Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

NIST report says office fires, not the planes brought the buildings down.

Here's a list of steel framed buildings in the US, many of which would/should collapse from ordinary fires.

https://www.google.co.th/search?q=nu...A&ved=0CFYQ7Ak

They would/should but I bet they won't. The one in Madrid that actually burned didn't.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

NIST report says office fires, not the planes brought the buildings down.

Here's a list of steel framed buildings in the US, many of which would/should collapse from ordinary fires.

https://www.google.co.th/search?q=nu...A&ved=0CFYQ7Ak

Originally Posted by Your name here

They would/should but I bet they won't. The one in Madrid that actually burned didn't.

Originally Posted by jamescollister

NIST report says office fires, not the planes brought the buildings down.

Here's a list of steel framed buildings in the US, many of which would/should collapse from ordinary fires.

https://www.google.co.th/search?q=nu...A&ved=0CFYQ7Ak

Any building of similar design is a fire death trap, no insurance company would insure them.

They either fall down from fire or they don't, if they fall from fire, then they are unsafe.
Can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Your comments about those photos of yours above are way past "looney". They are simply stupid. Surely nobody could be stupid enough to actually believe that bad, spur of the moment photography, blown up photographically, could be "analyzed" the way you claim to. Therefore I say you're trolling, and have been all the time about 9/11.

I don't dare re-post that nonsense to address it, but simply put they are stills being taken from a video some distance away, of a jet doing 500MPH into a building and of course there are shadows and pixels missing due to it's speed and distance, nothing more sinister then that, what a head case you are ENT.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by Your name here

BBC reported that building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it collapsed, while the building was still standing and visible over the left shoulder of the reporter while she said it.

You haven't worked that one out yet ??

She was probably standing in a studio with a photo of it projected behind her. News teams regularly use stock photos as backgrounds for their reports. They do it for convenience.... to save time, money and energy.

What sort of a dumb explanation is that?

She announced the building's collapse 20 minutes before it fell down, dozy.

Was she psychic or something?

(Or maybe just as stupid as you)

Oh FFS it was a mistake. You do realise every news service in the world was trying to filter and report a shitload of different sources all at the same time, don't you?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to address the six live feeds I gave you when you claimed that no-one showed the second strike live.

A mistake?


A bloody BIG mistake!

So what? Not possible? Of course it is and it was.. You talk about US following the press like sheeple? You see an error made by 1 reporter out of hundreds and bleat on about it incessantly like HER word was the only legitimate report out of all of them and she was irrefutable in her report..

[QUOTE=ENT;2864566]

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by ENT

Your comments about those photos of yours above are way past "looney". They are simply stupid. Surely nobody could be stupid enough to actually believe that bad, spur of the moment photography, blown up photographically, could be "analyzed" the way you claim to. Therefore I say you're trolling, and have been all the time about 9/11.

It wasn't a photo, dipsh*t, it was one of the videos aired on the media, CNN, maybe?

Now he's arguing with himself?? Priceless.............

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

I got an awesome idea, let's collect and put all the nonbelievers, cynics and skeptics, in a 747 (probably don't need more than one) on a sled at the test facility or better yet remotely pilot a plane like they claim has been done and crash it into the ground at 500 mph in a rock hard field and see what remains? No more questions after that I'll wager..

Only 430 cynics, skeptics and nonbelievers of the 9/11-dun-by-19-arabs-with-box-cutters myth existing in the world?


You really are in lalaland.

Yes, point is in your lala land existence you are seriously in the tiny minority of head cases that believes such tripe.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

I got an awesome idea, let's collect and put all the nonbelievers, cynics and skeptics, in a 747 (probably don't need more than one) on a sled at the test facility or better yet remotely pilot a plane like they claim has been done and crash it into the ground at 500 mph in a rock hard field and see what remains? No more questions after that I'll wager..

Only 430 cynics, skeptics and nonbelievers of the 9/11-dun-by-19-arabs-with-box-cutters myth existing in the world?


You really are in lalaland.

Yes, point is in your lala land existence you are seriously in the tiny minority of head cases that believes such tripe.

You know 13 years later and I travel a lot, and I have yet to meet one of these tossers.

Probably because they only really matter to themselves behind the curtains in their Bt5000 a month "studio apartment", and they know if they ever uttered this shit in public they'd be ridiculed.

