Off Topic => General Off Topic => Topic started by: Ubereem on October 03, 2015, 03:50:23 am
Title: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Ubereem on October 03, 2015, 03:50:23 am
Been planned for over 30 years! It's only 12 minutes long so if you don't watch to the end please do not respond.
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Sir_Hans on October 03, 2015, 04:41:39 am
This is even better tv show/movie coincidence prediction. Instead of comparing WTC to pine trees, then pine trees to a mall... this one is actually about terrorist remote piloting a plane into the WTC. Which is why the government got a lot of criticism when they said they had no scenarios of terrorists hijacking a plane and therefore no procedure to deal with it at the time of the attacks.
But the closest thing to proof in my mind (because there is no proof, for or against.) is "Operation Northwoods" which kennedy prevented from happening and Building #7 But who knows what really went down??? None of us can say for certain.
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Grumpy_Nic on October 03, 2015, 08:18:38 am
Funny how they bring those bits of proof but not include enough info to explain the phenomenon of clowns having red noses and water being fluid
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Richyy on October 03, 2015, 08:57:55 pm
iluminati confirmed
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Ubereem on October 06, 2015, 09:09:48 pm
30 years Doc!
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: the real god emperor on October 06, 2015, 09:37:45 pm
That ridiculously makes sense tho D:
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Artyem on October 09, 2015, 04:10:40 am
I know I'm taking the bait here, but I'll go into detail anyways.
Before we get started I'll clarify that when I say building #7 I mean the old WTC Building #7, not the newly constructed one which stands in New York today. Also one should note that this is not one of the twin towers, and it was not hit by a plane.
"The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, clad in red exterior masonry, and occupied a trapezoidal footprint. An elevated walkway connected the building to the World Trade Center plaza. The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[6] while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.[7] The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires,[8] and the first and only steel sI love youcraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire"~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
The last part in bold is key and I think you should really let it sink in for a moment, maybe read it a couple times to make sure you got it right?
Us humans have been building steel framed structures for almost 150 years, in that time we have constructed a great number of steel framed structures. Also in that time a lot of these structures have had fires, Some extinguished, others abandoned and left to burn out. But this was the first time any tall building or sI love youcraper has completely collapsed due to an uncontrolled fire....
(click to show/hide)
Ok so now let's take a look at the official explanation: "On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building." (I'll also add that there was very large reserves of diesel fuel placed the core of the structure, this were apparently the fuel source for the fires caused by falling debris)
So falling debris as well as debris being propelled horizontally by the collapsing north tower ignited fires on the lower floors of the building... So lets go down to ground level after the north tower collapse and take a look at Building 7 even inside of the structure... You can tell this footage is after the north tower collapse because of the heavy layer of dust/soot covering everything after the debris cloud settled from the north tower collapse.
Where is the fire? Well to be fair maybe when they said lower floors they did not mean near ground level, so lets find the fire on this building. In this next video on youtube, actually posted by a guy debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories we can see the true damage done to WTC7 and the best footage taken of the actual fires in WTC7 at this moment.
Feel free to listen to what this debunker has to say, his website he lists as "debunking911.com", it's always important to get as many opinions of information as possible when trying to decide something for yourself, at least that's what I've found, though I would challenge you to focus on building #7 rather than all the conspiracy theory and debunking surrounding the twin towers or the pentagon. (why? because conspiracies surrounding 9/11 can get pretty far fetched, which building #7 you can focus on fact finding, photos, video footage, and personal accounts... real information that you can piece together and come to your own conclusion with... a lot of other conspiracy surrounding twin towers collapse and pentagon are not like this, they are more of a "take my word for it" kind of approach which is not something that interests me and probably doesn't interest you either.)
(click to show/hide)
Now lets take a look at some sI love youcrapers and other tall buildings which have had major fires.
What's that you say???? You say all this footage of burning sI love youcrapers is of more recently constructed and therefore better and more stable architecture and that's why they didn't fail after enduring raging fires? Well that's a valid point to consider... But my argument to that would be that it wasnt until around the 2000's that a large majority of the planet started walking around with HD cameras and video recorders in their pockets daily, so of course we would get footage of buildings more recently burning... and then I found this: Warning this video is pretty damn graphic
Here we have a 33 fl building the Andraus building constructed completed in 1962, Fully engulfed in flames. Which still stood after the fires burnt out completely.
