9/11 WAS an INSIDE JOB!?

Question

Why has there never been a thorough investigation into 9/11?
Why did the commission report leave out such important details... about the key witnesses to twin tower attacks, and explosions in building, and that building # 7 fell too, the same way the 2 twin towers fell... but no plane hit this building!!!???
Why did Larry Silverstein admit to blowing up WTC#7 in a documentary? How is it that skycrappers fall at the rate of FREE FALL ? oh- jet fuel, that's right... jet fuel vaporizes steel columns and causes a pancake effect that breaks the law of physics and falls within 10-15 secs... Plus- since when does jet fuel make the top of steel structured buildings look as if it were a volcano and explode from the top???


Could it be because there are to many Gov. officials involved?
Because we shipped most of the evidence from the twin towers away(out of this country)asap???
Because people really believe the official story- so why confuse the ignorant?
Ask questions demand answers!

Answer 1

Here's why it wasn't an inside job: Because essentially every single engineer and expert have come out against an inside job on 9-11. In many ways, this utterly, completely crushes the 9-11 conspiracy theory. These groups have said it's not an inside job:

-- The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057
It’s useful to see the investigation team & their credentials at: http://www.asce.org/responds/wtc_team.cfm

-- Scientific American has come out against a 9-11 conspiracy. See
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

-- Massachusetts Institute of Technology has come out against the theory. See http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

--FEMA against http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/mat_fema403.shtm

--NIST against http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

-- Popular Mechanics published a huge article attacking the conspiracy nuts using over 300 renowned experts in http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

-- World experts in demolition have attacked the 9-11 conspiracy theory http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

--PBS/NOVA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

-- Purdue (http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html), and others

-- Columbia University has permanent seismographic recorders that was running on 9/11 which clearly show no explosives during the collapse of Towers 1 & 2, or of WTC7 . See page 2 of
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

How do explain away what the above experts say ?
------
Here's an explanation of one point that you raised, "The faster than free fall question"

NIST estimated the fall times via (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, & (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y. These times were NOT faster than free-fall. Therefore, nothing unusual was detected. Without seismic evidence, an observer can't tell how fast the towers fell due to visual obstruction by debris. Got it? See http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
point 6.

Your other points are not based upon expert opinion and are just as easily dismissed.

Answer 2

lol I think the inside job is the funniset most unrealistc consipracy I have ever heard of. Because 1. I'm sure that while they were building the World trade centers, what back in the 60s or 70s? That they somehow purposly convinced everyone involved to make them weak so that years later the government could use it as an exuse to invade Iraq? ya right. 2. If it was an inside job, then it wouldn't be a consiracy it would be fact. Because of the millions of dollars that inside people would get paid to officially say that. lol it's like the dumb people that belive that we didn't really land on the moon. 3. There are a number of checks and balences in the American governmnet. Nobody would get away with that. Just look at the open problems with the democrats versus republicans over even less important issues? yes I'm sure this would remain under the wraps, really. 4. If the government paid Osama or other terroists to attrack us, then why wouldn't Osama tell the American people? What better oppertinity to turn the country he hates most against their own government? Only in Hollywood. But it's a creative conspiracy. just not a real one. I agree with what you said, especially about the kid wearing that shirt.

Answer 3

I think fellow clinton-ites Sandy Berger and Jamie Gorelic would be best suited to answer your question about government cover-ups. It was Gorelic's policy of not sharing information between different intelligence agencies that allowed the hijackers to operate. She was on the 911 commission. Seems to me she should have answering questions, not asking them.

Does the term Able Danger ring a bell? You remember, the military surveillance group that tried to inform the CIA of three of the hijackers interest in commercial airlines. However, thanks to Gorelic, they were not allowed to investigate any further. Maybe we would know more if Sandy Berger had not stolen and destroyed the documents that detailed Clinton's activities as related to Bin Ladin. Of course we all know now that Clinton passed on several opportunities to kill and/or capture OBL because, by Slick Willies own admission, "he was too much of a hot potato" And we all know that OBL declared war on the USA in 1992. After which his organization carried out several attacks against US embassies, US military post, and one US naval warship. Clintons response...nothing. That's right...he did bomb a pill factory when the Lewinsky story hit. So was there a cover-up? Certainly, but what else would you expect from the Playa President. He's not called Slick Willie for nothing.

As far as the physics of the collapse. You need to understand one simple thing...the columns do not need to be "vaporized" to fail. In actuality, steel construction is very unstable in fire conditions. This is why they covered steel members with asbestos for years. When heated, steel beams elongate prior to melting. This elongation will break the fastening mechanisms (nuts, bolts, welds, etc...) located on the ends of the beams, thus causing loss of support and collapse. Said elongation will also push out any layers (i.e., the front facade/exterior wall) located at the ends of the beam.

