Fury As Academics Claim 9/11 Was "Inside Job"

Does anyone remember, was there this type of blowback from the JFK coup detat? That was also defeated, by a slaved media, and numerous people shooting themselves multiple times in the head and hanging themselves with no suicide note and crashing their car/airplane ect...

These guys need to get the momentum moving, fast. And their only hope of protection and survival is getting support from members of the CIA, most of which were out of the loop this time on this op, (and many of which I am sure are PISSED over the phony WMD evidence pinned on them and the Valerie Plame outing) and the US Military, who's airforce was made to look so inept that day.

It's time for a second coup detat. Only this time by people who CARE about making America a proud and respected nation again.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

There's no quelling the rapidly growing realization that the official 9/11 consiracy theory is a fraud.

What are they going to do? Kill or threaten or bribe all of the thousands of people who are investigating and speaking out about the lies? Will they try and make "9/11 denial" illegal with harsh prison sentences? Will they press the panic button and shut down the internet in an effort to shut everyone up?

The 9/11 planners did not take the internet seriously enough, or thought they could use it to their advantage. I've seen countless hours spent by an army of 9/11 apologists trying with all their might to sway public opinion over the net in favor of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory - but with no success at all, in fact their efforts only served to sway opinion towards alternative theories that better fit the factual observations.

What are they going to do? It's a mystery to me, but they will HAVE to do something sooner than later.

Actually, I've read a VERY good rebuttal of the 'Pentigon attack was not a plane' theory on the net, complete with reams of little-known photographs from that day, showing ample aircraft debris and bodies being removed.

To me though, the real glaring issue with the Pentagon attack is the strange flight path of the jet just prior to hitting (it carried out an airshow worthy maneuver that was truly impressive) and the maneuver itself actually succeeded in causing the plane to plow into the most heavily fortified section of the building, rather than the roof.

One could argue that perhaps the controls had been seized back by the pilot in the final seconds. A pilot who was ex-US airforce, and had WORKED at the Pentagon, so he KNEW the layout and where the plane would do the least damage.

I'm not blowing the whole thing out of the water, though. It's clear the building collapses in New York were controlled demolitions. The question with THAT is, apparently (not common knowledge) only a very few companies and individuals in the world could have actually control-demoed those buildings.

Has anyone done a search on just where those people were, in the weeks leading up to 911? Has anyone questioned those companies at length on their opinions on the collapses and if any equipment and people were absent in the weeks leading up to 911?

Wouldn't THAT be the smoking gun?

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

I've read that rebuttal too. As you say, even if a real passenger plane had crashed into the Pentagon, the flight path is so impossibly strange that it's still very hard to believe the official story about the Pentagon attack. For example, why not simply nose dive into the huge roof? You could not miss the roof! <br><br> It also makes no sense why the attacking plane was not intercepted and shot down, or why the White House was not attacked instead which would have been a much more tempting target. <br><br> Check out this amazing coincidence: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Burlingame">Charles Burlingame</a> <br><br> Then there's this other amazing coincidence: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15</a> <br> <i>Charles Burlingame, who had been a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon</i> <br><br> None of the above proves anything, but you just can't make this stuff up even if you tried!

For example, why not simply nose dive into the huge roof? You could not miss the roof<<

When you see that the hole in the wall is smaller then the aircraft, one has to assume the pilot knew it wouldn't do much damage to the roof either. Seeing there was no fire damage like in the towers, perhaps the pilot planned on walking away from it. With so little debris, it can also be assumed this was one of those fast evaporating aircraft.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

I am not convinced of the validity of either explanation of the events. One of the questions I have never seen answered with regard to the Pentagon theory is what happened to the passenger plane that was supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon. They would have had to get rid of that plane and its passengers somewhere else.

Most of the arguments against this being an inside job though are not really that compelling. With the relationship that developed between the CIA and the mugahideen all that would have been needed is one person to use the radical elements in Al-Qaeda to carry out the mission. To plan such an event would require fewer than half a dozen in the know because most of those who were responsible for carrying out the plan would be dead or would simply be unsuspecting accomplices.

What was security in the buildings like? It might not be that hard to disguise carefully placed explosives during renovations or redecorating (you could place quite a load of explosives in the pots containing the large plants and trees often used in decorating such buildings). Were these buildings not constructed to be easily demolished once they were deemed obsolete?

I think flight 77, which I believe was shot down, was intended for the White House. And the Pentagon attack was not impossible for a commercial aircraft, it was just damn difficult, and hard to believe that the guy flying it had only a few hours on sim and apparently SUCKED, according to his instructor.

So I'm raising the possibility that in the final seconds, the REAL pilot, who was a seasoned combat pilot, ex Airforce (he is mentioned in 'Loose Change') grabbed the controls back and deliberately tried to crash the plane. In the ensuing scuffle in the cockpit, the terrorists managed to drag him away from the controls, and pulled up with all their might. This explains the erratic flight path just before impact.

So far as the tower collapse goes, here's a new theory.

Let's suppose, that after the 1993 Al Quaeda attack on the towers, someone in gov decided that they couldn't risk those buildings toppling over, and so made the decision to have them secretly wired with explosives. So towers 1 and 2 AND building 7 all get some kind of upgrade to prep them for demolition, in the event that they are compromised and in danger of collapse.

When the planes hit they activate the system and wait. After it appears the buildings are starting to sag and buckle, somebody makes a rash decision, and decides to 'pull ' them (likely the new private owner). Then the well known owner of building 7 makes the decision to pull that one, too.

They would never want this made public, mainly because they would have their ASS SUED OFF by the family members of the people who were sacrificed.

