Iriefusable Proof That 911 Was An Inside Job,

The government is toying with you brain. You leave all the answers to the system. There are thing that they don’t want you to know. There is evidence all around us that suggests that 911 was a con job. Yes the government is out there to protect us and to enforce the set of laws that keep the good people of the country in line. But the very people that are supposed to be protecting us are going to be our destruction. Please have an open mind when reading my theories and statements. Please read carefully. Do not skim, troll or Para claim.

911 conspiracy theory evidence.


1. My first piece of evidence that suggests that 911 was an inside job is the probability. As we all know there were (supposedly) four planes one for the pentagon. Two for the trade centers. One for the white house. Based on the evidence the passengers in the plane headed for the white house brought the plane down. The odds of passengers on the white house flight knowing how to take control of a plane and bring it down are highly unlikely. And there are multiple places that the plane could have been brought down. And it comes down in an open field of all places. There is a ¼ chance of the one plane headed for the white house (The most powerful place on earth) crashing. And the plane crashed in an open field of all places.

The odds of that plane crashing in an open field are unlikely. The odds are the people knowing how to guide the plane are unlikely. The people confronting the terrorists. Terrorists that have knives combat skills, is unlikely. You would think that the (supposed) terrorists, Terrorists with months of training would plan for the scenarios.

This is a recreation of the report of light 93. The plane that was headed for the white house has crashed in an open field. The brave average citizens that clearly don’t know anything about flying planes overcome the strength of highly trained terrorists and took control of the plane and crashed it. And we don’t even see the wreckage.

And heres another one. There were three terrorist on the hijacked aircraft. That means that if the heroes wanted to crash the plane they would have had to do it right then and there. They had no time to steer the plane. So if the plane crashed into an open field. It would have had to have been flying right above it when the hero’s took control and crashed the plane. What are the odds that the hero’s just happened to be flying right above an open field when they crashed the plane? The odds of this are unlikely. Most of these claims that the government makes are questionable and sketchy.

And these terrorists have knives and used intimidation force. If someone tried to take control of the plane why didn’t the terrorist just stab then entrance to the cockpit really isn’t all that hard to guard.


2. Now we move on to the structural damage to the twin towers. There is a multitude of evidence that suggests that that flight 97 was a controlled demolition. The government claims that the twin towers were destroyed by the fire. But when you look at the pictures there is a small opening in the building where the planes hit. The opening extended to about three or four floors. Now if the fire spread throughout the building like the government officials said then the smoke from the fire would have to come out of the opening that the planes made. The opening is about four floors high. As listed above. All that smoke cannot come out of that opening so the fire you have put itself out to lack of air. And how does the fire spread more that four floors. The stone that the floors are made out of are not flammable. So the fire would spread throughout the four floors and that’s it. The fire would not at all accelerate. So there would be four floors intact with burnt wreckage. And the fire cannot cause structural mills to bend because the heat of the plane fuel gas is not enough to corrode metal.

Now let’s say the fire causes the steel mills that hold the buildings up to collapse. (Major benefit of the doubt) If the fire caused the structure mills to corrode they would bend either inward or outward. And that would show. On theses photos and videos of the 911 attacks there is no evidence that suggests that the structure corroded. Now let’s say that the structure bent and we just missed it. If the four floors collapsed the building would come down one floor at a time. There are a hundred and ten floors. Now let’s say the floors came down ½ second speed that’s fifty-five seconds. But the twin towers came down in eight seconds. That’s controlled demolition speed.

And heres another little claim when the tower comes down there are explosions. As evidenced by the puffy reddish-orange clouds. In fifteen minutes all the gas from the planes would be burned up so what caused those explosions. Just steel, metal, and concrete clashing together isn’t enough to cause an explosion.

Everything was vaporized in the demolition. And in controlled demolitions there is vaporization. If it was really the fire that brought the building down there would be large debris but there is nothing!

When you see the tower go down you see explosions. The only way there could be explosions is if there were… well explosives. If it were a fire that destroyed the tower the structure would have corroded and there would not have been red puffy clouds that evidence explosions. But there are!


Look carefully at what the arrow is pointing at. Those are explosions. Look at the steel structure. If it was a fire that brought the building down there would be corrosions. There would be pieces of metal sticking out and there aren’t so the claim the building was brought down by a fire is a ridiculous claim.

