# 9/11=insidejob...this is for you



## lnvanry (Jul 29, 2006)

http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

knock yourself out


----------



## C-Los 21 (Jul 29, 2006)

Damn...


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 30, 2006)

Lol


----------



## ge3k0 (Jul 30, 2006)

fucking terrorist.


----------



## CowPimp (Jul 30, 2006)

As an addendum to this video, a study was recently concluded by Steven Young, a physics professor at Bringham Young University, which found something interesting from the rubble in tower 7.  

There were pools of molten steel sitting at the bottom of the rubble several weeks after the attacks, and there was also evidence of steel evaporating.  Jet fuel is not nearly hot enough to create molten steel.  After testing an article from the rubble of building 7, he found traces of the "checmical fingerprint" for thermite.  He also found traces of sulfur, which confirmed the usage of a commercially patented version of thermite called thermate.  It is used by demolition engineers to cut through steel beams at a rapid pace.

Now remember, this building wasn't even hit by one of the jets.  That sounds pretty fucking fishy to me.


----------



## OneBetter (Jul 30, 2006)

wow..


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 30, 2006)

Nice try with that website.  Wanna have some fun?  There's so much b.s. on that site that I dont even know where to begin.  Just pick something out at random and I'll betcha I can debunk whats on that site.

And CowPimp, your right on the money.  Here's an intersting fact, 2 weeks before 9/11 the bomb sniffing dogs that had been there since the first bombings had been removed for no reason.  There was also suspicious activitiy in the weekend before 9/11, power downs or something.  And guess who works for that security company?  Marvin Bush, the Presidents brother.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 30, 2006)

And by the way, I've heard there were errors in Loose Change as well.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

You 9/11 conspiracy theorists are totally fucking nuts.

Get help. Soon.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 30, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> You 9/11 conspiracy theorists are totally fucking nuts.
> 
> Get help. Soon.



Would that include the CIA briefer for Reagan and Bush 1 who said the official story is a "fairy tale"?  Or a fromer General who says there's no way a 757 hit the Pentagon?  Or Bush's former economist who says the towers were blown up?  Or a former military school dean who says Bush trained the hijackers and ordered the attacks?  Or even a former German Minister?  

Are all those people "totally fucking nuts" as well?


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

This whole thing proves that no matter how absurd the theory, there is someone who will buy it. 

These 911 theories are absurd. Period.

It is more likley that the moon is, in fact, made of cheese.


----------



## BigPapaPump68 (Jul 30, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Nice try with that website.  Wanna have some fun?  There's so much b.s. on that site that I dont even know where to begin.  Just pick something out at random and I'll betcha I can debunk whats on that site.
> 
> And CowPimp, your right on the money.  Here's an intersting fact*, 2 weeks before 9/11 the bomb sniffing dogs that had been there since the first bombings had been removed for no reason.*  There was also suspicious activitiy in the weekend before 9/11, power downs or something.  And guess who works for that security company?  Marvin Bush, the Presidents brother.


I know what you mean and also I went to see a yankees game the weekend before it happened and there were police everywhere around there. Also was a ton of coast guard surrounding in the water. I thought to myself that maybe they had a tip that we didnt know about.


----------



## CowPimp (Jul 30, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> You 9/11 conspiracy theorists are totally fucking nuts.
> 
> Get help. Soon.



You should start doing some research.  Again, I haven't conclusively stated that I feel it's an inside job, but there is a ludicrous amount of totally fishy evidence surrounding the whole thing.  What I do believe for sure is that there is a lot of untold information surrounding the attack.  

I bet even if hard evidence was staring you in the face you wouldn't believe it.  Things like this have happened in the past.  Don't be naive.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You should start doing some research. Again, I haven't conclusively stated that I feel it's an inside job, but there is a ludicrous amount of totally fishy evidence surrounding the whole thing. What I do believe for sure is that there is a lot of untold information surrounding the attack.
> 
> I bet even if hard evidence was staring you in the face you wouldn't believe it. Things like this have happened in the past. Don't be naive.


 
You mean hard evidence like photographs of the landing gear and fuselage of the airplane?

This is right up there with the "we didn't land on the moon" theory. There are a few "in the know" guys who support it and it gives the nuts just enough "evidence" to run wild with a totally ludacris theory.

People fall for this shit b/c they WANT to believe it.

They are wrong, insensitive and irresponsible and I have no patience for them.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You should start doing some research.


 

What is comical to me is that you think those of us who find these theories ludacris have not looked into it. I have looked at sites with photo after photo. A fucking 757 hit the pentagon. Period.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 30, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> You mean hard evidence like photographs of the landing gear and fuselage of the airplane?
> 
> This is right up there with the "we didn't land on the moon" theory. There are a few "in the know" guys who support it and it gives the nuts just enough "evidence" to run wild with a totally ludacris theory.
> 
> ...



Regarding the wreckage, of course it was there.  It was obviously hit by something.  But here's the million dollar question, could a terrible pilot with no experience be able to hit the Pentagon with a 757?  The answer is no.

Fact is the guy could barely fly a 2 seater plane.  Yet on 9/11 he makes menuevers so advance most pilots in the world cant make them, in fact, a 757 should not be able to make that meneuver.  On top of that, if you bother to take 1 minute to even look at the wreckage, you would see that there is zero trace of a 757.

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/pentagon-montage.jpg

You've even got a former Major General Albert Stubblebine saying there's no way a 757 hit the Pentagon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6szfWQ4IBg&search=Albert Stubblebine

But wait, there's more!  A gas station from across the street and a highway security camera saw the entire thing, and minutes later the FBI came and took that footage and has never relased it.  You've even got witnesses saying they saw something that looked like a small plane hitting the Pentagon.

That's not all, major news sources say that the pilot is still alive and had nothing to do with the attacks.  And according the the flight maniest, there were no arabs on board that flight.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 30, 2006)

As I've just posted, Major General Stubbllebine disagrees.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> As I've just posted, Major General Stubbllebine disagrees.


 
Look at these photos.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Not be be redundant, but this theory is absurd.

LOOK AT THE FUCKING PHOTOS.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

That missile sure had some wicked landing gear.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 30, 2006)

You gotta be kidding me with that.  I'VE ALREADY SAID SOMETHING HIT THE PENTAGON!  In that lame website you've posted, show me the giant wingspan of a 757...

I never said it was a missle.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

Was the missile loaded with plane debris for effect? Or did someone drop that at the sceen from their black helicopters?


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> You gotta be kidding me with that. I'VE ALREADY SAID SOMETHING HIT THE PENTAGON! In that lame website you've posted, show me the giant wingspan of a 757...
> 
> I never said it was a missle.


 

Yeah, the wingspan is a problem. Everyone knows that the 757 was designed so that its wings could withstand a 600 MPH collision with a concreate building.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 30, 2006)

Dude, you have a serious learning problem.  I never claimed it was a missle.   It was a small plane.

So you believe an amature pilot was able to make advanced meneuevers on 9/11?  You also believe Wow!  Just wow.

Let me ask you this, where was NORAD an hour after the WTC was hit?


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 30, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Yeah, the wingspan is a problem. Everyone knows that the 757 was designed so that its wings could withstand a 600 MPH collision with a concreate building.




Darn, you were right all along.  I forgot the fact that it decintigrated into thin air from that impact.  Should have payed more attention at school so I could be as smart as you are.

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/pentagon-montage.jpg


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Let me ask you this, where was NORAD an hour after the WTC was hit?


 
The were monitoring the UFO activity at Area 51.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

Yep. most small aircraft have double-rimmed landing gear.

The photos of the engine...where these peices planted at the scene or were they placed on the small aircraft?


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'" 
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001 

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine." 
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002 

"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'" 
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001 

"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'" 
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001 

"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said." 
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20 

"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News 

Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn�t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News 

Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

All government shills planted near to scene to add credibiity..right?


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

Calling this a conspiracy theory really isn't fair to your devoted "conspiracy theorist." Your average conspiracy theorists would not fall for someting this unsupportable.


----------



## Pepper (Jul 30, 2006)

My theory is that the bush administration planted the super bowl officials in detroit to push Washington state for voting for Kerry (and Gore.)


----------



## CowPimp (Jul 30, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> What is comical to me is that you think those of us who find these theories ludacris have not looked into it. I have looked at sites with photo after photo. A fucking 757 hit the pentagon. Period.



Did you even read what I said?  It has nothing to do with that.


----------



## AKIRA (Jul 30, 2006)

3 posts within 10 minutes is enough.


----------



## CowPimp (Jul 30, 2006)

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html

You should read that Pepper.  That article is well referenced, and he has since conducted a study on rubble that tested positive for thermate, the commercially implemented version of thermite, which can easily cut through steel and is frequently used in controlled demolition.

It has nothing to do with the Pentagon incident, and he doesn't refute the fact that planes hit the WTC towers, as some have speculated.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 30, 2006)

Regarding the quotes of people saying they saw a boeing, there are also just as many witnesses saying they saw a missle or even a small plane.

