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

Originally posted by MasterAndrew
Pull it is a term used by demolition crews and means to demolish the building using explosives.

Care to back that silly claim up with a valid source?

And the buildings (plural) both collapsed on it's footprint just like building 7. surrounding dust and debris doesn't mean it didn't.

So how were the other WTC buildings, like 6 and 7 severely damaged?

I'm sure you can clearly see the building drops exactly vertical at free fall speeds

No it does not, simply by watching the buildings collapse yiou can see the debris falling at free fall speed, and the collapsing building falling slower. So it was not free fall.

Originally posted by jhn7537
Why would the government ship all the rubble from WTC towers to Europe

No rubble was shipped to Europe, where is your valid source that states that?

trucks with mounted GPS devices installed to monitor

Just like most large trucking companies - nothing unusual there.

Where is your valid source that states that anyway?

reply to post by Gorman91

Governments lie.

Agreed, yet you believe them?

The buildings were designed and built in the late 60s through early 70s. The planes that crashed into them were designed a decade later. The fuel they used was chemically different than the fuel used in the 60s. Saying you prepared the buildings for a plane crash is like saying an air craft carrier from 1945 was designed to support aircraft... in the year 2011.

Nope, wrong comparison, can't believe you actually got stars for this, really?

WTC1 - built 1968, WTC 2 - built 1969, WTC7 - built 1983, ok we've established the correct start date.
Now, on to your analogy, "Saying you prepared the buildings for a plane crash is like saying an air craft carrier from 1945 was designed to support aircraft... in the year 2011."

Since we now know your timeframe is off, it would be like saying an aircraft carrier built in 1978, 1979, or 1993 was designed to support aircraft... in the year 2011, and guess what, my friend, USS Dwight D Eisenhower launched 1975 (gave you a couple extra years) in service today, USS Carl Vinson launched 1980 (had to take a year, none launched in 1979) still in service today, and the USS George Washington christened 1992, maiden deployment 1994 (so gave you one year for christening to take one till launch) and you guessed it, still in service today.
CVN-69
CVN-70
CVN-73

I'm inclined not to believe that there was molten metal after the collapse. Unless there's a volcano there, that's a lie. White smoke comes out of plenty of fires. There were a crap ton of appliances in there.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7655b62df978.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ac334c9f3738.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b2d281ee21b4.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4393cee8ecd3.jpg[/atsimg]

Well, that does that one, I guess, I'm inclined to believe my eyeballs, and that there is molten metal my friend, and the timestamp on the last photo is Oct 21 2001, so we can see how it has stayed molten for well over a month.

Love the little factoids included for you in the third photo, they do bear repeating:
Fact 1: Pools of molten steel were found at WTC site.
Fact 2: Steel melts at 2750 degrees Fahrenheit.
Fact 3: Jet fuel burns at a MAXIMUM temperature of 1800 degrees Fahrenheit.

So there ARE pools and spots of MOLTEN METAL, yet how can this be? Jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1800 degrees and steel melts at 2750 degrees!!!!!!

Statistically it's more likely there was a volcano if those "claims" of molten metal "days" after the attacks are true.

I hate to do this, I really do, prove your volcano please, PROOF or it does not exist and you therefore have no other option but to admit that the presence of molten metal flies in the face of the facts we were told to believe or you choose to remain ignorant in the face of facts.

Originally posted by jhn7537
Structurally speaking the towers were built to withstand multiple 707 plane collisions

What about the Tacoma Narrows bridge? What about the Hyatt Regency hotel walkway collapse? The Gotthard tunnel?

None of those should have happened, but they did. Engineers and architects get it wrong.

Or how about the pools of molten steel found under buildings 1, 2 and 7?

Pity there was no such pools.... if there were how was it removed?

Steven Jones, tested samples that were sent to him of the rubble from the WTC towers, he came across nano-thermite in the rubble,

No he did not. This has been discussed here, and major problems with his results pointed out.
What peer reviewed journal was his findings published in?

So just more truther rubbish

Nice! Flag

reply to post by Gorman91

Technology, and fuel, changes.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but you're clearly not researching things and just saying what you think makes sense.

