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

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Earlier you ask why we don't trust the testimony of firemen who say they saw molten steel at the WTC. Wy do you not trust their testimony when it comes to Building 7?

And herein lies the problem with any eyewitness evidence from either side of the debate on this website.

One side will not accept eyewitness testimony that supports the opposing side, regardless of the context.

Whether it's in or out of context. There is always a reason why the testimony is not acceptable.

Yet we still seem to be able to rely on it in a court of law.

Great post TupacShakur. There's a lot of information here for somebody to take, but I sure hope they don't pass it up. Also thanks for going out of your way to do a summary. However, in today's internet day and age I feel everything that you presented would be even more best presented in video format just for the fact that there's a lot of people who either won't take the time to read everything before jumping the gun on presenting a closed minded opinion or simply won't even show it the attention unless they can watch it. Again, thanks for the great post and for the time you took to research your information. I just have to also say that the information is there which means the truth is there and it's people like yourself who looks and digs for that information to bring such a truth to the surface is a daily number of growing people and like I said, it's thanks to people like yourself. However a note to other ATS. If you are a skeptic and even if you are not, don't settle for anybody else's word, point of view or belief on the situation, do your own reserach, form your own opinion and come to your own conclusion, not because you have the right, but because it's regular common sense and your own common sense is something that cannot be disputed

reply to post by GoodOlDave


FINE.... Then just say you believe 22000 gallons of jet fuel demolished three steel/concrete buildings.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Then just say you believe 22000 gallons of jet fuel demolished three steel/concrete buildings.

reply to post by thedman


Look here genius , your trying to debunk people that have commen sense and have legitimate points about what happen.. what do you have ? evidence presented by the government.. why dont you just say: you believe 22000 gallons of jet fuel demolished three steel/concrete buildings. NONE OF YOU DEBUNKERS EVER SAY THOSE SIMPLE WORDS.

I refer to E.P. Heidner's research into the 9/11 events.

When considering motive for the crime, first ask yourselves "Are we dealing with a crime, or something else?"

These events weren't politically motivated crimes. They were efforts to cover-up previous financial crimes.

At the end of WWII, 280,000 metric tons of gold was taken from the Japanese empire and used by US intelligence agencies and commercial banks to fund covert operations.

Some names of primary conspirators include Henry Stimson, John McCloy, John B. Anderson and Bill Donovan.

Other more recognizable names included Allen Dulles, Henry and Spenser Morgan, William Colby and William Casey.

A **itload of legacy events happens between this time and the presidency of George H.W. Bush. But with all that Gold, you can imagine the accounting matters required to keep it all a secret while still spending it on what was seen fit.

Skipping all of that, we arrive in 1991. Being a CIA man himself, G Bush and conspirators are well entrenched in the fraud. It's decided that $240 billion dollars will be created in US securities for the purpose of destroying and assimilating the Soviet Union. A side-effect of this would be the end of the cold war.

So, the illegal bonds are created and the cash is used by US and allied parties to slowly buy up Soviet business, oil and gas infrastructure.

Again, skipping past all the history and detailed account of how this led to the collapse of the Soviet Union we fast forward to 2000.

Cantor Fitzgerald was the primary target on 9/11, so flight 11 struck just below them.

Then, explosions on floors 23 and 25 of the north tower; housing FBI and Garbon Inter Capital respectively.

Flight 175 hits Euro Brokers in the south tower, but not before explosions in the tower's basement. Hundreds of billions in securities for bonds are destroyed.

41% of the fatalities in the Twin Towers came from two companies that managed U.S. government securities: Cantor Fitzgerald and Eurobrokers.

The Office of Naval Intelligence is then hit at the Pentagon. 39 of 40 Office of Naval Intelligence employees die.

Take a look at the top of building 6 before the twin towers collapse. It's scooped out down to the basement. Both U.S. Customs and the El Dorado Task Force were in building 6 and handled all major money laundering cases in the US.

The 4th plane was supposed to hit building 7, but failed for an unknown reason. The Export-Import Bank, US Secret Service, SEC, IRS, CIA and DoD were all housed in 7 and also in ongoing financial crimes investigations getting too close for comfort.

Almost all evidence in all cases was destroyed when 7 blew. Not intended, but good for the gander.

Later in the day, despite suffering no operational loss the SEC invokes its emergency powers for the first time. This relaxed security trading for 15 days and allowed the $240 billion to be cleared at maturity without disclosure of ownership.

