99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by jonco6


No, a consensus of people who believe they are being lied to without any definite proof they are. This could also be indications of mental instability. There is no proof either way.

Thank you s+f. well said, amazes me that there are still people that dont even have questions/ doubts about the governments story. i know i know we can completly trust the government or no such thing as money buying influence in the system wait no such thing as evil people much less evil people with money.because governments have never in history lied or commited acts of evil! ever! period! were like totaly safe! Documented the american government lied, to start vietnam, the first gulf war and lied to start the current gulf war right in front of our eyes and people still find it improbabale that the government is lying? AMAZING! go on in a large group of people from your community claim you fully completly trust the governmen, they can do no wrong and are completly trustworthy.

You did a great job with this post. I was up the morning of 911 (but can't say why). I saw on television, the attacks happen 1 by 1. I also saw footage from a helicopter that aired on my local tv just one time. It was looking down on the lawn of the Pentagon. There was no wreckage , just unhampered green grass and a hole in the wall that no commercial jet could have sized down to fit through it.. 20 minutes later, firetrucks arrived and were arranged in weird looking formations like a wall around the wreckage that miraculously was now visible on the previously unhampered lawn. I instantly thought something was up.
I since have seen all of this evidence in which is clearly coming together to prove that there is some type of deception directly involving our secret government and its pupplic puppets that occured on September 11, 2001.
I am thinking that, after seeing the sides of the buildings blow out at the (what appears to be) the riveted seems and joints of the towers individually. This has always had me wondering if some people out there with the know- how were researching the hardware used in the construction of these buildings. If those BOLTS were made with some type of hollow core filled with some kind of metal that was explosive when exposed to microwave energy or direct heat, then there is a direct conspiracy dating back to the construction of these buildings. a 40 year gap!. I have not seen one bolt as evidence, and am not sure if there is photo evidence in the video, as my dial up doesnt allow me to usually view the videos without hours of waiting. I would like to know if this hardware has been examined in the debri?
If it did turn out that the building in its renovation had explosives added to those positions, it could be found out by investigating the sources of that remodeling such as the contractors, employees etc. I would think all these things were being investigated. I am sure the investigating government would have to examine the possibility that ther was something amiss,right?
I am 100% sure that the US government was involved. I am 100% convinved that each of us is under attack whether we know it or not. Our country has been invaded by EVIL that is within our defensive core.We are being used like puppets and we as a people should stand up to this evil and deny its lies to control what the truth is. Half of the truth is a lie,period! I see a great war coming where Americans are freed from the veil of deception and the truth ignites an utter hunt on those who were the real Bin Laden terrorost. We may not like the truth when it comes out of its skin.We may not like the numbers. But I do believe that evil will show itself to be real soon and will be met with the sword of truth!

The third paragraph was supposed to say this:
I am thinking that, after seeing the sides of the buildings blow out at the (what appears to be) the riveted seems and joints of the towers individually, that our government investigated this as possible explosion ponts of interest, right? There would be bolts collected from the wreckage for view as possible evidence by normal standard and procedure.
.
Sorry, some how that part of the sentence was removed.There may have been another line , but I dont recall what it would have been.

reply to post by TupacShakur


The fact that you put 99% and not 100% tells me even you have doubt...sorry not good enough,...

reply to post by Gorman91


OK here's another false flag for you to analyze and determine as speculation:

Operation Northwoods
CIA -- Iran

So the government is perfectly ok admitting to the poisoning and killing of countless civilians in the name of science, but wants to secretly blow up the wtc and gain nothing from it?

-- Enabling the passage of the Patriot Act I and II
-- Unconstitutionally spying on Americans in the name of terrorism
-- Established the Department of Homeland Security
-- The Invasion of the Middle East
-- A new foreign and domestic policy
-- Used to pass the Military Commissions Act which officially ended Habeus Corpus

Gain nothing from it? I don't understand how you can think that, just because the public doesn't support the Patriot Act does not mean that it's a failure and they didn't benefit from it. The public doesn't support those things, yet they are still happenning, so that means the government has failed?

reply to post by tom1701

Nothing but 11 pages of garbage - all of which should be disposed of the same way they disposed of the 911 trash.

You people have done nothing but re-hash the same old garbage....I want to puke my guts up.

This "truether movement" can't get off the page...It began on the internet and will die on the internet......

The king moron - dylin avery? or whatever his name is, was a looser before he came up with this and is an even bigger looooser today.....

blah, blah, blah........yawn, yawn, yawn.....

