9/11 being an inside job

Frank Talk · Jul 21, 2008

Chanda said:
Firefighters "...made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the
fires (FEMA)," so why would the fire commissioner tell Silverstein, much later in the day, "it looks like we are not going to be able to control the fires," if there was never an attempt to control them?

The fire chiefs first impulse probably wasn't to call Silverstein, it was probably figure out how to put out the fire. When the FDNY couldn't get to the fires due to low pressure they probably didn't stand around and do nothing they were probably trying to figure out how to get to them.

The question is, why were the firefighters pulled away from the building? How did they know the building would collapse when there was no scientific reason for it to collapse? Somehow they knew it would collapse, how? They warned others in the area that the building was getting ready to fall. Witnesses heard explosions and a countdown. Here is a picture of WTC 7 at around 3 p.m. with sporadic fires on 8 floors:

When buildings are bulging and have large wholes in them it generally isn't a good thing.

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse.com's 9-11 Coverage: News 9/9/02 - WTC: This Is Their Story

You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

The fires and damage to WTC 7 were much worse than you claim.

WTC 7 is the smoking gun evidence of controlled demolition.

Why would the government leave this smoking gun? Destroying buildings 1 and 2 were enough.

Buildings do not fall symetrically at near free fall speed

WTC 7 was 181 meters tall meaning free fall collapse would take 6.1 seconds yet according to seismic readings the collapse took 18 seconds. WTC 7 did not fall at free fall speed.

into their own footprints for any reason other than controlled demolition.

Then how did debris land on 30 west Broadway?

Controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko said it was "absolutely" a controlled demolition, and "these guys knew what they were doing."

Jowenko also says 1 and 2 were not brought down by explosives. Experts can be wrong.

Building 5 and 6 were closer to the WTC towers and both sustained more damage than WTC 7. Building 6 was a raging inferno, but did not collapse implosion style:

The collapse of the north tower scraped the side WTC 5, but it didn't collapse:

5 and 6 weren't built on a ConEd substation nor did they have the truss system that 7 had.

The leaders of the truth movement are physicists, architects, and other professionals.

And yet they have failed to produce a peer-reviewed paper explaining how explosives were necessary to take down the tower.

According to a 2006 poll, 36% of Americans believe that some individuals in the government were involved--not exactly a lunatic fringe.

And over 90% believe in god.

And you based your opinion on that? Do you know bin Laden isn't wanted by the FBI for 9/11, because there is no evidence linking him to it?

A confession from one of the worlds leading terrorists is better than the zero direct evidence you have for government involvement.

You think the government would have documented its involvement in 9/11? :doh

We have extensive documentation for COINTELPRO, PBSUCCESS, Iran-Contra, Pionchet's coup and the East Timor invasion why not 9/11?

Chanda · Jul 21, 2008

section eight said:
lmfao no scientific reason for the collapse? You mean like the 10 story huge hole that was ripped out of the side of the building or the raging unfought fires that had been burning for hours?

This is a raging fire (building 6 which did not collapse implosion style):

This is not a raging fire (WTC7 at 3:00 P.M.):

Scientifically, a building would not collapse straight down from damage on the side of it. It would topple over toward the damaged section. Ask any scientist or even a woodcutter, for that matter.

And what are you suggesting, that the FDNY was somehow in on this conspiracy to murder hundreds of their brothers?

Absolutely not. The firefighters are just as puzzled about the explosions they heard as anyone:

"There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

A conflicted firefighter describes his feelings of living every day with his WTC 7 observations in this video at 19:57-21:12:

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect - "How The Towers Fell" - Complete 2 Hour Presentation | 911blogger.com

The NIST explanation is almost done on WTC7 and guess what that means?

After 5 years of investigation, the chief NIST investigator for WTC7 admitted they still didn't have a handle on it. NIST also admitted it couldn't explain the total collapse of the towers, either. It's time for an independent investigation.

section eight · Jul 21, 2008

Chanda said:
This is a raging fire (building 6 which did not collapse implosion style):

This is not a raging fire (WTC7 at 3:00 P.M.):

Yes these are raging inferno's:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U[/youtube]

And they had gone unfought from 9:30 to when the building collapsed.

