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

reply to post by Charizard


I find it more impossible for the pentagon only to have one camera that would have seen this event.

Im not positive but I think explosives used today are set off electricaly not fire/fuse.

Here you go!

Originally posted by Sinny
I must be honest I didnt read all you post, But thats because I believe your story to be true anyways..S&F for keeping the truth alive....

I Have a question if you lot dont mind sharing your opinions on this... Do you think that here in England our 7/7 bombing may have also been a false flag attack?

7th July London Bombings

Im a bit rusty on my facts, but I think there was also some confusion with who ever was supposed to respond to this incident as they were also running training simulations in the area and in these simulations they were responding to bomb attacks.

Quite scary if it was a false flag, I hate beeing an American ally, That country will drag us down with it.

Here we go Sinny, this docu just about covers all you need to know and a lot of what you didn`t .........

www.myspace.com...

Originally posted by spoor

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!

You haven't pointed out errors in one thing....You just keep stating that what we're saying is false, you are sharing your opinion like its proof or something....You say there werent any pools of molten metal under towers 1, 2 and 7, but eye witness reports state it was true and there are NASA sateltite photographs show temperatures over 2000 degrees days, weeks, months after the attack. Do you think jet fuel caused that??? I think not...

reply to post by TupacShakur


Xellent Summary !! The only way you could probably make that any Shorter would be to state, "9/11 Was An InSide Job" !! Very Well Done !! Syx.

reply to post by Hijaqd

Agreed, yet you believe them?

What they say that makes sense, makes sense. Just because Hitler killed million of Jews doesn't make Nazi Germany wrong on Rocket technology.

Since we now know your timeframe is off,

Actually that's your established statement, which is untrue. I said the towers were built in the late 60s. I wasn't talking about WTC7... It wasn't hit by a plane. Now that we marked your straw wrong...

Also, you changed the meaning. I was talking about construction methods as well as time built. Please do try to read.

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.

After being significantly upgraded....

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.

Perhaps you missed the context. It was on the presence of molten metal days after. All I see are glowing red metal parts. I can do the same with a 200 degree smelter and a nail. It's not molten. Some of your pictures claim molten, but all I see are solid chunks. Your crane picture, for instance. Tell me, have you ever attempted to pick up molten metal? It won't stay in the mechanical hand. It won't drip either if part of it is solid enough to pick up. Al I see is a glowing solid piece obstructed by dust. The part with the blops dripping while the building was still up was proven true, thus I believe it. So... either you didn't read or...

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.

As I just showed you, it's not molten. And I cannot prove a Volcano, because there is none.

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.

Yea you're definable not reading the full posts. We already established these things. What we have not established is that the designers were being truthful. Considering it hasn't ever really happened before, we may never know until the next attack.

reply to post by TupacShakur

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?

My guess would be a thermite reaction. Something perfectly able to occur naturally when jet fuel fires mix with dry wall.

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

Well the tower started to collapsed at :07 and finished where I said. so...

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

I would imagine within the first few hours that the steel was still quite hot, but unless someone shows me a legitimate pool of hot molten steel days after the attack, I'm not believing the government on that.

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

I doubt they ever heard a passenger plane going straight down into the ground, but like I said, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that 93 was shot down. What you then have to ask yourself is why shoot down that plane when you're planning demolitions? Either they did not demo the towers and shot down a civilian plane, or they demo the towers and did not shoot down the plane. You cannot be hero and villain at the same time, no government has ever successfully done it.

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.

No, but being told by a Fire Department source that they were going to pull the building and evacuate could lead to that.

. 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.

Only if you go with the subjective belief that it was. From where I'm standing, it's a News lady putting out flase information. I cannot speak beyond that because there is no proof beyond that.

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)

Computer has to be set up by a person though, whom is just as likely to make mistakes. A lady making a mistake on a news story is just as viable as a man screwing up a demolition run. And we have a helluva lot of footage of failed demolitions.

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.

I've already shown you the fires burning on nearly every floor. I could also pull up visible destruction of the outer support structure, as well as the video clip of its collapse clearly showing it taking a very long time to collapse. The visible act of collapse is not the full story. There were many little things seen before the collapse that led up to it, that do not happen on demolitions.

