10 legit reasons 9/11 was demonstrably an inside job.

George_Horse

Also to mention how it would practically be impossible for aircraft to destroy two large steel constructed skyscrapers. The more probable theory is use of explosives which brought down the two buildings. 

Erfisflat

I think it is obvious that the 9/11 official narrative is nonsensical, and any competent and critical thinker agrees.

George_Horse

@Erfisflat ; Boeing 757s are variable sweep wing aircraft!

piloteer

Just keep ignoring that fact that it is your society that is responsible for causing other societies to want to destroy you. The big one will come someday, and if you survive, you'll probably deny that it was YOUR FAULT. How long will the people of the US pretend that it wasn't their fault for causing 9/11?

MayCaesar

So... where are the reasons? Your very first claim contradicts the source you provided for it. You do not seriously hope this piece is going to pass any sort of peer review, do you?

21st century, and some people still do not know that steel melts from high temperatures, something smiths have been using for thousands years. ¡Grandioso!

Zombieguy1987

Erfisflat said:

I think it is obvious that the 9/11 official narrative is nonsensical, and any competent and critical thinker agrees.

I've never seen an aircraft do that in the history of aircrafts

AmericanFurryBoy

All of this stuff checks out. Hell, I’ve even done the research myself. But, I don’t get why. We went in to the Iraq war for oil, we didn’t even attack the correct people. The terrorists were Saudi Arabians.

AmericanFurryBoy

@Wowsil
ok, but we still went in for oil. Read between the lines and dig deeper. You’ll find out.

Zombieguy1987

@AmericanFurryBoy ;

Because, when America smells oil, they need to send some FREEDOM*!
*By freedom we mean war!

Erfisflat

Zombieguy1987 said:

Erfisflat said:

I think it is obvious that the 9/11 official narrative is nonsensical, and any competent and critical thinker agrees.

I've never seen an aircraft do that in the history of aircrafts

That's because it is farcical.

Erfisflat

AmericanFurryBoy said:

@Wowsil
ok, but we still went in for oil. Read between the lines and dig deeper. You’ll find out.

We are building a worldwide empire.

Zombieguy1987

Erfisflat said:

Zombieguy1987 said:

Erfisflat said:

I think it is obvious that the 9/11 official narrative is nonsensical, and any competent and critical thinker agrees.

I've never seen an aircraft do that in the history of aircrafts

That's because it is farcical.

What the heck is farcical!?

Erfisflat

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Definition+of+farcical

Zombieguy1987

@Erfisflat ;

Hahahaha. You think that's funny....

Flat Earth comedy is sinking faster than the Lusitania (Which I bet is another one of his conspiracies. Though this is one I can accept) 

Erfisflat

MayCaesar said:

So... where are the reasons? Your very first claim contradicts the source you provided for it. You do not seriously hope this piece is going to pass any sort of peer review, do you?

21st century, and some people still do not know that steel melts from high temperatures, something smiths have been using for thousands years. ¡Grandioso!

The hellish office fires!!!  With added sprinkler systems for extra fuel!

Zombieguy1987

Erfisflat said:

Zombieguy1987 said:

Erfisflat said:

I think it is obvious that the 9/11 official narrative is nonsensical, and any competent and critical thinker agrees.

I've never seen an aircraft do that in the history of aircrafts

That's because it is farcical.

so, based of the definition of Farcical, what are you calling ridiculous? my comment, or your own comment?

Erfisflat

@George_Horse you might be interested in this:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

https://www.wanttoknow.info/911information#911document

Erfisflat

Zombieguy1987 said:

Erfisflat said:

Zombieguy1987 said:

Erfisflat said:

I think it is obvious that the 9/11 official narrative is nonsensical, and any competent and critical thinker agrees.

I've never seen an aircraft do that in the history of aircrafts

That's because it is farcical.

so, based of the definition of Farcical, what are you calling ridiculous? my comment, or your own comment?

Out of curiosity, do you know what your IQ is?

The cartoon is farcical. 

Gooberry

l

Erfisflat

Gooberry said:

l

You like wiki so much:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_evidence

Zombieguy1987

@Erfisflat ;

, It's the first time I even heard of that word!

Stop being a jerk and go back to making logical fallacies  

Zombieguy1987

George_Horse said:

Also to mention how it would practically be impossible for aircraft to destroy two large steel constructed skyscrapers. The more probable theory is use of explosives which brought down the two buildings. 

Yeah, the people who made the Titanic said it was impossible to sink, and it sank.

