Was 911 an Inside Job

Created by inquiring minds on Jan 4, 2013

17,787 votes

Click on an option to vote

YES

No

Don't know

Possibly

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#277 Jan 19, 2013
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOBBITY JOB JOB !!?!?!?!?!
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha h aha h ah ah ah
.
That's A Good & One Huh eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#278 Jan 19, 2013
The Jews Did 9/11 !
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha h ahah ah ha ah
.
ThatS A Good One Huh eh !

Since: Aug 08

.

#279 Jan 19, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
why do you two idiots hide your ISP location ??
<quoted text>
I do it just to tick you off.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#281 Jan 19, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Okay....

Who did this?

How did they accomplish this in buildings that had thousands of people in them 24 hours a day 7 days a week with no one noticing such activity?

Why has absolutely no one involved come forward, or even someone who is related to or even kind of sort of knows someone involved in this?

To what end were they brought down? The acts of flying jets into the towers alone would have been enough to whip up outrage against whoever was to blame.
Who did it is outside my scope of questioning, I simply want a real independent investigation to determine what and who. But I will suggest those who have the ability to cover up official investigations, will be the ones who are ultimately responsible for the crime.

Before you can identify a criminal, first you must identify a crime, thats what investigations are supposed to find out. Lies can be just as clear and concise as truths, and many times lies are more clear and concise because they aren't burdened by actual knowledge, they just make it up to appear as thorough.

Does anyone believe that intelligence organizations aren't able to carry out many operations in complete secrecy? Because you sometimes hear of political appointees being caught in scandals, does not change the truth that black operations can and do occur in total secrecy.

You assume the acts of jets crashing into the WTC alone would have been enough to paralyze the American public into supporting endless wars and the reduction of our own rights. I lived through that day as well as you, and I don't remember the sky is falling sensation and shock until the buildings completely collapsed, so I tend to disagree that collapse wasn't needed as a form of psychological warfare against the American public.

Regardless of my opinion, NIST not following the scientific method and attempting to prove its hypothesis only by unverifiable computer modeling simulations, is a fact. And that fact alone proves NIST intentions were never scientific, but political.

The name calling by the proponents of the official story also shows their agenda, and that isn't the search for truth.

This is the reason

Insults Are Easier

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#284 Jan 19, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Who did it is outside my scope of questioning, I simply want a real independent investigation to determine what and who. But I will suggest those who have the ability to cover up official investigations, will be the ones who are ultimately responsible for the crime.
Before you can identify a criminal, first you must identify a crime, thats what investigations are supposed to find out. Lies can be just as clear and concise as truths, and many times lies are more clear and concise because they aren't burdened by actual knowledge, they just make it up to appear as thorough.
Does anyone believe that intelligence organizations aren't able to carry out many operations in complete secrecy? Because you sometimes hear of political appointees being caught in scandals, does not change the truth that black operations can and do occur in total secrecy.
You assume the acts of jets crashing into the WTC alone would have been enough to paralyze the American public into supporting endless wars and the reduction of our own rights. I lived through that day as well as you, and I don't remember the sky is falling sensation and shock until the buildings completely collapsed, so I tend to disagree that collapse wasn't needed as a form of psychological warfare against the American public.
Regardless of my opinion, NIST not following the scientific method and attempting to prove its hypothesis only by unverifiable computer modeling simulations, is a fact. And that fact alone proves NIST intentions were never scientific, but political.
The name calling by the proponents of the official story also shows their agenda, and that isn't the search for truth.
This is the reason
Insults Are Easier
Now I understand the name, because for you, logic is hard. You have theory, speculation and a less than healthy dose of paranoia, but you have no evidence whatsoever that ANYTHING other than what has already known occurred, but want an "independent investigation" anyways and even if one were to happen, you'd probably find something to whine about that, especially if it came to the same damn conclusions we already know. You claimed that the buildings were brought down by something other than the result of the impacts of hijacked jet airliners (you do believe that part don't you?) but have no clue as to who, how, when or why and nothing resembling evidence to suggest that you might be right, but dammit you be right because.... why exactly?

