9/11 a inside job? Seriously?

[Classical Liberal]

You all seem to find it fun to dog pile someone while having no idea what they were trying to say.

All I'm simply saying, is that I wish these nut job conspiracy theorists could have actually somehow seen this happening to them, and then go about screaming; "INSIDE JOBZ!" Not that I wish death on them, or wish they all were never born, simply that they could somehow experience this and then say it was an inside job. Obviously, it would never happen as surviving a plane going through you is about 0.

[Andrewboy]

i dont think the gouverment of the usa would purpoly kill 2600.i mean why

[Phenia]

:palm: You all seem to find it fun to dog pile someone while having no idea what they were trying to say.

All I'm simply saying, is that I wish these nut job conspiracy theorists could have actually somehow seen this happening to them, and then go about screaming; "INSIDE JOBZ!" Not that I wish death on them, or wish they all were never born, simply that they could somehow experience this and then say it was an inside job. Obviously, it would never happen.

I only know what you said, not what you were "trying" to say - and it appears that you're backpedalling your way into having these two be two different things.

1. You wished they were in the WTC when they got hit.
2. People in the WTC when it got hit died.
3. Therefore you wished them death.

Now, maybe you were instead trying to make a point about how daffodils fly out of your ass and how you're really a nice guy who wouldn't wish death on anyone. Tough. That's not what you said. You wished death on people for nothing other than being conspiracy theorists.

[Maduland]

:palm: You all seem to find it fun to dog pile someone while having no idea what they were trying to say.

All I'm simply saying, is that I wish these nut job conspiracy theorists could have actually somehow seen this happening to them, and then go about screaming; "INSIDE JOBZ!" Not that I wish death on them, or wish they all were never born, simply that they could somehow experience this and then say it was an inside job. Obviously, it would never happen as surviving a plane going through you is about 0.

Is it close enough that many of the family members of the actual victims believe it was an inside job?

Or must they go though it as well?

[Classical Liberal]

:palm: You all seem to find it fun to dog pile someone while having no idea what they were trying to say.

All I'm simply saying, is that I wish these nut job conspiracy theorists could have actually somehow seen this happening to them, and then go about screaming; "INSIDE JOBZ!" Not that I wish death on them, or wish they all were never born, simply that they could somehow experience this and then say it was an inside job. Obviously, it would never happen.

I only know what you said, not what you were "trying" to say - and it appears that you're backpedalling your way into having these two be two different things.

1. You wished they were in the WTC when they got hit.
2. People in the WTC when it got hit died.
3. Therefore you wished them death.

Now, maybe you were instead trying to make a point about how daffodils fly out of your ass and how you're really a nice guy who wouldn't wish death on anyone. Tough. That's not what you said. You wished death on people for nothing other than being conspiracy theorists.

Oh for god sakes, if that's how this is all going to be taken I really have nothing further to say here other than;

[Classical Liberal]

:palm: You all seem to find it fun to dog pile someone while having no idea what they were trying to say.

All I'm simply saying, is that I wish these nut job conspiracy theorists could have actually somehow seen this happening to them, and then go about screaming; "INSIDE JOBZ!" Not that I wish death on them, or wish they all were never born, simply that they could somehow experience this and then say it was an inside job. Obviously, it would never happen as surviving a plane going through you is about 0.

Is it close enough that many of the family members of the actual victims believe it was an inside job?

Or must they go though it as well?

As I said in the previous post;



And for me; /thread.

[Phenia]

:palm: You all seem to find it fun to dog pile someone while having no idea what they were trying to say.

All I'm simply saying, is that I wish these nut job conspiracy theorists could have actually somehow seen this happening to them, and then go about screaming; "INSIDE JOBZ!" Not that I wish death on them, or wish they all were never born, simply that they could somehow experience this and then say it was an inside job. Obviously, it would never happen.

I only know what you said, not what you were "trying" to say - and it appears that you're backpedalling your way into having these two be two different things.

1. You wished they were in the WTC when they got hit.
2. People in the WTC when it got hit died.
3. Therefore you wished them death.

