15 Years Later: New Scientific Paper in Reputable Physics Journal Argues 9/11 Was An Inside Job - Polidicks

Sorry I'm late to the party. 9/11 isn't an inside job, we could have went to war over terrorism for the literally hundreds of other legitimate reasons, just a year before AQ hit the USS Cole with a bomb, we had been wanting to get Bin Laden for years, yet tried to be diplomatic with the Taliban over it, speaking they harbored him. When this happened, it was the final nail in the coffin. To those here who shared youtube vids, etc to show how 9/11 was an inside job, congrats, you believe you know about a massive conspiracy through the internet, which if the government were capable of this, could easily stop from getting out. Face it, terrorists did it, including a plane into the pentagon, which ironically when the truthers learned of plane parts, took a pic of agents cleaning up debris and claimed it was evidence they planted it. Every time you show proof to the truthers, they claim it's a government conspiracy, because that's what they want to believe. These people seriously want to believe they live under a government which can create a completely horrific terror attack, yet is too stupid to stop some raging lunatic on the internet with a past of fraud from exposing them. It's like how the anti vaxxers cite Wakefield when he was literally shown to have been paid off by lawyers to make it seem like Vaccines were bad, so they could get more money from bs lawsuits. Or better yet, even worse, the Sandy Hook truthers who tracked down the grieving parents and sent them death threats, because supposedly it was a government plot to take our guns.

