What is the definitive proof needed for 9-11 to be an inside job?

I'm curious to learn what other people feel would be a major peice of definitive proof needed to finally proof that 9-11 was in fact an Inside Job? If you could get your hands on any piece of evidence what would it be?

Would it be a clear video of the Pentagon?
Would it be steel to study from WTC 1, 2 or 7?
Would it be a high level whistle blower?

What evidence do you think is out there somewhere, that will bring more credibility to the Conspiracy Theory?

France says they warned us before, Bush's speech writer said the government knew about 9/11 before. A manifesto written by a group including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Bolton, Wolfowitz, etc. outlines the need for a "Pearl Harbor"-like attack to succeed in its goals. 6 of the supposed high-jackers are alive and well in the Middle-East. There is substantial proof the 2 main WTC towers were assisted in coming down (even admitted by the NIST in the 9/11 commission report by their finding of "unusually large fires"). The WTC 7 tower, is clearly, CLEARLY a victim of controlled demolition (was likely the intended target of Flight 93, but it never made it - thats why hours after the first towers fell it fell, too). The temperatures needed to create the sulfurization of the molten metals under the towers (7 also) could only have been cause by explosives. 84% of US citizens (according to 2006 NY Times poll) think the government is lying about 9/11. Almost everyone knows its true, but making examples of people like Rosie O'Donnell, who got publicly humiliated for her exercise of free speech and press, is all the Government and media (controlled by government) need to do to cover their asses, and keep the idea they were involved "ridiculous."

First I believe that all good evidence was likely destroyed by the government. If there is something out there, it will be hard to find. And like the 2nd poster said, even if new evidence is brought to light, a smeer campaign involving major elements of the media will make that evidence look like nothing.

i have thought about this myself also, and with the majority of people in america (especially the red states) i think the only definitive proof would be a confession by the govt, which will never happen! We can show all the proof in the world and debunk every facet of the official story, and people are just too blind to accept the fact that people living in caves werent the ones to pull off this attack.

Our freedoms are being slowely taken away and 9/11 is the leverage this administration continues to expliot to do this.

Unless we get our act together and accept the fact that 9/11 needs an independent investigation, this government is going to change our free country into a fascist dictatorship by taking little baby steps everyday.

Granted that the government has already destroyed much of the evidence, yet there is still more evidence coming out supporting that there was prior knowledge and or inside job. Just look at the recent publicity of the BBC Building 7 video. I'm sure that there is plenty more evidence out there that the government hasn't destroyed.

Another thing to think about is what evidence would you need from the government to believe the "offical story"

I for one would like to see more photos of wreckage of flight 93. It is really disturbing not see any large aircraft parts.

Originally posted by Vinadetta
Another thing to think about is what evidence would you need from the government to believe the "offical story"

I would like to see all the structural calculations and computer models (plus specs) that NIST performed. Also, an explaination of why their conclusion directly opposses their findings and evidence.

The steel has been destroyed, as it was took AWAY from where it fell....

I wonder why

A confession from a credible insider would be helpful. The problem with much of the evidence for an inside job, contolled demolition, etc is that it requires intelligence to realize it's meaning and import. The near free-fall speed of the collapse alone points to a controlled demolition. Once a controlled demolition is acknowledged then a heck of a lot follows from that, pointing to an inside job.

Unfortunately, few people trust their own rational faculties. I think it is going to take someone coming forward and confessing. Which brings one to an interesting point.

Who set the charges in the buildings? Is it possible that only foreigners could have been trusted to set those charges and not break down and confess at some point? I have heard it alleged (by David Hawkins www.hawkscafe.com...) that the war games being run that day were actually being controlled in important ways by Canadians. It seems to me that some of the hands-on villainy on that day could have been handled by foreigners, in which case confessions would have to come from abroad.

The company, Controlled Demolition Inc., cleaned the mess up. Their employees probably knew at a glance whether or not the beams in the building had been cut controlled-demo style. Maybe one of them could be induced to come forward.

There is a huge amount of evidence out there, if you can think. I think everyone else will require a confession from someone.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by ipsedixit]

PROOF: That which will cause something to be proven.
PROVEN: SOmethhing which is undenaible and universally accepted
There is no universal proof of any case for 9/11 so far, which is why we still argue. There never will be universal proof, but maybe close to it. I'm not sure which way the final record will end up, closer to the official story or closer to the CTs.

That said, good enough evidence to convince some % of the population happens all the time. I'm watching the whiltleblower's newly revealed blueprint of the WTC tower floor plan, and look forward to a clear view of the Pentagon 757 any month now... not that that will constitute proof either...

How about a conspiracy that can not be debunk.