Now, maybe you were instead trying to make a point about how daffodils fly out of your ass and how you're really a nice guy who wouldn't wish death on anyone. Tough. That's not what you said. You wished death on people for nothing other than being conspiracy theorists.

Oh for god sakes, if that's how this is all going to be taken I really have nothing further to say here other than;

Good. Maybe emoticons suits you better than death-wishes. Certainly hard to go wrong with an emoticon.

[Maduland]

i dont think the gouverment of the usa would purpoly kill 2600.i mean why

Well, it allowed the Patriot Act (which was written long before 911) to be shoved though, massive power grabs, the ability to start two wars that had been already planned out (which killed hundreds of thousands at the least, so I don't know why people think they would hesitate over 3000.) etc etc.

There are some people in the world that just give a crap about human life if it gets their way. That's why people get killed or badly injured by a mugger for the 5 bucks in their wallet.

[Andrewboy]

i dissagree id ont belive the usa wanted war mind you bush isnt the smartest person on earth

[Maduland]

i dissagree id ont belive the usa wanted war mind you bush isnt the smartest person on earth

It's not what the USA wants. It's what the elites want. They're international, but they donate the money that gets these people elected. Right now their financial companies are getting bailout money while posting record profits.

Bush didn't act like a baffoon when he was governor, or when he ran for election, only afterward. It allowed the use of perceived stupidity as an excuse.

Politics has always been about subterfuge, most people just don't realize how far it goes.

[Pevisopolis]

[Response to Title]

No, but the militants responsible Were trained by the CIA during the 80s in the fight against the Red Army.

It certainly wasn't an inside job, though. The Bush administration just did a damn good job of capitalizing on it.

[Capfrania]

[Response to Title]

No, but the militants responsible Were trained by the CIA during the 80s in the fight against the Red Army.

It certainly wasn't an inside job, though. The Bush administration just did a damn good job of capitalizing on it.

Bombshell: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11

Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 05:01:42 AM PDT

Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds dropped a bombshell on the Mike Malloy radio show, guest-hosted by Brad Friedman (audio, partial transcript).

In the interview, Sibel says that the US maintained 'intimate relations' with Bin Laden, and the Taliban, "all the way until that day of September 11."

These 'intimate relations' included using Bin Laden for 'operations' in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These 'operations' involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner "as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict," that is, fighting 'enemies' via proxies.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/ ... -till-9-11

[Bewusstsein]

http://www.debunking911.com/

For all who still believe that it was an in-job, please, read the above.
The things you believe are just downright disrespectful to the thousands who died.

Fucking assholes.

http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm

What a real conspiracy looks like. Real conspiracies have very few players and even then, they are usually exposed. Enron, Watergate, Iran/Contra and the rest have few people involved and someone always comes out to blow the whistle.

The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant. While there is not one shred of evidence the government blew up the World Trade Center, there is evidence that they used the tragedy to remove Saddam Hussein using poor WMD evidence.

Updated:

One conspiracy theorist said "What about the Contras? Aren't they a large organization?" As if ALL the groups which made up the Contras had to know the whole plan. That's like including the troops in an investigation into the manipulation of intelligence before the war. It makes little sense and only hurts their argument. Because Iran/Contra was exposed making the point that large conspiracies are uncovered. It seems the irony from the truth movement continues unabated. This conspiracy investigator can't even investigate a well known conspiracy which happened decades ago.

This site has been attacked for not having any info on the administrations possible crimes, having too little info (Which I agreed with and corrected) and now for having any info. It seems one of the arguments for controlled demolition is that I created this page for credibility. Let me repeat, if you think the columns weren't pulled in over time because I have or don't have a page on Bush's possible manipulation of intel then you are no different than a Bush supporter who denies the evidence below.

Below is a short list of people who blew the whistle on the misuse of pre-war intelligence and pre-9/11 incompetence.

Thomas Packard, acting FBI director: Summer before 9/11, Ashcroft told him he didn’t want to hear anything more about terrorist threats.

Yet, Pickard testified to the 9/11 commission that when he tried to brief Ashcroft just a week later, on July 12, about the terror threat inside the United States, he got the brush-off.

"Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore," Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste asked on April 13. "Is that correct?"

