Was 9/11 an inside job?

in the unedited film of the planes crashing into the towers you apparently can see the pilots jumping out wearing parachutes

I FIND THAT VERY HARD to believe and if it was true surely passer bys would have seen them when they landed
and i have not read that in the papers, a cover up maybe?

It's about time someone on the internet started asking questions about this.

Major Tom 3 months ago (edited)
Barry Jennings DIED
Aged 53
2 day before Nist published their final report

Barry Jennings was in WTC7 from just after the 1st plane hit and the building was empty
Barry was in WTC7 when the 2nd plane hit
Barry was making his way out the building with MR HESS when the 6th floor landing was blown away bya an explosion from below
Barry went back to the 8th floor
Barry busted out a window and saw both towers still standing
Barry was rescued by firefighter who twice had to run away due to the two falling towers
The third time they came back and rescued him
they took him through the lobby which had been obliterated
Barry got out about 1 oclock
Barry says while he was trapped he heard explosions in the building
Barry died in 2008 on the 19th August a couple of days before the NIST  final report was made public
Barry gave a full interview with his EYEWITNESS testimony of Explosions

But Nist say thy had no eyewitnesses of hearing explosions
NIST say it was an office fire the toppled WTC7
NIST dont explain the 2.25 seconds of freefall acceleration that the building went through
Freefall acceleration is Impossible in a natural collapse
NISTs initiating event for the collapse of WTC7 at column 79 is IMPOSSIBLE

I believe BARRY  JENNINGS (RIP) in his interview

maybe someone could start a website

to help GAZO - who has come forward and announced his condition in the proper way. Good chap.  Here are your pills now ...

GAZO - there is no "'film' of the plane crashing into the towers".  There are multiple snippets of 'film' (as you call it) garnered from the many cameras that just happened to be on and pointing in the right direction when it happened, camers that largely were situated on buildings or in the hands of people on the ground.

hang on-fink i've made a boo boo.  Gazo's being sarcastic - no wonder I didn't spot it, what with my condition and all - different gravy is the nutjob!

I think we should buy a piece of land, or better still an island, and put all the conspiracy theorists on it and let them develop their ideas with each other.
It would be a win win situation as they'd be happy and we wouldn't need to listen to their chyte.

https://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/911-twin-towers-terrorist-attack-20-amazing-facts/

https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/who-are-the-planners-of-9112001-attack/

You make up crap, call it facts and hey presto you have a following.

Good evening, Akabula.  I hope you are well, sir.

I'm a reluctant sceptic.  With regards to whether or not the atrocities of September 11th 2001 were a false flag operation, personally I've always been unwilling to believe that the United States' government could be complicit in such a heinous act of mass murder.  Much of what we witness on the internet is idiotic, as you say, but with reference to the collapses of WTCs 1, 2 and 7 I would contend that citing aircraft impact and the consequent fires as the primary cause of complete demolition is every bit as ludicrous as the bullshít propounded by the most ardent of tin-foil hat wearers one sometimes encounters online.

The pancake or pile-driver failures reported in the 911 commission are not only scientifically impossible, they border on insulting when rationally compared with the video evidence.  There is very little doubt in my mind that all three buildings were imploded with carefully primed explosives.  And trust me, sir, if you could somehow dissuade of this belief I would be most grateful indeed.  As to who did it, how they did it and why they did it, I'll leave that to those more qualified to debate.  No structure can collapse straight down into its own footprint at freefall speed (WTC 7) or near freefall speed (WTCs 1 and 2) without the presence of explosives.  There is a clip on YouTube of one of the 911 commissioners denying the fact that molten metal was present in the rubble, despite a wealth of irrefutable evidence to the contrary.  His exact quote was: "First of all, let’s go back to your basic premise that there was a pool of molten steel. I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitness, who has said so."  This is simply bizarre.  Why would he do that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY

I find it absolutely incredible that an organisation which officially declares that there was no evidence of explosives (thermitic or otherwise) are supposedly unaware of the presence of molten steel in the rubble of all three buildings, and then continue to deny it was ever there despite irrefutable testimony.  The gentleman in the video is Dr. John Gross, structural engineer and lead investigator for the National Institute of Standards and Technology.  Are we supposed to believe that this person of all people was not aware of the presence of molten steel, a clear indicator of explosives?  At least twenty rescuers attested to the fact, not to mention an abundance of video evidence.  Here's a handful of quotes from the many hundreds available on the subject:

"Going below, it was smoky and really hot.  The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."
Richard Garlock, Structural Engineer, LERA.

