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

reply to post by thedman

The picture of the firemen standing around the alleged" molten steel" has been revealed to be a high intensity
light

They were peering into a hole with a high intensity light searching for human remains

The photo was faked by truthers

Look starting at 1:50 - can see fake photo vs the REAL photo. Someone cranked up the brightness on the
original

www.youtube.com...

Question is why do you persist in lying and using fake photos?

Dude that is one picture that's a proven fake, what about the other ones? Just because one is faked, all of them are faked? Great logic! And you say that like I intentionally searched for fake photos, what about the other ones dude? What about that video? Are you going to debunk it, or are you going to nit-pick little details and strawman my well thought out posts and not even address the entire argument?

reply to post by TupacShakur


I have not refused anything, I am starting with Step one. Since you still want to put those people up there, and you are combining multiple points into one, lets break it down like this.Now, the main reason anti-OS believers bring up 'molten steel' is because they want to link it to nano-thermite or state that the steel could not be hot enough to melt...

During attacks - There is, in ONE instance, a picture that shows what appears to be 'melted steel pouring' from the side of the building. It is sometimes explained that this is the thermite starting it's cut. It shows a material falling and then cooling. NIST determined this was aluminum and was coming from where the plane that struck came to a halt.

Immediately following attacks - In the days after the attacks, there were descriptions of extremely hot metal and glowing red metal. Why would this not be there? Why would the ground not be so hot it would melt shoes. 2 110 story buildings collapsed into a several story basement system(you know the WTC design, right?). It would be expected to see this and experience this based on the creation of what is a huge smelter of the WTC site.

Weeks after attacks - The fires burned for months, and this is partially due to where the debris fell to and stayed and how hard it was to uncover and clean up. Still no 'huge pools' of cooled metal in the basements have been found. If you look up exothermic reactions you will see that while they responders were trying to fight the fires with water they were actually making it worse.

That is what I am discrediting, not what those people saw although there is quite a difference between liquid metal and cooled metal.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

This is the statement that is always used by Truthers but if we go a little farther we see...

Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
www.controlled-demolition.com

So, now we cannot confirm what someone said to someone else. Straight from the person you quote they say they did not see it.

Again, I will also note that BUilding 6 have "molten metal" seen onsite so does that mean Thermite was used there also?

reply to post by dilly1


It was a starting point in the whole process. As town goes on will learn more and more

Also do you know what the objective of the 9/11 commission was?

It was to investigate the intelligence failures which allowed the hijackers entry into the country and how they
trained for their mission

Nothing to do with how buildings collapsed - that was FEMA/NIST

Nothing about WTC 7 because it was not germane to the commision - as WTC 3 (Marriott Hotel) WTC 4, 5, 6
and other building impacted in the area

I have been able to listen to the FDNY incident commanders and talk to them. My neigbor's son-in-law was
one of the counsels to the 9/11 commision - his 2 brothers-in-law who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald died there
been able to talk to her and gain insights

My knowledge base of what went on that day overweighs the mommy's basement commandos we see here

reply to post by dilly1


Ferry Feline huh? So you have reduced yourself to attacking an avatar? We are not at war because it is not declared? I would hope by your speech you have some type of military experience that is elevated higher than COD4 and realize that we have operations going on in many countries that many people never know about, hear about or care about as long as they get their Starbucks each day .

I am not living under a rock. I am actually living a great life not in fear of anything or wondering when the next false flag will occur or wondering where the latest FEMA camp is popping up. If you did that, you would drive yourself crazy because everyday, others, just like the 19 arab guys you described, are attempting to cause something that will make 9/11 look like a walk in the park.

I have not seen you add anything to this thread except to cheer on the OP so can you answer any questions or are you simple a parrot/copy-paster who rides the coat tails of those who have the balls to post something such as the OP did. The problem is that there are too many points and should be broken into separate threads where something might actually be accomplished.

So, now that we have the pools of liquid metal found in the basement out of the way, I think I will FF the video and see the next point we can teach you the truth about.

Sound good Dilly Dally?

reply to post by TupacShakur

Dude that is one picture that's a proven fake, what about the other ones? Just because one is faked, all of them are faked

So the question is if you know its fake then why did you use it?

Unless you are lying and attempting to deceive people ....

