9/11 Inside Job?

[SoulMonster]

There is evidence of bomb material in WTC dust.

No, there isn't. Some leaders among the conspiracy theorists claim that chemicals that could come from thermite were found on the site, but this is not accepted by the scientific community. It Kind scientists suggest that what the whackos found were paint primers or some other innocuous material present in the buildings. In addition, during the 8 months of clean up, no evidence was found by demolition crew indicating the usage of thermite and other studies of dust from the site conducted by other organizations and people, found no evidence of explosives of any type.

There is evidence of molten steel.

Heh, no, there isn't. It is just you who mistake twisted, sagging, and warped steel, as well as photos of steel cut during the clean up, as "molten steel". No study of the incident has concluded that steel was melted in situ before the towers collapsed.

[magisme]

This is a pretty fascinating thread.

[Rustycage]

So why did the buildings come down so nicely?

It's called a progressive collapse, this documentary explains it very well. Start at 36:30 and you need to watch only 3 minutes.

Keep in mind that this explanation and with their animation example, the building would have taken 66 seconds to collapse. 66 SECONDS. That's nearly 5 times the actual amount of time it took.

That is an insult to anyone with common sense.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Rustycage

[izzygirl]

This is a pretty fascinating thread.

I agree.

And as I said, Rusty is my hero. I'm learning a lot thanks to him.

[SoulMonster]

This is a pretty fascinating thread.

I agree.

And as I said, Rusty is my hero. I'm learning a lot thanks to him.

How can that be? Most of what he says is plain wrong.

He claims thermite was found on the site - wrong. He claims molten steel was found on the site - wrong. He claims the buildings collapsed with free-fall speed - wrong. The claims the cut beams could have been cut with thermite - wrong. He claims no remains of the planes were found inside Pentagon - wrong. And so on ad nauseum. The only way one could learn something from what he is saying in this thread is to realize that the opposite must be true.

NB: on the "free fall" claim: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Edited April 29, 2013 by SoulMonster

[Rustycage]

[Coma16]

[Rustycage]

Let's look back at PNAC released in 2000.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Let's look back at PNAC released in 2000.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some

catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

But PNAC is a conservative think tank which endorses strictly Republican politics. I don't understand why organizations like this or the Bohemian Grove are brought up by conspiracy theorists, isn't the two party system supposed to e a sham and all the members are government are working together for the same shadowy NWO goal?

[Rustycage]

^1994

Compare the 2 pictures before claiming the complete hole is confirmed to be from the plane.

Well? I'm not quite sure what to make of this. There is so much disinformation out there such as the hologram crap and laser guided missiles that it's hard to find the bullshit. There are even inconsistencies regarding flight 93 but I think the problem is the people are getting caught up in the how instead of just asking those why they themselves reveal such questionable statements. Or why the trade market basically predicted 9/11.

Let's look back at PNAC released in 2000.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some

catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

But PNAC is a conservative think tank which endorses strictly Republican politics. I don't understand why organizations like this or the Bohemian Grove are brought up by conspiracy theorists, isn't the two party system supposed to e a sham and all the members are government are working together for the same shadowy NWO goal?

I'm not posting anything to claim I know what the complete goal was. But to act like globalization doesn't exist is very naive.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Rustycage

[Rustycage]

"Shot down flight 93?" Huh?

[ShadowOfTheWave]

^1994

Compare the 2 pictures before claiming the complete hole is confirmed to be from the plane.

Well? I'm not quite sure what to make of this. There is so much disinformation out there such as the hologram crap and laser guided missiles that it's hard to find the bullshit. There are even inconsistencies regarding flight 93 but I think the problem is the people are getting caught up in the how instead of just asking those why they themselves reveal such questionable statements. Or why the trade market basically predicted 9/11.

>>

Let's look back at PNAC released in 2000.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some

catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

But PNAC is a conservative think tank which endorses strictly Republican politics. I don't understand why organizations like this or the Bohemian Grove are brought up by conspiracy theorists, isn't the two party system supposed to e a sham and all the members are government are working together for the same shadowy NWO goal?

I'm not posting anything to claim I know what the complete goal was. But to act like globalization doesn't exist is very naive.

