Well I am a firm believer that 9/11 was an inside job, but I also have an open mind and look at all the facts that we have available to us. I heard somone on a documentary talking about 9/11 saying that the sound people/firefighters heard in the building before the collapse were the sounds of the steel beams breaking, NOT explosions. I don't know personally what a huge steel beam sounds like when it bends to the breaking point but I have to imagine it MIGHT sound like an explosion. But I wasn't there, I am sure that the people that were there would know the differance between an explosion and a beam breaking. I just wish that the surviving firefighters would talk more about what really happened in those buildings that day. The one video that shows the rescue workers on the phone calling home and then hearing that loud explosion, that WAS an explosion, that wasn't the sound of a breaking beam, so what was that? Was it a car blowing up from the hot debris of the first collapse, or was it something else?

One thing I know for a FACT, there were not any news crews broadcasting LIVE from the ground around the towers in the first hour that all this was going on. WHY? Wouldn't that be the place to be, to interview people leaving the buildings, to get first hand accounts of what they saw/heard? Maybe they didn't broadcast it live because we would have heard more of those explosions if they did. Enough said!

Originally posted by Beefcake
Anyone who still believes the official story at this point is either in denial or a complete fool.

This is the problem with 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists. You're basically saying:

"If you don't agree with my point of view you're an idiot"

Where is the critical thinking? Where is the open mindedness? Where are the rational arguments? I don't see it. If you take the "Agree with me you fools!" route in ANY argument, you're not going to convince anyone and you'll only serve to alienate yourself and the ideas you espouse.

Ok, let's try some of that critical thinking. You've already stated that it's pointless to watch more videos of the towers going down, but give it just one more try. Ok, what do you see?

Whats important is not to convince the 1 or 2 assigned debunkers to this thread but more so the lurkers and other critical thinkers.

We can sit here and argue about whether or not it was controlled demolitions and bicker amongst ourselves and it will be to no avail. 911 became an inside job the moment a government official or representative of this country covered up, altered, or lied about evidence. The moment NIST did their shady tests to support a conclusion they were given before-hand rather then to look at what happened objectively and solve the crime it became an inside job and that is how the judicial system works. If a crime is committed and you cover up that crime, obstruct the evidence, impede investigations in anyway you have just become complicit in that crime.

didnt the towers structure used Asbestos that are used due to its resistance to heat, electricity and chemical damage, sound absorption and tensile strength? correct me if i am wrong

[edit on 17-1-2008 by dracodie]

Originally posted by johnnyrobbo
America because George will be the first to run in times of crisis.

And for some reason, they are buying land in South America (not just a small acre or 2). Makes one wonder doesn't it?

Yet another tired old re-hash and re-edit of the same old stuff doing the rounds on the net for six years now, endlessly argued to death in these forums for years and years. Any kind of 'proof' of anything - er, no.

'100% proof' would be:

1. Absolutely incontrovertible documented details of explosives employed, who manufactured and supplied them, in what form, in what quantities, on what dates, how they were moved and stored, with a paper trail, with multiply corroborated witness statements from the obviously hundreds of individuals who must have been involved

2. What detonators, fuses and wiring were employed, how, by whom. Dates, locations, sworn witness statements, a paper trail, EVIDENCE

3. Bank transfers, how the money was secured, transferred, to whom, when, how, with a documented paper trail

4. Who planted and laid all this enormous mass of ordnance, how they gained access to the core of the building, when. Witness statements, names, dates, possibly film, plans, details, EVIDENCE

5. How such explosives might have been detonated, from exactly where, by whom, with witness statements, multiply corroborated, something which might stand up in a court of law

6. Explosives residue, wiring and detonators recovered from the site, in quantity. If it was a CD, there would have been plenty of it, and it could not possibly have been hidden


Something tangible.

With the greatest respect and all that, taking yet another tired old re-hash of old youtube video and posting it here is never going to convince anyone that 'controlled demolitions' were employed, when it looks to most people like a building collapsing and in fact does not look anything like a controlled demolition.

If anyone ever produces some evidence, well then we might have something. At the moment, there ain't diddly squat.

Adopting the now tired old ultra-conventional 'it was an inside job' belief-system with no evidence to back it up is not 'denying ignorance', guys. Believe what you choose to believe, but don't call it proof and don't expect to convince the hundreds of millions of Americans who remain unconvinced. They need some proof, and there ain't none.

Alot of people are still waking up.

THey have lots of cathing up to do.

Great videos tho.

Could the noise (booms/pops) that we hear in these videos simply be structures within the building failing, rather than actual bombs?

The firemens report of the sounds of explosions coming from below seems like credible evidence to me.

I believe that the people calling "conspiracy" in regards to 9/11 are in fact the true conspiracy. I believe they are making this stuff up so as to find favor from the Muslim extremists when they invade the USA in their rubber dingies.

I've seen a video, it must be true.

Seriously though, how many large commercial planes have struck skyscrapers in the last 15 years? Any videos of that taking place on YouTube or the internet? I ask because I can't recall of that ever happening in the past so how in the hell do the naysayers know what a building collapse looks like after a plane almost flies completely through it?? They can't.

There is nothing to compare it to unless we construct an identical tower, take the same plane, same fuel, same amount of passengers, same type of weather, humidity, etc. and fly the darn thing into the building at the same speed and angle then sit back and watch it burn.

Now if the building stands then we have some issues that must be looked at deeper. If the building falls just as the Twin towers did then we could put it to rest.........or could we? Does anyone really think for one second that this test would convince any of the naysayers that they are wrong? Hell no it wouldn't, why? Because it wouldn't convince many Truthsayers if the tower stood.

What bugs me, and no conspiracy person has ever answered with any type of clarity or intelligence is, WHY? Why on earth would Pres. Bush want to take down these towers? What has it done for him? Did it gain him favor? Just how large of a "inside" team would be needed to pull this thing off?

The naysayers and Bush haters all think he is a raging lunatic, an idiot and moron yet he has the ability to keep under tabs and pull off the greatest con job in history without any leaks or tangible evidence??? If this be true then the egg is on all your faces. That man is a genius, would you all not agree?

If there are charges in the building how many charges would they know to put in the building and on what floors? If they put charges on all floors just in case then how come none of the charges have been found from those floors above the plane impact? How were they able to set off the lower charges but keep the upper charges from going off?

The quick answer would be, "Everything was destroyed in the collapse, pulverized to dust" Yet if one would only compare a true demolition of a larger building they would see something totally different from the WTC collapse. A demo building starts at the bottom and after the base is gone then charges go off on support structures and the buildings upper section falls into or on the bottom. How many charges do you see go off on the upper stories of a tall building?

For the Hudson demo back in the 1990's they used almost 3000 pounds of explosives and it took them over 3 months to prep the building for the implosion and it was only some 400 ft tall. So how much more explosives would be needed for the WTC and how many more people would be needed to prep the building not to mention the beams which had to be cut. There would be welders in there for months and months prior to 9/11.

Bottom line, there is a HUGE lack of evidence for a Govt. conspiracy.