Newest 9/11 Documentary - Proof 9/11 was an inside Job

page: 7
65
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 


Oh, dear.

You show the famous photo of beams that were cut as part of the clean-up?? Weeks later?

Sorry, but this is very well de-bunked, already.....and not "evidence" of a "thermite" charge of any sort. But now, we are jumping to C-4 or Semtex charges.....(also having NO evidence in the debris).....

....and of course, there is no sonic, nor visual evidence of these "C-4" or "Semtex" charges, either.
edit on Tue 14 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


So they cut it with thermite or something like that WEEKS AFTER ?? You do not get metal dripping like that, not even from a plasma torch.


Note the slag as well:



The thermites are characterized by almost complete absence of gas production during burning, high reaction temperature, and production of molten slag.



Conveniently ignored though. I've never seen someone so determined to mock those exploring the 911 events, or shoot down blatant evidence.

On top of EVERYTHING ELSE, eye witness testimony, describing loud pops and bangs which are consistent with the same types of bangs heard during a standard demolition. Nothing fantasy about any of this, just common knowledge.
edit on 14-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Who is that talking at the beginning and why do the airplanes appear to be unmarked and grey? Is AA known to use unmarked grey planes at times?

Is that the mirrored video at slow motion of wtc 7 coming down at 9:00?
edit on 14-2-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 


Yea but whats more convenient, a terrorist attacked us, or our own govt. doing it? I don't think people want to accept that, because then it would be incredibly inconvenient, you know to have to deal with it and everything. We just spent 10 years going to war, all based of that one incident. Many people have built their foundations of hate towards certain people for what happened, if they had to switch to the conspiracy theory those foundations would be broken, and it would essentially change everything you've ever thought about, or done, relating to 9/11 for the past decade.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Good video.
Very well presented with it's timeline and correlating points.
I want off this forsaken planet since evil is allowed to run so rampant..
b



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


The twin towers fell?? When did this happen?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 


Oh I know! It would completely obliterate their world view. Nevermind the after effects in question, it's just hard to imagine that the government would do something like that period. I can understand why some people would refuse to believe anything besides official explanation, no matter what.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident which initiated the Vietnam war is enough evidence to prove the government WOULD do something like this.



On 4 August 1964, United States President Lyndon B. Johnson claimed that North Vietnamese forces had twice attacked American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.[1] Known today as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, this event spawned the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 7 August 1964, ultimately leading to open war between North Vietnam and the United States. It furthermore foreshadowed the major escalation of the Vietnam War in South Vietnam, which began with the landing of US regular combat troops at Da Nang in 1965.


It was revealed after:




“It was just confusion, and events afterwards showed that our judgment that we’d been attacked that day was wrong. It didn’t happen.” ~ Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense in 1964


Got the military industrial complex to make some insane money though, right? Gosh darn it, people are so naive and stubborn.

edit on 14-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 

The entire fantasy of a "thermite" conflagration, in the huge WTC Towers, is just devoid of any facts or evidence, whatsoever.

No way for it to have been "installed" or "planted"...undetected by the maintenance people, nor the tenants in the buildings.

Got to just love the way you attempt to debunk various ATS threads, with your sweeping generalisations, statements, and put downs...

I'll just take you up on your above quotes to show just how switched-off from entertaining ideas, other than your own limited ones:

How Could They Plant Bombs in the World Trade Center?

The recent New York Times article on 9/11 implies that controlled demolition of the Twin Towers would have been impossible, because no one could have snuck in all of the explosive equipment.

I, and many others, have previously addressed this issue. I am re-posting this essay in light of the Times' hit piece on this issue.

How Could They Plant Bombs in the World Trade Center?


Recently, a smart, accomplished person told me:

"I don't believe that the World Trade Center could have been destroyed by controlled demolition . . . how could they have possibly planted bombs without anyone seeing them?"

In fact, there were plenty of opportunities to plant bombs in the World Trade Center. For example:

Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11

The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11

There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved.

And -- as an interesting coincidence -- a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings.

These are just a few of the known, public examples of opportunities to plant bombs. There were undoubtedly many additional opportunities available to skilled operatives."

In addition to these facts, demolition and building collapse experts have purportedly raised the possibility of "explosive tenants" -- i.e. tenants in the World Trade Centers who planted bombs in their own, rented space. For example, according to Webster Tarpley and others, Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake engineering at the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich:

“In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.” The article went on to say that “Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these “explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building “without having anyone notice.”