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#285 Jan 19, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Now I understand the name, because for you, logic is hard. You have theory, speculation and a less than healthy dose of paranoia, but you have no evidence whatsoever that ANYTHING other than what has already known occurred, but want an "independent investigation" anyways and even if one were to happen, you'd probably find something to whine about that, especially if it came to the same damn conclusions we already know. You claimed that the buildings were brought down by something other than the result of the impacts of hijacked jet airliners (you do believe that part don't you?) but have no clue as to who, how, when or why and nothing resembling evidence to suggest that you might be right, but dammit you be right because.... why exactly?
My name should have been easily understood the moment you first read it, given the level of discourse you and your classless ilk perpetuate on anyone you disagree with.

But I digress.

We all have theories, Rick. Mine, yours, NIST, are all theories. The difference is, I require science to prove mine, while you only require clear and concise propaganda.

http://youtu.be/QxKB9hNvwX0

Evidence has been independently collected and studied that has shown the possible existence of thermitic material in WTC dust that should have been discovered by NIST, had they been willing to do a proper scientific investigation.

http://youtu.be/Qamecech9m4

When firemen, witnesses, and rescue personal all claim to hear explosions, and see molten steel, its the investigators job to look into what caused those observations, not to deny they were ever witnessed in the first place.

http://youtu.be/fs_ogSbQFbM

The NFPA 921 states any investigation should investigate accelerants and incendiaries if the results were global collapse. But NIST disregarded this completely and I must be paranoid for wanting them to adhere to it.

http://youtu.be/2V0WQFztLyg

All I claim is NIST didn't follow the observation part of the scientific method, then after ignoring the observation went on to verify its hypothesis by using computer modeling that can't be independently peer reviewed. All I claim is NIST assumed one scenario from the beginning and refused to even check alternative theories, because it assumed airliners caused office fires that weakened the steel and caused a global, symmetrical, collapse at near free-fall speed.

Whats so crazy about wanting to follow science and proper investigating techniques? Is every person at AE911 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth all crazy because they disagree with your propagandized view of science, Rick?

You're the one who wants to know who did a crime before you can evaluate what crime was committed. And you're the one who attempts to say controlled demolitions are meant to mimic accidental collapses and those due to design flaws. Because you are wrong about these things, and have been easily showed why, you now need to label me as crazy for you to not be able to accept your own mistakes. Thats kinda delusional, isn't it, Ricky?

If global, symmetrical collapse was so apparent that NIST and people like you felt it was always unnecessary to follow scientific protocol and check for explosives and incendiaries, then why did the fireman with all their fire science degrees, place their command center in the WTC lobby during the firefighting and rescue operations? Did they just want to die, or were they just not as smart as you?

But Im sure people who question are just crazy, as you like to be told and need to imply to avoid reasonable discussion.

You're the one who holds a preconceived notion that government can't conspire, so no matter what facts you are presented with, they must be incorrect rantings of crazy people. All because labeling people crazy protects yourself from ever having to admit you are wrong.

And of course,

Insults Are Easier
heressssssss kenny

Philippines

#286 Jan 19, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The reason why the collapse of the towers at the World Trade Center so resembled a controlled demolition is because controlled demolitions are purposefully designed to mimic the collapse of a structure due to accident or design flaw. There has yet to be one person who has stepped forward to claim that they had even heard second hand of someone claiming involvement in such a demolition at the WTC and given what the current technology takes to make a controlled demolition mimic the natural collapse of the structure, there is no way such an activity took place without notice.
first of all i dont know if your govt was involved in the set up to destroy thr building - i dont really care - but for you to make a statement that -"a controled demo is made to resemble an accident or design flaw " is just horseS#it- a controled demo is designed simply to bring down the building with the least impact on the surrounding area .

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#287 Jan 19, 2013
it's also important to hide your ISP when you are running multiple socks ..... right Twoofer
Forgotten faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Cause I dont find my location of relevant.
Why does it upset you so much??
And since the childish Twoofer name has now been explained to me as apparently I'm so dumb I'm not 'up to date' on school yard name calling...
It really doesn't bother me what your opinion is of me. Especially when the individual resorts to calling out ridiculous names.
So please continue to kick and cry.
I'd also love for you to face Jesse and call him a ugh.... What is that?!? Oh ya ... A Twoofer!!! Not that he'd care what you'd say.
Please...!
It's just not worth crying over.
I'M NOT THE WEAK YOU'RE LOOKING FOR!

