I believe 9/11 was an inside job now

[Something completely different]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiZm0Svak0


Video description:

"An analyst says Phillip Marshall was killed to suppress surprising information he was about to release in a new book that would embarrass the official 9/11 storyline."

If you watch the official Iranian propaganda channel and take every word it spews to be correct.

It is your own fault.

[Rayaan]

If you watch the official Iranian propaganda channel and take every word it spews to be correct.

It is your own fault.

I don't take every word that it spews to be correct (nor do I watch it even), but how do you know that's a propaganda channel?

What is it trying to promote exactly?

[Something completely different]

I don't take every word that it spews to be correct (nor do I watch it even), but how do you know that's a propaganda channel?

Do you believe that the holocaust never happened, that North Korea is a heaven on earth and that the financial and political structures of Europe and the US are controlled by Jews?

If a channel broadcasts things like these on a regular basis, it certainly also has an impact on the other stuff it broadcasts.

[Captain Colostomy]

The guy had a bombshell he was going to put in yet another of his 9/11 books.

Riiiiight.

Assuming(which i'm not) that you have a smoking gun, holding it until you can make a buck on it is reprehensible.

This guy had jack shit, knew it, and wasted his family. Wifey was estranged, so motive.

[Tiberius]

9/11 was not an inside job. For every 1 expert that the conspiracy theories bring forward to testify about something, you'll find 100 or more that say the complete opposite.

I also find it insulting that people think the government could get away with something like this, when they can't run any other part of government efficiently at all. It's also ridiculous to think that nobody from inside the government who were involved with an operation of this size (which would have been thousands) has come out with actual physical evidence that the government did it. I mean, Edward Snowden was just a contractor and he managed to steal thousands upon thousands of documents from the NSA. The spying on people's internet use, whilst abhorrent, is not as bad as the mass murder of thousands of people. Someone would have talked.

Edit: I should point out, 'Susan Lindauer' (mentioned earlier) is not an example of a whistleblower. She has no evidence other than her personal testimony. There is no evidence she ever worked for the CIA (as she claims). A judge found her to be mentally unfit to serve trial twice. Which is more likely, that she worked for the CIA and all her files were deleted (and she never kept anything the CIA gave her), or that she is simply a crazy person?

[Minimalist]

hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

It was the plot of Tom Clancy's 1994 novel, "Debt of Honor." Clancy had a big following among military types.


Also, Rayaan, the US and Britain were "warned" of Japanese intentions prior to Pearl Harbor. We assumed the attack would fall on the Philippines because we underestimated Japanese capabilities and the British moved two capital ships ( Repulse and Prince of Wales ) without proper air cover to intercept the Japanese invasion fleet heading for Malaya. Both decisions were based on "intelligence" and both were wrong but not because no one acted on them.

[FallentoReason]

I can't be arsed to watch video about this, but I'd like to know why molten metal under the rubble is suspicious. A collapsing high rise doesn't fall and settle like a gentle dropped stack of pancakes.

It's suspicious because burning jet fuel can't melt steel. It's off by ~800 degrees F. from doing that.

Also, 'a hot knife through butter' can explain much.

I'm not too sure what you mean.. is the "knife" the plane and the "butter" the building? The impact certainly wouldn't melt steel. I think the velocity required for that would be astronomical.

Another thing I find odd is how explosives could be set, unnoticed and in the ideal location(s), to ensure collapse. Did the WTC buildings have interstitial decks?(Maintenance access inbetween individual 'stories'?) Meh. The simplest answer is still the best...jets.

I also don't know how they would've set the charges. The only thing that definitely gets to me (after a day of thinking about it..) is that WTC 7 collapsed... and in such a "clean" manner as well. The somewhat straightfoward collapse of the tower next to it hardly touched WTC 7, yet it cleanly collapsed in 7 seconds. It doesn't make any rational sense.

[Minimalist]

Again, lies put out by the truther crowd...which is certainly an ironic name for this bunch.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-fire.html


I knew people who were working in Building #7 on 9-11. One was a pregnant attorney who worked for the IRS' General Legal Counsel and was a frequent opponent in labor cases. I had the chance during a break in a case some months later to speak to her about that day. After the towers were hit the workers were gathered on the ground floor but they could not evacuate right away because of debris falling around them. Finally the upper floors of the building caught fire and there was no choice. She told a harrowing tale of dashing for safety towards the IRS district HQ on Church st. a block north.

So this nonsense that building #7 was undamaged is simply bullshit.

[Tiberius]

I also don't know how they would've set the charges. The only thing that definitely gets to me (after a day of thinking about it..) is that WTC 7 collapsed... and in such a "clean" manner as well. The somewhat straightfoward collapse of the tower next to it hardly touched WTC 7, yet it cleanly collapsed in 7 seconds. It doesn't make any rational sense.

From Wikipedia:

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. 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.

WTC 7 wasn't "hardly touched" by the North Tower. Go to YouTube and search for "debris hitting WTC7", and you'll find plenty of videos of large projectiles falling off the North Tower and hitting WTC7.

I'm not so sure I understand the meaning of the word "clean" you use to describe the collapse. Buildings generally collapse downwards in the manner WTC7 did, just as the North and South towers did. This is due to the fact that the structure holding parts of the building up fails, and once the top of the building starts falling, the rest of it collapses underneath.

If you were expecting the towers to fall over to one side, or for WTC7 to fall over to one side, then you don't quite understand the mechanics of what went on that day.

[Psykhronic]

The US government is shit at hiding anything so major from the public. There's no way I deem this government competent enough to pull that stunt off. And their "story" aligns with something important called physics, whether you believe it or not.