How many you believe that 9/11 was an inside job?of

reply to post by Blaine91555


I tentatively agree with the points you raise.

I would also add that the US government and administration then manipulated the events of 9/11 and the emotional fall out to justify their foreign policy.

Did they actively participate in the planning and the actual acts of terrorism that occured that day, I really doubt.
Did they have prior knowledge of the plan, possibly, but I suspect not.

But I do accept that there is enough contradictory evidence to warrant further investigations.

As an aside, I honestly think that 9/11is a subject that has imprinted itself on the psyche of Americans as a whole which sometimes manifests itself in a lack of objectivity.
Opinions have become so entrenched that civil discussion sometimes seems impossible.

Will any future administration authorise another full independant review of ALL the evidence with the impartiality that all the victims and their families deserve?
I suspect not, there are probably far too many skeletons in that closet.

*raises hand*

I believe!

I have worked on and built A/C for most my adult life. I have looked at the official story from every angle and my conclusion......."that 911 was a inside job carried out by our own criminal government" period!.Max Cleland is my cousin and he said that from day one the 911 commission was rigged and I believe him. It is time for a full and honest investigation no matter where it leads.

9/11 was an inside job. I don't know the names of the people who carried it out. I know the names of those who used it to further their agenda.

I know the names of the countries that we have wrongfully invaded because of it, and I know the name of the document that was shredded because of it( the constitution).

So in other words you think President Bush is stupid. So in your thinking, both Harvard and Yale would put their reputations on the line by just handing him his degrees. Also since he is a pilot, I guess the military just let him hop in jet with no training right?

Just because you don't like President Bush doesn't mean you have to insult him.

For the record, Bush almost certainly got into Yale because of the influence of his grandfather and father. Yale has a "legacy" system (this is not something they hide) that is essentially an affirmative action program for children of Yale alumni. Those kids don't have to meet the same academic standard that everyone else has to meet. To boot, his grandfather was on the Yale Board of Directors when he was admitted.

When it came to the Texas Air National Guard, Bush had the lowest score you could possibly have on tha aptitude test everyone had to take who applied. In fact, people associated with that program at the time said the only reason they allowed people with scores that low to join the Texas Air National Guard was because sometimes they got Air Force and Navy veteran pilots who thought taking such a test was a joke. Yet somehow he moved up the list in front of hundreds of other applicants who had higher scores. In a court trial, the former Lt. Governor of Texas testified (under oath) that he had essentially engineered Bush getting in.

The fighter he flew was a very outdated jet fighter that would have never been employed for combat duty in Viet Nam.






[edit on 25-2-2008 by ClintK]

reply to post by ClintK


So in other words, you really believe that Harvard and Yale would be that stupid to hand out degrees to just anyone? Sorry but I seriously doubt that.

And it doesn't matter what score he got, the military felt he was good enough fly a jet. So just how stupid can you be and still be given your Wings?

I've been in the computer business for over 25 years and because I didn't always get high scores on certifications that means I shouldn't be allow to work on systems that effect 1000 plus users? Guess what, I do all the time.

Sorry again but your comments just don't hold any water. Face it, you dislike the guy so much that you'd be willing to believe anything. Just a guess but I bet you think he stole the election in 2000 too.

I find it quite ironic that being called a truther is considered an insult.

What do you call yourself then a liar?

What is this world coming to?

Damn straight I'm a Truther. i.e I want to know the truth. Don't you know tha's how the label was born, by truthers themselves.

People who believe that NO PLANES hit the WTC are not in the same camp as most. They have a very active imagination and either need an eye exam, or suffer from some serious mental illnesses. This is not an attack on those people, that's my trying to understand how they can believe such a thing. Do NOT try to lump me in with those people, just because I don't believe everything the MSM tells me. Trying to place one label on millions of people who believe in different ways this crime was perpatrated is also ignorant , imo.

There are so many different theories out there, you cannot just group everyone together, and label them.

