Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Followers 6

# 911 inside job - for what?

## 4,447 posts in this topic

I love the " I can provide the evidence" Stundie will indeed be digging a deep hole to crawl out of !

##### Share on other sites

I love the " I can provide the evidence" Stundie will indeed be digging a deep hole to crawl out of !

Perhaps he is digging to look for evidence, but he can dig his way all the way to China and not find it because investigations have concluded that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Perhaps, he should ask Steven Jones why he ignored the lack of Barium Nitrate at ground zero. Just goes to show that Steven Jones has been a pint short of a six pack in regards to telling the truth.

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

Its nothing to do with my lack of understanding of physics... ...It is to with your explanation which doesn't make any sense. You said..."The forces are different because the debris layer has mass, which means gravity acts downwards on it."

So if the forces are different? What is this force that makes this difference? We know that debris has mass which gravity is going to act down on it, as it does most things. Debris hits the floor below but there is still 92 floors to penetration and if the upper block is crushing down on top of that debris and lower block, the lower part of that upper block will soon become debris too. Therefore the mass of the 17 floors of upper block will be reduced before 93 floors of the lower block which uses progressively thicker steel and therefore stronger.

You could tell us about these forces?? lol

I've already told you several times, but here goes again:You say that the forces on the upper and lower blocks should be the same. However, once a debris layer forms, the upper and lower blocks are no longer in direct contact. In this situation, the force on the upper block is the same as the force on the top of the debris layer. The force on the lower block is the same as the force on the bottom of the debris layer. The two forces on the blocks are can only be the same if there is no net force on the debris layer, ie if the debris layer is in free fall. However, the lower block is providing resistance so the debris layer is not in free fall. Therefore the force on the lower block is greater than the force on the upper block, by the amount of force required to prevent the debris layer falling freely. So by saying that the forces are equal, you are ignoring the debris layer.

##### Share on other sites

Where is the evidence of explosives at ground zero? Just a simple question to ask. If you can't produce such evidence, then it is all very simple; you have no case.

The evidence is everywhere Sky. The problem is yours--YOU are unable to perceive the evidence.

Others can. Others described explosions. Others described molten metals. Others analyzed the dust that permeated lower Manhattan and found the chemical byproducts of thermite reaction. Heavy structural steel was propelled horizontally hundreds of feet.

All that happened, all that evidence exists, but you yourself are unable to perceive it, in the same way a person who is color blind is unable to perceive certain colors.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

You know something? I dont care if Babe Ruth dosnt understand the physics of the facts anymore,Its very clear that He and many others of the mind set I.E. Conspiracies people will never Look at the Facts of this event.

THe Towers came down 12 years ago and the Investigators have reached there point ,and its been reviewed -re-reviewed many times,Enough said. WHat Happened IS just as its been reported.

I will let you guys waist your time making up your fanatsy`s

##### Share on other sites

I'll not be waisting my time Don!

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

The evidence is everywhere Sky.

After more than 11 years, the evidence has not been good enough to be taken seriously by the demolition industry, civil engineers and architects. So you say it is everywhere, then post it here for all to see and send that so-called evidence to the major news agencies and see if they will take that so-called evidence seriously.

YOU are unable to perceive the evidence.

From firsthand experience, I knew as a fact that much of what 911 truthers have posted was false at best.

Others described explosions.

And later, atttributed those sounds to other things that had nothing to do with explosives.

Others described molten metals.

That should not be surprising that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, which is seen flowing out of the corner of WCT2 where the airframe of United 175 came to rest, and since temperatures were too low to melt steel, then common sense logic says that the molten metal observed was aluminum by that very fact.

Others analyzed the dust that permeated lower Manhattan and found the chemical byproducts of thermite reaction.

No they didn't. The dust samples were contaminated during clean-up operations while high temperature wanes and torchers were in use during steel cutting operations at ground zero.

Heavy structural steel was propelled horizontally hundreds of feet.

No mystery there! What do you think happened as compressed air forced debris outwards and away from the buildings, but most of all, what do you think happened to the facade of the WTC buildings as heavy duty parts from the B-767s smashed their way through the opposite side of those buildings?

All that happened, all that evidence exists, but you yourself are unable to perceive it, in the same way a person who is color blind is unable to perceive certain colors.