Of course it exists. No one denies that. Alot of decent people who would never participate in any "false flag" attack believe in it as well, as it is a world view and not just a practice going on. I'm just saying all of the pieces being presented don't seem to fit to me.

Edited April 29, 2013 by ShadowOfTheWave

[Rustycage]

Basic Dimensions

Wing span

Overall Length

Tail Height

Interior Cabin Width

Body Exterior Width

124 ft 10 in (38.05 m)

155 ft 3 in (47.32 m)

44 ft 6 in (13.6 m)

11 ft 7 in (3.5 m)

12 ft 4 in (3.7 m)

From: Boeing

So a Plane, that large, reportedly and supposedly above top speed due to the rate and angle of decline, hits that hole and there's no debris? Not even the wings.

The same inconsistent story as the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEnZekXT1yw

Debris found 8 MILES away?

[SoulMonster]

Huh? Lots of debris was found on the site. Did you expect the wings to remain intact?

The debris found 8 miles away was "mostly papers", "strands of charred insulation", and an "endorsed paycheck", which could easily be blown away by the wind.

[SoulMonster]

And new summary with the latest claims from Rustycage:

"What caused the twin towers to fall was a detonation, not the impact from two planes and the ensuing fire".

Your reasons for believing in this are (1) that you believe that planes, who are built of lighter and less sturdy material, can not possibly damage the integral structure of the towers necessary to cause a structural collapse, which demonstrates that don't understand that impact is a product of mass and velocity. A light, soft material can do amazing damage if just accelerated to sufficient speeds. (2) Thermite was found on the site which suggests that thermite was used as an explosive; the only problem is that this claim, which is presented in a no-cited article by a known oddball and conspiracy theorist in a notorious paper not taken seriously by scientists, is refuted by the whole scientific establishment. And (3) that a picture showing a steel beam must indicate nano-thermite at work, despite the fact that the cut is diagonal and hence can't have been made through the action of thermite, and that other pictures show demolition people cutting similar steel beams as part of them cleaning the site.

"WTC 7 did not collapse as a result of the 8 hour long ravaging fires and the impact from pieces of one of the towers who fell on it, but rather because of another detonation".

Your reasons for believing this are (1) someone said that it was time to "pull" the building, which it is much more sensible to assume was meant as a time for pull the firemen out of the building, (2) that the speed of falling somehow was too high which for unknown and amusing reasons must mean that the collapse was caused by the structure being demolished by explosives and not that the structure was demolished by "mere" fires and impact, (3) that the structure fell right down and not over to one side, which demonstrates that you don't know much about how tall buildings fall, and (4) that neither the fires or impact damage was sufficient to bring it down based on a few pictures which doesn't document the extent of neither fire or impact damage.

"No plane hit the Pentagon" (my personal favourite).

Your reason for believing this is (1) that you claim that no pieces of the plane was found on site, something which is just plain wrong since numerous pieces of the plane (as well as the passengers) were found on site and have been posted in this very thread, and (2) that the damage to the building wasn't large enough, which is wrong, it was just as large as expected when you take into account the momentum of the plane and the structure of the building.

"Something is fuzzy about the flight 93 crash site".

Your reasons for believing this are (1) that you claim no debris was found at the impact crater, which is just plain wrong, and (2) that debris was found 8 miles away....but this was light debris that could easily have been taken there by the wind.

Anything else?

Edited April 29, 2013 by SoulMonster

[Nobodys_Fault]

Shall we start at the beginning since you entered late? Fine. We can start at the beginning of the timeline of that day.

Explain the attachment on the fuselage of the WTC planes and then explain the flashes from both planes immediately before any impact? We can start there and then we'll go round and round again.

Seriously? This is your opener? The "pod" theory?

There was no attachment on the fuselage. The photo that theorists claimed was an attachment is a photo of the planes right fairing - a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. Not to mention the logistics of attaching a missile/drone to a commercial plane without the passengers/pilots/air traffic control noticing anything was amiss. It's completely ridiculous.

Explain why there was a military exercise planned for that day detailing the exact events that occurred on 9/11.