3. And thirdly let’s take a look at the circumstantial evidence. All the videos we have seen of Osama have been blurry right in there with Bigfoot. There are eye witnesses that say the planes had no windows and were the wrong size and did not have American airlines markings on them. If you ask the firemen that were sent to go in find and retrieve the victims most of them will say the there were explosions going on inside the trade centers. And one of the witnesses that were there in the building said that there were explosions and then he was quickly taken way by government officials. Bush and his family were supposed to have connections to the Osama family. The terrorist groups were “supposedly” in Afghanistan yet we invade Iraq. Sure bushes father had to settle the feud he started with Iraq. But you would think that bush would put finding the al’queda terrorist group on the top of his priority list. If theses people can kill twenty-eight thousand people in the flash of an eye bush should have gone in and found them before he goes into Iraq. And if he can find suddam who is a world leader. Why can’t he find Osama who is just some nutcase who dislikes Americans intensely? The whole 911 plot is very fishy. We all know that Bush is not one of the brightest leaders we have had but you would think that he would have done more to try and make 911 look more like it was done by the terrorists.

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Is this a serious post?

How about this:

Flight 93 wasn't brought down by the civilians, but was brought down by our own military.

Think of it this way: It was the last plane to go down. Our military would have had time to find which other planes had gone rogue and released the jets. And they let Americans think it was the people because of the chaos that would of ensued if Americans knew that we had to shoot down our own plane. I actually don't blame them for this. It is better off for people to think that the plane was full of heros.

I fully remember the reports right after it going down that debris was found to be scattered for a mile and a half. That is conducive to a plane exploding in the sky, not on the ground. I also clearly remember witnesses saying that they saw objects flying towards the plane, witness accounts that dissappearred from the news by the second day.

Originally posted by snoopy
Is this a serious post?

So simple, yet so damned funny.


I'm sorry OP, but, I'm a believer in the fact that 9/11 was an inside job. Not one single solitary doubt in my mind.

However, your post has just royally confused me. Though you did seem to make use of periods (which I am thankful for since so many other ramblers do not), I have the sneaking suspicion that you may have been using them in the wrong places. However, I can't verify this because your rambling in this post has got my head spinning and I'm a bit confused right now.


I do think I was able to dig out bits and pieces of coherent logic, however, each of those bits and pieces have already been discussed in depth here at ATS and are still being (though poorly) refuted by the supporters of the official story. So, that kills your "iriefusable proof" title. (Note: No, I do not know what iriefusable means either...but I'm assuming it means "cannot be refused".)


Perhaps a bit of editing would help?



Jasn

usa knows wheres osama even when he goes to the mans room.
but they havent captured him couse its all about money,propaganda,and to continue the war
if they capture and kill him how are they going to continue selling weapons to iraq?selling weapons that kill usa soldiers?
i dont have anything to backup but think about it

Originally posted by nixie_nox
How about this:

Flight 93 wasn't brought down by the civilians, but was brought down by our own military.

How do you even know that? The government did nothing to stop flight 93. If they were on such high alert how did a plane enter DC airspace and hit the pentagon? Even Bush's reaction at the school he just sat there.

I don't know all the answers but the poster maybe on the right track.


And explain why the 4 to 5 video's near the pentagon suddenly was taken by the FBI?

Something is being covered up. Are you gonna believe the offical story or dig for the truth?

Sadly, the OP has made a fubar post.

"Irefutable evidence" is not conjecture based on earlier posts in this forum. this evidence has not been verified and/or debunked. It is hardly "irefutable" or whatever the OP meant.

I have to say that I agree with the post, but the phrasing is much more like a delusional rant than an intelligent, coherent post.

Next time, let's shoot for some FACTS in your EVIDENCE, rather than conjecture...


--------------------
I do not claim to be wise... I just have to put in my two cents.

reply to post by Leyla


I am strictly talking about flight 93. The first plane struck the WTC at 8:46. Flight 93 didn't go down till 10:06. Plenty of time for the military to respond.

Now, while looking for the exact times, I came across this article:
www.cooperativeresearch.org... events

(Before 10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Fighters Trailing Flight 93?


