What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

What evidence would you accept as proof that the attacks of 9/11 were committed by individuals within the U.S. states government?

Skeptics of alternative theories continually ask skeptics of the official story to provide evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I think it is important to the continuing debate to list what a skeptic of alternative theories would accept as evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.

Thanks for your responses.

reply to post by Swing Dangler


First, you would have to define "inside job". Since facts evidence a theory, it would be incumbent upon the presenter to lay out a clear, precise and complete theory as to what actions were taken.

reply to post by Swing Dangler


The skeptics on here will not accept any alternative theories. Most of these skeptics have seen real scientific evidence that proves the OS is a lie. However, their loyalty to the government and military are detrimental to them. Sciences and creditable facts are not important to their loyalty. Whatever the government or military said happened on 911 are the facts to some of these people. Sometimes being too patriotic can blind one judgment, and critical thinking.

If the President came out and admitted that 911 were carried out by his administration, these people would not believe him. It would jeopardize their belief system. I really believe most of these people are raised to believe our government and military are uncorrupt and are here to take care and defend us from anything. It is almost taboo to not to talk bad about the two, for fear of being label unpatriotic.

I have asked some of these people a very important question and they will not answer it. In fact, I have been put on ignore by some of these skeptics. Either they are disinformationist or Trolls with an agenda, or simply so loyal to the government and military that my question frighten their belief system that they don’t want to deal with it.

My question:

What creditable and undisputable scientific facts convinced you that the OS is one hundred percent true? Please post your creditable sources that cannot be undisputed?

I have yet to see any skeptics answer this question.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
What evidence would you accept as proof that the attacks of 9/11 were committed by individuals within the U.S. states government?

That would imply you actually had at least some legitimate evidence that it was an inside job, rather than blizzards of idiotic innuendo, quotes taken out of context, junk science, and five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" games, but that's besides the point. Have an insider who has intimate knowledge of the details of the conspiracy come forward and spill the beans, and provide details like names, time tables, and contacts. You know, like how every OTHER gov't conspiracy like Iran contra, Watergate, Laos bombing, etc. was exposed?

Nixon and his crew were fifty times smarter than Bush's bunch ever was, and Nixon even had a full time staff called the Plumbers to stop all the unauthorized leaks to the public. Not even he could keep Watergate from spilling out from some unanticipated crack (I.E. Deep Throat, who turned out to be the #2 man in the FBI). If someone came forward to expose a presidential backed break-in, then somone is sure as shooting going to come forward to expose a gov't staged terrorist attack.

Now here's the same question for you- what evidence would you truthers ever accept that would finally convince you 9/11 really was a attack by foreign terrorists, that you *wouldn't* simply brush off as disinformation from gov't secret agents? A public investigation wasn't enough. Photographic evidence wasn't enough. Eyewitness testimony wasn't enough. NIST, FEMA, MIT, etc reports weren't enough. Even bin Laden coming out and saying he was behind the attack wasn't enough. What the heck is left???

Originally posted by impressme

My question:

What creditable and undisputable scientific facts convinced you that the OS is one hundred percent true? Please post your creditable sources that cannot be undisputed?

I have yet to see any skeptics answer this question.

No offense, but... someone can easily ask you that question. What evidence proves that the Un-OS is 100% true? It goes both ways. I'd just leave them alone, nothings going to change their minds.

Originally posted by impressme
My question:

What creditable and undisputable scientific facts convinced you that the OS is one hundred percent true? Please post your creditable sources that cannot be undisputed?

I have yet to see any skeptics answer this question.

That's becuase despite your claim that you keep asking that question, I've never seen you ask it even once. Otherwise, I would have posted for you the report from MIT materials engineering professor Thomas Eagar, which I myself subscribe to. He goes into great detail and with easily verifiable and easy to understand details that backs his statements up.

