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

page: 7
272
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by templar knight
 


When a plane is crashing and buildings are falling, one would find it suspicious not to hear hundreds of explosions.




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
This is by far one of my favorite videos done on the subject...

I remember in 2001 asking myself how the plane went into the building like it was soft butter. Well.....


edit on 24-6-2011 by MurrayTORONTO because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MurrayTORONTO
 


Did you ever see the movie "waking dreams" with alex jones as the raving lunatic
it premiered at the Toronto film festival sept 11 2001...now thats a conspiracy



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



I've actually begun noticing that once anyone actually does show you wrong, you call them baseless and stop replying. So really, you are just ignorant by choice.

And by anyone do you mean...you?

I guess I'll continue on our argument even thought you believe one thing, you're sticking to it, and nothing seems to be able to convince you otherwise.


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.

The change in fuel makes absolutely no difference, open air jet fuel only burns at a small fraction of the temperature required to melt steel.


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


I am astonished that you can watched the WTC7 collapse with your architectural/engineering knowledge and not think that it's a controlled demolition. I think that similiarities between the way both WTCs and WTC7 fell compared to videos of any controlled demolition is proof, but that's my opinion. Here's a video which has some controlled demoliton experts showing what it takes to make a building collapse with explosives, then a comparison to WTC7.





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.


Ok sorry about calling you out on not being something that you have experience in, that was out of line.

So you believe that the fires from falling debris caused WTC7s collapse. Why did the other surrounding buildings which had much more damage to them not collapse? Any why did three skyscrapers collapse from fire damage in one day, yet there have been dozens of previous instances in which a building was on fire for an extended amount of time and did not collapse? Those three buildings were the first ones to ever collapse from fire damage alone, and you can honestly believe that there's a legitimate explanation for those astounding odds? I'm sorry but that's just too lucky and coincidental for me to even begin to believe.


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.


Sure once it starts to melt it may be done, but how can it start to melt if it's not even at 1/4th of the required temperature to melt steel? I also remember a thread about a Discovery channel documentary in which they "proved" that thermite used could not melt steel, however some dude in his backyard disproved that and produced results using only a tiny fraction of the thermite which was supposedly used in the Discovery channel one. That's not really relavent though.


Plaster and wall sheets do.

The steel frame is not.


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.

This is why I chose not to respond, there's just no rational reponse that I can provide to convince you otherwise. If I provide witness testimonies from several fireman who saw molten metal and have nothing to gain by their testimony and a thermal image as well, and you don't believe that molten metal was present, then why should I waste my time trying to convince you?



edit on 24-6-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The OP is full of misinformation and errors. I'm going to give just one example because I'm at work and don't have time to go through that huge list point by point, but this should give a good example of the mistakes made:

"-- In the two years prior to the 9/11 attacks, NORAD conducted exercises with fighter jets to simulate hi-jacked planes flown into the world trade centers."

This is simply not true. It is based on statements that were made in the hearings before the Committee on Armed Services on 08-16/17-2004, but in fact there were 5 exercises and they had nothing to do with the WTC. 3 scenarios were hijacked planes being crashed into the United Nations building, 1 was an explosives-laden plan crashing into the White House and 1 was also an explosives-laden plane, this time crashing into the Statue of Liberty. The statement explicitly describes the 5 exercises, the WTC is not mentioned at all. Tacking the WTC onto the story makes it sound like the government had some kind of specific information regarding upcoming attacks on the WTC, but when you look at the actual scenarios the connection becomes tenuous at best. I remain open-minded about the possibility of a conspiracy in this, but I get a little tired of people posting misinformation and insisting it's solid evidence. That comment is not directed at the OP since I know he's just repeating info from elsewhere, it's a general comment about the "evidence" I see repeated over and over. Anyway, the entire above-mentioned transcript is available here:

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...:24495.wais

And here is what was actually said, which is in contradiction to what is claimed was said:



32. Senator Dayton. Secretary Rumsfeld, a statement on page 17 of
the 9/11 Commission report indicates that the Defense Department and
National Command Authority considered the need to shoot down a
commercial airliner prior to September 11, 2001:

``Prior to September 11, it was understood that an order to
shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the
National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the
President and Secretary of Defense). Exercise planners also
assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the
United States, allowing time to identify the target and
scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking
commercial airliners within the United States--and using them
as guided missiles--was not recognized by North American Air
Defense Command (NORAD) before September 11.''

