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

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#300 Jan 20, 2013
Forgotten faith wrote:
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?
While there is a lack of video evidence, the crash of the jet was witnessed by dozens of people on the freeway passing the Pentagon and on the groups of the building itself. They heard the explosion of the jet moving at seriously high speed into the ground just outside, the exterior and interior building pretty darn near simultaneously. The final hole in the structure wasn't hit by the nose of the jet, it was the end of the force generated by the impact. It's where that energy lost its power to do further damage. You had a disintegrating jet and debris from the damage to the building all being forced forward in the same direction until that force ran out. A relatively round hole in one wall that doesn't continue through the next wall opposite. As for who was at the controls of that jet, we have the official version and a really big question mark. While what these alleged terrorists managed to accomplish based on their known skill sets does carry with it the ring of incredulity, but its been 11 years and the best anyone can come up with otherwise is a question mark, alternative theories with little if any actual support. Did you watch that video they've been plugging. Part of his convoluted theory involves the use of remote controlled aircraft made from Boeing jets converted into flying fuel tankers, but he's really vague as to how it actually came about.
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#301 Jan 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>While there is a lack of video evidence, the crash of the jet was witnessed by dozens of people on the freeway passing the Pentagon and on the groups of the building itself. They heard the explosion of the jet moving at seriously high speed into the ground just outside, the exterior and interior building pretty darn near simultaneously. The final hole in the structure wasn't hit by the nose of the jet, it was the end of the force generated by the impact. It's where that energy lost its power to do further damage. You had a disintegrating jet and debris from the damage to the building all being forced forward in the same direction until that force ran out. A relatively round hole in one wall that doesn't continue through the next wall opposite. As for who was at the controls of that jet, we have the official version and a really big question mark. While what these alleged terrorists managed to accomplish based on their known skill sets does carry with it the ring of incredulity, but its been 11 years and the best anyone can come up with otherwise is a question mark, alternative theories with little if any actual support. Did you watch that video they've been plugging. Part of his convoluted theory involves the use of remote controlled aircraft made from Boeing jets converted into flying fuel tankers, but he's really vague as to how it actually came about.
Remote guidance of the aircraft involved is a very plausible explanation -- more so than the official claim that Hani Hanjour and his merry band of fkups were responsible for the skillful piloting. The technology existed. The targeted areas appear to have been carefully selected (i.e., Wedge 1 - the only "upgraded" portion of the Pentagon, and specifically the Budget Analyst's Office, and the fire/impact zones in the two Towers, which coincide remarkably with floors that underwent "fire insulation upgrades" prior to 9/11 and with tenants that were involved in "sensitive" financial matters).

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#302 Jan 20, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
Those buildings obviously blew up as they were falling down.
Obviously, Gracie? Obviously to whom? Based on what actual evidence that such additional demolition assistance was even necessary, let alone feasible or actually accomplished?
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
A regular CD is one thing but this was orchestrated to look like something else.
A hypothetical controlled demolition designed not to look like an actual controlled demolition but something else, say, the collapse of the building from no longer being able to support the millions of tons of weight above the big f*cking hole in the building? Fascinating theory, care to flesh it out?
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
The planes crashing into the buildings were a distraction and a smoke-screen to cover up the demo.
Your proof of this other than theory and conjecture would be what? For whom was this a "smoke-screen", to what end was it? The Administration which couldn't keep quiet its much smaller conspiracy to kidnap foreign nationals pretty much anywhere the mood hit them and secret them away to "prisons" outside the US, sometimes even with the host nation's consent? Not the most likely of suspects, even with their penchant for official secrecy.
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
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.
There's that "obviously" again. Take a look at pictures of WTC 7 and where it sat in the neighborhood and explain to me how such a targeting would even be plausible and what end would accomplish in the terrorists dood it theory you are trying to rebut? It wasn't even a part of the Trade Center to most New Yorkers, just the office building across the street. While it would bolster your conspiracy theory a whole lot if that were the case, it makes no sense from a zealots with a cause standpoint. WTC 7 was merely collateral damage of what happened to the Tower across the street and above it. It had fires that began with the first impact that burned uncontrolled for hours, it suffered from structural damage from both the impact of the jet and the collapse of the North Tower. It collapsed, I should be suspicious, why?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#303 Jan 20, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Remote guidance of the aircraft involved is a very plausible explanation -- more so than the official claim that Hani Hanjour and his merry band of fkups were responsible for the skillful piloting. The technology existed. The targeted areas appear to have been carefully selected (i.e., Wedge 1 - the only "upgraded" portion of the Pentagon, and specifically the Budget Analyst's Office, and the fire/impact zones in the two Towers, which coincide remarkably with floors that underwent "fire insulation upgrades" prior to 9/11 and with tenants that were involved in "sensitive" financial matters).
Y'all need to seriously lay off that kool-aid. You do have some idea of what the word plausible means don't you? Official version, hijackers managed maneuvers seemingly above their known skill set, your version, unknown people either secretly attached incredibly obvious additions to an aircraft's exterior entirely unnoticed at some of the busiest airports in the country, or they somehow managed to secretly swap planes, military aircraft for civilian airliners, again without no one noticing. This begs the question of what happened to said civilian airliners and accompanying civilians and would also beg the question of why you aren't in therapy?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#304 Jan 20, 2013
Sixth line should read:

swap planes, military aircraft for civilian airliners, again without anyone noticing. This
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#305 Jan 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Y'all need to seriously lay off that kool-aid. You do have some idea of what the word plausible means don't you? Official version, hijackers managed maneuvers seemingly above their known skill set, your version, unknown people either secretly attached incredibly obvious additions to an aircraft's exterior entirely unnoticed at some of the busiest airports in the country, or they somehow managed to secretly swap planes, military aircraft for civilian airliners, again without no one noticing. This begs the question of what happened to said civilian airliners and accompanying civilians and would also beg the question of why you aren't in therapy?
Demolition at the World Trade Center is PROVEN. This undermines the official narrative completely.

Fraud on the part of the official investigators is CLEARLY EVIDENT. This implicates federal agencies in the crime (tampering with evidence, felony obstruction, accessories after the fact, misprision of treason).

Hanging out on Topix demonstrating your ignorance about flight control systems won't help you resolve your lingering questions. There is plenty of relevant information in the public domain, although of course you will need some critical thinking skills...

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#306 Jan 20, 2013
Demolition at the World Trade Center is PROVEN

AND YET THERE WERE NO SEISMIC SIGMATURES OF EXPLOSIVES
AND YET NOBODY WORKING IN THE PILE FOUND SPENT EXPLOSIVES, BLASTIN CAPS OR COPPER CONNECTORS
AND YET THE DOGS WORKING ON THE PILE FIND NO EXPLOSIVE TRACES
AND YET NO VIDEO RECORDED ANY 130 DECIBEL DETONATIONS
AND YET NOT A SINGLE GRAND JURY HAS INDICTED ANYBODY

You are a Retard Schmuck Boy
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>
Demolition at the World Trade Center is PROVEN. This undermines the official narrative completely.
Fraud on the part of the official investigators is CLEARLY EVIDENT. This implicates federal agencies in the crime (tampering with evidence, felony obstruction, accessories after the fact, misprision of treason).
Hanging out on Topix demonstrating your ignorance about flight control systems won't help you resolve your lingering questions. There is plenty of relevant information in the public domain, although of course you will need some critical thinking skills...
911 was an inside job

Austin, TX

#307 Jan 20, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
Demolition at the World Trade Center is PROVEN
AND YET THERE WERE NO SEISMIC SIGMATURES OF EXPLOSIVES
AND YET NOBODY WORKING IN THE PILE FOUND SPENT EXPLOSIVES, BLASTIN CAPS OR COPPER CONNECTORS
AND YET THE DOGS WORKING ON THE PILE FIND NO EXPLOSIVE TRACES
AND YET NO VIDEO RECORDED ANY 130 DECIBEL DETONATIONS
AND YET NOT A SINGLE GRAND JURY HAS INDICTED ANYBODY
You are a Retard Schmuck Boy
<quoted text>
I'll respond to you once, Mr. "Yellow Piss," for the benefit of others who wander by.

IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT NO ONE REPORTED EVIDENCE OF TREBUCHETS AND OTHER MEDIEVAL SIEGE ENGINES AT THE SCENE (as far as I know), but as much as I would like to believe the official version, I have eyes that tell me a different story.

It is clear from the videos that the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7 were destroyed with prepositioned pyrotechnics. As an illustration, here is a textbook example of a "building implosion" -- fits the very definition, and not an easy thing to pull off:



That was ten seconds of very compelling evidence, for anyone with a brain. But in addition, there are TONS of thermitic residues and nanothermitic materials that have no business being in the dust (I believe that trumps "blasting caps and copper connectors,") and I'm pretty sure the dogs working the pile were focused on finding survivors and likely didn't have the noses for thermitic compounds...or "copper connectors."

Have I mentioned that thermitic compounds and extremely high temperature residues HAVE BEEN FOUND IN ABUNDANCE IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DUST BY MANY RESEARCHERS?

One example:
http://911research.com/essays/thermite/explos...

With regard to seismic signatures, read:
http://journalof911studies.com/resources/Rous...