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#288 Jan 19, 2013
NFPA 921 is not valid for a terrorist attck Dumb Ass
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
My name should have been easily understood the moment you first read it, given the level of discourse you and your classless ilk perpetuate on anyone you disagree with.
But I digress.
We all have theories, Rick. Mine, yours, NIST, are all theories. The difference is, I require science to prove mine, while you only require clear and concise propaganda.
http://youtu.be/QxKB9hNvwX0
Evidence has been independently collected and studied that has shown the possible existence of thermitic material in WTC dust that should have been discovered by NIST, had they been willing to do a proper scientific investigation.
http://youtu.be/Qamecech9m4
When firemen, witnesses, and rescue personal all claim to hear explosions, and see molten steel, its the investigators job to look into what caused those observations, not to deny they were ever witnessed in the first place.
http://youtu.be/fs_ogSbQFbM
The NFPA 921 states any investigation should investigate accelerants and incendiaries if the results were global collapse. But NIST disregarded this completely and I must be paranoid for wanting them to adhere to it.
http://youtu.be/2V0WQFztLyg
All I claim is NIST didn't follow the observation part of the scientific method, then after ignoring the observation went on to verify its hypothesis by using computer modeling that can't be independently peer reviewed. All I claim is NIST assumed one scenario from the beginning and refused to even check alternative theories, because it assumed airliners caused office fires that weakened the steel and caused a global, symmetrical, collapse at near free-fall speed.
Whats so crazy about wanting to follow science and proper investigating techniques? Is every person at AE911 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth all crazy because they disagree with your propagandized view of science, Rick?
You're the one who wants to know who did a crime before you can evaluate what crime was committed. And you're the one who attempts to say controlled demolitions are meant to mimic accidental collapses and those due to design flaws. Because you are wrong about these things, and have been easily showed why, you now need to label me as crazy for you to not be able to accept your own mistakes. Thats kinda delusional, isn't it, Ricky?
If global, symmetrical collapse was so apparent that NIST and people like you felt it was always unnecessary to follow scientific protocol and check for explosives and incendiaries, then why did the fireman with all their fire science degrees, place their command center in the WTC lobby during the firefighting and rescue operations? Did they just want to die, or were they just not as smart as you?
But Im sure people who question are just crazy, as you like to be told and need to imply to avoid reasonable discussion.
You're the one who holds a preconceived notion that government can't conspire, so no matter what facts you are presented with, they must be incorrect rantings of crazy people. All because labeling people crazy protects yourself from ever having to admit you are wrong.
And of course,
Insults Are Easier

Since: Sep 08

.