I am sick of all of the official story believers who make fun of us for believing in this "garbage" or "crap", without a single attempt to debunk even a single piece of the evidence which is presented. Instead of ridiculing us and condescending us like we're a bunch of dumbasses, why don't you ACTUALLY DEBUNK the evidence in the OP? Why do you come on here and mock us if we presented an unbelievable amount of evidence to back up our side of the story, while all you did is call the produced of the movie a loser? You're a loser, do you think you're better than us because you blindly believe anything the government tells you without question? Read the entire OP, and tell us what parts of this "garbage" is "crap", and why you think it is that. Making a sweeping statement that all of it is crap without even the slightest attempt to tell us why you think that just illustrates how stupid and judgemental you truly are.

reply to post by Gorman91

No, a consensus of people who believe they are being lied to without any definite proof they are. This could also be indications of mental instability. There is no proof either way.

"Without any definite proof"

Why don't you get off your high horse, and take the time to debunk every single piece of evidence in the OP, don't just pick out one piece, poorly debunk it, and conclude that all of it is flawed. If you're going to make the outrageous claim that none of it is proof, than you have to back it up. Until you debunk every single bullet point, calling us mentally unstable for believing in something which you have yet to debunk is stupid.

If you see a few pieces of evidence from the OP as flawed, and you have reasons why you think that, that's teriffic. But if you can only explain a couple out of the hundreds of pieces of evidence, what gives you the right to treat us like a bunch of insane fools?

Anyone else notice that the truthers refuse to reply to my posts about semi tanker trucks burning so hot they collapse concrete and steel overpasses?

There have been 2 in the last 10 years, one in Michigan and one in California.

In both cases tankers full of pump gas burned hot enough to collapse overpasses.

No wood furniture, no plastic, no paper, no carpet, no chemicals, just 87 octane pump gas, an no jet fuel.


It got hot enough in the towers to weaken steel, period.

Originally posted by marinesniper0351
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

The fact that you put 99% and not 100% tells me even you have doubt...sorry not good enough,...

better odds at 99% than say, 1%

kinda like your 1 line post

sorry not good enough

reply to post by AGWskeptic

Anyone else notice that the truthers refuse to reply to my posts about semi tanker trucks burning so hot they collapse concrete and steel overpasses?

There have been 2 in the last 10 years, one in Michigan and one in California.

In both cases tankers full of pump gas burned hot enough to collapse overpasses.

No wood furniture, no plastic, no paper, no carpet, no chemicals, just 87 octane pump gas, an no jet fuel.


It got hot enough in the towers to weaken steel, period.

Sorry if I missed your posts but that's interesting. Do you have some articles over those overpasses collapsing? I'm curious because maybe the time that the bridges were exposed to the heat had something to do with it.

Regardless, on 9/11 two 110 story skyscrapers burning for only 56 minutes over 8 floors, and 103 minutes over 5 floors completely collapsed. That is physically impossible for a building which was meant to withstand impact from Boeing 707s to collapse at free-fall speed while falling through the path of greatest resistance in a symmetrical collapse.

This is enough evidence on its own. who needs any more than this...

Impossible Evidence:
-- One of the hi-jackers passport was found, intact and legible, on the ground beneath the twin towers. For a piece of plastic and paper to survive the burning temperatures of jet fuel which according to the flawed official story is hot enough to melt or weaken the main structure of the tower, fall hundreds of feet to the ground, and be picked up by a passerby is nothing short of impossible.

reply to post by TupacShakur

Gain nothing from it? I don't understand how you can think that, just because the public doesn't support the Patriot Act does not mean that it's a failure and they didn't benefit from it. The public doesn't support those things, yet they are still happenning, so that means the government has failed?

Because the probability of violent acts against the government has risen well over ten fold. I don't remember weekly hacker attacks a decade ago. The government is losing legitimacy. For me, the Federal government already has lost legitimacy.

Why don't you get off your high horse, and take the time to debunk every single piece of evidence in the OP, don't just pick out one piece, poorly debunk it, and conclude that all of it is flawed. If you're going to make the outrageous claim that none of it is proof, than you have to back it up. Until you debunk every single bullet point, calling us mentally unstable for believing in something which you have yet to debunk is stupid. If you see a few pieces of evidence from the OP as flawed, and you have reasons why you think that, that's teriffic. But if you can only explain a couple out of the hundreds of pieces of evidence, what gives you the right to treat us like a bunch of insane fools?