(click to show/hide)
But this is what happened to our WTC7 when it caught fire... a fire fueled by its huge diesel reserves within the building which were yet still not enough to engulf the building in flames. For the first time in history a steel framed sI love youcraper/ tall building collapsed due to fire... and not only did it collapse, it collapsed into it's own footprint better than the average demolitionist could do. Or that is at least what we are told.
(click to show/hide)
I'll end with this, This is a newly released video all about building #7, it takes a lot of accounts of people talking about such, stuff I didn't really touch on at all. I find it a great all around argument for truth believers of WTC7, If you have a debunking video all about WTC7 that's worth it's salts I'd love to see it, I've watched many but most are pretty paltry at best. If you just focus on the facts and disregard the implications said facts would create I find most logical thinkers will conclude the official story on the collapse of the building 7 is crap.
(click to show/hide)
How could the government have something to do with this? Would they go to great lengths to mastermind something like this and frame a simple covert lieutenant as the real mastermind to the whole operation? Could elements of the government even have a hand in it directly? Such as the Fema people conducting exercises in the building the day before and the day of 9/11? Of course not! ...Or could they? 8-)
Operation Northwoods was a proposed operation against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[2]
At the time of the proposal, communists led by Fidel Castro had recently taken power in Cuba. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the US Government (so called "false flag operations").[3] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.
Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various US military and civilian targets. The operation recommended developing a "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".
The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the US government's anti-communist Cuban Project, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. According to currently released documentation, none of the operations became active under the auspices of the Operation Northwoods proposals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
THE END
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Artyem on October 09, 2015, 11:05:27 pm
I know I'm taking the bait here, but I'll go into detail anyways.
Before we get started I'll clarify that when I say building #7 I mean the old WTC Building #7, not the newly constructed one which stands in New York today. Also one should note that this is not one of the twin towers, and it was not hit by a plane.
"The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, clad in red exterior masonry, and occupied a trapezoidal footprint. An elevated walkway connected the building to the World Trade Center plaza. The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm, according to FEMA,[6] while the 2008 NIST study placed the final collapse time at 5:20:52 pm.[7] The collapse began when a critical internal column buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of a rooftop penthouse structure at 5:20:33 pm. The collapse made the old 7 World Trade Center the first tall building known to have collapsed primarily due to uncontrolled fires,[8] and the first and only steel sI love youcraper in the world to have collapsed due to fire"~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
The last part in bold is key and I think you should really let it sink in for a moment, maybe read it a couple times to make sure you got it right?
Us humans have been building steel framed structures for almost 150 years, in that time we have constructed a great number of steel framed structures. Also in that time a lot of these structures have had fires, Some extinguished, others abandoned and left to burn out. But this was the first time any tall building or sI love youcraper has completely collapsed due to an uncontrolled fire....
(click to show/hide)
Ok so now let's take a look at the official explanation: "On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building." (I'll also add that there was very large reserves of diesel fuel placed the core of the structure, this were apparently the fuel source for the fires caused by falling debris)
So falling debris as well as debris being propelled horizontally by the collapsing north tower ignited fires on the lower floors of the building... So lets go down to ground level after the north tower collapse and take a look at Building 7 even inside of the structure... You can tell this footage is after the north tower collapse because of the heavy layer of dust/soot covering everything after the debris cloud settled from the north tower collapse.
Where is the fire? Well to be fair maybe when they said lower floors they did not mean near ground level, so lets find the fire on this building. In this next video on youtube, actually posted by a guy debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories we can see the true damage done to WTC7 and the best footage taken of the actual fires in WTC7 at this moment.
Feel free to listen to what this debunker has to say, his website he lists as "debunking911.com", it's always important to get as many opinions of information as possible when trying to decide something for yourself, at least that's what I've found, though I would challenge you to focus on building #7 rather than all the conspiracy theory and debunking surrounding the twin towers or the pentagon. (why? because conspiracies surrounding 9/11 can get pretty far fetched, which building #7 you can focus on fact finding, photos, video footage, and personal accounts... real information that you can piece together and come to your own conclusion with... a lot of other conspiracy surrounding twin towers collapse and pentagon are not like this, they are more of a "take my word for it" kind of approach which is not something that interests me and probably doesn't interest you either.)
