9/11 Inside Work?

[zell]

Yes.


For control.


Fear=control.

DING DING DING!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Architects have said the same thing. The architects who built the World Trade Buildings said they were built to take many hits from planes bigger than the planes that supposedly hit the towers.

What about all the buildings around the world that caught fire and burned for days and never fell?
The fire never melted or weaken the steel.

Also, look at the close ups of the buildings on youtube.
You will see thermite leaking from the buildings.

No one can bring down a hard target without using shape charges on the columns.
A hard target is comprised of steel reinforced by concrete.

It was definitely an inside job.
Just another Reichstag to make the sheeple give up their freedoms for false security.

I have a friend who is a Phd Chemist,and when he watched it and they started talking about the thermite stuff,he confimed that all of the chemical aspects of the investigation were true.

I dont want to sound like a 9/11 wacko, but I do question building 7! However, would our government really go through this much hassle of trying to pursue us into believing in foreign threat?

One word,YES! Especially if that means being able to tighten the reigns on society.

 

[T_C]

Why were my attachments removed?

Well here are the links...
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade
Premium Link Upgrade

 

[ratbastid]

Wth you can only attach one file. But anyway...now look at this. They did say a place hit the pentagon. But where the hell's the evidence that a plane did it? There was this other picture I saw couple of years back (but can't seem to find now) where a few computers inside the damaged part of the pentagon were completely fine. Which I could only think of as an inside job.

[Please Note: the attachment in this post has been deleted by moderator Premium Link Upgrade ]
[Read more about the board rules: Premium Link Upgrade ]

I hear ya.... look at the countless photos taken around the world of Actual Plane crashes. There is debris everywhere in real crash sites. The Pentagon photos speak for themselves once you look around outside what they tell you.

 

[Fight]

What would should it have looked like?

It would have fallen more on its side if it was a natural collapse, not straight down.

 

[daddysal]

Wth you can only attach one file. But anyway...now look at this. They did say a place hit the pentagon. But where the hell's the evidence that a plane did it? There was this other picture I saw couple of years back (but can't seem to find now) where a few computers inside the damaged part of the pentagon were completely fine. Which I could only think of as an inside job.

[Please Note: the attachment in this post has been deleted by moderator Premium Link Upgrade ]
[Read more about the board rules: Premium Link Upgrade ]

Yeah, & all that paper flying around, doesn't paper burn!??:dunno:

 

[daddysal]

It would have fallen more on its side if it was a natural collapse, not straight down.

Exactly!!!!!!!!
That 1 Plane couldn't burn down that HUGE ass building!!
It might weaken the steel & That part would bend and fall off!!

 

[bodie54]

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

No kidding.

Just more blathering nonsense from people who've coupled an appalling lack of common sense with an ignorance of engineering, physics, high explosives, aerodynamics, etc, etc, on and on ad nauseum.

Apparently lots of folks had daddys they couldn't trust or something, because despite MOUNTAINS of evidence to the contrary they cling desperately to the "bad authority" model, no matter how non-sensical.

people, they really, really think we are stupid.

If you're a 9/11 "Truther" I can understand why they'd feel that way.

 

[jenniferbabe]

This maybe an inside job..

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

 

[Gordar]

No, simply because if anyone who knew about it ever talked, it would probably be the end of the US. I doubt the independent states would follow a central government that authorised such a thing, which in turn led to wars abroad (which cost the US a lot of money).

Sure, they're probably hiding something, I'm starting to get the impression the US government always does. No matter what official document you see (for me, mostly on TV), there are always pieces of text that are blacked out (no matter what the subject is), but for something like this to be inside work, too many people would have to be involved & that would simply be too risky.

 

[GabberMan]

No, simply because if anyone who knew about it ever talked, it would probably be the end of the US. I doubt the independent states would follow a central government that authorised such a thing, which in turn led to wars abroad (which cost the US a lot of money).

Sure, they're probably hiding something, I'm starting to get the impression the US government always does. No matter what official document you see (for me, mostly on TV), there are always pieces of text that are blacked out (no matter what the subject is), but for something like this to be inside work, too many people would have to be involved & that would simply be too risky.

Well, if people knew about it - at least 17 are now dead.

Foreign wars costing money? The Iraq war is one of the most profitable wars ever surely?

 

[BlueBalls]

In South Park we trust :bowdown:

Premium Link Upgrade

 

[Wainkerr99]

However, would our government really go through this much hassle of trying to pursue us into believing in foreign threat?

What's a 9/11 wacko?
Yes, the gov would.
More people believe in ****** - which shortly after 9/11 began one behind every bush - more people are inclined to accept a system where everyone is eyed on. Simply put - one currency, one implant, one swipe, one number....
Only today's generation is prepared to accept everyone being under one roof. If there are terros everywhere, people will clamour for a system of accountability.
In Britain already everyone is watched by camera. The gov there will be monitoring everyone's e-mail starting this year. Can't you see where this is headed?

The buildings could not collapse from a plane flying into them, especially not demolition style.

 

[TwatDetective]

Architects have said the same thing. The architects who built the World Trade Buildings said they were built to take many hits from planes bigger than the planes that supposedly hit the towers.

It never happened before. Smaller planes, yes. They did not guess correct what would happen with large planes.