The particular mixtures in use today are the same as when they were first developed in the 1940s, and were used in airline and military aero engines with high levels of boost supercharging; notably the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine used in the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters, Mosquito fighter-bomber and Lancaster bomber (the Merlin II and later versions required 100-octane fuel), as well as U.S. made liquid cooled Allison engines, and numerous radial engines from Pratt & Whitney, Wright, and other manufacturers on both sides of the Atlantic. The high-octane ratings are achieved by the addition of tetra-ethyl lead (TEL), a highly toxic substance that was phased out for car use in most countries in the late 20th century.

Wiki

The most common used Avgas (Aviation Gas) used today, and in the late 60's when they designed the WTC, was 100LL, there have been different mixes developed since then, but they are now retro-fitting to move them back to 100LL as it is considered the more universal jet fuel.

The WTC was built to survive impact from a Boeing 707, due to the B25 impact of the Empire State Building.

707 Maximum Fuel Capacity - 16,060 US Gallons - 707 Wiki
767-200 Maximum Fuel Capacity - 16,700 US Gallons - 767 Wiki

So we can see that even the amount of fuel involved makes a negligible difference.

Originally posted by TheUniverse
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"?

edit on 25-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)

Bill Maher thinks the wars in middle east are worth American Lives and American tax dollars to "save Israel"


Jon Stewart makes fun of truthers and one of his producers punches a truther.

-Why do you make fun of the truth movement, mr Stewart
-it's something we feel
what he really thinks is the same as Bill Maher: "the wars in middle east are worth American Lives and American tax dollars to "save Israel"

Danish TV channel first blocked a Israel critical movie called Defamation... the editor on that channel is a israeli
Here is the full movie
The filmmaker tries to answer the question
"What is anti-semitism today?"
Does it remain a dangerous and immediate threat?
Or is it a scare tactic used by right-wing Zionists to discredit their critics?


There is strong evidence the media is for the wars and regurgitate the OS to this day because the media is controlled by israellis.

reply to post by Gorman91

Old video.

An old video that doesn't show jet fuel melting steel. How can the molten metal seen dripping from the towers and found at the base of the towers be explained according to the official story?

Building starts bulking at :07
Visible top reached point of fracture at :13
Last visible outer structure reaches close to the ground at :18, building hits ground at :19.
Visible upward shoot of pressure visible at :21, indicating inner core collapse.
Visible structure elements collapsing at :26
Visible plume from ground contact at :26 as well to the left side, probably hit the ground at :25.

I start timing at 0:10, and stop at 0:20.

There was visible molten elements dripping from the towers, but that doesn't mean there was a sea of magma at the base of the towers. Many people survived down there when the towers collapsed. Fact of the matter is that it is perfectly possible for a piece of paper to get shot out an explosion and land on the ground, just like with the Colombia tags.

I wouldn't go as far as saying a sea of magma, but definitely alot and enough to get noticed by many people.

It is not outside the realm of possibility that the military shot down the plane to prevent additional destruction and lied about it. That doesn't mean they perpetrated the terrorist attacks. That means they shot at civilians to prevent other civilian deaths, and then covered it up. I can believe this, in fact it even makes sense.

The interviews with those guys from the military don't really leave much to the imagination.

A look back at the woman reporting it shows significant fire on all floors. She also said that the entire area had been evacuated. This is a blatant lie. If she was not correctly informed of the evacuation orders, I don't see how it is impossible she was wrong on other things too. I also looked up that the interview ended exactly at 5PM, an auto shut down sequence. This too is understandable. The length of time the interview went on for simply makes no sense that it was cut because it was an accident. If it was planned, and it was cut, they would have been watching the news. I cannot imagine how this entity would so precisely time demolitions, but fail to time a simple news release.

Being uninformed about whether or not the building was fully evacuated yet doesn't justify both that news station and CNN predicting it's collapse before it happened. It can't be explained by any error, false information, educated guesses, a long shot in hopes to gain ratings by reporting it earlier, etc., it was clearly planned in advance and that's all there is to it. Precisely timing demolitions and airing a news story are two completely different things, demolitions involve a computer which synchronizes the charges to make the building collapse in a certain way, and airing a news story is having a person read a script at the right time. Humans make errors, computers almost never do don't (Unless you have Windows lol)

If the cut out was at a random time yes, but for the BBC it was an exact timer release of the computer system at 5 PM. In addition, If the source was the same, it would not be unbelievable. In fact, if the source was the same, it would be entirely believable. I gave you examples of such muck ups in the news before. If it can happen for something like a Nasa probe, I don't see how its impossible to have happened for a fire fighter. Please do tell how this is impossible.

It's impossible because the building had almost no damage compared to all of the other surrounding towers. Fires by themselves are not enough to structurally compromise all steel columns at the same time, so their source must have been either somebody that knew the demolition was going to happen, or a stupid fireman who thinks that some flames can do that to a building. Many engineers agree that the official story of how WTC7 fell is wrong.

No, I'm just confused by your complete disregard for government sources, but you feel no problem blatantly believing people whose primary role in such situation is to defend their honor and name. You are picking sides, when in fact you should just pick no side, and look at it objectively. There is evidence that 93 may have been shot down, there is evidence that WTC7 may have been demo'd. But there is no evidence the towers were demo's nor that the event was planned. I would say I am willing to believe that 93 was shot down, and I am willing to believe that WTC7 may have been abandoned and let to burn. I'm not so willing to believe insane claims like molten metal at the base of the towers days after the event, or demolitions, or planned attacks. I am willing to believe they may have let it happened because this seems logical given previous Bush activities and government statements and actions. Beyond these things, speculation plays a big role. I cannot believe speculation.

You said it yourself, there's evidence that flight 93 was shot down. There were two seperate debris sites, an ex-navy witness heard and saw an aircraft which wasn't a commercial airliner after his power went out and he heard a loud explosion, the last three minutes of the flight voice recorder is inaudible, and those guys from the military gave some pretty strong signals that they shot down the plane. If the military which is a part of our government lied, as well as Dick Cheney who said on the record that they didn't shoot down Flight 93 but instead witnessed an act of "heroism", then why do you trust government sources?

Molten metal at the base of the towers is not an "insane claim", 'Hijaqed' provided evidence to back those claims up, so it's actually a fact dude. Many engineers think that it was a controlled demolition, and the symmetrical collapse of WTC7 according to it's primarily south side flame damage (which isn't even hot enough to melt steel in the first place) does not make sense.

There's also some indiciation that it was a planned attack, because if it indeed was a planned demolition than they would have at least needed 2 weeks to prep the buildings for demolition. Plus members of our government who have ties to the Bush Administration were meeting on 9/11 with the very man (head of the ISI) who funded the terrorists. The CIA has also had ties to the ISI since the 80s with the establishment of the Muja Hardin, which evolved into Al Qaeda. Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer who worked for the government identified 4 of the hi-jackers as possible Al Qaeda members, but three meetings set up with the FBI by him were each canceled by military lawyers, and Shaffer ended up his security clearance to view classified information after going public. So many things don't add up and there are too many coincidences.

reply to post by LiteraryOneTwo

The American Airline plane went down in a kind of spiral means so that I believe that a commander of the aircraft had to have been American Airline personnel. I am inclined to believe that perhaps the White House may have been the intended target but the pilot changed course. It is conjecture of course.

If I may address your conjecture for just a moment, I believe that the Pentagon was indeed the intended target, and that specifically the exact area that it hit was the intended target, of course there is conjecture over why, but I do subscribe to Rumsfeld covering up the missing trillions that he was questioned about on 9/10/2001, which the computers housing the evidence of this happened to be located exactly in the area of the Pentagon where Flight 77 (allegedly, not proven that it was Flight 77) struck.

Interesting to note about the maneuver, had Hani Hanjour just drove Flight 77 down while on route to the Pentagon he would have hit, none other then, Donald Rumsfeld's office. (2:06 of the first video starts covering the Pentagon, and at 2:24 explains this allegation)

reply to post by conar

Jon Stewart makes fun of truthers and one of his producers punches a truther.

Wow notice all of the people laughing at the truther. It goes to show that either that many people are stupid and refuse to the acknowledge or even know about the evidence, or they follow the herd and blindly accept whatever some biased mainstream media reporter says as fact and laughs at those who don't think with the sheep mentality.

Originally posted by Hijaqd
I do subscribe to Rumsfield covering up the missing trillions that he was questioned about on 9/10/2001, which the computers housing the evidence of this happened to be located exactly in the area of the Pentagon where Flight 77struck.

Why do you persist in telling that lie? The trillions was mentioned in February 2000
www.911myths.com...

and it was NOT all located in the area that was hit, only the army stuff was

This is one of the reasons truther have zero credibility, they continually persist in telling lies that have been shown to be lies many times before.

Originally posted by spoor

Care to back that silly claim up with a valid source?

