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

reply to post by Sinny


Yes I believe that the London Bombings were also a false flag terrorist attack, the movie 'TerrorStorm' goes into pretty good detail on that topic. This movie also covers American false flags in our past as well as false flags in other countries, and really illustrates how governments manipulate people. I think it's a great movie because it helps you see how the American government has done things like that before, so why wouldn't they do it again?

reply to post by TupacShakur


With all of evidence I am astounded they we are referred to as the lunatics. I am a Doctor with alot of education and a loon cause I question the "official story?" Hmmmmmm.

reply to post by iamaperson


Wow you notice nothing significant about the report? You mustn't of read it.

Motlen Steel, impossible with just fire. Yet it was there, many witnesses saw it.
Pilot flew into the Pentagon doing a maneuver that is almost impossible, hits the pentagon without touching the lawn...odd to say the least.
FBI cleaning up evidence.
Fires that raged in other buildings couldn't take the buildings down, yet the same type of fire rages in WTC7 and it goes down like a controlled demolition and creates smoke that only controlled demolitions and volcanoes can create.
The lack of funding for the investigation and how tight-lipped it was and censored.

I mean thats just a handful, it goes on and on. Are you blind to the facts, or just being ignorant of them?

reply to post by TupacShakur

Link: The Loose Cannon of 9/11

Korey Rowe: What I encourage people to do is go out and research it themselves. We don't ever come out and say that everything we say is 100 percent. We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves -- the B52 (remarked to have flown into the Empire State Building), the use of Wikipedia, things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your own conclusions. That's our whole goal, to make Americans think. To wake up from the 16 amps of your television to watch something and get a passion in something again.

If you are going to release a documentary with flaws, the bottom line is that your film is based upon lies. When people watch the film "Loose Change", they have to keep in mind that its a 'fictional piece'.

Korey Rowe: "Loose Change" happened by accident. The whole thing started out as a fictional screenplay about me and Dylan and another friend of ours finding out 9/11 was an inside job. It started out as a comedic action film with us being chased by the FBI and all that.

....and, it still is a fictional screen play.

Well, that was fun. It only took second to debunk "Loose Change". Since the film was also re-edited about a hundred times, alterations made to fit the narrative, I can say for 100% certainty that the 'official public story' is 100% accurate. Terrorists did attack the United States on 9/11/01.

reply to post by Gorman91

It's the US government, they know most anything.

Yes and many members of our government said time and time again that they had no prior knowledge of the attacks and that nobody could have predicted it.

Most of the stuff about the actual buildings is unproven speculation at best

Did you even watch the film or read the summary? Both the WTC construction manager and structural engineer saying that it was designed to absorb a commercial airline blow without even coming close to a structural failure is unproven speculation?

Mathematics calculating free-fall speed being nearly identical to the time that it took those buildings to fall is speculation? No that is a proven fact.

The molten metal piles at the bottom of both WTCs and WTC7 were there, thermal imaging and witnesses testimonies can back that up, as well as molten metal and white smoke leaking out of the WTCs 1:20 before it's collapse.

How were explosions occuring at the botom of the towers if a plane hit the top? Was that fireman just speculating about when he saw an elevator blow up at the base of the tower and people emerge from it on fire?

Is the controlled demolition expert with 27 years of experience just speculating when he says that the way WTC7 falls is "absolutely" a controlled demolition?

When all three buildings are pulvlerized and form a pyroclastic flow, which is only present in volcanoes or controlled demolition, is that too just speculation? Was there a volcano underneath those three towers, which explains the heat spikes which we mistook for molten metal?

I could go on and on, but that's what the purpose of my OP was, to answer those questions and leave no doubt. Did you just skim through them or something? Because it doesn't really leave too much room for doubt.

reply to post by Section31


Yeah your complete lack of addressing the evidence presented within the film and instead attacking the credibility of the film-markers really closed the book on this one.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Section31

 

Yeah your complete lack of addressing the evidence presented within the film and instead attacking the credibility of the film-markers really closed the book on this one.

Always check the credibility of your sources.

Always.

reply to post by hanyak69

With all of evidence I am astounded they we are referred to as the lunatics. I am a Doctor with alot of education and a loon cause I question the "official story?" Hmmmmmm.

That's propaganda at it's finest doing it's job. The mainstream media constantly has unbelievably biased new stories about "A conspiracy theory has emerged that our own government was behind the 9/11 attacks.", followed by some smartass comments trying to make us out to seem crazy. Then the idiots at home watching CNN say "Haha yeah that is stupid, that attractive reporter said it, so her biased scripted opinion is a fact and we should all think that way"

The fact that mainstream media reported the collapse of WTC7 prior to its collapse is a dead giveaway that the media is controlled and told what to say. Welcome to the Ministry of Truth, we are seriously living in a propaganda filled, manipulating society just like '1984'.

reply to post by Section31


I focus more on the credibility of the people within the film who say that 9/11 was an inside job, the engineers, construction managers, firemen, witnesses, controlled demolition experts, etc., not the dude who used an editing software to put the pieces of the puzzle together for us and provide commentary along with the evidence.