The owner of Ethos vegetarian restaurant just near Khao San Rd, Bangkok does. I met him a long time ago and he was banging on about building 7 of the World Trade Centre, in an aspie-like way. We should have got Koojo to go and see him when he was there recently.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Latindancer

You haven't worked that one out yet ??

She was probably standing in a studio with a photo of it projected behind her. News teams regularly use stock photos as backgrounds for their reports. They do it for convenience.... to save time, money and energy.

What sort of a dumb explanation is that?

She announced the building's collapse 20 minutes before it fell down, dozy.

Was she psychic or something?

(Or maybe just as stupid as you)

Oh FFS it was a mistake. You do realise every news service in the world was trying to filter and report a shitload of different sources all at the same time, don't you?

By the way, I'm still waiting for you to address the six live feeds I gave you when you claimed that no-one showed the second strike live.

A mistake?


A bloody BIG mistake!

So what? Not possible? Of course it is and it was.. You talk about US following the press like sheeple? You see an error made by 1 reporter out of hundreds and bleat on about it incessantly like HER word was the only legitimate report out of all of them and she was irrefutable in her report..

But, this is exactly the kind of thing I as talking about. The "mistake" has been explained. The fire department had issued a warning that the building was in serious danger of collapse. One news team (the fucking Beeb..) got its wires crossed and announced that it HAD collapsed.

This is exactly what the conspiracy nuts focus on. Little hair-splitting and quite immaterial "facts" to promote their case.

Then their "case" is further enhanced by constantly harping on about how fires impossibly brought down the building, when it was in fact ground level structural damage that caused the collapse, with the fires only being a secondary cause.

Nit-picking; hair-splitting, fabrications and outright lies are the tools of the conspiracy industry....and the publishers of such nonsense make loads of money out of it....ostensibly saving us all from our governments.....

Originally Posted by koman

Nit-picking; hair-splitting, fabrications and outright lies are the symptoms of Aspergers Disorder

Corrected that for you. Not to mention confabulation.

And yes....it's all about making money by becoming popular with all the Aspies who zero in on the details, spreading the word via the internet. Rapid fame for people whose ideas would never otherwise stand a chance being published in book form ! Ain't the net great ?

Originally Posted by Your name here

They would/should but I bet they won't. The one in Madrid that actually burned didn't.

Neither did the Meridian Bank building that burned for 16+ hours. One Meridian Plaza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your link:

Firefighting efforts inside One Meridian Plaza eventually were abandoned due to fears the structure would collapse.The fire was only brought under control once it reached the 30th floor which was one of the few floors that had automatic sprinklers installed. Ten sprinklers held back the fire until it started burning itself out and was finally brought under control almost a full day after it started. The blaze seriously damaged the building destroying eight floors and damaged neighboring buildings

The concern was there, the luck turned out o be on their side but the concern was legitimate, professionals are only able to predict not be clairvoyant. This building also had sprinklers, enough water to aid the fight, it did not have damaged plumbing and mains impairing the fight and there was extensive below level foundation damage of WTC 7 as has been mentioned and proven extensively.

FB, where in the NIST report does it mention extensive foundation damage.
Are you saying the report covered that fact up.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

there was extensive below level foundation damage of WTC 7 as has been mentioned and proven extensively.

Well obviously.
If you blow up the basement, the basement will be damaged extensively

Anyone spotted the plane yet?

It was explained to you in detail, with evidence, in a previous thread....THREE YEARS ago, Albert.

https://teakdoor.com/the-teakdoor-lou...appened-7.html (9/11 , What Really Happened ?)

That was when you and ENT had some sock puppet friends posting.

^Exactly.
You can't see it - because it's not there.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

It was explained to you in detail, with evidence, in a previous thread....THREE YEARS ago, Albert.

That was when you said "And I'm outta here". Hard to quit when you're addicted hey?

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

^Exactly.
You can't see it - because it's not there.

You can't see it if you don't look at the photographs of bits of plane wreckage taken at the scene, no.

Which is why YOU can't see it.

^It's the impact site.
Obviously no plane made that wee ickle hole.


Know what I mean 'arry?

I notice that nobody has any plausible explanations for any of the other mysteries mentioned below. Maybe these are easier to explain, no?

There are a lot of weird-assed theories out there, duplicate aircraft, missiles disguised as planes, voice morphing to impersonate passengers, Flight 93 was staged, passengers were flown elsewhere and executed, bla, bla, bla. But, there are enough real and significant problems and inconsistencies with the official version to make critical thinking, intelligent people question it.