BTW, the date of maturity of these securities was Sept. 12th. Cutting it close, eh!?

The $240 billion in securities was covered by Treasury notes, paid for by US tax payers of course.

So, do you think some of these guys were sweating on the faithful day? Do they still sweat 10 years later?

reply to post by spoor


Stop picking on Tupac with minor details. why dont you grow some balls and admit you believe 100% that only jet fuel demolished these three steel/concrete structures.

reply to post by proveyance


very good post!

reply to post by thedman


How did the 2 Towers fires not spread ?? They were unfought as well ??

Right, lets fight enemy aircraft over the ocean, if they make it THIS far we are done anyways.

I still love the buildings exploding into dust particles being caused by gravity , and plane impacts an hour or more earlier,, godDAM that stored energy is just soooo, KINETIC. err

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Then just say you believe 22000 gallons of jet fuel demolished three steel/concrete buildings.

And the plane.

You forgot the plane. Which is weird, because it's pretty hard to forget.

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by thedman

 

Look here genius , your trying to debunk people that have commen sense and have legitimate points about what happen.. what do you have ? evidence presented by the government.. why dont you just say: you believe 22000 gallons of jet fuel demolished three steel/concrete buildings. NONE OF YOU DEBUNKERS EVER SAY THOSE SIMPLE WORDS.

Sure, soon as you say that you think the only thing that happened on 9/11 is someone dumped a few barrels of jet fuel on the floor and threw in a match.

reply to post by dilly1


Minor details? That is what makes a case. Grow some balls? really? Your explanations of what you think is the truth makes me think you were not even a teen when this happened and have little or no understanding of physics nor what happened other than what you have browsed on Alex Jones and his sister sites.

Have you ever seen the videos of the fires? Raw video, not the ones on conspiracy sites. For anyone to say the fires were not that strong or hot is obviously looking at the wrong videos. It was not fire alone however.

There were a few factors

1. 2 Planes slammed into each tower at over 500 mph filled with jet fuel for a cross country trip.
2. Said planes remove/destory close to 25% of the support columns in the towers.
3. Fires weaken and not melt the steel at this point.
4. When the collapse initiates there are no special physics, just gravity. There is only one way to go and that is down.

As far as 7, based on damage and fires it collapses hours later. Why not do all the buildings at once? No one ever addressed this...why not have them collapse when the other towers go? and, where is all of the evidence of explosives. I am not referring to a paint chip of something you can hold in your hand.

www.nysm.nysed.gov...

Where is it? All those FBI agents are in on it, right? and the FDNY, the PANY and NYPD?

Thank you for enlightening the community! Its a shame what our country will do to cover their lies, and MAKE MONEY!!!

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


22000 gallons of fuel is part of the plane ,genius... but you my troll friend is the reason why all you debunkers have no weight in the debate. here i am asking from you to tell me a simple statement (i believe 22000 gallons of jet fuel demolished three steel/concrete buildings), but you cant . all you debunkers focus on minor details,,and the plane is a minor detail. the plane only knocked whatever amount of steel columns it hit. thats it . what structural damage(of the ENTIRE building) is there when the steel columns on the upper floors are extremely damaged= NONE ,,TO THE REST OF THE BUILDING (THE STRUCTURE) WAS FULLY INTACT. THE TWIN TOWERS WERE DESIGNED TO WITH STAND A MUCH BIGGER 747 JUMBO JET IMPACT. The thing is you have no concept of construction and you have no concept of the core center structure of the twin towers. you have no idea how strong the core is . you clearly dont. ...The steel columns outside the core , is what the planes damaged.ARE YOU HEARING ME GENIUS!!! The center core cannot be weakened by an impact of a plane. The only way the plane could be a major issue is if the plane did have the correct velocity, angel and managed to impact at a much lower floor , then maybe,MAYBE, it could damage the core of the building. BUT if thats true then the building would tip over like a log ..NOT DISINTEGRATE . SO CAN YOU PLEASE LET EVERYONE IN ATS THAT YOU BELIEVE 22000 GALLONS OF JET FUEL DEMOLISHED THREE STEEL/CONCRETE BUILDINGS... can you do that .

reply to post by hooper


You cant , thats what i thought. another ignorant fool.

Originally posted by Krusty the Klown
And herein lies the problem with any eyewitness evidence from either side of the debate on this website.

One side will not accept eyewitness testimony that supports the opposing side, regardless of the context.

Whether it's in or out of context. There is always a reason why the testimony is not acceptable.

Yet we still seem to be able to rely on it in a court of law.