I'm only treating people like yourself like a bunch of insane fools. People who crowed around the mere mention of something and don't bother fact checking themselves are, to me, no different than the people who crowed around what the government says and don't bother fact checking. All I'm seeing is sheep under a different Shepard, both walking to a cliff. That is why I don't bother going down the full long list of hopeless failures. If you cannot respond to the points I did mention, then why do you want me to go to the others? People who move on from a point and don't bother showing why they are right on a previous point are no different than the type of person you are claiming I am. You say I am wrong but never why. Unless you're God, say why.

I am not an engineer but it was obvious to me the moment all 4 of these things happened that something was not right. I mean obvious and I mean all 4 crashes.

I'm thinking remote controlled flight.

reply to post by Gorman91

I'm only treating people like yourself like a bunch of insane fools. People who crowed around the mere mention of something and don't bother fact checking themselves are, to me, no different than the people who crowed around what the government says and don't bother fact checking. All I'm seeing is sheep under a different Shepard, both walking to a cliff. That is why I don't bother going down the full long list of hopeless failures. If you cannot respond to the points I did mention, then why do you want me to go to the others? People who move on from a point and don't bother showing why they are right on a previous point are no different than the type of person you are claiming I am. You say I am wrong but never why. Unless you're God, say why.

Even in the unlikely event that you were right on every single point, let's take a look at some other points, which are just a few of the dozens which you have failed to address. You say that we're a bunch of insane fools that don't bother fact checking? Let's check some facts:

Netwon's laws of motion determine how long it takes an object to travel a certain distance in complete free-fall:
Time^2 = (Distance x 2)/Gravity, 85.7375 = 2724/32 : 85.5 = 2736/32, Square root of T = 9.2 seconds.

-- the 9/11 commission report states that the building fell in 10 seconds.

Are mathematics factual enough for you?

-- Virtually everything, including the concrete, was pulverized as the building collapsed. This resulted in pyroclastic clouds spreading around and coating Manhattan in a fine dust. Pyroclastic clouds occur during two events: volcanic eruptions, and controlled demolitions.

-- Although there was no debris larger than a phonebook at the site, the FBI provided a myriad of evidence during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui which survived that catastrophic plane crash in good condition: A red bandana, a kingdom of Saudi Arabia drivers lisence, John Talignani's drivers lisence, and flight attendant CeeCee Lyles driver's lisence and Mariot hotel card. So a 757 obliterated itself upon impact leaving no body parts, but paper and fabric survived the crash intact.

-- One of the hi-jackers passport was found, intact and legible, on the ground beneath the twin towers. For a piece of plastic and paper to survive the burning temperatures of jet fuel which according to the flawed official story is hot enough to melt or weaken the main structure of the tower, fall hundreds of feet to the ground, and be picked up by a passerby is nothing short of impossible.

OK I just did some investigative experimentation to check the facts here, and when I held a flame to a piece of paper, it burned. Interesting results.

-- After 4pm, news outlets, primarily CNN and BBC began reporting that WTC7 had collapsed prior to its collapse. One news station reports it over 12 minutes before the collapse, and even interviews a reporter over the collapse which has yet to happen as WTC7 is clearly visible in the background, and then they have some "technical difficulties" during the interview when the WTC7 is visible after they repoted it's collapse and it's cut short. That is a dead giveaway that the media is controlled and is not to be trusted, but the majority of us on here know that, and we come to this website for that very reason.

Would you say that it's possible to accurately predict future events?

-- The WTC construction manager said this:

the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it...I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet-liners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid and the jet plane is just the pencil puncturing that screen netting

-- John Skilling, the WTC's head structural engineer, told the Seattle Times after the 1993 bombing that if a plane struck the building and dumped it's fuel on the inside

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But the building structure would still be there.

I would think that both the WTC construction manager and head structural engineer would know how a building would react to such an event, but maybe it's just some more speculation. Who needs to use facts when building a multi-million dollar skyscraper when you can just speculate and assume details like that?

"Pyroclastic clouds occur during two events: volcanic eruptions, and controlled demolitions"

So not true.

Pyroclastic clouds are only volcanic. It was described as looking like a pyroclastic cloud, but nobody with any knowledge of them called it one.

Another fallacy is that "pull it" is a demolition term. My best friend has been in controlled emolition for over 20 years, his dad and grandfather even longer.

And they have never heard any variation of "pull" being used by anyone in their industry.

It's a fabrication.

When you are directing fire fighting operations it is used though, as in "Pull them out".

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Ok so you debunked one out of the 5 pieces of information that I just posted. What about the other 4? Mathematics? Paper, plastic, and fabric surviving and being recovered intact from a plane crash in which the plane was practically disintergrated? CNN and BBC reporting the collapse of WTC7 twelve minutes prior to its actual collapse? The WTC head structural engineer and contruction manager stating on the record that those buildings were designed to easily aborb impact from commercial airliners with only fires but no strucural damage, yet they symmetrically collapsed at free-fall speed?

