Think our Govt.didn't lie about 9/11 WTC buildings? Check this out:

[Noir]

Ironic how the mods moved this to the "conspiracy theory" section when in fact, the video posted is not at all "Conspiracy" - it's 100% based on raw data. But then again, most of the folks believe everything the Govt. tells them and there for anyone who dares question the govt. must be a "conspiracy weirdo"...

Not ironic in the slightest. (I hate when the word term irony is misused.)

Bur that notwithstanding; The term conspiracy related to a secretive plot intended to cause harm. Regardless of the 'proof' or 'facts' etc in the OP it's purpose is to expose a supposed conspiracy and is duly a conspiracy theory.

[Gaffer]

Asking "why" won't make the evidence presented in this video go away...

You have your evidence so tell me why it was done? Who benefited in what way?
Why weren't the explosives set off sooner so they could kill more people? If there is evidence then WHY is very important. There is no evidence there is only speculation based on video's.

And yes these are truffers. It's the same bunch that were spouting this shit before.

Interesting that this is coming out in an election year. How long will it take for them to blame the tea party or republican candidates?

[J.T]

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal, "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."

The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...rmechanics.htm

[J.T]

then just bided their time until someone happened to fly airliners into the two tallest WTC towers

people who actually expect us to believe those claims

The only person to ever make that claim is you

Give me a logical reason why. Why would explosives be planted. Why weren't all the surrounding building taken down as well with explosives.

\

What was inside Building 7? Do you know?

[-Cp]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...rmechanics.htm

Easy there killer! Folks around here aren't interested in facts or truth now, unless it fits their own, brainwashed view....

[jimnyc]

Why not just blow up the buildings in other than "demolition style" and blame the terrorists. Or have had 6 planes hit the towers to give a more plausible reason as to why they fell? There are many ways they could have "pulled" this off, that would have been easier and took less people, and still had the same results or "better", for them at least.

To pull this off there would have had to be hundreds and hundreds involved, if not thousands, and yet still not a shred of direct evidence pointing to a single person that is provable. Not one single person has come forward with knowledge of the plan and none of their loved ones either. If you say less would only need be involved, you're only increasing the amount of work they would have had to have done to pull of this act.

And at the end of the day, still, after 10 years - not one single shred of hard, irrefutable evidence has come to light, or come forward, to prove the official versions wrong.

So I'll ask again, do any of you not agreeing with the official version, have anything other than theories or speculation to prove the government, or even PM, for that fact? You know, ANY hard evidence of to refute what "we" have been told?

Unless you have something other than A&E 911, the Jones Juice Drinkers, Jesse Ventura, loose change - I've watched them all, including the video in the OP. Very interesting indeed, and entertaining, and even thought provoking. But it lacks one thing - hard evidence of any kind. Just more cool music, theories and innuendo.

Oh, and what many call the mainstream media, which some say leans left and others say leans right - barely touch this inside job crap with a 50ft pole. Even though it would be a career maker or at least a lot of $$$. But respected journalists don't even touch it. But I guess so many of them, and their agencies, are involved in this massive coverup. Even Bill Clinton spoke out against 9/11 being any type of inside job. But of course being president it must have been easy for him to assist setting up this project.

[jimnyc]

Easy there killer! Folks around here aren't interested in facts or truth now, unless it fits their own, brainwashed view....

You went from thinking only some sort of inbred people believed such stories, to promoting said stories now. Not for nothing, but sounds like you were the one who was brainwashed. If these guys had legitimate, credible and irrefutable "evidence" - they would have no choice but to be listened to.

[Psychoblues]

I heard that the demons of Augue don Fucktsboro were involved somehow. Sarah Palin, as an Assembly of God member, may be able to properly discern all this for us. Demonology is their exact claim to fame.

Oh yes. Been there and done that, my friends.

Psychoblues

[-Cp]

You went from thinking only some sort of inbred people believed such stories, to promoting said stories now. Not for nothing, but sounds like you were the one who was brainwashed. If these guys had legitimate, credible and irrefutable "evidence" - they would have no choice but to be listened to.