The Nazis thought their army was impossible to defeat. And the lost.

During World War 1, Many leaders thought it would be impossible for anyone to win because of trench warfare. The war ended.

Humanity thought it was impossible to go into outer space, yet we have space programs like NASA.

The American people thought it was impossible for Trump to be elected, yet he's our president.

Nothing is impossible to do. It is possible for an aircraft to destroy a steel constructed skyscraper. 

Erfisflat

Zombieguy1987 said:

@Erfisflat ;

, It's the first time I even heard of that word!

Stop being a jerk and go back to making logical fallacies  

I wasn't trying to be mean, it was a genuine question. Which logical fallacy was that?

Erfisflat

@George_Horse

Erfisflat

@Gooberry

averyapro

I personally think it was done from the inside but the planes crashed into the buildings to make it seem real. I never get the chance to talk about this because everyone thinks it's fake and that I'm talking about it for attention but I finally have a chance to explain it. I think that the hijacking was all set up and it just doesn't seem realistic. With the hijackers VISA'S they would have realized that they don't have any or that they were expired, out of date, etc. Also, I truly believe that some government official(s) were inside the building and they set off some kind of explosive to destroy the towers. Also, a Boeing plane would not have the structure and the force to make a huge building explode and actually have mass damage. Basically, the only thing that would have a reasonable amount of power would be explosives throughout the building. That would be the only way that the building could actually explode. Also, the Pentagon doesn't need a conspiracy because it makes no sense that a Boeing plane damaged it considering it's one of the most heavily guarded and defended government properties and for a plane to do that much damage by going through it is ridiculous because it doesn't make any sense that it would happen. 

Erfisflat

averyapro said:

I personally think it was done from the inside but the planes crashed into the buildings to make it seem real. I never get the chance to talk about this because everyone thinks it's fake and that I'm talking about it for attention but I finally have a chance to explain it. I think that the hijacking was all set up and it just doesn't seem realistic. With the hijackers VISA'S they would have realized that they don't have any or that they were expired, out of date, etc. Also, I truly believe that some government official(s) were inside the building and they set off some kind of explosive to destroy the towers. Also, a Boeing plane would not have the structure and the force to make a huge building explode and actually have mass damage. Basically, the only thing that would have a reasonable amount of power would be explosives throughout the building. That would be the only way that the building could actually explode. Also, the Pentagon doesn't need a conspiracy because it makes no sense that a Boeing plane damaged it considering it's one of the most heavily guarded and defended government properties and for a plane to do that much damage by going through it is ridiculous because it doesn't make any sense that it would happen. 

It's understandable that you might be a bit discouraged to talk about this. The apologetics like to spew ad hominem and other fallacies for not thinking like "everyone else". Being skeptical of a claim, especially one as nonsensical as the 9/11 commission is healthy, and is a sign of critical thought. So when the apologetics come at you with mostly insult, realize this is just damage control, a sign that you are probably correct in your thoughts. 

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

@Gooberry

Its it when someone intentionally presents only evidence that agrees with them out of a dataset that includes contradictory information?

For example, it is cherry picking when someone claims that due to military backgrounds the pilots should and would have fought off 4 armed attackers; neglecting to account for facts such as “they were unarmed” and “it was standard airline policy at the time to cooperate with hijackers”?

Or may be you would accept the example of cherry picking when one focuses on one or two professional opinions or studies, and discount and ignore the wide ranging multiple examples of other professionals in the same field holding differing positions?

Asking for a friend....

Multiple of these bullets do not fall into the criteria of evidence: I mean, just look at the first two bullet points as an example.

They aren’t evidence of a conspiracy, as they are not themselves indicative of any foul play or intent.

For example: if someone died in a car crash, finding unknown and unexplained corrosion on the car, does not itself indicate the car has been tampered with unless you can show the corrosion was intentional.

Secondly, if someone commits a murder with a prohibited weapon - it’s not evidence that the government, or gun provider intentionally wanted that murder to happen. For that, you have to have evidence that there was intent.

Why? 

Because an explanation may require something to be true - but the same doesn’t go the other way around - and the something is often so generalized it could be true in numerous explanations:

Rain requires it to be cloudy, but being cloudy is not evidence that it is raining.

That’s why I say you don’t understand what evidence actually is: as you hold up this type of non-sequitor non-probative evidence all of the time repeatedly.

