Do people still believe 911 wasnt a inside job?

Government destroying self property isnt unheard of in history. Its to get the support of the people behind a war or movement..... I mean c'mon do you really think people would support a war in order to occupy gasoline. I will tell you all now, what is happening in the middle east is what happened in Africa during the "Scramble for Africa"

 

Why would that make any difference at all?

 

If modern history has taught us anything, it is that people will support war for virtually any inane reason given.

People in the early 20th century supported the First World War, initially, because they found peace "too boring". It was hoped a quick skirmish would help a few lads gain glory, thin the herd of some Communist troublemakers and generally useless types, and allow for some hardware to be field-tested.

Of course it's possible in the abstract that a government would undertake a false-flag op to initiate a war. WWII was started by SS troops masquerading as a Polish invasion force and taking over a German radio station.

But that it's possible does not mean it necessarily happened, in every case. The burden of proof is necessarily pretty high, and almost no explanation of 9/11 makes as much sense as the official story - barring a few oddities and discrepancies in the account, such as the role of Saudi Arabia and the ISI in the attacks.

 

I mean c'mon do you really think people would support a war in order to occupy gasoline. Hell no, hence 9/11.

Someone else said wars are started because life is boring, yeh, I will go along with that. Most innovation occurs during wars, as necessity dictates, heroes are created, everyone works hard but no one gets rich, except the rich, governments have full support, crime figures fall and they sell newspapers. Plus no one "important" dies, just a bit of cannon fodder and a few million in collateral. Yep, all good then.

 

I have over 4000 hrs studying the event and past attacks of this nature, as well as politics and current events.

My conclusion is that it was NOT an official "inside job" but a black ops gone wrong...on purpose. It is not rational to think our own govt planned 911 and executed it with willing american military and official personnel. It is not rational to think that our on govt could keep the event quiet as well as a large group of people. Keeping it quiet AFTER, is another story.

There are 4 things to keep in mind:

1. There were war games drills, featuring hijacked planes over the east coast the day of the event. Google: Vigilant Guardian

2. Phillip Zelikow had direct contacts with the Bush admin - but yet, was the head director of the 911 Comm - the weasel guards the henhouse

3. The evidence is overwhelming that the official story is inaccurate - and the writers and overseers of the 911 Comm came out and openly stated they were bombarded by roadblocks in their investigation.

4. The Iraq war was planned at least 2-3 years prior within the walls of the Neo-con think tank - PNAC - Project for a New American Century. They were dead set on war long before they even got into office - the main directors and architects of PNAC are all the key members of the admin, minus GWB.

I believe a few key members of PNAC/Bush admin - namely Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and few other higher ups...used their power and influence to set up war games drills, that somehow went "real time". I also believe Israeli radicals could have been involved.

You have to look at the big picture - motive and who benefitted. We have indeed reached peak oil in the Middle east and the world. The lizards in PNAC openly stated they wanted the US to take over the Middle East, protect Israel and secure the oil. They did all that after 911. There's motive...

Once the event happened...even if the right people wanted to come forward, they couldnt. It would cause civil war and mass chaos. The official story makes sense..to the unsuspecting and now shocked and horrified public, so they run with it. I do not believe GWB was involved...he's a drunk and an idiot. He MIGHT have been clued in afterwards and told to run with the official story. I believe Cheney and Rumsfeld to be the two main ringleaders. They had the power and connections...

Any military or official personnel acted unknowingly...."just doing their job"

The official story is a joke..thats for sure...

 

Also...

This guy is a US govt official and advisor - very well known and credible. He is also a top advisor to Tom Clancy working as an advisor for spy and intell info.

He came out recently and said 911 was a botched black ops...

Just one of many credible people...

Google: Steve R Pieczenic

 

There is no such thing as a credible person.

Saying a person is "credible" has nothing whatsoever to do with that person. It means that YOU believe him. If you call someone credible, you are in fact calling yourself credulous. I still know nothing at all about the allegedly credible person, but I now know something about you.