That said, as I've said, they may have demo'd WTC7 and there is evidence for that. But that doesn't make it a planned demo. The contradiction remains in that the tower was evacuated, but the towers were not. I do not understand the logical contingency for such a plan.

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?

I don't, as I've clearly criticized sources on both sides. I do know, however, that a rebellion happened on 93. And maybe it was a race against time. Maybe they saw the planes lining up for a shot and they figured they were dead either way, they might as well try something. Point of the matter is that there is only some evidence of a shoot down, and definite evidence of a rebellion. we can construct some blurry vision of what happened, but nothing more.

which isn't even hot enough to melt steel in the first place

I showed you the video where it did not have to melt the steel for a collapse.

would have at least needed 2 weeks to prep the buildings for demolition

I'm dubious to that claim because the military has demo's enemy locations before in a matter of hours.

head of the ISI) who funded the terrorists

I'd need some confirmation of that claim, but we did fund the terrorists to fight the soviets. I know that is true.

The CIA has also had ties to the ISI since the 80s with the establishment of the Muja Hardin, which evolved into Al Qaeda.

To fight the Soviets. Many times we've mucked up things for the sake of power. the same story happened in iran.

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.

and I told you I do believe very likely that they let it happened for their own war desires.

One lie does not make all things lie. One evil does not make all evils true. Sometimes, we are simply human. Good sometimes, bad sometimes. I don't think the government is an angel nor a devil. Well, I do think it is a devil today, but in 2001 I think it was just a corrupt entity that used an opportunity to push an agenda. An agenda which has now made their own death inevitable.

reply to post by NO-USE

I find it more impossible for the pentagon only to have one camera that would have seen this

There were multiple cameras on the roof of that wall that the plane hit, as well as cameras in every hallway of the building, so many from the inside as well had to have caught a glimpse of the plane.

A plane didn't hit the Pentagon though, and there's almost no evidence to believe that it did.
The official story places the plane right here as it struck the Pentagon, however such a massive airplane only left a 14ft by 16ft hole in the Pentagon.

Here's the animation that Purdue put together in an attempt to explain the crash:

Notice how the wings disintegrate, yet there is no rubble from the wings on the lawn. Also the tail remains intact, yet there was no hole in the wall from where is should have hit. Plus Purdue left out a critical part of the airplane from the animation: the engines.
Those things are massive and there's no holes from where they hit.

The last piece of evidence strongly indicates that no Boeing 767 struck the Pentagon: there was very little fire damage to the interior of the Pentagon.
Office
No fire damage
If a 767 hit, then the thousands of gallons of jet fuel should have torched that whole area of the building, inside and out, yet there's very little fire damage.

reply to post by Gorman91

My guess would be a thermite reaction. Something perfectly able to occur naturally when jet fuel fires mix with dry wall.

It also occurs when thermite is used to cut the steel columns, as seen in the rubble of WTC7

I doubt they ever heard a passenger plane going straight down into the ground, but like I said, it is not outside the realm of possibilities that 93 was shot down. What you then have to ask yourself is why shoot down that plane when you're planning demolitions? Either they did not demo the towers and shot down a civilian plane, or they demo the towers and did not shoot down the plane. You cannot be hero and villain at the same time, no government has ever successfully done it.

I would think to give Americans a sense of comfort. If all four planes were crashed into buildings, then we would have a sense of hopelessness against any domestic attacks and everybody would be asking why our military which gets a massive budget did nothing to prevent any of the attacks. Plus it could be the idea that a plane of Americans bravely stood up in the face of terrorism and saved some lives by sacrificing their lives sounds like some propaganda to boost our spirits and give us a sense of power in that situation.

Computer has to be set up by a person though, whom is just as likely to make mistakes. A lady making a mistake on a news story is just as viable as a man screwing up a demolition run. And we have a helluva lot of footage of failed demolitions.

Well the demolitions went swimmingly and the news stories got screwed up.

I've already shown you the fires burning on nearly every floor. I could also pull up visible destruction of the outer support structure, as well as the video clip of its collapse clearly showing it taking a very long time to collapse. The visible act of collapse is not the full story. There were many little things seen before the collapse that led up to it, that do not happen on demolitions.