(click to show/hide)
Now lets take a look at some sI love youcrapers and other tall buildings which have had major fires.
What's that you say???? You say all this footage of burning sI love youcrapers is of more recently constructed and therefore better and more stable architecture and that's why they didn't fail after enduring raging fires? Well that's a valid point to consider... But my argument to that would be that it wasnt until around the 2000's that a large majority of the planet started walking around with HD cameras and video recorders in their pockets daily, so of course we would get footage of buildings more recently burning... and then I found this: Warning this video is pretty damn graphic
Here we have a 33 fl building the Andraus building constructed completed in 1962, Fully engulfed in flames. Which still stood after the fires burnt out completely.
(click to show/hide)
But this is what happened to our WTC7 when it caught fire... a fire fueled by its huge diesel reserves within the building which were yet still not enough to engulf the building in flames. For the first time in history a steel framed sI love youcraper/ tall building collapsed due to fire... and not only did it collapse, it collapsed into it's own footprint better than the average demolitionist could do. Or that is at least what we are told.
(click to show/hide)
I'll end with this, This is a newly released video all about building #7, it takes a lot of accounts of people talking about such, stuff I didn't really touch on at all. I find it a great all around argument for truth believers of WTC7, If you have a debunking video all about WTC7 that's worth it's salts I'd love to see it, I've watched many but most are pretty paltry at best. If you just focus on the facts and disregard the implications said facts would create I find most logical thinkers will conclude the official story on the collapse of the building 7 is crap.
(click to show/hide)
How could the government have something to do with this? Would they go to great lengths to mastermind something like this and frame a simple covert lieutenant as the real mastermind to the whole operation? Could elements of the government even have a hand in it directly? Such as the Fema people conducting exercises in the building the day before and the day of 9/11? Of course not! ...Or could they? 8-)
Operation Northwoods was a proposed operation against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[2]
At the time of the proposal, communists led by Fidel Castro had recently taken power in Cuba. The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the US Government (so called "false flag operations").[3] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.
Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various US military and civilian targets. The operation recommended developing a "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".
The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the US government's anti-communist Cuban Project, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. According to currently released documentation, none of the operations became active under the auspices of the Operation Northwoods proposals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
THE END
Well, you've put a lot on the table here, so I'll do my best to respond:
Quote
If you have a debunking video all about WTC7 that's worth it's salts I'd love to see it
This is one of the better ones I've seen, and I think it mentions most of the points you've brought up here.
Quote
What's that you say???? You say all this footage of burning sI love youcrapers is of more recently constructed and therefore better and more stable architecture and that's why they didn't fail after enduring raging fires? Well that's a valid point to consider... But my argument to that would be that it wasnt until around the 2000's that a large majority of the planet started walking around with HD cameras and video recorders in their pockets daily, so of course we would get footage of buildings more recently burning... and then I found this:
That's a nice attempt at structuring my argument for me, but I'd rather point out something that you already stated:
Quote
On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed.
WTC 7 has the distinction of being the only one of those buildings to have taken structural damage from falling debris, as well as how the fires were spread across the building.
Operation Northwoods is a great example of the potential corruptness of our Government, you're correct on that. However, it's poor "evidence" of a conspiracy, and pretty much just a regurgitated talking point used by every loose changer on the internet.
Quote
1. Use of drone aircraft (apparently, see below) 2. The passengers are offloaded from the flight before it is sent to its final destination (again, apparently). 3. The purpose of the conspiracy was to provide a casus belli, to provide a justification for war.
What are the elements of incomparability?
1. Operation Northwoods did not involve killing thousands of Americans; indeed it involved killing nobody. 2. Operation Northwoods did not involve destroying American buildings worth billions of dollars. 3. Operation Northwoods is clearly a far milder plan, to address what was apparently a far graver danger (see 1 and 2 above). Yet despite this, it was not put into effect. Of course the CT crowd would have an answer for that: This just shows how evil Bush is!