#289 Jan 19, 2013

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#290 Jan 20, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
My name should have been easily understood the moment you first read it, given the level of discourse you and your classless ilk perpetuate on anyone you disagree with.
I deal in fact, logic and reason sweetie, three concepts you don't seem all that familiar with.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
But I digress.
We all have theories, Rick. Mine, yours, NIST, are all theories. The difference is, I require science to prove mine, while you only require clear and concise propaganda.
http://youtu.be/QxKB9hNvwX0
You require science which fits your theories, everything else is to be dismissed as propaganda. I've read the alleged science of the self-professed truth movement and haven't bit the least bit impressed.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Evidence has been independently collected and studied that has shown the possible existence of thermitic material in WTC dust that should have been discovered by NIST, had they been willing to do a proper scientific investigation.
http://youtu.be/Qamecech9m4
A possible existence which hasn't been replicated independently by anyone else, but has been refuted independently, as evidenced by a couple of posts already on this thread. Your proof that the NIST investigation was in any way, shape or form done improperly would be what other than the opinion of those associated with the so-called truth movement would be what?
Insults Are Easier wrote:
When firemen, witnesses, and rescue personal all claim to hear explosions, and see molten steel, its the investigators job to look into what caused those observations, not to deny they were ever witnessed in the first place.
http://youtu.be/fs_ogSbQFbM
Of course people heard explosions and what they thought were explosions, what there is no proof for is that the explosions they heard were bombs. There were uncontrolled fires on multiple floors as a result of the initial impact and there are things that tend to go boom if burned. So hearing secondary explosions isn't the least bit unexpected.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
The NFPA 921 states any investigation should investigate accelerants and incendiaries if the results were global collapse. But NIST disregarded this completely and I must be paranoid for wanting them to adhere to it.
http://youtu.be/2V0WQFztLyg
But NIST was far from the only agency testing at the site, now were they? There were multiple local, state and federal agencies testing the debris and not turning up any evidence of incendiaries or accelerants nor any of their accessories. The terrorists themselves had neither the ability or opportunity to use such materials anywhere but the aircraft and none of their known associates did either, so unless you got a clear cut picture of who, what, how, when and why, you got paranoia, not fact.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#291 Jan 20, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
All I claim is NIST didn't follow the observation part of the scientific method, then after ignoring the observation went on to verify its hypothesis by using computer modeling that can't be independently peer reviewed. All I claim is NIST assumed one scenario from the beginning and refused to even check alternative theories, because it assumed airliners caused office fires that weakened the steel and caused a global, symmetrical, collapse at near free-fall speed.
Which of the myriad of often contradictory and even mutually exclusive theories do you feel credible enough that it should have been investigated?
The one where the four passenger jets were secretly landed in Cleveland and remote controlled military planes crashed deliberately into specific floors of the towers, followed by detonations of a speculated thermite product planted sometime in the 90's to cover up evidence of massive business and government fraud or whatever? Why do people find it so hard to believe that a high speed impact from a nearly fully fueled jumbo jet, followed by its immediate explosion within the confines of its structure wasn't sufficient to do what resulted without outside help? To me, it is amazing that they lasted as long as they did.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Whats so crazy about wanting to follow science and proper investigating techniques? Is every person at AE911 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth all crazy because they disagree with your propagandized view of science, Rick?
PROPAGANDA
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

To what end is the official report "propaganda" and not merely incomplete in your mind? They are two entirely different things, don't you know. By the by, your "science", fits that definition.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
You're the one who wants to know who did a crime before you can evaluate what crime was committed.
I need evidence that a crime has been committed, I haven't been convinced of a what, how, when or why either.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
And you're the one who attempts to say controlled demolitions are meant to mimic accidental collapses and those due to design flaws.
Controlled demolitions exploit whatever weakness in the design of a structure to bring it down, structural failure finds them on its own.
Insults Are Easier wrote:
Because you are wrong about these things, and have been easily showed why, you now need to label me as crazy for you to not be able to accept your own mistakes. Thats kinda delusional, isn't it, Ricky?
I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but you haven't disproved that the collapse of a structure doesn't resemble the controlled demolition of it for a good reason, nor have you proved that a controlled demolition is necessary to bring about structural collapse, let alone that it was for ANY reason necessary in this case. Telling me I am wrong and proving it are not the same thing.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#292 Jan 20, 2013
Insults Are Easier wrote:
If global, symmetrical collapse was so apparent that NIST and people like you felt it was always unnecessary to follow scientific protocol and check for explosives and incendiaries, then why did the fireman with all their fire science degrees, place their command center in the WTC lobby during the firefighting and rescue operations? Did they just want to die, or were they just not as smart as you?
Given that the tower hadn't collapsed and initial reports were of a small aircraft, a repeat of what happened in 93 and a thousands plus people overcome by the smoke of the fire in the basement levels from the truck bomb, of course their headquarters would be there given that although the extent of the damage was unknown, the building didn't seem in imminent danger from collapse due to what they could see. There were no factually plausible theories left unchecked and until someone offers me convincing evidence otherwise....
Insults Are Easier wrote:
But Im sure people who question are just crazy, as you like to be told and need to imply to avoid reasonable discussion.
You're the one who holds a preconceived notion that government can't conspire, so no matter what facts you are presented with, they must be incorrect rantings of crazy people. All because labeling people crazy protects yourself from ever having to admit you are wrong.
And of course,
Insults Are Easier
You seem to be confusing rather unreasonable doubts with reasonable ones. Not all doubts are created equal. Is the official report dogma, far from it, I have doubts about some of their findings, but they don't include unknown parties in some unknown way doing some unknown thing at some unknown time to bring down the towers for unknown reasons to coincide with the now known hijacking of four jet liners by men who spent too much time listening to the wrong self-professed Muslims.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#293 Jan 20, 2013
heressssssss kenny wrote:
first of all i dont know if your govt was involved in the set up to destroy thr building - i dont really care - but for you to make a statement that -"a controled demo is made to resemble an accident or design flaw " is just horseS#it- a controled demo is designed simply to bring down the building with the least impact on the surrounding area .
Controlled demolitions exploit the same design weaknesses in a structure that accidental collapse naturally take advantage of. You don't want it to blow up, you want it to collapse downward, as it would on its own. Where do you think people came up with the idea of doing this? From examining how structures fall down on their own. Calling what I say horses#it and proving what I say horses#it are not one and the same. Feel free to try again.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#294 Jan 20, 2013
Commander Bunny wrote:
<quoted text>I do it just to tick you off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =8Y8Z9QmxzAYXX
My Mom picks my ticks off. Sometimes they really hurt but only for a little while.

