Zero Evidence that 9/11 Was an Inside Job

amen to that.gives standing ovation.

 

How does the statement about ASCE warrant this reply?

 

What qualifies as evidence by your standards?

 

What Bush,Cheney,Clinton and the media say.

 

Dayton is my name.

 

Anything that shows relevance to the the theory in the thread title. Something beyond speculation.

 

That's quite an admission, 9/11. How long have you been worshiping "What Bush,Cheney,Clinton and the media say"?

 

My son enjoyed GI Joe when he was young. Please change your user name or have your posts edited prior to posting them. You are embarrassing a cool cartoon.

 

So are you saying that if one believes the gravity driven progressive collapse theory brought about by the truss failures in the floors right below the impact zone then it would only be necessary to plant explosives on a couple of the upper most floors to initiate the same type of collapse? That's intriguing. I don't think I've ever heard that one.

 

I'm guessing by your lack of understanding of capitalization, punctuation, and spelling, you slept through your junior high English classes?

Or is English your second language?

 

-Unprecedented insider trading before 9/11

-Silverstein insuring the towers for terrorism months before the attack.

-Certain offices in the towers being warned about the attack

-Building 7 is demolished with no impact from a plane, and Silverstein happened to say "pull it"

-Ptech foreign security in our national security depts. and foreign security at the airports.

-drills simulating 9/11 on 9/11 that confused the responders.

-beams being rushed out of the country before they could be investigated.

-money wired from Pakastani gov't to the hijackers. And just this week, 2 senators say that the Saudi gov't was involved.

-Buildings defying physics and collapsing because of fires that didn't even burn the desks in those offices.

-passports magically appear on the sidewalk within hours...from the incinerated planes

-1,500 architects and engineers putting their names on the line to say that the official script is anti-reality.

-government agents saying they were pulled off the trail of the hijackers or were gagged, Sibel Edmonds.

-6 of 10 commissioners saying their investigation was compromised.



There are enough questions for anyone with a brain to realize that we were lied to, and have no idea what all happened there, but the obvious fact is, we don't know the story.

 

Everything in your list is a wild exaggeration, or an outright falsehood started on 'truther' sites.

Have you looked into the actual evidence?

 

Nope. Everything I said is true. Actual evidence. Ever looked into anything?

 

Yes, extensively.

Let's pick one at random. Please show evidence for "certain offices in the towers being warned about the attacks".

Kindly supply evidence and/ or sources.

 

Only "official" sources.

You shouldn't question the boss...he'll have you banned.

 

Well, lets start easy and explain how you're wrong that my points are fiction. 2 Senators did just say that Saudi gov't was involved.
Most of the commissioners did say that their investigation was bull.
They did find incinerated passports on the sidewalk.
Ptech, owned by foreigners, is the main software to protect our gov't agencies.
1500 architects and engineers do say that the story is bull.
Building 7 did collapse without a plane.

must I continue or are you a really talented reality denier?
Or would you like to withdraw your claim that I exaggerated?

 

Only if you are a sock puppet.

 

Official sources only! haha. It was admitted as late as the 70s that the CIA has infiltrated the corporatist media outlets.

Wanna see the vid?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hLVnjD_7KCw

 

Let's pick one at random. Please show evidence for "certain offices in the towers being warned about the attacks".

Kindly supply evidence and/ or sources.

 

Must understand that I'm tired of this turkey chase. The commissioners said they failed, so we don't know the truth. That's where we all stand.

But you can have fun with these if you want to see the warnings.


Ha’aretz, “Odigo says workers were warned of attack,” 26 Sep. 2001.http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/virginianpilot040301.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/09/23/bush-we-re-at-war.html

 

It has to be stamped "USDA". If it isn't...then it is nothing but a conspiracy theory..

 

One wonders what the Deptment of Agriculture has to do with 9/11.

 

Just trying to help establish what you would consider a "credible source". I figured USDA would be "official" enough sounding for you. You know, an "approved for human consumption" stamp. Seems that would be all you will accept.

 

The science fiction site spacebattles.com has stronger standards of evidence than this site.

You get banned from there if you are making a social/political/military argument and you've got nothing but YouTube videos as "evidence".

Why anyone would consider some bull put up on YouTube over actual, exhaustive research by a committee with effectively unlimited resources is beyond me.

 

Why people would consider the "official" fiction similarly escapes me. A third grader can poke holes in their ridiculous BS.