Here's an intersting fact:  15 drills were being run on the morning of 9/11.  That's more drills at one time than any other time in American history, which just so happened to paralize air defenses and other responses.  Even in the months before 9/11 NORAD ran drills simulating hijacked planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon.  Yet on 9/11, over an hour went by and none of the planes could be intercepted even though NORAD has the ability to intercept planes within 5 minutes anywhere in the U.S.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Jul 30, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Regarding the quotes of people saying they saw a boeing, there are also just as many witnesses saying they saw a missle or even a small plane.
> 
> *1. Here's an intersting fact:  15 drills were being run on the morning of 9/11.  That's more drills at one time than any other time in American history*, which just so happened to paralize air defenses and other responses.  Even in the months before 9/11 NORAD ran drills simulating hijacked planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon.  Yet on 9/11, over an hour went by and none of the planes could be intercepted even though NORAD has the ability to intercept planes within 5 minutes anywhere in the U.S.



source?


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Jul 30, 2006)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> source?



These drills and wargames ordered by high level govt officials which included hijacked planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon, both months before 9/11, and on the morning of 9/11 which helped parallyze NORAD.

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm


----------



## tucker01 (Jul 31, 2006)

Shut it Troll.....

I thought you learned Pepper.


----------



## brogers (Jul 31, 2006)

The government can't even balance the budget, much less pull off the greatest hoax in the history of the planet.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 1, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> The government can't even balance the budget, much less pull off the greatest hoax in the history of the planet.



It isn't necessarily the government that did it.  The reason people point to certain people in the government is because the motivation is largely there.

At the same time, though, you already believe it was pulled off by people who have far less capability than the governemnt.  Not to mention that is a cop-out to avoid reading what evidence there is that something is being hidden from us.  

This shit needs a real investigation, not one where massive loads of evidence are withheld from the investigating agencies, and one that includes a more thorough investigation into why the towers collapsed.  The NIST refuted FEMA's assesment, and admittedly, manipulated data in their computer models to make their theory pan out.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 1, 2006)

AKIRA said:
			
		

> 3 posts within 10 minutes is enough.


 
yes sir.


----------



## bigbricks (Aug 1, 2006)

Probably thought i was gone, but this thread I could not let go!
Any body who can really think for themselves could see reguardless of this being an inside job or not, that neither the twin towers nor building 7(being it was 5 to 8 blocks away) could fall down the way tha they did.

  The twin towers were hit by two planes near the top of the buildings. 
(1) the air up there is thin, meaning less oxygen for the fire.
(2) more wind is located at that height, meaning with the amount of given oxygen and stronger winds the fire has a lower chance of reaching high tempatures and speading.
  Now with that being known lets look at how the buildings fell.
(1) as said before the buildings were hit near the top. How does the building fall from the bottom? 
(2) as far as building 7 how does it fall when it was the building the furthest away from all surrounding buildings.
  You all need to think. You don't need a physics major to tell you this. These things we've been tought in science class. Even just the basics are good enough, the rest are just details.


----------



## BigDyl (Aug 1, 2006)

It wouldn't suprise me one way or the other.  


Some people have way to much faith in the government, and the government could give a fuck less about them.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 1, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> It wouldn't suprise me one way or the other.
> 
> 
> Some people have way to much faith in the government, and the government could give a fuck less about them.



I just think it's funny how people don't contest the information I provided, they just deem it as completely nutty conspiracy theory.  It's something that "can't be."  Just look at the evidence.  There is a good chance some form of controlled demolition was used, at least on tower 7.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 1, 2006)

CowPimp, you are correct. I don't even try to argue against it. No more than I would try to argue with someone who said the earth was flat. I'd just chuckle, nod and move on. I may make a sarcastic argument here and there, but to really try to refute the "evidence" would dignify the theory. The 911 theories don't deserve a rebuttal. They are absurd.

For some reason, some people want to believe this stuff. They are so far off the path of logical thinking that there is really no way to approach them.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 1, 2006)

By the way, you are getting the same reaction that Christians get when they dare suggest that evolution is unproven.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 1, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> By the way, you are getting the same reaction that Christians get when they dare suggest that evolution is unproven.



The difference here is that science doesn't provide any recourse for the Christians who believe such a theory; the Christian's theory on the current state of the human being goes against science.  Science is the basis for what I believe here.  Forensic science has uncovered evidence of the existence of a comercially patented substance used to cut through structural steel during demolition in the wreckage of building 7.

I'm sorry the but the science behind FEMA and NIST's theories don't pan out.  The NIST's report disagrees with FEMA's, and they altered the data to make their own theory prove true.  Not to mention they stopped analyzing the data at the state in which the buildings were primed to collapse, when the actual collapse is of great importance.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 1, 2006)

My problem with the conspiracy nuts is that every odd event, every event that may not be 100% explained, every event there is incosistentcy...the gaps in knowledge are filled with whack theories.

The norm that the "simplist explaination tends to be the correct one" goes out the window. The assumption is a conspiracy, then they go to work to fill in the gaps with the "evidence." Then they turn to people like me and accuse me of being a government shill b/c won't follow them as they tilt at windmills.

911 is looking at photos of the 757 landing gear and STILL maintains no 757 hit the building. What are you supposed to say to someone like that? Keep posting links?


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 1, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> 911 is looking at photos of the 757 landing gear and STILL maintains no 757 hit the building. What are you supposed to say to someone like that? Keep posting links?



I'm not arguing that, am I?  Don't let the lack of credible support behind one theory discount another.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 1, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing that, am I? Don't let the lack of credible support behind one theory discount another.


 
No. And if  I am reading you correctly, you really aren't saying what happened or who did it, you are just saying the facts of the current story line is lacking. Correct?


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 1, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> No. And if  I am reading you correctly, you really aren't saying what happened or who did it, you are just saying the facts of the current story line is lacking. Correct?



That's part of it.  I'm also saying there is sufficient evidence pointing to the demolition theory, particularly in building 7.  There is now forensic evidence to support it.

Now, there are other things that are very fishy surrounding the whole incident, but it is largely circumstantial.  I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I would like the information that is being withheld from the American public released.  It could potentially containt the keys to uncovering a lot of unanswered questions behind the incident.

Another fact that bothers me is that a confirmed 5 (And another unconfirmed 2) of the supposed hi-jackers on their list of 19 have actually been interviewed by the BBC and the Guardian since 9-11.  How?


----------



## fUnc17 (Aug 1, 2006)

bigbricks said:
			
		

> Probably thought i was gone, but this thread I could not let go!
> Any body who can really think for themselves could see reguardless of this being an inside job or not, that neither the twin towers nor building 7(being it was 5 to 8 blocks away) could fall down the way tha they did.
> 
> The twin towers were hit by two planes near the top of the buildings.
> ...



are you kidding me? a commercial jet loaded with fuel slammed into both buildings at 300+ MPH. It wasnt just a little car bomb, it was a GUIDED MISSILE. The second plane almost went entirely through the second fucking building.

Do you have any idea how big the WTC was? it was ENORMOUS. if you sat in a car parked right outside the building and tried to see the top of it, you couldnt. it was that tall. That amount of debris falling down on everything below for blocks is going to cause catastrophic damage. have you ever seen a building like that uncontrollably collapse before, much less two of them in the same day?? My guess is no, so you have no idea what kind of damage two of those enormous buildings couldve caused when they came crashing down. That kind of shit was new to all of us, suddenly now everyone is an expert.


----------



## KelJu (Aug 1, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> This whole thing proves that no matter how absurd the theory, there is someone who will buy it.
> 
> These 911 theories are absurd. Period.
> 
> It is more likley that the moon is, in fact, made of cheese.




Yeah, its kind of like the theory of Jesus Christ isn't it?


----------



## Pepper (Aug 1, 2006)

KelJu said:
			
		

> Yeah, its kind of like the theory of Jesus Christ isn't it?


 
Whatever that means.


----------



## KelJu (Aug 1, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Whatever that means.




Lawl...you know exactly what it means.


----------



## Decker (Aug 1, 2006)

fUnc17 said:
			
		

> are you kidding me? a commercial jet loaded with fuel slammed into both buildings at 300+ MPH. It wasnt just a little car bomb, it was a GUIDED MISSILE. The second plane almost went entirely through the second fucking building.
> 
> Do you have any idea how big the WTC was? it was ENORMOUS. if you sat in a car parked right outside the building and tried to see the top of it, you couldnt. it was that tall. That amount of debris falling down on everything below for blocks is going to cause catastrophic damage. have you ever seen a building like that uncontrollably collapse before, much less two of them in the same day?? My guess is no, so you have no idea what kind of damage two of those enormous buildings couldve caused when they came crashing down. That kind of shit was new to all of us, suddenly now everyone is an expert.


The WTC had structural redundancies designed to withstand the impact of any airplane.

I'm glad this kind of talk is still going on. The technical minutia that goes along with this discussion is interesting.