That said, as I've said, they may have demo'd WTC7 and there is evidence for that. But that doesn't make it a planned demo. The contradiction remains in that the tower was evacuated, but the towers were not. I do not understand the logical contingency for such a plan.

I don't know why they did what they did, but evidence shows that it was a controlled demolition and believing that some fires did that to the building is just stupid dude.

I showed you the video where it did not have to melt the steel for a collapse.

You don't seem to understand my point, jet fuel can't melt steel, so the molten pools of metal (for which tons of evidence has been provided to prove their existence) can't be explained by the official story.

I'd need some confirmation of that claim, but we did fund the terrorists to fight the soviets. I know that is true.

From this article:

Around 8:00 a.m., on September 11, 2001, ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) and Representative Porter Goss (R-FL), a 10-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine operations wing. Also present at the meeting are Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and the Pakistani ambassador to the US, Maleeha Lodhi, as well as other officials and aides. (Goss, Kyl, and Graham had just met with Pakistani President Pervez Mushrraf in Pakistan two weeks earlier (see August 28-30, 2001)). [Salon, 9/14/2001; Washington Post, 5/18/2002] Graham and Goss will later co-head the joint House-Senate investigation into the 9/11 attacks, which will focus on Saudi government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, but will say almost nothing about possible Pakistani government connections to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks (see August 1-3, 2003 and December 11, 2002). [Washington Post, 7/11/2002] Note that Senator Graham should have been aware of a report made to his staff the previous month (see Early August 2001) that one of Mahmood’s subordinates had told a US undercover agent that the WTC would be destroyed. Some evidence suggests that Mahmood ordered that $100,000 be sent to hijacker Mohamed Atta (see October 7, 2001).
Pakistan's Demands - Graham will later say of the meeting: “We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan.” The New York Times will report that bin Laden is specifically discussed. [Vero Beach Press Journal, 9/12/2001; Salon, 9/14/2001; New York Times, 6/3/2002] The US wants more support from Pakistan in its efforts to capture bin Laden. However, Mahmood says that unless the US lifts economic sanctions imposed on Pakistan and improves relations, Pakistan will not oppose the Taliban nor provide intelligence and military support to get bin Laden. He says, “If you need our help, you need to address our problems and lift US sanctions.” He also encourages the US to engage the Taliban diplomatically to get them to change, instead of isolating them. Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid will later comment, “It was absurd for Mahmood to insist now that the Americans engage with the Taliban, when [Pakistan’s] own influence over them was declining and al-Qaeda’s increasing.”
Meeting Interrupted by 9/11 Attacks - Zamir Akram, an accompanying Pakistani diplomat, leaves the room for a break. While outside, he sees a group of Congressional aides gathered around a television set. As Akram walks up to the TV, he sees the second plane crashing into the World Trade Center. He immediately runs back to the meeting to the tell the others. But even as he gets there, a congressional aide comes in to say that Capitol Hill is being evacuated. The aide says, “There is a plane headed this way.” Mahmood and the rest of the Pakistani delegation immediately leave and attempt to return to the Pakistani embassy. But they are stuck in traffic for three hours before they get there. [Rashid, 2008, pp. 26-27]

To fight the Soviets. Many times we've mucked up things for the sake of power. the same story happened in iran.

It doesn't matter why we helped create Al Qaeda and who they were meant to fight, a government agency has ties to the very terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11.

One lie does not make all things lie. One evil does not make all evils true. Sometimes, we are simply human. Good sometimes, bad sometimes. I don't think the government is an angel nor a devil. Well, I do think it is a devil today, but in 2001 I think it was just a corrupt entity that used an opportunity to push an agenda. An agenda which has now made their own death inevitable.

Yeah but when there's evidence to support that lie it becomes a strong possibility. It wasn't just the Bush Administration either, I think there's a whole puppet show and we have no clue what's going on behind the scenes. There definitely was an agenda being pushed, and I think the same goes for Obama. He promised to get us out of the Middle East in 6 months but he lied about that, and he promised to repeal the Patriot Act but he voted to keep it. Bush was a POS and so is Obama.

Originally posted by TupacShakur I would think to give Americans a sense of comfort. If all four planes were crashed into buildings, then we would have a sense of hopelessness against any domestic attacks and everybody would be asking why our military which gets a massive budget did nothing to prevent any of the attacks.

