99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Point out which pieces of information are flawed and how they are flawed,

easy, "Molten metal exceeding 2000 degrees farenheit was discovered in the rubble of Ground Zero, underneath the twin towers and building seven"

Care to show a valid source for that? how was the temperature measured, and how was that "molten metal" removed.

reply to post by billybob


There isn't any evidence for that though. The most evidence there is is that the government may have allowed it to happen.


reply to post by TupacShakur


I did on a lot of issues. You said I was wrong but didn't say why. So I'm still waiting on that, btw. It's not worth wasting time on when one just uses some common sense. Before 9/11, the people supported the government. After 9/11, the people do not, and the wars justified from 9/11 have all failed. The ability to orchestrate such a scaled even, but fail miserably to reap any benefit from it, is a logical inconsistency. It's like a man pulling off the greatest heist in history and having billions of dollars, then using it for fireplace fuel. You don't risk your life for firewood.


reply to post by TheUniverse


I like how you are lieing about me not answering you.


reply to post by Lono1


It's good to think on your own. It doesn't mean you are right nor intelligent. And if you are wrong and dumb, then you're in affect not actually thinking for yourself. You're just believing the same bull from a different behind.

reply to post by spoor

easy, "Molten metal exceeding 2000 degrees farenheit was discovered in the rubble of Ground Zero, underneath the twin towers and building seven"

Care to show a valid source for that? how was the temperature measured, and how was that "molten metal" removed.

Thank you for the legitimate response.

Here is a video which provides the answers to your questions:


Sorry about that I accidentally copied and pasted the wrong code into the "yvid" thing.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Here is a video which provides the answers to your questions:

as expected, nothing at all to back your claim up!

reply to post by Gorman91

I did on a lot of issues. You said I was wrong but didn't say why. So I'm still waiting on that, btw. It's not worth wasting time on when one just uses some common sense. Before 9/11, the people supported the government. After 9/11, the people do not, and the wars justified from 9/11 have all failed. The ability to orchestrate such a scaled even, but fail miserably to reap any benefit from it, is a logical inconsistency. It's like a man pulling off the greatest heist in history and having billions of dollars, then using it for fireplace fuel. You don't risk your life for firewood.

I last responded to your post on page 7 and you failed to respond to it, so I'm actually the one waiting on a response. Before 9/11, the government manipulated the people and staged false flag terrorist attacks just like 9/11.

History of American False Flags
More False Flags
A small article about false flags\

"Fail miserably to reap any benefit from it"
These are the types of things that make me think you did not even read the OP.

From the OP:

Why Do It?:
Many of you skeptics who somehow are still clinging to the official story may be asking yourself why would the government do it and how it could benefit them:

-- Enabling the passage of the Patriot Act I and II
-- Unconstitutionally spying on Americans in the name of terrorism
-- Established the Department of Homeland Security
-- The Invasion of the Middle East
-- A new foreign and domestic policy
-- Used to pass the Military Commissions Act which officially ended Habeus Corpus

9/11/01=false flag operation...

war on terror=genocide/crusades prt2....

patriot act=treason...


aaron russo knew somebody in on it...


find the historic interview....


inside job, yes.

reply to post by TupacShakur
All this infomation supports part of my theorie about the 911/attack.The cia new the terrorists were coming and what there target was.The twin towers.The cia already knew how the terrorists were going to attack the world trade centre by aircraft.In my theorie backuped with some clever psychic spying the whole 911 was staged so to destroy one us navy commnications office at the pentagon and had to make it look it was done by teorrists.The cia knew when the teorrists would attack the world trade center so they could attack the pentagon at the same time and blame it on terrorists crashing a plane into the pentagon.The attack on the pentagon was done by the cia firing a missle from the back of a truck.Once the cia knew the us navy office at the pantagon was destroyed they crashed the forth plane as they did not need that plane anymore.That forth plane was only a backup incase the missle missed its target.Further more the cia had a truck load of aircraft parts and wreckage from another aircraft they scattered at the sceane of the pentagon attack to give everyone the opinion that the wreckage was from a jet that hit the pentagon.

reply to post by cornucopia


9/11 was the quintessential American Coup.

Call it JFKv2.

Who?, why?, what for?, and how? is up for debate, but it is quite clear that it was a false flag.

reply to post by TupacShakur


yea, nothing you listed actually constitutes a win for the government, considering they have become the gathering-points of resistance. Perhaps you are failing to understand what constitutes a government benefit. More or less, it is an increase in power without loss of support. Nothing you listed qualifies as such an event.

