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

I'm far more willing to believe that the Sept 11 attacks were known about and allowed to happen, rather than a carefully engineered "false flag" op.

reply to post by kaiode1


A quick google image search of building 7 reveals the scale of the destruction. It's obvious why it collapsed. And it's simply nonsensical that they would evacuate everyone from that building but not the towers. In fact, they'd probably have had a lot more public support if they issued an alert, evacuated everyone in the towers, and claimed they didn't know what plane nor from where it would come, so they just saved the people they could. That, by all means, makes more sense. It gets the same effect and you wouldn't need the massive engineering scale to demo an entire building.

Originally posted by brickof22cal
I'm far more willing to believe that the Sept 11 attacks were known about and allowed to happen, rather than a carefully engineered "false flag" op.

There is not far from letting it happen to actually push the demolition button yourself. Dont kid yourself. They had planned this event for a long time.
www.newamericancentury.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44bd99f96f4c.jpg[/atsimg]


CIA director George Tenet is asked about what information was not passed on to the FBI


Are you angry yet?

On December 14, 2004, President Bush awarded Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in US.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3861d7f786b6.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by TupacShakur


my first thought when it happened was "omg, it's another pearl harbor" in other words, something that was allowed to happen to give bush an excuse to go to war.

reply to post by conar


But this isn't proof of a demolition. And yes, allowing it to happen is just as bad as doing it yourself. But that still doesn't change the fact that no proof says they did it. Only that it strongly looks like they let it happened.

reply to post by Gorman91


Hmm, this building looks like it's in just as much trouble as building 7 was. Yet, somehow didn't fall. What point were you trying to make again?

Here are some before and after pictures

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a1a02153c09e.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f02c8b7a673.jpg[/atsimg]

Even the scaffolding is standing

reply to post by Gorman91

A biplane and a 747 are both planes. One has a bigger boom. Please don't be ignorant.

Oh the irony, you call me ignorant yet in that short quote you have two huge details completely wrong.
First of all a Boeing 707 which the towers were built to withstand an impact from is not a biplane. Second of all a Boeing 767 struck the towers, not a 747.

They clearly did not. Most of the tower fell towards one side, other parts fell the opposing way. Straight down? That's what you get from pancaking, which comes directly from Mies Van Der Rohe designs.

Go to YouTube, watch a few controlled demolitions video, and compare them to the twin towers and WTC7 falling. Pancaking would result in a slower collapse than free-fall speed also.

I really don't care about people's claims unless I can see it. I saw a video of firemen int he lobby, without anything wrong. How does the fire reach ground level? When big thing go boom, elevators fall.

Yeah and you called me ignorant. . So now consensus doesn't guarantee correctness? You're all over the place man.

From the video alone it clearly was not only on 6 floors, and it clearly did not all fall at the same time. You can make out the core of the building staying up while the floors fall. You can also make out the different structural elements. Basically, the floors fell, and without floors to hold them in place, the mains supports came down after them. You can get the same effect with a shish kabob.

A shish kabob? Try a controlled demolition, WTC7 is not a shish kabob.

You are not an engineer so your opinion on how a building collapses is meaningless to me. And you fail to address the fact that WTC7 as well as both twin towers fell at free-fall speed, which is impossible if they pancaked as you believe they did. How is that possible according to your perspective?

From the video, it clearly was 6 floors, and I have those six floors as well as which direction of the building they were on covered in my OP, so since you either didn't read that or mentally blocked it out I will paste it here:
-- The major fires occured in the following areas of the building:
East face- between floors 11 and 12,
North face- on floor 7, and floor 12,
West face- between floors 29 and 30,
South face- obscured entirely by smoke.

This is based off of video evidence which is present in the 'Loose Change Final Cut'

You're adding straws. An elevator shaft going to the main heart of the fire would, indeed, have molten metal in it. That doesn't mean anything was happening at ground level. Things fall. If anything, that proves that the structural supports were differentiating and separating before the collapse, making panicking more likely. And like I said, simple thermal laws do not allow anything but a volcano to remain molten days after an event occurs. Not even termite, not anything. The energy required to fuel such heat comes only from geological sources.

