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

Originally posted by dilly1
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.

EXQUEEZE ME?!?!?

You conspiracy people are rooting through collapse videos frame by frame while annointing them with tiny red arrows and looking at rubble through microscopes trying to find your elusive evidence of a conspriacy, and you really don't care how WTC 7 even collapsed?!? Are you for real?

You obviously are so fond of your conspiracy website kool-aid that you can't reason this through on your own, so I'll explain it to you- regardless of whether you think WTC 7 collapsed from controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, or heat beams from Martian war machines, the one thing that remains a universal fact is that you do not tamper with evidence. Even someone with the brain functions of a rock can understand that the Penthouse collapse was critically important for us to determine the reason for why the entire structure collapsed and the producer of this video tampered with the evidence by erasing the video and tried to pretend it never happened. It's exactly the same as thinking "well, who cares how many times JFK was shot at" and snipping off all the video of JFK grasping at his throat and just leaving us the image of the head shot. If anyone tried pulling that, the JFK assassination groupies would be all over them like Rosie O'Donnell on a chocolate cake.

If you're genuinely trying to tell me this is fair and accurate reporting, then you're a damned liar. Please reconsider your words and then try again.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You obviously are so fond of your conspiracy website kool-aid that you can't reason this through on your own, so I'll explain it to you- regardless of whether you think WTC 7 collapsed from controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, or heat beams from Martian war machines, the one thing that remains a universal fact is that you do not tamper with evidence. Even someone with the brain functions of a rock can understand that the Penthouse collapse was critically important for us to determine the reason for why the entire structure collapsed and the producer of this video tampered with the evidence by erasing the video and tried to pretend it never happened. It's exactly the same as thinking "well, who cares how many times JFK was shot at" and snipping off all the video of JFK grasping at his throat and just leaving us the image of the head shot. If anyone tried pulling that, the JFK assassination groupies would be all over them like Rosie O'Donnell on a chocolate cake.

Speaking of tampering with evidence, care to tell me what our government did with all of the steel and rubble from the towers? Oh if only I could remember, it slipped my mind you see, if you could fill me in on what exactly they did with the steel I would be delighted.

reply to post by thedman

The only unit there with fighter aircraft was 112 Air National Guard Wing

The aircraft were not fueled amd armed for combat

Actually that is incorrect, they were not able to deploy aircraft because they had 3 E-4B's on the flightline, the E-4B's were participating (or supposed to be participating) in "Global Guardian", an annual exercise.

2 of them actually had gotten airborne during the ordeal (Word 31 and Venus 77), while another was held without being granted permission to liftoff (Vivi 36)

Source

And in fact there were 5 fighters at the base, however they were scheduled for training and had just come off a one day stand down due to a recent return from an extended training mission in Nevada.

And it would have taken longer (I believe 93 minutes) to arm them and get them in to a shootdown capability, where fighters scrambled from Langley took 50 minutes (or so).

Source

Also Andrews is home of the 113th Wing DC Air National Guard, not the 112th, they're in Pennsylvania.

ETA: Sorry, just saw that Cambion, addressed part of that.

reply to post by hooper


Thats it hopper? only more grammer corrections....in an actual debate my lead would be untouchable. I find it amusing that you refuse to debate me about 911. as if your scared ..The fact is you cant battle with me because i use simple logic (which is not taught in universities) and all you do is repeat the same old jibberish that is fed to you daily. Like a good doggy.

reply to post by TupacShakur

Speaking of tampering with evidence, care to tell me what our government did with all of the steel and rubble from the towers? Oh if only I could remember, it slipped my mind you see, if you could fill me in our what exactly they did with the steel I would be delighted.

Debris from WTC was barged to recovery site at Fresh Kills on Staten Island where all the debris was gone over
by detectives looking for evidence, body fragments and personal items

This included steel beams which were sorted - ones the forensic teams wanted to examine were set aside
in one group. Remainder was trucked away, some to be recycled, others saved for monuments

By 2:00 a.m. on September 12, trucks began to arrive with loads of steel and solid material from Ground Zero. New York Police Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation Evidence Response Teams arrived in the early morning hours to begin the thorough inspection of the materials and take on a threefold mission: find as many human remains as possible, recover personal effects, and search for evidence from the terrorists.

Here is description of sorting process

www.nysm.nysed.gov...

reply to post by TupacShakur


Well, there are 40 tons in a small field in the midwest that you could go take a piece from. It was to build something in the community and never came to fruition. Some of it was used in a new war ship...what else? Where is the conspiracy. I think Rummy even has a piece of it and a piece of the Pentagon on his desk....

Originally posted by TupacShakur
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.

