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

reply to post by kaiode1


While no steel building may have collapsed from fire, not all steel buildings are built the same way, and not all design styles have caught fire thanks to modern fire proofing styles. In particular, not many Meis Van Der Rohe styles have caught flame before, considering it's a fairly new style.

Every architect has a style. Architecture deals with joints. Joints keep a building up. Process counts. Some architects follow the style of others. Knowing the architect and the building allows me to know. Some designers use huge amounts of redundancies. These buildings do NOT collapse. Examples include the Empire State Building. Compare the construction systems of the new world trade center tower to the designs of the old one. It is of no coincidence that the structure is now triangulated and heavily redundant. They learned their lesson.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

If you believe you have evidence that 911 was an inside job why are you asking people on the internet to debunk you? Shouldn't you be taking this evidence to court?

Maybe if i wanted to be found hanging from a rope with six gunshot wounds to the head and a suicide note written in somebody elses handwriting I'd consider it. If they can orchestrate a false flag terrorist attack and get away with it then surely they can rig trial. But somehow the idea has never crossed my mind to take the ex-Bush administration to court. Is there an experienced lawyer on ATS who has an opinion?

READ THIS***

Only thing I don't believe is the "they knew ahead of time" theory.Because if this was actually the case it would be an admittance to the whole "19 Arabs with boxcutters" theory!!I mean if there was no plane wreckage and the fbi planted evidence then that would mean that it did NOT happen.There by making the "they knew ahead of time" not true!Why would they have to plant evidence if it actually happened??

So I honestly believe that the whole "they knew ahead of time" is just another lie to add to the story for confusion!Not saying the OP is lying I'm just saying that particular theory is a lie!

How could they have known ahead of time that planes would be hi-jacked and flown into buildings if it didn't happen in the first place??

reply to post by GodIsPissed


They did know ahead of time. Many have come forward from Clinton and Bush, criticizing their lack of action.

To anyone sane and halfway intelligent it is obvious people within our government are criminals. For further proof of government involvement and even some insight into how some things were pulled off on 9-11, read the Northwoods report. Beginning on page 5 Appendix to Enclosure A. Much of the initial planniing for 911 has been around since 1962. I find the ideas of switching planes interesting as well as passengers being fictious.

Now.. In our court system people are put on trial for alot less evidence than we have now. The next question and the one I think should be moved on to is What are you going to do about it?? Don't think the FBI CIA or any one else in government is going to arrest Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Joint Cheifs of Staff or any of the others involved. Granted there is eno9ugh to warrent a trial, but who lis going to do it?/ These people control all judicial avenues. This would need to be done bu the people of the US.

Any ideas ?

reply to post by drifter1109


But the passengers were not fake. People knew them, relatives of them exist, some I know. Plus 1962 is before the WTC existed, so I must doubt you. In addition, the criminal state of the government doesn't mean they would do this. A thief would not necessarily kill.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Maybe if i wanted to be found hanging from a rope with six gunshot wounds to the head and a suicide note written in somebody elses handwriting I'd consider it. If they can orchestrate a false flag terrorist attack and get away with it then surely they can rig trial

So you believe you have worthy-of-trial evidence that confirms the conspiracy genocide of 3,000 people, yet you fear taking this to court because there may be another conspiracy. So justice takes a back seat to cowardice? Ouch.

Isn't this documentary like 4 years old or something?

How does a thread about loose change get a million flags on a site such as ATS?


I mean, I'm pretty sure 9/11 isn't what they say it is, the official story is crap.... but LOOSE CHANGE??


Have people only just discovered the internet today or something?

9/11 was washed over most american people, even though the excuses that have been conveniently created from it have cut your freedoms, at least it woke some people up, or...started to encourage people to question more things.....

I just hope future generations will remember this event as the time the government attacked there own people to gain power and spread fear!

reply to post by conar

Not all circumstance are the same. Even though that building had fire, the one you presented, its structure was not hit with another building's debris. WTC7 was structurally compromised by the impact of debris, which came from the falling top floors of the twin towers. As a result of twenty (20) stories being affected by debris, the south structure was not strong enough to maintain weight. Fire was only part of the BIGGER problem.

Note: I am reading two different threads based upon the same subject. If you were talking about the main two towers, I apologize ahead of time for the 'possible confusion'.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Maybe if i wanted to be found hanging from a rope with six gunshot wounds to the head and a suicide note written in somebody elses handwriting I'd consider it. If they can orchestrate a false flag terrorist attack and get away with it then surely they can rig trial

So you believe you have worthy-of-trial evidence that confirms the conspiracy genocide of 3,000 people, yet you fear taking this to court because there may be another conspiracy. So justice takes a back seat to cowardice? Ouch.