I think you mean "grasping at straws". I don't think you understand the tremendous amount of heat required to produce molten metal. Here is a simple chart to illustrate that for you: Melting Points
Jet fuel burns in open air at 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)

Unless the tower was made of Bismuth, Potassium, and Sodium, the original story is a lie.

And like I proved with evidence from a thermal image and several witness testimonies, molten metal indeed was there and remained there for days.


You are in denial bro, facts are facts and you seem unable to accept them.

reply to post by conar


Building 7 is pretty much the smoking gun dude. There's nothing about the damage of building 7 that was anywhere more extreme than these pictures we've posted. There's no way in hell it should've fallen without help from outside forces. You posted better pictures than I did, kudos.

Originally posted by EspyderMan
reply to post by iamaperson

 

Wow you notice nothing significant about the report? You mustn't of read it.

Motlen Steel, impossible with just fire. Yet it was there, many witnesses saw it.
Pilot flew into the Pentagon doing a maneuver that is almost impossible, hits the pentagon without touching the lawn...odd to say the least.
FBI cleaning up evidence.
Fires that raged in other buildings couldn't take the buildings down, yet the same type of fire rages in WTC7 and it goes down like a controlled demolition and creates smoke that only controlled demolitions and volcanoes can create.
The lack of funding for the investigation and how tight-lipped it was and censored.

I mean thats just a handful, it goes on and on. Are you blind to the facts, or just being ignorant of them?

no...it's the "BIG LIE"...

mien kampf talks about this very thing...and...historical documents show that the initial attack on poland was set up with the big lie at the start of WW2.

no american can believe this was anything else, but what we have been told...because...it's just too unbelievable. case closed.

Christ, dude. You really did your research. I've never seen so much evidence and hard work put into a single post. S&F+wow+bravo. Keep doin what you're doin, man.

reply to post by kaiode1


Clearly not a mies van der rohe style. What you're doing is no different than judging a book from its cover. What building is that? Whose the architect?

I will say one thing abou 9/11....This so called Building 7 B.S, has just gone insane, WHO CARES, if building 7 collapsed or if they took it down, when you have all 6 other building falling, it just makes common construction sense to pull the remaining building. There was debris everywhere, fires within the building, so pull it who cares, its the choice of the owner of the building or property to make that call which he did. STOP this nonsense about building 7.

The engineers and architects should be standing up for what happened in the field and at the pentagon. Enough of this building 7 B.S It is no smoking gun, it does not prove anything,

The focus should be concentrated on the Field and the pentagon. Because that is where they mystery will reveal itself.

reply to post by misfitofscience


ps: The loose change kids should have been sued over the first 3 films, as there was a bunch of nonsense garbage made up within them, every time they were called on their blatant lies they came out with a newer version of the documentary. poppycock I say!

Originally posted by misfitofscience
I will say one thing abou 9/11....This so called Building 7 B.S, has just gone insane, WHO CARES, if building 7 collapsed or if they took it down, when you have all 6 other building falling, it just makes common construction sense to pull the remaining building. There was debris everywhere, fires within the building, so pull it who cares, its the choice of the owner of the building or property to make that call which he did. STOP this nonsense about building 7.

The engineers and architects should be standing up for what happened in the field and at the pentagon. Enough of this building 7 B.S It is no smoking gun, it does not prove anything,

The focus should be concentrated on the Field and the pentagon. Because that is where they mystery will reveal itself.

well...for one thing..if it was "pulled" using your words...it would have taken days to set that up...which means it was pre-planned....why is this "nonsense" to you?

reply to post by Gorman91


Why does it matter who built the building? Would you knowing who the architect is allow you to debunk the fact that no steel building has ever collapsed from fire, no matter who built it?

Good thread because it covers a lot!

Only thing I don't believe is the "they knew ahead of time" theory.Because if this was actually the case it would be an admittance to the whole "19 Arabs with boxcutters" theory!!I mean if there was no plane wreckage and the fbi planted evidence then that would mean that it did NOT happen.There by making the "they knew ahead of time" not true!Why would they have to plant evidence if it actually happened??

So I honestly believe that the whole "they knew ahead of time" is just another lie to add to the story for confusion!Not saying the OP is lying I'm just saying that particular theory is a lie!

How could they have known ahead of time that planes would be hi-jacked and flown into buildings if it didn't happen in the first place??