That'd be the same as me saying anyone who believes the official story believes in EVERYTHING the MSM says, and believes every info-mercial, sales scam on Television, and owns a copy of Matthew Leskow's(sp?) book.


With that said, I agree with Dorian's assesment of this thread up to a point.

These threads, like this one will most likely turn into flamewars, because of ignorant people. That use adhom attacks, try to derail the thread, simply cause they can't admit they are wrong.

However there have been numerous threads here on ATS that have opened my eyes and , made me change my stance on certain points. Most recently, a thread about the infamous pod under the 2nd plane that hit the WTC. I had no idea that the wing fairing on that particular boeing model were so large and bulbous, and at certain angels and light appear to be even more large, and unnartural looking to the lay-person.

I conceided. I always figured the side by side photos I was shown, obviously showed something extra under the 9-11 boeing. But alas it was just a trick of light/angel.

Takes a big person to admit when they are wrong, but i have seen it plenty of times here on ATS, usually not in this particular forum, though IT DOES happen.

And when it does it's a beautiful thing, that's when progress is usually made. But unfortunately this takes adult, mature, open-minded people, who have the sense to know that they don't know everything.

So while I agree threads like this are just an accident, and a warning, and possible post bans waiting to happen, there are a few that progress is actually made. The perverbial diamonds in the rough so to speak.

But just going to sites and forums that cater to "truth", or what we've established, the other camp is now called "lies" yes? This will get us nowhere. .......See?



[edit on 25-2-2008 by Nola213]

[edit on 25-2-2008 by Nola213]

Nope.

Do I think the various gov't. entities screwed the pooch in the months leading up to the 9/11 attack? Yep, I believe there was a deficiancy of competence at all levels. That much is clear.

Originally posted by EndOfFile
So in other words you think President Bush is stupid. So in your thinking, both Harvard and Yale would put their reputations on the line by just handing him his degrees. Also since he is a pilot, I guess the military just let him hop in jet with no training right?

Just because you don't like President Bush doesn't mean you have to insult him.

Swing and a miss.

..and completely irrelevant.

Bush could be a super genius. Doesn't matter. It still would take years to plan and carry out something like that and have it so airtight under wraps.

How can anyone claim that there is no possibility that anyone within the governance structures of the United States was involved with the events that transpired on 9/11?

Do you folks that honestly and truthfully believe that put all of your faith in the Keane Commission Report?

How else could you believe that there is no way, not a remote possibility, that anyone in government was involved?

So in other words, you really believe that Harvard and Yale would be that stupid to hand out degrees to just anyone? Sorry but I seriously doubt that.

Well, you can doubt it, but it seems pretty obvious to me you don't know how legacy systems work, or for that matter Ivy League schools.

Legacy systems are not unique to Ivy League schools, but they work the same everywhere: they have a much lower entrance standard for children of alumni. Period. That's the way they work. There would be no need for a legacy system otherwise. That's the only reason they exist.

And as I said, his grandfather was on the Yale Board of Directors at the time. There was almost no way he wouldn't have been let in. But if he was like anyone else, there is almost no way he would have been let in. I don't let it bother me. This is how the world works and it isn't going to be changed.

And it doesn't matter what score he got, the military felt he was good enough fly a jet. So just how stupid can you be and still be given your Wings?

The problem here is that it wasn't the military that thought he was good enough to fly. His father wanted him to be in a National Guard position where he wouldn't really face any danger of combat duty in Viet Nam. So he got a family friend, Ben Barnes, then Lt. Governor of Texas, to get the younger Bush in. Barnes has been very forward about this, and says he is ashamed that he helped so many rich kids get into the Guard

I've been in the computer business for over 25 years and because I didn't always get high scores on certifications that means I shouldn't be allow to work on systems that effect 1000 plus users? Guess what, I do all the time.

This is not anywhere near the same thing, if you read my post. Again, they normally didn't take anyone into the flight program with scores that low unless they were vets who obviously knew how to fly.