[QUOTE=Hey I'm Grump;51053272]For me I feel people can believe in what ever crazy shit they want. It's their loss to believe in the whatever crazy shit they believe in, just as long as they don't try to push that bullshit on anyone else. You can believe the world is flat all you want, but if you go into a tirade about it to me in real life I'm gonna fucking kick your ass cause I don't wanna hear that shit. Believe in what you want, don't shove it in the face of others. There's also the question of what do Truthers gain by believing in this? That they're right that the government is full of shit heads who want to use the people of the U.S to do their own dirty deeds? Or for that gratification that they are holier than thou and understand the world better and they know the truth better than the public? I'd love to know the answer: What do truthers gain by believing in this, what are they hoping to achieve by telling the people that Bush did 9/11? Weaken the faith in the government? Most people are already in sour terms with the government for things not even relating to 9/11. [I]What is their purpose?[/I][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zyler;51048904]In some respect, I feel that someone like Barbarian needs to get into online debates in order to feel better. Like a few people have stated in this thread, the main reason people seem to subscribe to conspiracy theories is that it gives them something to blame and helps to dilute the fear and uncertainty that comes from living in a fickle and dangerous world by taking responsibility away from themselves and giving it to some higher power (the government) while at the same time giving them a sense of agency. [QUOTE=27X;51048398]Blame. It's like living in a world without god. After being religious for your entire life. No safety net, no guaranteed get out of utter death card. The American way of life can't be altered forever by 40 muslims who've discovered an utterly unchecked and simple way to cause horrific amounts of death, it has to be an insidious pervasive milieu of ultimate power brokers determined to keep the world under their thumb. America can't be humbled by farmers and high school dropouts, it has to be evil supervillain engineers paid in raw gold bullion, because a world where 40 angry people can bring a nation to a standstill is a world where anybody can die at any time by simply being unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also you get to be in the secret club of crusading good guys, whom save the world by sitting on your ass spouting echo chamber opinions, which much like outraged tumblry people is a pretty sweet gig that you don't actually have to put any time or effort into. The really sad thing is there are plenty of real conspiracies where people collude and screw shit up for everybody all the time, but since most of them are political or monetary in nature, apparently they aren't worth anyone's time. I mean we just had the DNC selection committee openly and blatantly collude to fuck over everyone in the race except Hilary, and nary a peep from truthers. That's actually how you know they're full of shit.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zyler;51048444] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/why-rational-people-buy-into-conspiracy-theories.html?_r=1[/url] [QUOTE]While psychologists can’t know exactly what goes on inside our heads, they have, through surveys and laboratory studies, come up with a set of traits that correlate well with conspiracy belief. In 2010, Swami and a co-author summarized this research in The Psychologist, a scientific journal. They found, perhaps surprisingly, that believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in general and politics in particular. Conspiracy theories also seem to be more compelling to those with low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large. Conspiracy theories appear to be a way of reacting to uncertainty and powerlessness. Economic recessions, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are massive, looming threats, but we have little power over when they occur or how or what happens afterward. In these moments of powerlessness and uncertainty, a part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into action. Paul Whalen, a scientist at Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala, says it doesn’t exactly do anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala jump-starts the rest of the brain into analytical overdrive — prompting repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative, to understand what just happened, what threats still exist and what should be done now. This may be a useful way to understand how, writ large, the brain’s capacity for generating new narratives after shocking events can contribute to so much paranoia in this country.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]“If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert feelings of having agency,” Swami says. It can be comforting to do your own research even if that research is flawed. It feels good to be the wise old goat in a flock of sheep. Surprisingly, Swami’s work has also turned up a correlation between conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But this isn’t quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn Olmsted, a historian at the University of California, Davis, says that conspiracy theories wouldn’t exist in a world in which real conspiracies don’t exist. And those conspiracies — Watergate or the Iran-contra Affair — often involve manipulating and circumventing the democratic process. Even people who believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was actually a drama staged by actors couch their arguments in concern for the preservation of the Second Amendment.[/QUOTE] [url]https://conspiracypsychology.com/2016/06/06/the-great-columbia-conspiracy-why-trump-and-others-seem-to-contradict-themselves-on-obamas-past/#more-1298/[/url] [QUOTE]You’ll notice that these theories – bad student Obama, foreign student Obama, indoctrinated student Obama, non-student Obama – are not all compatible with one another. Maybe he was a foreign student with bad grades, but it’s not possible that Obama got bad grades at a university he was never a student at, or that he wasn’t admitted, but was also admitted as a foreign student, or never attended lectures at Columbia, but was radicalized by the left-wing lectures. But, somehow, every so often you see the contradictory theories being pushed by the same people. Trump’s friend and supporter, Wayne Allyn Root, seems to have provided the raw material for a lot of these theories: he thinks that Obama might have been registered at Columbia, but certainly never attended classes, but was also brainwashed by those classes. Trump suggests that Obama never went to Columbia – he “came out of nowhere” and none of his classmates remember him – but also finds it likely that his records from Columbia would show a foreign birthplace, if they haven’t been deleted. In a baffling tweet (even by Trump standards) he urged the hackers of the world, as long as they’re going around hacking stuff, to find out more. This fits into an established psychological pattern. In a study published in 2012, my colleagues and I showed that there tend to be positive correlations between beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. The more someone believes that Osama Bin Laden was dead long before 2011, the more they believe that he was still alive after the media pronounced him dead that year. The more someone believes that Princess Diana was killed by business enemies of Dodi Fayed’s family, the more they believe she was killed by the British secret service. And, probably, the more someone believes that Obama was never admitted to Columbia, the more they believe that he was admitted there as a foreign student. Why is this? Is it because people who buy into conspiracy theories are dumb and crazy? No, almost certainly not. It’s because the conspiracy theories are usually pretty vague and are based more on general suspicion than on specific evidence. If you’re suspicious that something is going on and that the truth is being covered up, then many different (and perhaps contradictory) alternatives will seem more likely. You can see this pattern arise in computational models of belief consistency.