That's where the saying came from "it only hurts for a little while" or the classic "this hurts me more than it hurts you" !?!?!?!?

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#295 Jan 20, 2013
What about the pentagon?!

I was watching a show on it. There was no plane seen. The sound was of a bomb not a crash. As per a witness. And the hole the plane made seemed a bit too perfect.
The videos were collected within 2hrs of the incident and it took hell to get a tiny bit of footage released which was only 5 clips of the explosion.
The explosion showed no plane.
They were also saying where the nose of the plane had ended up was also too perfect of a hole.

The nose of the plane would have shattered and disintegrated by that point as they're not designed to take an impact as such.

Also apprently the pilot of that plane didn't have the flight skills to pull that off. And the plane it's self was to perform speeds 5x's it's capability.

They also did testing and no one was able to control the plane at such speeds to beable to hit the building as it had done.

Where the plane had hit was also in the computer area. After it was claimed they had lost track of like $ 13 trillion or something( it was late I can't remember) a butt load of money anyway.

There was also an order not to send out fighter jets to intervene.

So what the heck happened there?

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#296 Jan 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Given that the tower hadn't collapsed and initial reports were of a small aircraft, a repeat of what happened in 93 and a thousands plus people overcome by the smoke of the fire in the basement levels from the truck bomb, of course their headquarters would be there given that although the extent of the damage was unknown, the building didn't seem in imminent danger from collapse due to what they could see. There were no factually plausible theories left unchecked and until someone offers me convincing evidence otherwise....<quoted text>You seem to be confusing rather unreasonable doubts with reasonable ones. Not all doubts are created equal. Is the official report dogma, far from it, I have doubts about some of their findings, but they don't include unknown parties in some unknown way doing some unknown thing at some unknown time to bring down the towers for unknown reasons to coincide with the now known hijacking of four jet liners by men who spent too much time listening to the wrong self-professed Muslims.
Watch this video and remove all doubt respective to 9/11. Quite a few of your "unknowns" are now known, only YOU don't know about them yet. Here is a chance to educate yourself and turn your unknowns into knowns.
.

.
http://www.alienscientist.com/911/911%20two%2...
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ahaahaaha
.
That's A Good One Huh eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#297 Jan 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Controlled demolitions exploit the same design weaknesses in a structure that accidental collapse naturally take advantage of. You don't want it to blow up, you want it to collapse downward, as it would on its own. Where do you think people came up with the idea of doing this? From examining how structures fall down on their own. Calling what I say horses#it and proving what I say horses#it are not one and the same. Feel free to try again.
Those buildings obviously blew up as they were falling down. A regular CD is one thing but this was orchestrated to look like something else. The planes crashing into the buildings were a distraction and a smoke-screen to cover up the demo. Flight 93 was obviously supposed to fly into WTC 7 but didn't and they had to go ahead and "pull it" so they would not get found out.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha hah ha ha ha
.
That's A Good One Huh eh !