MIT materials engineer's report on the WTC collapse

I consider this report to be undisputable becuase I've posted links to this report many times, and despite all the self styled experts on everything here, not one of you has ever been able to refute it. To a man, they always run away from it the same way vampires run from sunlight. Perhaps you can be the first.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


What is wrong--- is what is always wrong, with what you post.
You only post non cross examined speculation that has not been proven in any court of law.
The idiotic utterances of people scared to death to tell their lies in a court of law. No one can be guilty concerning the TRAGEDIES of the day September 11, 2001.
Because there has been no trial. Not One!
Saddle up and ride with the liars, davy. It seems to suit you.
Reading your BS proves to me 911 was an inside job, perpetrated
by dumb a#$, foolish, cowardly worms that require your help to peddle their Bull.

[edit on 12-11-2009 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

What is wrong--- is what is always wrong, with what you post.
You only post non cross examined speculation that has not been proven in any court of law.
The idiotic utterances of people scared to death to tell their lies in a court of law. No one can be guilty concerning the TRAGEDIES of the day September 11, 2001.
Because there has been no trial. Not One!
Saddle up and ride with the liars, davy. It seems to suit you.
Reading your BS proves to me 911 was an inside job, perpetrated
by dumb a#$, foolish, cowardly worms.

Not a truther nor debunker, however


Straight from Daves site.

No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors.

The designer did anticipate both a plane and the jet fuel.



Asymmetrical Damage resulting in Symmetrical collapse, and the offical reports on it don't add up.

reply to post by afterschoolfun


As I said in my earlier post there are those that are so loyal to our government and military and you can tell who they are by there ridiculous ridiculing. Yet they will not answer your question because they know it will make a fool out of themselves.
Instead they know how to spin you question the opposite way by asking what would convince the Truth movement to believe in a fantasy full of proven lies.

My question:

What creditable and undisputable scientific facts convinced you that the OS is one hundred percent true? Please post your creditable sources that cannot be undisputed?

I have yet to see any skeptics answer this question.

Since you ask I can provided undisputable proof that the OS is mostly a lie.

Let’s start with NIST and their report which does not stand up to creditable science.

www.journalof911studies.com...

Propping Up the War on Terror

www.911review.com...

• Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust
Jim Hoffman
• Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, and others
• Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
By Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, & Steven E. Jones
• Mysteries of the Twin Towers
R. Herbst
• The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
By Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti
• Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST
By 16 scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers
• Public comments on the NIST WTC 7 draft report. Submitted to NIST 09/11/08.
Jonathan Cole P.E.
• WTC 7: A Short Computation
Prof. Kenneth L. Kuttler
• Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
• Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Stories of WTC 1
Gordon Ross Journal of 9/11 Studies
• Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage
Dr. Crockett Grabbe
• Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager
• Physical Chemistry of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Alum-Rich Microspheres at Demise of WTC 1 & 2
Jerry Lobdill 6/15/2007
• The Destruction of WTC 7
Vesa Raiskila
• The NIST WTC Investigation -- How Real Was The Simulation?
Eric Douglas, Architect
• Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method
Prof. Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., Physics
• DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY
by Gordon Ross, ME [1], June 4, 2007*
• Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova
Kevin Ryan, B.S. Chem.
• Jones vs. Robertson: A Physicist and a Structural Engineer Debate the Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center
Gregg Roberts, Associate Editor, 911Research.com
• Another Structural Engineer Questions WTC Collapses
William Rice, P.E.
• Can Physics Rewrite History?
Chuck Thurston
• Reply to Protec's "A critical analysis of the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 & 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint"
Jim Hoffman
• NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Jim Hoffman
• Building a Better Mirage: NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century
Jim Hoffman
• The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True
David Ray Griffin
• Another reason the 9/11 fire-mediated collapse theory is wrong
Joseph Smith
• Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth
Jim Hoffman
• Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?
Dr. Steven E. Jones
• Proof That The Thermal and Gravitational Energy Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center on 9/11/01
Terry Morrone
• Report on Weidlinger Simulation
Leaked WTC Blueprints contain 3D simulations from the Weidlinger report that contradict the NIST repoort of the Twin Tower's destruction
• Engineering News Record: The World Trade Center
• Bad Science: Keith Seffen And The WTC 'Collapse'
Winter Patriot blog 9/14/07
• UK Engineer: WTC 'Collapses' Were 'A Very Ordinary Thing'
Winter Patriot blog 9/11/07
• Explosions or Collapse? The Semantics of Deception and the Significance of Categories
C. Thurston
• My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing Building Theory, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"
by Chuck Thurston
• NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire
Frank Legge (Ph D) Logical Systems Consulting Perth, Western Australia. [email protected]
• High Velocity Bursts of Debris from Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
Kevin Ryan
• Response to NIST on Control Demolition Investigation Failure
Crockett Grabbe © January 13, 2008 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
• Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum
Crockett Grabbe © January 18, 2008 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
• Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center
Crockett Grabbe © December 23, 2007 University of Iowa & SeaLane Consulting
• Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics
By Dr. Crockett Grabbe and Lenny Charles 9/08/07
• 9/11 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation Was Impossible
Dec 23, 2007
by Frank Legge, PhD & Tony Szamboti, Mechanical Engineer
• Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous
by Mick Meany
Feb, 2008
• Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
Steven E. Jones, Jeffrey Farrer, Gregory S. Jenkins, Frank Legge, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan, Danial Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe
January 2007
• Engineer Sees Evidence of Extreme Temperatures in WTC Steel
Submitted by Shoestring on Mon, 02/25/2008
• The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers
Tony Szamboti, ME --- May, 2007
• WTC 1 - The Case for Collapse Arrest
Anders Bjorkman - Apr 19, 2008
• The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites
Kevin R. Ryan, 7-02-08
• Response to ”Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis” by K.A. Seffen
Crockett Grabbe
• How the Towers were Demolished

