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

This nonsense is still going on......you can't get this movement off the pages of this site......what a bunch of babies.....

l'm laughing at this crap and at ATS.

This site is a joke....

You people need to go out and get girlfriends.....wa...wa...wa....wa...wa....wa...wa.....

reply to post by tom1701
Don't let the server kick you in the ass on the way out.

Originally posted by tom1701
This nonsense is still going on......you can't get this movement off the pages of this site......what a bunch of babies.....

l'm laughing at this crap and at ATS.

This site is a joke....

You people need to go out and get girlfriends.....wa...wa...wa....wa...wa....wa...wa.....

My wife wouldn't appreciate that. But if you insist......

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You seem very confident, so how about you take 20 minutes and debunk this video that Hijaqd posted? Surely you satisfy us idiotic conspiracy theorists with your wisdom:

What do you mean? I'm specifically trying to discuss this flick. In this very video (specifically, from 1:26 to 1:38, go watch the video if you don't believe me) it references quotes Bill Manning from Fire Engineering, but when we look at the source material from Bill Manning it doesn't say anything about thermite, conspiracies, Jewish World Order plots, or any of that. He specifically says that he supports the idea that the fires from the contents of the towers combined with substandard fire proofing is what brought down the towers. Here is his own words again-

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions. "

Since you obviously believe what the video says and the video is quoting Manning as a legitimate source of information, does that mean *you* believe the towers were brought down by fires from the contents of the towers combined with substandard fire proofing?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

What do you mean? I'm specifically trying to discuss this flick. In this very video (specifically, from 1:26 to 1:38, go watch the video if you don't believe me) it references quotes Bill Manning from Fire Engineering, but when we look at the source material from Bill Manning it doesn't say anything about thermite, conspiracies, Jewish World Order plots, or any of that. He specifically says that he supports the idea that the fires from the contents of the towers combined with substandard fire proofing is what brought down the towers. Here is his own words again-

"However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions. "

Since you obviously believe what the video says and the video is quoting Manning as a legitimate source of information, does that mean *you* believe the towers were brought down by fires from the contents of the towers combined with substandard fire proofing?

OK you found that a quote used in that video is taken out of context, does that make the rest of the evidence false? Go through point by point and debunk all of the assertions, picking out one quote used by truthers and showing how it's not true is not debunking the whole video.

reply to post by vipertech0596


And you know they went to these universties because ? who told you ? the government and msm. my point exactly . they were morons back then and they are dead moron now. Any accessible information could easily be twisted and fabricated. And just because you go to a university doesnt mean your smart. Bush went to yale. what did that do? these 14 morons were tricked into being martyrs(who tricked them is the real question) and i am sure there families got paid in full. YOU sir sound like the 15th moron. Enjoy your kool-aid.

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by hooper

 

Thats all you got ? Attacking my spelling...lol... I guess you agree with everything else. I rather misspell occasionally than be blinde and stupid. Keep drinking the kool-aid spelling teacher.

I normally don't give a rat's rear end about spelling unless it may be somehow misleading, however, there is a point where you have to consider the writer's ability to read and comprehend if their spelling is so amiss. If you don't know the difference between there, their and they're when you are writing, are you able to tell the difference when you are reading?

reply to post by tom1701


So you think cell of 14 arabs used 11,500 gallons of jet fuel to literally demolish 2million tons of steal and concrete strait down , perfectly falling in it property boundaries. Thats what you believe?

reply to post by hooper


I do ,, perfectly ... but your on a role teach. My grammer and spelling must really bother you cause you have not once discussed or debated about the content that i have posted. Again , is that all you got? if you're trying to discredit me because of my perfect grammer skills then continue. I know without a doubt 14 moronic arabs could not have done 911 alone. You want to believe that ,go right ahead teach.

reply to post by TupacShakur

On the morning of 9/11, NORAD was in a two week long terrorist drill exercise called "Vigilant Guardian", and this exercise was a simulation of the real terrorist attack on the WTC, involving hi-jacked airliners.

This is just plain not true. Sorry. The Air Force was conducting drills and exercises as they always do and from time to time some of the exercises may include hijacked plane scenarios. But there was no exercise going on the morning of 9/11 that include hijacked planes attacking the WTC.