Scientifically, a building would not collapse straight down from damage on the side of it. It would topple over toward the damaged section. Ask any scientist or even a woodcutter, for that matter.

Scientifically they would if the building in question was a tube in tube design and had a hole in it that extended 1/3 across the south facade and 1/4 into the interior in a building which was designed in such a way that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space.

Absolutely not. The firefighters are just as puzzled about the explosions they heard as anyone:

"There was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions."--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

Funny then that not a single one of the thousands upon thousands of movies from that day record the sounds of explosions which one would hear in a controlled demolition that would have echoed throughout the whole ****ing city.

"I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?"--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

Now in context:

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Gregory_Stephen.txt

A conflicted firefighter describes his feelings of living every day with his WTC 7 observations in this video at 19:57-21:12:

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect - "How The Towers Fell" - Complete 2 Hour Presentation | 911blogger.com

There was an experiment conducted by the NIST in which they took replicas of the steel trusses from the WTC and heated them up and there was an unexpected result once they reached a certain temperature there was a loud bang resulting from the shattering of the concrete:

5.1.1
Test Observations
Table 5–1 presents observations that were recorded during the conduct of the tests. All dimensions given are approximate since they were estimated by making observations through furnace viewports. Times were generally recorded to the nearest minute. The term “report” is used to describe a loud sound, which might be described as a “bang” or a “pop.” Because these loud reports were often accompanied by observed movement of the metal deck and the dislodging of fireproofing material, it is presumed that the reports signaled explosive spalling of the concrete. The exact location and extent of any spalling was not possible to ascertain.

Table 5–2. Test observations – Assembly No. 2.
Test Exposed (E) or Observations
Time, Unexposed (U)
min Surface

1 E & U Faint reports heard.
1 E The SFRM began to discolor.
3 E & U A faint report was heard.
3 E SFRM over-spray on the steel deck began to fall when report was heard.
5 E The steel deck began to deform east of the east bridging truss and west of the
west bridging truss.
10 E A buckle in the steel deck was observed. The buckle was located 1 ft west of
the center deck support angle and ran in a north–south direction. The length
of the buckle spanned from the north truss to the south truss.
12 E The steel deck was bowing downward between the bridging trusses and the
center deck support angle.
15 E & U A faint report was heard.
16 E & U A faint report was heard.
18 E & U Reports became slightly louder. There were three reports in a row, approx. 5
seconds apart.
22 E & U Reports continued and became slightly louder.
22 E There was minor fall off of the SFRM on the top angle of the east bridging
truss. The fall off was partial and did not result in bare steel being exposed.
23 E & U Reports continued.
30 E & U Reports continued.
34 E Visual deformation of the top angles of bridging trusses was observed.
36 E There was no visual buckling of the bridging truss web members.

Click to expand...

NIST NCSTAR 1-6B (Draft) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the WTC Disaster Fire Resistance Tests of Floor Truss Systems (Draft)

After 5 years of investigation, the chief NIST investigator for WTC7 admitted they still didn't have a handle on it.

They have a preliminary finding, and a working hypothesis, and they were not investigating WTC7 for 5 years they were focused on WTC's 1&2.

NIST also admitted it couldn't explain the total collapse of the towers, either.

That's an out and out lie.

It's time for an independent investigation.

Ya because the independent advisers who worked on the NIST report aren't enough right? How about this? Why don't you twoofers fund this independent investigation from reputable people not your group think pseudo-scholars.

Gladiator · Jul 22, 2008

section eight said:
A) Yes I deny that.

B) It was not the neo-cons intent to terrorize U.S. citizens that was the intent of the terrorists.

