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

Originally posted by CameronFox
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.

Where can we find information on the "hundreds of engineers" that reviewed the entire NIST report?


Peer review is not synonymous with "correct" or "factual", either. So believing something just because it's been reviewed, is foolhardy.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by bsbray11]

www.911myths.com...

Its better to look at this site. It covers pretty much all the issues relating to 9/11. You know I made a thread about the confession tape that shows Osama admitting about the attacks on 9/11 and I didn't realize that this guy also investigated it, and I can back up that claim that it really is Osama. People say it was some black actor, but in reality it wasn't.

The "attacks of 9-11" may still very well be the "inside job" of which you speak, and have gone down exactly as NIST and other accepted mainstream sources purport.

Consider, for example: It is far less complicated and more easy to convince a few already fanatical individuals to fly specially prepared planes into buildings than it is to organize an army of people to place appropriate demolition charges.

And also, from my own research, there is far more damning potential hiding in the less-researched dark corders of the plane impact at the Pentagon. This is the event upon which your attention should be focused.

Originally posted by deltaboy
www.911myths.com...

Its better to look at this site. It covers pretty much all the issues relating to 9/11. You know I made a thread about the confession tape that shows Osama admitting about the attacks on 9/11 and I didn't realize that this guy also investigated it, and I can back up that claim that it really is Osama. People say it was some black actor, but in reality it wasn't.

If the tape alone "proves" Osama did it.
And a form of confession.
Then why isnt he wanted for 9/11 according to the FBI's own website?

Originally posted by CameronFox


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]

The NIST report is for crap. And that takes no peer review. They claim steel experienced creep at no more than 300 C for less than 1 hour. That's an idiotic (or if you prefer a downright intentionally false) statement to make.

They state no structural element experienced temperatures in excess of 250 to 300 C and was not exposed to fire for the duration of time between the impact and the collapse. Their own diagrams do not show sufficient damage to structural elements due to initial impact to allow a global collapse.

If you want to go with the official story and feel comfortable, you might re-think your position. You're standing on shifting ground. There's been statements made that CTr's have "changed their story" over the years. But the log in your NIST eye has obviously got your mote-seeking eye clogged. The NIST changed their story for five years straight....and then they settled on one that is scientifically perverse. It's an embarrassment. By the way, that abortion of a report cost the U.S. tax payers $16.5 million. What an expensive turd to have delivered to our dinner table, huh?

In fact, I was just in a business meeting yesterday in which we were creating a potential pool of experts on a particular research subject to draw from for research purposes, and one of them was involved with NIST - I had their name removed from the list of possible candidates. We don't need that idiocy involved in our efforts...not if we want to deal with real science.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by Valhall]

Jinsanity, the burden of proof is on you mate.

If you're willing to accuse hundreds of people of murder, and thousands more of knowing about it - you have to prove it to use beyond reasonable doubt. It's not up to us to prove that it wasn't an inside job - it's up to you to prove that it was.

Number of times the official story has been proven in a court of law: 1
Number of times the conspiracy has held up in a court of law: 0
Re: Moussoui case.

Originally posted by Black_Fox
If the tape alone "proves" Osama did it.
And a form of confession.
Then why isnt he wanted for 9/11 according to the FBI's own website?

The indictments currently listed on the posters allow them to be arrested and brought to justice. Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

www.fbi.gov...

And it's not one "confession tape". Explain this to me. This pretty much proves the official story.

video.google.com...



[edit on 2/12/2006 by doctorfungi]

If you're willing to accuse hundreds of people of murder, and thousands more of knowing about it - you have to prove it to use beyond reasonable doubt.

Sorry, mate, its you who's doing that, not us. We're just pointing the finger back where it belongs. The official story is a piece of moldy swiss cheese, and everyone is coming to know it for the stinking mess it is.

What are you going to do when the real truth comes out? You won't be able to escape into the sky, the heavens won't have you, and there will be no hole deep enough for you to hide in, mark my words.

It would be nearly impossible to prove 9/11 was an inside job.All the evidence was shipped of to foreign countries before it could be properly analyzed as to why the wtc towers collapsed.That way maybe this sort of collapse could be prevented in the future,coincidence?I think not.It would take someone with first hand knowledge that the US government was involved for it to be proven.We all know that probably will never happen.But I do believe that it has been proven that the Bush admin. had prior knowledge that the attacks were going to happen.Why wasn't the military put on high alert if Bush knew?Alot of lives could have been saved that dreadful September day.If Bush and others high up in our government knew and did nothing to stop it ,isn't that considered criminal conspiracy?Or even treason?

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Sorry, mate, its you who's doing that, not us. We're just pointing the finger back where it belongs. The official story is a piece of moldy swiss cheese, and everyone is coming to know it for the stinking mess it is.

Why was the official story proven in a court of law? That's beyond reasonable doubt right there. So the Jury, the Judge, the lawyers are all helping to cover it up by sentancing this man to life in prison?
en.wikipedia.org...

More importantly why, in the video in my above post, do we clearly see members of al Qaeda admitting to the crime?