On the morning of 9/11 VP Dick Cheney was in control of NORAD, the first time in US history that a President or Vice President was in direct control of a military agency.

This is ignorant, stupid and false. All American military agencies are always under the direct control of the President of the United States, hence the title, Commander in Chief. Dick Cheyney was not in charge of any military agency.

Generals have always had the power to shoot down or intercept hi-jacked aircraft, but three months prior to 9/11 Dick Cheney was allowed to take control of NORAD and the shoot-down procedure, removing that power from the Generals.

False. Do a little research.

Never mind, the rest is all equally untrue, misleading or and all and out lie. I guess this is a matter of attrition. Keep repeating the same garbage hoping that eventually everyone interested in contesting this stuff fades away and it will become the "uncontested" truth by default.

reply to post by hooper

You debunked one out of the 9 "coincidences" that I posted, that leaves you with 8 to go, and there are still 10 more that I haven't got around to posting yet.

Never mind, the rest is all equally untrue, misleading or and all and out lie. I guess this is a matter of attrition. Keep repeating the same garbage hoping that eventually everyone interested in contesting this stuff fades away and it will become the "uncontested" truth by default.

Explain how coincidences 1-5 and 7-9 are also "untrue, misleading, or an all out lie".

1) In the 100-plus years of steel framed buildings, only three have ever collapsed due to fire. All three were leased by the same man, all three fell in the same way, all on the same day! Coincidence?

Is that a lie?

We're over 20 pages into this thread, yet not a single official story believer (except for Gorman91 who tackled a few) has taken the time to accurately debunk even a fraction of the evidence presented in the OP. The pattern is pick out one or a few details which you find to be misleading or false, and say the rest has been debunked without proving that. If there truly is a patriotic American who has full faith in their government, and wants this Truth movement silenced once and for all, take a few hours and debunk the entire front page. OR if that's too much info, take the time to accurately debunk the assertions presented in that video that me and Hijaqd have asked for people to debunk multiple times with no success, OR if even that is too much work take the time to debunk 9 of the 19 "coincidences" that are presented within those YouTube videos.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
OK you found that a quote used in that video is taken out of context, does that make the rest of the evidence false? Go through point by point and debunk all of the assertions, picking out one quote used by truthers and showing how it's not true is not debunking the whole video.

No, that individual quote does not make the rest of the video false. It's the rest of the video that makes the rest of the video false. On 9:27 you can see more of their fake manipulation they use to falsely embellish their claims. Go review 9:27 again, and then review THIS video- it's the full video of the collapse

Full video of WTC 7 collapse

Notice anything different? You can see that on the full video, the penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building some six seconds before the rest of the building did, and you can see from the broken windows that it collapsed pretty far down into the structure. No controlled demolitions job in history has ever brought down building from the inside out like the way WTC 7 fell, and you can see this yourself by looking at 9:35 of your video- the penthouse of that other building is perfectly intact. The conspiracy people can't even remotely explain how their imaginary CDs would have done this so they simply edit the video to their liking and snip that section of the video off, as you just saw for yourself. Go back and re-review 9:27 if you don't believe me.

So why did the producers of this video censor the Penthouse collapse? It's obviously critical information that points to how the collapse happened, so why would they erase it and pretend it never happened? Explain that one to me.

reply to post by hooper


Dont even think of debating against me. I'll do a much better job than your kool-aid drink thesis. Bottom line you cant prove a single thing because 911 is all lies. All you do is use references from the source that has full control of all the evidence. You know what you and the president have in common = your both puppets.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I asked for this:

Go through point by point and debunk all of the assertions, picking out one quote used by truthers and showing how it's not true is not debunking the whole video.

Don't attack our credibility, attack our evidence with some facts.

And you gave me this:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/14510b8b6622.jpg[/atsimg]
Is that a strawman in your post or are you just happy to see me?

I'll ask again: Since you seem so confident that our evidence is indeed slanted, misintrepreted, or just all out lies, can you take the time to go through the 15 minute video, and debunk the assertions within it? Show us how the assertions are wrong.