So it's perfectly fine for you that this guy is censoring the material in his video and cutting off parts he doesn't want you to know about? It's obvious that the WTC 7 building collapsed from the inside out with a six second delay, which proves right there that the collapse was NOT a controlled demolition. It also explains why the building collapsed the way it did- by that point it was essentially hollow so there's no longer anything inside to stop it from falling inward. No controlled demolitions on the planet has ever demolished a building in this manner so it obviously not a controlled demolition, so this guy intentionally tampered with the evidence to get you to think that it was. This can hardly be considered a strawman argument because this is all right there in the video starting on 9:27.

Seriously, dude, if someone decided to censor the Zapruder film and edit out all those inconvenient extra gunshots, you conspiracy people would be going medieval. You really dont' see anything wrong with that?

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?

It's not that I'm lazy, it's that it will take three days to debunk every little nuance it contains and I know full well that you're not going to read the novel I'd have to post. Particularly when it's clear that you don't seem to mind that the producers are erasing parts of their videos they don't want you to know about.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


OK, I didn't do the editing, I guess I didn't pay attention to that particular part, I know it is an often used or misused quote.

To extrapolate that he believes the thermite claims is rubbish is grasping though, that part surprises me from you, for he does not provide an opinion in that entire article on thermite.

He does, however, believe:

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

Unfortunately, we are a long time past 2002 when the article and plea to stop removing the evidence was written.

And please do not claim that the NIST report did the investigation he is asking for, for they do not take into account all structural items, so cannot possibly provide suggestions based on faulty tests and findings.

But since we want to discuss thermite, how about Physicist Jeff Farrer?
Video

reply to post by Hijaqd


Sorry for type it is 113 Air Wing

The conspiracy types believe they are hundreds of aircraft just waiting to go - sitting on runway, fully fueled and
armed, engines turning & burning ready to leap into wild blue yonder

In addition aircraft are not tuned into fighter direction radio frequencies or hall call signs assigned and patrol
sectors

On 9/11 were 14 aircraft at 7 bases on "hot alert"

During day some more got airborne sometimes with little more than training ammo in guns

Read "TOUCHING HISTORY" for description of efforts to (1) find out what was going on (2) get some aircraft
up and cobble togather a CAP (combat air patrol)

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I said this: Evidence of this exact thing has been presented in this thread! You're asking us to supply that which has already been supplied to you.

Page 15, post #3.
Page 14, post #16, video #2.
Evidence of molten steel has been presented to you within this thread time and time again. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE! You're asking for evidence, and several members have supplied this evidence on many occasions yet you continue to ask for evidence.

My apologies - I missed this the first time.

But actually neither post provides evidence of molten steel. Both posit the existence of molten metal - something we all agree on - and then claim to have proven the presence of molten steel. It's not at all persuasive.

Since either nobody read the challenge in the OP or wants to do it, I'll present it once again for the 400th time:

If you believe that the 9/11 Truth Movement is false and that all of our evidence which we base our conspiracy theory off of is false, then to prove us all wrong you must debunk every piece of information presented within the OP.

Let me simplify that:
Debunk all of the evidence from the OP.

Let me simplify that:
Debunk our evidence!

If you are either constrained by time or laziness and do not want to spend hours debunking the evidence in the OP, then there is a simpler solution that will still please us:

If you believe that the official story about the 9/11 attacks are true and that conspiracy theorists are using lies and false claims as evidence, then can you accurately debunk every piece of information presented within this video?



Simplified version of that request:
Accurately debunk this video

reply to post by GoodOlDave


First of all ,theres many forms of demolishing a building. There are many different ways in setting explosives . A demolition team can set the explosive to make the building fall at any angle. If they couldnt do that than you wouldnt have hundreds of demolishen companies all over the world...what bothers me is you sound like you belive that these three buildings fell because of 2300 gallons of jetfuel . right? is that what your telling me. Fire from jetfuel does not cause any building to just free fall down to its foundation . Explosives do that.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

So it's perfectly fine for you that this guy is censoring the material in his video and cutting off parts he doesn't want you to know about? It's obvious that the WTC 7 building collapsed from the inside out with a six second delay, which proves right there that the collapse was NOT a controlled demolition. It also explains why the building collapsed the way it did- by that point it was essentially hollow so there's no longer anything inside to stop it from falling inward. No controlled demolitions on the planet has ever demolished a building in this manner so it obviously not a controlled demolition, so this guy intentionally tampered with the evidence to get you to think that it was. This can hardly be considered a strawman argument because this is all right there in the video starting on 9:27.