Why exactly does the Government need to crash planes into the WTC and then demolish two others? Let's assume they're seeking a casus belli; why do they need to kill thousands of Americans to achieve this? The United States has a history of going to war over incidents that are minor in comparison, and with much greater powers than... a terrorist faction in Afghanistan? The Spanish-American war started over a warship exploding while docked at a harbor. The Invasion of Panama didn't even require an attack on US soil:
Quote
The official U.S. justification for the invasion was articulated by President George H. W. Bush on the morning of 20 December 1989, a few hours after the start of the operation. Bush listed four reasons for the invasion:[20]
Safeguarding the lives of U.S. citizens in Panama. In his statement, Bush stated that Noriega had declared that a state of war existed between the U.S. and Panama and that he threatened the lives of the approximately 35,000 U.S. citizens living there. There had been numerous clashes between U.S. and Panamanian forces; one U.S. Marine had been killed a few days earlier. Defending democracy and human rights in Panama. Combating drug trafficking. Panama had become a center for drug money laundering and a transit point for drug trafficking to the U.S. and Europe. Protecting the integrity of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties. Members of Congress and others in the U.S. political establishment claimed that Noriega threatened the neutrality of the Panama Canal and that the U.S. had the right under the treaties to intervene militarily to protect the canal.
Why would the Government need such an elaborate plot to justify invading Afghanistan, or even Iraq? What's the purpose?
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Leshma on October 09, 2015, 11:08:32 pm
Didn't you Murricuntz know that Apollo space program was started in Bosnian mountains, under Yugoslavian supervision (https://youtu.be/kxOKVHhFVJU), and was later sold by Marshal Tito to John F. Kennedy in exchange for protection against USSR and huge funds you gave us for couple decades so we can live Greek style, doing jack shit while having great salaries?
Want more proof? Herman Potočnik, man who started whole space travel thing was Slovenian (damn Hungarians and Austrian my old friends claim he's theirs, lying scum). Einstein's wife was Serbian and she had huge influence on his work (was way smarter than him). Even motherfucking Tesla was born few hundred miles from the same place I was born. List goes on mofos. You never had a redneck in your space program. It was always some former Jew that was forced to work for Natzees, or some Indian/Chinese refugees, or some Ruskie genius who hated on Comrade Stalin... or some South Slovenian like great Niko Bellic.
Therefore I claim that intelligence can't grow on American soil, it has to be imported. Otherwise natives would find a way to deal with Europeans. They just weren't smart enough. American soil can't produce intelligent life form, it's a fact!
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Sir_Hans on October 10, 2015, 12:38:02 am
WTC 7 has the distinction of being the only one of those buildings to have taken structural damage from falling debris, as well as how the fires were spread across the building. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
You bring up structural damage from falling debris as well as "how the fires were spread..." But the federally funded NIST report you list as what I see your best evidence to your argument does not list that as an attributing factor to the buildings collapse.
"The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event—the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections—which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires."
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.
So the pretty simple explanation from the NIST document you list, again does not list your reasons of structural damage and unique-fire-spreadiness as reasons why the structure collapsed. All this is saying is that the fire caused collapse combined with the buildings engineering and structural elements etc.. etc..
(click to show/hide)
8. Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone? The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story sI love youcraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9). Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse. http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
Again this is all opinions here not promoting fact, But this explanation above by your federally funded NIST WTC7 FAQ does not explain why nothing like this has ever happened before. Like every sI love youcraper thats ever caught fire has been perfectly engineered EXCEPT for this one and that's why it collapsed.
It doesn't explain why the building which had relatively small fires on floors isolated to 7-9, 11-13 smoldering for only 5 hours brought down this structure... When plenty of other towers have burned overnight completely engulfed in flames and still were left mostly standing:
This is one of the better ones I've seen, and I think it mentions most of the points you've brought up here.
2. Operation Northwoods is a great example of the potential corruptness of our Government, you're correct on that. However, it's poor "evidence" of a conspiracy
3. Why exactly does the Government need to crash planes into the WTC and then demolish two others? Let's assume they're seeking a casus belli; why do they need to kill thousands of Americans to achieve this? The United States has a history of going to war over incidents that are minor in comparison, and with much greater powers than... a terrorist faction in Afghanistan? The Spanish-American war started over a warship exploding while docked at a harbor. The Invasion of Panama didn't even require an attack on US soil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Panama#United_States.27_justification_for_the_invasion
4. so I ask you this question: Why would the Government need such an elaborate plot to justify invading Afghanistan, or even Iraq? What's the purpose?