Blind?? Then why, after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence of a government 911 conspiracy has surfaced nor taken seriously enough to place a single government official behind bars?

Answer: There is no evidence of a government conspiracy to present.

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

You know something? I dont care if Babe Ruth dosnt understand the physics of the facts anymore,Its very clear that He and many others of the mind set I.E. Conspiracies people will never Look at the Facts of this event.

THe Towers came down 12 years ago and the Investigators have reached there point ,and its been reviewed -re-reviewed many times,Enough said. WHat Happened IS just as its been reported.

I will let you guys waist your time making up your fanatsy`s

It is amazing that he says that evidence is everywhere when investigations found no such evidence. They say they heard explosions, but that is not evidence of explosives.

I could very say that what they heard was nothing more than manhole or electrical explosions, which were fairly common in New York City or falling elevators, which have been confirmed by some folks as the explosive sounds they heard.

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

From firsthand experience, I knew as a fact that much of what 911 truthers have posted was false at best.

Now you've got me curious Sky. If you know as fact that "much" is false... what part do you believe is not false?

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Would tens/hundreds of millions in personal gain be counted as a potential reason?

Not just obvious gain, either. I saw a video where a former cop made a very strong case for 9/11 being an inside job. I wish I could remember what it was called, but it was fairly long and a very dry presentation, just him on a stage with an overhead projector in front of a live audience. He said at the beginning that he wouldn't be talking about things like remote controlled planes, missiles, or planted explosives, but that he would build a case just like he would if he was preparing to go to court. Anyway he showed evidence for the involvement of the Bush family, the CIA/drug connection, the oil angle, and talked about financial records being destroyed in one of those buildings, all backed up by what he was putting on the screen behind him. I'm not saying it was true, but it was compelling stuff if you could get past the dry presentation.

Edited by MysticStrummer
1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Now you've got me curious Sky. If you know as fact that "much" is false... what part do you believe is not false?

First of all, the advantage I have is firsthand experience in war and in aviation and knowledge. For an example, I have experienced many, many bomb explosions and yet, I saw absolutely no evidence of explosions as the WTC buildings collapse nor did I see secondaries when American 11 struck WTC1 and when United 175 struck WTC2, which would have occurred had explosives just happened to be planted in the exact location what they airliners struck.

Secondly, there was no way to switch airliners and not account for the passengers and crew of those flights. As I have said before, it would only take me less than 30 minutes to uncover a switched aircraft, but to further add, didn't American Airlines and United Airlines report the lost of their aircraft during the 911 attacks? Fact of the matter is, both airlines did in fact, confirm the loss of their aircraft that day.

Question is, who was spreading false stories that those airliners were switched and flown under remote control? Just a few examples of many because skeptics didn't know the rest of the story, so they felt it was time to spread unfounded conspiracy stories on the Internet.

##### Share on other sites

Not just obvious gain, either. I saw a video where a former cop made a very strong case for 9/11 being an inside job. I wish I could remember what it was called, but it was fairly long and a very dry presentation, just him on a stage with an overhead projector in front of a live audience. He said at the beginning that he wouldn't be talking about things like remote controlled planes, missiles, or planted explosives, but that he would build a case just like he would if he was preparing to go to court.

I would gladly challenge him on the street and ask him how it was possible to modify a B-757 and a B-767 to fly under remote control despite the fact that both aircraft are not fly-by-wire aircraft and by the fact that the Boeing Aircraft Company stated that those aircraft were not designed to fly under remote control.

##### Share on other sites

I would gladly challenge him on the street and ask him how it was possible to modify a B-757 and a B-767 to fly under remote control despite the fact that both aircraft are not fly-by-wire aircraft and by the fact that the Boeing Aircraft Company stated that those aircraft were not designed to fly under remote control.

As I said, he didn't talk about remote controlled planes. Read what I said.

I used to work for Boeing. Just because something isn't designed to be remote controlled doesn't mean it can't be altered to do that. I'm not saying that's what happened by the way, but saying they weren't designed for remote controlled flight means almost nothing.

Edited by MysticStrummer
4 people like this

##### Share on other sites

First of all, the advantage I have is firsthand experience in war and in aviation and knowledge. For an example, I have experienced many, many bomb explosions and yet, I saw absolutely no evidence of explosions as the WTC buildings collapse nor did I see secondaries when American 11 struck WTC1 and when United 175 struck WTC2, which would have occurred had explosives just happened to be planted in the exact location what they airliners struck.