As long as there are thick-headed, brainwashed folks in this country, their work is cut out for them. I find it highly lame that folks like you and Gaffer won't even bother watching this video and offering any sort of intelligent rebuttal. Instead, you toe-the-"derp"-line and bring nothing to the discussion of this video.

Since you know they have no "legitimate, credible and irrefutable "evidence" - please tell me which of the evidence they provide is not, legitimate, credible or irrefutable. I'm sure you should have no problems answering this within 30minutes - I'll be waiting..

[revelarts]

...And at the end of the day, still, after 10 years - not one single shred of hard, irrefutable evidence has come to light, or come forward, to prove the official versions wrong.

So I'll ask again, do any of you not agreeing with the official version, have anything other than theories or speculation to prove the government, or even PM, for that fact? You know, ANY hard evidence of to refute what "we" have been told?...

Truther Advocate:
So Iron Balls that only form at temps higher than Jet fuel and paper can create is not HARD Evidence?
(um that's sound kinda weird but, there you go)
So Molten STEEL where there should have been NONE is not HARD evidence?
SO NANO Thermite found in the 911 dust by MORE than ONE independent researcher is not HARD evidence?
SO the laws of Physics is not Hard evidence?


Irrefutable? What "we've been told" by the gov't is not Irrefutable, in fact the details of the story have changed several times because people kept asking questions, the 911 commission even says many Military officials and intel groups lied and covered up items they wanted answers too and they never did get the strait info on some things.
So why should we believe the Gov't Theory anymore than any other theory, since it's far from irrefutable?

[-Cp]

Truther Advocate:
So Iron Balls that only form at temps higher than Jet fuel and paper can create is not HARD Evidence?
(um that's sound kinda weird but, there you go)
So Molten STEEL where there should have been NONE is not HARD evidence?
SO NANO Thermite found in the 911 dust by MORE than ONE independent researcher is not HARD evidence?
SO the laws of Physics is not Hard evidence?


Irrefutable? What "we've been told" by the gov't is not Irrefutable, in fact the details of the story have changed several times because people kept asking questions, the 911 commission even says many Military officials and intel groups lied and covered up items they wanted answers too and they never did get the strait info on some things.
So why should we believe the Gov't Theory anymore than any other theory, since it's far from irrefutable?

Does no good bro, you're dealing with someone who has his head in the sand....

[J.T]

Why not just blow up the buildings in other than "demolition style" and blame the terrorists. Or have had 6 planes hit the towers to give a more plausible reason as to why they fell? There are many ways they could have "pulled" this off, that would have been easier and took less people, and still had the same results or "better", for them at least.

Why not use an attack similar to the last one, which almost worked, but use two trucks this time? Why go through all the hassle of learning to fly, hijacking planes, flying way out of your way to escape radar coverage (which means learning where those ares are and navigating to them), play dosey-doe with a military plane, travel within miles of eachother, find a way to magically remain coordinated despite unscheduled take-off delays, fly planes into the twin towers when no building had ever collapsed to sue plane strike or fire, fly past the pentagon, perform a near-impossible turn, and strike the one side of the pentagon that had been newly reinforced and was empty of anyone important...? Why would AQ go through all the trouble of learning to overcome America's air defenses, infiltrate the military to learn when the training exercises would be taking place and control of NORAD would be in civilian hands for the only time in living memory, and carry out such an elaborate scheme when they experience with bombs and Timothy McVeigh already showed how effective a large truck bomb can be against a building? There are many ways they could have pulled these attacks off that would taken less people, less time, no infiltration of military intelligence channels... and still had the same effect- better even, since people would wonder whether any truck on the road could be a bomb and it'd be so much hard to combat such a threat that to control air travel.

Then again, why was NORAD training for this specific attack when Bush and other sin the government said repeatedly that nobody ever imagined any such threat? Why was the order given to stand down? Why do so many radar detections approach the planes before peeling off? Why was one plane still in the air after hitting the tower? And why did the government even have Operation Northwoods floating around as a possible justification for war in the first place?

