9/11 Inside Job – The Most Explosive Evidence Yet! An Experiment using Thermite shows for sure that 9-11 was indeed an Inside Job. This proof is totally irrefutable. Anyone who denies this proof is purely in denial because they can’t bare to face the truth that such a henious crime could be carried out by the people we trust to rule over us.
(Visited 41 times, 1 visits today)
Logging you in...
Loading IntenseDebate Comments...
Case not rested. That doesn't prove anything – odds are it's just smoke and mirrors. You do know that the Bush family had close relationships with the Bin Laden family? They were pretty close in the oil business, and Osama was a known CIA asset.
Bill O Reilly: "You can't explain that!"
wouldn't you and the other co-intel 9/11 shills be better off just basically begging people like me not to spread the truth about what really happened on 9/11, instead of abuse, flagging, f5, f5 vote up, vote down, switching YT names and repeating, changing the subject, twisting, abusing again, etc etc, you get my drift?? Wouldn't that be a better way to shut people up? We can't have the naive cattle that are the general public finding out what really happened on 9/11can we????
If 9/11 was an inside job, why did planes come from the outside?
simpleton attitude
I can prove that 9/11 wasn't an inside job the planes came
You want to know the truth,then,read the most important book in your life,NEW World Order,Wars,Famine,Destruction of America,etc.
Who Is Esau-Edom…Who Is Esau-Edom…
How long, realistically, do you think that would take to: Realize there's a problem; identify incident as a hijacking; devine the hijackers' intentions; determine the targets; pass the info from civilian agency (FAA) to the military & up the chain of command; consider options; scramble fighters; intercept; and make the difficult decision to shoot down civilians?
Unless your answer is considerably less than an hour, you have your answer.
All my argument is why it was an inside job is not this crap. But we had many threats about them doing something that came to airplanes. YET we ignored it n when it did happen the government sat back n watched. When we have jets that could shoot em down in minutes. Yes that'd be wrong but guess what would you rather have 3,000 dead? Or two airplanes full of people. I rest my case.
Okay, you conspiracy losers need to just stop and get lives. All of you. 2012 didn't happen, Nibiru does not exist, and 9/11 was not planned/formulated/carried out by our government. Demolition charges did not bring down the towers, no crews placed charges beforehand, the planes were not military aircraft or even holograms.
Have your mommies take away your radios so you can't stay up late listening to Coast to Coast, stop listening to Jesse Ventura and put away your tinfoil hats.
Yeah, and it wasn't the planes that took the buildings down. It was the explosives already placed inside the buildings that did it.
Really? Because i could have sworn only two made contact.
Were buildings 1,2 and 7 made out of Lego ,
Hmm.. well that might be true. I will look after the building of the WTC towers later but some things are sure for me. The CIA is a more mind f**ked organisation than any terrorists. And they had more connections with al-quaeeda than Hussein or any other presidents. I belive that these taliban jihadists were violent as hell but if I just take a look at the US' agencies..
I don't think people realize how strong those towers really are. It's not like those types of buildings are made of Jenga blocks. Also, theres no way the building should have crumbled to the ground like it did. Maybe the floors above the crash (maybe) but the inside of the build is reinforced with large steel beams that are extremely durable.
How do you know? Just interested. Why a passenger plane almost full of kerosene cant make a tower like that come down?
Physics?
And what's the evidence of this?
If Steven Jones had accused anyone personally of the thermite thing, he would be in jail by now, for evidence fraud, seeking to incriminate innocent people on a crime.
So your excuse is: There wouldn't be any identifiable evidence? How weak – and dead wrong!
A thermite reaction has very specific byproducts that are identifiable, one of which is barium nitrate – and given how much thermite would have been necessary, this would have been found in large quantities.
But it wasn't. Why not, mister chemistry professor?
Sorry to burst your bubble but thermite is literally composed of plain old iron and aluminium (+sulfure in the thermate). When it reacts these obviously melt and would become indistinguishable from the aluminium, sulfure and iron in the plane and building, all used in a huge variety of construction materials. At least understand what you're talking about (school level chemistry) before you try and argue a point, and try and be more open minded. Have a nice day
@booyakah jay so the plane must be controlled elsewhere not from the cockpit. probably was set by the govt towards the wtc. evidence( not from govt) said that the planes that hit the wtc resembled military planes not commercial airlines now think about it
@LiberatedGodlessness because terrorist cant get those explosives and plant it in a building run by the CIA -.- of course i would think the CIA did it cuz they started i think almost every single war. they started the vietnam war, supplied al quaeda with weapon, etc
If explosives or nukes or sooper-dooper thermite were used, the physical evidence would be ABUNDANT. Instead, there was NONE.
Want to convince people it was an inside job? Sorry, then, but PROOF is exactly what you need.
It was molten aluminum. But even if it was thermite, How in the world does that prove 9/11 was the US government attacking it's own US citizens?
Nobody can prove anything pawn. Not even you. So quit using that as your response to everyone cuz it's weak and you know it.
Damn timreed, do you work for the govt? I mean, pardon me, but do they pay you to dangle on their nuts like that or do you just do that for free. Get a life man. Like I said, govt pawn. I bet you go vote every year like a good boy too huh?
The links you gave include ZERO expert analysis of those sounds. You're just guessing – and naturally, choosing the explanation that suits your beliefs. That's not proof.
"the complete pulverization, the destruction of the core columns, the pools of molten iron/steel" You speak as if it's obvious that only explosive demolition could account for these phenomena – but is it?
And BTW since when do conventional explosives melt steel? They don't, of course.