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

#3645 Mar 30, 2013
A ROCKET
15.“It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower”.- Credited to: Peter Fallucca

SOMETHING - PLANE OR MISSILE
16.“At that point I assumed you can't have two -- it can't be an accident to have two planes. So, I don't know if there's planes or missiles or what but something was hitting this thing. You saw debris was falling down.“- Credited to: Brian Dixon

NOT A BIG PLANE
17.”I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building. "- Credited to: James Murphy

THOUGHT THEY SAW A MISSILE
18. " Some people thought they saw a missile, now I don't know how they could differentiate, but we might leave open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings ..." Dick Oliver, LIVE on FOX News

LIKE THE SIZE OF A GOLF BALL
19.“I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fireball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions.”- Credited to: Patricia Ondrovic

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3646 Mar 30, 2013
Note that 'missile' is mentioned in no uncertain terms even by a few newsmedia people: What to do with those? Did they simply tell the truth? Or were they actually instructed to do so? The latter option is theorized by some and may well be contemplated: If a "Joe Public" had very clearly seen a missile, he would undoubtedly find comfort in the fact that even war-zone experts like ABC's Don Dahler had been initially 'mistaken' as to what he saw. The endless TV replays of the BOEING 767 animation would have eventually put Joe's torments to rest. The TV images would have "cleansed" his recollections.

Generally speaking, the eye-witnesses on record reported a smaller airborne object than a wide-body passenger airliner. This fact alone is, to say the least, rather puzzling : how can a large, low-flying and very loud BOEING 767 be mistaken for a “small aircraft” by so many people? Try to picture yourself in New York that day: would you possibly have mistaken a 767 passing 700ft above you for a "small plane"?

Take “Flight 11”, for instance (the first alleged "hijacked plane"): It would have roared across the full length of Manhattan – from tip to toe, at full thrust and extremely low altitude: tens of thousands should recall that deafening event - yet hardly any witnesses on record (but a handful of newsmedia people) ever mention it.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3647 Mar 30, 2013
FACT: The only documented reports of a “Large Passenger Airplane” came from newsmedia employees.
(See: September Clues part D).

THE MISSILE HYPOTHESIS Arguably, what witnesses saw was a winged, plane-shaped missile. Interestingly, one such missile existed in 2001: Lockheed Martin’s flagship at the time was the JASSM AGM158, a precision-guided cruise missile with a titanium penetrator warhead.

Its speed was 550mph and its CEP (Center Error Probable) as little as 8ft; of course, a pre-placed homing device in the WTC would have reduced that margin of error to zero. The point is, the AGM 158 could have undoubtedly by relied upon to hit a target as wide as the WTC (208ft) with utmost precision. Of course, such a winged missile - though considerably smaller than a Boeing 767 - would have effectively generated real eyewitnesses reporting “some sort of airplane" striking the tower.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3648 Mar 30, 2013
We may only wonder why we have so many witness reports of a small aircraft.
.
Since there is no photographic record of it, determining just what hit the WTC2 (if anything at all) will remain in the domain of speculation.
.
In any event, anyone lending relevance to the available witnesses must do the effort to read their statements: Out of those who specify anything about the size of the object seen impacting the WTC2, most describe some sort of small aircraft.
.
Consequently, at this stage and with the elements at hand, the missile hypothesis cannot be discounted.
.
Ultimately, determining the precise object that flew into the WTC is a secondary issue: the bottom line is that the bulk of witness reports provide no support to the official 'BOEING 767' story.
.
Unless Of Course You believe In Magik Huh Eh !

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#3650 Mar 30, 2013
And of course lets ignore all the videos of 767's hitting the WTC you Imbecile !!!
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
We may only wonder why we have so many witness reports of a small aircraft.
.
Since there is no photographic record of it, determining just what hit the WTC2 (if anything at all) will remain in the domain of speculation.
.
In any event, anyone lending relevance to the available witnesses must do the effort to read their statements: Out of those who specify anything about the size of the object seen impacting the WTC2, most describe some sort of small aircraft.
.
Consequently, at this stage and with the elements at hand, the missile hypothesis cannot be discounted.
.
Ultimately, determining the precise object that flew into the WTC is a secondary issue: the bottom line is that the bulk of witness reports provide no support to the official 'BOEING 767' story.
.
Unless Of Course You believe In Magik Huh Eh !
Genevieve

France

#3651 Mar 30, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
The report explained a small portion of the collapse caused by both fire and failure of an essential support column. What the report was explaining was the fact that the building collapsed due to a structural failure. Your post was out of context.
Oh.

You mean the "small portion of the collapse" (the part where the roof drops suddenly all around the building for thirty meters at gravitational rate) is caused by "an essential support column"? Do they really build structures like that?