.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#308 Jan 20, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
Demolition at the World Trade Center is PROVEN
AND YET THERE WERE NO SEISMIC SIGMATURES OF EXPLOSIVES
AND YET NOBODY WORKING IN THE PILE FOUND SPENT EXPLOSIVES, BLASTIN CAPS OR COPPER CONNECTORS
AND YET THE DOGS WORKING ON THE PILE FIND NO EXPLOSIVE TRACES
AND YET NO VIDEO RECORDED ANY 130 DECIBEL DETONATIONS
AND YET NOT A SINGLE GRAND JURY HAS INDICTED ANYBODY
You are a Retard Schmuck Boy
<quoted text>
It really makes you wonder how did they pull off such a thing?
.
Do you really think the government just sits around and lets every other country develop monstrous military weapons, quiet explosives and other things that you don't know about.
.
Do you think they just gathered up Tesla's experiments and records and have been sitting on them ever since. If they had a DEW / LASER ray gun would they tell anybody about it? They got one on the E-4B that can shoot down a ballistic missile in flight. Can it blow up a building on the ground? If it could, would they tell you about it?
.
There were plenty of seismic events that you don't know about.
.
Didn't need blasting caps or copper connectors. Wireless detonation.
.
The govie didn't do ANY testing for the presence of any type of explosive residue. However independent investigators have found the presence of thermite/thermate residue but you bwunkers say it is just paint.
.
They used cadaver dogs, not explosive sniffing dogs.
.
Plenty of loud explosions were heard. Just ask the FDNY. They don't talk much about it now but they did 11 years ago.
.
What grand jury is going to indict the guys who got them their jobs? Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney, or Eberhart?
.
You have no argument pissface. Go back and drink some more golden piss.
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ah aha haa aha ha
.
That's A Good One huh

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#309 Jan 20, 2013
Hey look a new 9/11 forum and a new bunch of dis info shill hasbarats just following orders and doing their jobs. KEWL DEWD
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha ahahahh
.
That's A Good Little Govie Shill huh eh !

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#310 Jan 20, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
NFPA 921 is not valid for a terrorist attck Dumb Ass
Scientific protocols and investigating techniques DO NOT change because of who or what allegedly caused a building collapse, Mr. Einstein.

I real compelling argument on your part, I especially like how you think saying dumb @ss validates your claims.

Insults Are Easier

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#311 Jan 20, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
<quoted text>I'll respond to you once, Mr. "Yellow Piss," for the benefit of others who wander by.

IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT NO ONE REPORTED EVIDENCE OF TREBUCHETS AND OTHER MEDIEVAL SIEGE ENGINES AT THE SCENE (as far as I know), but as much as I would like to believe the official version, I have eyes that tell me a different story.

It is clear from the videos that the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7 were destroyed with prepositioned pyrotechnics. As an illustration, here is a textbook example of a "building implosion" -- fits the very definition, and not an easy thing to pull off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LD06SAf0p9AXX

That was ten seconds of very compelling evidence, for anyone with a brain. But in addition, there are TONS of thermitic residues and nanothermitic materials that have no business being in the dust (I believe that trumps "blasting caps and copper connectors,") and I'm pretty sure the dogs working the pile were focused on finding survivors and likely didn't have the noses for thermitic compounds...or "copper connectors."

Have I mentioned that thermitic compounds and extremely high temperature residues HAVE BEEN FOUND IN ABUNDANCE IN THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DUST BY MANY RESEARCHERS?

One example:
http://911research.com/essays/thermite/explos...

With regard to seismic signatures, read:
http://journalof911studies.com/resources/Rous...

.
Thanks for this well thought out and reasoned response to someone who doesn't deserve a reply.

Saved me a bunch of trouble today...

Insults Are Easier

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#312 Jan 20, 2013
911 was an inside job wrote:
Demolition at the World Trade Center is PROVEN. This undermines the official narrative completely.
PROVEN you say? By whom? What have they proffered as proof? Microscopic samples of thermite that no one else has managed to find?
911 was an inside job wrote:
Fraud on the part of the official investigators is CLEARLY EVIDENT.
Your proof of this fraud is what exactly?
911 was an inside job wrote:
This implicates federal agencies in the crime (tampering with evidence, felony obstruction, accessories after the fact, misprision of treason).
That assuming you can actually prove demolition and fraud and who was involved and how this was done and you have given absolutely nothing which anyone in their right mind would confuse with evidence for any of your hilariously sad pronouncements of FACT.
911 was an inside job wrote:
Hanging out on Topix demonstrating your ignorance about flight control systems won't help you resolve your lingering questions.
What alleged ignorance of said systems am I demonstrating? It's not like you've been much of a fount of useful factual information.
911 was an inside job wrote:
There is plenty of relevant information in the public domain, although of course you will need some critical thinking skills...
I've looked at the relevant information, I've even looked on so called truth sites, flight control systems on an aircraft are quite noticeable, even by an untrained eye as being something one would not normally see on an aircraft. Saying this was done with four passenger jets at some of this country's busier airports unnoticed strains credulity. I'm guessing that is the option you are going with, because the plane swap theory is just too ludicrous.

