Of course it was -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18_5bO7iWVI

No. You can't fly planes inside.

It's unlikely we were given the whole truth by our gov't at the time, which we know for a fact subsequently lied us into the Iraq War. I fear Flight 93 may have been shot down by our own military, and I'm skeptical that it was Flight 77 that actually hit the Pentagon. Unlike so many silly conspiracy theory vids with the eerie music though, I don't claim to have any real answers. I don't think this is something anyone can put together on their own without having significant inside information.

I actually think it's good to bring this up in the philosophy forum because I attest that you can logically prove that this would be a waste of time for the US government.

1. If you're going to plant explosives in the Twin Towers and detonate them, why have the airplanes?

2. If you want to foster war with Iraq and Afghanistan, why say the hijackers are from Saudi Arabia?

3. If the US government simply lied about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, why go to such great lengths to stage September 11th?

4. If nobody could keep a secret about Watergate and Bill Clinton's affair, what makes you think anyone could keep a secret about a staged 9/11?

5. Occam's Razor: The easiest explanation is usually the correct one.

Just to let you know, I am by no means a 9/11 truther. I think it was a foreign attack.

1. To distract from the fact that explosives could have been set? It's also a bigger statement to make, to use a very visible catalyst (the planes), compared to an unseen explosive source. If it was planned, obviously very smart people came up with the idea after a long time of planning.

2. Who knows. But it obviously succeeded, so why not? Maybe they could have thought that things needed to go the way they did for them to accomplish whatever they wanted?

3. They don't have to behave the exact same for every scenario.

4. Times changes. Governments do lie; some lies get exposed, some go unnoticed. It's not really a lie that would require that many personel involved, as long as they expect Al Qaeda to simply take responsibility on their own.
It's one thing for a president to impulsively stick his dick out of line, it's another for a heavily resourceful think tank to plan an intricate lie.

6. As helpful as Occam's razor can be, it doesn't really 'prove' anything.

It is ironic that you threw in Occam's Razor at the end when you all but threw in the kitchen sink to build your strawman in your arguments.

4. Secrets have been kept. McNamara stayed quiet for a long time. No one else who participated spoke up. No one owned up to Fidel Castro's assassination attempt. No one owned up to Allende's coup and Pinochet's subsequent oppression.

I suspect USA involvement in the overthrow of the Shah by the Iranian students. And I suspect USA involvement in the Tiananmen Square protests. It'll be some time before revelations surface. Certainly, no one will own up.

3. You chose the strawman of purposeful staging. A simple explanation is that the hijacking plot was allowed to be executed by a cabal within the government. What this cabal failed to realize was the hijacking led to a greater gambit: the crashing of the planes. This cabal thought hijackings can be dealt with and have been in the past. What's a few more making the news?

2. Again, you complicate matters. The cabal didn't want endless wars on two fronts. It was overconfident with respect to Afghanistan and the Taliban. And it wanted reprisal on Saddam Hussein. And perhaps Saddam had something damaging to its reputation, considering they were 'partners' at one time fighting Iran.

1. Neither the government nor the cabal had to have anything to do with taking down the Towers. The buildings' owners could have had a contingency plan. It would have been more catastrophic to have the buildings topple over. Considering all the warnings the intelligence community have been blaring (and ignored by the cabal), the owners might have prepared a contingency plan.

So, yes, you can logically prove the government had nothing to do with 9/11. But a small cabal with goals and objectives could have prevented it, and chose not to.

Okay, so you're saying some people within the government knew about the attacks in advance and chose not to do anything about it. This is very possible. Supposedly people knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and didn't do anything about it either. It's not quite the same as a conspiracy though, is it? It would explain why that guy took out an insurance policy on the twin towers right before the attack though.

Just to be clear, this cabal could have known about the hijacking plot, and not about any attack plan against the Towers or the Pentagon. The administration's plaintive excuse was, and I paraphrase, "We could not imagine such dastardly deeds." Just enough truth for it not to be an outright lie.

>>8

The administration's plaintive excuse was, and I paraphrase, "We could not imagine such dastardly deeds." Just enough truth for it not to be an outright lie.

NORAD had been running drills of the exact same scenario.

No. Since Obama took office, however, certain terrorist attacks have been inside jobs.

No, only imbeciles believe such nonsense.

Video author complains how people can't spend an afternoon researching conspiracies but apparently can't spend 5 minutes finding out that how the towers collapsed the way they did without explosives was solved years ago.

Was 9/11 an Inside Job?

Of course it wasn't.

Anyone who thinks that is a piece of crap.

Well, first the planes were outside the buildings, then the planes were inside the buildings. So, you might say a little bit of both inside and outside...