C) Again you still have not given any true examples of privacy rights which have been taken away since 9-11 as phone records are not protected and haven't been since the SCOTUS ruling in the 1979 case of Smith V. Maryland and bank records are not protected by the 4th amendment and haven't been since the SCOTUS decision in the U.S. V. Miller case of 1976.

Protected by What?

Maybe not the constitution, bus Federal laws regulate banking, and could provide more privacy.

Ther is no system of checks and balances to guratee your piracy of phone converfsations.

Send a Privacy Act request with you pnone numbers, see what comes back.

"Except for national securrity, which we did not search, we have no records of recording your conversations."

Where is the assurance of your privacy on your phone?

Gladiator · Jul 22, 2008

section eight said:
Yes these are raging inferno's:

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U[/youtube]

And they had gone unfought from 9:30 to when the building collapsed.

Scientifically they would if the building in question was a tube in tube design and had a hole in it that extended 1/3 across the south facade and 1/4 into the interior in a building which was designed in such a way that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space.

Funny then that not a single one of the thousands upon thousands of movies from that day record the sounds of explosions which one would hear in a controlled demolition that would have echoed throughout the whole ****ing city.

Now in context:

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Gregory_Stephen.txt

There was an experiment conducted by the NIST in which they took replicas of the steel trusses from the WTC and heated them up and there was an unexpected result once they reached a certain temperature there was a loud bang resulting from the shattering of the concrete:

They have a preliminary finding, and a working hypothesis, and they were not investigating WTC7 for 5 years they were focused on WTC's 1&2.

That's an out and out lie.

Ya because the independent advisers who worked on the NIST report aren't enough right? How about this? Why don't you twoofers fund this independent investigation from reputable people not your group think pseudo-scholars.

Why didn't the US Army bring in water tankers to fight the fires, like in Venezuela, where the Parke Central Tower is stil standing, becuase Venzualn Army fought the fire.

Why was the US Army out to Lunch on 9-11?

section eight · Jul 22, 2008

Gladiator said:
Protected by What?

Maybe not the constitution, bus Federal laws regulate banking, and could provide more privacy.

Ther is no system of checks and balances to guratee your piracy of phone converfsations.

Send a Privacy Act request with you pnone numbers, see what comes back.

"Except for national securrity, which we did not search, we have no records of recording your conversations."

Where is the assurance of your privacy on your phone?

Phone conversations are protected under the 4th amendment, the numbers that you dial are not protected by the 4th amendment.

section eight · Jul 22, 2008

Gladiator said:
Why didn't the US Army bring in water tankers to fight the fires, like in Venezuela, where the Parke Central Tower is stil standing, becuase Venzualn Army fought the fire.

Why was the US Army out to Lunch on 9-11?

It's called posse comitatus by the time we would have had permission to engage the U.S. army or the national guard from the state governor the tower would have already have fallen. That is what our fire departments are for, but IIRC they were a bit busy that day, they were fighting fires in buildings 5&6.

Furthermore; do you even have any evidence that the airforce had water tankers in range that day or that they were ordered to stand down or that anyone requested them but did not receive them?

DeeJayH · Jul 22, 2008

Trinity said:
9/11 being an inside job : http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf

What r yr views after seeing this video? Do u think 9/11 is an inside job? What about the views brought up by Michael Moore in his movie Fahrenheit 9/11? How many agree that 9/11 is an inside job based on his movie? Many also speculate (even architectural and civil engineers who agree it is not possible for 2 planes to bring down 3 towers, and that they were bombed from within. What do u think of this allegation? Any truth in it? How many would trust the US government after all this? How many think there is a massive cover-up in 9/11? What would be the agenda if this is true that 9/11 is an inside job by the US government? Was it all to facilitate the Iraq war for Bush's purposes?

(Not sure if this topic was posted b4, let me know if it was, I am pretty new here.)