The freefall theory is easily debunk. For the towers to fall at a freefall rate it takes less than 9 secs. However, it took the building more than 12 secs to callaspe. So whoever claims that the building callaspe at a freefall rate is a lie because it didn't.

Here's my source:

debunking911.com...

You talk like falling at free-fall would be significant. I bet you'd pull away from that in 2 seconds if I told you that WTC7 fell at free-fall, and it did.

www.studyof911.com...


Accelerating at free-fall obviously is significant, because it implies absolutely nothing was in the way of the steel. No matter how much mass or weight you have, even air will significantly slow it. Yet thousands of tons of steel and concrete, all solidly connected, do not? Only in a demolition.

[edit on 20-4-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
There is no universal proof of any case for 9/11 so far,

This is the problem though. Why do you say there is no proof for either case? Obviously the govenment has proof (at least they say they do) to back up their story. Wonder why they don't show us said proof?

That said, good enough evidence to convince some % of the population happens all the time. I'm watching the whiltleblower's newly revealed blueprint of the WTC tower floor plan,

Is there a video I have missed? Please post the link if you have it. Thanks.

and look forward to a clear view of the Pentagon 757 any month now... not that that will constitute proof either...

Why do you say this? Although, you are right. I think by now any evidence is too little too late. If their story was sooo solid to begin with, they wouldn't have to "leak" information year by year.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I bet you'd pull away from that in 2 seconds if I told you that WTC7 fell at free-fall, and it did.

If, and I say if, 7 fell in 6.5 seconds, then it fell faster than freefall I believe. I just took an 8 hour exam and don't feel like thinking at the moment, so if anyone wants to calculate that, be my guest.

Only in a demolition.

I concure wholeheartedly and until anyone can prove otherwise with solid calculations, I'll stand by that.

Originally posted by Griff
If, and I say if, 7 fell in 6.5 seconds, then it fell faster than freefall I believe.

The problem with getting an average time is that we can't see it stop collapsing to pick a specific and accurate end time, and on top of that, HowardRoark types like to claim the global collapse began when the first column telescoped and brought down the penthouse (thus adding on a number of additional seconds that lower the average velocity for the global collapse, while in reality the global structure was not moving at all during the additional time). So what we did was measure how much the building's roof line accelerated for as long as we could see it. And for as long as our reference video showed the roof, the building's acceleration is almost perfectly matching free-fall acceleration.

Another argument I've seen is that once the "insides" collapsed (by some unknown mechanism, and apparently without bringing down the other structures supported on the roof, contradicting the behaviors of the first telescoped column), there was no long anything to hold the roof up. Well, the other walls were load-bearing too, and even if you only folded them down like an accordian, you'd still be expending a lot of energy that would be lost from the kinetic energy of the hypothetical falling mass, because work is still performed. So the roof line's final velocity would therefore have to be noticeably less than if it had fallen in a vacuum from the same height, and yet our observations don't demonstrate this fact.

well, since not all the material in many explosives detonates all the time, id love to see part of a block of c-4 or part of a shape charge.

that would seal it for me.

but, til then, not so much

my reasons why are listed here

Nothing. No matter what proof comes out. Even Bush coming out and admitting it someone would be debunked. 911 will become the new JFK mystery. So much time will pass (40+ years) that no one will be around to jail or do anything about it.

[edit on 21-4-2007 by leafer]

Honestly? I think the people, and the government already accept that its widely known 911 isnt as we were told.
I mean, all the proof thats out against the government, doesnt get airtime.
wtc97 was public, then just died off.

The reality?

It doesnt really matter any more, because we are soo screwed in Iraq, that it has become the more forefront of our worries at the moment.
regardless of who did or assisted 911, it happened, its long gone and we are in Iraq because of it.

Lets find a solution to Iraq, then hang those traitors in the whitehouse.

Because frankly, if we hang them now, who's iraq got left to blame?
The public, and its clearly the administrations fault.

So, once we have found a solution in Iraq,
declraed to the world the Bush admin acted on its own desires, and not those of the Western people, we will hang them.
And once we are given un-restricted access to the whitehouse, CIA and intel, we'll find the proof we nneed.

How about:
911 Commission Report: "terrorist threats, was in the 10's of thousands-probably 100's of thousands"

In addition to my arguments here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Because frankly, if we hang them now, who's iraq got left to blame?
The public, and its clearly the administrations fault.

Great insights!

I must add, however, that "we'll" always be an occupying force, unless treated with full head on anti-imperialism, because the goal was never to get out of Iraq, the goal was to set up permanent military bases there. As long as bases remain there will always be a de facto rule, and any establishment there will be treated as such.

[edit on 21-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Well i need at least 2 things to show the official story is correct.

1. FBI and NTSB crime scnene reports.
2. Video or photos of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.

If we do not have at least this much evidence the official story does not look correct.