My dissatisfaction w/ 9/11 attacks stems from the general framework of the events themselves. I posted this before but here it is:

Four planes get hijacked simultaneously while on FAA radar--this is unprecedented in US history. Some of these planes breach the most heavily protected airspace in the world: Washington DC and NY, NY. 

The planes are tracked for over 35 minutes until the first crashes into the WTC.

No american fighters are scrambled (there are many air bases in the NE). The president isn't notified until after the second plane hits the WTC.

1/2 hour after the first plane hit the WTC, Bush finally makes a public statement. 5 minutes after that statement, another plan hits the pentagon. Still, no fighters were scrambled.

All of this was due to incompetence allegedly, yet no one was reprimanded or fired.

Afterwards Bush/Cheney ask Congress NOT to investigate the antecedents of the attack.

Can anyone see why a reasonable person might have questions about the official storyline?


----------



## Decker (Aug 1, 2006)

Couldn't anyone use a cell phone that day?


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 1, 2006)

Don't forget the hours of videotape and thounsands of photographs that are still being withheld from the genreal public.  Does that mean anything necessarily, no, but it's questionable.

There's the fact that the largest drill concerning hijacking planes ever was being conducted on that date.  Coincidence?  Perhaps, but I think an investigation is warranted.

FEMA's theory about the building collapse were later deemed implausible by the NIST's report.  The NIST's theories ultimately required being toyed with by implementing unrealistic data in order to prove them "plausible."  I find this odd.

No study of the buildings once they reached a state primed for collapse is also strange.  You must consider the collapse of all three buildings, particularly building 7, should be very chaotic and random, yet exhibit the signs of controlled demolition.  The chances of this occuring are astronomically low.

WTC7 is the first steel-framed building in history to collapse as a result of fires.  Remember, this building was not hit by a plane.  I know, there are firsts for everything, but I still feel it is an interesting fact when compiled together with the rest of the evidence.

There were pools of molten metal in the rubble and proof of evaporation after the attacks.  This is not physically possible as a result of fires from jet fuel.  The fires themselves don't even reach the temperatures that the steel would have to reach necessary to turn them molten and cause evaporation.  Then you have to consider the fact that the fuel was only burning for a matter of minutes, the continued fires were burning office materials, and the temperatures reached when these items are ignited are nowhere near that of the temperature of burning jet fuel.  To add to this, as I've already said, forensic evidence is now out there showing that there was the existence of a substance that is used in controlled demolitions to rapidly slice through structural steel in order to allow for a "clean" building demolition.  This substance produces molten iron as a byproduct of its chemical reaction.

Multiple eyewitness accounts saw evidence of controlled demolition in the towers.  There were flashes and explosions on the lower floors of the building before it collapsed up top.


Again, a further investigation is certainly called for in my opinion.


----------



## Decker (Aug 1, 2006)

Cowpimp,

Those are some interesting findings.  The forensic evidence aside, I still cannot reconcile the fact that our government watched the hijackings from inception to crash and did NOTHING!  For about an hour--No calls, no e-mails, no smoke signals...no warnings of any type to anyone.  Just sit back and watch it happen.  

Error and/or incompetence is not good enough to explain that kind of debacle.


----------



## the nut (Aug 1, 2006)

911, I'm not smart enough to debunk any of these theories, and I don't want to believe them, but these threads are interesting.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 1, 2006)

Yeah, intersting stuff.  And for the other members on here speaking out for 9/11 Truth where were you when I was getting killed on those other threads!  Sheesh...

Just kidding.

Regarding the Pentagon.  I'm not suprised on bit that there's airplane wreckage there.  Why?  Because it was hit by a plane.  Was it a 757?  Every single fact says that's impossible.

Regarding the WTC and WTC.  There are tons of firefighters and people there who say they heard explosives go off.  I mean, just look at the way it collapsed, each floor had go give out in less than a second.  Even the guys who made those buildings have no clue how they collapsed because it was designed to withstand that kind of damage and has several steel collumns.

Regarding the Govnt being to dumb to pull this off.  Yeah the govnt is full of retards as proven by the Katrina distaster.  But the govn't doesnt pull this off, they just give the orders and the military and intelligence community makes shit happen.  The CIA, Pentagon, FBI, NSA (and so forth) are some of the best guys in the world and get billions upon billions upon billions of dollars each year.  This is what they do for a living.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 1, 2006)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Shut it Troll.....
> 
> I thought you learned Pepper.




Hey IanDaniel, your avatar suits you perfectly since it matches your personality so well.  Now if you'll excuse us, people who actually have brains are trying to have an important discussion here.


----------



## tucker01 (Aug 1, 2006)

Brains you call reading some conspiracy theory boards a brain.  You have failed to make a decent argument.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 1, 2006)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Brains you call reading some conspiracy theory boards a brain.  You have failed to make a decent argument.



Have you bothered to read my post on what hit the Pentagon or about the NORAD drills?


----------



## bigss75 (Aug 1, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Don't forget the hours of videotape and thounsands of photographs that are still being withheld from the genreal public.  Does that mean anything necessarily, no, but it's questionable.
> 
> There's the fact that the largest drill concerning hijacking planes ever was being conducted on that date.  Coincidence?  Perhaps, but I think an investigation is warranted.
> 
> ...




I see your go some of beliefs from Steve Jones, his samples he got from some random lady, you dont think they could be tampered samples?


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 1, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> I see your go some of beliefs from Steve Jones, his samples he got from some random lady, you dont think they could be tampered samples?



Professor Jones came to the conclusion that explosives brought down the WTC long before he tested those samples.  He knew by just analyzing the footage.  And those samples problalby weren't tampered with since thermite is not easy to grab a hold of.  His collegues came to the same conclusion.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 1, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> I see your go some of beliefs from Steve Jones, his samples he got from some random lady, you dont think they could be tampered samples?



It's not some random lady.  It was a lady in charge of creating a memorial to the incident using actual wreckage.

Even without that, how do you explain the pools of molten metal found at the site?


----------



## Andy_Massaro (Aug 1, 2006)

although all of this is extremely interesting and all , I don't believe that using evidence and trying to figure it out will do anything..there are so many variables in this situation that no one but god will know what truly went down on 9/11

I believe it is possible that if this was proven to be a conspiracy, this would not be good news for the United States, a revolution or something would probably break out

I really don't have a strong opinion on this because I cannot even begin to comprehend this whole situation, but it is nice once and a while to give your brain something to chew on


----------



## brogers (Aug 2, 2006)

Aliens landed at Roswell.


----------



## GFR (Aug 2, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Hey IanDaniel, your avatar suits you perfectly since it matches your personality so well.  Now if you'll excuse us, people who actually have brains are trying to have an important discussion here.


----------



## GFR (Aug 2, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Aliens landed at Roswell.


Illegal aliens


----------



## GFR (Aug 2, 2006)

bigss75 said:
			
		

> I see *your go* some of beliefs from Steve Jones, his samples he got from some random lady, you* dont* think they could be tampered samples?


Is this English?


----------



## GFR (Aug 2, 2006)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Brains you call reading some conspiracy theory boards a brain.  You have failed to make a decent argument.


You call this English??


----------



## maniclion (Aug 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Illegal aliens


Hey I drop them off whereever I feel it's convenient, the way I look at it I drop them off by Roswell and tell them to keep walking toward the chain link fence where they will find jobs.  They do as they're told get too close to the gate the security force swoops down on them picks them up , takes them to the brain washing facility as they do any of the curious conspiracy theorists they find meddling around there, they reprogram them to be good upstanding citizens and release them back in different big cities around the nation where they go on to become small business owners or other well rounded citizens...


----------



## GFR (Aug 2, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Hey I drop them off whereever I feel it's convenient, the way I look at it I drop them off by Roswell and tell them to keep walking toward the chain link fence where they will find jobs.  They do as they're told get too close to the gate the security force swoops down on them picks them up , takes them to the brain washing facility as they do any of the curious conspiracy theorists they find meddling around there, they reprogram them to be good upstanding citizens and release them back in different big cities around the nation where they go on to become small business owners or other well rounded citizens...


*#**31*


----------



## bigbricks (Aug 2, 2006)

everyone go to infowar.com and you'll find all the info you need to make better judgement. I'm not going to say who was involved, but when you learn a little more about our history, other than what's in our books, it'll piss you off.


----------



## tucker01 (Aug 2, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

>







			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You call this English??



Shut it,  I am taking my ball and going home.


----------



## the nut (Aug 2, 2006)

Bigbricks and 911, do you guys know each other...


----------



## Pepper (Aug 2, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> Bigbricks and 911, do you guys know each other...


 
Ah..a conspiracy theory involving the conspiracy nuts. Interesting.


----------



## the nut (Aug 2, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> Ah..a conspiracy theory involving the conspiracy nuts. Interesting.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 2, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> Bigbricks and 911, do you guys know each other...



No, but he's right on the money directing everyone to Infowars.com.   Prisonplanet.com is the other website run by Alex Jones.


----------



## lnvanry (Aug 2, 2006)

NORAD just released these tapes yesterday....what do you think of them 9/11=inside job?