What about all the buildings around the world that caught fire and burned for days and never fell?
The fire never melted or weaken the steel.

Most engineers disagree about the steel being weakened. Steel loses half of it's strengh at 1100 degrees. Jet fuel burn from 800 degrees to 1500 degress. Also, the crash propelled jet fuel through building, and knocked off fire proofing. Although the latter was probably less of a factor actually.

Also, look at the close ups of the buildings on youtube.
You will see thermite leaking from the buildings.

Link please. I do not see.

No one can bring down a hard target without using shape charges on the columns.
A hard target is comprised of steel reinforced by concrete.

A multi-ton metal plane filled with hundreds of pounds to over a ton of fuel cannot?

AB-SO-FUCKIN-LUTE-LY :glugglug:

Does anyone here who opposes the thought of an inside job realise just how much outside cooperation non-experienced pilots would need to succesfully fly planes into buildings from thousands of feet above the ground?! I mean come on... from up there, even skyscrapers are tiny.

They can't just, you know, lower the plane?? The WTC are the highest buildings in New York City aren't they?

Didn't they go through pilot training?

And what about that "conveniently" found terrorist passport, lol, in the wreckage of the towers.....

Quirky. But far, far from conspiracy. It seems unlikely that it would survive, but I don't know how often small random things sometimes escape.
people, they really, really think we are stupid.[/QUOTE]

I have a friend who is a Phd Chemist,and when he watched it and they started talking about the thermite stuff,he confimed that all of the chemical aspects of the investigation were true.

Your friends chemist? It must be true then!

I hear ya.... look at the countless photos taken around the world of Actual Plane crashes. There is debris everywhere in real crash sites. The Pentagon photos speak for themselves once you look around outside what they tell you.

Most crash sites are crash landing though. Flight 93 and Penagon were not.

It would have fallen more on its side if it was a natural collapse, not straight down.

Why would it have? The leading hypothesis that steel weaken and floors sagged which put stress on the columns on the sides which started collapse.

Premium Link Upgrade

 

[ChefChiTown]

Why is it always "the US government" being held accountable in all of these ridiculous conspiracy theories? Why is it always an "inside job" too? Why can't it be some crazy ass terrorists actually getting one over on us? Hmm?

Your friends chemist? It must be true then!

His chemist friend's opinion on the matter is no less valid than your opinion on the matter, or any of the conspiracy theories that you are so faithful in. So...:dunno:

 

[TwatDetective]

His chemist friend's opinion on the matter is no less valid than your opinion on the matter, or any of the conspiracy theories that you are so faithful in. So...:dunno:

That was a argument from authority fallacy I believe. The evidence is all that matters. Just saying "I have a friend..." doesn't cut it. An anecdote about a hypothteical Phd. chemist... dunno. Name of expert, and EVIDENCE.


What conspiracies?

 

[zell]

Why is it always "the US government" being held accountable in all of these ridiculous conspiracy theories? Why is it always an "inside job" too? Why can't it be some crazy ass terrorists actually getting one over on us? Hmm?



His chemist friend's opinion on the matter is no less valid than your opinion on the matter, or any of the conspiracy theories that you are so faithful in. So...:dunno:

Actually,my friends opinion is more valid than his because it is based more on scientific fact,that he has an earned doctrine in,than just a persons opinion based on skepticism.

If people don't want to believe,that's fine.If you want to take everything at face value,that's ok too.But to act like there isn't the "possibility" of something else going on here,well that's just foolish.In my opinion,the evidence is more in the favor of the whole thing being a conspiracy,but that's just my opinion.From a scientific stand point,it favors conspiracy,so to doubt the evidence is to doubt science.Keep that in mind.

 

[ChefChiTown]

That was a argument from authority fallacy I believe. The evidence is all that matters. Just saying "I have a friend..." doesn't cut it. An anecdote about a hypothteical Phd. chemist... dunno. Name of expert, and EVIDENCE.

If there is all of this evidence, then why hasn't the conspiracy been broken wide open, case closed?

What conspiracies?

Surely, you can't be serious. You started a thread about 9/11 being an inside job and you are questioning the conspiracies I talk about?

 

[TwatDetective]

Actually,my friends opinion is more valid than his because it is based more on scientific fact,that he has an earned doctrine in,than just a persons opinion based on skepticism.

If people don't want to believe,that's fine.If you want to take everything at face value,that's ok too.But to act like there isn't the "possibility" of something else going on here,well that's just foolish.In my opinion,the evidence is more in the favor of the whole thing being a conspiracy,but that's just my opinion.From a scientific stand point,it favors conspiracy,so to doubt the evidence is to doubt science.Keep that in mind.

Argument from authority.

To be fair, there are much much much more experts on the "official" side.

I consider the possibility of everything, if the evidence is there.

 

[TwatDetective]

If there is all of this evidence, then why hasn't the conspiracy been broken wide open, case closed?



Surely, you can't be serious. You started a thread about 9/11 being an inside job and you are questioning the conspiracies I talk about?

I'm arguing AGAINST the conspircy.

Edit: sorry for the double.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I'm arguing AGAINST the conspircy.

I know you are. But, you asked me "what conspiracies", even after you started a thread about conspiracies.