To pull this off there would have had to be hundreds and hundreds involved, if not thousands

How do you figure? You can rig a building with a dozen people or even one person. You just take longer with a smaller team. BTW, what was with all the renovations and closed floors in the weeks leading up to the attacks? Remotely-controlled planes have been around since the 80's, when it was made public that they were used to perform crash tests,

And at the end of the day, still, after 10 years - not one single shred of hard, irrefutable evidence has come to light, or come forward, to prove the official versions wrong.

Except government evidence.

So I'll ask again, do any of you not agreeing with the official version, have anything other than theories or speculation to prove the government, or even PM, for that fact? You know, ANY hard evidence of to refute what "we" have been told?

Yep, and it's been posted at least twice now. The data is all from government sources, including the evidence of a plane in the air after hitting the tower.

You went from thinking only some sort of inbred people believed such stories, to promoting said stories now. Not for nothing, but sounds like you were the one who was brainwashed. If these guys had legitimate, credible and irrefutable "evidence" - they would have no choice but to be listened to.

Like Galileo was listened to when he presented his evidence?

Does no good bro, you're dealing with someone who has his head in the sand....

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State

[SassyLady]

Why not use an attack similar to the last one, which almost worked, but use two trucks this time? Why go through all the hassle of learning to fly, hijacking planes, flying way out of your way to escape radar coverage (which means learning where those ares are and navigating to them), play dosey-doe with a military plane, travel within miles of eachother, find a way to magically remain coordinated despite unscheduled take-off delays, fly planes into the twin towers when no building had ever collapsed to sue plane strike or fire, fly past the pentagon, perform a near-impossible turn, and strike the one side of the pentagon that had been newly reinforced and was empty of anyone important...? Why would AQ go through all the trouble of learning to overcome America's air defenses, infiltrate the military to learn when the training exercises would be taking place and control of NORAD would be in civilian hands for the only time in living memory, and carry out such an elaborate scheme when they experience with bombs and Timothy McVeigh already showed how effective a large truck bomb can be against a building? There are many ways they could have pulled these attacks off that would taken less people, less time, no infiltration of military intelligence channels... and still had the same effect- better even, since people would wonder whether any truck on the road could be a bomb and it'd be so much hard to combat such a threat that to control air travel.

Then again, why was NORAD training for this specific attack when Bush and other sin the government said repeatedly that nobody ever imagined any such threat? Why was the order given to stand down? Why do so many radar detections approach the planes before peeling off? Why was one plane still in the air after hitting the tower? And why did the government even have Operation Northwoods floating around as a possible justification for war in the first place?
How do you figure? You can rig a building with a dozen people or even one person. You just take longer with a smaller team. BTW, what was with all the renovations and closed floors in the weeks leading up to the attacks? Remotely-controlled planes have been around since the 80's, when it was made public that they were used to perform crash tests,


Except government evidence.

Yep, and it's been posted at least twice now. The data is all from government sources, including the evidence of a plane in the air after hitting the tower.



Like Galileo was listened to when he presented his evidence?

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State

I might have missed this question and answer ... how do you explain the people who were on the ground who saw the planes hit their targets? Are you saying they are part of the conspiracy also? What about the two documentary filmmakers who were doing a documentary on the NYFD at the time and actually filmed the first plane hitting the tower? And, where are all the people that were on those planes?


Also, I don't understand what you mean by there was a plane in the air after hitting the tower?

[J.T]

I might have missed this question and answer ... how do you explain the people who were on the ground who saw the planes hit their targets?

See: Operation Northwoods

Do you know what a drone is? You know radio-controlled aircraft have been around since the 80s, right?

Refer to the video, in which multiple radar signatures are seen converging with, flying on top of, and then later peeling away from the planes said to have crashed into the Pentagon, WTC, and the field in Pennsylvania.

And, where are all the people that were on those planes?

Probably dead.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by there was a plane in the air after hitting the tower?

I mean exactly that. See: Go to the 37-minute mark of the last video.

According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001.
...
Full Transcript Here

United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site

It is impossible for ATC to have observed United 93 transponder and altitude after the reported impact time and southeast of the crash site, if United 93 did in fact crash in Shanksville

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-...-airborne.html

[J.T]

No evidence... except what the government provides