Did NORAD conduct exercises or develop scenarios, prior to
September 11, 2001, to test a military reaction to an aircraft
hijacking which appeared destined to result in a suicide crash into a
high-value target? If so, identify the five exercises conducted on, or
immediately prior to September 11, 2001; include dates, participants,
scenario, and synopsis of exercise results.
General Myers. Prior to September 11, 2001, NORAD exercises were
not designed to exercise or develop procedures to shoot down civilian
airliners. Pre-September 11 exercises were designed to practice command
and control procedures, rules of engagement, external agency
coordination and hijack shadow and/or escort procedures.
The following five exercise hijack events included a suicide crash
into a high-value target. Synopses of exercise results are not
available. They were discarded in accordance with DOD directives.

Exercise Name: Vigilant Guardian 01-1
Exercise Date: 23 Oct 00
Participants: HQ NORAD/Continental U.S. NORAD Region (CONR)/Sectors
Scenario: Weapons of Mass Destruction directed at the United
Nations--an individual steals a Federal Express aircraft and
plans a suicide attack on the United Nations Building in New
York City.
Synopsis of actions: Conducted an interception, exercised command and
control and coordinated with external agencies.

Exercise Name: Vigilant Guardian 01-1
Exercise Date: 16 Oct 00
Participants: HQ NORAD/Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center/CONR/
Canadian NORAD Region/Sectors
Scenario: Due to recent arrests involving illegal drug trafficking in
Maine, an individual steals a Federal Express plane and plans a
suicide attack into the United Nations Building in New York
City.
Synopsis of actions: Exercised command and control, coordinated with
external agencies and followed hijack checklists.

Exercise Name: Falcon Indian 99-3
Exercise Dates: 5 Jun 00
Participants: CONR/Sectors
Scenario: Learjet hijacked maintaining tight formation with Canadair
airliner, loaded with explosives. Learjet planned to crash into
the White House.
Synopsis of actions: Exercised command and control, coordinated with
external agencies and followed hijack checklists.

Exercise Name: Falcon Indian 00-1
Exercise Dates: 5 Jun 00
Participants: CONR/Sectors
Scenario: Communist party faction hijacks aircraft bound from western
to eastern United States. High explosives on board. Intends to
crash into the Statue of Liberty.
Synopsis of actions: Cross-sector hand over. Exercised command and
control, coordinated with external agencies and followed hijack
checklists. Federal Aviation Administration requested
assistance.

Exercise Name: Falcon Indian 00-1
Exercise Date: 6 Nov 99
Participants: CONR/Sectors
Scenario: China Air from Los Angeles to JFK airport hijacked east of
Colorado Springs by five terrorists. If not intercepted,
intends to crash into United Nations building.
Synopsis of actions: Cross-sector hand over. Exercised command and
control, coordinated with external agencies and followed hijack
checklists.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
When a plane is crashing and buildings are falling, one would find it suspicious not to hear hundreds of explosions.


And what exactly do you think is in an office building that would explode hundreds of times over? Surely you've seen videos of buildings other than the WTC burning, how many explosions do you typically see in these clips? Because I've seen zero. Sure, if the building is a fuel refinery or storage building for gas cylinders then you might see some explosions, but not in an office building.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
See YouTube "911 Conspiracy predicted in X-Files" months before 9/11.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


The reason someone creates a post like this is simple. For Stars. That is it. You have provided basically a synopsis of any 9/11 website touting conspiracy. You should not be rewarded for simply regurgitating the same information as it has been done 100's of times on this site.