In case you missed it, the point is that there were numerous opportunities & possibilities for explosive to be pre-planted in these buildings...



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
Just the other day a friend tried to sell me on the occult sacrifice side to the story.

What does ATS think?

1. The Pentagon, on impact, was a flaming pentagram.

2. The two WTC towers could also be symbology of the Solomon columns.


3. World Trade Center building 7 which later fell the same day is also known as the Salomon building.

Now was it some kind of religious sacrifice I don't claim to know. Just something I never put together before. Some weird similarities you have to admit.
edit on 13-2-2012 by TheLieWeLive because: corrected salomon building spelling. Thanks Alfie1.



The Pentagon hit was a fertility ritual (think: missile = phallus)....same with Flight 93: phallus into the earth (mother).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz3XRX0IHmo



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


I don´t know if anyone suggested this already, but I believe it might explain a few things. Just Google THE HOLLOW TOWER THEORY and you´ll find a really mindblowing perspective on this issue.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


I think it is very possible. Remember the demon face spotted in the smoke after one of the explosions at :28 seconds. In magick, one way a demon will manifest is though smoke. If this was some kind of sacrifice to an entity, these bastards got huge points. Will there ever be justice?

youtu.be...



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



So just make up bs stories to make it seem more plausible? Who's really doing the damage here?

Anyway, I'm done arguing the details of the incident. We already know planned criminal activity occurred that day, all this conjecture and speculation on what the planes were, who was in them, and what they had for breakfast that morning is besides the point.


I'm not suggesting ANYONE should make up BS stories. I'm suggesting you should consider the evidence and use logic to toss out ideas that...wait for it... AREN'T LOGICAL. Like remote controlled airliners. Have you considered any of the points I've made? Even if 9/11 WAS an inside job (and I believe it was), WHY would the government need to disappear 4 air liners full of people, and use remote controlled planes to ram them into the towers? There's no *need* for it if they intend to kill americans ANYWAYS to further an agenda. Think about it...


The need for it... to challenge your logic here, it might not have anything to do with minimizing casualties. A human pilot might make a mistake... he might chicken out at the last moment and not carry the attack through... OR he might simply screw it up and not hit the building in the right manner, or perhaps even flat out miss the building due to (initial fears or bad line up)...

They also might have switched the planes out in order to load something more explosive on the plane; in order to ensure there be no debris of the plane itself left behind... this might be required in order to moreso facilitate the prior point of using a remote-controlled craft.

If you really want to talk logic... consider 'if' 9/11 was an inside job... they are planning to get rid of tons of evidence pertaining to investigations and missing trillions of dollars, use it for their initiator to get into Iraq, start the war on Terror, the Patriot Act, etc... IF they are going to do that, what is more likely... using human pilots that might change their mind, miss the building, get overtaken by forces onboard... or use remote drones... with computer guidance to almost guarantee an impact exactly where required? And if anything went wrong... and the planes DIDN'T HIT... well, they can't very well use the nano-thermite laced explosives and take the buildings down now, can they?
edit on 14-2-2012 by Sandman80 because: Tweak...



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by L00kingGlass

Originally posted by DeadSeraph

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
I'm not really sure how this is even debatable any longer. Just too many bizarre occurrences and convenient coincidences which cannot be sufficiently explained away. It's pointless to get into a point by point analysis of the event, as every detail of the case is extremely suspicious, and the collapse itself implausible after a plane hit. And more evidence keeps piling up, a veritable mountain of it.

911 certainly was a planned and carefully orchestrated attack on America by corrupt elements within the US government and possibly media. Anyone arguing otherwise is either delusional or complicit. It's as simple as that.

The former "CIA asset" explained that this act was done by only a small handful of individuals, these people must wield immense power and influence. Someone at the very top of the chain using compartmentalization to keep things under wraps. All it would take is the heads of several governmental departments, and a civilian or two.

The only question I have is what actually happened to the people on those planes after they landed at the military installation...

It makes me sick to my stomach that people that we're supposed to trust are involved in the senseless deaths of all those innocent people to further a globalist/Middle East agenda. And those pieces of garbage are still out there somewhere getting away with one of the most heinous crimes in history.
edit on 14-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)


How can anyone suggest the planes didn't have passengers on them? Why is this even necessary? There is ample evidence to suggest something shady happened at the highest levels of the U.S government without the need to resort to crazy theories of remotely controlled planes, missing passengers, laser beams, holograms, etc.