Fahrenheit 9/11 Link : Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

No conspiracy occured
A former client of mine, now a close friend, is the Retired Commander of Chicago's Arson & Bomb Squad. I play golf with her every other month and had dinner with her last week

without batting an eye, and with a bit of disappointment that i would even ask, she flat out dismissed any and all conspiracy theories
she was encouraged that i was only asking for debate purposes on here

planes hit buildings causing destruction & fires
building integrity failed
buildings collapsed
End. of. Story.

I listen to the experts, including Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

Gladiator · Jul 22, 2008

section eight said:
It's called posse comitatus by the time we would have had permission to engage the U.S. army or the national guard from the state governor the tower would have already have fallen. That is what our fire departments are for, but IIRC they were a bit busy that day, they were fighting fires in buildings 5&6.

Furthermore; do you even have any evidence that the airforce had water tankers in range that day or that they were ordered to stand down or that anyone requested them but did not receive them?

From what I know, US Military and Forest Fire Fighers had all thier water tanker aircraft on the ground. No One even tried to get water to WTC 1, 2, 7. Everyone was just letting the buildings burn with no water to fight the fire. Ask Homeland Security Chief Chertoff, I am certain he has a scary answer for you.

Gladiator · Jul 22, 2008

section eight said:
Phone conversations are protected under the 4th amendment, the numbers that you dial are not protected by the 4th amendment.

The only way your phone conversations are protected is by Whistle Blowers, and they are few, and far between. The Phone Compaines just got Immunity. What mechanisms are in place to safeguard the privacy of your phone conversations? The Fisa courts are secret, and W Bush keeps them in the dark anyway.

section eight · Jul 22, 2008

Gladiator said:
From what I know, US Military and Forest Fire Fighers had all thier water tanker aircraft on the ground. No One even tried to get water to WTC 1, 2, 7. Everyone was just letting the buildings burn with no water to fight the fire. Ask Homeland Security Chief Chertoff, I am certain he has a scary answer for you.

"Do you even have any evidence that the airforce had water tankers in range that day or that they were ordered to stand down or that anyone requested them but did not receive them?"

Furthermore; what was standard procedure in this situation? Who was supposed to order them? Was there even such a procedure in place?

section eight · Jul 22, 2008

Gladiator said:
The only way your phone conversations are protected is by Whistle Blowers, and they are few, and far between. The Phone Compaines just got Immunity. What mechanisms are in place to safeguard the privacy of your phone conversations? The Fisa courts are secret, and W Bush keeps them in the dark anyway.

What mechanisms are in place to prevent the POTUS from sending a squadron of black helicopters to fire hellfire missiles at your house? Look do you have any evidence at all that domestic phones are being tapped or just more conjecture and speculation?

Gladiator · Jul 23, 2008

section eight said:
What mechanisms are in place to prevent the POTUS from sending a squadron of black helicopters to fire hellfire missiles at your house? Look do you have any evidence at all that domestic phones are being tapped or just more conjecture and speculation?

If someone sets my house on fire, I will be able to see it burning, or charred remains of a fire.

When someone is listening in to your phone conversations, with the help of your phone company, you have no signs that your phone conversations are being recorded. Congress has removed your checks and balances by giving the phone companies immunity, and by creating a FISA court, and by not even enforcing the FISA court oversight. You are in the dark. Have you filed your privacy act request yet? Probably have to send it to each of the 19 agencies in the US Spy agency conglomeration.

Gladiator · Jul 23, 2008

section eight said:
"Do you even have any evidence that the airforce had water tankers in range that day or that they were ordered to stand down or that anyone requested them but did not receive them?"

Furthermore; what was standard procedure in this situation? Who was supposed to order them? Was there even such a procedure in place?

Obviously since Venezuela could pour water from helicopter tankers, the US COUILD have poured water on at least Bulding 7. The US Government, under Bush and his Neocon Administrators were trying to scare Americans into War with Iraq, so a burned down building was more scary than just putting out the fire.

W Bush was successful in scaring the Americans into War with Iraq, by not even thinking of ordering water dropped from Forest Service, or military helicoptor tankers. I have never even heard a reporter, or Congressman, ask either Bush or any of his Neocon administrators, "Why didn't you order Helcoptors to drop water on WT7?"