"That is correct," Pickard replied.

Testifying under oath the same day, Ashcroft categorically denied the allegation, saying, "I did never speak to him saying that I didn't want to hear about terrorism."

However, another senior FBI official tells NBC News he vividly recalls Pickard returning from the meeting that day furious that Ashcroft had cut short the terrorism briefing. This official, now retired, has talked to the 9/11 commission.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5271234

Ashcroft's actions corroborate the FBI version...

"In addition, FBI counterterrorism chief Dale Watson "told us that he almost fell out of his chair" when Ashcroft outlined his budget priorities in May 2001, because the list made no mention of counterterrorism, the commission reported earlier Tuesday,"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/ ... ommission/

The above has been used by conspiracy theorists to say "Why else would Ashcroft not want to to hear about terrorism. Because he's in on it!" But there is a more logical reason which there is evidence for. The administration may not have wanted to spend time or money on things like terrorism. We know they wanted to give tax cuts and big money to defense contractors for Star Wars technology. Remember that? The major point is that is negligence no matter what the reason. This is also lying to congress. Someone lied, be it Ashcroft or the 3 FBI agents. This is worthy of an investigation.

Larry Johnson, former counter terrorism agent with the CIA: Rumsfeld set up a special office to link Iraq and Al Qaeda cherry picking Intel; evidence is sent back saying, “That’s garbage, that’s misleading, that misrepresents,” then they would take the same brief to the vice president or one even worse.

"LARRY JOHNSON: They would brief their findings to the community and the community would come back and say, wait a second, you don't know what you're talking about, that's garbage, that's misleading, that misrepresents."

"ENSOR: The spies call it cherry picking. Choosing scraps of intelligence to prove a worst-case scenario. July 23rd, a senior British intelligence official briefs Prime Minister Tony Blair on his recent discussions in Washington. According to notes of the Downing Street briefing, the mi6 chief reported that President Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action. The intelligence and facts, he said, were being fixed around the policy. The White House declined interview requests for this report. President Bush addressed the memo at a news conference with Blair."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cp.01.html

"Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.

It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.

Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02418.html

Rand Baers, National Security Council: Resigns White House post and works against Bush. He said Cheney pushed CIA "Cheney said, “Everybody knows Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, tell us what you know, what’s your best stuff?..”

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cp.01.html

Downing Street Memo says Bush wanted to remove Saddam though military action. “Evidence fixed around the policy”

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

Rice, Rove, Karen Hughes, Cheney have weekly closed door meetings on how to convince the American people.

The White House Iraq Group (aka, White House Information Group or WHIG) was the marketing arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public. The task force was set up in August 2002 by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and chaired by Karl Rove to coordinate all the executive branch elements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. One example of the WHIG's functions and influence is the "escalation of rhetoric about the danger that Iraq posed to the U.S., including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud'"[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group

John McLaughlin, CIA deputy director: “We did not clear that particular [Niger] speech”… Tenet’s “slam dunk” does not mean what the media thinks it means.

Tenet: 'Slam Dunk' Misused

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cp.01.html

George Tenet- At The Center Of The Storm, Former CIA Director

Michael Scheuer: Intel did not matter. We were going to war / Tenet researched 10 years worth of documents and found no connection to Al Qaeda. Tenet tells Bush / Administration yet administration continues to suggest connection.

SCHEUER: Mr. Tenet to his credit had us go back through CIA files and we went back for almost ten years, reviewed nearly 20,000 documents, which came to 65,000 pages or more. It could find no connection in the terms of a state sponsor relationship with Iraq.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cp.01.html

Who is ‘Joe T’ and why was he the point man for analyzing nuclear weapon intel?

Some of the CIA's briefings on Iraq begin to rely on one analyst, an engineer with limited nuclear weapons experience known only as Joe T. He believed he found the smoking gun. Saddam was buying high strength aluminum tubes that Joe T. insists are meant for centrifuges to enrich uranium.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cp.01.html

Gregory Thielmann, State Dept intelligence: More and more people said intel on tubes was that they were no good for a nuclear weapon. Official leak saying “Mushroom Cloud” misrepresents the intelligence community disagreement. Administration continues “No doubt” he has WMD. Tenet defends erroneous evidence while others in the CIA voice doubts. State department issues strong and lengthy dissent. Niger uranium purchase “Highly Dubious.” "Intelligence agencies, get your talking points”

CIA intel notes critical gaps in the evidence because of questionable reliability of many sources,

For the first time before a modern war, Bush did not ask for National Intelligence Estimate. Congress demands it. N.I.E. said Saddam not a threat.