So you call yourself truthers yet persist in using fake "evidence"

reply to post by esdad71

During attacks - There is, in ONE instance, a picture that shows what appears to be 'melted steel pouring' from the side of the building. It is sometimes explained that this is the thermite starting it's cut. It shows a material falling and then cooling. NIST determined this was aluminum and was coming from where the plane that struck came to a halt.

Yes and in that video that I've asked you to watch 47398520352345290837537658376584 times, they show how molten aluminum does NOT look like what was dripping out of the tower. On top of that, in the summary I posted there is a video of molten aluminum pouring. Why are you not even looking at the evidence I post? Am I just wasting my time? Because if you're not even going to look at the evidence I post, let's just end this discussion right now. I'm sick of walking you babies through it step by step since you can't take 10 minutes to look at the evidence that I spend hours compiling.

Immediately following attacks - In the days after the attacks, there were descriptions of extremely hot metal and glowing red metal. Why would this not be there? Why would the ground not be so hot it would melt shoes. 2 110 story buildings collapsed into a several story basement system(you know the WTC design, right?). It would be expected to see this and experience this based on the creation of what is a huge smelter of the WTC site.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ff6eb14e1a60.jpg[/atsimg]
That's why.

So you think that ONE person saying that he didn't see molten steel discredits all of the previous witnesses and voids their testimonies?

DO NOT IGNORE THIS QUESTION OR I WILL NOT RESPOND TO YOUR POSTS ANYMORE:
Why are you not addressing that video? Why aren't you proving to me how the physics used in the experimentation is wrong? Why aren't you pointing out the flaws in the analysis and showing how the official story is false?

I'm done with this discussion until you address the summary of the video, because I spent hours putting that together and you just ignored the entire thing.

reply to post by thedman

So the question is if you know its fake then why did you use it?

Unless you are lying and attempting to deceive people ....

So you call yourself truthers yet persist in using fake "evidence"

I didn't know it was fake when I posted it, I said it's a proven fake because you proved to me that it's a fake.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dd241cf248a9.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by TupacShakur


Nice pic of you and your friend. You should make it your avatar. You seem to not be able to defend anything you post except to show the same picture which tells us nothing. I have already researched it and read what it is, i just want to see if you will step outside of your Alex Jones/truther box and read what I am posting.

for the last time, I watched the video and it does not prove anything. It is a bunch of statements with no evidence or facts to back it up. I started with Molten pools of lava in the basement. That is it. We have to start somewhere. You could not tell me who said it. you gave me links to credible individuals who described things they saw. I read them. I did not see where one of them stated they saw pools of molten steel. Also, remember there is a difference between melted steel and melted metals that may adhere to steel that melt at lower temps that will give the impression of melted steel. I showed you a statement that discredits one of your links so I would call than debunked.

Lets talk about Prior knowledge next since that is the next on your list...

You state...

Prior Knowledge:
-- 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.

Now, Able Danger was created in 98 as a data mining operation to find terrorists and link them to attacks. It was disbanded and much of that information was not transferred between govt agencies or was deemed not appropriate as far as how it was gathered and would not stand up in court, which is why lawyers were involved. They actually discovered information prior to the attack on the USS Cole which to me was their main failure. It was closed after the DIA decided to not back it and decided that there were other avenues used to collect this information such as the CIA who was also doing a similar operation. There is so much more to this story than to simply say they identified some hijackers and when they did, it was shut down. That is not what happened.

Also, Shaffer currently serves as the Reserve G6 Assistant Chief of Staff, Communications and Technology of an Army Reserve division. He is also a senior advisor to multiple organizations on terrorism and counterinsurgency issues and a member of the U.S. Nuclear Strategy Forum. He was stripped of nothing.

Although they did identify 2 0f 3 cells that were used on 9/11 at the time they were not aware of any active plots. Amazing how it all sounds so different when all the facts are presented.

Cannot wait for you to stop responding...

I think this is the proof we all have been looking for.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9038e6cde0cd.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by esdad71
You really piss me off dude. I put that in an extremely simple format, statements with evidence taken from experimentation and facts to back it up, but I will simplify it even more just for you buddy.