The whole thing started out as a fictional screenplay

I don't care if it started out as porno, it's a great film with heaps of evidence to back up every single one of it's assertions.

reply to post by TupacShakur

Our government had knowledge prior of the attacks and knew that airplanes would be hi-jacked, but they took no measure to prevent such an event from happenning. Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer worked with a military intelligence program "Able Danger" in 2000, and they identified 4 of the hi-jackers as possible Al Qaeda members. Beginning in September 2000, three meetings set up with the FBI by him were each canceled by military lawyers. Shaffer lost his security clearance to view classified information after going public. This prior knowledge blatantly contradicts George Bush's and Condoleezza Rice's statements that nobody could have predicted terrorists to fly airplanes into those buildings.

Prior knowledge? This point is certainly beleivable.
And certainly boosted by the whole Sibel Edmonds fiasco. www.justacitizen.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

On the 1st of February 2011, Edmonds published a story on her own website adding details of incidents she claimed took place in April 2001. This included her role as translator where an informant had told the FBI agents, at that time:
Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this.
The agents, along with Edmonds, reported this information internally at the FBI but, according to Edmonds, no one at the bureau ever asked for follow-ups or further information prior to 9/11 [8]

Why if, they had this info, did they choose to bury it.

Either they are complicit.
Or they are hiding incompetence.

reply to post by TupacShakur

Yes and many members of our government said time and time again that they had no prior knowledge of the attacks and that nobody could have predicted it.

Governments lie.

Did you even watch the film or read the summary? Both the WTC construction manager and structural engineer saying that it was designed to absorb a commercial airline blow without even coming close to a structural failure is unproven speculation?

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

Mathematics calculating free-fall speed being nearly identical to the time that it took those buildings to fall is speculation? No that is a proven fact.

Architectural minimalism. No redundancy. mies van der rohe style. It makes for such things.

The molten metal piles at the bottom of both WTCs and WTC7 were there, thermal imaging and witnesses testimonies can back that up, as well as molten metal and white smoke leaking out of the WTCs 1:20 before it's collapse.

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

How were explosions occuring at the botom of the towers if a plane hit the top? Was that fireman just speculating about when he saw an elevator blow up at the base of the tower and people emerge from it on fire?

Considering there are videos of firemen in the lobby before the collapse, and it was not blown up, I'd call that a lie. As to elevators and people on fire. Well yea, that's what happens when you run into an elevator when a building got hit by a plane.

Is the controlled demolition expert with 27 years of experience just speculating when he says that the way WTC7 falls is "absolutely" a controlled demolition?

Experience doesn't guarantee correctness. Consensus does. And before you bring up the "loads" of people who have claimed it was a demo, very few have actually been proven.

When all three buildings are pulvlerized and form a pyroclastic flow, which is only present in volcanoes or controlled demolition, is that too just speculation? Was there a volcano underneath those three towers, which explains the heat spikes which we mistook for molten metal?

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

I could go on and on, but that's what the purpose of my OP was, to answer those questions and leave no doubt. Did you just skim through them or something? Because it doesn't really leave too much room for doubt.

Clearly I still am doubting anything beyond either a lazy bureaucratic, or government allowing something to happen for their own desires.

ABC interviewed Dylan Avery and tried to make them look bad instead of dicussion the topics in Loose Change

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Really? It seems just the opposite. Because if all it takes is a YouTube video to convince you that unproven claims are somehow "truth", then there is no hope for the future of this country.

Unproven claims? I don't think you watched the Youtube video that you're so quick to denounce, because those claims are definitely proven. It's not just wild speculation, there are countless interview with credible people who know what they are talking about.

Instead of simply saying that the claims are unproven, how about you show us? instead of just popping in and flexing your ego by remarking about how idiotic we are for believing the evidence presented with a YouTube video is the truth, how about you go through bullet by bullet, tell us how the expert testimonies and cold hard facts are unproven. Tell us exactly what is wrong about every assertion presented within the film or the summary, don't just say its wrong and leave.

Originally posted by Gorman91

Experience doesn't guarantee correctness. Consensus does.

You didn't really just type that? Consensus guarantees correctness? LOL, wow, you and I both know that's total bull.

reply to post by OMsk3ptic
[moreW]What left wing manual did you get that gem out of? Sorry, I meant Gorman.

reply to post by Gorman91

Governments lie.

Yes and they lied about 9/11.

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

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, massive airplanes smashing into buildings are massive airplanes smashing into buildings.

Architectural minimalism. No redundancy. mies van der rohe style. It makes for such things.

Ok then explain to me how the building fell symmetrically if the airplane crashed into the top of the building? How did that weaken every support beam to simultaneously make the building collapse, falling at free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, producing a pyroclastic flow and molten metal.

Considering there are videos of firemen in the lobby before the collapse, and it was not blown up, I'd call that a lie. As to elevators and people on fire. Well yea, that's what happens when you run into an elevator when a building got hit by a plane.