White House Iraq group gives only evidence which supports policy while down playing dissent.

Last minute dispute over Niger speech.

Tenet and Powell argue about intel.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... cp.01.html

Carl Ford, Asst Sec of State, Intelligence: “This is all we got? And we’re making these firm judgments?

Powell not told about Curveball. Curveball was never debriefed by the CIA.

Curveball was the designation for a claimed "Iraqi chemical engineer" who the United States claimed had served as an informant. Curveball would be the attributed source of pivotal information concerning weapons of mass destruction leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

Col. Laurence Wilkerson: Evidence brought to the UN “It was anything but an intelligence document. It was a Chinese menu where you can pick and choose what you want”

A day before Powell’s UN speech, a CIA skeptic had warned Curveball is a lair. A superior sends an E-mail reply saying “This war’s going to happen regardless, the powers that be probably aren’t interested whether Curve ball knows what he’s talking about.”

Powell’s speech riddled with misleading allegations. Not outright lies but worded in such a way as to mislead.

The CIA had evidence that Curveball was a shameless fabricator months before Secretary of State Colin Powell cited the Iraqi's reports before the United Nations. But in the Feb. 4, 2003, e-mail—written a day before Powell's U.N. appearance—the senior CIA official sharply rebuked one of those skeptical analysts. "Keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say and that the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about," the CIA official wrote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7369843/site/newsweek/

Scott Ritter, ex UNSCUM weapon inspector: The evidence for war is not there. He goes on just about every TV station trying to stop the war.

'No threat'

Mr Ritter accused the US Government of deliberately setting new standards of disarmament criteria to maintain UN sanctions and justify continued bombing raids.

He also said Iraq "did co-operate to a very significant degree with the UN inspection process" and blamed the US and the UK for the breakdown.

Mr Ritter essentially repeated those views during his trip to Baghdad last year.

He said the US seemed "on the verge of an historic mistake".

"My government is making a case for war against Iraq that is built upon fear and ignorance," he added.

"The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2247600.stm

Richard Clarke: Bush wanted to connect Iraq and 9/11. Invading Iraq for 9/11 is like China attacking us and we invade Mexico.

RICHARD CLARKE: It would have been irresponsible for the president not to come in and say, "Dick, I don't want you to assume it was al-Qaida. I'd like you to look at every possibility, and I'd like you to look at every possibility to see if maybe it was al-Qaida with somebody else," in a very calm way, with all possibilities open. That's not what happened.

What happened was the president, with his finger in my face, saying, "Iraq, a memo on Iraq and al-Qaida, a memo on Iraq and the attacks." Very vigorous, very intimidating, and in a way that left all of us with the same impression, that he wanted that answer. Well, we couldn't give him that answer because it wasn't true.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terroris ... 03-22.html

General Wesley Clark: People in the Pentagon told him Bush was going to war no matter what.

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan." Clark adds, "I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned."

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0340,s ... 436,1.html

New Memo said Bush was going to war no matter what.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

Those are just some of the people who have come out saying there was incompetence before 9/11 and a rush to war regardless of what the Intel said.

Many republicans view this evidence (Not all but too many. Liberals do it too but for other issues) and make rationalizations. They cherry pick quotes just as conspiracy theorists do in order to dismiss this evidence. They will character assassinate the people on this list one by one like conspiracy theorists attack the NIST and Popular Mechanics. "The NIST is paid by the government!" "Popular Mechanics is a shill rag!" "Clarke was selling a book!" "General Clark was running for president!" so on... The evidence is often taken apart and viewed separately. "No steel building has ever collapsed by fire before!", not taking into account the airliner impact or the removed fireproofing. "Clarke was selling a book!" not taking into account all the other people in the pentagon, FBI and others who said the same thing Clarke did. And just as the conspiracy theorists rely almost exclusively on what the conspiracy talking points are, the republicans almost exclusively rely on what the party talking points are.