Assuming that large steel frame buildings have "an essential support column" that, if it failed, would cause the entire building to collapse, do you suppose the Mayor of New York would reserve a whole floor for his Office of Emergency Management in such a building? Do you suppose that the federal government would house offices for the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense and the Securities and Exchange Commission in such a building?

How many people worked in this huge 47-story building, day after day, not knowing that their lives depended on the integrity of column 79?

(Why do you suppose they pay demolition companies so much when all that is needed to bring a building down is to cut "an essential support column"?)

Do you suppose there were extra safe guards around "an essential support column" (more fire-proofing, armed guards, etc.)?

I would like to know your thoughts on these matters please.

Thank you.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#3652 Mar 30, 2013
the roof didn't collapse suddenly Dufus, the East Penthouse collapsed first, and yes WTC 7 was built with columns 79,80,81 holding up the east side of the building to allow for the large open atrium, all three columns failed
Genevieve wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
You mean the "small portion of the collapse" (the part where the roof drops suddenly all around the building for thirty meters at gravitational rate) is caused by "an essential support column"? Do they really build structures like that?
Assuming that large steel frame buildings have "an essential support column" that, if it failed, would cause the entire building to collapse, do you suppose the Mayor of New York would reserve a whole floor for his Office of Emergency Management in such a building? Do you suppose that the federal government would house offices for the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense and the Securities and Exchange Commission in such a building?
How many people worked in this huge 47-story building, day after day, not knowing that their lives depended on the integrity of column 79?
(Why do you suppose they pay demolition companies so much when all that is needed to bring a building down is to cut "an essential support column"?)
Do you suppose there were extra safe guards around "an essential support column" (more fire-proofing, armed guards, etc.)?
I would like to know your thoughts on these matters please.
Thank you.

Judged:

10

10

9

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3653 Mar 30, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
And of course lets ignore all the videos of 767's hitting the WTC you Imbecile !!!
<quoted text>
“What about the many private videos of the 9/11 events showing the plane crash?”
.
A: All the alleged “Amateur” stills and videos depicting crucial moments of the day (“planes”/“tower collapses”) are forgeries - and demonstrably so. The “9/11 plotters” manufactured a large image-pool to be attributed to private cameramen for three main purposes :
.
1: To imprint the notion that many bystanders captured the event on film
.
2: To supply more shocking and memorable close-up views of the event
.
3: To outweigh the poor LIVE TV show with a great number of shots
.
The skeptics argue that “too many videos of the airplane were captured, therefore all cannot be fake ...” Too many indeed: there are a simply ludicrous amount of “lucky” shots. In fact, the sheer amount of existing 'airplane' images is grossly absurd in itself:
.
We now have more than 45 “amateur videos”(some of which were released - inexplicably - as late as June 2008!). We also have at least 10 still pictures depicting alleged “Flight 175”“in its very last second of flight”:
.
10 ALLEGED “AMATEUR” SNAPSHOTS OF “FLIGHT 175” in its “last second of flight”
.
See them for yourself here: http://www.septemberclues.info/
.
For in-depth info and sourcing of the above pictures, see: WTC Crash research by Killtown.
.
Here’s where any rational-minded person should stop and ponder: What are the odds that so many amateur cameramen would capture a clear shot of an unexpected 550mph airplane in its very last second of flight - both 'plane' and towers nicely framed - with no apparent motion blur of either?
.
There are, for instance, no such precedents in the history of motorsport photography: no speedway crash has ever been captured by 55+ cameramen, in crowded arenas where hundreds of lenses are aimed right at the action. On most occasions, only a handful of professionals will capture an image sharp enough for publication.
.
HOW WERE PRIVATE VIDEOS IMPEDED ? In order for the 9/11 TV-deception to succeed, full visual control of the Manhattan area had to be in place.
.
The existence of EMP/HERF technology is undisputable: only the hypothesis of it being used on 9/11 remains unverifiable. It is, however, a reasonable postulation supported by a series of electronic blackouts which occurred in NYC that morning. In any event, the logic of using EMP/HERF holds water and effectively explains the ruse with disarming simplicity: NO private photography of the real-life events was allowed: thus, the imagery aired by the TV networks feared no comparison and was passed off as reality.
.
Ever hear of electronic jamming of all digital cell-phones, cameras, digital anything didn't work for as long as they needed it to.