All that sort of thing does is detract from the issue at hand and set up a perfectly well built straw man for skeptics and government apologists to knock down. In the end, it could be as simple as the hijackers being exactly who the U.S gov. SAID they were, and they were simply guided and handled by government elements, and the attack was allowed to happen to provide a pretext for foreign wars and draconian laws. There isn't even a need for crazy theories. A comprehensive look at the evidence is all that is required to conclude the events of that day were the result of gross (or even complicit) negligence at best.



Sorry, but if people are remote controlling drone strikes from Virgina, there's absolutely no reason why someone couldn't do the same with a larger aircraft.
edit on 14-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)


The question is why would they even need to?


Good question. The kind of precision required and the moves that those planes made to hit their targets (under extreme pressure, no doubt), would be next to impossible to get right for even the most experienced fighter pilot. Not to mention the the slight possibility that the "pilot" changes his mind, or dies somehow. How would it look and how would they explain it when the WTC buildings came crashing down yet the planes didn't make it to their targets? There could be no room for error. These things were supposedly rigged with explosives. Too much trouble and not an option to turn back the plan.
The answer is global hawk technology, which allows for multiple planes to be controlled by one programmer.
The programmer simply plugs in the intricate flight path and then he simply monitors and adjusts the path as the plan unfolds.

I mean, I could be wrong, it's just a theory.
I guess it could have been some guys from the middle east that trained (a little bit) on how to fly planes. Then, with all of their years of top pilot experience, flying all of the various missions, under stress and under pressure and such, these guys pull off what would be the most amazing aeronautic performance/wartime maneuver of all time! Wow! Flying giant commercial passenger planes over enemy territory with military jets trailing you and managing somehow to hit those planes right into their targets, and then Bam! not only do both planes amazingly hit right on, but wow! both MASSIVE!! buildings come crashing to the ground a half hour later.. unbelievable!!

Exactly. UN-Believable.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by VoidHawk
 


This is so bad......it is utter nonsense....and only invented by someone who knows not of which they speak:


Any plane that has Autopilot (they did) is already rigged for remote control because even if auto pilot only keeps you on a straight course it does so by CONTROLING THE PLAIN!!!
A laptop and a few servo's could be fitted wihin a couple of hours. Job done.


Those who are not pilots make up the most incredible stories....

.....now, just to be absolutely clear.....there are things recorded on the FDRs (Flight Data Recorders) that are recovered and were readable, from American 77 and United 93. These are clearly showing certain items in the cockpit that can ONLY change by being manipulated by hand.

There are a lot of examples.....one being the simple re-tuning of a Nav radio frequency, for instance. There is "Auto-tuning", and there is a selection where you can manually change the frequencies.

Many more examples....and of course.....the AutoPilots show when they were connected, and more importantly, DISCONNECTED, also on the FDR.

These are the facts.

The rest is incredibly silly speculation that is far, far from reality.


PoudBird, are you that dense?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
What has always been the hardest for me to swallow is how it looks nearly identical to a controlled demolition, complete with freefall speed all the way down and apparent "squibs" and so on. How could something so chaotic and random as a jet flying into the side result in something so orderly? (orderly as opposed to the thing falling over sideways or something)

Failures are not orderly.

The video in this thread has some really good footage showing controlled demolitions.

I also can't get past how jet fuel and furniture/carpet burning won't melt steel, not to mention building 7.

The people who are so adamant that the official explanation is true haven't been debating that jet fuel CAN melt steel, have they?

It's really about unanswered questions and inconsistencies first. Whodunnit, real planes, replacement planes, no-planes (that one is awesome), drones, missiles, bulges, so on and so forth, that's almost like icing on the cake. The real meat of this, to me, is the demolition.

It's step one. Why argue on a large scale about something ten steps down the road when step one is the stopper? Jet fuel doesn't melt steel and all three fell like controlled demolitions.

The families of the 9-11 victims are pointing to the inconsistencies and want a real investigation. Those people simply want a new investigation and aren't arguing that it was an inside job or that it was fake planes or done by magic space beams. Those things are awesome to discuss and I love conspiracy videos as much as anyone, BUT...

The real problem is the temperature and demolition issue.

Here's an idea:

The buildings had demolition charges put in them intentionally so that they COULD be brought down "safely" because they KNEW the planes would be coming. They are covering it up because there were innocent people killed, collateral damage if you will.