..

DeeJayH · Jul 23, 2008

Gladiator said:
Obviously since Venezuela could pour water from helicopter tankers, the US COUILD have poured water on at least Bulding 7. The US Government, under Bush and his Neocon Administrators were trying to scare Americans into War with Iraq, so a burned down building was more scary than just putting out the fire.

W Bush was successful in scaring the Americans into War with Iraq, by not even thinking of ordering water dropped from Forest Service, or military helicoptor tankers. I have never even heard a reporter, or Congressman, ask either Bush or any of his Neocon administrators, "Why didn't you order Helcoptors to drop water on WT7?"

you need to exchange your tinfoil hat for one that protects you from being terrified by delusional fantasies

Gladiator · Jul 23, 2008

DeeJayH said:
you need to exchange your tinfoil hat for one that protects you from being terrified by delusional fantasies

You mean Congress is upoholding individual freedoms and the US is not at war in Iraq? The Neocon plot to sell War in Iraq failed? Or was nonexistant?

DeeJayH · Jul 23, 2008

Gladiator said:
You mean Congress is upoholding individual freedoms and the US is not at war in Iraq? The Neocon plot to sell War in Iraq failed? Or was nonexistant?

if the plot failed, why are we there?

Trinity · Jul 23, 2008

Trinity said:
Did u ever see Zeitgeist the movie?

Link here : Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007) (V)

Watch it esp the part on 9/11 and see if it changes yr mind. Ppl heard explosions from the buildings b4 they collapsed (after the planes hit them) and ppl heard explosions in the basement of Building 7 b4 the planes hit. And I feel like getting a plane to crash into a to-be-destructed building to show that it won't fall in a pancake-style at free-fall like the way WTC towers and Building 7 did (which showed the work of explosives, not to mention the hot areas where thermamite, an explosive chemical that melts thru buildings like butter, was found under WTC towers and Building 7.) But I don't want to derail this thread. If u want to argue more of it, go to this thread to argue on 9/11 : http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/33010-9-11-being-inside-job.html

<<< Post #83 of Page 9 of this thread : http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/33251-iraq-insists-withdrawal-timetable.html

<<< Said that on that thread. And continue with the evidence below.

YouTube - Zeitgeist Part Two (9/11)

Watch the above segment from the movie Zeitgeist.

How do u account for all the ?s raised in the movie Zeitgeist on their 9/11 section (in the video above)?

Zeitgeist link : Zeitgeist: The Movie (2007) (V)

DeeJayH · Jul 23, 2008

gawd
what a bunch of ****ing losers

Gladiator · Jul 24, 2008

DeeJayH said:
gawd
what a bunch of ****ing losers

Thermite, or super thermite, leaves molten metal

How did these beams get cut diagonal, fairly smooth? Not by heating and bending!

How did showers of sparks, as from steel being cut, shower out the sides of WTC? Not from ordinary heating and bending!

The Zeitgiest movie describes how beams can be cut at a diagonal with Thermite.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/33010-9-11-being-inside-job-12.html#post1057677188

Photos of Diagonal cut beams at WTC, near the second floor.

Thermite and Sulfer- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition

Description of Thermite:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ArabesqueReplyToWoodAndReynoldsThermite.pdf

Shower of sparks photo on 80th floor

THERMITE AT THE WTC - The Censored Evidence *PIC*

Gallery of photos showing evidence of Thermite and C-4 Charge demolition charges set.

Demolition, the truth of 9-11 and the WTC

WTC Concrete melted at Lava Temperatures:

Thermite and the WTC Collapses

..

Trinity · Jul 24, 2008

DeeJayH said:
gawd
what a bunch of ****ing losers

Instead of trying to shoot the messenger, why don't u try to refute the allegations raised in the movie Zeitgeist in the vid on Post #118 on Page 12 of this thread?