"The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams, where it was molten steel that was being dug up."
Richard Riggs, General Manager, Aman Environmental Construction, demolition company contracted to clean up Ground Zero.

"There are pieces of steel being pulled out from as far as six storeys underground that are still cherry red and the blaze is so far beyond a normal fire that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."
Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert for the National Operating Engineers Union.

"When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said "I think you’d be interested in this" and they pulled off a big block of concrete and there was like a little river of steel flowing."
Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center.

I'd love to stay and chat on this subject awhile, but I'm currently on a jolly in Amsterdam and just had a spare hour to catch up on my emails and indulge my Betfair habit.

Good evening, all.

FFS

At least give a reasoned response, sir.  Where exactly do you disagree with my argument?

To be clear, I believe all three buildings were demolished with some form of explosives being involved.

Why have I come to this conclusion?  For anything to collapse at freefall speed (WTC 7) or near freefall speed (WTCs 1 and 2) it must take the path of least resistance.  For this to be possible something must have removed the core supports simultaneuosly.  I can only assume that this agent was explosives of some kind.  If no explosives were present then those three structures collapsed through the path of most resistance which, I contend, is physically impossible.

..
...excellent stuff pokermonster

......but you will be waiting a long time for a reasoned response......

.....I have many quite reasonable questions up on the main 9/11 thread and they have yet to have a reasonable answer........

Oh....and just one more time...because I know akabula loves it so much....

28 pages.org.

Why would they set off explosives and fly aircraft into the towers at the same time?

The lizards did it.

Leave them to it lfc, it keeps them happy.

When we were down at the B1 level, one of the firefighters said "I think you’d be interested in this" and they pulled off a big block of concrete and there was like a little river of steel flowing."
Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center.

And that proves what pm? Someone has said it's impossible to have that intensity of heat without explosives so you hang your hat on that.
What experience are they using to justify the conclusion? How many buildings of that size have been hit by aircraft of that size?

It's utter drivel and they make a fortune by writing books a bout it and people like you buy them.

[i]Pokermonster  • August 11, 2015 11:12 PM BST 
To be clear, I believe all three buildings were demolished with some form of explosives being involved.
Why have I come to this conclusion?  For anything to collapse at freefall speed (WTC 7) or near freefall speed (WTCs 1 and 2) it must take the path of least resistance.  For this to be possible something must have removed the core supports simultaneuosly.  I can only assume that this agent was explosives of some kind.  If no explosives were present then those three structures collapsed through the path of most resistance which, I contend, is physically impossible.[/i]

And you are qualified to make this declaration? It is not impossible for the buildings to fall in such a manner.
It's all been explained elsewhere.

Akabula wrote:

And that proves what pm?

It was proof of one of many widely publicised witness testimonies by expert professionals.  For Dr Gross to subsequently deny such evidence is baffling to me.  I was aware of the claims, you (presumably) were aware of the claims, anyone with a passing interest in the subject was aware of the claims, so for NIST's lead investigator to be ignorant of them is astonishing.  One can only conclude he is incompetent or lying.

Akabula wrote:

And you are qualified to make this declaration?

Well, I did earn a physics degree from the OU and have chatted about studying for it on here many times so I'm not a total fruitcake, but I don't think that this academic qualification is particularly relevant here.  The concept of a falling entity taking the path of least resistance is so well known most schoolkids know about it.  Why, sir, would anything take the path of most resistance?

And how do you know it took the path of most resistance?
The building fell in on itself and cascaded through the centre of the building (the weakest part) taking the supports from the perimeters with it as it went.
For every 'expert' casting doubt there are at least 20 ready to rubbish their comments.


pm I aint getting dragged into debating this further so that is my last word on the subject although it would be helpful if in future you kept this, 'The Moon Landings', 'Elvis faked his death', 'God is Real', 'Labour will win the election' and all the other crackpot ideas to the one thread.
You could name it The Fruitcakes thread.
Good night.

Akabula wrote:

The building fell in on itself and cascaded through the centre of the building (the weakest part) taking the supports from the perimeters with it as it went.

That's an incredibly bold statement to make, sir, with no semblance of scientific fact to back it up, especially the bit about the core being the weakest part!  Also, very unfair to use false comparisons like moon landing and Elvis conspiracies.  I'd like to think I'm far from being a fruitcake and would have welcomed the chance to discuss the matter further, but respect your wishes to draw a line.

