was it a inside job?

OK, so i started this day still thinking/believing the "official" story of 9/11. i have been reading through posts, and taking link, to link, to link and i have been seeing some interesting stuff, and have been forced to speculate on what really happened.
this is what i found pretty interesting....

Late on the night of August 23, 2001, at about 3 a.m. security cameras in the parking garage of the World Trade Center captured the arrival of two or three truck vans. Visual examination determined the vans were separate and unique from trucks used by janitorial services, including different colors and devoid of markings. More curious, all the janitorial trucks had pulled out of the Towers by about 2:30 a.m—about half an hour before the second set of vans arrived. It was a unique event. Security cameras caught the vans leaving the Towers at approximately 5 a.m—before the first wave of AAA personality types on Wall Street, driving Mercedes and BMWs, arrived to track the markets. For the next 10 to 12 nights, the same mysterious truck vans arrived at the World Trade Center at the same mysterious hour— after the janitorial crews had left the building and before the most fanatic robber barons on Wall Street showed up for work. The vans appeared at the World Trade Center from approximately August 23, 2001 until September 3 or 4, 2001. After that last night, they never appeared at the Towers again. The vans were never heard of again, either. The 9/11 Commission was never informed of their surprising presence in the Towers three weeks before the 9/11 attack. Most of the 9/11 Truth Community has no knowledge of this extraordinary nightly activity, either.

now to me, that seems very suspicious. vans start showing up after everyone leaves, no marks on the vans either so there is no way to really identify the vans. so what could these vans have been doing? possibly planting explosives to aid the demolition of the buildings. well thats all i am going to post. hope ya'll fund it a little interesting.

You do realize this occurred in New York City right? This isn't East Gibip, Kansas here. At 3a.m. it is just as busy as at noon in this city. These vans didn't slip into the WTC when no one was around, undetected. Besides, the only vehicle in NYC more abundant than truck vans are yellow cabs. This, I assure you is not an uncommon occurance around here.

First of all....if exposives were used....there would be alot of evidence. Evidence on video of any flash or behaviour of the building....evidence of blast damage to pieces of the building and particularily to the beams....and evidence of explosive residue on the beams and other parts of the building.

There is no evidence of this. Split Infinity

reply to post by secretmonkeypants



This is interesting stuff. Is there any other proof of what you are saying? Because I am one of those truthers that have never hear of these trucks. I suppose the other question is if there is any type of video of these trucks why hasn't anyone seen them. Links, video's etc. to back up your story. Because this to me is extremely important information.

reply to post by bftroop


There is no video of this!! How about we let logic prevail here? How could a security camera in the parking garage of the WTC have possibly survived the total collapse of 110 stories on top of it??

Originally posted by secretmonkeypants
now to me, that seems very suspicious. vans start showing up after everyone leaves, no marks on the vans either so there is no way to really identify the vans. so what could these vans have been doing?

and the source for that claim is what exactly?

reply to post by secretmonkeypants


Interesting info for sure...

Whats the source of the info?(Link please)

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
First of all....if exposives were used....there would be alot of evidence.

There's plenty of evidence.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Evidence on video of any flash

The flashes can't be seen on video, but several firefighters reported seeing low-level flashes going "up, down and around" the towers "like a belt" at the lower floors while the buildings were collapsing above. They also reported "popping or exploding sounds" associated with the flashes. This is documented in the First Responder Oral Histories.

Numerous first responders, survivors, and by-standers also reported timed/synchronous "booms" as both towers collapsed. Then there are the ejections of dust/debris visible during both towers' collapses:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]


Ejections, flashes, timed booms, all associated with controlled demolitions, and none associated with fire-induced collapses.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
or behaviour of the building

All three WTC collapses fell at or near free-fall through themselves which is impossible without assistance.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
evidence of blast damage to pieces of the building and particularily to the beams

Since most of the steel was shipped away, I guess we'll never know. How convenient.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
and evidence of explosive residue on the beams

Since most of the steel was shipped away, and NIST deliberately refused to test for explosive residue, then I guess we'll never know. How convenient.


But, there is evidence of steel beams being severed by explosives or incendiaries. If you take a look at the following image, you can see white smoke coming from the ends of two steel columns on the left:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/813a9e14d6ee.jpg[/atsimg]


If one does the research and actually looks, there's more than abundant evidence for explosives being used at the WTC.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by secretmonkeypants
now to me, that seems very suspicious. vans start showing up after everyone leaves, no marks on the vans either so there is no way to really identify the vans. so what could these vans have been doing?

and the source for that claim is what exactly?