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01


----------



## ge3k0 (Aug 2, 2006)

not this b.s. again. i thought i died for some of you guys?


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 2, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> NORAD just released these tapes yesterday....what do you think of them 9/11=inside job?
> 
> http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01



Not sure...looks intersting though.  Here's another new story which came out today:


*911 "Conspiracy Theorists" Vindicated: Pentagon deliberately misled Public Opinion*
Military officials made false statements to Congress and to the 911 Commission
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EGG20060802&articleId=2887




> "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate." (WP, 2 August 2006)





> "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."


----------



## fUnc17 (Aug 2, 2006)

The U.S. Military was fooled on 9/11. Not only fooled but embarrassed in front of the rest of the world. I dont believe the military had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. 

9/11 showed a major hole in U.S national security. Is it possible the terrorists were helped out by people with the know-all? Probably. Who those people are, is an entirely different question. They might've been helped by someone who works for another country that happened to realize this huge exploit in american security. It could have been someone in the FAA, a civilian, or it could've been no one. 

I find it very hard to believe that an american spy agency knew of the attacks and did nothing to stop them. In fact, I find it impossible. Did they know something with planes was going to happen? Probably. Did they take it seriously? Obviously not as much as they should have. Or maybe they did but couldn't do anything to protect the U.S.

Think about it, you know someone is going to hijack your planes soon, you dont know exactly when, where and more importantly what they are going to do. (flying them into the WTC and the pentagon not even in their minds at this point). You have no way of tracking them if they know how to turn of the transponder/beacon. No way of finding them amongst the 3000+ other commercial airliners in the air already. Once it gets to this point you have to rely on lucking out and picking out the right one, which is impossible. 

Lets face it, these fuckers had all the time in the world to sit in their caves and exploit every single security measure (or in this case completely bypass the U.S. military's capability to defend itself). They had all the time in the world to think of this, and to be honest, if they wanted to hijack 50 planes they probably could've done it. We had no way of responding to this kind of attack. They simply outsmarted us.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 3, 2006)

It's funny how only one person has responded to the evidence I put forth.


----------



## the nut (Aug 3, 2006)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/jetliner.html


----------



## Pepper (Aug 3, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> It's funny how only one person has responded to the evidence I put forth.


 
I don't mean to be rude but these theories are not worth the time it takes to read all of the links.

You are telling me the world is flat. It isn't. People are not ignoring the evidence b/c they are intimiated by it, they are ignoring it because the theories are absurd.


----------



## Jodi (Aug 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I don't mean to be rude but these theories are not worth the time it takes to read all of the links.
> 
> You are telling me the world is flat. It isn't.


*Sigh*  Pepper, open your mind up a bit.  You say how these theories are not worth the time and how you can't believe people could even think like this...........yet..................You believe in Christianity?  And you think Jesus came from a virgin and that evolution is untrue.    Christianity is more of a theory to me than 9/11 is.

I don't mean to bring this across so harsh but your thinking isn't very logical here.


----------



## Pepper (Aug 3, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> *Sigh* Pepper, open your mind up a bit. You say how these theories are not worth the time and how you can't believe people could even think like this...........yet..................You believe in Christianity? And you think Jesus came from a virgin and that evolution is untrue.  Christianity is more of a theory to me than 9/11 is.
> 
> I don't mean to bring this across so harsh but your thinking isn't very logical here.


 
I am simply not going there. Unbelievable.


----------



## Jodi (Aug 3, 2006)

All I'm saying is open up your mind.  

Oh and you know from several previous threads that I don't believe in Christianity


----------



## lnvanry (Aug 3, 2006)

Jodi said:
			
		

> All I'm saying is open up your mind.
> 
> Oh and you know from several previous threads that *I don't believe in Christianity *



we'll pray for you


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 3, 2006)

fUnc17 said:
			
		

> The U.S. Military was fooled on 9/11. Not only fooled but embarrassed in front of the rest of the world. I dont believe the military had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks.
> 
> 9/11 showed a major hole in U.S national security. Is it possible the terrorists were helped out by people with the know-all? Probably. Who those people are, is an entirely different question. They might've been helped by someone who works for another country that happened to realize this huge exploit in american security. It could have been someone in the FAA, a civilian, or it could've been no one.
> 
> ...



-NORAD has the ablity to intercept any stray plane in the U.S. withing 5 minutes.  In the year 2000 they intercepted like 15 planes or something all within 5 minutes- 100% accuracy.   Yet on 9/11 when they're needed the most, over an hour went by and none of the planes were intercepted.  On of the alleged planes even penetrated the most heavily guarded airspace in the world unchalled even after the WTC were hit.  It was the wargames ordered by Cheney which helped distract NORAD as well as other stand down orders.

-Here's a fact:  al-Qaeda has been penetrated by several world intelligence agencies since the mid-90's.  That's confirmed by a former MI5 agent who went public (David Shayler).  There was even a former Naval intel guy named Delmart Vreeland who wrote a note to his jailers in a Canadian prison that the WTC and Pentagon were going to be attacked on the week of 9/11.  He talked about how al-Qaeda had been penetrated and that the govnt "let one happen, stop the rest", so that America has a threat.

-I don't believe that Atta and those other dudes were planning on hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.  Several of them recieved special ops training in a military base in Florida and others trainined in a CIA run camp in the Balkans, so right there you know they have govt ties.  Atta and the others have been seen drinking the night before.  It's a fact that some of them were even under servaillence and people in the FBI were specifically told not to arrest them.


----------



## KelJu (Aug 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I am simply not going there. Unbelievable.



Wait a minute. You are too lazy to read the other side's evidence and try to see things from another perspective, but you want to throw in your worthless 2 cents repeatedly.  You are too closed minded and stubborn to acknowledge that there is even the possibility.
Wow!

Btw, I don???t believe it either, but at least I looked into the other sides evidence.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 3, 2006)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I don't mean to be rude but these theories are not worth the time it takes to read all of the links.
> 
> You are telling me the world is flat. It isn't. People are not ignoring the evidence b/c they are intimiated by it, they are ignoring it because the theories are absurd.



It's not worth it?  One of the most monumentally horrendous attacks in American history may potentially have lots of information regarding its circumstances hidden from us, and it's not worth the time?  

Okay, whatever.  It's people like you who are why things like this could get pulled off.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 3, 2006)

The U.S. government has a history of doing "false flag" operations (conduction attacks and blaming them on someone else).

Just look at Operation Northwoods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

The Joint Chiefs of staff wanted to blow up American airliners and military bases just to blame it on Cuba as a pretext for war.  Kennedy wanted no part of it but the plan was there.

The pretext for Vietnam was another red flag op.  The govnt tried to claim that a naval ship was attacked when it just came out that it never was.

A few others as well...


----------



## fUnc17 (Aug 3, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> -NORAD has the ablity to intercept any stray plane in the U.S. withing 5 minutes.  In the year 2000 they intercepted like 15 planes or something all within 5 minutes- 100% accuracy.   Yet on 9/11 when they're needed the most, over an hour went by and none of the planes were intercepted.  On of the alleged planes even penetrated the most heavily guarded airspace in the world unchalled even after the WTC were hit.  It was the wargames ordered by Cheney which helped distract NORAD as well as other stand down orders. *Source? Nothing in this world is 100%*
> 
> -I don't believe that Atta and those other dudes were planning on hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings.  Several of them recieved special ops training in a military base in Florida and others trainined in a CIA run camp in the Balkans, so right there you know they have govt ties.  Atta and the others have been seen drinking the night before.  It's a fact that some of them were even under servaillence and people in the FBI were specifically told not to arrest them. *ok this is stretching it. it is very well possible they were given help by few people, but as i've said, i HIGHLY doubt it was something everyone knew about. most likely it was a rogue person(s), not the entire administration. you are simply drawing ridiculous conclusions, just because one person helped them doesnt mean everyone knew.
> *



i am confused, so are you saying the government helped the terrorists? or just let them attack the U.S.? 

i find it hard to believe that you honestly think the U.S administration had any major part in a 9/11 conspiracy, if it was true by the slightest degree I wouldn't be living here anymore.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 3, 2006)

fUnc17 said:
			
		

> i am confused, so are you saying the government helped the terrorists? or just let them attack the U.S.?
> 
> i find it hard to believe that you honestly think the U.S administration had any major part in a 9/11 conspiracy, if it was true by the slightest degree I wouldn't be living here anymore.



The source for all those NORAD drills and posted a few pages back on this thread.

The general consencous amoungst "9/11 experts" is that none of the planes were ever hijacked and that Bush ordered 9/11 to happen.  Former govnt, intelligance, and military people have said the same thing.   It should also be noted that al-Qaeda, despite what the govnt is sayiing, CANNOT fuck with America.  They've been penetrated to the fullest.