The "false flags" you listed are additional speculation and opinion. That I can go down a list:

Mexican wars
A miserable failure of a war. Nobody supported it, and the government was caught red handed. Countless authors criticized it, and eventually the US had to withdraw from the core Mexican regions. America conquered Mexico, and then had to leave it. They took over deserts and farmland. They did not take over anything of importance. All the metal, all the oil, all the wood, all the resources, were in mexico, as it exists today. We acquisition the worse of the land, to which it wasn't until a full century later, and countless debt, that the land even became remotely functional and viable with new technology and farming methods. Overall, nothing but a failure of a war which resulted in the inability for the US to end southern problems, which continue to cause problems to this day. Motivated primarily for Southern need of land for its slaves, and desperation, the war only succeeded in a statement of power. There was no false flag. The US stated as a public policy the desire to take over Mexico for Manifest Destiny, a very public belief, not some conspiracy.

Spanish-American war

A very successful war for power and the only time the US took colonies. To which we were the few colonizers not to rape and pillage the populations, and the results of US actions have caused countries taken to be successful historically. Anywhere the Europeans were, not so. The explosion of the Maine as a false flag is not other than SPECULATION.

World War I

The Lusitania is SPECULATION as a false flag. An enemy attacked the ship, and they had no way to tell it was carrying ammunition. It was their suspicion and lack of care for civilians that caused the war, not a purposely purported attempt to get civilians killed. WW1 also did not gain anything for America other than entitlement. The president of the United States died from his attempts to be a peace barer. He gave up, because the Europeans wanted revenge. If anything, proof the Americans are not the cause of war, but the enders of it.

World War 2

There's no point to bother with false flags for WW2. The Nazis were blockading, the Americans had rights to help friends. they attacked, the fact that civilians died is the result of their savagery. I'll add in the part about Perl Harbor and knowledge of the attack. We knew, but we did not trust technology to say it was happening. We knew it would happen, we just thought we could catch them on time. Our own pride.

Korean War

Again, SPECULATION. But America caused the divide of the Koreas, we felt responsible to end it. We failed.



Vietnam War


Additional speculation. Without computers the mix up was understandable, but one incident did in fact happen. We were too prideful for capitalism to realize we were allying with the bad side. There really was no good side in that region and Vietnam remains the worse war in US history. For the reasons going in, and for the operation itself.

Rest of that is a crap-fest, so these general responses go with it:

We switched sides on Iraq and Iran. Our fault.
We didn't succeed with Israel, our fault.
We gave the Canal to Panama, so that's a lie right there.
We failed most of the wars because of differences in leadership opinion on issues and our own inability to choose a side and stick to it. This is our fault.

No false flag mentioned was confirmed as an actual conspiracy. I'm surprised, because I do know of REAL F-ups the government has done against civilians, mainly the radiation studies of the 1900s. Now that's a conspiracy. Only, the government admitted it was their fault. So the government is perfectly ok admitting to the poisoning and killing of countless civilians in the name of science, but wants to secretly blow up the wtc and gain nothing from it?
Oh the inconsistencies.

reply to post by Lono1


Can't see why, they gained nothing and lost everything. Now the Federal Government will likely be dissolved within the next 2 decades and a temporary return to local governments likely. They literally shot themselves int he face if they planned it. They've lost everything and gained nothing.

does anybody remember a documentary that was filmed in 1971. i saw it in the 90's , on discovery channel .. TOWER 1 was completely built . and TOWER 2 at the time , was still under construction... it was an interview with designer or who who ever it was in charge of construction that was on scene.he stated quote "THESE BUILDINGS CAN WITHSTAND IMPACT OF A 707 JET LINER." which at the time 1971 was the largest jet liner .now why would he even think of such a thing ? and then say on a taped interview ..i think the journalists were from japan . it really makes me think that the buildings were designed to do exactly what they did,for i am counting on someone else here also remembering seeing this documentary..and can elaborate on this ..only thing that i know for sure about the interview that it was made in 1971 .

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by TheUniverse

 

No, it did not all come down at once. There was a a process. Many parts began weakening and falling apart before the eventual collapse. This is why an evacuation was in order. Once the fire melted a few joint points and the floors started falling, there was no point to bother. Evacuate and give up is the only option.

Your logic contradicts itself

Your straws make it contradictory. Read it as is and not adding in your own details and it won't.

If anything the Fire and/or Damage would have caused the building to fall to the side of least resistance which would be the side which was structurally compromised.

Not necessarily. But it did significantly rain debris towards one side. This being the outer structure. Without floors, the sides fall down.

I've seen and heard (Larry Silverstein "Pull it") What i've needed to see.

You saw a man say pull it. That doesn't mean it was a planned demolition. The contradiction is in the fact that they evacuated that building. What kind of plan is that? Kill the entire towers but wait till they evacuate the smaller building?

reply to post by TheUniverse

I like how you are lieing about me not answering you.

You missed this quote you dodged the question than said i lied about you not addressing this part

I like how you ignored and dodged the part in my post you couldn't explain.

Shows that you really are ignorant of the facts

The Universe Said
It all Came down at once. So you're saying in-fact the Fire melted all the support columns at the exact same time?

Your logic contradicts itself; The building would not have come down in a swooping fashion that it does in the video if the fire or damage on one side caused the Collapse.

So now i'm calling you out for calling me a liar because you did in-fact dodge the point in your reply about the sudden collapse of the Towers and how Fire can't cause all the support to just suddenly(Simultaneously) collapse at Close to free Fall Speed

Albeit very close to free fall speed at that.

They would have fallen to the point of least resistance the tower (WTC 7) if structurally compromised would almost certainly have tipped over to the structurally compromised side and/or the side that caught fire when the debris ripped a hole in the side of the building.

Again i will repeat " Fire doesn't cut all the support beams all at once simultaneously"

Explain that one otherwise don't bother replying *COUGH *(Dodging) again

You saw a man say pull it. That doesn't mean it was a planned demolition. The contradiction is in the fact that they evacuated that building. What kind of plan is that? Kill the entire towers but wait till they evacuate the smaller building?

Larry SilverStein Says: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and 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."

Great Thread, i believe 9/11 was an inside job just still curious on who and why

S&F's

reply to post by TheUniverse


No, you lied. I said the building did not come down all at once. You ignored me. Now you changed it to the towers because you cannot support your claim on WTC7. I already explained how it happened in the towers though, so wither your jumping straws or just a liar.

reply to post by behindXtheXveil


5 Dancing Isralies - Mossad Did 911 Inside Job- What Really Happened

reply to post by Gorman91


No you didn't not address all the points i made especially the Point about the Towers suddenly Collapsing from "Fires" Or "Structurally Compromised Side" That would have caused the tower to fall on its side to the least resistance and not collapse into a rubble pile.

You should take a look at my updated post.

also you did dodge the main point of my question >... That being

The Towers "Suddenly Collapsed" From Fires and one side was Structurally compromised from a hole made by the debris from WTC 1 and/or 2

So in conclusion how do you explain how the tower suddenly and simultaneously collapsed? Through the path of most resistance?

Still though you seem to keep suggesting i was lying when you haven't even regarded or read my post properly pertaining to your assertion that you addressed all points i made. Since your reply was directed toward my posts.

nit picking!

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by behindXtheXveil

 

5 Dancing Isralies - Mossad Did 911 Inside Job- What Really Happened

Except that is just another truther lie!
www.911myths.com...

reply to post by spoor


Follow the Money Larry SilverStein (Jew) Profited(billions)from the Deaths of Thousands Now hundreds of thousands Since 911 was a false-pretense to invade the Middle-East.

Now all we have to do is investigate and find out who else was involved we already now can purport that MOSSAD and Larry were both involved not to mention that George bushes cousin operated and owned the security business for the WTC's

Eye Witness and Police Testimony about 5 Dancing Israelis


In the Video a part shows the Israelis Mossad Member Says " Our Purpose was to Document the Event"

Zionist Mossad's old Motto before they changed it
"By way of deception, thou shalt do war"?

reply to post by TheUniverse


Well I guess I will repeat. Structural minimalism means no redundancy. Nobody really likes it because if something goes wrong, everything fails. The joints and structure are assembled so that each part is independent, but without all parts, the whole building begins to fail. Once you clunk ~5 floors worth of mass onto the floor bellow it, everything goes to hell. It don't matter where the fire was at that point, the structure was not designed to bare that load in those parts. Proper redundancy of structure guarantees no collapse. This is why the new WTC not only has huge amounts of redundancies, but also has been triangulated. Not it won't collapse.

The WTC towers did not all fall at once. The top part did, in fact, not fall straight down. It clearly bowed and bent into the streets. The core of the building clearly went down after the other parts of the building. You can even see the huge antenna staying up as the tower falls. No, it's not levitating, the antenna was on the core structure, which lasted longer than the floors.

The presence of molten steel supposedly in elevator shafts gives evidence enough that it was not only on one side, but in fact hurting the entire floor and into the core building. Once again, you only need to hit a few parts to collapse a minimalist building.

No nit picking, you're just ignorant, liar, and quite frankly boring because I have to repeat myself.

reply to post by Gorman91

No nit picking, you're just ignorant, liar, and quite frankly boring because I have to repeat myself.

Again you fail to address the Simultaneous Collapse *Sigh*

There was clearly no resistance to the collapse of the building in the video

So your logic contradicts itself again.

Also why don't you address the quote from Larry I posted. Deny Ignorance

Gorman91 Said "You saw a man say pull it. That doesn't mean it was a planned demolition. The contradiction is in the fact that they evacuated that building. What kind of plan is that? Kill the entire towers but wait till they evacuate the smaller building?"

Larry SilverStein Says: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and 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."

Oh btw in your post you seem to be referring to the WTC 1 and 2 I'm talking about WTC 7 So you might want to avoid Dodging my question.

I never once regarded anything toward the collapse of WTC 1,2 i'm specifically talking about WTC 7 so no... I'm not pertaining to the collapse of those towers.

Specifically WTC7