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] There is research to suggest that people disagreeing with us actually causes us to hold our beliefs MORE self-righteously than before, since we rationalize disagreements with our ideologies as personal attacks and feel we must defend ourselves: [url]https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/[/url] [QUOTE]The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger. Wired, The New York Times, Backyard Poultry Magazine – they all do it. Sometimes, they screw up and get the facts wrong. In ink or in electrons, a reputable news source takes the time to say “my bad.” If you are in the news business and want to maintain your reputation for accuracy, you publish corrections. For most topics this works just fine, but what most news organizations don’t realize is a correction can further push readers away from the facts if the issue at hand is close to the heart. In fact, those pithy blurbs hidden on a deep page in every newspaper point to one of the most powerful forces shaping the way you think, feel and decide – a behavior keeping you from accepting the truth. In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler at The University of Michigan and Georgia State University created fake newspaper articles about polarizing political issues. The articles were written in a way which would confirm a widespread misconception about certain ideas in American politics. As soon as a person read a fake article, researchers then handed over a true article which corrected the first. For instance, one article suggested the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The next said the U.S. never found them, which was the truth. Those opposed to the war or who had strong liberal leanings tended to disagree with the original article and accept the second. Those who supported the war and leaned more toward the conservative camp tended to agree with the first article and strongly disagree with the second. These reactions shouldn’t surprise you. What should give you pause though is how conservatives felt about the correction. After reading that there were no WMDs, they reported being even more certain than before there actually were WMDs and their original beliefs were correct. They repeated the experiment with other wedge issues like stem cell research and tax reform, and once again, they found corrections tended to increase the strength of the participants’ misconceptions if those corrections contradicted their ideologies. People on opposing sides of the political spectrum read the same articles and then the same corrections, and when new evidence was interpreted as threatening to their beliefs, they doubled down. The corrections backfired.[/QUOTE] Combining this idea that conspiracy theorists hold their views from an irational perspective of fear and uncertainty, it makes sense that they need to maintain these illusions and somehow stop their brain from inevitably doubting their own beliefs. This is why they argue on the internet but refuse to listen to anyone, it allows them to switch their brain off and simply repeat rhetoric over and over again like a morning prayer without having to actually think about it (which causes feelings of anxiety and tension). It's the same reason we mindlessly watch television or scroll a never-ending facebook feed or read internet memes to distract us from the soul-crushing reality of life. To them, you aren't another human being with an opinion or even a ideological opponent, you are a scratching post and they are too far into their own little world of fear and hyperbole to ever emphasize with your feelings or beliefs. As such, If you aren't supporting their beliefs then you're against them and are biased and bad, either a part of the grand conspiracy that only they can see or a simple mindless pawn. Since Barbarian is still reading this thread after he said he was going to bed twice, he might respond to this post saying "I knew it, this is why you're biased against me" because he might not be able to read what I'm actually getting at with this post.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SleepyAl;51048794]It's pretty obvious that Barbarian cannot accept the facts and is becoming defensive because a core belief of his is being threatened. Let's ask a hypothetical: What would it mean to you, Barbarian, if 9/11 was a true terrorist attack, and was not an inside job? How would that affect your world view? How would that make you feel? The idea that random people can group up and decide to murder thousands of innocents is a terrifying thought. It makes people feel less secure because it undermines the law, order, and predictability we rely on in our daily lives. The idea that our government cannot protect us from these random acts of violence gives us less confidence in our own safety. We feel threatened because we are not in control of our environment, and we are faced with the notion that the world is chaotic and unpredictable which frightens us because as humans we need to have control of our environment and our lives. The idea that our government is so powerful that they could plan an inside job (so involved that defies reality) in a way is comforting, because it makes us feel that our government is in complete control. They planned it all out, they knew it was going to happen, they weren't caught with their pants down. If some foreign/domestic terrorist group attacks us our government will be able to protect us because there's no precedence for them failing to protect us if we believe 9/11 was an inside job. If you understand 9/11 to be an act of terror then it means our government couldn't protect us, and it implies that they might fail to protect us again. The truth is that the world is chaotic. Any day now conflicts could escalate with Russia and we could have mutually assured destruction, and there's nothing we citizens could do about it. A meteroite could slam into Earth before we could even predict its trajectory and billions would die. A random person could buy a black market pistol and start a killing spree in a mall without going through any of the red tape that is normally required. And another terrorist attack like 9/11 could happen again. But we protect ourselves from thinking of these terrible possibilities. We trust our government to shoot down nukes, negotiate peace, avert impending disasters, and catch criminals/terrorists before they act. But our government is not omnipotent and omniscient. So the way some people stay comfortable is to use defense mechanisms. Conspiracies, ignoring facts, avoiding troubling information, sticking to a rigid dogma, trusting others' information as true without researching it. Facing the dark, terrible truth of how little control we have in our lives in the face of disasters is extremely difficult, so avoiding it is how people cope.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE==Zyler;51048949][QUOTE=Pops;51048943]So conspiracy theories are like going to the movies.[/QUOTE] In that it's a form of escapism, yes, sort of. The main difference is that movies are temporary escapes from reality, that's why I compared it with television and facebook feeds instead. It would be more akin to if you never left the movie theater and just watched the same few films over and over again with no pauses in-between so you had no time to think about stuff and never watched anything new. In other words, it's like watching the same shitty movie over and over again because it's scary outside. I think barbarian's gone now, so for future reference if you ever want to get rid of a conspiracy theorist, just start talking about existentialism.[/QUOTE]