If you really wanna learn stuff I highly recommend the book _Crossing the Rubicon_ by Michael Ruppert.  Ruppert is a a former LAPD officer who dedicated his life to exposing govnt black ops after finding out that the CIA pumps billions of dollars of drugs into the U.S. each year.  Regarding his book, he wrote it exaclty like a criminal prosecution where _you_ are the juror, he's the prosector, and this administration is on trial.  He sites close to 1,000 footnotes of mainstream sources and the book itself is around 500 pages.  It talks about oil, drugs, govnt corruption, all to put 9/11 in context.  Highly recomend it.


----------



## the nut (Aug 4, 2006)

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

There should be a debunking for every one of your conspiracy theories... I'm not saying you are right or wrong, just that it's not as black and white as you think.


----------



## the nut (Aug 4, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> It's funny how only one person has responded to the evidence I put forth.



http://www.tribemagazine.com/board/showthread.php?t=118223

http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

http://debunking911.com/thermite.htm


----------



## god hand (Aug 4, 2006)

When I asked 9/11=insidejob to make a thread about his theory a fuckin looooooooooooong time ago I throught he would just get flamed and never comeback. 
Now I want you to reallllllllllllllllllllly think to yourself and your saying. There's no fuckin way that shit could get pulled off and no one say anything about it. The airplanes did get hijacked and they knew they where going to die when they hit the building, so the government couldnt have paid them 

Look at how much money was lost because of those events. People was scared to get on airplanes and alot of compaines lost millions. What about all the Bin Laden tapes? Are they paying him too? (even I think they could find him if they wanted to) 

Yes the government knew it could happen duh, but that doesnt mean it was going to. Shit a meteor could hit earth, but that dont mean its going to happen.

The government plain the attacks on the Twin Towers? Maybe, but why in the fuck would the government plain an attack on itself? Why would they attack the pentagon? lol Isnt that one of the main government buildings in the country? More than two hundred people died because of that shit. There is no question that they knew it was going to happen, but they did not plain the shit.


----------



## GFR (Aug 4, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> we'll pray for you


*42*


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 4, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

> When I asked 9/11=insidejob to make a thread about his theory a fuckin looooooooooooong time ago I throught he would just get flamed and never comeback.
> Now I want you to reallllllllllllllllllllly think to yourself and your saying. There's no fuckin way that shit could get pulled off and no one say anything about it. The airplanes did get hijacked and they knew they where going to die when they hit the building, so the government couldnt have paid them
> 
> *Look at how much money was lost because of those events*. People was scared to get on airplanes and alot of compaines lost millions. *What about all the Bin Laden *tapes? Are they paying him too? (even I think they could find him if they wanted to)
> ...



-Yeah America lost tons of money, but Bush and his friends made billions upon billions of dollars in the wars and the oil fields and so forth.

-The newer bin Laden tapes are fake.  That's according to a former NSA agent and Reagans former CIA briefer.  He's also been proven to have CIA contacts.

-A former Bush official came out saying that 9/11 was pulled off as a pretext for wars for oil and to roll back civil liberties.

-Yeah the Pentagon is of major importance but the side that was hit was under construction.  No one "important" died in that atttack.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 4, 2006)

Hey "the nut", pick out something from you site and post it here...

How ironic is that!


----------



## the nut (Aug 4, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Hey "the nut", pick out something from you site and post it here...
> 
> How ironic is that!



Come again?


----------



## BigDyl (Aug 4, 2006)

I think 911 is winning the battle here.


----------



## the nut (Aug 4, 2006)

Resistance is futile!


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 4, 2006)

Ironic cuz your name is 'the nut'.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 4, 2006)

Actually both stories are a lie, it was actually aliens in invisible space ships using tractor beams that guided each jet to it's final destination, then at the point of impact they sent infra-red laserbeams into the jets which made them capabale of crumbling each tower as if done by precision demolition teams. The Government doesn't want us to know that we are having a secret war with aliens so both stories have been conjured by our government to add to the confusion. Not to worry that last Space Shuttle that went up was a distraction technique to draw our attention away from the 1200 super-sonic Space F-16's that escaped into the atmosphere over the pacific ocean to battle it out with the aliens a few weeks ago, it's independence day the movie aall over again. That's why Pearl Harbor was full of the Worlds top Navy Ships because the Hawaiian Islands have a strong magnetic field that our government has used a secret technology to make it appear invisible to the Aliens, we are running Battle Station One from right here under the guise of a thing called Rim-Pac 

SOURCE


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 4, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

> Actually both stories are a lie, it was actually aliens in invisible space ships using tractor beams that guided each jet to it's final destination, then at the point of impact they sent infra-red laserbeams into the jets which made them capabale of crumbling each tower as if done by precision demolition teams. The Government doesn't want us to know that we are having a secret war with aliens so both stories have been conjured by our government to add to the confusion. Not to worry that last Space Shuttle that went up was a distraction technique to draw our attention away from the 1200 super-sonic Space F-16's that escaped into the atmosphere over the pacific ocean to battle it out with the aliens a few weeks ago, it's independence day the movie aall over again. That's why Pearl Harbor was full of the Worlds top Navy Ships because the Hawaiian Islands have a strong magnetic field that our government has used a secret technology to make it appear invisible to the Aliens, we are running Battle Station One from right here under the guise of a thing called Rim-Pac
> 
> SOURCE



I dunno man, the leprichan in my closet says otherwise...


----------



## BigDyl (Aug 4, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> I dunno man, the leprichan in my closet says otherwise...




Well, I think you've convinced me.   


How old are you?


----------



## fUnc17 (Aug 4, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> -Yeah America lost tons of money, but Bush and his friends made billions upon billions of dollars in the wars and the oil fields and so forth.
> 
> -The newer bin Laden tapes are fake.  That's according to a former NSA agent and Reagans former CIA briefer.  He's also been proven to have CIA contacts.* So, im supposed to believe former administrations were not evil and former CIA officials were not meniacal and are "the good guys" trying to get rid of the bad seeds in the current CIA? psssh gimme a break man, what is fake? the tapes, bin laden, or your story?*
> 
> ...



..


----------



## maniclion (Aug 4, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> I dunno man, the leprichan in my closet says otherwise...


You only have one? Luckkkkyyyyy!  I have to deal with like a bazillion every time I get dressed....


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 4, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> http://www.tribemagazine.com/board/showthread.php?t=118223
> 
> http://debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
> 
> http://debunking911.com/thermite.htm



It doesn't appear that those address the fact that Jones found thermite through forensic testing on debris pulled from the rubble of tower 7.  Nonetheless, I certainly plan on reading those more in depth.  I just skimmed through seeing as how it's late Friday night, heh.


----------



## the nut (Aug 4, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> It doesn't appear that those address the fact that Jones found thermite through forensic testing on debris pulled from the rubble of tower 7.  Nonetheless, I certainly plan on reading those more in depth.  I just skimmed through seeing as how it's late Friday night, heh.



Not that I'm convinced either way, that was the only thing I couldn't find the debunkers addressing...


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 4, 2006)

> -Yeah America lost tons of money, but Bush and his friends made billions upon billions of dollars in the wars and the oil fields and so forth.
> 
> -The newer bin Laden tapes are fake. That's according to a former NSA agent and Reagans former CIA briefer. He's also been proven to have CIA contacts. *So, im supposed to believe former administrations were not evil and former CIA officials were not meniacal and are "the good guys" trying to get rid of the bad seeds in the current CIA? psssh gimme a break man, what is fake? the tapes, bin laden, or your story?*
> 
> ...



-bin Laden tapes fake:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
A senator even came out saying he had a source telling him bin Laden died already yet another tape came out.

-Just look at how much Bush and his friends benifited from 9/11.  I mean his administration wanted to go to war with Iraq from day 1.  The day after 9/11 they tried finding ways to link it to Saddam.  Bush also recieved war plans for Afganistan a day or two before the attacks.

-The Pentagon has 5 sides, yet the hijacker (for the sake of argument) for some reason decides to circle around the Pentagon and coincedently hits the side of the Pentagon that's under construction.  How odd is that?  Bottom line is they needed to get people rilled up.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 4, 2006)

maniclion said:
			
		

> You only have one? Luckkkkyyyyy!  I have to deal with like a bazillion every time I get dressed....




Does he ever ughh....touch you?




And the guy with the ninja in your avatar....21.


----------



## darkharem (Aug 5, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> You should start doing some research.  Again, I haven't conclusively stated that I feel it's an inside job, but there is a ludicrous amount of totally fishy evidence surrounding the whole thing.  What I do believe for sure is that there is a lot of untold information surrounding the attack.
> 
> I bet even if hard evidence was staring you in the face you wouldn't believe it.  Things like this have happened in the past.  Don't be naive.



Yes there is alot that just doesn't fit. When I first saw the loose change video a while back, I searched everywhere I could find for anything about it. Sure some of it can be discredited off the bat, but what can't be is enough to make you go hmmmmm  

To the other dude, Pepper, you need to stop being such a sheep. Just because your goverment says it is, doesn't make it so. Do you honestly think they wouldn't lie to you? Man they make their living with lies. Get a clue and start thinking for yourself and you'll have the same questions everyone else has.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 5, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> Not that I'm convinced either way, that was the only thing I couldn't find the debunkers addressing...