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3654 Mar 30, 2013
Why don’t we have a single authentic video of the crucial 9/11 events?
.
Firstly, there are many indications that a blanket evacuation of Lower Manhattan took place after the first "plane" strike at 8:46AM.
.
Few people were likely left dwelling around snapping pictures. In any circumstances, the chances for anyone capturing a clear image of an unexpected, sky-diving 550mph+ object are extremely slim.
.
These factors alone drastically reduced the probabilites of undesired image recordings in the area.
.
Nevertheless, one must assume that the 9/11 military-backed operation would have required no less than a 110% "safety level".
.
It should also be safe to say that the perpetrators relied on top-end military technology.
..
Thus, we may formulate a plausible hypothesis - based on the known objectives which had to be met.
.
If total visual control of the wider Manhattan area was a top priority of the 9/11 psyop, it would have been essential to impede any authentic footage to be captured in NY that morning.
.
Electromagnetic weaponry (EMP/HERF or HPM) is routinely used in war zones to jam the enemy’s electronics.
.
Read about it here: http://www.septemberclues.info/
.
Conceivably, this technology was used to prevent any private footage being recorded throughout the limited (102min) time-window in which the defining 9/11 events took place (from first "plane" strike to last tower collapse).
.
To be sure, the research into this field has long been a top military priority: with this in mind, we may reasonably consider that this well-tested technology was employed on 9/11.
.
It is, all in all, a hypothesis grounded in logic and (military) common sense.
.
Do we have any indications from the day that may back-up this hypothesis? Indeed, we do: it is a well-known fact that thousands of electronic devices malfunctioned - or blacked-out altogether..
As many as 4 important electronics-related disruptions were reported in the 9/11 aftermath :
.
1): all New York cell phones
2): the firefighters' NYFD radio-transmitters
3): the WTC’s internal communication system
4): the Port Authority's transmission repeater on top of WTC5
.
These disruptions caused quite some controversy - and were explained away with claims such as:
.
1):“the NY cell phone network was overloaded”
2):“the NYFD had faulty radios/was confused over new T-R channels”
3):“the WTC intercom wiring was damaged by the crashing airplane”
4): The Port Authority simply denied that their equipment malfunctioned.
.
The official explanations for these four serious and (apparently) unrelated disruptions, all seem appallingly contrived.
.
Now, even though EMP/HERF beams can be calibrated to disrupt a specific Hz range, one may reasonably surmise that some ‘bleed’ may have occurred - thus affecting more than the targeted videocamera circuitries.
.
In any case, an electromagnetic "storm" would keep any private cameras from operating.
.
Only special cameras shielded in protective faraday-cages would function.
.
Unless Of Course You Believe In Magik Huh Eh !

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Ivanovich

France

#3655 Mar 30, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
the roof didn't collapse suddenly Dufus, the East Penthouse collapsed first, and yes WTC 7 was built with columns 79,80,81 holding up the east side of the building to allow for the large open atrium, all three columns failed
<quoted text>
I see video showing roof dropping at free fall.



If there is columns 79,80,81, presumption is there is also columns 1 through 78, and maybe also 82, etc? Did all of these other columns stop working and allowing the top floor to drop at rate of gravity, as video documentation shows?

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“The Biggest Liar on Topix”

Since: Jan 11

Pittsfield, MA

#3656 Mar 30, 2013
it's been explained to you many many times Zorderz
Ivanovich wrote:
<quoted text>
I see video showing roof dropping at free fall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cZsA3xb2kOAXX
If there is columns 79,80,81, presumption is there is also columns 1 through 78, and maybe also 82, etc? Did all of these other columns stop working and allowing the top floor to drop at rate of gravity, as video documentation shows?
Jean Luc

Romania

#3657 Mar 30, 2013
Timeten wrote:
it's been explained to you many many times Zorderz
<quoted text>
YOU are "the biggest liar on Topix"? That is quite an accomplishment among all the well-paid govie shills and bodily fluid excreters! Congratulations!

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“The Biggest Liar on Topix”

Since: Jan 11

Pittsfield, MA

#3658 Mar 30, 2013
Whatever you say sock puppet
Jean Luc wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU are "the biggest liar on Topix"? That is quite an accomplishment among all the well-paid govie shills and bodily fluid excreters! Congratulations!
Gerald

Vienna, Austria

#3659 Mar 30, 2013
YellowPissreality wrote:
the roof didn't collapse suddenly Dufus, the East Penthouse collapsed first, and yes WTC 7 was built with columns 79,80,81 holding up the east side of the building to allow for the large open atrium, all three columns failed
<quoted text>
So the mayor of New York and US government is putting defense and intelligence and emergency operations and financial security agencies in defective building, or are all buildings defective with weaknesses that can topple entire building in one stroke?

Judged:

12

12

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3661 Mar 30, 2013
Ivanovich wrote:
<quoted text>
I see video showing roof dropping at free fall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =cZsA3xb2kOAXX
If there is columns 79,80,81, presumption is there is also columns 1 through 78, and maybe also 82, etc? Did all of these other columns stop working and allowing the top floor to drop at rate of gravity, as video documentation shows?
NIST admits it took 5.4 seconds for WTC7 to fall completely into a pile of rubble two stories high. 2.5 seconds of which was free fall acceleration.
.
In order for this to happen, 8 stories worth of ALL the supporting steel columns had to fail at the same time.
.
There was no progressive failure of interior columns conveniently hidden behind the facade that took much longer.
.
It was a sudden collapse. In the space of 1 second the whole building all the way across was collapsing all at once.
.
Just look at the side by side video of WTC7 and a similar building being explosively demolished.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch...
.
You don't have to be a structural engineer to notice the extreme similarities between both buildings implosion into their own footprints.
.
Unless Of Course You Believe In Magik Huh Eh !