There are too many things that contradict the official story, some of which are next to impossible.

And I don't care what Larry Silverstein said and how it's interpreted/misinterpreted, a fire on only 6 of 47 floors can not make all 81 steel columms simultaneously fail resulting in a symmetrical collapse. That is beyond delusional to believe that it's possible. If jet fuel only burns at a small fraction of the temperature required to melt jet fuel, less than 1/4th of the temperature, how can ordinary flames cause 81 steel columns to fail at the exact same moment? It is impossible that the only three skyscrapers in human history to collapse from structural damage occur on the same day, especially when they were designed to comfortably absorb the impact which supposedly made them collapse. Believing that it's indeed possible and explained by fires which don't even come close to melting steel is just blatant ignorance, and a slap in the face to human intelligence and common sense.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Well you're first error is trusting the official report, or that the official report is accurate. I don't. A simple youtube search and double click on Windows's timer reveals it was a bit over 10 seconds between the first buckling, to when the last visible structural element was engulfed in dust. A compression release of upward push of the air within the structure becomes visible some 13-15 seconds after the first buckling, indicating that was the time compression rates exceeded the ability for air to escape the fall. So yea, that's just bad on your part and the government's.

Pyroclastic clouds assumes the temperature. Nobody was around to measure the heat of the clouds, so there is no way to tell what type of cloud it was other than it was dust and composed of toxic elements one finds on construction systems. Pyroclastic clouds are in excess of 1000 degrees. We do not know what temperature it was when it fell. And it is certainly true that such temperatures are not reached from controlled demos.

Although there was no debris larger than a phonebook at the site...

Clearly there was. You are wrong.

...Zacarias Moussaoui...

I google searched your claims but only got conspiracy websites. Validate your claim. Though I did manage to find something on John Talignani License. Considering my own license, when first received, had the incorrect date of birth, I don't consider it that impossible for them to screw up the address too.

One of the hi-jackers passport was found, intact and legible, on the ground beneath the twin towers. For a piece of plastic and paper to survive the burning temperatures of jet fuel which according to the flawed official story is hot enough to melt or weaken the main structure of the tower, fall hundreds of feet to the ground, and be picked up by a passerby is nothing short of impossible.

You assume the fire was as hot as it was during the collapse as it was at first impact. You assume such things could not survive the conditions. As I recall, even the uniform badge of crew abort the failed space shuttle re-entry survived. If cloth could survive atmospheric reentry, I don't find it impossible for a plastic license to survive crashing into a building on a plane.

OK I just did some investigative experimentation to check the facts here, and when I held a flame to a piece of paper, it burned. Interesting results.

You assume that the conditions were the same.

After 4pm, news outlets, primarily CNN and BBC began reporting that WTC7 had collapsed prior to its collapse. One news station reports it over 12 minutes before the collapse, and even interviews a reporter over the collapse which has yet to happen as WTC7 is clearly visible in the background, and then they have some "technical difficulties" during the interview when the WTC7 is visible after they repoted it's collapse and it's cut short. That is a dead giveaway that the media is controlled and is not to be trusted, but the majority of us on here know that, and we come to this website for that very reason.

I would imagine that if the owner of the building said on TV that they were abandoning the building, it is very possible for them to have thought it collapsed. You assume it was done like some schedule, but there simply is no proof to anything other than, as claimed, technical difficulties.

Would you say that it's possible to accurately predict future events?

Random chance, yes. Plenty of people got famous from being right just once, and then failing for everything else.

the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it...I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet-liners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid and the jet plane is just the pencil puncturing that screen netting

I remember playing with said nets as a kid. One small hole can allow a child's finger's to easily rip the entire superstructure in half. Without the hole, the structure can support the same child from a tree. Nets area good example of structural minimalism. And a good analogy to why, and how, the WTC towers collapsed.Very skilled managers and project leaders have said similar things. The titanic could survive a n iceberg, even many icebergs. the Abrams tank can survive an explosive, many explosives! So many "expert" claims. I've learned that experts say a lot of things about their product. It doesn't make them right, nor the claim true. In addition, as I said before, not all planes are the same. The 707 is a product of 1957 technology. This happened in 2001. You are comparing a Sherman to an Abrams.

I would think that both the WTC construction manager and head structural engineer would know how a building would react to such an event, but maybe it's just some more speculation. Who needs to use facts when building a multi-million dollar skyscraper when you can just speculate and assume details like that?