People did ask that. Rational people, anyway. Truthers mainly used the whole thing as an excuse to pretend to know stuff.

And surely a "sense of hoplessness" and fear were exactly what TPTB would have liked? Then they could demand more money for military and CIA budgets and more interventio abroad. It makes no sense to have 93 not find its target if you're planning the attack.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

And surely a "sense of hoplessness" and fear were exactly what TPTB would have liked? Then they could demand more money for military and CIA budgets and more interventio abroad. It makes no sense to have 93 not find its target if you're planning the attack.

Hey dude I don't know why they did it, all I'm saying is that testimonies from military officials as well as two debris sites from Flight 93 indiciate that it was shot down by our government.


Conspiracy theories will not be tolerated guys. You want a real conspiracy? How about there's no evidence to that Osama Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks, and even though we were told by Condoleezza Rice that the evidence would be released to the public, we haven't seen it yet? The war on terror is a complete sham, war rakes in tons of money especially in the form of defense contractors and some defense contractors own mainstream media outlets. What does that tell you? What better way is there to make money than to fight a nationless, worldwide enemy who can strike at any time? "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Hey dude I don't know why they did it, all I'm saying is that testimonies from military officials as well as two debris sites from Flight 93 indiciate that it was shot down by our government.

I agree, it may well have been. In which case it's wildly improbable that they were behind the attacks. It makes no sense to allow some planes to hit and then shoot down another.

some defense contractors own mainstream media outlets. What does that tell you? What better way is there to make money than to fight a nationless, worldwide enemy who can strike at any time? "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"

I share your concerns about the open-ended nature of a war on an abstract noun. But which defense contractor owns a mainstream media outlet?

reply to post by TupacShakur

It also occurs when thermite is used to cut the steel columns, as seen in the rubble of

A picture is not enough for me to believe anything from that. It could be anything, from cleanup operations to who knows what.

I would think to give Americans a sense of comfort. If all four planes were crashed into buildings, then we would have a sense of hopelessness against any domestic attacks and everybody would be asking why our military which gets a massive budget did nothing to prevent any of the attacks. Plus it could be the idea that a plane of Americans bravely stood up in the face of terrorism and saved some lives by sacrificing their lives sounds like some propaganda to boost our spirits and give us a sense of power in that situation.

That's exactly what 93 was. Propaganda. But propaganda isn't always a lie nor wrong. Sometimes it's a legitimate event used to rally people.

Also I'd ask you to ask yourself about "hopelessness". That's how you make a dictatorship. You bring people down to hopelessness, then be their savior. If they wanted to plan it for power gains, they would let all 4 hit their target. You do not rally your people from an attack. Such rallying only lasts for a few weeks. You rally people when they are utterly destroyed. When they feel hopeless. Such people will sacrifice their entire lives for a savior. Millions of Germans threw away everything that could be called individuality when Hitler rose to power at their lowest hour. It does not make sense to plan it the way they did. If they planned it, they would have sought maximum destruction, without any heroes.

Well the demolitions went swimmingly and the news stories got screwed up.

This necessitates you take a leap of faith that that is what they did. Without proof, I cannot.

I don't know why they did what they did, but evidence shows that it was a controlled demolition and believing that some fires did that to the building is just stupid dude.

You keep repeating this line even though photographic evidence shows clearly it was not just a few fires.

You don't seem to understand my point, jet fuel can't melt steel, so the molten pools of metal (for which tons of evidence has been provided to prove their existence) can't be explained by the official story.

I told you. Jet fuel fires are enough to cause a natural thermite reaction with drywall, which has the temperature to create pockets of molten steel for a temporary time, until the drywall runs out. IE, the building collapses.

It doesn't matter why we helped create Al Qaeda and who they were meant to fight, a government agency has ties to the very terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11.

Your own long quote shows the reasons why. The United States is famous for tieing in with the wrong side of conflicts. Allying with evil people to bring down their enemies. The fact that the United States government helped create and had ties to Al Queada is not an indication they planned 9/11. Anybody with a few hours of research knows the government creates entities to fight its enemies, and that many times these entities turn on their creator once their job is done. It's no different than when Rome hired Barbarians. The fact that Rome hired barbarians doesn't mean Rome orchestrated Rome to be sacked by them.