That's not true. My viewpoint is that they were there and I wasn't, so I necessarily need to believe all the eyewitness testimony and it's my responsibility to see how all the testimony fits together with each other.

-When witnesses say they heard explosions, I certainly believe it. the problem is that they weren't explosives. They were the flammable objects in every building that go BOOM when they catch on fire.

-When a Red Cross worker claims she heard a countdown, I certainly believe it. What she heard wasn't an actual countdown and it had no relation to the collpase of WTC 7. It was something that she herself interpreted as a countdown. For all I know it was someone listing off the numbers assigned to firefighter units in sequence that she interpreted as a count down.

-When William Rodriguez claims he felt an explosion below him before feeling an eplosion above him, I certainly believe it. The plane impact caused fireballs to shoot down the elevator shaft to the basement, and the shock wave from the fireballs would travel faster through open air than it would through the solid structure.

It's clear there's no reason why I need to disbelieve any of the eyewitnesses, becuase the confusion being sown isn't coming from them- it's coming form the conspiracy mongors who are interpreting what theyre saying in they way they want to interpret it. On the other hand, the conspiracy mongors are notorious for disbelieving anyone and anything that refute their conspiracy claims to the point where even a guy driving a taxi out by the Pentagon is accused of beign a secret gov't agent simply because he's saying thing the conspiracy mongors don't want to accept as being true.

Seriously, how can anyone possibly confuse "Do the orders still stand" with "stand down order" unless they consciously want to misrepresent one into becoming the other?

reply to post by esdad71


Sir, now I believe that you can't grasp the concept of such an event taking place due to the fact that your mind would surely be filled with questions as to "why?" followed by you seeing every event that has spawned from that tragic incident for what it really is. However, if you look at things with an open mind you can see things that the closed mind hadn't before. Now I was a teenager when everything had taken place, in fact I was in middle school. However, I had to grow up with all the consequences of such an event that had changed a lot of peoples lives mostly for the worst, not just in America, but all over the globe. Media today isn't as free and as unbiased as you may think it is today in our lovely free socities, there for neither is the information you recieve.
If high status people in our socities question the event..

..and certified professionals who's opinion we value or else they wouldn't have obtained the title professional







And for unexplained things happening at the ground level..





Then my friend, it's only common sense to question such things.

Originally posted by dilly1
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

FINE.... Then just say you believe 22000 gallons of jet fuel demolished three steel/concrete buildings.

I don't necessarily believe that either. There are other engineers (I.E. Bill Manning from Fire Engineering & Dr. James Quintiere of NIST) who conclude the structures fell less from the fires and more from their not having sufficient fireproofing to begin with. Their studies are equally as credible as the NIST report, the MIT report, and the Perdue study, so I cannot dismiss any of them until they can be disproven.

The only thing I can say with 100% undoubting certainty is that there are a number of legitimate explanations for why the towers fell that contradict the NIST report without requiring any idiotic schemes involving lasers from outer space, secret controlled demolitions, mini-nukes, or whatever. Why the conspiracy mongors always skip over the rational explanations and instinctively gravitate to the sinister sounding explanations is beyond me.

If you absolutely want to know my position, then I subscribe to the Perdue University study that says the plane impacts caused far more grave damage to the structure than what NIST takes into account. This "the buildings were designed to withstand a plane impact" factoid came from a media release published back before the buildings were even built and is based more on public relations than actual architectural analysis.

reply to post by esdad71


1. So I assume you believe jet fuel demolished three steel/concrete buildings.

2. Construction 101 : the center core holds the tower up and the steel columns outside of the center core support the floors. The plane did not damage the core, and if it did it would not be the reason for the a complete free fall.

3 . Fires do not weaken steel. You have no proof of that because it has never been done before and all steel has a fire protection applied. Could the fire protection on the impact floors be detached by the plane impact,,MAYBE,, but the floors below no way. . There our has been many(more intense) steel/concrete fires in the past that the steel and concrete are not weakened.

4. Explain to me how the weight of the floors above the plane impact could demolish the rest of the building which has the core and support column fully intact.


And you talk about "where's all the evidence". Where have you been living ? Under a rock?. The evidence is under the control of the government moron. We truthers only use logic. Unfortunately that's all what we have.

reply to post by dilly1


You seem to think that a plane hitting a building at 550+ miles an hour is going to have little effect. Total nonsense. I don't need to have a detailed grasp of complex physics to know that it's not going to have a negligible impact on what happens next.