There is an interview in the video with a fireman who was in the lobby, calling him a liar for going into a building to try to rescue people from death and telling us about his experience is very unpatriotic of you. The elevator was at the bottom of the building, how does a plane hitting 2000+ feet above the elevator make the ground level explode? That is just not possible.

Experience doesn't guarantee correctness. Consensus does. And before you bring up the "loads" of people who have claimed it was a demo, very few have actually been proven.

Ok let's forget about all of the credible witnesses and just ask ourselves one question, how does a fire which is on 6 out of 47 floors simultanseously make all 81 support beams fail? For the building to symmetrically collapse in the manner that it did that's exactly what had to occur, and how the building fell is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

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

In the film which you clearly didn't watch there's an interivew with a bunch of the fireman who were checking out the building and they all say that there was molten metal in there, I think they described it as a "steel foundry". You said that consensus guarantees correctness, and those fireman are at a consensus that molten metal was down there. Plus thermal imaging proves molten metal was down there

reply to post by OMsk3ptic


Not really. When a very experienced person says something, it's not as likely to be correct as when an entire university's worth of experienced people say the opposite. One experienced person doesn't make it right. A consensus of experienced people does.

reply to post by dillweed


Okay, here's what's amusing to me. The people that come here that swallow the official story seem to be completely ignoring the points made in the OP. They can't even invalidate one piece of evidence, yet they come here and cry out "oh you stupid conspiracy believers." I'm still waiting for someone to come on this thread and disprove the claims made, point-by-point, and bullet-by-bullet. Building 7 has yet to be addressed, and when it is addressed, it's just official-story-swallowers grasping at straws and parroting things that they heard from the very people that committed the crime. It's kind of like asking a suspect in a murder case to provide evidence that would have him convicted. It's not gonna happen. Star and Flag from me sir, at least until someone comes and refutes the points made in the OP (with reasonable answers based on some critical thinking, and not repeating what they've heard on the news). Which I highly doubt anyone will be able to do.

Originally posted by Swizzy
It really grinds my gears when I read something so contradictive as "99% undeniable conclusive evidence". Undeniable and conclusive is 100%, not 99%.

If you can have 100% of thing, you can have 99% of a thing. The OP is not incorrect. We're talking basic conceptual percentile mathematics here.

By your own words, undeniable and conclusive infer 100% or one hundred parts out of one hundred parts. Thus, 99% or ninety nine parts out of one hundred parts can exist.

To simplify, if a thing is said to be 99%, 44%, 3% or any percentage less than 100% undeniable, the thing by definition is not undeniable and thus deniable. I do not know if this was the OP's intention but it stands. I agree with mostly everything found in the summaries.

What grinds my gears is folks whose gears are grinded by imagined contradictions.

reply to post by TupacShakur

Yes and they lied about 9/11.

I do not deny that, I deny the 99% proof of the government purposely blowing up the towers.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying, massive airplanes smashing into buildings are massive airplanes smashing into buildings.

A biplane and a 747 are both planes. One has a bigger boom. Please don't be ignorant.

Ok then explain to me how the building fell symmetrically if the airplane crashed into the top of the building? How did that weaken every support beam to simultaneously make the building collapse, falling at free-fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, producing a pyroclastic flow and molten metal.

They clearly did not. Most of the tower fell towards one side, other parts fell the opposing way. Straight down? That's what you get from pancaking, which comes directly from Mies Van Der Rohe designs.

There is an interview in the video with a fireman who was in the lobby, calling him a liar for going into a building to try to rescue people from death and telling us about his experience is very unpatriotic of you. The elevator was at the bottom of the building, how does a plane hitting 2000+ feet above the elevator make the ground level explode? That is just not possible.

I really don't care about people's claims unless I can see it. I saw a video of firemen int he lobby, without anything wrong. How does the fire reach ground level? When big thing go boom, elevators fall.

Ok let's forget about all of the credible witnesses and just ask ourselves one question, how does a fire which is on 6 out of 47 floors simultanseously make all 81 support beams fail? For the building to symmetrically collapse in the manner that it did that's exactly what had to occur, and how the building fell is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

From the video alone it clearly was not only on 6 floors, and it clearly did not all fall at the same time. You can make out the core of the building staying up while the floors fall. You can also make out the different structural elements. Basically, the floors fell, and without floors to hold them in place, the mains supports came down after them. You can get the same effect with a shish kabob.

In the film which you clearly didn't watch there's an interivew with a bunch of the fireman who were checking out the building and they all say that there was molten metal in there, I think they described it as a "steel foundry". You said that consensus guarantees correctness, and those fireman are at a consensus that molten metal was down there. Plus thermal imaging proves molten metal was down there

You're adding straws. An elevator shaft going to the main heart of the fire would, indeed, have molten metal in it. That doesn't mean anything was happening at ground level. Things fall. If anything, that proves that the structural supports were differentiating and separating before the collapse, making panicking more likely. And like I said, simple thermal laws do not allow anything but a volcano to remain molten days after an event occurs. Not even termite, not anything. The energy required to fuel such heat comes only from geological sources.