at the time (i.e Al Gore), then the U.S might have reacted differently or even outright thwarted the attacks from ever happening.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yah it's hard to sort this one out, but I smell bagels.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you think it was bin laden?

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, I accept the official story.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It's possible the official narrative is true

Not really. The narrative told by the 911 Commission Report contains 25 internal contradictions and inconsistencys.

many 9/11 truther myths have been debunked

Like what?

u/Blackbrownfreestuff

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Dumb shit like "muh jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel" and "they found thermite in the dust".

This argument fails for multiple reasons, the biggest one being that heat weakens steel, even without melting it.

[–]curious2 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The question implied by, “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” is, “So, then why did it?” It’s referring to to the “molten steel” that existed for days after, witnessed by firefighters and denied by NIST.

Google “incontrovertible proof“ and NIST for a good video on this.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've seen the photos and cant tell if its molten steel. Ive also seen controlled demolition videos on cable television and they dont melt the steel beams with explosives. The use dynamite to break them with explosive force.

[–]TheJamesRocket 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

muh jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel

This is based on the observable evidence of molten steel pouring out of the twin towers prior to the collapse, and the molten steel found in the rubble of ground zero days afterward.

they found thermite in the dust

This is more debatable, since the chain of custody for those thermite samples is disputed.

This argument fails for multiple reasons, the biggest one being that heat weakens steel, even without melting it.

In order to the core columns in the towers to have undergone a creep failure), the fires would have needed to burn for many hours at an intensity well beyond what was present. There wasn't enough combustible materials in the twin towers to generate those kindof temperatures. The jet fuel would have burnt out within minutes.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When i see this photo i think, could be molten steel or it could be burning stuff. It's pretty weak.

As for heat induced failure, im gonna leave that call to structural engineers.