Evidence that 911 was an Inside Job

If 911 had not been an inside job, it would have been investigated! The cover up that followed has only one purpose: the protection of the guilty! It is not only the absurd, alleged conspiracy of 19 Arab hijackers, a cover story for which there is absolutely no convincing or admissible evidence, it is the fact that the events that day were deliberately covered up and access to evidence denied investigators.
11 commentscategory: Republicans karma: 174

comments

  1. #1    " If 911 had not been an inside job, it would have been investigated! "

    It's as simple as that. That IS the bottom line.
    written by PHred42 since 7 days 16 hours 47 minutesPHred42
  2. #2    The bottom line again is that too many people would be in on it. For the entirety of 911 including towers, flights, the pentagon we are talking, quite literally, hundreds of people. Not one leak???
    ... and do you think those colossal fuckups could have gotten it together in ANY case?
    I'd laugh but it is just too sad.
    written by bloozguy since 7 days 15 hours 19 minutesbloozguy
  3. #3    @#2 - The 9/11 conspiracy was thousands of times smaller and therefore thousands of times more secure than the Manhattan Project.

    Most likely the Saudis really planned the attacks on the Twin Towers as advertised. Cheney would have known that USAF would stop the airliners, so he stood them down. Cheney would also have known that the impacts would not have caused much damage, so he arranged to have the Twin Towers demolished. Half a dozen black ops people would have been sufficient for the Twin Towers demolitions and WTC-7.

    The Pentagon attack was a single missile, possibly from a drone. Probably one of the hijacked airliners crashed in the Atlantic and Cheney decided on a quick attack on the Pentagon to boost sympathy for the military. The only people in the know would have been maybe three officers in the drone pilot heirarchy.

    Most of the story of Flight 93 is probably accurate, except that the target was probably Three Mile Island rather than the White House.
    written by Mike5000 since 7 days 14 hours 35 minutesMike5000
  4. #4    The cover up is enormous and will not be revealed ... the residual effect has too many people involved to allow such an event open to scrutiny.
    Pearl Harbor could be a comparison to the inevitable with which some new the
    attack would occur to get the U.S. involved in the war.
    written by makesenseofit since 7 days 9 hours 19 minutesmakesenseofit
  5. #5    @#2 I don't think it would be that hard to keep people that were in on it quiet. A choice of keeping your mouth shut and accepting large sums of money vs spilling the beans and thus bringing extreme violence against you and your family is a powerful motivator. I also get tired of this "colossal fuckups" line. Look at the profits of big oil,Haliberton,arms manufactures ect. and think of all the billions that got sucked out of Wall Street into secret numbered accounts. Do you think the beneficiaries of all that looting look on the bush administration as "colossal fuckups"?
    written by Rebelyell since 7 days 8 hours 12 minutesRebelyell
  6. #6    The nanothermite evidence around the WTC is overwhelming.
    Worse, are photos showing typical angled cuts in steel
    columns typical of Linear Shaped Charges (LSC's) that
    are strictly controlled by the government [invented by/for NASA for rocket stage separation, years ago] sticking up through the ruble. The documentation for who
    what when where is a matter of record - and still traceable, now. It would have taken serious demo crews
    months to set the charges on the columns and plan the
    column cutting sequence to look convincing but it can be
    done. Get over the "how can it be a conspiracy with
    so many involved?" Just look at how political parties or
    special ops or crime org...

    » ver todo el comentario
    written by fbuckley since 7 days 7 hours 50 minutesfbuckley
  7. #7    I know a controlled demolition when I see one, and I saw 3 that day. Odd that no one ever explained the molten metal under all 3 (and only those three) buildings. According to the New York Times it took until December 16th to cool the metal down.
    written by bansidh since 7 days 5 hours 37 minutesbansidh
  8. #8    " Odd that no one ever explained the molten metal under all 3 (and only those three) buildings" ... they did, but then you don't want to hear any way.



    http://www.debunking911.com/
    written by bloozguy since 6 days 23 hours 16 minutesbloozguy
  9. #9    #2 As far as Mr Hart's point goes, you might as well have responded with "well hell, the water is blue in the Bahamas".

    you still didn't address the point: Why hasn't the damn thing been investigated?

    I suspect (just a wild ass guess) at some point we will learn that the Blackwater boys were involved
    written by PHred42 since 6 days 23 hours 2 minutesPHred42
  10. #10    Or maybe it was pixies. Might as well blame them. This all makes the teabaggers look sane.
    written by bloozguy since 6 days 20 hours 35 minutesbloozguy
  11. #11    Re: " The bottom line again is that too many people would be in on it."

    That's fallacious. It works backward from a conclusion. There's a Latin word for that, I'm sure.

    The fact is: there is NO evidence to SUPPORT the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY OF 911. none! Ergo --there is NO REASON to believe it. Or...there is as much reason to believe it as there is to belief in the tooth fairy.

    Bush put forward a CONSPIRACY THEORY. It's up to Bushco to PROVE IT OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!
    written by vaquero since 5 days 1 time 58 minutesvaquero
closed comments

who are we
code: license, download  |  images license
Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional    Valid CSS!   [Valid RSS]