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Unproven claims? I don't think you watched the Youtube video that you're so quick to denounce, because those claims are definitely proven. It's not just wild speculation, there are countless interview with credible people who know what they are talking about.

Correct. Unproven claims. Along with a lot of other dishonest tactics to imply a conspiracy.

Instead of simply saying that the claims are unproven, how about you show us? instead of just popping in and flexing your ego by remarking about how idiotic we are for believing the evidence presented with a YouTube video is the truth, how about you go through bullet by bullet, tell us how the expert testimonies and cold hard facts are unproven. Tell us exactly what is wrong about every assertion presented within the film or the summary, don't just say its wrong and leave.

I'm not here to prove wrong the things you believe are credible. You made the fallacious request that [paraphrasing] if someone can't come along and disprove this movie and your synopsis there was no hope left for the future. I merely pointed out that the converse was true. If someone is credulous enough to be snookered by a (already debunked long ago) YouTube movie, there may be little hope for the future.

If you believe you have evidence that 911 was an inside job why are you asking people on the internet to debunk you? Shouldn't you be taking this evidence to court?

reply to post by TupacShakur

First of all a Boeing 707 which the towers were built to withstand an impact from is not a biplane. Second of all a Boeing 767 struck the towers, not a 747

I'll admit my confusion between them. But a Boeing 767 wasn't in production until 1982. So what's you're point? It's a decade after the towers were finished. Technology, and fuel, changes.

Go to YouTube, watch a few controlled demolitions video, and compare them to the twin towers and WTC7 falling. Pancaking would result in a slower collapse than free-fall speed also.

I could say the same for a bomb and an oil fire. Doesn't make them the same. Similarities isn't proof.

Yeah and you called me ignorant. . So now consensus doesn't guarantee correctness? You're all over the place man.

You are adding straws and going off topic. I never said consensus was not correct. I said that a few firemen do not make a video wrong. Don't exchange unrelated points.

A shish kabob? Try a controlled demolition, WTC7 is not a shish kabob.

It's a building that's related to the typology of the food. Main support lines, floors stacked in. No redundancy, high risk protocol.

You are not an engineer so your opinion on how a building collapses is meaningless to me. And you fail to address the fact that WTC7 as well as both twin towers fell at free-fall speed, which is impossible if they pancaked as you believe they did. How is that possible according to your perspective?

I'm an architect student surrounded by engineers. Close enough. Then again we can't go revealing our identity, so you really don't have any reason to believe me, and I don't have any reason for you to. I only have a reason to supply a counter to your stated beliefs.

Pancaking is possible because of what pancaking is in relationship to the type of building the WTC was. Each floor is independent, and cannot support beyond its own weight and materials on it. Each support piece is independent and unable to support its given things to support. This is the zero redundancy architectural style. Each part is independent of another, yet work to construct a whole. Knock out a few floors and have them fall one each other, and the building falls down. The main support joins between the inner structure and the floors were not designed to support beyond their given limits. After a few floor's worth of mass falls, it no longer can support it. This is also why everything above the impact zone did not collapse. It came down and many of those pieces survived. This is also why the outer structure at the ground level survived.

From the video, it clearly was 6 floors, and I have those six floors as well as which direction of the building they were on covered in my OP, so since you either didn't read that or mentally blocked it out I will paste it here:

The video shows what was on the outer most level. We do not know beyond that, so we cannot be sure. If there was molten metal in the elevator shafts, likelihood is that it was a lot more floors.

Jet fuel burns in open air at 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)

Enough to weaken steel to bend and break from the weight above. Many videos show this, I can think of one particular one from discovery or some channel. Once it starts to melt, you're done. This is also enough to reduce the raw materials of walls and floors directly into thermite naturally. 6 floors of plastered walls is more than enough to make molten metal.

Unless the tower was made of Bismuth, Potassium, and Sodium, the original story is a lie.

Plaster and wall sheets do.

And like I proved with evidence from a thermal image and several witness testimonies, molten metal indeed was there and remained there for days.

How does something remain 500 degrees Fahrenheit for 3 days in a cool September day. Give me some other example where some man made process made this happen. Either your images are a lie from the government for God knows what, or they simply are not true.

reply to post by misfitofscience

The focus should be concentrated on the Field and the pentagon. Because that is where they mystery will reveal itself.

We can agree on that.