Same thing for flight 77. They could have shot it down, fearing it was headed for the White House, then covered it up, fearing public outcry. Maybe at the same time the passengers were also trying to take it over inside. But the debris pattern definitely suggests it was shot down in mid-air.

That's all I'm saying. It's my theory. There is still massive cover-up of mistakes, massive cover-up of insider stock trading (which hints at Mossad knowledge of the attack, NOT involvement). Massive cover-up of Bin Laden's family and protecting him and his family.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

Interesting theory.

"Let's suppose, that after the 1993 Al Quaeda attack on the towers"

Just as an aside though, I've never found a document dated prior to September 12, 2001 with the name 'Al Queda'. I believe that is the day they made up the name.

---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

"is what happened to the passenger plane that was supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon."<br />
<br />
<br />
Observe; a fighter jet, travelling slower, hitting a thinner concrete wall than the Pentagon.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html">http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html</a><br />
<br />
There would be very little left.<p>---<br>"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden<br />

And the Pentagon attack was not impossible for a commercial aircraft,<<

Possible, but still don't explain the lack of debris or fire damage, nor the small hole made by such a big aircraft. If three towers can melt to the ground by two aircraft, why isn't the damage more so in the area if made by the same size craft to have hit the Pentagon. Why not release the videos from the nearby establishments rather then behave as if they don't exist.
Your other theories are feasable but not introduced by the American Government. If the towers were meant to have a suicide(?) devise why isn't it flatly stated. It would seem a simpler explaination then attempting to contradict logic. Americans can then claim they have martyrs as well, besides their troops.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

There would be very little left.<<

The video don't show the otherside of the wall. One would imagine all sorts of debris in either case. The lawn in front of the wall of the Pentagon wasn't even scorched, no debris visable other then big reels of electrical cable. You would think upon impact, the airplane would at least disturb the turf. The hole left in the Pentagon is too small for a commercial airliner to pass through even without wings. The TV cameras were on the scene very quickly after the collision. Everything was cleaned up. I can't even rake my lawn that quickly.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

I'm convinced that the pentagon was hit by a plane, not a missile. What kind of plane and whether or not it had a pilot flying it remains unclear. Remote control planes are a breeze to do today - hell, the Pentagon was going to blow up a remote controlled passenger jet over cuba in order to justify an invasion way back in the 1960s (See Operation Northwood).

What convinced me that it was a plane, not a missile? Well, I'm ex-Military and I've seen explosives/bombs etc blowing up. The explosion at the pentagon was not from an explosive device, it was a fuel fire.

In Hollywood movies, bombs always explode in massive fireballs; but thats only in movies. Hollywood doesn't detonate real bombs, they detonate fuel packs to create lots of flame - its much more impressive than a real bomb which typically gives off a fair bit of smoke and very little flame, putting as much energy as possible into rapid expansion (pressure wave) as apposed to flame, which does not do explosive damage.

Watch the footage again and you'll see there was almost no blast effect and a HUGE amount of flame. Only large fuel tanks can create that size of a fire, explosives wouldn't.

And for those wondering about the lack of fire damage in the Pentagon, what lack? There was lots of fire but the pentagon is a hardened building made primarily of concrete with solid fire separation walls. Add to that the fact that water was readily available and firefighters didn't have to run up 8 million stairs and you have a much easier time of controlling a fire.

Plus, the pentagon didn't have pre-installed thermite charges.

As I said - I believe it was a plane but I make no claim as to what type or how it was piloted.

So your saying Al Quaeda is a CIA invented phony terrorist org, ran by Black Ops and used to cause self-inflicted wounds that we then have to increase defense spending to fight? I agree.

That would mean then, that the 93 truck bombing at the WTC was ALSO a false-flag Op. And the people who claimed responsibility, ALSO black ops.



---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”

Ok, please do not flame broil me, as I am by and large a tinfoil hat wearing member in good standing and proud of it, but...

I have seen pictures of the lawn immediately after the hit. It is covered in small pieces of airliner. I have seen pictures of the bodies being recovered. There are interviews with rescue workers who recovered bodies. There are pictures of aircraft engine parts that match the airliner. There are pictures of huge pieces of equipment (I think one is a massive diesel generator) that were thrown aside and over by the aircraft.

The aircraft is MADE OF TIN. What do you think HAPPENS to a n airliner when it hits a solid object? It's like the joke about emergency landings in water! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! The stewardesses are simply going through the motions! If the plane has to belly land on water, your dead, your dead and your dead, they should be saying as they point at the exits. I've seen video of an airliner attempting a controlled belly landing on water. The thing VAPORIZED into teeny pieces as soon as it touched! SO what did you THINK was going to happen when TIN airliner meets SOLID CONCRETE AND STEEL re-enforced bunker? VAPO-RIZE. No plane. The hole matches what the crumpled skinny fuselage ONLY would drive in through as it disintegrates. The wings would fold back like a Japanese fan and drag in behind. The engines are the only objects that would do any damage, and they did! And they were recovered.

And what about all the car drivers who watched a giant civilian airliner fly over their heads at about 20 feet, descend, clip off the tops of the street lights, and bounce off the lawn? Are they all telling false stories? Are they agents? No.

You don't need fancy secret missiles to pull off a false-flag op. All you need are,
1. Either a remote-controlled, or a suicide piloted airliner. Check.
2. Some way to distract/divert fighters from intercept. Check.
3. Some way to deactivate the missile defense system on the White House. Cheney apparently took care of that. Check.

It was a plane, let it go. The real issue is who was flying it, and why it wasn't shot down, and who planned the whole thing or let it happen.

---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”