Some people think the twin towers were brought down by explosives, numerous firemen and building tenants reported hearing explosions in the lobby and basement shortly before the collapse. Thermite was found in the debris, there was molten metal in the debris and fires burned for days. All the metal from the building was sold overseas for scrap before any investigation could be done.

9/11 Truth: How to Debunk WTC Thermite at Ground Zero | Global Research

Over 1700 scientists, architects & engineers don't believe the official story, disagree with the conclusions and want an investigation to uncover the truth.

World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth

The towers were built to withstand a Boeing jet(s). “I designed it for a 707 to hit it”, Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer. “Could probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners”, “like a pencil puncturing screen netting” Frank De Martini, deceased Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management. “As far as a plane knocking a building over, that would not happen.” Charlie Thornton, Structural Engineer.

FAQ #9: Were the Twin Towers Designed to Survive the Impact of the Airplanes?

Orders for an extraordinary amount of "put" options occurred in the days before the attack for American Airlines and United Airlines. People betting that the price of the stock of the two airlines would drop.

9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Many public officials received phone calls warning them not to go to work or fly on Sept 11. Condoleeza Rice warned Mayor Willie Brown not to fly on 9-11 Top pentagon officials cancelled flights for 9-11 on 9-10. John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial flights in July 2001.
9/11: Public Officials Warned

Rumsfeld admitted to $2.3 trillion missing on September 10, 2001 (the day before 9/11)
www.oilempire.us

People were calling for an audit of the 100's of millions in gold stored in vaults under the WTC but were brushed off with excuses that it would take too long to count.

WTC 9-11 Biggest Gold Heist In History | 911justicehalifax

BBC correspondent Jane Standley reported the collapse of WTC 7 (Soloman Brothers building) 20 minutes before it happened. CNN/FOX/MSNBC also had early reports.

BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell

Originally Posted by Your name here

The people who accept the official version of the story take glee in explaining some of the easy points that skeptics brought up but conveniently ignore the more difficult to explain incongruencies.

Nobody wants to offer an explanation why the media reported the passenger lists just a few hours after the attack and all 19 of the hijackers names were missing.

How did that happen? The airlines sent the lists to the government, who already knew the names of all 19 hijackers and redacted them and sent the lists back to the airlines to release to the media??

Shouldn't all the names of all the passengers be on the manifest?

What about the half dozen people who made calls on their CELL phones while the planes were flying 400-500 knots at altitudes of over 10,000 feet?

I flew 185,000 miles last year, I spent hours in holding patterns over JFK, Dulles, O'Hare. I've turned my phone on while aloft numerous times and I never got a signal, not on commercial flight, private jets or small GA planes. Experiments were conducted with various phones in a variety of planes, not a single one was able to make a call, even in a slow, low-flying Cessna. Cell phone towers are polarized for horizontal transmission and require a longer time to connect than the time you're within range when traveling in a plane.

In the history of the world only three steel frame buildings ever collapsed from a fire. The twin towers and building 7. A similar skyscraper in Madrid burned for almost a day and never collapsed.

Standing between the twin towers and building 7 are two other buildings, neither of them were damaged. The official explanation is that the tower leaned while collapsing (Did you see that in the video, I didn't, it fell right square in it's own footprint) and the debris jumped over two buildings and hit building 7 and damaged it enough to make it collapse, at free-fall speed. This building had fires started by falling debris on fire, it didn't have 400,000 lbs of ATF burning inside like the towers. The jet fuel was the explanation for the twin towers falling.

If all it takes to reduce a building to dust, why do demolition companies place explosive charges on ALL the columns of ALL the floors when all it takes is to take out the columns on the top floor and let gravity do the rest?

Why if no other steel framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fire, was the fire chief so sure it would collapse that he pulled all the firefighters and announced to the media that they expected it to collapse.

In 1945 a ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building (built in 1929). The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor. It's still standing.

Does anyone care to address these points, or is it easier to just make ad hominem attacks on the skeptics?

I'd love to be proven wrong but there are still too many unanswered questions for me just to swallow the sheeple food without question.

^All your points are absolutely spot on.

Good work

'Your name here', I like your post but I think the usual idiots will be down on you soon.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

the usual idiots

And as you're a new your name here (boom boom ) , I'll give you a quick run-down of our top four "challenged" members

Koman
Latin Dancer
Harry Barracuda
Floriduh Born

I say "top", but you know what I mean