“Truth is unthinkable.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#313 Jan 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>PROVEN you say? By whom? What have they proffered as proof? Microscopic samples of thermite that no one else has managed to find?
911 was an inside job wrote, "Fraud on the part of the official investigators is CLEARLY EVIDENT."

Your proof of this fraud is what exactly? 911 was an inside job wrote, " This implicates federal agencies in the crime (tampering with evidence, felony obstruction, accessories after the fact, misprision of treason)."

That assuming you can actually prove demolition and fraud and who was involved and how this was done and you have given absolutely nothing which anyone in their right mind would confuse with evidence for any of your hilariously sad pronouncements of FACT.
911 was an inside job wrote, "Hanging out on Topix demonstrating your ignorance about flight control systems won't help you resolve your lingering questions."

What alleged ignorance of said systems am I demonstrating? It's not like you've been much of a fount of useful factual information. 911 was an inside job wrote, " There is plenty of relevant information in the public domain, although of course you will need some critical thinking skills...
"

I've looked at the relevant information, I've even looked on so called truth sites, flight control systems on an aircraft are quite noticeable, even by an untrained eye as being something one would not normally see on an aircraft. Saying this was done with four passenger jets at some of this country's busier airports unnoticed strains credulity. I'm guessing that is the option you are going with, because the plane swap theory is just too ludicrous.
Ok, stay in Kansas, Toto. You are just a long winded, condescending windbag who cherry picks what to respond to, to avoid relevant weaknesses in your own argument, as you conflate every theory you ever heard to assign to those you need to imply are paranoid and crazy.

NIST covered up by not following scientific protocols and not adhering to the scientific method, the method by which all science is based. No explosives were found because none were looked for by NIST, a circular argument meant to convince people like you who have zero critical thinking skills.

"Its not the crime that normally gets you, it's the cover-up." -Richard M. Nixon-

As always,

Insults Are Easier
Richard Nixon

San Rafael, CA

#314 Jan 20, 2013
I am not a thief.
Blessed Be

San Rafael, CA

#315 Jan 20, 2013
BWAA HAAA HAAAAA HAAA

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#316 Jan 20, 2013
The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001,

Recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study concerning their sources.
.
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations
which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of
the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
.
First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of
identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes.
.
We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies.
.
According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean or a subaerial explosion.
.
The magnitude of an aerial explosion is insufficient to provide seismic waves at 34 km.
.
The witnesses and video observation confirm our conclusions of subaerial explosions close to the times of aircraft impacts on WTC1 and WTC2, a strong subterranean explosion closely correlated with the WTC1 collapse, and subaerial explosions closely correlated with the WTC2 and WTC7 collapses, WTC7 not having been hit by a plane.
.
As a consequence, we draw the conclusion that the three buildings were demolished by a controlled process.
.
http://journalof911studies.com/resources/Rous...
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha hah ah aha h ah ha ah
.
That's A Good Little Boy Who Is Still In Kansas Huh eh !

Elohimsokie

Broken Bow, OK

#317 Jan 20, 2013
Thanks, Insults are easier,DR. Z., 9/11 was a inside job. And the rest who know truth.
Real Piss Rick wake up.

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#318 Jan 20, 2013
Really Retard !!?!?!?!?? go down to your local firehouse and ask a fireman
Insults Are Easier wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientific protocols and investigating techniques DO NOT change because of who or what allegedly caused a building collapse, Mr. Einstein.
I real compelling argument on your part, I especially like how you think saying dumb @ss validates your claims.
Insults Are Easier

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#319 Jan 20, 2013
says the high school dropout who pretends to be a famous
guitarist on youtube
Elohimsokie wrote:
Thanks, Insults are easier,DR. Z., 9/11 was a inside job. And the rest who know truth.
Real Piss Rick wake up.

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
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 min waaasssuuup 773,794
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 10 min New Age Spiritual... 558,933
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 24 min lil whispers 604,773
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 30 min UwarRaceDoMAKEWOR... 4,684
Gay snapchat names 33 min Jace0002 143
IRA fading away, analysts say (Sep '08) 40 min James 16
Nazisí on march in Dresden 45 min yon 2
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Charlie Sheen 265,003
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Catcher1 175,528
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 3 hr Michael the Archa... 441,753
More from around the web