88 ms·

>the absurdity of the idea to begin with A false flag operation initiated by America is an absurd idea? What about all the documented and public comings and g

>the absurdity of the idea to begin with A false flag operation initiated by America is an absurd idea? What about all the documented and public comings and goings of when America has done just that? How in the hell is the notion of America creating an enemy to rally against absurd when there is proof of it occurring in the past? Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods Project TP-Ajax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat Many people say the Gulf of Tonkin incident which initiated the Vietnam "conflict" was also one. I'm astounded that you can make a statement like that when there is such black and white proof of such incidents occurring in the past. I'm not talking about 9/11, I'm just saying that it isn't out of the realm of possibility for a government to manufacture an enemy. What I'm wondering is, are you just ignorant and you've never heard of these documented false flag operations? Or instead have you heard of these things and choose not to believe it?

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
You present evidence that the US has done such things in the past as evidence that it is not absurd to believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation. But why is the idea that 9/11 was an inside job absurd? Is the only reason because people consider it absurd that the US would ever do such a thing? Or is it possible to believe that, yes, the US has done such things, but it is absurd to think that 9/11 was one of them? I submit that it is possible to believe that the US has done such things, and also possible - even reasonable - to believe that it is still absurd to think that 9/11 was such an event.
- rockboe 11y ago
  WTC7, which was not struck by a plane and was only subject to office fires, went down like a kabuki drop. https://i.imgur.com/kob2Lz1.gifv https://i.imgur.com/kob2Lz1.gifv Official explanation (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm) How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse? The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building. The acceleration of gravity in New York City is 32.159 ft/s2. WTC7 had 2.25 seconds of literal freefall, this is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. For any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitational acceleration (where did every single structural supporting columns go, instantly, at the exact same time?) Just compare the collapse of WTC7 to these actual controlled demolitions [1] that cost a LOT of money to make sure the building drops in a controlled manner - because, in the real world, large steel frame buildings do not fall straight down without some careful planning [2]. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc
- brianpgordon 11y ago
  Whether or not 9/11 was a priori suspicious is irrelevant. It's not September 12, 2001, it's nearly 15 years later and the investigations are long-finished and utterly conclusive.
peteretep 11y ago
> A false flag operation initiated by America is an absurd > idea? What about all the documented and public comings > and goings of when America has done just that? I am confused by the links you follow up with. The first is a _rejected_ false-flag operation against American civilians, the second is CIA action overseas. The Gulf of Tonkin incident saw ... no American casualties. And you use these as some kind of proof that the idea of the US government knowingly killing 3,000 of its own citizens, causing massive economic damage to the US, isn't absurd?! > What I'm wondering is, are you just ignorant and you've never > heard of these documented false flag operations? Or instead have > you heard of these things and choose not to believe it? What, the first one, which never happened, or the second one which wasn't a false-flag incident against the American people, or the third one which involved no American casualties?

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

You present evidence that the US has done such things in the past as evidence that it is not absurd to believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation. But why is the idea that 9/11 was an inside job absurd? Is the only reason because people consider it absurd that the US would ever do such a thing? Or is it possible to believe that, yes, the US has done such things, but it is absurd to think that 9/11 was one of them? I submit that it is possible to believe that the US has done such things, and also possible - even reasonable - to believe that it is still absurd to think that 9/11 was such an event.

rockboe 11y ago
WTC7, which was not struck by a plane and was only subject to office fires, went down like a kabuki drop. https://i.imgur.com/kob2Lz1.gifv https://i.imgur.com/kob2Lz1.gifv Official explanation (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm) How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse? The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building. The acceleration of gravity in New York City is 32.159 ft/s2. WTC7 had 2.25 seconds of literal freefall, this is equivalent to approximately 8 stories of fall in which the falling section of the building encountered zero resistance. For any object to fall at gravitational acceleration, there can be nothing below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance. If there is anything below it that would tend to impede its progress or offer any resistance, then not all of the potential energy of the object would be converted to motion and so would not be found falling at gravitational acceleration (where did every single structural supporting columns go, instantly, at the exact same time?) Just compare the collapse of WTC7 to these actual controlled demolitions [1] that cost a LOT of money to make sure the building drops in a controlled manner - because, in the real world, large steel frame buildings do not fall straight down without some careful planning [2]. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc
brianpgordon 11y ago
Whether or not 9/11 was a priori suspicious is irrelevant. It's not September 12, 2001, it's nearly 15 years later and the investigations are long-finished and utterly conclusive.

peteretep 11y ago

> A false flag operation initiated by America is an absurd > idea? What about all the documented and public comings > and goings of when America has done just that? I am confused by the links you follow up with. The first is a _rejected_ false-flag operation against American civilians, the second is CIA action overseas. The Gulf of Tonkin incident saw ... no American casualties. And you use these as some kind of proof that the idea of the US government knowingly killing 3,000 of its own citizens, causing massive economic damage to the US, isn't absurd?! > What I'm wondering is, are you just ignorant and you've never > heard of these documented false flag operations? Or instead have > you heard of these things and choose not to believe it? What, the first one, which never happened, or the second one which wasn't a false-flag incident against the American people, or the third one which involved no American casualties?