This thread hasn't moved a step in the last 150+ posts. Why am I not surprised. It's almost like arguing with conspiracy theorists doesn't go anywhere.

[QUOTE=Guriosity;51048119]Like others said. There was a motive. The most likely answer the government knew about it but just let it happen or are incompetent.[/QUOTE] The only logical explanation is they let it happen.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51053482]This thread hasn't moved a step in the last 150+ posts. Why am I not surprised. It's almost like arguing with conspiracy theorists doesn't go anywhere.[/QUOTE] It doesn't, and probably never will. I was one of the few you will meet who was, who saw the light. Many unfortunately will never. I'm no longer a conspiracy theorist, ironically because I actually thought freely and researched things I talked about.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51050634]He's just being nice and to not hurt your feelings.[/QUOTE] He doesn't exist you could literally say that about any subject. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Pilot1215;51053653]It doesn't, and probably never will. I was one of the few you will meet who was, who saw the light. Many unfortunately will never. I'm no longer a conspiracy theorist, ironically because I actually thought freely and researched things I talked about.[/QUOTE] I used to be a twoofer myself as well until I realized it was bullshit.

[QUOTE=Pilot1215;51053653]It doesn't, and probably never will. I was one of the few you will meet who was, who saw the light. Many unfortunately will never. I'm no longer a conspiracy theorist, ironically because I actually thought freely and researched things I talked about.[/QUOTE] You should make PSA video about how you're recovering conspiracy theorist.

[QUOTE=OvB;51053692]You should make PSA video about how you're recovering conspiracy theorist.[/QUOTE] I'm assuming this is sarcastic but at some point some of the more rabid Truthers actually have to atone for the problems they have caused. The harassment they have dealt to the families of 9/11 victims alone is disgusting.

i really like conspiracy theories because they have the most indepth backstories and plots due to having to explain fucking everything. they're like the biggest pieces of collaborative fiction we've ever seen. [editline]14th September 2016[/editline] like hell yeah the government did 9/11 with micronukes, opened interdimensional portals over in Montauk, and are running several secret space programs and have secret militarized space stations. that is some good shit right there. of course eisenhower signed a treaty with the greys to allow them to abduct unimpeded in exchange for technology. it all links up with eachother pretty damn deep and it makes some fun reading and great stories

This thread in a nutshell: A barbarian thinks it's a controlled destruction. People try debunking him but he "strikes back" with stupid stuff like "a meteorite hit the buildings" or some shit and thinks he won the argument.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51053482]This thread hasn't moved a step in the last 150+ posts. Why am I not surprised. It's almost like arguing with conspiracy theorists doesn't go anywhere.[/QUOTE] I think of it as playing tennis with a wall. Fun for a while but it gets old eventually. [editline]15th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;51052623]But that's not right, cameras do apply distortion due to the fact that they have a field of view- at least, that's what I've learned. Straight lines may be straight lines, but because cameras have FoVs things get bendy at the edges [IMG]http://gilsmethod.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/images/how-to-correct-lense-distortion-with-photoshop-header.png[/IMG] Again, [B][I]NOT[/I][/B] supporting the conspiracy theorists because quite frankly I don't care one way or the other (as I don't consider myself educated enough on the matter to have a strong opinion one way or the other - all I know is what other people have said) but digitally zoomed photos can have really bad distortion especially if you're zoomed in on an edge. It looks like you're right in the end after seeing the other angles that were posted, but my point still stands.[/QUOTE] Lens distortion is independent of focal length, although wide angle lenses tend to have barrel distortion due to the difficulties in their design. You can have ultra wide angle lenses that exhibit little to no distortion, a great example being the Nikon 13mm f/5.6. Zoom lenses tend to have more distortion at their extremes since it's hard to correct for distortion over a range of focal lengths. Distortion is usually readily apparent because it distorts the entire image. It's fairly easily corrected nowadays using software. All this is irrelevant because it's obvious that the images showing the columns bowing inwards are not distorted. The columns are straight all the way until the section where they are damaged. Digitally zooming in on this won't cause any distortions.