I watched the video and it does not prove anything. It is a bunch of statements with no evidence or facts to back it up

I will go through the video once again, and point out the "statements", then point out the "evidence" and the "facts" used to back it up.

From the video:
Exhibit A: The molten steel and iron:
Statements: NIST speculated that the molten metal seen dripping from the tower before the collapse was some type of an aluminum mix, but provided no experimental confirmation of their theory.

Evidence: Molten Aluminum:

Molten Aluminum:

Molten metal seen dripping from tower:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/140bfb66b935.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: Molten aluminum is silver, and molten steel is not silver. The molten metal seen dripping from the tower was not silver, therefore the molten metal seen dripping from the tower was not aluminum.

Statements: Iron microspheres were found throughout the dust, confirming temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Evidence: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a11ec07a598.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d89a065aa2c5.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: Iron microspheres can only be formed in temperatures high enough to melt steel. Jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel, therefore jet fuel did not create the iron microspheres. Iron microspheres are a natural biproduct of a thermitic reaction.

Evidence:

Speculation: Jet fuel office fires which burn 1000*F colder than what is needed to melt steel, somehow created the molten metal seen dripping from the towers and created the iron microspheres.

Facts: Jet fuel office fires burn 1000*F cooler than what is needed to melt steel, so the creation of molten steel and iron microspheres from jet fuel fires is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated. Molten steel and iron microspheres are biproducts of a thermitic reaction.

Exhibit B: The missing jolt and the problem with uniform acceleration.:
Statements: The media told us that the collapse of the towers was caused by a pancaking effect, but as you can see in this image they never explained what caused the steel core to collapse.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/349fbe35017c.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: In order to bend, crush, or move something below, any falling object must first experience a jolt, or a momentary deceleration, in order to apply a force that is larger than its own static weight. This jolt has been clearly measured in a natural gravitational collapse, and as the falling floors contact the stationary structure below, the downward acceleration reverses momentarily imposing a jolt, or force, larger than its static weight, destroying the structure below.

Evidence: Here's a video of that gravity driven collapse and the measurements to go with it:

But when the fall of the tower was measured, there was no jolt at all:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ecd9e86d7650.jpg[/atsimg]


Statements: In other words, the instant after the falling floors should have impacted the lower undamaged floors, the upper floors actually sped up, meaning that the force from the falling floors was less when accelerating down than when they were at rest.

Facts: Some other force must have weakened the stronger lower structure first allowing the roof to continually accelerate down. A downward accelerating object crushing a lower structure that once supported it statically but experiencing no jolts acting by gravity alone is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit C: The fall of the spire:
Statements: Just after the towers collapsed, the wind blew the dust exposing some inner core columns that some call the spire.

Facts: Office fires cannot cut steel, yet white smoke trailed from cut segments of falling steel, and the top of the spire was not bent from any impact above. The spire stood as a free standing structure with columns swaying but resisting like a flagpole. Rather than tipping over like a tree, this structure dropped straight down even though there was no load above.

Evidence: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47b7dd5c8b1f.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: A freestanding structure collapsing straight down through its path of greatest resistance by gravity alone is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit D: The "Crush-Down Crush-Up" theory:
Statements: A month after the collapse of the towers, Bazant and some others published a paper explaining how the towers fell, even though NIST could not explain it after years of study. Their paper described how the upper smaller blocks of floor crushed down the larger undamaged structure below down to the ground, and then the upper block crushed itself up.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fa7739f07fb5.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: Not only was no upper block observed impacting the lower sections, but why the spire was not crushed as the upper block fell was not explained. Newtons Third Law tells us that interactions between colliding objects are always equal and opposite, meaning that at any upper smaller block of floors would have also destroyed itself when impacting the larger structure below, well before it could have crushed all the way down to the ground. No experiment has ever demonstrated this crush-down/crush-up theory endorsed by NIST.

Evidence:

Facts: The theory of a smaller top block crushing down a stronger larger lower structure of similar material is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit E: The mysterious eutectic steel:
Statements: Some unique razor sharp steel that looked like swiss cheese was found at ground zero. Fire-wise professors found eutectic formations, a phenomenon never before observed in building fires.