It's indeed a strawman argument, because I asked you to address, analyze, and debunk every single assertion provided either in the OP, that video posted by Hijaqd, or those scrubby YouTube conspiracy videos, and instead of addressing my main argument and debunking one of those three things, you instead went in the direction of posting a video of WTC7s collapse. No fire on the planet has ever demolished a building in this manner, but it happened to three of them!

It's not that I'm lazy, it's that it will take three days to debunk every little nuance it contains and I know full well that you're not going to read the novel I'd have to post. Particularly when it's clear that you don't seem to mind that the producers are erasing parts of their videos they don't want you to know about.

So despite the fact that I've followed all 20+ pages of this thread from day one and read every single post, you think that I won't read the only actual post which does the main task that I asked from the start?

From the OP:

After reviewing all of that evidence, before you can make the claim that you still believe the official story, it's only fair that you debunk every piece of evidence presented throughout the film.

Nobody has attempted to do that yet, and despite you being the only person who believes that they sufficiently can, you think I won't read the very thing that I've been waiting to read throughout this whole thread?

Debunk the evidence! Do it, do it, do it, do it, *Rest of truthers join in*, do it, do it, do it, do it. We're all counting on you Dave, you seem to be one of the few if not the only rational Truth-debunker out there, and if not even you is up to the task, then the Truth Movement has succeeded and the official story is a lie.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

My apologies - I missed this the first time.

But actually neither post provides evidence of molten steel. Both posit the existence of molten metal - something we all agree on - and then claim to have proven the presence of molten steel. It's not at all persuasive.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7410055f0453.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by TupacShakur

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?

In the 50-plus years of steel hulled warships, no one had ever attacked, damaged or sunk EIGHT battleships until it happened on the same day, Dec. 7, 1941. History is made of events that have never happened until they do. Its not a conspiracy.

(3) Firefighters, police officers, emergency personnel, reporters, and many other eyewitnesses all reported explosions going off inside of the buildings, yet this got little attention in the mainstream media and as far as I know no mention in the 9/11 Commission Report. Coincidence

Umm, once again, in ANY large fire there are explosions. Doesnt mean you are hearing bombs though. As for the 9/11 Commission, it was chartered to investigate the history, circumstances and events of the day. Contrary to the beliefs of the conspiracy crowd, the Commission was NEVER supposed to do engineering investigations on the buildings that day.

4) There are more CCTV cameras covering the Pentagon than any other building in the world, yet the government won't release a video showing a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon. The only images released to the public did not contain any evidence of a Boeing 757. Coincidence?

The Pentagon is an office building that happens to be the home of the Department of Defense. All the comments about it being the most protected, most fortified, more covered building in the world are horse manure. But in the interest of fairness....show me the evidence that you have, that shows it has more CCTV cameras than any other building in the world.

5) The September 2000 document "Project for the New American Century" states that if we are going to transform America into tomorrows dominant force, it will be a long process, unless there is a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor

I love when people use this one. It generally shows that they haven't actually read the document they purport to quote.

Here is the first example of Pearl Harbor found in the document....

""Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"."

Let's see.....what do they mean by transforming...

At the beginning of the chapter it says this...

""To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

One of the funnier parts is that PNAC actively presses for a global missile shield....pretty useless against airliners flown by kamikaze pilots don't you think?

By the way, the organization is the Project for the New American Century. The document you are misquoting is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses : Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century"

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.

Nope. What you are referencing is a May 08, 2001 statement that places Dick Cheney in charge of developing a seamless integration (the Office of National Preparedness) of various Federal agencies programs for responding to WMD attacks. Nowhere in the statement does it mention NORAD or intercepting hostile aircraft.

There were a total of 15 exercises going on that day involving the fighter jets in the North-Eastern portion of the United States.

Proof?

NORAD stood down because the terrorist attacks occuring on that day were assumed to be part of the drills that they were running. Coincidence?

Nope, NORAD NEVER stands down. Out and out lie.

Throughout the summer Silverstein reworked the insurance to make sure it covered terrorist attacks, explicitly stating that he could re-build the complex if it were destroyed.

Hmm...since the insurance companies paid out after the 1993 terrorist attack against the WTC, I wonder where you get the idea that he "reworked" his insurance. I will point out to you that it was his BANK that forced him to take out the 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy. WHICH, had not been finalized before the attacks.

However somehow rescue workers knew that building 7 would fall despite it's minimal damage and set up a perimeter.

Minimal damage? FDNY reports from that day speak of a 20 story hole in the building, of bulges in the structure and of pieces falling off. Hardly minimal.

One characteristic of WTC7s collapse is how the building fell in on itself rather than ourwards,

Which explains why when WTC 7 collapsed, it damaged ALL of the buildings around it, including one so badly that IT had to be torn down....oh, wait, that doesnt explain it.........