So arguments based on who is or is not "credible" are pure flakery. If there were evidence, it might be a different story.

 

I can see they were talking about the right war at the right time.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-042005.pdf
I don't see how flying two commercial passenger jets into two towers enters the picture, though.
That to me is a bit of a stretch.

Where: http://www.newamericancentury.org/ ?
How have they 'secured the oil'?

No offense, I don't think that took 4000 to come up with.

 

the government is never directly complicit in that anyone will ever be able to prove anything, however they regard themselves blameless if they sleep on the job, when in reality it is breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, miss prision, and failure to protect.

 

well in theory we are supposed to be the beneficiaries of the government that in theory we built for ourselves, unfortunately it has been turned around on us and serves the government ends not ours.

what amendment have you ever gotten to vote on?

 

do you think someone who was going to murder 3000 people would actually bring in a big box marked "DONT LOOK EXPLOSIVES"?

Buildings do not "have" to be weakened first, it just takes a little less pyro to knock em down that way if you are on the budget plan.

they simply remodeled a floor at a time, some were empty.

according to the cia reports they did know, or at least should have known.

Pretty much everything that day was fake.

Here are a couple clips that we seen immediately after the event.



this is what a soft landing on water does, rips the wigh right off. Remember it hit 1/2" thick steel columns every 22inches





In a real setting as can be seen here, regardless of speed, there is first a bright "orange" fire as the fuel splatters into a mist, then black smoke.





We do not see what we should have seen if in fact a plane flew into the building.



sadly we see this.

 

The issue of explosives has been covered in this thread:

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7308160#post7308160&f=420

Apparently, there was opportunity to plant anything anyone damn well pleased.

 

Known/Knew what? On September 11th 2001 4 commercial planes would be hijacked and the resulting disaster would occur?
The CIA may or should have known their were plots targeting the U.S.A. - the end.

We see this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGYVh7HZo8"]Unseen 9/11 Footage of Second Plane Hitting Tower - YouTube

 

essentially its the same thing from a different angle. I do not recall that footage being on tv however.

this was so you would have seen these;

the first one aired was fox with their shadow plane;

FOX



later they cg'd in a better plane with disappearing wings anomolies

CNN:


ABC







We should have see what we see in the mig pic.

Its the same effect as can be seen when a balloon bursts



the tanks bursting against the flats of the columns would have resulted in immediate flames as shown in the fluid dynamics demonstration above.

 

true, that imo is not or should not be a controversy;



We can see the explosions on the NBC clip;








we can see the results;

 

It isn't essentially the same at all. For one, it hasn't been magnified to within an inch of it's life, and converted from one file format to another and back 176 times. So, no, it isn't essentially the same thing at all.

I highly doubt you saw your footage, either. That footage has been used on so many conspiracy forums it's almost a parody at this point.

No they didn't.

Watch my video again.

 

this one is your video in pertinent part.

Its not my purpose to try and make someone believe what they refuse to consider.


but for the sake of an argument yours is the same as those posted:


yours slo mo'd;










How about a nice clear divx version?



They are all wrong with reality.


Your position is moot frankly.

 

So what you are saying is that as soon as a plane hits a glass window it should react as if it had hit a brick wall?
And because the balloon/face response happens inside the building as it hits the solid metal core of the building...
...then you conclude:
Fox news CGI'd footage.
A blurry image of perhaps a gas main/pipe rupturing or some blow back is evidence of bombs blowing up the the Twin Towers, and ultimately planes did not hit the towers?
Bizarre.

 

You wouldn't recognize reality if you stepped in it.

 

no that is not what I am saying, that is what you are saying. Please read my previous post again for content.

No what I referenced should have happened outside the building to be real and had nothing to do with the core. Please refer to the building construction.

Since it aired on fox and bbc and several others it would need to be taken into court and the parties compelled to produce at discovery.



on the other hand you apparently believe its real?.