It fits with Larry's "Pull It" slip up.

Here's another:

They staged it and demo'd the buildings due to terrorist demands under threats of an atomic attack.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TimesUp
PoudBird [sic], are you that dense?


Sticking up for Proudbird: Why would you insinuate that?

At least he's actually looked at the FDR data (so have I) instead of promoting speculation as fact.

The autopilot and autothrottle were switched off for the last eight minutes of AA 77's flight.

The erratic piloting evident from the jerky control inputs suggests a human at the controls, not remote control.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by djmarcone
The people who are so adamant that the official explanation is true haven't been debating that jet fuel CAN melt steel, have they?


It's been debated all the time. In theory, hydrocarbon and office fires can't achieve temperatures above 1200 °C, and in practice, it's usually lower. This has to do with the lack of a stochiometric mixture between the fuel and the oxygen, imperfect ventilation, impurities, and the fact that nitrogen molecules must be excited by the burning process as well as oxygen and carbon.

NIST and friends don't claim the fire melted the steel. They claim the fire weakened and warped the structure (specifically, the floor trusses) which eventually caused structural failure through perimeter column pull-in.

However, initially, several 'experts' interviewed by the media did claim the fires 'melted' the steel, and they were, of course, wrong.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


excellent vid, thanks for sharing..




this should go viral...


truth shall be known



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by TimesUp
PoudBird [sic], are you that dense?


Sticking up for Proudbird: Why would you insinuate that?

At least he's actually looked at the FDR data (so have I) instead of promoting speculation as fact.

The autopilot and autothrottle were switched off for the last eight minutes of AA 77's flight.

The erratic piloting evident from the jerky control inputs suggests a human at the controls, not remote control.


Who told you the autothrottle was turned off, Fox News? Maybe CNN? Or the officially groomed FDR data report released as an update at some point during 9/11 month on FOXCNNMSNBCETC?

I'm still not un-convinced.

It was wrong to call ProudBird dense, but it can sometimes be very infuriating, dealing with (in my opinion) obstinate voices that continue to cause damage through, what I believe to be misguided information.

Global Hawk Clearly was operational and could perform any maneuver, even maneuvers that would seem almost impossible with a real pilot.
Show me a link to the erratic plane behavior and I will probably argue that it was all part of the script. You know, it's the little things count.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TimesUp

Originally posted by snowcrash911

Originally posted by TimesUp
PoudBird [sic], are you that dense?


Sticking up for Proudbird: Why would you insinuate that?

At least he's actually looked at the FDR data (so have I) instead of promoting speculation as fact.

The autopilot and autothrottle were switched off for the last eight minutes of AA 77's flight.

The erratic piloting evident from the jerky control inputs suggests a human at the controls, not remote control.


Who told you the autothrottle was turned off, Fox News? Maybe CNN? Or the officially groomed FDR data report released as an update at some point during 9/11 month on FOXCNNMSNBCETC?

I'm still not un-convinced.

It was wrong to call ProudBird dense, but it can sometimes be very infuriating, dealing with (in my opinion) obstinate voices that continue to cause damage through, what I believe to be misguided information.

Global Hawk Clearly was operational and could perform any maneuver, even maneuvers that would seem almost impossible with a real pilot.
Show me a link to the erratic plane behavior and I will probably argue that it was all part of the script. You know, it's the little things count.


To piggy back here... if they were able to pull this whole heist off, the planes, bringing down the buildings, etc... I think it'd be a MINOR operational point to somehow create/fake/alter the FDR. It'd be one of the little things on the checklist compared to everything else that had to line up properly.

Regardless of what the FDR shows, you have to keep in mind that if you are following the path of 9/11 being an inside job, then the FDR would most definitely be an integral part of that cover-up.

It might also be convenient for the FDR to be discovered... hence, dropped into the debris well after the towers have come down. If they had been installed/falsified on remote-planes; there is a chance the pressure or explosive force from the building coming down might have pulverized the FDR, similar in the manner in which steel and concrete turned to pyroclastic dust.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I'm going to start my own demolitions company. It will be so cheap and cost effective. No need for demolitions or thermite, all I need is a box of matches. We learned after 9/11, all you need to do is set some random fires on different floors and a steel framed building will collapse straight down on itself at almost free fall speed. I'm going to make a fortune with my new, innovative demolitions company! Stupid fools are still using demolitions when all they need is a lighter and some office furniture.





new topics
top topics
 
65
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join