Lost in WTC7s collapse were thousands of SEC case files on corporate fraud, including those related to corporate giants Worldcom and Enron

Ask the corporate execs that were found guilty and sentenced to prison about those "lost" files.

These are the core columns of building 7 after the collapse:

Those are columns of the Towers that were cut as part of the clean up process.

Wirt D. Walker III, a cousin of the Bush brothers, was the CEO of Securacom from 1999 - 2002.

Nope, he is not related to the Bush brothers. That allegation came from Margie Burns in one of her columns.....one that she retracted years ago.

Scott Forbes, an IT specialist in a firm that had leased space in the South tower since its erection, reported an unprecedented power down in his building for almost the whole weekend prior to 9/11

Um, Mr Forbes has changed his story many times over the years. The current story from his is that his floors (three of them) had a partial power down over the space of 22 hours. Which wouldnt even begin to cover all three buildings.

bomb sniffing dogs were removed from duty

Nope. There had been EXTRA dogs on duty at the WTC complex, and it was the EXTRA dogs that had been returned to their normal assignments. The WTC dogs were there.

while simlutaneously the attendancy of the towers began to drop

At the time of the attack, the Towers were considered to be at full occupancy.

Feel better now?

reply to post by thedman


So if our air-defense system is indeed negligent and inefficient like you claim, why the hell do billions taxpayer dollars go to funding it? What exactly are we paying NORAD and other military agencies for, air hockey tables and swimming pools?

reply to post by thedman

The conspiracy types believe they are hundreds of aircraft just waiting to go - sitting on runway, fully fueled and armed, engines turning & burning ready to leap into wild blue yonder

Actually, I am one of those "conspiracy types", as far as most military operations and/or procedures I have some insight and try to keep it real either way, I however do not consider myself a "truther", actually I think that whole label is pretty lame, why is it even supposed to be derogatory to look for truth (anyway I digress)

I do not have some crackpot theory, I am willing to take in facts that disproof long held conspiracy beliefs, but there is no way that I believe the investigations were done even close to correct or thorough and therefore absolutely believe that a new investigation should have been done.

And it would be a useless effort to try to convince me that the prior administration was not up to their eyeballs in being complicit in some form or another:
- They had advanced knowledge and just let it happen
- Had advanced knowledge and helped it along in order to further their stated goals
- Or fabricated the whole thing

I do not believe that the events played out in just such a way that almost every step of the way the "playbook" from PNAC was coming to fruition, with the exception of Venezuela, but that was not due to a lack of trying.

We know they lied about Iraq, there is more than enough evidence to link the administration and/or their familial interests to the attempted coup in Venezuela (nevermind how they spun up the media hate machine), but yet I'm supposed to believe that the catalyzing event that catapulted us into Afghanistan was a stroke of luck for the PNAC clan? THAT is a crazy theory, in my opinion.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US had 48 full time, fueled, armed, interceptors on alert covering the continental 48 states. On 9/11/01, there were 14. The "peace dividend" of the early 90s caused this, the government slashed the money spent on air defense because the Soviets were no longer a threat. Not that they ever realistically practiced shooting down a hostile aircraft within our own airspace.

Originally posted by DrJay1975
So to summarize... The probably amount of molten aluminum was about 10,000 kg. Nagasaki was 21 kilotons. THe temp can reach 3800 F in less than a second in the Aluminum reaction thermite explosion. All that was need for the thermite reaction was Rust. Factor in gypsum, Lime and water and you get a mega series of explosions with all of the pools of molten aluminum. And before someone quotes prof Jones trying to debunk the aluminum thermite reaction, he did 2 tests and none of the materials were crushed. And it ought to be obvious that if a plane hit the building there would be crushed concrete and gypsum.

No offense but I think that is far more likely why there is molten aluminum and thermite explosions than someone wiring the place to blow. I could care less about statements about who knew this and that. But the molten metal and explosions have rational explanations. And molten aluminum hitting the steel beams pitting into it and then a reasonable thermite reaction or a steam explosion seems reasonable for explaining the supposed beam cutting.

There is a problem with the idea that it was molten aluminium pouring down the side of WTC2, and it would be specific to the melting temperature that the jet fuel cold achieve, at that temperature the molten aluminium would still be silvery itself and would be seen as such, and given that the majority of molten stuff would be the aluminium,

4.bp.blogspot.com...

The linked picture is of molten silvery aluminium with no glow. Of course there is no other matter involved in it, but if there had been in the pic, the organic stuff would be burning or smoking.
What you see coming out of WTC2 then is molten metal, and much more likely to be steel, and is a far cry from the NIST proposal of an exotic mix of everything.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
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

.

Why do you think he would know? he had nothing at all to do with the construction of the building.