You provide no evidence, just conjecture.
There is no question to provoke thought just statement that is pages long.
There is no way you could defend all of the items you have presented. Do them one by one and present the facts that back up what you are stating.

It is a movie. If you can watch this, you should read the 9/11 commission report. Compare them. Many of you toss it to the side as if it is nothing but there is a plethora of information in there about the how, why and when. It explains prior knowledge of pending attacks. No #. AQ hit us in 93 at the same site and the Cole was hit. That was the opening salvo against the US and it went unheeded. If you want to blame and administration, blame that bj getting, big mac eating party animal who did not man up and kill him when he had the chance. Blame those who decided not to share information with the incoming administration, effectively allowing a pissing contest to let vital information not be transferred. Able Danger is the only one you hear of...think there were not more? The PDB that is provided to the POTUS everyday is an outline of world events. Do you think there would never be mention of OBL. if there was not, I would think there was a cover up and not the other way around.

I have watched this as well as the original Loose Change which I watched again on Netflix stream on the xbox. Nothing that is given shows proof of anything. Just because someone repeats something over and over it will not be true and is close to the definition of insanity.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


Not many office buildings catch flame, fewer still such so that the wtc was. CCTV building in China had a few explosions. But it did not collapse miraculously. Then again, they build buildings there better, and government buildings even more so. The benefits of a redundant structure.


That fire, btw, was caused by fireworks. But one can differentiate fire explosions from fire work explosions.

There's a lot of skyscraper fires in China actually. many looked like the wtc fires. They had black smoke, white smoke, etc etc. But one thing remains true. China doesn't put up toothpick construction systems. Their construction systems work.

Simply put, when a new air pocket starts burning, it explodes sometimes. Explosions do not always mean explosives.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



The reason someone creates a post like this is simple. For Stars. That is it. You have provided basically a synopsis of any 9/11 website touting conspiracy. You should not be rewarded for simply regurgitating the same information as it has been done 100's of times on this site.

No actually to provide a summary of the evidence which goes against the official story, and to inform those that are unaware of many pieces of evidence that I also wasn't aware of until I watched it. As rewarding as people clicking on a star to increase a number next to my name is, that's not worth the many hours I spent paraphrasing 'Loose Change Final Cut'



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


So???

What's next??

What do you want to see happen now?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Section31
I can say for 100% certainty that the 'official public story' is 100% accurate. Terrorists did attack the United States on 9/11/01.


oh really? so U.S. government had no clue they'd use planes as weapons? So the mossad was just a figment of our imagination? so the BBC just was psychic about building 7? yeah.. sounds exactly 100% accurate.,


though honestly... havent we already talked about Loose Change? I cant fathom that it hasnt been discussed before.. so.. why no mod closing? its odd how they close and hide and move threads..
edit on 24-6-2011 by Myendica because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


I recommend greatly that you watch 7/7, The Big Picture, made soley by wideshutUK.
It deffinatly doesnt answer all questions, but it raises some very important facts that the main stream media has fail to pick up on, such as:
All cctv cameras on the buses where the "terrorists" bombed seemed to be malfunctioning.
Reports from investigators of military grade expolisives being used.
Metal from inside the trains where the explosives detonated was facing skyward, implying bombs were under the trains, not inside them.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by esdad71
 



The reason someone creates a post like this is simple. For Stars. That is it. You have provided basically a synopsis of any 9/11 website touting conspiracy. You should not be rewarded for simply regurgitating the same information as it has been done 100's of times on this site.

No actually to provide a summary of the evidence which goes against the official story, and to inform those that are unaware of many pieces of evidence that I also wasn't aware of until I watched it. As rewarding as people clicking on a star to increase a number next to my name is, that's not worth the many hours I spent paraphrasing 'Loose Change Final Cut'


Actually, you could have just dropped a link here for a movie that is a few years old. Anyone who is in this forum should have watched it as it is the bible. Both sides. Personally, it sounds like an indoctrination video. It has a cult element to it...

www.loosechange911.com...

