9/11 Was an Inside Job

The videos in this link make a pretty good case for 9/11 being an inside job.
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

Be sure to watch "Painful Deceptions", "Loose Change", "In Plane Sight", and "The Great Conspiracy".

Here are three more good ones.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8989407671184881047&q=9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9210704017463126290

These last three were made later than the first ones and they make some points that the first ones don't cover.

 

Looks like someone's got a hard on for conspiracies.

 

Is it being a "conspiracy freak" to ask

WHY in all the history of steel framed buildings, did three steel framed buildings collapse in such an orderly manner?

WHY is it that the worlds greatest military power FAILED to defend even its own HQ?

WHY did our glorious Commander in Chief when informed that we are under attack, WHY did he sit on his ass in a photo-op rather than excuse himself and go do his JOB.

There are a LOT of questions and NONE of the really relivant questions have been answered by the "officical 9/11 report"

 

I can't wait to follow how USMC Almighty, the great patriot with blinders on, will respond in this thread. "A hard on for conspiracies," my, my, how delusional.

 

It's not worth it to try to educate them.

First, I have much more of a history background than science so any scientific evidence that I presented would be what I have read by others -- something that I'd prefer to not do.

Secondly, if I try to respond with facts as I believe I have in other 9/11 conspiracy threads, they'll just start up a new one posing the same damn questions with the same damn theories.

And lastly, I made my "hard on for conspiracies" quote after reading three consecutive posts by Scott all regarding American conspiracies.

 

Terms like tin foil hat and conspiracy theorist are just coined to marginalize people who ask too many questions.

The official version is a conspiracy theory too just not a very convincing one.

 

Edit by admin: Don't spam links.

 

How am I supposed to make my case if I can't link to my evidence?

Look at this picture. It is the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon.
http://www.hongpong.com/lib/images/plane77_contrast_adj.jpg
It's too pointed to be the nose of a 757.

Look at the hole in the Pentagon before the collapse.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4223&st=30
It's too small to have been made by a 757.

If the first picture hasn't been doctored, it and the other one close the whole case. If I missed something, please tell me.

 

This is just hilarious. I can hardly even see a plane in the 1st picture it's so blurry. The second could easily have been scaled to different sizes.

 

Hi, new to this site, and thought I would add a degree of professional knowledge. I am a civil engineer, with a professional registration. I didn't think there was anything funny about the way the towers came down. However, since there is no way to verify who I am, the American Society of Civil Engineers also published a report after the collapse. They did forensic investigations into the collapse and published their findings for the world. They didn't notice anything funny either.

 

Even the news anchor here says it's the nose of a plane.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html

I can see the shadow line under it. The shadow line is consistent with the shadow of the pentagon.

The car in the picture is the reference point.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4223&st=30
That's how we can see the scale is right.

We have to wonder if they sold out though.
What do you think of this?
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

 

The loose change video is filled with half truths and complete lies. One of the more popular half truths out there is that steel melts at 1525 degrees C, but jet fuel only burns at 825 degrees C. The thing that most of these theories leaves out is that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity at 648 degrees C. Videos like loose change and 9/11 Revealed only tell half of the facts, because the other half of the facts proves their theories wrong. I dont have the time to go through and bring down these arguments point by point like the NIST report did, but these questions have been answered. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but it just gets annoying when the questions have been answered, and you still ask them. I would recommend that people look at these quick factsheets before jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 

Exactly, Dave.

 

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' collapses, FEMA's and NIST's, are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns. dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings (now available to the public for the first time in 5 years). Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.


FEMA's report seems crafted to hide the structural significance of the core columns, if not their very existence. Examples of features of the Report that minimize or conceal the core structures include:


-The absence of any illustrations showing core columns of typical dimensions
-The repeated use of the term "service core" to describe the cores, and avoidance of terminology describing their structural role
-The use of illustrations that imply the cores didn't exist
-The only photograph of a core column in the Report (Figure D-13) being of an atypical column of very small dimensions
-The inclusion of only floor plans that show core columns of very small dimensions with no clarification that the core columns that ran most of the Towers' heights were of much larger dimensions

In 2005 NIST published its 'Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers' -- a 280-page report that was extremely vague in a number of respects, including any description of the structural systems of the Towers.

 

Hey USMC the Almighty

Are you a marine? I'd like to see your analysis of the articles written by these two marines.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2567
http://www.theunjustmedia.com/major_general_smedley_butler.htm

This is an on-line book written by the Marine general.
http://www.scuttlebuttsmallchow.com/racket.html

What do you think of it?

I know this is off topic but I want to see how objective you are about the US government.