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#298 Jan 20, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
Watch this video and remove all doubt respective to 9/11. Quite a few of your "unknowns" are now known, only YOU don't know about them yet. Here is a chance to educate yourself and turn your unknowns into knowns.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =n_fp5kaVYhkXX
.
http://www.alienscientist.com/911/911%20two%2...
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ahaahaaha
.
That's A Good One Huh eh !
Been there, done that, already wasted 42 minutes watching that convoluted nonsense that has some serious problems with some very basic facts. His "theory' involves the knowing and unknowing participation of hundreds if not thousands in this so called plan that he offered no real evidence as to how and when it actually came about. By the by, posting like an immature, mentally challenged sociopath, not the best way to sell your 'argument'.
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#299 Jan 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
...
<quoted text>But NIST was far from the only agency testing at the site, now were they? There were multiple local, state and federal agencies testing the debris and not turning up any evidence of incendiaries or accelerants nor any of their accessories. The terrorists themselves had neither the ability or opportunity to use such materials anywhere but the aircraft and none of their known associates did either, so unless you got a clear cut picture of who, what, how, when and why, you got paranoia, not fact.
USGS found evidence of extremely high temperatures (well beyond the range of hydrocarbon-fueled fires), as did the RJ Lee Group and quite a few other researchers. FEMA Report Appendix C details anomalies found in a preliminary metallurgical analysis that are consistent with high temperature incendiary arson. NIST did not follow up on the recommendations of Appendix C's authors.

Independent researchers have corroborated USGS and RJ Lee's findings of extreme temperatures capable of melting iron and elements with even higher melting points, and they have also found advanced nano-energetic materials *IN EVERY SAMPLE* they looked at. Samples were gathered at different locations in lower Manhattan. This indicates a VERY HIGH PROBABILITY that there were many tons of this nano-energetic pyrotechnic material as well as many tons of extremely high temperature incendiary residues in the World Trade Center dust.

Were there agencies that were explicitly testing for evidence of incendiaries and exotic accelerants (like thermite, which is standard procedure when steel structures are severely damaged)? NIST admits that they did no testing. The Editor in Chief of the respected trade journal "Fire Engineering," Bill Manning, reported that ASCE and FEMA "investigators" had very limited access to the site, according to his sources. If you know of an agency that tested for incendiary materials and residues, I'd like to see the data and conclusions.

Preplanned demolition is CLEARLY EVIDENT in the videos. The findings of independent researchers, USGS, RJ LEE, etc., corroborate what is already CLEARLY EVIDENT.

It is also clear that NIST engaged in fraud by artificially narrowing the scope of the "investigation" to exclude anything that might undermine the official narrative.
- NIST admits that they did not test for evidence of incendiaries and other types of explosives (which as a deviation from investigative protocol).
- They admit that their metallurgical analysis was limited to less than 0.5% of the steel from the towers and NO steel from WTC-7, and that for some reason over 98% of these samples that they selected for inspection show no signs of having reached steel temperatures of 250 C (indicating that NIST's conclusions lack supporting physical evidence).
- They admit that their "investigation" was limited to the period from plane impact to the initiation of collapse in the fire and impact zone, and that they could not explain the complete destruction of the Towers.
- The investigation into the demise of WTC-7 is a computer-generated fiction, where "visualizations" look nothing like the actual collapse sequence, and areas that require active fires at specific times in the simulations were in reality not active fire zones at those times.

Etc.

---------

You are correct that the *ALLEGED* "terrorists themselves had neither the ability or opportunity to use such materials [tons of nano-thermitic materials, among others] anywhere but the aircraft and none of their known associates did either..."

And that is a great reason for scrapping the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, which is obviously not viable, and looking for perpetrators who DID have access to the buildings AND to such sophisticated pyrotechnic materials and other technology necessary for executing such a sophisticated operation AND to the subsequent "investigation," so that evidence could be suppressed and conclusions manipulated.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 min KiMare 96,844
Homosexuality is a gift from God 2 min southern alien 53
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 6 min Al Garcia 777,631
Moses never existed 8 min KiMare 799
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 12 min Oxbow 560,295
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 14 min Remnant of 144000 39,367
What Your Church Won't Tell You by Dave and Gar... (Apr '10) 44 min Chosen Holy Dr Sh... 33,169
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr Ugly Truth from d... 605,297
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr WasteWater 265,395
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 10 hr hpcaban 441,809
More from around the web