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: May 10

YOUR MOM'S HOUSE

#3662 Mar 30, 2013
Wrong again Glop, the 5.4 seconds represents how long it took for WTC 7 to drop 18 stories
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
NIST admits it took 5.4 seconds for WTC7 to fall completely into a pile of rubble two stories high. 2.5 seconds of which was free fall acceleration.
.
In order for this to happen, 8 stories worth of ALL the supporting steel columns had to fail at the same time.
.
There was no progressive failure of interior columns conveniently hidden behind the facade that took much longer.
.
It was a sudden collapse. In the space of 1 second the whole building all the way across was collapsing all at once.
.
Just look at the side by side video of WTC7 and a similar building being explosively demolished.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =73qK4j32iuoXX
.
You don't have to be a structural engineer to notice the extreme similarities between both buildings implosion into their own footprints.
.
Unless Of Course You Believe In Magik Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3664 Mar 30, 2013
“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”
.
Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:
.
“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”
.
Secondly:
.
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”
.
Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:
.
“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”
.
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.
.
http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collap...
.
Deceptive Huh Eh !

“DECEPTION = MOST POWERFUL ”

Since: Jul 11

POLITICAL FORCE ON THE PLANET

#3665 Mar 30, 2013
In order to understand it, you sort of have to watch this whole video.
.
&li st=PL9D3146EB0E5018E2
.
Unless You Believe In Magik Huh Eh !

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#3666 Mar 31, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
SELECTED EYEWITNESS REPORTS DESCRIBING OBJECT STRIKING WTC2:
A SMALL PLANE
1. "At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson
A CESSNA OR LEAR JET TYPE OR...
2.“Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Lear jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building”.- Credited to: Anthony Bartolomey
A SMALL (TRAINING) PLANE
3.“I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot a plane, a small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane…, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they worked with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”- Credited to: Karim Arraki
A CESSNA
4.“I was on my way to work…traffic was excellent…I received a call saying a small Cessna had hit the World trade Center…I was asked to go and man the Office of Emergency Management at the World Trade Center 7 on its 23d floor…”– Credited to: Barry Jennings
LIKE A SMALLER PLANE
5.“I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like it ‘bounced’ off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down…it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial.”- Stuart Nurick, LIVE on CBS NEWS
A SMALL, SMALL JET PLANE
6.“…We saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”- Credited to: Mary Cozza
A LIGHT COMMUTER PLANE
7. "I mean, I hate to admit this, but I'm sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn't the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane." Credited to:(news report)
THOUGHT PLANE WAS MUCH SMALLER
8. "I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller..."- Credited to: Sid Bedingfield
Selecting those who didn't actually see? Thousands saw commercial airlines hit the buildings. A small plane would not cause the huge holes and fires. What's more, the engine found in the street came from a large passenger plane. Your post is not very bright.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#3667 Mar 31, 2013
Dr_Zorderz wrote:
<quoted text>
NIST admits it took 5.4 seconds for WTC7 to fall completely into a pile of rubble two stories high. 2.5 seconds of which was free fall acceleration.
.
In order for this to happen, 8 stories worth of ALL the supporting steel columns had to fail at the same time.
.
There was no progressive failure of interior columns conveniently hidden behind the facade that took much longer.
.
It was a sudden collapse. In the space of 1 second the whole building all the way across was collapsing all at once.
.
Just look at the side by side video of WTC7 and a similar building being explosively demolished.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =73qK4j32iuoXX
.
You don't have to be a structural engineer to notice the extreme similarities between both buildings implosion into their own footprints.
.
Unless Of Course You Believe In Magik Huh Eh !
That does not take into account the time the building started to move. Anyone can see from the videos it takes over 14 seconds start to finish.

Your claim is all supporting columns. Suppose all collapse due to stress failure which is what actually happened. How would you know if they needed to fail at the same time or successively? Let's see you prove your assertion. What's more, your time frame premise is false so everything that follows is meaningless.

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 It aint necessari... 774,059
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 7 min Barnsweb 441,757
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Tony17 559,052
10 ways to make money easily 12 min salmi-pro 1
Does anyone like watching people masterbate? (May '14) 53 min devilkitty666 14
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr lightbeamrider 175,557
Couch Potato Alert 2 hr yon 1
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr Seraphima 604,838
More from around the web