You'll be surprised how many times architects and managers lie about their product to impress buyers. I'm barely into the career of Architecture and I see it already in so many places. A claim from someone trying to sell something is not a guaranteed truth. It is a statement.

reply to post by Gorman91


I actually think people who believe there is nothing going on and just consume everything they are told by the government is a sign of mental incapacity. Wake up.

There are crackpots that come up with the dumbest theories and so called "proof" of conspiracy. For example : The No Plane Theory which was demonstrated a few pages back. That type of nonsense really discredits any real questions that are being asked about the events of that day. That doesn't mean that every single "conspiracy theory" is automatically debunked. I have searched both sides for years, and if you official story believers would do the same for even just a few weeks you would realize the motive behind 9/11 and who benefited and why it was allowed to happen. Never mind the demolition, look passed that. Even if the buildings just fell at free fall from planes hitting it and insuing fires, 9/11 was allowed to happen to push the globalist agenda and to take away your freedoms and wage war on the middle east. People make money from war and that is a fact. There are evil people out there laughing at us because we get caught up in bickering over certain versions of the story.

reply to post by Gorman91


OK so you are saying that if it was a pyroclastic cloud they would have died if it touched them because of the intense heat. However this article thinks it indeed was a cloud which resulted from controlled demolition, and presents a legitimate, scientific analysis.

Clearly there was. You are wrong.

What a thorough, logical, fact-filled analysis that you just presented to debunk those claims. Multiple witnesses who were at the site agree that they noticed no visible debris larger than a phonebook. Skip to 1:31:30 in the video for multiple reporters and witnesses who are at the consensus that they noticed no large debris on site.

Where's the large debris?
No large debris here
Maybe this one will have large debris in it

Here are the only three large pieces of debris recovered from that entire airplane crash site:
IDK what this is
Windows
Fuselage(?)

Skip to 1:37:10 in the video for images of the evidence used in the trial, with the government exhibit numbers included.
Trial Evidence
Driver's Lisence
CeeCee
John Talignani's Driver's Lisence
Saeed
Business Card

If cloth could survive atmospheric reentry, I don't find it impossible for a plastic license to survive crashing into a building on a plane.

You make a good point . However I find it impossible to believe that an airplane smashes into a skyscraper at over 450mph, explodes on impact engulfing the surroundings in jet fuel, and a drivers lisence and passport manage to escape the explosion and interior of the airplane with minimum damage, fall all the way down to the ground, and get picked up by a pedestrian.

I would imagine that if the owner of the building said on TV that they were abandoning the building, it is very possible for them to have thought it collapsed. You assume it was done like some schedule, but there simply is no proof to anything other than, as claimed, technical difficulties.

Random chance, yes. Plenty of people got famous from being right just once, and then failing for everything else.

Do you see it as purely coincidental that BBC happened to have technical difficulties during the interview in which they reported WTC7s collapse when WTC7 was clearly visible in the background? You don't see anything odd about two different major media outlets reporting the collapse of WTC7 before it collapsed? How? The other towers sustained much more damage from falling debris, why were they not assuming that those would collapse? A few fires and an evacuation = imminent collapse? It's random chance that two separate media outlets both concluded that the tower would collapse several minutes before its collapse with nothing to indicate that other than an evacuation and a few fires? NO WAY!

I remember playing with said nets as a kid. One small hole can allow a child's finger's to easily rip the entire superstructure in half. Without the hole, the structure can support the same child from a tree. Nets area good example of structural minimalism. And a good analogy to why, and how, the WTC towers collapsed.Very skilled managers and project leaders have said similar things. The titanic could survive a n iceberg, even many icebergs. the Abrams tank can survive an explosive, many explosives! So many "expert" claims. I've learned that experts say a lot of things about their product. It doesn't make them right, nor the claim true. In addition, as I said before, not all planes are the same. The 707 is a product of 1957 technology. This happened in 2001. You are comparing a Sherman to an Abrams.

"I remember playing with said nets as a kid", wow sounds like you had an exciting childhood. How can you make the claim that the WTC head structural engineer and construction manager do not know what they're talking about when describing the very building that they worked on? "I've learned that experts say a lot of things about their product. It doesn't make them right, nor the claim true."
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4b845c46c32.jpg[/atsimg]

You'll be surprised how many times architects and managers lie about their product to impress buyers. I'm barely into the career of Architecture and I see it already in so many places. A claim from someone trying to sell something is not a guaranteed truth. It is a statement.

Who are they impressing by saying those things after they collapsed? The buyer whose building collapsed due to a supposed event that the buildings were made to withstand?