I want to make this clear... I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE if the administration cherry picked intel to go to war. But I know for sure it deserves an investigation because evidence points to them cherry picking intel to rush to war. I also can conclude from evidence that Ashcroft lied to congress about his incompetence on counter terrorism before 9/11. Not having any money in the budget for it is evidence I can't ignore. More evidence below...

We know the PNAC wanted to invade Iraq before 911. Was 9/11 the perfect excuse?
Some PNAC members

Name Department Title Remarks
Elliott Abrams National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
Richard Armitage Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State
John R. Bolton Department of State U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Previously served as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the first administration of GWB.
Richard Cheney Bush Administration Vice President PNAC Founder
Seth Cropsey Voice of America Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau
Paula Dobriansky Department of State Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University
Bruce Jackson U.S. Committee on NATO President
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq U.S.Ambassador to Iraq Previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 to June 2005
Lewis Libby Bush Administration Chief of Staff for the Vice President Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.
Peter W. Rodman Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense Secretary of Defense PNAC founder and previously Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences Developer of Tamiflu
Randy Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller Former V.P. of System Planning Corp.
Robert B. Zoellick Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005);

Conspiracy theorists say this is proof that the administration needed to create a "Pearl Harbor". But if they did blow up the towers, why would they go to such great lengths to point to Bin Laden? Why not fix evidence to point to Saddam? Conspiracy theorists say they needed terrorism to perpetuate an endless war. To take away our freedoms to fight this war. But Bin Laden wasn't the only way to do it. "They" could have planted evidence suggesting Bin Laden was working for Saddam. Why not? Remember, if they are setting up Bin Laden then why not set up Saddam at the same time? He wasn't "a few Arabs in the desert." He had an army and millions from oil profits. Why allow people to say "Saddam wasn't the one to attack us"? There would have been far fewer players if they placed a nuclear device in the towers’ basements and took out lower Manhattan. The government could have blamed Saddam's fictitious WMD for the device and Bin Laden for the delivery. We would have reason to invade Iraq the next day. Conspiracy theorists would have us believe they chose a plan which involves thousands over smaller, more controllable plans.

From a reader:

WHY would the government do it? I don’t mean Iraq , oil etc I mean why would they do it in this way ? just to help a pal with his insurance?

Why use a plane at all . Why crash your own airline industry and every other countries { Swissair etc}, damage your financial markets { just when you are going to need some war funds} destroy very very
valuable property, panic the WORLD, kill your own citizens etc. Could all this not be achieved by a ‘foiled’ plot. Terrorists were 15 minutes from the murder of thousands… a president would certainly come out better
having stopped an attack than permitted one. Or if you needed a big attack why not just the anthrax that came after. Everyone panicking over any white powder. Far far easier to plant Anthrax or similar in the towers or Disneyland, have a panic, then capture your suspects who blow themselves up or whatever you want.

If you were going to do this, would you do it this way?’ There are cheaper, better, easier and safer ways to get into a war.. Also why pick Osama as the fall guy if the target is Hussein. Why not just pick Saddam and ‘plant’ evidence to show it was him all along, thereby never needing to go to Afghanistan at all .After all if you can plan the attack why not the culprit.. no need to go scratching for evidence of a link to Iraq AFTER the attack , set it up before.

Funny how the authorities are both all powerful, all seeing, all knowing, and completely incompetent at the same time...

The good old Pearl Harbor theory always struck me the same way . Why destroy your fleet just as you are planning war. Discover the jap carriers 500 miles out while on manouevers’ and the impact on public opinion would be similar to a attack.

Why sink your whole fleet ? Especially if you could sink theirs .. take a few years off the war if they lost 6 carriers day 1 !!

[Bewusstsein]

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm

[Maduland]

http://www.debunking911.com/

For all who still believe that it was an in-job, please, read the above.
The things you believe are just downright disrespectful to the thousands who died.

Fucking assholes.

Much of that and the other things you posted have since proven inaccurate or misleading.