Secondly, there was no way to switch airliners and not account for the passengers and crew of those flights. As I have said before, it would only take me less than 30 minutes to uncover a switched aircraft, but to further add, didn't American Airlines and United Airlines report the lost of their aircraft during the 911 attacks? Fact of the matter is, both airlines did in fact, confirm the loss of their aircraft that day.

[media=]

[/media]

Question is, who was spreading false stories that those airliners were switched and flown under remote control? Just a few examples of many because skeptics didn't know the rest of the story, so they felt it was time to spread unfounded conspiracy stories on the Internet.

I really thought you might have had skeptical bone in your body against the "official story". I am so dissapointed.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

As I said, he didn't talk about remote controlled planes. Read what I said.

Ask the question as to why he brought up remote control in the first place.

I used to work for Boeing. Just because something isn't designed to be remote controlled doesn't mean it can't be altered to do that.

One of my jobs for over 40 years was modifying airplanes, and more recently, military helicopters. I have read many false stories regarding so-called switched and modified aircraft that were spread over the Internet by 911 conspiracy websites. Much of what they have posted is impossible by aviation standards, but I suspect they are hoping that no one will notice.

I'm not saying that's what happened by the way, but saying they weren't designed for remote controlled flight means almost nothing.

It means much more than you think. There was no way that American Airlines and United Airlines would have allowed their aircraft to be grounded for many months in order for their aircraft to be illegally modified to fly under remote control and do so under the noses of airline mechanics and inspectors, and those of the FAA.

And remember, only a certain number of B-757-200 and B-767-200 series aircraft were built and all of those aircraft belonging to American Airlines and United Airlines have been accounted for and I have even posted their numbers on other threads to make my point very clear. Additionally, altitude flight data for each aircraft proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that none of those aircraft were flown under remote control, so in respect, we can definitely throw out remote controlled aircraft permanently.

Since folks at those 911 conspiracy websites were unable to decipher the meaning of the altitude flight data, they decided to concoct another unwarranted conspiracy and they did so out of pure ignorance of the fact's, which once again, is how unfounded conspiracy theories are hatched.

##### Share on other sites

I really thought you might have had skeptical bone in your body against the "official story". I am so dissapointed.

I guess you were unaware that I have been a government employee for a number of years. I know what the government can do, and what it cannot do.

##### Share on other sites

I guess you were unaware that I have been a government employee for a number of years. I know what the government can do, and what it cannot do.

I know "you" know what the government will let you do and what it won't. Let's not pretend that you were anything more than a puppet.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

For those who hold that 911 was an inside job, I would like to discover why you believe those responsible would have executed this plan.

I can only think of one possible reason that might make sense; to launch a war, to give the armed forces combat experience.

You go.

Thanks

Why would war ever be a possible reason ? Would there be any reason to create a false flag , ever ? Like maybe a need? What would that need be? If I'm understanding you correctly, are you suggesting that the attacks on the civilans in New York that day happened because the Military needed to create an experience or reason , to train newer soldiers? Or am i misunderstanding your comment?

Do you think that it's likely that it was an inside job or not?

I just seen these two videos recently . Some of you may have seen them already . I also recently watched for the first time the Truth Rising documentary . In it , I was able to see how citizens are being treated by media , body guards of politicans and politicians , police officers , not all but some , speaks volums .All they ask for is a New Investigation , so they can have closure for themslevs and for their love ones that died on that day,but no, instead they get called names , spit on, threatened ect...

[media=]

Edited by Reann
2 people like this

##### Share on other sites

I know "you" know what the government will let you do and what it won't. Let's not pretend that you were anything more than a puppet.

Apparently, you are incorrect. There are those who will tell you that I have been very outspoken against the government on another topic.

##### Share on other sites

^ Yeah but when you're given an order I doubt that you have any say about it . Even if you know in your heart it's wrong , you still do it , don't you?

2 people like this

##### Share on other sites

Why would war ever be a possible reason ? Would there be any reason to create a false flag , ever ? Like maybe a need? What would that need be? If I'm understanding you correctly, are you suggesting that the attacks on the civilans in New York that day happened because the Military needed to create an experience or reason , to train newer soldiers? Or am i misunderstanding your comment?