I copy pasted the paragraph and did a search. It comes from

The Missing Security Tapes FromThe World Trade Center By Susan Lindauer 8-1-11

She seems a bit wacky.

Wacky Link


Who knows? Maybe she had a security job at WTC and was watching surveillance monitors just prior to Sept 11, but I kinda doubt it.

The pictures above and the ejections of material are consistent with linear verticle beam collapse as they are driven into lower floors. If there was a use of explosives...you would see ejecta at every load bearing beam across the whole horizon of each floor...not just in a couple of places. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
If there was a use of explosives...you would see ejecta at every load bearing beam across the whole horizon of each floor...not just in a couple of places. Split Infinity

Do you not see the controlled demolition from "Implosion World" in the upper left corner of that collage? Those apartment towers also only have a few ejecta in each building. And if you watch the multitudes of WTC collapses, those ejecta will be seen on all sides from top to bottom. And sometimes 40-60 floors below the collapse fronts.

There's no use trying to explain the ejecta way. You will never, ever find those ejections in any other building collapse in the world besides controlled demolitions. That's a fact.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You will never, ever find those ejections in any other building collapse in the world besides controlled demolitions. That's a fact.

No, it is just your opinion. In fact you find them in every high rise building that has collapsed due to being hit by a airliner.

And that "white smoke" is in fact just dust, as no explosives were used.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

But, there is evidence of steel beams being severed by explosives or incendiaries. If you take a look at the following image, you can see white smoke coming from the ends of two steel columns on the left:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/813a9e14d6ee.jpg[/atsimg]

Dude that is dust from the spray on fireproofing on the core columns. You did know the core columns were covered with fireproofing. Right ?

It is the fireproofing that was sprayed on all the steel, coming off and turning to dust during the collapse, that gave the appearance of explosions. In fact all of your evidence is nothing more than fireproofing dust propelled by air exiting the building.

Fireproofing on core columns during construction.

reply to post by waypastvne


correct me if I am wrong but I am sure that fire proofing doesn't catch fire and smoke. At least it has never done it for me when I put coated objects in camp fires made with gas.

Originally posted by jonco6
correct me if I am wrong but I am sure that fire proofing doesn't catch fire and smoke.

Why claim it was on fire and smoking? All you are seeing is dust

Originally posted by jonco6


correct me if I am wrong but I am sure that fire proofing doesn't catch fire and smoke. At least it has never done it for me when I put coated objects in camp fires made with gas.

Fireproofing does turn to dust. The dust that covered the people, the cars, the streets had to come from somewhere. Where Exactly, do you think, that all that dust, that covered the city, came from ?

Originally posted by spoor
No, it is just your opinion. In fact you find them in every high rise building that has collapsed due to being hit by a airliner.

So, on 9/11 we have three steel-structured highrises that have totally and completely collapsed due to fire for the first time in history. Now you are claiming that ejections that have only ever been found in controlled demolitions have magically appeared for the first time in history in building collapses that you claim are not controlled demolitions.

That is amazing. Not a single soul will believe that stretch of a fairy tale, but amazing though.

Originally posted by spoor
And that "white smoke" is in fact just dust, as no explosives were used.

No, the dust is gray. The smoke is white. There is a distinct difference. Furthermore, the white smoke is coming from the ends of those columns where they would have been severed.

Sorry, but the audio, video, and witness testimony to explosions far outweighs and trumps your opinion that there were no explosives used.

Originally posted by waypastvne
Dude that is dust from the spray on fireproofing on the core columns. It is the fireproofing that was sprayed on all the steel, coming off and turning to dust during the collapse

I could actually believe that if it were not for the fact that the white smoke is continuous, non-stop, coming from the ends of those columns the whole time they are falling in the videos. That white smoke is not coming from any other point on those columns but the very ends. Your "fireproofing" wouldn't continuously emanate from the very ends of steel columns for their whole line of travel.

Originally posted by waypastvne
The dust that covered the people, the cars, the streets had to come from somewhere. Where Exactly, do you think, that all that dust, that covered the city, came from ?

All of that dust is from the tons and tons of concrete in each building being pulverized. Thank you for posting this particular post. You have shown you can no longer be debated with or taken seriously if you didn't know this elementary fact.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
the white smoke is coming from the ends of those columns where they would have been severed.

It is gray dust - it is just your opinion that it is smoke, not based on any fact

but the audio, video, and witness testimony to explosions far outweighs and trumps your opinion that there were no explosives used.

Wrong, the audio and video and eyewitnesses show no proof of any explosives being used - it is just your opinion that explosives were used.