9/11 Was an Inside Job

[RubyRidge]

I'm kinda disappointed nobody on here has mentioned that. Before u accuse me of being on one of those tin foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists, I think u should consider the facts.

Consider that NORAD stood down (on orders) bcuz they were told that drills were being run that day, so they shouldn't pursue the planes that appeared to be hijacked. Consider that the firefighters who responded and the survivors heard multiple explosions while inside the WTC. Consider the WTC was a HUGE crime scene, yet the mayor SOLD SCRAP AND DISPOSED OF DEBRIS while the investigation was still happening! That's called TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE, which is why Fire Engineering magazine (whose staff of writers have 20+ yrs of firefighting experience) referred to the official 9/11 investigation as a "half-baked farce."

Also consider that NOTHING HIT WTC 7, yet it fell the same way WTC 1 and 2 did, THE SAME DAY! The official report never determined the cause of the fires in bldg 7. Consider that the buildings fell at FREE FALL SPEED, with absolutely no resistance, each floor pancaking on top of the floor below it. Which is NOT how buildings collapse, unless, of course, they collapse from a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Even Peter Jennings remarked that's what it looked like, and mentioned that u have to get at the "under-infrastructure of a building" to be able to do that.

In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein (owner of WTC) mentioned that he "made the decision to pull" WTC 7. Pull is a demolition term, and u cannot "pull" a building unless you had access to it well in advance and were able to plant explosives. And of course, the WTC would normally have 10,000 ppl in it, but on that particular day, a day when public officials were specifically warned not to fly, there were only 3,000. And let's not forget the put options on United stock. Face it...a LOT of ppl knew it was going to happen...BECAUSE SOMEBODY ON THE INSIDE MADE IT HAPPEN!!

WE MUST REOPEN THE 9/11 INVESTIGATION!!

To learn more, visit these great sites

killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

www.whatreallyhappened.com

www.911revisited.com/video.html

and last but *certainly* not least,

www.infowars.com

www.prisonplanet.tv

Seek the truth or we'll all be buried alive by lies!

[Mylaan]

I've seen several videos about that... There's just too much that doesn't add up, imo. To the very least, the govt knew it was going to happen.
But then, by now I refuse and disbelieve anything and everything those putrescent saks of shit have to say.

[RS Davis]

I think 9/11 happened mostly the way they claim.

[whatever]

admin said:

I think 9/11 happened mostly the way they claim.

Uhm, Rick, how do you explain the melting point of steel being far above what the fire could have generated, or the most damning to me, the words of the architects saying they designed those towers to withstand exactly the impact they took. You can find it on the internet, watch them say it. I believe they also state they designed them to withstand a hit from two planes fully loaded with fuel, which those planes weren't.

Lastly, I'd truly (and you know I mean it, I don't like this stuff one bit, so please make me believe) like you to tackle both the fact that a steel building has never before melted and collapsed like that (note that 3 buildings did that on 911) and the fact that all three buildings pancaked perfectly. Not one. Not just two. Three. One of which wasn't hit by any plane at all. Making the engineering of demolition seem unnecessary, it would seem. Perfectly straight down, all three, what'r the odds...

Any single one of these details can perhaps be explained away. But, on 911, there are too many of them. I liken it to the voting irregularities of the 2004 election; too many different measures and numbers that didn't behave as they should have.

So, I really wish you could answer all those questions Rick, but, I'm willing to bet that you can't. And, if you could, there are other questions, such as, what about shepherding out the Saudi royals, or the many military exercises that went on at the same time, leaving us mysteriously undefended. Planes that didn't take off to intercept anything. It's just a shame, but honestly, in my heart of hearts I hope you're right and I'm wrong. As always.

Riddle me this, Bush comes from a wealthy oil family, and has been friends with the Bin Ladens for generations. If he were to come up with some crazy plan to take over the US and work some huge change on the US and the rest of the world, and if he solicited help from the Middle East, as the perfect boogie men...isn't 911 exactly how it would have looked? Kinda scary when you go off the conspiracy deep-end, isn't it?

All I know is, I don't want to live in a Tom Clancey thriller novel. Damn it all. I really wish the admin would answer those many nagging questions, instead of ignoring them, treating them like "junk science" too.

[Mylaan]

whatever said:

admin said:

I think 9/11 happened mostly the way they claim.