Evidence: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a17aeae0e19.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: After doing some analysis in a laboratory, they identified it as a liquid containing iron, sulfur, and oxygen, the same materials found in thermate and cause similiar eutectic formations. NIST never solved where the sulfur came from, yet the media claimed that the sulfur game from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverized and burnt in the fires, even though gypsum is routinely used as fireproofing around steel. NIST and the media experts never conducted any experiments to back up their claim. But when gypsum and building material was packed around a steel beam and burned at similar temperatures for long durations, nothing of the sort happened.

Evidence:

Facts:: An experiment with thermate on the other hand (The Great Thermate Debate) did make the steel razor shape and look like swiss cheese. Since eutectic formations have not been replicated experimentally, the official story is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit F: Freefall acceleration:
Facts: WTC7 was never hit by an airplane or even mentioned in the official investigation.

Statements: It looked exactly like a controlled demolition

Facts: NIST said it was a progressive collapse caused by normal office fires. It fell for over 100ft at total free-fall, meaning that the underlying supports had to be removed first allowing it to fall freely.

Evidence:

Facts: Since a progressive collapse will not allow free fall, the official story is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Exhibit G: Nano-thermite:
Facts: The USGS and independent physicists analyzed lots of dust, collected by some inside of buildings near ground zero. In addition to iron microspheres, active nano-thermite was found, a military explosive that can be sprayed or painted on.

Evidence: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59151789bd41.jpg[/atsimg]

Facts: Being an engineered material with a special matrix, it cannot form naturally because that would defy the Law of Entropy (The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics). And it's not just primer paint, because it does not have the properties of paint, react like paint, or even look like paint.

Evidence:

Facts: The formation of nano-thermite naturally is impossible, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Is collapse inevitable?:
Facts:NIST never looked at the actual collapse mechanism and just assumed that collapse was inevitable. However real world experiences have demonstrated that collapse is not inevitable, and therefore the official story can be eliminated.

Evidence: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ebc0511e349.jpg[/atsimg]




What is not impossible?
Statements: Could 9/11 have been planned as a new Pearl Harbor necessary to galvanize popular support for preemptive wars using our military to secure trillions in oil and mineral wealth? Were explosives allowed in the towers by the security company that the Presidents brother was on the board of (Marvin Bush--Director of Stratesec)? Could cutter charges have been placed in the core when the elevator upgrades were made in March 2001? Could nano-thermite have been sprayed by unsuspecting workers in the towers when upgrades were made? Could computer controlled explosives have brought down the towers at almost freefall in an attempt to hide the action behind a curtain of falling debris? Was this a shock and awe event intended to scare Americans into giving up their liberties, and control dissent while making billions for the security and military-industrial complex? Could it have been used to remove obsolete towers and avoid costly asbestos removal, allowing modern structures to be built in there place? Was it used to hide financial issues, destroy key SEC files, address the Iraq petro-dollar problem, or murder those investigating over $2 trillion lost in the Pentagon? Are people talking, but we're not listening? Were those in the towers exploded into thousands of pieces just collateral damage for a much larger operation?

Facts: All of those things are not impossible But according to the official story, this--(Exhibit A: The molten steel and iron), this--(Exhibit B: The missing jolt and the problem with uniform acceleration), this--(Exhibit C: The fall of the spire), this--(Exhibit D: The "Crush-Down Crush-Up" theory), this--(Exhibit E: The mysterious eutectic steel), this--(Exhibit F: Freefall acceleration), and this--(Exhibit G: Nano-thermite) are all impossible. Yet every single one of those are a result of incendiaries, explosives, and controlled demolition.


So despite your claim that this video was just statements with no evidence or facts to back it up, I have just shown you that every statement made in that video indeed had evidence and facts to back it up. For you to invalidate the claims made in that video, you would have to use evidence and facts to back up your statements. So far, your only tactic to debunk the claims made in that video is to make statements, so until you use evidence and facts to prove that the statements made in that video which were backed up by facts and evidence are false, the video will be proof that the official story is impossible.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c51f44cd39fb.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Wizayne


the 3 Chinese guys...it has gone viral now!!!!

reply to post by TupacShakur


You're pissed because you are realizing you are wrong. How can I be pissing you off unless you realize that maybe I am right. You can continue to post the same pictures and the same statements but that does not make it correct. If you beat someone long enough they will admit to anything and it seems that is you MO.