Sorry again but your comments just don't hold any water. Face it, you dislike the guy so much that you'd be willing to believe anything.

It sounds to me like the problem is exactly the opposite: it is YOU who LIKES him so much you want to ignore everything I said.





[edit on 25-2-2008 by ClintK]

[edit on 25-2-2008 by ClintK]

The official story of what happened on 9/11, backed by both the Bush administration and the Kean Commission’s “investigation” is as follows: On September 11th, 2001, 19 Al-Queda terrorists, under the direction of Osama bin Laden, hijacked 4 commercial airliners, flew 2 into the World Trade Center towers, 1 into the Pentagon, and crashed the last in Shankesville, Pennsylvania after a passenger revolt onboard. The 2 Trade Center towers burned for 56 and 103 minutes respectively before collapsing symmetrically at near free-fall speed into their own footprint. Another building not hit by a plane, the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, also collapsed at free-fall speed many hours later allegedly due to internal fires and structural damage from falling debris. While on the surface this explanation for the 9/11 events may seem plausible, it does not stand up to critical scrutiny.

To begin with, if the official story is true, World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 all made history on 9/11 by being the first and only steel-framed buildings ever to collapse from fire or a plane crash. Steel-framed buildings have burned for up to 28 hours, gutting the entire interiors, but still not collapsed. The Empire State building was hit by a B-25 and never collapsed. Hundreds of architects and engineers at www.ae911truth.org and WTC designer/architect Minoura Yamasaki himself have expressed repeatedly that the World Trade Center buildings were specifically built to withstand an airplane collision of that magnitude. There even used to be an information sign at the top assuring visitors of just that. And since the buildings stood strong for a good hour after impact, it is safe to say the collapses were not caused by the plane crashes.

The official story states that fires from burning jet fuel weakened the buildings’ steel beams until they gave way and collapsed. In the past, all over the world steel buildings have burned uncontrollably for over 20 hours, completely decimating every floor and not collapsed. Not once in history had one fallen from fire, until 9/11 when WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 supposedly all did. The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) reports that the temperature of jet fuel fires do not exceed 1800 degrees Fahrenheit and steel does not begin to melt until 2800 degrees. This means they would have us believe jet fuel fires burning 1000 degrees below steel’s melting point, for only 56 and 103 minutes, on only 8 and 5 floors respectively, was enough to bring down the twin towers. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt, assuming that jet fuel fires did somehow weaken the steel frames enough to bring down the buildings, how is it possible that they collapsed at the speed of gravity? The official story is that fire induced structural failure caused each floor to collapse and pancake on top of one another. This “pancake theory,” however, is seriously at odds with Newton’s gravitational theory.

"In order for a floor to fall, hundreds of joints had to break almost simultaneously on 236 exterior columns and 47 core columns … For a 1,300-foot building, ten seconds is almost free-fall speed. But if each floor produced just a little resistance, so that breaking through each one took a half second, the collapse of all those floors - 80 or 95 of them - would have taken 40 to 47 seconds. Can we really believe that the upper part of the buildings encountered virtually no resistance from the lower parts? The problem would be even worse in relation to the North Tower, at least if Hufschmid is right to say that it fell in eight seconds, which would be exactly free-fall speed ‘How,’ he asks, ‘could the debris crush 100 steel and concrete floors while falling as fast as objects fall through air?’” -David Icke, “Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center”

News footage, firefighters, ground-zero workers and other witnesses reported molten metal flowing out of windows preceeding the collapse, and huge pools collected in the basement area remaining in molten form for over 5 weeks. For fire to produce molten steel, it absolutely must be over 2800 degrees Fahrenheit, and jet fuel burns at 1000 degrees cooler than that. What can account for this? Professor Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU points out that thermite combustion is a process used in controlled demolitions which produces high temperature molten metal. In his paper, “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collapse” Jones wrote,“molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron … I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-termperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HDX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”