By Gordon Ross
www.ae911truth.org...

United 93 Still Airborne After Alleged Crash - According To ATC/Radar
04/28/09 (PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Recently it has been brought to our attention that Air Traffic Control (ATC) transcripts reveal United 93 as being airborne after it's alleged crash. Similar scenarios have been offered with regard to American 77 and American 11 showing an aircraft target continuing past its alleged crash point in the case of American 11, or past the turn-around point in the case of American 77. However, both these issues can be easily explained by "Coast Mode" radar tracking. This is not the case with United 93.
Full Article Here

Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11
by Alan Miller
Official Account of 9/11: “Flawed”, “Absurd”, “Totally Inadequate”, “a Cover-up”

January 5, 2008 – Eight U.S. State Department veterans have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. “There is no question in my mind, that there is enough evidence to justify a very comprehensive and hard hitting investigation of the kind we have not seen, with subpoenas, general questioning of people, releasing a lot of documents,” said Daniel Ellsberg, PhD, in a 2006 interview with Jack Blood. Full Article

National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation

Official Explanation a “Fraud”

August 27, 2007 – Wor



[edit on 12-11-2009 by impressme]

Official Explanation a “Fraud”

August 27, 2007 – World renowned scientist, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., today severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation, “I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken.” Full Article

Could Barbara Olson Have Made Those Calls?
An Analysis of New Evidence about Onboard Phones

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

F.B.I. Counsel: No Records Available Revealing ID Process Of Recovered 9/11 Plane Wreckage

www.911blogger.com...

The Lack of Foundation Damage at the Pentagon is Irreconcilable with the Official Reports and Data

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Conflicting Data, Hardcore Questions and the Media Blackout

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Planes Of September
By Shelton F. Lankord, Core Member, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Can the Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

pilotsfor911truth.org...

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

pilotsfor911truth.org...
There is a mountain of creditable evidence that the Government and the military are lying.
There is a mountain of scientific creditable proof that NIST deliberately went out their way to deceive us by presenting unscientific findings that does not stand up to true science.
Members of the 911 commission have came out and said: The story we told you, is not what was told to us.