Like how they are still selling t-shirts for 20 bucks...how much of that goes to a new investigation or children of 9/11 victims? I would have to guess not that money. What you are doing is peddling someone else s hard work and not applying any of your own thought.

Sorry....



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


Also, I'm not sure if you mentioned this, or if "Final Cut" mentioned it, or maybe someone else has before my post, but in June 2001 the FAA Flight Intercept Procedure (that's right, it's an actual SOP - Standard Operating Procedure) was changed to give the Secretary of Defense the sole responsibility to authorize the scrambling of fighter jets, to intercept aircraft.

Which means that for the first time since this procedure was first implemented (in the 1970's) only the Defense Secretary can order jets to be dispatched to the air, instead of a USAF Colonel at the NEADS (North Eastern Air Defense Sector).

And that's another thing. NORAD isn't the only command post that is tasked to defend U.S. Aerospace. There is an entire military command infrastructure that deals with ALL facets of U.S. Defense! Homeland Security is a joke!



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 

From what I understand, all three Falcon Indian exercises are a simulation of terrorists hi-jacking a commercial airplane and crashing it into a building. On October 23rd Vigilant Guardian is also a simulation of a commercial airplane being crashed into a building, as is the Vigilant Guardian exercise on October 16th.

"-- In the two years prior to the 9/11 attacks, NORAD conducted exercises with fighter jets to simulate hi-jacked planes flown into the world trade centers."

OK I understand now, the bullet point says that they had exercises where a hi-jacked plane would crash into the WTCs, but in reality NIST said that the exercises were just hi-jacked airplanes crashing into buildings.

Still I find its suspiciously coincidental that they ran 5 exercises in which terrorists crashed hi-jacked airplanes in the two years prior to terrorists doing just that.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Actually, you could have just dropped a link here for a movie that is a few years old. Anyone who is in this forum should have watched it as it is the bible. Both sides. Personally, it sounds like an indoctrination video. It has a cult element to it...

www.loosechange911.com...

Like how they are still selling t-shirts for 20 bucks...how much of that goes to a new investigation or children of 9/11 victims? I would have to guess not that money. What you are doing is peddling someone else s hard work and not applying any of your own thought.

Sorry....



I never claimed to have done months of research to dig up all of that evidence, I said in the OP that I was posting the film and a summary of it because I felt that it thoroughly debunked the Official Story about what happened on 9/11. You don't need to pout and cry because many people agree that the film accurately provides evidence to go against the OP and starred/flagged the thread, contact a mod if you feel that this thread should be closed down, don't whine about it to me because I don't care.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wotcher
99% undeniable and conclusive????

I don't understand.

I'm not saying I disagree with you but....

How can it be undeniable and conclusive if it is only 99%?

100% is absolutely conclusive and undeniable.

Is there still an element of doubt here?


It's 99% until you have a confession from the perpetrators, a confession that corroborates each other's story.

Thanks for the thread OP. Aptly named thread, well constructed and without the idiotic "you're crazy if you don't believe me" rhetoric, that was so apparent in that "official story 100%" thread.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
good summary tupac. I came at an understanding that elites that control our government did it after watching loose change one, not believing it, then starting my own analysis of wtc7. after that I followed most of your review. thanks.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 


I am neither pouting nor crying. I am simply trying to counter your claim that this movie is 99% accurate as to what happened that day. In the first 10 minutes, they discuss the passport of one of the hijackers and how it could have survived. Why not? He was a muscle hijacker more than likely in the front of the plane. They found lots of personal articles of passengers and continue to find bone fragments to this day. It was found 'before' the towers collapsed so it would seem it was ejected, more than likely along with Mr Suqamis remains.

It did not survive a fire, it was not in it. This is number one...

To verify the terrorist, which they also try to discredit, look up Nabil al-Marabh. He is on FBI radar and has links to both hijackers and the late great OBL.



new topics
top topics
 
272
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join