And finally - the nail in the coffin is your approach. Most of the “evidence” presented is attempting to probe issues and problems with the current narrative - naively trying to suggest that the only alternative to the current narrative is OMG CONDPIRACY - rather than attempting to demonstrate your own narrative is more accurate.

While you spend all your time doing this, you spend no time doing the same thing in reverse - probing issues and problems with your narrative. 

This is the problem with conspiracy: even if you accept all these facts at face value (which I don’t), if this makes the specific narrative unlikely to have happened as described - what if your conspiracy is even more impossible and outlandish when you probe it?

That’s why conspiracy theorist approach this from this massively asymmetric evidential basis, and is common with every example of faulty thinking from flat earth to creationism.

The implicit approach to the argument that if you are right about anything - you are right about EVERYTHING - if we are wrong about anything - we are wrong about EVERYTHING.

Erfisflat

"Its it when someone intentionally presents only evidence that agrees with them out of a dataset that includes contradictory information?"

This is beyond vague. If we were to see that contradictory information, yes.

"For example, it is cherry picking when someone claims that due to military backgrounds the pilots should and would have fought off 4 armed attackers; neglecting to account for facts such as “they were unarmed” and “it was standard airline policy at the time to cooperate with hijackers”?"

Your statement that "boxcutters are effective stabbing weapons" and "facts such as they were unarmed" are contradictory, which was it? We're they armed or no?

"Or may be you would accept the example of cherry picking when one focuses on one or two professional opinions or studies, and discount and ignore the wide ranging multiple examples of other professionals in the same field holding differing positions?

Asking for a friend...."

I guess, if this were just "one or two professional studies". This is literally thousands of professional studies, including hundreds of PHDs and what does the opposition have? .gov and wiki sites?

"Multiple of these bullets do not fall into the criteria of evidence: I mean, just look at the first two bullet points as an example.

They aren’t evidence of a conspiracy, as they are not themselves indicative of any foul play or intent.

For example: if someone died in a car crash, finding unknown and unexplained corrosion on the car, does not itself indicate the car has been tampered with unless you can show the corrosion was intentional."

So, your assertion that natural erosion has occurred to the steel collumns of the WTC buildings? You are again cherry picking, this was shown intentional. Analasis shows:" ...had been severely eroded/melted by something containing high concentrations of sulfur."

"Secondly, if someone commits a murder with a prohibited weapon - it’s not evidence that the government, or gun provider intentionally wanted that murder to happen. For that, you have to have evidence that there was intent."

Again you seem to have forgotten that there was an investigation underway, not to mention a very large insurance claim specifically covering terrorist attacks. You remember, the motive?

"Why? 

Because an explanation may require something to be true - but the same doesn’t go the other way around - and the something is often so generalized it could be true in numerous explanations:

Rain requires it to be cloudy, but being cloudy is not evidence that it is raining.

That’s why I say you don’t understand what evidence actually is: as you hold up this type of non-sequitor non-probative evidence all of the time repeatedly."

I'm still not sure where the disconnect is here. It seems you're still implying that professional opinion is not valid evidence. This is just ignorant.

"And finally - the nail in the coffin is your approach. Most of the “evidence” presented is attempting to probe issues and problems with the current narrative - naively trying to suggest that the only alternative to the current narrative is OMG CONDPIRACY - rather than attempting to demonstrate your own narrative is more accurate."

No, the approach is that there are several thousand experts that question the official narrative, some even calling it a blatant multi-faceted lie. I'm aware that it is a conspiracy, you may not be, but you are surely a minority, and your opinions on the matter are irrelevant, unless you have your PhD, even then, you are a sole opinion facing thousands.

"While you spend all your time doing this, you spend no time doing the same thing in reverse - probing issues and problems with your narrative. 

This is the problem with conspiracy: even if you accept all these facts at face value (which I don’t), if this makes the specific narrative unlikely to have happened as described - what if your conspiracy is even more impossible and outlandish when you probe it?"

See explanation above. The burden is not on those asking questions and pointing out blatant lies and physical impossibilities. At best, an unbiased investigation is being asked.

"That’s why conspiracy theorist approach this from this massively asymmetric evidential basis, and is common with every example of faulty thinking from flat earth to creationism."

Blatant poisoning the well fallacy.

"The implicit approach to the argument that if you are right about anything - you are right about EVERYTHING - if we are wrong about anything - we are wrong about EVERYTHING."

Another burden shift.

George_Horse

Erfisflat said:

@George_Horse you might be interested in this:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

https://www.wanttoknow.info/911information#911document

Mmmmm yes, thank you. Those articles were quite the read!