Let me guess... they are CIA assets and they're still alive

What are you going to do when the real truth comes out? You won't be able to escape into the sky, the heavens won't have you, and there will be no hole deep enough for you to hide in, mark my words.

The real truth? So you're admitting what you have now isn't the real truth? Or if it is, then it already has come out and it's gone no where.

Quote the rest of my reply, then, idolater.


When judgment day comes, you may find your soul is required in hell.

I found this interesting article on CBS news' website,very interesting.news article

[edit on 2-12-2006 by crowpruitt]

Proven in a court of law.

OJ was found not guilty. Just like The L.A. cops who thrashed Rodney King. 'Nuff said.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Icarus Rising]

This is in reply to the poster; I will try to prove it by what I think makes it obvious enough;

The towards got hit by planes. plane 1 tower 1. then plane 2 tower 2. But guess what the controlled demolishions messed up on. they cause tower 2 to blow up first followed by tower 1. They obviously messed up when they downed tower 2 because tower 1 was hit first by a plane so they messed up on which one was detonated. So even though they should have waited a few minutes before downing the other tower, tower 1. They did it right after tower 2, because they messed up: since the plane hit tower 1 first it should of fell first but it was 2.

What should of happend. Plane 1 hits Tower 1, a few minutes go by, Plane 2 hits Tower 2, a few minutes go by, and then Tower 1 falls, then a few minutes, tower 2 falls.

What DID happend. Plane 1 hits Tower 1, a few minutes go by, Plane 2 hits Tower 2, a few minutes go by, and then Tower 2 falls, then instead of letting a few minutes go by they quickly pull tower 2 realising the puzzling picture it would create if they fell in consistent with the times of impact.

That's what happened. If it was the Fuel like people claim that it is. The towers would of feel in the order of impact by the plans but they didn't. The tower that got hit second fell first and so its obviously it was a mistake in their plan. The fuel theory is debunked because they don't explode by nature in the order of events occuring but rather by a controlled entity that failed to blow them up in the correct order.

Good point Dunkindonuts ,also the 2nd tower hit wasn't even hit in the center like the first plane impact was.So the 2nd tower hit didn't have the same damage as the 1st but it fell first and they both fell the same way.Straight down,no resistance.You would think that the 2nd tower hit (the one off to the side)would have toppled over.

[edit on 2-12-2006 by crowpruitt]

So,

What you are saying is, the first plane was supposed to hit Tower 2, with the demolition timing set up in a sequence from WTC2 to WTC1, but they screwed that up, too?

The second plane was in a tight turn to make its target, wasn't it?

I still can't get over what an incredible feat of flying that was bringing that jumbo jet to bear on that skyscraper as I watched in horrified fascination clutching the New Yorker in my hansds from my hospital bed in Mercy Hospital, San Diego, CA following my first back surgery.

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

Get over this bull. I'm sick of hearing the same old tread, every day.

I'll get over it when the situation stabilizes, and a shared, equitable, prosperous, sustainable peace is in place. Until then, you're just rockin' your own world.

Any way you slice it, there is a lot of justice to be served between now and then. I only know that it will come to pass.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
The "attacks of 9-11" may still very well be the "inside job" of which you speak, and have gone down exactly as NIST and other accepted mainstream sources purport.

This is what I always find myself considering as well. Which is easier: to plant explosives during a power down sanctioned by someone with a clear connection to a sitting President, or to simply allow terrorists to get away with one of their own goals? Which poses less risk to those who stand to benefit from the event? Which costs less? Which is hardest to prove or detect conclusively? Which leaves the least evidence?

In addition, Northwoods, if carried off, would have demonstrated how effective compartmentalization can prevent participants in a conspiratorial operation like the one alleged to have been carried out on 9-11 from ever knowing who or what they are truly benefiting. Northwoods would have seen U.S. forces unwittingly aiding in a ruse against the American public, all the while believing they were rescuing genuinely downed pilots. Some of those involved would have known, but not everyone. Compartmentalization can accomplish a great deal when successful. Participants need not be knowing or willing participants, and an "inside job" need not exclude what the NIST report and other official accounts claim.

Finally, there could be variables and factors of which we know absolutely nothing that have been totally and effectively kept out of public view, the concealment of which may have succeeded in preventing a full understanding of what happened that day.

The sad fact may be that we will never know, but in the mean time, I have seen nothing which conclusively convinces me that 1) any of the popular conspiracy theories, 2) the official story, or 3) mutual exclusion between the two, must be the definitive reality.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Proven in a court of law.

OJ was found not guilty. Just like The L.A. cops who thrashed Rodney King. 'Nuff said.

[edit on 3-12-2006 by Icarus Rising]

Yes but Moussoui was found guilty. Opposite of being found inoccent. Moussoui openly admitted to his role in court.

Poor analogy mate.

The most likely scenario regarding 9-11 is that Bush & Cheney knew what was about to go down and allowed it to happen. This was the trigger America needed for going on the offensive.

Osama bin Laden: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."

www.tvnewslies.org...

I dont think we'll ever know the truth about who was really responsible but what's new there.