[QUOTE=SassPD22;51054320]This thread in a nutshell: A barbarian thinks it's a controlled destruction. People try debunking him but he "strikes back" with stupid stuff like "a meteorite hit the buildings" or some shit and thinks he won the argument.[/QUOTE] we should have some sort of thunderdome for times like this - you get locked into the thread that the argument is happening in, unable to post anywhere else until the argument is concluded at the end, the audience votes on who won, if you're voted to have lost, you get a humourous title from a mod (barbarian's would be "MY IDEAS WERE DESTROYED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION") and branded forever

Obviously I and most other people don't believe the official explanation, history just doesn't do governments any favours in this department. Unfortunately I think I will have to wait 20 years before I can finally know what really happened.

After all this, I'm surprised nobody pointed out that the source is fucking WND.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;51053513]The only logical explanation is they let it happen.[/QUOTE] Incompetence is a far more logical explanation. There's been many documented cases of government intelligence agencies failing to prevent something despite the fact they had information they could act on.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51048087]Did you know that objects dont go from solid, to liquid, to gas, like some kind of jump cut? Its a gradient. No, the fires werent enough to MELT the steel, but its likely they were hot enough to reduce the strength of the steel as it gets less solid as it heats up. Now add in debris hitting the shit out of the framework and heat warping, there you go. [editline]13th September 2016[/editline] Hell the video you yourself posted shows part of the building falling before the rest. Which as we all know, additional debris falling on an already damaged framework does wonders for its integrity.[/QUOTE] Yeah, pretty much exactly what you said. My Dad is a Civil Engineering professor who specialises in steel frame structures and he got the "Was 9-11 an inside job?" question so much from his first year students that he now puts it on the syllabus. The steel frame didn't melt but it did soften due to heating (You know, burning jet fuel and the fact the areas of the building surrounding the impact sites themselves caught fire) enough to cause the collapse as you see it (the softened areas collapse, bringing everything above them and at them down onto the sections below, which can't support that kind of weight without the framework above which has collapsed, causing those sections to collapse, and the whole building just collapses down into itself rather like a controlled demolition would) , there is no conspiracy and anyone who thinks so doesn't know physics/engineering. Unfortunately I'm an ecologist so although he's talked me through it before, I can't remember the exact technical and mathematical details so you're S.O.L. on a more technical explanation. [editline]15th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Alice3173;51055008]Incompetence is a far more logical explanation. There's been many documented cases of government intelligence agencies failing to prevent something despite the fact they had information they could act on.[/QUOTE] Agreed, if there was any failing involved in the whole thing it was almost certainly incompetence on the part of security/intelligence agencies. Hell, there is an axiom about just this kind of situation "Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence." Governments are NOT competent enough to orchestrate a conspiracy on this kind of scale and keep it secret, because it would require a vast support web of people manipulating things behind the scenes and more directly, and people have consciences. Conspiracy on this scale would never remain secret. Which just leaves you with incompetence.

[IMG]http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-A-7.gif[/IMG] The yield strength of structural steel drops sharply above 400°C, reaching about half of its original strength at 550°C. You don't have to get anywhere near the melting point for it to fail.

[QUOTE=Anteep;51054902]Obviously I and [B]most other people don't believe the official explanation,[/B] history just doesn't do governments any favours in this department. Unfortunately I think I will have to wait 20 years before I can finally know what really happened.[/QUOTE] What.

I like how people say there's a motivation for the government doing 9/11 without acknowledging the consequences of such a conspiracy being revealed. Do you really think that the government is gonna risk a literal rebellion and the collapse of the United States so that defense contractors could potentially maybe make a few billion dollars? [editline]15th September 2016[/editline] Like of all the things i can think of causing open rebellion the revelation that 9/11 without a shadow of reasonable doubt being an "inside job" is pretty high up there.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;51055008]Incompetence is a far more logical explanation. There's been many documented cases of government intelligence agencies failing to prevent something despite the fact they had information they could act on.[/QUOTE] Dick Cheney told the military to stand down on 9/11 and not intercept the jets heading for the twin towers.