Better yet it would make me the happiest truther in the world if you really committed yourself to proving us wrong by debunking every piece of evidence in the OP, but we both know you're too lazy to do that. Why show how all of our evidence is wrong like we've asked multiple times, when you can whip out a few strawmen and call it a night?

Since we both know you're not going to debunk either the OP or video that Hijaqd posted, will you at least attempt to debunk those 9 "coincidence" videos that I posted? Those should be a piece of cake! Hell even I can debunk a few and I'm the one that posted it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Who cares how it collapsed. The point is it collapsed genius. 50 story steal structures do not collapse because of fire. Seriously why are you fighting your own brain capacity.

reply to post by TupacShakur

) In the 100-plus years of steel framed buildings, only three have ever collapsed due to fire. All three were leased by the same man, all three fell in the same way, all on the same day! Coincidence?

Is that a lie?

No, thats an irrelevant half truth. Does the statement mention that all 3 were part of the same complex? No? Coincidence? Does the statement mention that all three were subject of a terrorist attack on the same day? No? Coincidence? Does the statement mention that only one of the three was an actual steel frame building? No? Lie? Does the statement mention that 2 of the 3 buildings was subject to huge impact and explosion forces? No? Coincidence or Lie? You decide.

reply to post by hooper


So let me get this right. Only 1 out of 3 building were steel framed? So that must mean you're talking about Building 7. So that means WTC 1&2 are made of something different. Well im pretty sure I seen concrete...tons in fact. So that other stuff that was supposed to be steel....it must be something else? Ah!! I got it now they must have been made the beams up from some type of rubber....that's why all of them were bent like crazy. Thanks man you really cleared things up.

reply to post by hooper


Just admit it hopper, your in denial ..Tell everyone you truly believe that fire from jet fuel brought down 3 steal structures. Admit it. Show everyone how small your brain is.

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by hooper

 

I do ,, perfectly ... but your on a role teach. My grammer and spelling must really bother you cause you have not once discussed or debated about the content that i have posted. Again , is that all you got? if you're trying to discredit me because of my perfect grammer skills then continue. I know without a doubt 14 moronic arabs could not have done 911 alone. You want to believe that ,go right ahead teach.

No, no just find it both ironic and amusing that you keep insisting that the Arabs are moronic. Also, questioning your reading comprehension skills based on your grammar and spelling. Like I said, I don't really care about spelling, however, there comes a point where you have to question the writer's other abilities. I mean its one thing to misspell words like aquiesce or magnanimity but grammar? role? I?

And do you have anything other than constantly repeating that the "Arabs" were moronic? I venture to guess that they, in fact, were probably smarter and better educated than yourself.

reply to post by hooper

No, thats an irrelevant half truth. Does the statement mention that all 3 were part of the same complex? No? Coincidence? Does the statement mention that all three were subject of a terrorist attack on the same day? No? Coincidence? Does the statement mention that only one of the three was an actual steel frame building? No? Lie? Does the statement mention that 2 of the 3 buildings was subject to huge impact and explosion forces? No? Coincidence or Lie? You decide.

How is that irrelevant?!?! The only three skyscrapers to ever collapse from fire damage collapse in the same day from two airplanes and fire? The fact that those buildings are the only ones which have ever collapsed from such fire damage is about as relevant as you can get.

No it doesn't mention that they're part of the same complex, but that is irrelevant, because three skyscrapers for the first time in history collapsed from fire damage, and the fact that they're all a part of the same complex only adds to the suspiciousness of such an outrageous coincidence!

All three of them were steel framed; they weren't made of balsa wood and bricks, however their common total collapse might lead one to think that.

My statement did cover the "same day" portion, but not the "terrorist attack" portion.

The statement doesn't mention that two of the three were subject to huge impact and explosions, however did your statement mention this?

The WTC construction manager said this:

the building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it...I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet-liners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid and the jet plane is just the pencil puncturing that screen netting

No? This?

-- John Skilling, the WTC's head structural engineer, told the Seattle Times after the 1993 bombing that if a plane struck the building and dumped it's fuel on the inside

There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. But the building structure would still be there.