To me, covering up for their murderers is what's disrespectful.

[Bewusstsein]

http://www.debunking911.com/

For all who still believe that it was an in-job, please, read the above.
The things you believe are just downright disrespectful to the thousands who died.

Fucking assholes.

Much of that and the other things you posted have since proven inaccurate or misleading.

To me, covering up for their murderers is what's disrespectful.

Misleading? According to who?

[Maduland]

http://www.debunking911.com/

For all who still believe that it was an in-job, please, read the above.
The things you believe are just downright disrespectful to the thousands who died.

Fucking assholes.

Much of that and the other things you posted have since proven inaccurate or misleading.

To me, covering up for their murderers is what's disrespectful.

Misleading? According to who?

News articles, TV articles, recordings, solid evidence... you posted so much.

More specifically, there was a recent peer reviewed scientific paper published in, (I think,) Scientific American confirming thermite.

Hell, even the 911 Commission head came out and said he doesn't believe the report they published, they were fed a bunch of lies.

[Bewusstsein]

News articles, TV articles, recordings, solid evidence... you posted so much.

More specifically, there was a recent peer reviewed scientific paper published in, (I think,) Scientific American confirming thermite.

Hell, even the 911 Commission head came out and said he doesn't believe the report they published, they were fed a bunch of lies.

Some sources would be nice.

[Maduland]

News articles, TV articles, recordings, solid evidence... you posted so much.

More specifically, there was a recent peer reviewed scientific paper published in, (I think,) Scientific American confirming thermite.

Hell, even the 911 Commission head came out and said he doesn't believe the report they published, they were fed a bunch of lies.

Some sources would be nice.

I don't have a prepared list. But I'll do a quick google.

http://www.bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/20 ... o-you.html <--- this has a bunch of other thinks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01300.html

[New World Liberty]

ok so here's my points on this

the wtc towers were made to withstand the impact of a commercial airplane. it's in the design.
show me ANY steel buildings in the whole wide world that collapse due to a fire?
google the Madrid skyscraper that burned for an entire DAY and never budged a inch and tell me fire can make steel buckle. also almost all if not most of the jet fuel in the planes exploded on impact causing the huge fire ball on the OUTSIDE of the building.
i find it hard to believe no one has mentioned the free-fall speed at which they fell.
say i think like most of you and believe the towers fell cause fire weaken the steel, then you would have a pancake effect with each floor slamming into each other on the way down right. but it didn't it went down in under 10 seconds on 3 towers.

look at the pictures and video and lay-out of the property where the buildings are of the other WTC buildings they're crushed from the debris from 1 and 2. yet #7 was almost untouched from the fall-out. watch the middle of #7 cave in on itself the moment it collapses then watch any Las Vegas hotel demolished, and tell me the difference.
and those who say well they knew #7 wasn't so safe so they brought it down for "safety reasons" how do you rig a building to implode on itself in a few hours?

what about the squibs being set off which you can see as it's falling? oh yeah it's the pressure from the floors above on the way down right? then they should be in and at EVERY floor not just a select few.

in the towers you can see the imprint of the planes impact like a shadow. however when you look at the pentagon all you seen was a hole the size of a bus b4 the point of impact collapsed. 84 video cameras from gas stations to hotels were confiscated by the government and yet we only get to see 4 frames of a video???? where's all the debris from the impact? where's the engines, wings, or tail? where are all the dead bodies and parts of bodies that should be thrown everywhere? they didn't pick up anything bigger then your hand! and 1 blue tarp covered "box".

flight 93 give me a break! again WHERE ARE THE BODIES???? EVERY plane crash has bodies and parts scattered yet there was nothing left of flight 93. the impact zone they say it hit WAS ALREADY THERE b4 9-11. even if it hit nose 1st a plane just doesn't disappear. think i'm BS'ing ya? google plane crashes and see the carnage and mayhem it leaves then go back and look again at the events of 9-11.