If you pick and choose what to discuss, it may sound better, but when you step back and look at the big picture you see the cracks.

reply to post by Wizayne


Again you are lying.....

Columns were cut by ironworkers using thermal lances aka burning bars to cut them during recovery/cleanup

here is picture of one being used



Here is one such ironworker cutting a column



Why do you persist in using fake photos ?

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

You're pissed because you are realizing you are wrong. How can I be pissing you off unless you realize that maybe I am right. You can continue to post the same pictures and the same statements but that does not make it correct. If you beat someone long enough they will admit to anything and it seems that is you MO.

If you pick and choose what to discuss, it may sound better, but when you step back and look at the big picture you see the cracks.

Stop sidestepping and disprove/debunk the array of evidence put forward in Tupac`s last post, we are eagerly awaiting.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by Wizayne

 

Again you are lying.....

Columns were cut by ironworkers using thermal lances aka burning bars to cut them during recovery/cleanup

here is picture of one being used



Here is one such ironworker cutting a column



Why do you persist in using fake photos ?

I know exactly what the photo represents. Your inability to see the fact that it was humor mirrors your inability to understand why people question your hypothesis regarding the events of 9/11.

And where exactly was I lying before this post since you stated I lied again?



Here's proof the Pentagon was staged:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e620835506b3.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by esdad71
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/96f17f23d06c.jpg[/atsimg]
You must have missed this, as well as my entire last post:
"So despite your claim that this video was just statements with no evidence or facts to back it up, I have just shown you that every statement made in that video indeed had evidence and facts to back it up. For you to invalidate the claims made in that video, you would have to use evidence and facts to back up your statements. So far, your only tactic to debunk the claims made in that video is to make statements, so until you use evidence and facts to prove that the statements made in that video which were backed up by facts and evidence are false, the video will be proof that the official story is impossible."

Like 'Seventh' just said, we're all eagerly awaiting your debunking of the facts and evidence presented in that video.

And no you're not pissing me off because you're right, you're pissing me off because your close-minded 8 year old "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" approach to all of the evidence that I spend countless hours compiling is frusturating. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/91134ff873fc.jpg[/atsimg]

Go through every single piece of evidence and every fact that I organized for you since you were unable to understand what facts and evidence were when you watched it, and debunk them. Until you do that, your claims that the video is wrong without proving how just shows how idiotic a human being truly can be.

reply to post by esdad71


You can't handle the evidence man. What was that last reply?? You didn't even say anything but "where is the real evidence?".

Face it you have nothing to go on. Tupac there is no point in argueing with this guy. Obviously he just has his rainbow coloured glasses on. He refuses to adress the evidence.

Your just making yourself look like an idiot. 911 was an inside job its pretty obvious.

reply to post by esdad71


I think its time to rethink your stratagy.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7f1614656a3f.jpg[/atsimg]
(thedman)They're face palming incase it isnt clear this is fake.

I am taking it one at a time and you cannot accept it. I put up the information on Able Danger and all you can do is post funny ass pictures. It is ok. Just admit that your OP is incorrect. There is no way that the video or post presented shows it was an inside job.

Now, are you going to reply? You cannot debunk something that is incorrect to start with....

reply to post by esdad71

I am taking it one at a time and you cannot accept it. I put up the information on Able Danger and all you can do is post funny ass pictures. It is ok. Just admit that your OP is incorrect. There is no way that the video or post presented shows it was an inside job.

Now, are you going to reply? You cannot debunk something that is incorrect to start with....

No no no dude you were the one that said that video had no evidence or facts to back it up, and I proved you wrong. You can't accept that so now you're trying to shift the discussion over to another topic. Focus on that video, because you're the one that was badmouthing it. Now point out, "one at a time", what is wrong with that video that I carefully laid out for you. Once you're done with that, then we can move onto something else. If we're just jumping from topic to topic not solving anything then we're not going to get anywhere, so debunk that video first.

Also posting "funny ass pictures" isn't all I can do, I just include those in my posts because they go along with what I'm saying. Maybe with the reading comprehension of a 12 year old you're naturally drawn to the pictures and can't focus on anything else, but there's definitely more than just pictures in my posts.

So, we're all going to be waiting here until you debunk that video.