1. lol
2. Operation Northwoods is proof of what elements within our government are willing to do to sway public opinion towards invading another country or going to war. Terrorist attacks on its own citizens. It doesn't prove or validate any conspiracy theory, it simply shows what very small elements of government is capable of and what lengths they are willing to go to.
3. Spanish american war??? what? Why are thousands killed today compared to 100 years ago? Technology, densely packed urban populations? Why not invade like invasion of panama? Where 23 U.S. servicemen died and we got out of there within 1 year? That's a good question, we could have done that since there is a lot of opium there, but we wouldn't have been able to do much in one year in terms of stabilizing and controlling elements of the country (aka securing our primary source of oil(and that of the world)). Maybe the powers that be knew if they did an invasion without public opinion they couldn't make it last more than a year like in Panama when Bush Sr was pres... and they wanted bigger invasions, more forces, more expenditures, more everything.
4. Money and Power.
*And I'm not sure where you got those quotes about drones and people unloading passenger planes before they struck buildings??? Maybe that's someone else you're quoting??? Maybe your just trying to place me into some conspiracy theorist archetype nut who believes in everything that spews out of alex jones mouth? Not even sure how to respond to that quote since it wasn't me.
(click to show/hide)
1. Use of drone aircraft (apparently, see below) 2. The passengers are offloaded from the flight before it is sent to its final destination (again, apparently). 3. The purpose of the conspiracy was to provide a casus belli, to provide a justification for war.
Why exactly does the Government need to crash planes into the WTC and then demolish two others? Let's assume they're seeking a casus belli; why do they need to kill thousands of Americans to achieve this? The United States has a history of going to war over incidents that are minor in comparison, and with much greater powers than... a terrorist faction in Afghanistan? The Spanish-American war started over a warship exploding while docked at a harbor. The Invasion of Panama didn't even require an attack on US soil:
As I said, it's best just to focus on Building #7 and not try to answer or brainstorm on every implication the facts might have if your mainstream federally funded story turns out to be false. (why would they do this? How would they do this? Why wouldn't they have done this here? What is the point of doing this? etc...)
But to finally go into brainstorming and answer why would they do it on such a scale??? Maybe they knew that a lesser event would only produce and invasion of panama or at best a vietnam war. Maybe they had the foresight to see if they simply used Biological weapons as a pretext alone their invasion would have fallen apart if it turned out to be false. Maybe they weren't even worried about US citizen opinion but global opinion in general and knew that if America suffered an attack of this scale that no country could argue that we don't have the right to invade those responsible and go to war over it? Honestly who knows. Larry Silverstein the owner of the WTC buildings definitely was one to benefit from the whole scenario though, nobody can argue that he did not benefit utterly and completely.
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Grytviken on October 10, 2015, 12:58:36 am
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Sir_Hans on October 16, 2015, 05:32:34 am
Popular Mechanics did no research they are just regurgitating information on the NIST report and attributing their own Yellow Journalism by calling it a "Debunking". Yellow Journalism is something that the media mogul corporation Hearst, which owns popular mechanics, is well known for. PS: Hearst is a corporation with 20,000 employees and a net income of multi billions annually, you may as well link Fox News debunking WTC 7.
This is what you should be linking. The final official report on WTC 7 by the NIST. It actually is a good read and pretty much the best investigation done by anyone out there. That said I still don't find the final conclusion convincing. http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
Or you could read the previous investigation by FEMA which is a complete joke. The FEMA report was the first investigation into the WTC 7 collapse and it was what was passed around and spoken as truth by political figures and the media even though the report by FEMA started off by admitting that their investigation was limited and inconclusive. Not surprising since FEMA is not an organization specializing in investigation and forensics.