NORAD sat on it's hands that day, how could the best and brightest of our military who are ordered to scramble on a highjacking let not 1 or 2 or even 3 but 4 planes to be highjacked but not put 1 fighter jet in the air? cause they were deliberately deceived to think it was nothing more then a simulation.

couple more things to those of you who say "yeah they did it for money, look what it did to the American economy" fail to mention or even look into the contracts made to companies who profit off of war. look at the stocks of the airlines b4 the attack and you can see the short selling of the stocks.
does anyone here really believe we would have the patriot act, "free speech zones", and beware of the evil boggy men that may live next door to ya so you need to turn in your neighbor for unpatriotic activities ? or be in Afghanistan or Iraq w/o 9/11?
sure me and you might be in a recession but you think the owner of Blackwater now XE Eric Prince or Cheney isn't making millions and billions from Halibrition? the same military industrial complex that Eisenhower tried to warn us about that brought us the Vietnam war and 58,000+ men dead with over a million dead Vietnamese is still running the game using us as pawns.

false flag attacks have always worked to rill up the population for war under the pretense of "national security"

[Bewusstsein]

News articles, TV articles, recordings, solid evidence... you posted so much.

More specifically, there was a recent peer reviewed scientific paper published in, (I think,) Scientific American confirming thermite.

Hell, even the 911 Commission head came out and said he doesn't believe the report they published, they were fed a bunch of lies.

Some sources would be nice.

I don't have a prepared list. But I'll do a quick google.

http://www.bigeye.com/nanothermite.htm

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/20 ... o-you.html <--- this has a bunch of other thinks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01300.html

And I respond with this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=346
(mio=micaceous iron oxide primer)

And to explain the aluminum, once again, I look back to the debunk website: there are multiple sources of aluminum in the planes, one example being the chemical oxygen generators which are wrapped with the stuff.



And if I want to go really crazy, there might've even been aluminum...

...In the buildings.

Dun dun dun.

Sorry it took so long, I wanted to read the report myself before I made any further conclusions and it isn't short.

Furthermore, the papers weren't even peer-reviewed. The publisher he used was fail.
There's a reason for that, tbh.

FUTHER-furthermore, I can't debunk the commission leaders, but I think if they knew something about the government blowing shit up they'd be a bit more open and straightforward with it than "We feel we were being lied to." Until they actually specify just what they were being lied to about - healthcare for rescue workers, free lunches, a mass conspiracy to trick our country into going to war, etc - I wouldn't call it much of a trump card.

Also;

So... just curious... suppose it actually was thermite, instead of red (iron-pigmented) paint chips. A layer of thermite the thickness of a thick coat of paint--given something as massive as a steel beam, is the paint-thickness thermite likely to heat the beam up enough to make it too warm to pick up without gloves? Weaken steel? Liquify?

Absolutely not. The heat content of thermite per pound is several times less than gasoline or even paper. You'd do more damage to the steel columns by wallpapering over them and setting that on fire.

Thermite only provides an advantage if there's so much of it, and you can convince it to react so quickly, that it exceeds the heating caused by regular combustion, which is dependent on atmospheric oxygen and limits its rate. This requires much more than a "thin film." Try inches. Maybe more, it's hard to quantify since they've never actually produced a complete hypothesis.

Anyway, the one thing that cracks me up the most about this paper is its own self-inconsistency... Several times we are told that the stuff can't be paint, notably in Section 7. But in Section 5 they talk about how their super-nano-destructo-stuff can be "painted" on, and they reference a material science report that uses Viton, a synthetic rubber compound, as a binder. So... they're saying that it can't be paint but it could be "paint?" What?

Obviously, Dr. Jones and company are aware that there's more than one kind of paint, or else they wouldn't have suggested the mystery substance could be "paint."

I still say the stuff is paint. You'll note that, conspicuously absent from this paper, is any description of the baseline paint they used for comparison in their various tests. The fallacy, therefore, is one of hasty generalization. Some paint will surely dissolve in methyl ethyl ketone, but that doesn't mean it all will. Not all paints burn the same, either. And somebody check me on this, but I believe Viton -- and by inference, the "sol-gel" they talk about above -- would dissolve in MEK, so this test seems inadequate to test either baseline paint or the mystery sample.