Shortly after 9/11, NORAD claims that there is a fighter 100 miles away from Flight 93 when it crashes. However, no details, such as who the pilot is, or which base or direction the fighter is coming from, are ever given by NORAD. [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001] Other accounts vary as to whether or not there are any fighters near Flight 93 when it goes down:
bullet Two days after the attacks, it is reported that an unnamed New England flight controller ignored a ban on controllers speaking to the media, reportedly claiming “that an F-16 fighter closely pursued Flight 93… the F-16 made 360-degree turns to remain close to the commercial jet.” He adds that the fighter pilot “must’ve seen the whole thing.” He reportedly learned this from speaking to controllers who were closer to the crash. [Associated Press, 9/13/2001; Telegraph (Nashua), 9/13/2001]
bullet Five days after the attacks, on September 16, CBS television reports that two F-16 fighters were tailing the flight and within 60 miles of the plane when it went down. [CBS News, 9/16/2001; Independent, 8/13/2002]
bullet Also on this date, Major General Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, says that no military planes were sent after Flight 93. [Seattle Times, 9/16/2001]
bullet About seven months later, Anthony Kuczynski tells the University of St. Thomas’s weekly newspaper that he had flown toward Pittsburgh alongside two F-16s. He said he was piloting an E-3 Sentry AWACS plane, with advanced radar and surveillance equipment that could be used to direct fighters to their targets. He was just about to intercept Flight 93 when it crashed. He says, “I was given direct orders to shoot down an airliner.” (E-3s are unarmed, so, if this account is accurate, the order presumably applied to the fighters Kuczynski was accompanying.) [St. Thomas Aquin, 4/12/2002; US Air Force, 5/2006]
bullet Almost a year after the attacks, ABC News reports that “the closest fighters are two F-16 pilots on a training mission from Selfridge Air National Guard Base” near Detroit, Michigan. These were reportedly ordered after Flight 93, even though they weren’t armed with any weapons. The two pilots, Lt. Col. Tom Froling and Major Douglas Champagne, had just fired the last of their 20mm cannon ammunition during their training mission. They were oblivious to what happened in New York and Washington, but said they heard unusual conversation over their radio frequencies. They claim they were supposed to crash into Flight 93 if they could not persuade it to land. [ABC News, 8/30/2002; ABC News, 9/11/2002; Filson, 2004, pp. 68] However, these fighters were apparently not diverted from Michigan until after Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 a.m.
bullet Another Cleveland flight controller named Stacey Taylor claims around this time not to have seen any fighters on radar around the crash. [MSNBC, 9/11/2002]
bullet Five years after the attacks, Bill Keaton, a Cleveland flight controller who tracked Flight 93 as it flew eastward (see (9:41 a.m.-10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001), is asked whether there were fighters in the vicinity when it crashed. He replies, “[T]hat goes beyond the scope of what I can comment on.” (Flight controllers reportedly can lose their security clearances if they discuss the movements of military aircraft.) [Cleveland Free Times, 9/6/2006]

Entity Tags: Stacey Taylor, Paul Weaver, Bill Keaton, Anthony Kuczynski

Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline

[edit on 5-9-2007 by nixie_nox]

[edit on 5-9-2007 by nixie_nox]

I haven't wandered into the 9/11 forum for some time now, but I couldn't resist having a peek here.

It's not every day you encounter something iriefusable.

The problem with this post is that it is infused with a lot of fancy talk about "probability" and "odds." A good rule of thumb when calling upon these words is to actually provide some "probability" and/or "odds."

My recommendation, too, would be to not waste your time on a statistical analysis of "fields" in rural Pennsylvania.

If you are going to perform an actual statistical analysis of the 9/11 conspiracy, I would say that energy is best spent calculating the probability of no less than ten major government and media entities working in flawless concert with one another to covertly organize the three largest controlled demolitions in history for completely unnecessary purposes.

Now those numbers, I would really be into. Odds are good that I might even click on the little star above your post if you gave up those numbers.

Originally posted by Essedarius
If you are going to perform an actual statistical analysis of the 9/11 conspiracy, I would say that energy is best spent calculating the probability of no less than ten major government and media entities working in flawless concert with one another to covertly organize the three largest controlled demolitions in history for completely unnecessary purposes.