The one thing I will say about the NIST report, is that it contradicts itself on multiple occasions in their conclusion (chapter 4) It says in one paragraph the damage sustained by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was not significant. Another part says that even without structural damaged from the collapse of the towers, the fire would have been sufficient to collapse the building. They also point out that they believe the diesel reserves fueling the emergency generators was not a contributing factor to the fires or the collapse of the building.
Also, the NIST report does go into the hypothetical use of explosives, albeit very briefly... but curiously they do not mention thermite or thermate as a hypothetical scenario, which is pretty much one of the stronger points used by people who buy into one form of conspiracy theory or another. They also do not even mention the molten iron which was photographed, found, and retrieved. Something a lot of people would call "key evidence". They also fail to mention the curious way that some of the media news publications stated that building 7 was either coming down or had already came down before it actually started to collapse.
(click to show/hide)
Finally the last thing I would point out is the curiosities involving larry silverstein. Since he was incredibly lucky in more ways than one, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who benefited more on that day than he did. Silverstein has said in interviews that he usually spent his mornings in breakfast meetings at Windows on the World on top of the World Trade Center North Tower, and with new tenants in the building. However, the morning of September 11, 2001, his wife insisted that he attend a medical appointment with his dermatologist. Due to the appointment, he escaped almost certain death. In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center.[16] Silverstein was outbid by $30 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.[17] This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management. (a few months later he purchased the lease on WTC 7 as well) After the destruction of the WTC 1, 2, 4, 5 buildings, Silverstein received $4.55 billion insurance payout after an extended court battle with insurers. So he got an insurance payout of of $4.55 billion for something he paid $3.2 billion for less than a year earlier! On top of that he also received $700 million seperately for WTC 7 which he purchased literally months before the attacks. So altogether he profited $5.25 Billion from his purchase price of $3.2 billion AND he retained property rights to rebuild in the location of the buildings in the incident there was a collapse.
Conclusion: In the end it's just a personal choice on what you want to believe. NIST came to a conclusion based on evidence (a conclusion which was different than the previous FEMA conclusion I would point out.), This conclusion is a hypothesis constructed utilizing video evidence, personal accounts, research and experimentation. This still does not make the conclusion fact, something NIST states within their opening pages of the report.
What irks me the most isn't larry silverstein, the gobrment, or some illuminati theory of how the worlds going to end... It's simply how the structure collapsed when all of the major structural damage and damage caused by fire was all near the southwest corner of the structure it still somehow collapsed the entire interior and caused the building to fall straight down... If buildings did this due to fire I wouldn't think demolition crews would go through all the trouble of demolition a building using explosives, they would just light some fires in key locations and watch the structure fall straight down. I don't think the buildings were brought down using explosives, but I also don't believe the buildings were brought down with those small fires and the structural damaged labeled "not significant" in the NIST report's conclusion.
Label me an unintelligent illuminati-nut, idc. This is just my belief or (lack of belief to be more accurate) and I will stand by it until I am convinced otherwise.
There is a lot of conspiracy crap out there revolving 9/11 that I don't buy into, but there is also very strong arguments brought up by others. This is one of the best organizations for truth revolving around the 9/11 attacks, mainly because those in this non-profit group are all architects and engineers. http://www.ae911truth.org/
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: LordBerenger on October 16, 2015, 12:57:51 pm
7/11 was an inside job
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Ubereem on October 20, 2015, 02:42:21 am
Show me photo or video proof of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Beauchamp on October 20, 2015, 06:48:55 pm
Show me photo or video proof of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
every kid knows it was hit by a rocket. usa/terrorist just ran outta planes so they decided to use something else. hitting only the twins by airplanes was not enough to piss off the great american nation so they had to hit pentagon as well. sure there was a small risk that somebody will notice a rocket instead of the plane and will send the whole action to hell, but it was well worth the risk.
i'd only like to know if your iq is over the point where you can recognize edible objects from inedible ones or is it below?
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Kafein on October 20, 2015, 10:25:53 pm
USA secretly developed a new type of plane-sized rocket capable of downing multiple lampposts just for the occasion.
Title: Re: 100% Proof 911 Inside Job
Post by: Siiem on October 22, 2015, 10:09:44 pm
100% sure the original Deus Ex predicted 9/11, possibly the plot for the next game. Until Warren was abducted and brainwashed by Area 51 agents.