[QUOTE=coldroll5;51056807]Dick Cheney told the military to stand down on 9/11 and not intercept the jets heading for the twin towers.[/QUOTE] Oh my god, you're right! You figured out the secret! Cheney wanted the planes to crash into the twin towers, it all makes sense now! [URL="http://www.rawstory.com/2011/09/military-officials-ignored-cheneys-911-shoot-down-order/"]Especially since we have audio recordings of him ordering the military to do the exact opposite[/URL], and the military ignoring his orders because it was outside the chain of command and would have the potential of shooting down innocent civilian aircraft in U.S. airspace! [b]You cracked the code! He was actually telling the military to do the exact opposite of what he ordered them to do![/b] :goodjob: I'd bother justifying this with a further explanation but the only sources I find saying your version are such gems as Wordpress and Blogspot blogs, "911truth.org", "pilotsfor911truth.org", Infowars, "welfarestate.com", "911hardfacts.com", "911myths.com", "oilempire.us", and my personal favorite, "bushstole04.com".

[QUOTE=coldroll5;51056807]Dick Cheney told the military to stand down on 9/11 and not intercept the jets heading for the twin towers.[/QUOTE] I mean I don't think a dogfight above New York City would've really improved things so much.

[QUOTE=ProfHappycat7;51047924]something I've been thinking about; even if hypothetically the gov't did cause the twin towers to fall, what would they gain over doing so?[/QUOTE] The perfect excuse to invade another country. I thought this was obvious?

ironically these conspiracy theorists seem to almost be of the belief that the US government can never be incompetent in some capacity - it's all down to a plan of some kind and thats why it happened. there's always a plan and always somebody behind the scenes orchestrating the big events for some, the idea that the US government doesn't know everything and is as vulnerable to random events and unable to control everything is a more terrifying thought than it being actively malicious

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51057493]ironically these conspiracy theorists seem to almost be of the belief that the US government can never be incompetent in some capacity - it's all down to a plan of some kind and thats why it happened. there's always a plan and always somebody behind the scenes orchestrating the big events for some, the idea that the US government doesn't know everything and is as vulnerable to random events and unable to control everything is a more terrifying thought than it being actively malicious[/QUOTE] Yet at the same time, the evil federal government, which was supposedly willing and able to kill 3,000 Americans just for some oil, couldn't just blackbag a few plucky college students who ~exposed the government's wicked plan~ and then stifle the news reports They always use the "they're too scared cause if I disappeared it'd PROVE ME RIGHT" excuse and it gets dumber each time

[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;51057467]The perfect excuse to invade another country. I thought this was obvious?[/QUOTE] For the thirtieth time in this thread alone, no.

[QUOTE=IceWarrior98;51057467]The perfect excuse to invade another country. I thought this was obvious?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Kyle902;51055415]I like how people say there's a motivation for the government doing 9/11 without acknowledging the consequences of such a conspiracy being revealed. Do you really think that the government is gonna risk a literal rebellion and the collapse of the United States so that defense contractors could potentially maybe make a few billion dollars? [editline]15th September 2016[/editline] Like of all the things i can think of causing open rebellion the revelation that 9/11 without a shadow of reasonable doubt being an "inside job" is pretty high up there.[/QUOTE] [editline]15th September 2016[/editline] the risk negates any potential benefit

[QUOTE=coldroll5;51056807]Dick Cheney told the military to stand down on 9/11 and not intercept the jets heading for the twin towers.[/QUOTE] I think i can kind of understand that to a point, the chance of shooting them down and having them explode/crash over a number of different buildings could've been worse.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;51057624]I think i can kind of understand that to a point, the chance of shooting them down and having them explode/crash over a number of different buildings could've been worse.[/QUOTE] Nobody really knew what was going on and doing shit like that is covered in so much red tape for understandable reasons. The military had no precedent for dealing with this (besides hijackings for ransom) and it was most likely a panic that ended up freezing up the chain of command.

[QUOTE=TheBloodyNine;51057718]Nobody really knew what was going on and doing shit like that is covered in so much red tape for understandable reasons. The military had no precedent for dealing with this (besides hijackings for ransom) and it was most likely a panic that ended up freezing up the chain of command.[/QUOTE] They didn't even know what was happening until the first (and then the second shortly afterward) crashed into the towers.