I'm not convinced that it's an inside job necessarily myself.  However, I do think the demolition theory holds some weight.  It's still good to see these links.  I will probably read through the more over the next few days.  I like to see different viewpoints.


----------



## BigDyl (Aug 5, 2006)

darkharem said:
			
		

> To the other dude, Pepper, you need to stop being such a sheep. Just because your goverment says it is, doesn't make it so. Do you honestly think they wouldn't lie to you? Man they make their living with lies. Get a clue and start thinking for yourself and you'll have the same questions everyone else has.





Pepperowned!@


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 5, 2006)

If you guys really wanna get blown away and amazed just watch this video:

*Alex Jones' Terror Storm:*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947&q=alex+jones

I posted this a while back and got flamed to hell for it but seriously, all Americans need to watch that.  This documentary by Alex Jones isn't specifically about 9/11 like some of his other ones.  What it's about it showing the history of "Red Flag" Operations (conducting an attack and blaming it on someone else) by the Nazi's and the U.S. governemtn.  Absolutly mind blowing and would convince anyone that 9/11 was a lie.


----------



## BigDyl (Aug 5, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> If you guys really wanna get blown away and amazed just watch this video:
> 
> *Alex Jones' Terror Storm:*
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947&q=alex+jones
> ...




You don't understand.  If you posted a confirmed video of Bush admitting that he conducted 911, and had a press conference on TV to admit it, and came to Pepper's house and sat down with him and told him... he still wouldn't believe you.


----------



## GFR (Aug 5, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> You don't understand.  If you posted a confirmed video of Bush admitting that he conducted 911, and had a press conference on TV to admit it, and came to Pepper's house and sat down with him and told him... he still wouldn't believe you.


*18*


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 5, 2006)

Shit, millions of American are like that.

Its still an incredible documentary that needed to be shared.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 5, 2006)

I see dead people.  Walking around like regular people. They don't see each other. *They only see what they want to see.* They don't know they're dead.


----------



## fUnc17 (Aug 5, 2006)

Great movie, watched the whole thing. Did u check out the bohemian grove movie yet?


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 6, 2006)

fUnc17 said:
			
		

> Great movie, watched the whole thing. Did u check out the bohemian grove movie yet?



I saw the one where Jones is at ground zero and does a long piece on the BG.  Never saw a complete documentary on that.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 7, 2006)

March 29, 1979 - The report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigating the shooting of JFK concludes that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the President and exonerates the Secret Service, FBI and CIA from being part of a conspiracy, but does conclude that there was a "high probability" that there were two gunmen, that the President was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy, rips the Secret Service for inadequately protecting the President, and rips the departments and the Warren Commission for failing to adequately investigate the possibility of a conspiracy.

*And thats probably all you will get with this 9/11 thing as well .... and you will like it!*


----------



## lnvanry (Aug 7, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Shit, millions of American are like that.
> 
> Its still an incredible documentary that needed to be shared.



decent....I've seen the whole thing.

I was well done for a student thats for sure.

Its has some large holes in his premises...very large.


----------



## the nut (Aug 8, 2006)

On Paul Smith's blog:  

No evidence to support WTC being brought down by thermite
June 27th, 2006, categories: Politics, Debunking 

In my opinion, based mainly on history, the security forces in the US were probably aware of some upcoming plot; it wouldn't be too surprising if they did know what the intended targets were and the means of carrying out the attack.

But to make the jump from knowing roughly of a plot doesn't mean they were actively involved. Why would the Republicans risk this? If it was true they would be out of office for half a century or more.

It's easy enough to get through some right-wing agenda in the US, it's been happening under the Democrats and Republicans for generations with few people noticing; Bush didn't need the attacks in order to carry out his agenda. In the past we see many cases of attacks be faked. The pretext for the German invasion of Poland was based on Polish forces invading Germany first; which of course was fake. The planned full-scale invasion of Cuba was going to be justified by the sinking of a US ship; which would of been fake. The invasion of Yugoslavia (under Clinton - not a Republican) was justified by genocide; which was also fake and so on and so on.

The US media buy any story and the US population swallow it; no matter how small it is. You don't need destruction on that scale to justify an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq and a clamping down of rights in the US. It's possible Bush knew something was coming and didn't act, or the security forces were instructed to carry on monitoring the involved rather than making the arrests. That may be an honest mistake or there may be something to it. I'm not sure which is the more likely.

They can always invent a story to push through an agenda, it might be a bit slower without people witnessing two symbols of America being brought down, but it would still of happened. Just like Iraq - which had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attacks was still invaded supported by huge majority in the US 90% and above.

Anyway, onto the story at hand.

From WebNV:

Scientific analysis on WTC steel debris undertaken by BYU Professor Steven Jones proves that the twin towers were demolished by means of incendiary devices and the release of the conclusive evidence is imminent.

Steven Jones again, his bias should be enough to throw the evidence right into the bin. He's been claiming thermite has been used for months - with no evidence at all.

Now he claims to of found traces (on steel who's exact origins are largely unknown) of sulfur, which he claims is evidence that thermite was used to bring down the buildings. However in office buildings and aircraft you'll find a lot of sulfur and aluminum and lots of other things, so you really need traces of the other components of thermite, you should find 7 times as much barium is sulfur, yet his report does not mention any traces of barium.

Thermite itself is also a very bad way to demolish a building, it's actually used (or at least used to be used) to weld steel together because of its heat. You'd need masses and masses of thermite to even make a dent on a building like this. You'd really need something explosive to do the job, something like a large, fuel-laden aircraft. Oh wait that's what we've got.

Even more odd, thermite hasn't used sulfur as a binding agent for a decade or so, after this was pointed out to him he claims it was an exotic military thermite, which does use sulfur and which also explodes. Again no evidence to back up this claim.

I don't buy it. It's just the same as the Pentagon missile stuff... Sure if you ignore the hundreds of eye-witnesses who saw a large passenger aircraft and just put forward the few people who weren't sure what they saw you can make anything seem possible.

Steven Jones's work cannot be trusted at face value and should be scrutinized heavily.


----------



## god hand (Aug 8, 2006)

Didnt the government give a million dollars to each one of the victims family members?


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 8, 2006)

lnvanry said:
			
		

> decent....I've seen the whole thing.
> 
> I was well done for a student thats for sure.
> 
> Its has some large holes in his premises...very large.



Good.  And he isnt a student, he's a grown ass man with his own radio show.  And what are his holes?


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 8, 2006)

> Steven Jones again, his bias should be enough to throw the evidence right into the bin. He's been claiming thermite has been used for months - with no evidence at all.



He suspected it was thermite because it was hot enough to melt steel.  And as CowPimp pointed out, Jones and his collegues tested the steel and it was positive for thermite.


----------



## BigDyl (Aug 8, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> If you guys really wanna get blown away and amazed just watch this video:
> 
> *Alex Jones' Terror Storm:*
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947&q=alex+jones
> ...





This completely goes against everything Pepper believes.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 9, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> On Paul Smith's blog:
> 
> No evidence to support WTC being brought down by thermite
> June 27th, 2006, categories: Politics, Debunking
> ...




This guy doesn't make sense, because a plane DID NOT HIT building 7, period.  He's insinuating that a plane is the reason for his reuslts, which is not possible.  He also twisted Jones' words.  Jones said that he found chemical traces of thermite, in addition to sulfur, which is an additive to thermite to make it more efficient at cutting structural steel.  He didn't JUST find sulfur on the same he took.

I agree his work should be scrutinized, but I would like to see this addressed.  There is a lot of sketchy shit surrounding the incident that still needs investigated.  Two of the people heading the 9-11 commission are about to release a book talking about how everyone bullshitted them during interviews and to request another investigation.


----------



## GFR (Aug 9, 2006)

*New Oliver Stone 9/11 Film Introduces 'Single Plane' Theory*

 	      	           August 8, 2006   	  	        
 	  NEW YORK???Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone said Monday that his new film _World Trade Center_ unveils "compelling and controversial" new evidence that a single plane was responsible for all four collisions in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. 






"There's no way anyone can ever deny there was only one plane."

  "Get ready to go through the looking glass here, people," Stone told reporters at a Manhattan press conference before an advance screening of the movie, which premieres Wednesday. "The film you are about to see is going to blow the lid off the 9/11 Commission's official report and expose a conspiracy that reaches the highest levels of government."
_World Trade Center_, which stars Nicolas Cage as a dedicated Port Authority officer who stumbles on secret evidence amid the rubble and carnage of the terrorist attack, tells a story quite different from what Stone called "the official government line" about the event. According to the film, at 8:46 a.m., a lone commercial airliner flew diagonally through the North Tower of the World Trade Center, maintained in a circular holding pattern for approximately 17 minutes, then struck the South Tower before heading to the Pentagon.