He didn't say that at all. Nice try. A single private person has no chance whatsoever of achieving justice by filing a lawsuit against those believed to be responsible. He doesn't have the resources. He's right that if those responsible were willing to do what occurred on 911 then they are surely willing to quickly suicide or even openly murder a single individual who dares to publicly challenge them in court.

An effective legal campaign would require hundreds of millions of dollars for investigation, case preparation, and trial, not to mention the cost of security for the key players. The net worth of one citizen would not take it very far.

Besides, a criminal prosecution can only be brought by the government.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

So you believe you have worthy-of-trial evidence that confirms the conspiracy genocide of 3,000 people, yet you fear taking this to court because there may be another conspiracy. So justice takes a back seat to cowardice? Ouch.

I don't know anything about lawyers, would I just pick up the yellow pages, call a laywer, and say "I'd like to sue the ex-Bush administration over 9/11"? How much would that cost me?

Originally posted by dubiousone
He didn't say that at all. Nice try.

That's exactly what he said.

Besides, a criminal prosecution can only be brought by the government.

I'm sure it'd be more likely if they had the evidence that someone here claims to have.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
I don't know anything about lawyers, would I just pick up the yellow pages, call a laywer, and say "I'd like to sue the ex-Bush administration over 9/11"? How much would that cost me?

Sounds like a good place to start.
I'm sure someone will evaluate your evidence and point you to the correct resources.

reply to post by Wotcher


One of the things that wasn't answered and only God knows the answer. If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what happened to the passengers?

Flight 93's crash had no debris from the plane, so if the plane didn't crash there, where did it go and what happened to the passengers? One of the bizarre things about Flight 93 was when Todd Beamer called his mom from his cell phone and he supposedly said something like, "Hi, this is Todd Beamer". If you or I called one of our parents at any time, regardless of a terrorist attack happening, would you have to say your last name? Once my parents answered the phone, they would know it's me by my voice. I wouldn't say my first and last name to my mom.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I might just consider doing that, but I don't have any money floating around to pay for a lawyer.

Is there a lawyer here on ATS who would take that case for free? The people vs. Bush administration?

So many screwy things happened that day, and so many 'coincidences', that even if you don't believe it was an inside job, you have to think something was strange/covered up, right? Even if it's not what "Truthers" are implying, there was something that was lied about that day?

Maybe the hijackers had bombs in the planes, and the GOV didn't want you to know? Maybe Israel or some other entity, ally, that we can't go to war with did this, and the US gov had nothing to do with it? Those are just 'top of the noggin' ideas - maybe it's not as sinister as what Truthers suggest - but there were definitely many things wrong with the official story, right? Can there be some sort of concession here, with skeptics?

Originally posted by GodIsPissed
READ THIS***

Only thing I don't believe is the "they knew ahead of time" theory.Because if this was actually the case it would be an admittance to the whole "19 Arabs with boxcutters" theory!!I mean if there was no plane wreckage and the fbi planted evidence then that would mean that it did NOT happen.There by making the "they knew ahead of time" not true!Why would they have to plant evidence if it actually happened??

So I honestly believe that the whole "they knew ahead of time" is just another lie to add to the story for confusion!Not saying the OP is lying I'm just saying that particular theory is a lie!

How could they have known ahead of time that planes would be hi-jacked and flown into buildings if it didn't happen in the first place??

Bush was delivered a memo that stated that "bin Laden plans to use planes in an attack on U.S." or something like that. Condoleeza Rice called former San Francisco mayor the night before and told him not to fly on the 11th.

There were reports that there was unusual noise in the WTC towers the weekend before while the building was closed.

George Bush's younger brother Marvin? was head of WTC security.

How can anyone in their right mind consider Loose Change as a serious source of information to be quoting? Not only is this flick chock full of every idiotic internet rumor and cherry picked factoid from missile pods on flight 175 to "Cheney ordered military stand down", even the Loose Change people admitted that Loose Change is full of nonsense with their nonstop revisions to get it right "any day now". The minute I discovered that mysterious blue tarp covered object they were claiming was being carried out of the Pentagon was really a triage tent being brought into the Pentagon, I knew these characters were a bunch of snake oil peddlers tryign to push abject paranoia to make a quick buck. Their claim that flight 93 actually landed in Ohio is just plain laughable.

If you're so much in love with these conspiracy stories that you want them to be true, that's your right, but claiming Loose Change is "99% undeniable conclusive evidence" isn't making them look good. It's making YOU look ridiculous. One of the producers was recently arrested in New York for selling drugs, so that explains their paranoid hallucinations right there. What's your excuse?

How do we know it was the government? ... what if it was the worlds largest insurance scam besides. if your looking for anyone to charge with war crimes.. look to the Rothschild's