As far as the pancake effect...you need to understand the difference between live load, dead load, and (most importantly) impact load. I would explain it to you, however, I realize that you want to believe that 9-11 was an inside job and you're probably not even reading this anymore. Therefore, any actual FACTS I present to you will be disregarded because they don't fit into the scenario that your left wing, liberal, democrat, us-hating, hollywood heroes, and michael moore's of the world have told you to believe. That being the case, I will leave you with this. WAKE UP!!!! IT IS NOT TOO LATE!!! The real enemy is out there and they want you dead. If you keep ignoring the real enemy...dead is what you (and I) will be.

Answer 4

Sigh... again with the lunatic talking points.

Its already been established that the WTC wasn't constructed properly. Fuel does burn hot enough to melt steel, just ask the guys who cleaned up a section of the Oakland Bay Bridge in late April. Then again I don't expect the paranoid schizophrenics to pay any attention to facts.

As for the stuff about "exploding from top" and Larry Silverstein...that's so far out there it probably came to you in a wet dream...who in their right minds would have let some spooky government dudes in black body armor plant explosives on each floor of WTC #7 while they were going to work?

Knowing itd kill them?

The major problem with conspiracy theories is that once you believe the "deceivers" are controlling all the information, you can only trust those sources which already agree with you. So there's neither exchange of ideas nor room for growth. People who subscribe to them become stuck in their own little pathetic world.

Answer 5

it's possible it was an inside job. well anything's possible, but if you raise the question of how terrorist could take control of planes when the weapons should have been detected... because you have to go through metal detectors, you're bag goes through x-rays... only other thing is someone else at another airport let them in.

you're right about the jet fuel thing. it shouldn't be able to corrode metal.

as for the volcano-like explosion, only possible explanation are that it was an inside job, or it had to do with the air pressure.

Answer 6

I find it appalling that so many people 'trust' the federal government's word without so much as a whimper of skepticism, even though there is credible evidence worthy of further investigation and questioning. Consider this:
a) The government LIED to us about U-2 spy planes over the U.S.S.R. until Nikita Khrushchev shot one down and displayed it for all the world to see;
b) The Warren Commission sealed all documents pertaining to the Kennedy assassination for 75 years. By 2038, most of us who were around when that tragedy took place will be unable to challenge anything because we will all be dead and gone;
c) Residents of Roswell, New Mexico have never been fully satisfied with the government's explanations as to the events that happened there in 1947;
d) The U.S. military LIED about the effects that Agent Orange might have on Vietnam veterans;
e) Claiming that U.S. ships were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, the U.S. government used those LIES as a means of involving us in the Vietnam War so that the giant U.S. military-industrial complex could boost its sagging profits;
f) The White House LIED about a third-rate burglary in the Watergate Hotel until two enterprising reporters took it upon themselves to dig out the truth, resulting in the first resignation of a U.S. President;
g) The U.S. government LIED about 'weapons of mass destruction' which gave the Bush administration 'reason' to unconstitutionally and illegally attack another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States;
h) The White House LIED about secret CIA prisons;
i) The White House LIED about the torture and abuse of 'detainees' in Cuba, in direct violation to the terms of the Geneva Convention, which the U.S.A. signed;
j) The federal government LIED about why its Attorney General fired federal prosecutors, denying that it was for political purposes.

So, WHY is so hard to believe that the government might LIE to us about the events surrounding 9-11-01???

Benjamin Franklin once said: "When people fear the government, it is tyranny; when government fears the people, it is liberty." If we continue to take our government's 'word' for it (and the media conglomerates find it more convenient and cost-effective to just read the government's press release instead of investigating the story on it sown) we will only have ourselves to blame when we find ourselves mired in the quicksand of a dictatorship. Skepticism, questions, doubt, and uncertainty is healthy in order to keep our government honest. -RKO- 05/23/07

Answer 7

Yes it was an inside job and I'm not talking about Micheal Moores stupid movie.

It was about making money for (Halliburton, Saudi group, Bushes), but it was more about the Patroit Act. Passing laws that would shred the constitution and this fallacy that terrorism is very real.

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism." G Edward Griffin

"In politics, nothing happens by accident.
If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way." Franklin D. Roosevelt

Answer 8

What people need to know is all about the Partnership for A New American Century. All of the evidence is in plain site. Vote Ron Paul 2008

Answer 9

People who will laugh at the proposal that the government was at the very least a fascilitatotor to the 9/11 plan, and at worst a co-conspirator, have forgotten about what a dictatorial fascist-like government can accomplish. Those of us who settle for unanswered questiones are doomed to be led by our noses forever.

Answer 10

Didn't a fuel truck in LA melt a concrete and steel freeway like a month ago? INSIDE JOB. LOL.

#7 bilding collapsed from damage from the towers falling.

How would a building falling from damage fall any differently then one from an explosion?

The melting metal was most likely an aluminum allow from the planes that hit.

You know what, at this point your arguments are about as valid as Flat Earth Society arguments.