I know its a stretch but.... I'm pretty sure when a demolition crew demolishes a structure its called "pulling it". I think it dates back to the days when folks used dynamite to blow things up so everyone in the area knew to cover your ears. It's kinda like saying "FOUR" when golfing.

P.S. Are you getting paid for this?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Wow notice all of the people laughing at the truther. It goes to show that either that many people are stupid and refuse to the acknowledge or even know about the evidence, or they follow the herd and blindly accept whatever some biased mainstream media reporter says as fact and laughs at those who don't think with the sheep mentality.

No, they laugh at the truther because truthers believe silly conspiracy theory stories that have been debunked many times before.

Originally posted by litterbaux
I know its a stretch but.... I'm pretty sure when a demolition crew demolishes a structure its called "pulling it". I think it dates back to the days when folks used dynamite to blow things up

So your valid source is a phone call to a secretary at a alleged demolition company...

And Larry was not talking to a demolition company when he told them to pull the firefighting effort out...

Are you paid to post "valid" sources like that?

reply to post by spoor


I understand that you take that site as gospel, I understand you having issues with "truthers", I also understand after reading your post below mine above stating no pools of molten metal that clearly was present is true, however I have reasons to not buy Rumsfeld's explanation of it being an accounting error between non-communicating floors and aging technology (I will not compromise my identity by explaining why, on such a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things), so I said what I said and you believe what you believe, and we'll leave it at that, sorry.

As far as the dates, the issue was addressed on Sep 10th:

Google Video Link

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Wow notice all of the people laughing at the truther. It goes to show that either that many people are stupid and refuse to the acknowledge or even know about the evidence, or they follow the herd and blindly accept whatever some biased mainstream media reporter says as fact and laughs at those who don't think with the sheep mentality.

No, they laugh at the truther because truthers believe silly conspiracy theory stories that have been debunked many times before.

edit on 26-6-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)

Are you living in another universe where NIST did not admit free fall?

NIST first said free fall was impossible because all structure below the falling part would have to be removed

Are you living in another universe where George Tenet dont deny being at the august 6 PDB, even though he talk to the president every day

"Condellisa Rice said that the president received 40 warnings face to face from the director of central intelligence (George Tenet) that a major al Qaeda attack was going to take place and she admitted that the president did not have a meeting on the subject, did not convene the Cabinet."
abcnews.go.com...

Are you living in another universe where George Bush wanted to testify under oath?


etc
Is this just silly conspiracy theory stories that have been debunked many times before, I want to see those debunks.
Why cant you get banned from this site? You are entitled to your opinion, but you are flat out ridiculing something that are so serious and real, and you flat out say it doesn't exist. You are not being serious, and should not post here

A few questions I'd really like to hear a good answer for:

Truthers claim the towers were brought down as part of a controlled demolition of some type. They also claim that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane because it would have been impossible for an inexperienced pilot to maneuver a plane into that building.

So what are the odds that the inexperienced pilots would be able to hit the towers exactly where the explosive charges were placed? Wouldn't the fire from the planes have set off the detonation charges early?

The collapse does look suspicious but I really cannot grasp how this could be possible for the plane to hit the building exactly where the explosives were placed and not set them off upon impact.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


What motivates this man to lie?



Why do 1000's of professionals call a duck a duck, but you refuse too. Could it be that you fear losing your own sense of reality?

Like NIST, you are afraid to hear the truth for fear you may have to act on it.

=========================================================

As a society, most of us were shaken after 9-11.

This is what happened:

13 percent of the population underwent a " paradigm shift" in our way of thinking based upon personal observation. We essentially experienced a major change in a certain thought-pattern which included a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing:

The remaining 87 percent (that would be you) underwent a Paradigm paralysis.

Defined: the inability or refusal to see beyond the current models of thinking. This is similar to what psychologists term Confirmation bias.

=============================================================

I waited many years before I told my children the truth about Santa Claus, but surprisingly they handled it very well. There was no argument, they showed no episodes of denial, they didn't cry or carry-on.

Do you still believe in Santa?

reply to post by TupacShakur


I read every word of your post and was actually surprised to read comments inferring it was too long. At no point did I feel it dragged on or was pumped up with questionable evidence.

It just goes to show how strong the case against the official story is.

Very well done. Probably the best summary I've read.

Originally posted by conar
Why cant you get banned from this site?

Typical truther, cannot handle someone pointing out the errors with their conspiracy theory!