The simple fact is that the government is no less nor more human than the rest of us. If given the chance to hire a rapist to kill the man who raped someone I knew, and the only way I could get this done was to ally myself with that evil man, I may have no chance other than to ally myself with that man. That said, the second he turned on me I'd kill him too. Governments are not so intelligent sometimes.

Yeah but when there's evidence to support that lie it becomes a strong possibility. It wasn't just the Bush Administration either, I think there's a whole puppet show and we have no clue what's going on behind the scenes. There definitely was an agenda being pushed, and I think the same goes for Obama. He promised to get us out of the Middle East in 6 months but he lied about that, and he promised to repeal the Patriot Act but he voted to keep it. Bush was a POS and so is Obama.

Suspicious but baseless. Governments lie, but that doesn't make everything they say a lie. Governments orchestrate but that doesn't mean every major event was orchestrated.

You need only look at the seeds that created the current government to understand what goes on behind the public show. The government is interested in contingency. Nothing else. This seed originates from the Nixon era. For all his faults Nixon wasn't that bad of a president. he ended the Vietnam War, started a environmental activism from government, and repaired some of the economy, all while accomplishing the greatest achievement of science: landing on the moon. The actions of his administration had echoing waves all the way to Obama. Specifically, the belief that the government can use unfounded powers to do what it wants in the name of contingency.

If one looks at history, one can reasonably see what the government is doing. It is preparing itself for future disasters for no other reason than to continue its own existence. This is an ongoing mentality originating from the 60s and 50s. It came from the cold war, but when the col war ended, the mentality did not. It still exists, and it still goes on. And, it will be what leads to its own destruction. A government not willing to adapt to a different time will inevitable die.

There is a need to be objective as possible, but there are some things that are still being stated as if true.

Neither of the twin towers had a core collapse that instigated the total collapse of the buildings, for that to happen, would have meant that both buildings fell straight down, they did not, in fact parts of the cores remained standing for a time, that is seen on video.

The antenna in the north tower is also not an indicator of a core collapse, it belonged to the upper portion above the hit line and simply fell over like a tree with the rest of the upper portion, video other than the one most used, and taken from a different angle tells you that implicitly. That does not mean however that the roof truss integrity was not interfered with, but that ultimately the antenna conformed to the fall of the rest of the upper portion, but not core collapse.

www.youtube.com...

A straight down collapse would have all the floors moving downward, you don't see that, what IS happening is the buildings totally disintegrating floor by floor, and not pancaking, but disintegrating.

WTC7 on the other hand, DID fall straight down, you could put a number on a window of WTC7 and follow its progress downward, and that is the difference from the twin towers, but a very important difference.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I share your concerns about the open-ended nature of a war on an abstract noun. But which defense contractor owns a mainstream media outlet?

The main one that i'm aware of is General Electric owning NBC.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
The main one that i'm aware of is General Electric owning NBC.

I wouldn't call them a defense contractor per se, and I don't think they own NBC outright any more, but I take your point. They certainly make money from weapons systems and use their media presence to whitewash their image.

If they were in on 9/11 thiough, and using their sway over NBC to keep it out of the public eye, surely all the other media outlets would need to be controlled too? And there's no real evidence that they are.

reply to post by Gorman91

A picture is not enough for me to believe anything from that. It could be anything, from cleanup operations to who knows what.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ddf2281ee04.jpg[/atsimg]
Do firemen typically investigate the rubble from a controlled demolition if this is a picture from somewhere else?

Also I'd ask you to ask yourself about "hopelessness". That's how you make a dictatorship. You bring people down to hopelessness, then be their savior. If they wanted to plan it for power gains, they would let all 4 hit their target. You do not rally your people from an attack. Such rallying only lasts for a few weeks. You rally people when they are utterly destroyed. When they feel hopeless. Such people will sacrifice their entire lives for a savior. Millions of Germans threw away everything that could be called individuality when Hitler rose to power at their lowest hour. It does not make sense to plan it the way they did. If they planned it, they would have sought maximum destruction, without any heroes.

Like I said I don't know exactly why they did what they did, but the evidence is there to support the idea that our military shot down the flight.