9/11 Commission: The official coverup guide
The Kean Commission came to New York the second week of May for a two-day set of hearings at The New School University. As hundreds of Sept. 11th family members, reporters and curious New Yorkers lined up for airport-style security checks, they received copies of a new 24-page booklet published by NY 9/11 Truth, with help from 911Truth.org.

"Scamming America: The Official 9/11 Cover-up" is named after a quote by former Sen. Max Cleland, who resigned from the commission last November with the words, "Bush is scamming America."

Cleland attacked his own commission after the other members cut a deal to accept highly limited access to CIA reports to the White House that may indicate advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the Bush administration. "This is a scam," Cleland said. "It's disgusting. America is being cheated."

"As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."

Feel free to download the PDF version and print it yourself.

www.911truth.org...

9/11 Commission's Lies and Cover-ups

bushstole04.com...
The 911 OS is a proven lie, and this is just some of the undisputable creditable and scientific facts that prove the OS is a lie. I rest my case.

reply to post by Swing Dangler


Chk my sig for what I think qualifies.

There is other evidence as well of course, but the one in
my sig is the one that looks to be undeniable evidence.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Now here's the same question for you- what evidence would you truthers ever accept that would finally convince you 9/11 really was a attack by foreign terrorists, that you *wouldn't* simply brush off as disinformation from gov't secret agents?

That's such a good question, it's worthy of its own thread. You should start one for it.

However, for the sake of the OP, it would be really great if you could actually answer the question being asked, instead of your usual rant about how stupid truthers are... That's what internet forums are for - someone asks a question or presents a hypothesis, and people discuss it. Not simply disregard entirely. Your post, as it is, contributes nothing to the OP...

For the record, I'd like to see the Pentagon footage. I don't believe it has been released in its entirity. Seems they took far too long to release it, and only released carefully selected frames. They took frames out of the Zapruder film, why would they not takes frames out of this one?

Rewey

reply to post by impressme


I note that you say "Please post your creditable sources that cannot be undisputed" Is this what you really mean?

reply to post by Swing Dangler


I would accept some inside jobbers explaining how and why they did it. Physical evidence of the "how." So far there is none. There is much speculation and many questions, but no real evidence, no complete story, no detailed proposal backed by anything.

I have a thread that asks the CTer's "If there were to be a reinvestigation of 911, who would do it and what evidence would they investigate?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The basic premise was "Assume that not everything everywhere would be reinvestigated but that the first step would be one key examination that could lead to even more investigation, should something be found. There should be a compelling reason for the reinvestigation in your mind. The investigation does not have to be physical in that looking for dynamite may be less productive than looking at e-mail records of the intel agencies involved." I put conditions on it that would require thought and allow an easy collation and summary. I allowed multiple submissions from individuals but only the last one would count from a given poster. This lets people see what others are thinking and helps them modify their suggestions. I planned to collate the info and post the conclusions. I got a few posts but mainly not many were interested in thinking about it. Apparently, it was too much for most.

reply to post by pteridine


That is not what the OP has asked? He asked what evidences would convince you?

reply to post by pteridine

I note that you say "Please post your creditable sources that cannot be undisputed" Is this what you really mean?

Absolutely, can you dispute any of my sources of information that I provide in the above that proves the OS is a lie?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

I note that you say "Please post your creditable sources that cannot be undisputed" Is this what you really mean?

Absolutely, can you dispute any of my sources of information that I provide in the above that proves the OS is a lie?

Hell you didn't even go half way into it either.

Hi, Swing Dangler.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
What evidence would you accept as proof that the attacks of 9/11 were committed by individuals within the U.S. states government?

I would not say "within" government, but "over" the government$.

See our logic here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And I can't believe the in$urance cie doe$ not $ee that too ! !

Blue skies.

What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?


It was a simple question but I'm not seeing a straight answer to it.


What evidence would it take to prove 9/11 was a false flag and not carried out by 19 Arabs?

reply to post by impressme


See the first paragraph of my post.