Stone

  After its collision with the center of American military operations, the so-called "magic plane"???which variously and ingeniously identified itself to air-traffic controllers as "American Airlines Flight 11," "United Airlines Flight 175," "American Airlines Flight 77" and "United Airlines Flight 93"???took to the skies once again, landing at a top-secret "black-ops" Air Force base in West Virginia, where it was reloaded with a group of clones from another shadowy government program that Stone described as "shocking." 
  Stone, who said he did not have time to explore the clone angle in the three-and-a-half-hour film, plans to do so in the sequel, _September 12_.
  In a gripping sequence, undercover agents transmit pre-recorded cell-phone messages intended to fool loved ones and relatives with a false cover story as the aircraft heads to its final, prearranged crash site in the fields of southwestern Pennsylvania.








   Viewers of the advance screening agreed that the most striking and pivotal scene was Cage's character's discovery of security-camera footage that affirmed the single-plane theory. Showing his skeptical but supportive wife the footage frame by frame, Cage notices that the so-called "first" plane, which, according to official, whitewashed reports, detonated upon impact with the North Tower in the initial collision, actually banks "back and to the left, circling for about 17 minutes, and then diving into the other tower." He repeats the phrase over and over in increasing intensity, toggling back and forth between individual frames while the music swells and the emotional drama rises to a fever pitch.
  "After seeing that sequence, there's no way anyone can ever deny again that there was only one plane in the airspace over the eastern seaboard that morning," Stone said. 
  "I am the most important filmmaker working today," he added.
  Early public reaction to the film has been skeptical. Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim Stone is presenting an exploitative, far-fetched, and manipulative Hollywood version of the pain and suffering???including eye strain and carpal tunnel syndrome???they have undergone during their countless hours on the Internet in the tragedy's aftermath.
  Despite the controversy, Stone stands by his film. "This is a story that needs to be told, in a reality that only I can bring to the big screen," Stone said. "I realize it will be hard to accept for those unable to confront the truth, but I can't hide my head in the sand like some goddamn ostrich. To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men."


----------



## the nut (Aug 9, 2006)

I see he never stopped snorting coke after he made scarface.


----------



## the nut (Aug 9, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> This guy doesn't make sense, because a plane DID NOT HIT building 7, period.  He's insinuating that a plane is the reason for his reuslts, which is not possible.  He also twisted Jones' words.  Jones said that he found chemical traces of thermite, in addition to sulfur, which is an additive to thermite to make it more efficient at cutting structural steel.  He didn't JUST find sulfur on the same he took.
> 
> I agree his work should be scrutinized, but I would like to see this addressed.  There is a lot of sketchy shit surrounding the incident that still needs investigated.  Two of the people heading the 9-11 commission are about to release a book talking about how everyone bullshitted them during interviews and to request another investigation.



He's not claiming a plane hit WTC7. A plane initiated the sequence that brought it down... http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm.

I was more interested in barium issue and the amount of thermite it would take to demolish that building. And, yes I've hear the exotic military thermite theory. It seems both sides have an answer for everything, it just a matter of what you want to believe.


----------



## BigDyl (Aug 9, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> He's not claiming a plane hit WTC7. A plane initiated the sequence that brought it down... http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm.
> 
> I was more interested in barium issue and the amount of thermite it would take to demolish that building. And, yes I've hear the exotic military thermite theory. It seems both sides have an answer for everything, it just a matter of what you want to believe.




Look who the nut is now...


----------



## the nut (Aug 9, 2006)




----------



## CowPimp (Aug 9, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> He's not claiming a plane hit WTC7. A plane initiated the sequence that brought it down... http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm.
> 
> I was more interested in barium issue and the amount of thermite it would take to demolish that building. And, yes I've hear the exotic military thermite theory. It seems both sides have an answer for everything, it just a matter of what you want to believe.



Exactly why it warrants a more thorough investigation.  No one has investigated this theory, and I think there is enough evidence that it should be analyzed, especially because the current theories are flawed in many ways.


----------



## the nut (Aug 9, 2006)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> Exactly why it warrants a more thorough investigation.  No one has investigated this theory, and I think there is enough evidence that it should be analyzed, especially because the current theories are flawed in many ways.



I'm with you bro, but i don't think anything will ever come from all this. Alot of the evidence is soft and questionable. I didn't realize there was all these consipracy theories surrounding this, until 911=insidejob started posting them. All these sites have answer for everything, I don't know what to believe.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 9, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> I'm with you bro, but i don't think anything will ever come from all this. *Alot of the evidence is soft and questionable*. I didn't realize there was all these consipracy theories surrounding this, until 911=insidejob started posting them. All these sites have answer for everything, I don't know what to believe.




Not true.  The debate about how the WTC collapsed is slightly arguable but as I've posted a few pages back, a known invstigator named Michael Ruppert wrote a book about how 9/11 was a govnt op which was 500 pages and had almost a thousand footnotes from mainstream sources- he only mentions the WTC collapse in 1 paragraph.

Check out this site from Alex Jones:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

Tons of facts from mainstream sources.


----------



## the nut (Aug 9, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Not true.  The debate about how the WTC collapsed is slightly arguable but as I've posted a few pages back, a known invstigator named Michael Ruppert wrote a book about how 9/11 was a govnt op which was 500 pages and had almost a thousand footnotes from mainstream sources- he only mentions the WTC collapse in 1 paragraph.
> 
> Check out this site from Alex Jones:
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
> ...



You have some sort of passion for this stuff, and that's fine... for everything you posted I can find some web site with contrary evidence to dispute. I'm just smart enough to know what ever conclusion I come to, is gonna make no difference in the long run. If anything, you got me thinking.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 9, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> You have some sort of passion for this stuff, and that's fine... for everything you posted I can find some web site with contrary evidence to dispute. I'm just smart enough to know what ever conclusion I come to, is gonna make no difference in the long run. *If anything, you got me thinking*.




Good.  But as far as finding rebuttals go, you can't.  The only thing that was remotly arguable was the WTC collapse and that's starting to fade away with all the new info coming out now.  I mean, the editor from Popular Mechanics tried to say that the reason there was no wing span damage visible in the Pentagon was because it crashed at 500 mph and went inside that little ass hole.  C'mon, how silly was that?


----------



## the nut (Aug 9, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Good.  But as far as finding rebuttals go, you can't.  The only thing that was remotly arguable was the WTC collapse and that's starting to fade away with all the new info coming out now.  I mean, the editor from Popular Mechanics tried to say that the reason there was no wing span damage visible in the Pentagon was because it crashed at 500 mph and went inside that little ass hole.  C'mon, how silly was that?



I gave you 2 whole sites of rebuttals, you obviously are a conspiracy theorist, you are probably Steve Jones.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 9, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> I gave you 2 whole sites of rebuttals, you obviously are a conspiracy theorist, you are probably Steve Jones.



I dont deal with conpiracy theories, only conspiracy facts.  Post a rebutall and I'll debunk it.


----------



## the nut (Aug 9, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Good.  But as far as finding rebuttals go, you can't.  The only thing that was remotly arguable was the WTC collapse and that's starting to fade away with all the new info coming out now.  I mean, the editor from *Popular Mechanics tried to say that the reason there was no wing span damage visible in the Pentagon was because it crashed at 500 mph and went inside that little ass hole.  C'mon, how silly was that*?



Post evidence to dispute him!


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 9, 2006)

I did alreay, but here it is again:
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/pentagon-montage.jpg

No way in hell the wings could just fold and and go inside the hole.  He also didnt talk about the fact the fact that the pilot could barly fly a 2-seater yet made advanced menuevers with a 757- in fact, a 757 should not have been able to make the meneuvers made on 9/11 where he made a sharp turn and descended at an incredibly high speed.  He also didnt talk about how the footage of what hit the Pentagon was taken away by the FBI within minutes.  Or the fact that no Arabs were on that plane and that some of them are still alive.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 9, 2006)

If the plane had come in while making a sharp turn then the wings would have been tilted more vertical, which could explain why a fence and lamppost were knocked down.  Since the wings full of fuel would be beneath and on top that would make a molten sandwich which would easily engulf a plane.  But who really knows, they could have had a missile dressed up like a plane as some of the conspirasts say, and it may have been a cellulose casing like the one in Clear and Present Danger...


----------



## the nut (Aug 9, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> I did alreay, but here it is again:
> http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/pentagon-montage.jpg
> 
> *No way in hell the wings could just fold and and go inside the hole*.  He also didnt talk about the fact the fact that the pilot could barly fly a 2-seater yet made advanced menuevers with a 757- in fact, a 757 should not have been able to make the meneuvers made on 9/11 where he made a sharp turn and descended at an incredibly high speed.  He also didnt talk about how the footage of what hit the Pentagon was taken away by the FBI within minutes.  Or the fact that no Arabs were on that plane and that some of them are still alive.



That picture has nothing to do with the wings folding up and going into the hole. Stop changing the subject. Explain to me how the wings would penetrate through the walls.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 9, 2006)

I still say there is insufficient evidence to suggest that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, but concrete evidence to suggest it did.  Everything suggesting it didn't is circumstancial and theoretical.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 9, 2006)

I can't explain how the wings folded up and went in that little ass hole or decintigraded into thin air because I dont think a massive 757 actually hit the Pentagon.