You keep repeating this line even though photographic evidence shows clearly it was not just a few fires.

Yeah photographic that you did not include in your post to back up that statement.
Fire
Man this one's a rager! [/sarcasm]
East side
Photographic evidence shows that clearly it was just a few fires.

I told you. Jet fuel fires are enough to cause a natural thermite reaction with drywall, which has the temperature to create pockets of molten steel for a temporary time, until the drywall runs out. IE, the building collapses.

Explain to me the physics and chemistry behind drywall turning into steel.

"Drywall is made out of a mineral called gypsum. Gypsum's scientific name is dihydrous calcium sulfate and its molecules are made up of two parts water and one part calcium sulfate."

Flames make calcium sulfate turn into iron? No way! You're just talking out of your ass dude.

Your own long quote shows the reasons why. The United States is famous for tieing in with the wrong side of conflicts. Allying with evil people to bring down their enemies. The fact that the United States government helped create and had ties to Al Queada is not an indication they planned 9/11. Anybody with a few hours of research knows the government creates entities to fight its enemies, and that many times these entities turn on their creator once their job is done. It's no different than when Rome hired Barbarians. The fact that Rome hired barbarians doesn't mean Rome orchestrated Rome to be sacked by them.

Yeah anybody with a few hours of research also knows that our government has committed and conspired to commit false flag terrorist attacks.

If one looks at history, one can reasonably see what the government is doing. It is preparing itself for future disasters for no other reason than to continue its own existence. This is an ongoing mentality originating from the 60s and 50s. It came from the cold war, but when the col war ended, the mentality did not. It still exists, and it still goes on. And, it will be what leads to its own destruction. A government not willing to adapt to a different time will inevitable die.

If one looks at history one can actually see that time and time again governments all across the globe have manipulated and lied to the people in order to gain support. That's exactly what 9/11 is, after the attacks we invaded the Middle East to fight a war on "terror", established the Patriot Act as if that actually will prevent terrorism, created the Department of Homeland Security, established a new foreign and domestic policy, and ended Habeas Corpus. The Patriot unconstitutionally spies on Americans in the name of protection against terrorism; how many terrorist attacks have we thwarted since it's establishment? Terrorists aren't the ones taking away our rights, I've never heard of Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda passing legislation to take away our Constitutional rights, that's our own damn government. The nameless "terrorists" aren't the people who Americans should be worried about, it's our own politicians who are terrorizing Americans.

Popular Mechanics debunked all this stuff.

Give it up.

reply to post by spoor

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?

"Tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials — proof, according to a former BYU professor, that 9/11 is still a sinister mystery. Physicist Steven E. Jones, who retired from Brigham Young University in 2006 after the school recoiled from the controversy surrounding his 9/11 theories, is one of nine authors on a paper published last week in the online, peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal. Also listed as authors are BYU physics professor Jeffrey Farrer and a professor of nanochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. For several years, Jones has theorized that pre-positioned explosives, not fires from jet fuel, caused the rapid, symmetrical collapse of the two World Trade Center buildings, plus the collapse of a third building, WTC-7. The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a "nano-thermite" material that is highly explosive. A layer of dust lay over parts of Manhattan immediately following the collapse of the towers, and it was samples of this dust that Jones and fellow researchers requested in a 2006 paper, hoping to determine "the whole truth of the events of that day." They eventually tested four samples they received from New Yorkers. Red/gray chips ... were found in all four dust samples. The chips were then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and other high-tech tools. The red layer of the chips, according to the researchers, contains a "highly energetic" form of thermite."

Source

reply to post by Carseller4

Popular Mechanics debunked all this stuff.

Give it up.

Where are the links? Where are the articles? Where are the videos?

I'm not going to give it up because there is so much evidence that suggests that our government was behind the attacks. Read all of those bullet points on the front, read them again, then read them one more time, and try to debunk them or show how Popular Mechanics debunked every one of those points. Until you do that you're just saying something has been debunked with no evidence to prove that its been debunked.

Try debunking the 1400+ engineers and architects, the 250+ pilots and aviation professionals, 400+ professors, 300+ survivors, and 220+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement, and government officials, not to mention the hundreds of eye witnesses who heard and saw things that go against the official story.