Do you think that it's likely that it was an inside job or not?

I just seen these two videos recently . Some of you may have seen already . I also recently watched for the first time the Truthe Rising documentary , in watching it , watching how citizens are being treated by media , body guards of politicans and politicians , police officers , not all but some , speaks volums .All they ask for is a New Investigation , so they can have closure for themslevs and for their love ones that died on that day,but no, instead they get called names , spit on, threatened ect...

You have to understand everything before you post such videos because there was no evidence of explosives, neither on video, nor on audio, nor on seismic monitors in the area nor even found within the rubble of the WTC buildings. In other words, there is not one shred of evidence that explosives were used.

Explosion-like sounds is not evidence of explosives because New York City is known for its manhole and electrical explosions, which are fairly common in New York. Now, let's take a look at the WTC videos and make comparisons, but I might add that in one segment in your video a story was a known hoax because the mentioning of a bomb in a building pertained to a school building, not the WTC buildings, but It goes to show there are people out there hoaxing videos in an effort to discredit the 911 truthers, and they have been doing a very good job. Check it out.

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm

Well he could be mistaken?? No of course not! Just like those who said they were explosives, they are wrong, he is correct, right? lol

skyeagle409, on 10 April 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well he is being skeptical, he saying it sounded like bombs, but he is not claiming there were bombs, he doesn't know what the explosions were, but that doesn't mean they were not bombs, it's just saying that it could be something else he heard, but clearly doesn't know what they were.

Again, a complete failure to understand that this chap doesn't really support your case.

skyeagle409, on 10 April 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

So does this person now discount everyone elses account and reports of explosions?? lol

If so, why do you hold this person to a much higher authority in what you believe??

skyeagle409, on 10 April 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

So this guys is guessing that the explosions were floors pancaking.

WOW Such strong evidence, a person guessing something is no doubt in your world, definitive proof.

skyeagle409, on 10 April 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

So something blew out a floor, but again he said it looked like an explosion, but it wasn't an explosion and then doesn't explain what blew out the windows/floor.

Of course, this man could not be mistaken could he?? lol In an internet debunking warrior, his word trumps that of any other eyewitnesses regardless of the time they heard the explosions or whether they were in a different locations.

skyeagle409, on 10 April 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

Now, for the comparisons:

Absolutely no sound of bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapse, which simply means, no bomb explosions at all.

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

^ Were you there that day ? did you have anyone or family in there , in the buildings?

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Skyeagle409

I just read of a Scientist , Neils Herrit , have you heard of him ? Anyway here's what he says in reagrds to your comment. .

2 people like this

##### Share on other sites

^ Were you there that day ? did you have anyone or family in there , in the buildings?

I didn't have to be there. I have experienced enough bomb explosions for many months during war to know from available WTC videos and audio there were no bomb explosions. There is a BIG difference between explosive-like sounds of structural failures and real bombs and at no time did I see explosions nor heard bomb explosions.

Demolition experts at the scene have also stated they saw no bomb explosions.

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

Skyeagle409

I just read of a Scientist , Neils Herrit , have you heard of him ? Anyway here's what he says in reagrds to your comment. .

Don't allow yourself to be duped by those flawed videos. For an example, he says that molten iron is seen flowing out of one of the buildings, but looking at the videos, that molten metal flow is aluminum, not iron and the silvery droplets should have told him that molten flow was NOT steel, but aluminum. That location of WTC2 is where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 was located.

Since the temperature was below 2000 degrees at that point, that should have told him that the molten flow was aluminum because at that temperature, aluminum would have long melted but that temperature was far too low to melt steel and it doesn't take a rocket scientiist to figure out that the silvery droplets were indicative of aluminum, not steel.

He also spoke of thermite, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that lack of barium nitrate at ground zero had ruled out its use along with thermate.and furthermore, thermite alone is incapable of demolishing a tall buildng and he should have asked he question as to why demolition companies do not use thermite to demolish tall buildings over RDX and dynamite, which are used in building demolitions.

As it was, the buckling and bowing of the WTC buildings was an indication that the fires were weakening their steel structures. An example of what happens when steel is subject to high heat can be seen in this photo.

And, here is this:

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove xplosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account