*Major General Stubblebine agrees:*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6szfWQ4IBg&search=Albert Stubblebine

*Bush's former Chief Economist Morgan Reynold agrees:*

-"Planes don't fold up like accordions do. They smash. They disintegrate. They break apart. The whole thing is stupid when reason is applied to the evidence," he says.

-"I defy anybody to fly a 767 at sea level at 550 mph. Sea level? Bull shit. Pardon my French," he says. "And then Mohammed Ata at the stick???he's going to hit a tower 200 feet wide. Wow!"

-"It's like this ragtag bunch of patsies that they pinned it on, the 19 Arab hijackers," he says, "it was physically impossible for them to perform these feats of flying."

-"You show me another aircraft crash vaporization in history," Reynolds says. "It's never happened. It will never happen."

*Last but not least, Charlie Sheen (Yes, the actor):*

"Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters."- Charlie Sheen (Yes, the actor)


----------



## ge3k0 (Aug 10, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> *I can't explain how the wings folded up and went in that little ass hole or decintigraded into thin air because I dont think a massive 757 actually hit the Pentagon.*
> 
> *Major General Stubblebine agrees:*
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6szfWQ4IBg&search=Albert Stubblebine
> ...






*I can't explain how the wings folded up and went in that little ass hole or decintigraded into thin air because I dont think a massive 757 actually hit the Pentagon.*

oh god... this is too much... really ..


----------



## ge3k0 (Aug 10, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> I can't explain how the wings folded up and went in that little ass hole or decintigraded into thin air because I dont think a massive 757 actually hit the Pentagon.
> 
> *Major General Stubblebine agrees:*
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6szfWQ4IBg&search=Albert Stubblebine
> ...




i think they were being sarcastic...


----------



## the nut (Aug 10, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> I can't explain how the wings folded up and went in that little ass hole or decintigraded into thin air because I dont think a massive 757 actually hit the Pentagon.



Ok, so we agree there is no physical evidence to suggest the wings would have penetrated the building. And they didn't decinagrate there's plenty of pics here to prove otherwise... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html. It makes more sense to me that fuselage, being the heaviest part of the plane and at the time loaded with 60 passengers plus luggage would be able to puncture through the building, but the wings would not have enough resistance to stay intact and would fold and follow the path of least resistance. 

I'll get back to you on the pilots , but it seems to me your assuming he meant to hit the pentagon at that exact angle. I'm not so sure that's the case.


----------



## CowPimp (Aug 10, 2006)

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

This "conspiracy theorist" thinks that the no-757 theory is bogus, though he presents a lot of evidence on his page about the very strange tower 7 collapse.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 10, 2006)

ge3k0 said:
			
		

> *I can't explain how the wings folded up and went in that little ass hole or decintigraded into thin air because I dont think a massive 757 actually hit the Pentagon.*
> 
> oh god... this is too much... really ..




Can you prove otherwise?  Based on the facts presented.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 10, 2006)

the nut said:
			
		

> Ok, so we agree there is no physical evidence to suggest the wings would have penetrated the building. And they didn't decinagrate there's plenty of pics here to prove otherwise... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html. It makes more sense to me that fuselage, being the heaviest part of the plane and at the time loaded with 60 passengers plus luggage would be able to puncture through the building, but the wings would not have enough resistance to stay intact and would fold and follow the path of least resistance.
> 
> I'll get back to you on the pilots , but it seems to me your assuming he meant to hit the pentagon at that exact angle. I'm not so sure that's the case.



Yeah, I agree with that link because something obviously had to of hit the Pentagon.  Evidence suggests a small military plane (which even people at the FAA thought it was based on it's menuevering).  But look at that picture in the middle of that page, do you think a 757 could punch a circular hole in the wall?  I don't.


----------



## the nut (Aug 10, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Yeah, I agree with that link because something obviously had to of hit the Pentagon.  Evidence suggests a small military plane (which even people at the FAA thought it was based on it's menuevering).  But look at that picture in the middle of that page, do you think a 757 could punch a circular hole in the wall?  I don't.



Looking At the Big Picture 

From facts contained above, we can all agree that: 

The length of the outside wall on any side of the pentagon is 921 feet. 

The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet 10 inches. 

Now, everyone can agree that 921/125= roughly 7.4 right? 


Given the size of the 757, and the size of the Pentagon, the damaged area fits in peftectly with the dimensions of both the aircraft and the building. 


Look at the hole in the building 

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building. 

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did.


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 10, 2006)

the nut-

Good measurements but you havnet acknoledged where the wings are in that wreckage.  They arnt going to fold up and go inside that hole.  You also havent talked about how such an advanced meneuver was pulled off by a terrible pilot in a 757.  People in the FAA thought it was a military craft.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 10, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> the nut-
> 
> Good measurements but you havnet acknoledged where the wings are in that wreckage.  They arnt going to fold up and go inside that hole.  You also havent talked about how such an advanced meneuver was pulled off by a terrible pilot in a 757.  People in the FAA thought it was a military craft.


But if it goes in sideways then they just collapse ontop and underneath, which I think a guy with no real experience would have probably been making a hard steer to correct his offshooting of the target?????


----------



## BigDyl (Aug 10, 2006)

I will admit the collapse of Tower 7 is the craziest shit ever.  It looked like it was professionally demolished, and it wasn't even that close to the twin towers.


----------



## the nut (Aug 10, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> the nut-
> 
> Good measurements but you havnet acknoledged where the wings are in that wreckage.  They arnt going to fold up and go inside that hole.  You also havent talked about how such an advanced meneuver was pulled off by a terrible pilot in a 757.  People in the FAA thought it was a military craft.



Again, give me proof that the wings are strong enough to penetrate a building... you can't. The fact of the matter is that the fuselage was the only part of plane heavy enough to push through the walls, the wings and tail are going to give way suck through with the fuselage. If you would really like me to post all the pictures of wreckage proving it was a 757, i will. But it's gonna have to wait for tommorow. This twice now that youve said that the wings wont fold up and go through. Post some physics stating they won't then it becomes a valid argument, but don't just claim it without evidence. I posted a page explaining how the plane would funnel through, if you can't disprove that, then drop that argument. Once you can accpet this, i'll get to the pilot.


----------



## maniclion (Aug 10, 2006)

How do we know that these planes had all been repaired with Duct Tape and just by coincidence crashed all on the same day and in strategic places on accident?



> Improper Use of Tape to Fix Wings May Lead to FAA Fine for United
> 
> By Don Phillips
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...


----------



## BigDyl (Aug 10, 2006)

Someone explain tower 7.  That shit has got to be fake.  I can't believe it fell like that....


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 10, 2006)

Like I've always said, the wings of a 757 COULD NOT HAVE folded up and went into that little ass hole.  Not possible.  It was a small military craft.  

About WTC 7, definetly brought down by explosives.  My understanding is that that building contained documents which prove govnt corruption and things like that.  (ie links to Enron, billions of dollars missing, ect...)


----------



## the nut (Aug 10, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Someone explain tower 7.  That shit has got to be fake.  I can't believe it fell like that....



http://debunking911.com/pull.htm


----------



## the nut (Aug 10, 2006)

911=InsideJob said:
			
		

> Like I've always said, the wings of a 757 COULD NOT HAVE folded up and went into that little ass hole.  Not possible.  It was a small military craft.
> 
> About WTC 7, definetly brought down by explosives.  My understanding is that that building contained documents which prove govnt corruption and things like that.  (ie links to Enron, billions of dollars missing, ect...)



In layman's terms the crash dynamics worked like so: A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring. 



Google ls-dyna purdue simulator... Purdue did a simulation on it.

911, you have yet to show something saying the wings were powerful and heavy enough to penetrate the building.


----------



## FishOrCutBait (Aug 11, 2006)

All I have to say is

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons


----------



## 911=InsideJob (Aug 11, 2006)

FishOrCutBait said:
			
		

> All I have to say is
> 
> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons




1) Dylan Avery wasn't the guy who came up with all this stuff.  All he did was simply put it together in documentary form.  Mainstream and credible souces.

2) They can't kill Avery, he's too well known you could say.

Why would the govnt do this?
According to several former govnt officals Bush wanted to go to war for oil and was looking for a way.  Also to role back civil liberties.

How do they get thousands of people to keep quite?
They don't need that many people involved, not even close.  They jsut need a small number of people who have signed documents saying they wont talk.  That's how covert ops works.

Further Reading:
Doesnt explain why people heard explosions or why it collapsed so fast.  Also doesnt explain why WTC 7 collasped when it had zero jet fuel in it.


The Nut-   I still don't understand your question.  I think that a small military craft hit the Pentagon and I've already provided the proof showing that it's impossible for a 757 to have hit the Pentagon under those circumstances (i.e. terrible pilot, impossible meneuvering, ect..)


----------