I can think of a few :
1) Why were there so many accounts of explosions heard by witnesses as if these explosions were embedded inside the towers? Unless ofc if explosives were used? There r at least 20 accounts by firemen, security ppl, newscasters from various news stations all saying the same thing : They all heard explosions, huge ones, after the planes hit? (And ofc the really curious lot under Building 7 b4 the planes hit.)

2) Why was there evidence of molten steel in the hot areas seen under WTC Buildings 1, 2 and 7, 3-5 weeks after 9/11? And they burn at 500 degrees hotter than jet fuel? If only planes hit the buildings and nothing more, they can't be burning at a temp higher than the original contents of the planes which was the jet fuel, right?

3) Pancake effect. All 3 buildings WTC Buildings 1, 2 and 7 all fell with pancake effect at almost free-fall speed. (How could this be done without the aid of explosives which moves mass out of the way?) Building 7 was even better, it was not even hit by a plane and it can fall EXACTLY like the other 2 that were hit by planes. And with a crimp in the middle characteristic of to-be demolished buildings which is done with explosives.

4) No evidence of anything larger than a phone the size of half a keypad? Everything became dust after being pulverised? How can this be done unless explosives were used in the 1st place?

5) Why so coincidentally was there an exercise going on at the same time as 9/11? That the fighter planes r so confused they didn't respond until 80mins later when it was too late? Norad has 100% success rates and failed 4 times on the day of 9/11?

5) Nobody including in the footage Condeleeza Rice, Bush and Cheney speaking that they have not envisioned planes used as missiles on attacks on skyscrapers when actually they all lied and 2 yrs ago, there was anti-terrorism exercise that actually used the same concept... terrorists hijacking planes and using them to crash into buildings? Of which in the exercise Pentagon and WTC r named?

There r many more asked in the movie.

Don't u think as an American, u of all ppl, shd get to the bottom of this? Rather than sticking yr head under the sand like ostriches, seek the truth. And find out if there is any truth to such allegations?

I can understand if non-Americans don't give a damn to finding out the truth about 9/11. But the ppl who made the movie Zeitgeist bothered to do their research and homework and raised very valid ?s in it. If they bothered enuff to find out the truth, don't u think u shd at least try to listen and think whether it can be true?

What is worse than living in LalaLand with no knowledge of what really happened on 9/11?

As an American, u must see this movie and find out what really happened on 9/11.

Ethereal · Jul 24, 2008

why don't u try to refute the allegations raised in the movie Zeitgeist in the vid on Post #118 on Page 12 of this thread?

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Gladiator · Jul 24, 2008

Ethereal said:
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Neocon Publication. No mention of Thermite.

DeeJayH · Jul 24, 2008

Trinity said:
As an American, u must see this movie and find out what really happened on 9/11.

dont need to see a movie
watched it happen live
also have an trusted expert opinion of a friend
also have a trusted expert opinion in Popular Mechanics

Gladiator said:
Neocon Publication. No mention of Thermite.

maybe because none was involved

Gladiator · Jul 24, 2008

DeeJayH said:
dont need to see a movie
watched it happen live
also have an trusted expert opinion of a friend
also have a trusted expert opinion in Popular Mechanics

maybe because none was involved

So you can confirm the diagonal Burn cuts of the vertical steel beams!

9/11 being an inside job

Frank Talk

Active member

Chanda

section eight

Gladiator

Verifier

Gladiator

Verifier

section eight

section eight

DeeJayH

Gladiator

Verifier

Gladiator

Verifier

section eight

section eight

Gladiator

Verifier

Gladiator

Verifier

DeeJayH

Gladiator

Verifier

DeeJayH

Trinity

DeeJayH

Gladiator

Verifier

Trinity

Ethereal

Gladiator

Verifier

DeeJayH

Gladiator

Verifier

9/11 being an inside job

Active member

Verifier

Verifier

Verifier

Verifier

Verifier

Verifier

Verifier

Verifier

Verifier

Verifier

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency