If 9/11 wasn't an inside job then prove it. Conclusively.

I'm curious to see what passes off as the official story these days.

So go for it. Fungi, Cam etc... I'm all ears. If you can quell the swirling ideas of inside job then I'll be there front and centre.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]

[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]

Strange request, and the members you are asking say they believe it is not an inside job.

Are you meaning to say if its not an inside job prove it?

yes. Precisely. It's a challenge for anyone.

Yes. I believe 9/11 was an inside job. I didn't always feel this way and I once was a big Bush supporter. it just came being questioned about 9/11. I was asked the same thing when I was on the otherside of the coin, spent hours and couldn't conclusively prove it happened the same way the gov't says it did.

"It's not unpatriotic to question your government..." Steve Earle.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]

To me, the Anthrax Attacks, and especially who was targeted by them, prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Think about it.

good point. You'd have to have access to a military lab to be able to do that and get away with it. last time I checked military labs aren't exactly easily accessible like a corner store is.

Jinsanity,

I can sit here and pull quotes from the NIST report... FEMA... the 911 commission as well as hundreds of engineers...and all you will do is tell me how they are "ALL IN ON IT". I have been looking into this stuff for several years and started out with the no plane theory at the pentagon. Took me a few months, but I figured out it was all DisInfo.

Seems the biggest thing that is going is WTC7. Since NIST pulled out of their investigation to complete the WTC1/2 investigation..that rasied all the eyebrows. NIST will have a report and it is due out i thought was DEC, now it looks like early spring?

Lets talk about the NIST report. NOT ONE.... ONE REAL engineer has come out against the NIST report. The ones that claim to have, have never had their papers peer reviewed. I really dont want to get into this, I am hoping to start a new thread on the WTC7 after I get some more information. Thanks

Originally posted by jinsanity
good point. You'd have to have access to a military lab to be able to do that and get away with it. last time I checked military labs aren't exactly easily accessible like a corner store is.

Again Jin... look it up. the analysis of the Anthrax was NOT military grade. IF I have time i will find the articles for you.

Thanks again

you can take your time on this Cameron but you have to conclusively prove.

Ever read a book called Painful Questions? It's by a metal cutting software engineer. Very Very Very good read.

WTC 7 is an important issue. That one was clearly a controlled demolition. Before it falls you can see that the center columns have been taken out and then it falls. Internal explosives is the only possibility.

Have you ever considered that maybe the Conspiracy theory sites are actually government disinfo operations?

for all we know Alex Jones could be CIA payroll. That would explain why he hasn't been killed yet.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]

[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]

No he doesn't. There's no one obligated to prove a negative. If your theory is that 911 was an inside job, you are obligated to prove that. But absolutely no one is obligated to prove it is not true.

You're kind of losing sight of logic, aren't you?

not really. I have a right to ask this question. It was asked of me when I was on the otherside of the coin and i'm forever thankful that I wasn't able to conclusively prove.

I've already provided conclusive proof.

Find my post

Read it and Weep CT deniers. 9/11 undeniable controlled demolition.

the link was 9/11 proof or something like that.

"There's a BOMB in the building...start clearing out..." NY firefighter on 9/11.

Well, for those of us who don't accept that as "conclusive" proof of a CD, you're going to have to live with our disagreement. And since the logic behind why we disagree on what is conclusive and what is not has already been discussed ad nauseum, you apparently aren't open-minded enough to accept it.

So stop demanding things from us simply because we don't jump to the same conclusion as you.

I'm openminded. It was my open mind which led me to realize there was more under the surface of 9/11 then it appears.

If I wasn't open minded I'd still be a Bush buddie.

This is one way we can solve the debate. Since CT's are probably tired of having the Onus on them it's our turn to have identified the official line so we can prove one way or another.

It's easier this way.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by jinsanity]

the analysis of the Anthrax was NOT military grade

That's not quite correct. Only recently has it been reported that the strain wasn't military grade weaponized Anthrax.

For the four years previous it was accepted that the strain was military grade weaponized, most likely from Fort Detrick.

the prevailing theory: The culprit is a U.S. scientist who had access to the high-grade anthrax and the knowledge of how to physically manipulate it and use it as a weapon. That theory emerged early in the investigation and remains viable today, authorities said.

Authorities long ago narrowed down the type of anthrax to a strain called Ames but have been unable to identify the lab of origin. Much attention has focused on the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, housed at Fort Detrick in the Frederick area.

link

Handy to wait four years, then change the story to confuse the issues.

Oh, and what about the choice of targets, Daschle and Brokaw? You'd think they would have gone after Bush and Cheney.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by Icarus Rising]

whats the definition of military grade? you can take military grade anthrax and make it so that it's not as concentrated. all this can be done in a military lab and therefore it appears as not to be military grade.

I think the point is weapons grade anthrax is practically atomized so that it can be inhaled or skin absorbed, and it takes sophisticated equipment generally only found at biological weapons facilities run by the military to make it that way.

Originally posted by Valhall
There's no one obligated to prove a negative.

Right. Rather, they should try to prove their side of the story, instead of trying to debunk ours.

I couldn't put it any better myself.

I loved it when Charlie Sheen challenged the American media on the WTC 7 issue and to this day nobody has taken up his challenge. Just attacked his credibility from 20 years ago. Since they did that that gives us the right to question Bush's college coke binges aswell.

Take your time 9/11 investigators. By all means take your time.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Valhall
There's no one obligated to prove a negative.

Right. Rather, they should try to prove their side of the story, instead of trying to debunk ours.

We are in agreement. I'm assuming Cameron Fox's side of the story is in agreement with the official story as it appears he is presenting science supporting that.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Valhall
There's no one obligated to prove a negative.

Right. Rather, they should try to prove their side of the story, instead of trying to debunk ours.

We are in agreement. I'm assuming Cameron Fox's side of the story is in agreement with the official story as it appears he is presenting science supporting that.

I agree with the NIST report. That is becasue their studies have been peer reviewed by hundreds of engineers. Anyone that has come out against it has NEVER had their theory peer reviewed.

Now..on to the 911 Commision Report. Thats garbage. I'm sure most agree with that.



[edit on 2-12-2006 by CameronFox]