The idea that explosive charges were placed inside the building is supported by literally hundreds of eyewitnesses, seismic recordings, video footage, and Isaac Newton. Firefighters and scores of witnesses on CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS all talked about bombs going off that day, but once Osama bin Laden had been blamed, it was never again addressed by the mainstream media or the Kean Commission. Teresa Veliz, for one, was working on the 47th flor of the North Tower when Flight 11 hit. She was quoted saying, “there were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion, and another, I didn’t know where to run.” Live on ABC as one of the towers came down, Peter Jennings commented, “Anybody who has ever watched a building being demolished on purpose knows that if you’re going to do this you have to get at the under infrastructure of a building and bring it down.” After building 7 came down, Dan Rather live on CBS News said, “For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” One of the firefighters up in the second tower, Louie Cacchioli, told “People Weekly” that “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.”

William Rodriguez, a janitor in Sub-level 1 of the World Trade Center testified to bombs exploding in the basement several seconds before the planes even hit the buildings! His testimony was completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission report.

Also seismographic data from a nearby observatory showed two spikes of 2.1 and 2.3 richter at the instant the collapses began. This too indicates explosive charges, because if the towers simply “pancaked” down, the seismographic spikes would happen when the massive debris hit the ground, not at the start of the collapse. In all, the number of people claiming to see, hear, detect, or suspect bombs in the buildings is staggering. Add to this the visual evidence from footage of the collapse, in which Demolitions experts have pointed out “squibs” characteristic of controlled implosions. Squibs are charges that go off early below the line of detonation as the buildings are coming down. If you play the twin towers’ collapses in slow-motion you will notice dozens of squibs blowing out the sides ahead of time.

Another massive piece of evidence omitted from all mention by the Kean Commission, was the third building that collapsed on 9/11 - WTC 7. This 47-story building housed offices of the CIA, DOD, IRS, and the Secret Service, as well as Rudy Giuliani’s emergency bunker, and a large SEC database of over 3000 files on pending Wall Street investigations. At 5:20pm, building 7 symmetrically collapsed into its own footprint in 6 seconds flat. This building was not hit by a plane, suffered only minor structural damage, and had isolated fires on a few floors. Also, Demolitions experts have identified building 7’s characteristic “kink” just before it was brought down. A kink is where the building begins to fold inwards after the central support beams are blown. Standard procedure for implosions, they pull the middle infrastructure first and let the floors fold into one another, instead of dangerously blowing debris outwards.

Added to this, in September 2002, WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein accidentally admitted in an interview, “I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it’. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.” Since letting this slip in the interview Silverstein has tried to explain away his statement saying he meant “pull the firefighters out,” not “pull the building down.” But the fact of the matter is he said “pull it” a common demolitions term, not “pull (them) out” referring to firefighters. Later on in the same documentary, preceeding the controlled demolition of WTC building 6, a cleanup worker even says, “we’re getting ready to pull building six.” It is typical jargon when imploding a building.

In another interesting twist, the British BBC news actually reported on the collapse of building 7 at 4:57pm – 23 minutes before it happened! As the journalist is talking about building 7’s demise, it can be seen still standing over her left shoulder. CNN also had a similar report an hour before WTC 7 came down saying “we are getting information now that one of the other buildings, building 7 … has either collapsed or is collapsing.” Anyone else curious where CNN and the BBC are getting their information?

A few miles away in Arlington, Virginia, the official story states that American Airlines flight 77 was hijacked and crashed into the side of the Pentagon at 9:38am. In the minutes preceeding, the plane allegedly performed a highly technical 330 degree banking turn decending 7000 ft. in 3 minutes at over 500mph. Many pilots have gone on the record stating that this is absolutely impossible, like commercial and Air Force pilot Russ Wittenburg who told Wing TV, “[Flight 77] could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast when you start pulling those high G maneuvers. That plane would have fallen out of the sky.” Assuming a hijacker really did pull off this impossible maneuver, by doing so, he stupidly took the plane away from important sections housing the Joint Chiefs and Donald Rumsfeld’s office, to a recently renovated, unimportant part of the Pentagon.