Uhm, Rick, how do you explain the melting point of steel being far above what the fire could have generated, or the most damning to me, the words of the architects saying they designed those towers to withstand exactly the impact they took. You can find it on the internet, watch them say it. I believe they also state they designed them to withstand a hit from two planes fully loaded with fuel, which those planes weren't.

Lastly, I'd truly (and you know I mean it, I don't like this stuff one bit, so please make me believe) like you to tackle both the fact that a steel building has never before melted and collapsed like that (note that 3 buildings did that on 911) and the fact that all three buildings pancaked perfectly. Not one. Not just two. Three. One of which wasn't hit by any plane at all. Making the engineering of demolition seem unnecessary, it would seem. Perfectly straight down, all three, what'r the odds...

Any single one of these details can perhaps be explained away. But, on 911, there are too many of them. I liken it to the voting irregularities of the 2004 election; too many different measures and numbers that didn't behave as they should have.

So, I really wish you could answer all those questions Rick, but, I'm willing to bet that you can't. And, if you could, there are other questions, such as, what about shepherding out the Saudi royals, or the many military exercises that went on at the same time, leaving us mysteriously undefended. Planes that didn't take off to intercept anything. It's just a shame, but honestly, in my heart of hearts I hope you're right and I'm wrong. As always.

Riddle me this, Bush comes from a wealthy oil family, and has been friends with the Bin Ladens for generations. If he were to come up with some crazy plan to take over the US and work some huge change on the US and the rest of the world, and if he solicited help from the Middle East, as the perfect boogie men...isn't 911 exactly how it would have looked? Kinda scary when you go off the conspiracy deep-end, isn't it?

All I know is, I don't want to live in a Tom Clancey thriller novel. Damn it all. I really wish the admin would answer those many nagging questions, instead of ignoring them, treating them like "junk science" too.

I think we've watched the same videos...

[RS Davis]

whatever said:

admin said:

I think 9/11 happened mostly the way they claim.

Uhm, Rick, how do you explain the melting point of steel being far above what the fire could have generated, or the most damning to me, the words of the architects saying they designed those towers to withstand exactly the impact they took. You can find it on the internet, watch them say it. I believe they also state they designed them to withstand a hit from two planes fully loaded with fuel, which those planes weren't.

It was designed to withstand impact from one 707, travelling at approximately 290 km/h, not two travelling 470 to 590 km/h. There's more:

www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

Lastly, I'd truly (and you know I mean it, I don't like this stuff o
ne bit, so please make me believe) like you to tackle both the fact that a steel building has never before melted and collapsed like that (note that 3 buildings did that on 911) and the fact that all three buildings pancaked perfectly. Not one. Not just two. Three. One of which wasn't hit by any plane at all. Making the engineering of demolition seem unnecessary, it would seem. Perfectly straight down, all three, what'r the odds...

Pretty good, apparently. There have been many buildings around the world that have collapsed in the exact same "pancaking" way. It's called "progressive collapse," something engineers have been worried about for some time now:
www.911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html

As to Tower 7, according to Captain Chris Boyle - Engine 94 - 18 years - " ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.... There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."
www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

The whole website is enlightening. It's good stuff. Check it out.

- R

[Mylaan]

Interesting that the lawn in front of the Pentagon was not damaged, isn't it?

[RS Davis]

How do you mean? From what I understand, the lawn was quickly covered with sand and gravel to accomodate the trucks bringing the evidence dumpsters.

- R

[Mylaan]

Not quickly enough: video footage shows the grass intact right in front of the building, and the hole in the building suggests a missile, not an aircraft impact, also several witnesses were said to have noticed no airplane in the sky but seen what looked like a commet tail heading for the pentagon.
Debris found was not consistant with an aircraft of any make.

[RS Davis]

sashenka said:

Not quickly enough: video footage shows the grass intact right in front of the building, and the hole in the building suggests a missile, not an aircraft impact, also several witnesses were said to have noticed no airplane in the sky but seen what looked like a commet tail heading for the pentagon.
Debris found was not consistant with an aircraft of any make.

This debris?





These images are from:
www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

There are also many witness accounts there of them removing seats and the like from the wreckage. As far as no plane being in the sky, I haven't seen that one. I have seen some questions as to why it seemed to cirlce once before flying into the building, though.

- R