Many thanks for your company this evening.

Anyone who believes the official story is far crazier than any ' truther ' in my opinion. Absolute fairy story...Passports found on the sidewalk ha ha.

On the sidewalk and in the stations
People talking over situations.

nice word that sidewalk.

A 47 floor skyscraper razed to to ground through falling debris lololol .

I never realised there were so many qualified structural engineers on chit chit! ... I've posted this before, an analysis of 9/11 by an independent authority on explosive demolition, thorough and well worth a read:

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

shoddy workmanship.

large amount of aluminum alloy used in the towers construction, also in the aircraft itself could explain the molten metal.

Despite his self-proclaimed expertise, Blanchard fails to debunk any substantial arguments for controlled demolition of the WTC towers. His arguments amount to a series of fallacies wrapped in appeals to authority and reinforced with pretentious language.



http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/

The authorities are happy for people to believe that explosives may have been used because it covers up the real reason the towers collapsed.

The buildings were supported almost completely by thin steel beams around the outside. Thicker beams on the outside and more concrete surrounding the stairwells would have added atleast $30 million to the cost of construction...instead the 1000 degree fire easily destroyed the structure.

New Yorks building codes would have prevented the towers flimsy design but federal law allowed the engineers to ignore those codes.

THE BUILDINGS WERE TURNED INTO DUST!!!!!!!!!!

Yes as well as being badlydesigned there was also cost cutting in materials used and in their construction. The mafia were involved in many major construction works in New York at the time...concrete if not properly mixed and correctly used will turn quickly into dust especially under the tremendous heat and physical forces in this case.

The short horizontal sections of floor connecting several core columns would have held a great deal of dust.

There is no independent authority though is there ? Only the ones appointed by the very people they are investigating. Just like the Warren commission .

A number that f things in the story simply don't stack up as poker monster articulates pretty decently imo...

Conspiracy naysayers were probably the ones laughing at the thought of the political elite bodging under aged boys at orgies.....

First rule of chit chat - don't argue with pokermonster.
Always makes me laugh, not only do you get your arse handed to you on a plate, it's somehow handed to you with all the courtesy of a butler.

"There can’t simultaneously be both high resistance—causing grinding of the concrete into dust—and negligible resistance allowing a fall at the same speed as through air. Only the input of extra energy—an orchestrated demolition, explains the simultaneous presence of both factors." – Gerard Holmgren

http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

I'm sort of in the undecided camp.  I used to think too many people would be required to keep their gobs shut to believe the conspiacy theories, but the recent stuff about Ted Heath has made me think again about how the spooks can keep things quiet.

Here in under 5 mins is the whole thing explained.


https://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

One of the hijackers passports was found on the street?  The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.So this passport blew/fell out of the hijackers pocket,out of the window and falls down onto the street? As Paul Daniels would say "Now that's magic". Who was president of America at that time? none other than G W Bush,who was talking to a classroom of children, a visit pre publicized  and carried on talking after being told of the attack and nearly 30 minutes after the attack the secret service then decide to move him, unbelievable.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf

Look at the way both towers collapse, straight down almost uniform. I for one am glad we have conspiracy theorists out there, why should we always believe the "official" statements/excuses/disclosures, we should question everything.

As I say you would need to be barking mad to believe the official story.

yes, offial story is BS.

i believe in a conspiracy of fools, professional malcontents, liars, inadequates and exhibitionist loons to undermine the forces of reason and science. i also believe that a raving headbanger hiding in a cave was able to kill thousands by funding operatives to learn how to guide planes, and found a security loophole that allowed them to carry stanley knives aboard aircraft and murder those in charge.

i also believe people of a similar persuasion send homicide bombers into the u.k., u.s, israel. syria, kenya, algeria, australia, jordan, morroco, pakistan, india, bangladesh, lebanon, libya, italy, russia, uzbekhistan, khazakstan, turkey, turkmenistan, egypt, indonesia, afghanistan, france, belgium, japan, phillipines, china, nepal, tunisia, china, somalia, nigeria, mali, sudan, yemen, saudi, iran, iraq, turkey, spain, germany, denmark, and some others i cant remember because i is lagging drunk. apologies to those who have been subject to the giant islamic exercise in self-expression that i have omitted.

No.