As news teams arrived on the scene, early footage of the Pentagon shows no skid-marks on the lawn, no bodies, no blood, no significant pieces of wreckage - just a small, smoldering 20 foot hole in the wall. After reports of secondary explosions and the roof collapsing, the hole widened marginally, but even then remained far too small to account for a 155 ft. long, 44 ft. high, 124 ft. wide, 100 ton Boeing 757. Small plane scraps were found inside and on the lawn, but most were small enough to be carried off by hand. There were no titanium engines, no indestructible landing gear, no major wing pieces, fuselage, or tail sections anywhere to be found. There were no bodies or blood anywhere either, yet supposedly forensics specialists were able to positively identify 184 of the 187 passengers through DNA work. 80 CCTV cameras were watching the point of impact at the Pentagon, including security cameras at the nearby hotel and gas station, but employees said FBI agents came within minutes to confiscate their tapes. All 80 tapes have been withheld from public view for “national security reasons,” save 5 frames they released that show the explosion but no plane.

The official story states that the 4th plane, flight 93 went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania after a passenger revolt onboard. Witnesses in Shanksville estimated the hole was about 20 ft. long by 15 ft. wide. They said on FOX News there was really no smoke, no fire, no airplane wreckage, no titanium engines, indestructible landing gear, body/wing/tail sections, and again no blood or bodies. Wally Miller, the Somerset county coroner on the scene said, “it looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky … like someone took a scrap truck, dug a 10 ft. ditch and dumped trash into it … I stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there.” This was the second time in history that a commercial plane full of passengers crashed and obliterated into nothingness, all wreckage and bodies disappearing. The first time was earlier that morning at the Pentagon.

The official government excuse for allowing the attacks to take place was ignorance.
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center.” President Bush said his first reaction upon seeing a plane hit the tower was, “that’s some bad pilot.” Bush was busy with an elementary school photo-op that morning; even when his advisor told him of the second plane hitting the towers, he sat reading “My Pet Goat” for another 8 minutes.

“The president reportedly told the school's principal that ‘a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center and we're going to go ahead and ... do the reading thing anyway.’ Critics find this incredible. If the hijackings were unanticipated occurrences, as claimed, with one of the hijacked airplanes having already completed its terrorist mission, the country was suffering the worst terrorist attack of its history. And yet the Commander in Chief, rather than making sure that his military was prepared to shoot down all hijacked planes, sticks to his planned schedule. This photo opportunity involved, as indicated above, the president's listening to second graders read a book about a pet goat. After Bush had been in the classroom a few minutes, his chief of staff, Andrew Card came in and whispered in his ear, reportedly telling him about the second attack. But the president, after a brief pause, had the children go ahead with the reading demonstration.” -David Icke, “Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center”

Well just read the above post. That is some crazy True facts.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Of course it was an inside job. It's just too horrible a thing for most to come to terms with. It's much easier to believe the official bull#, than to believe that anyone in our own .gov would do such a thing.

Watch this video:
Read this guy's tremendous article:
Here
One of the most compelling reasons to further cement my belief that it was an inside job. Period.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by Corbin Dalus]

I have a question that is going to sound simplistic to most of you:

Why was it necessary to go through all the wiring of the towers with explosives? Why wasn't the fact that they would be hit by planes good (bad) enough?

I know that personally, it didn't really matter that the towers fell. The important thing was they were hit.

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird


Sorry bub, but its not irrelevant. Because if you believe in the 9/11 conspiracy then you must believe that either Bush is stupid and was lead around by the powers that be. Or he is a super genius and took part in the planning of 9/11 for whatever reason. Like it or not Bush would HAVE to be involved in some way. And most of time (not all) but most of the time many 9/11 believers think Bush is stupid.

So which is?

reply to post by freight tomsen



The mere fact that someone can put together such a reasoned arguement proves the need for a new enquiry looking at all the facts relating to the events surrounding 9/11.