Sounds like you owe us a more detailed analysis of your own. Can you show that all of those groups would necessarily have to be in on it? You better be a good psychologist, too.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sounds like you owe us a more detailed analysis of your own. Can you show that all of those groups would necessarily have to be in on it?

That's a fair point, bsbray.

I attempted to analyze just that one time and came up with this easy to follow flow chart of the standard 9/11 conspiracy theory:

i168.photobucket.com...

And most, if not all, of these groups would have to be in on it because no black ops super-genius is going to leave any major component of such a massive operation to chance.

You better be a good psychologist, too.

I'm not a professional, but it only takes an amateur to diagnose paranoia of this magnitude.

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.







[edit on 10/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Posts like this are why people can't take this serious.

Atleast one error on that flow chart. Rudy Guilliani was mayor of NY City at that time. Also, as someone who worked within 4 blocks of there and was conveniently late that day, maybe you should include myself. I was at the base of towers when the first plane watching Ron Insana give a morning briefing from that locale. Did not see the first plane hit, but did see the second plane hit. YES it was a plane.

Other than that....nice job on the flow chart!!!!!!!!! Must hagve taken some time.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Atleast one error on that flow chart. Rudy Guilliani was mayor of NY City at that time.

Great point. Thanks.

Also, as someone who worked within 4 blocks of there and was conveniently late that day, maybe you should include myself.

Noted. I've had my eye on you for some time and the fact that you were there that day can only mean one thing: Are you Mossad or ISI? And don't lie. We'll know if you're lying.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Posts like this are why people can't take this serious.

No its because of all the 9-11 debunkers..

Nice chart- You solved 9-11 Essedarius.

Originally posted by Leyla
...its because of all the 9-11 debunkers.

Conspiracies are always more fun if you let reality and logic slide a bit. But concocting extravagent fiction then selling it as reality, as a rule, just doesn't work. Unless you're a Scientologist...and even then, it's very expensive.

Nice chart- You solved 9-11 Essedarius.

Well Sudoku was kicking my ass, so I thought this might build up my confidence.

Originally posted by Essedarius
That's a fair point, bsbray.

I attempted to analyze just that one time and came up with this easy to follow flow chart of the standard 9/11 conspiracy theory:

I see the cute chart but I still don't see the reasoning.

I'm guessing that's coming in a later, lengthier post, in which you justify all of these connections and how everyone would have to be informed.

You better be a good psychologist, too.

I'm not a professional, but it only takes an amateur to diagnose paranoia of this magnitude.

I was talking about how susceptible the human mind is to suggestion, peer pressure, and things of that nature, not to mention standard protocol in most sensitive environments of "need to know" only. But I guess this was lost on you because you have a poor concept of what you're talking about.


Btw, psychology isn't my major, either, and I hate to be so picky, but I did take a couple of college psychology courses while in high school, and I'm pretty sure you could have me paid to go see an LP, and they would tell you in no time that I don't suffer from paranoia. I would much sooner "suffer" from apathy. Like I said, not my field, but, if you paid. Maybe we could even bet the fees.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by bsbray11]

100% of all topics saying they have 100% proof contain 0% evidence.

This is the second line of my post.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I see the cute chart but I still don't see the reasoning.

You're sharp.

It's because there is no reasoning. It doesn't exist.

I'm guessing that's coming in a later, lengthier post, in which you justify all of these connections and how everyone would have to be informed.

Here is my scientific and statistical conclusion regarding the communication and logistical thoroughfares that would have had to exist for the standard version of the 9/11 conspiracy to occur:

There is a ZERO PERCENT (0%) chance that such communication and cooperation could occur on that scale. (P

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by bsbray11
I see the cute chart but I still don't see the reasoning.

You're sharp.
It's because there is no reasoning. It doesn't exist.

So you even admit that your own assertion that all of those people would be "in on it", is unfounded.


That's what I'm going to have to conclude anyway, because you keep refusing to back yourself up. Why would someone continue to refuse to back up their claims? Because they simply can't back them up, but don't want to look like a fool, or especially to have to go through the trouble of possibly changing an opinion.

Oh now come on bs, was that really necessary?

Call them like I see them. I can see how a lot of these types of responses from you are pretty worthless too.


Three posts now and I still don't understand why EVERYONE would have to know EVERYTHING. You take way too many words to say nothing.

[edit on 6-9-2007 by bsbray11]