I say it's paint because every property they detected is consistent with paint. Metallic pigments, check. Aluminum oxide coating on pigments, check. Ignition temperature, check. All we need to do is find a paint that (a) was plausibly used in the WTC, and (b) after years of drying resists solution in MEK. Shouldn't be too hard. I note that the paints used 40 years ago are quite unlike paint you could buy off the shelf today, thanks to environmental regulations, so I would be highly surprised if whatever unspecified paint they used was at all comparable.

Whatever the stuff is, though, Dr. Jones's results here clearly demonstrate that it isn't thermite. There are at least three mechanical and physical properties he's worked out here that prove it isn't thermite. That's even if we overlook that huge quantities of it would be needed to cause anything, etc. -- I'll let you guys spot them. It's quite hilarious.

Now, regarding Bentham. It's fun to slam Bentham, but let's be clear on one point: Just because it's in Bentham doesn't mean its conclusions are wrong. Those are indeed wrong, but don't confuse the messenger with the message.

Slamming the paper because it's in Bentham, however, strikes me as appropriate. This is because, as far as I know, all of the results and all of the argumentation in the paper is not new. The only new thing here, the only new event, is the act of publication itself. Since the publication is a sham, to put it mildly, this is fair game for criticism.

Here's another fun fact about Bentham: Just yesterday, they invited me to be an Editorial Board Member! oh, happy day. That e-mail went straight to trash, but after I read this I retrieved it. Here's a sample of their pitch:

Based on your eminent contributions in the field of space technology, we would like to consider your possible nomination to the Editorial Board Membership of the journal. As an editorial board member, you may be required to occasionally review research papers. To make sure the Editorial Board of the journal consists of potential productive scientists, it is expected that all of the board members will publish one article each year in the journal which will be published after the routine reviewing process. The first article received from the EBMs each year will be published free of charge while the subsequent ones will be entitled to a 50% discount off the publication fees for submission of their manuscripts to the journal.

(Emphasis added)

Oh, my, what a laugh that gave me. They need me to submit and pay for papers (at a discount, natch) to verify that I'm a "potential productive scientist??" Why the heck are they extending the offer if I'm not? Why don't they look at my other publications to make this determination?

I participate in peer review all the time. Just last week I reviewed a paper for the ASME, and I'm not even a member there; I got hit up out of the blue for my actual contributions which were similar to the paper under consideration. Next week I'm going to AIAA Infotech to present, and our paper there was reviewed properly. This stunt Bentham is pulling is a scam. I have never run into anyone professionally associated with them, and if I do, it will lower my respect for them enormously.

Suffice to say, I rejected the offer. But, if the Truth Movement thinks Bentham's blessing is so important, then obviously they must also think, by virtue of the above endorsement from Bentham, I'm qualified to review this paper. I'd flunk it, for reasons expressed above.

Maybe Dr. Jones should join Bentham. He seems to like publishing there, and I imagine they'd offer him the discount as well.

[Blouman Empire]

I only know what you said, not what you were "trying" to say - and it appears that you're backpedalling your way into having these two be two different things.

1. You wished they were in the WTC when they got hit.
2. People in the WTC when it got hit died.
3. Therefore you wished them death.

Now, maybe you were instead trying to make a point about how daffodils fly out of your ass and how you're really a nice guy who wouldn't wish death on anyone. Tough. That's not what you said. You wished death on people for nothing other than being conspiracy theorists.

Not everyone that was in the WTC on the 9/11/2001 died.

[Aloha Mars 2]

I only know what you said, not what you were "trying" to say - and it appears that you're backpedalling your way into having these two be two different things.

1. You wished they were in the WTC when they got hit.
2. People in the WTC when it got hit died.
3. Therefore you wished them death.

Now, maybe you were instead trying to make a point about how daffodils fly out of your ass and how you're really a nice guy who wouldn't wish death on anyone. Tough. That's not what you said. You wished death on people for nothing other than being conspiracy theorists.

Not everyone that was in the WTC on the 9/11/2001 died.

[Blouman Empire]

Excuse me?

[YamataNoOrochi]

Nothing would surprise with me with the US government. George Bush is only interested in imperialism, not his own people, so it would make sense that he partly or fully organised it so that he would have an excuse to invade someone.