Not exactly true. NORAD had been running hijack simulation exercises as far back as 1998. It's the simulation planners job to come up with imaginative scenarios. If they hadn't have come up with anything remotely similar to 9/11 then they were doing a very shitty job. The exercise ran the day before 9/11 was about Cubans hijacking a flight from Havana and demanding to be taken to New York for political asylum in the US. One carried out in June involved a Haitian AIDS victim making a deal with Colombian cartel to carry out a suicide attack using a private plane. It was their job to try and cover everything.

Explain why Dick Cheney told NORAD to stand down.

[citation needed]

He didn't. Cheney was never in charge of NORAD. He was in charge of the Office of National Preparedness.

Nano-thermite is used for military explosives, Dazey.

It's not used for anything currently. Because, like regular thermite, it is a powder that burns chaotically. It can be directed with a canister but even then it just makes small holes. To bring down a building building weighing millions of pounds you would have to completely fill it with the stuff.

Somehow I don't think it's likely that the proponents of this "inside job" sat at the bottom of the towers weakening beams with tonnes of thermite canisters so the building would drop on their heads.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Nobodys_Fault

[Rustycage]

Of course it exists. No one denies that. Alot of decent people who would never participate in any "false flag" attack believe in it as well, as it is a world view and not just a practice going on. I'm just saying all of the pieces being presented don't seem to fit to me.

If you want my opinion on what happened, I'll give a quick overview. I may overlook some things but to sum it up quickly since I'm not writing a term paper here:

1: I believe that it was a military op false flag event staged to increase the publics support for additional military funding, expansion and invasion of other countries. Why do I believe so?

• PNAC details prior to 9/11 the need for a catastrophe like Pearl Harbor to improve it's efforts for global security and American prosperity. Immediately after attack, Pearl Harbor comparisons are thrown around like peanuts at a baseball game.
• Just one of the supposed coincidental affiliations of PNAC is Dick Cheney.
• Who told NORAD(North American Aerospace Defense Command) to stand down that day? Dick Cheney as testified to by Norman Mineta.
• The aftermath of the attack lead to increased military spending, expansion and invasions.
• Who was one of the main financial profiteers of the invasions? Haliburton made 40 billion off of the Iraq war. Who has ties to Haliburton? Dick Cheney

2: I believe it was to have the label of a military "exercise gone wrong" if in fact things weren't covered up very well. Conspirators in a situation may not even know they are a conspirator with a simple "ooops" from those in charge. Why do I believe it could have been?

• Confirmed military drills on the day of 9/11 detailing "terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers." Operations Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian. References are made in the 9/11 commissions final report.

3: I believe that there was market knowledge beforehand regarding the attacks that show it to be no surprise. Why?

• Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
• Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
• Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
• Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
• Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes
• Here is a graph showing you the activity of the PUT/CALL options ratio purchased for United Airlines days prior to 9/11
• A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.

  -- CBS News, September 26

• A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.

  -- CBS News, September 26

• No similar trading occurred on any other airlines

  -- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] ³

• Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. ⁴
• Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks.

4: I believe that WTC7 was brought down to cover up investigations into insider trading scandals of investment banks and possible investigations into a missing 2.3 trillion dollars from the Pentagon. Why?

• Rumsfeld holding a press conference on September 10th about how 2.3 trillion is missing from the Pentagon's budget.
• On the day of the attack, suspicions were raised about the activity.
• The SEC and EEOC lost thousands of documents pertaining to investigations of such trading and possibly into the missing trillions. The EEOC could recover documents from backup but the SEC wasn't so lucky. (The link is the backup transcript from the original source that has since had the article removed. Typically like all websites that report suspicious activity)

5: I believe that the Pentagon was attacked for reasons listed in #1. An attack on the beating heart of the defense structure is catastrophic and practically forces people to believe there is a terrible weakness.

6: I believe that if a flight 93 was truly in Pennsylvania(note: I am leaving out the reports of Flight 93 landing at another airport while it is supposedly in the air), it was shot down. But I don't believe it was shot down out of threat for the white house. Why?

• The supposed flight that hit the Pentagon had a clear shot at the white house but supposedly flies by it to then change path and hit the Pentagon according to the official story. They are only a few miles apart.
• The immediate aftermath of the Flight 93 story is the label of "Patriotism." A story of self sacrifice for the good of the country's safety. An example of how citizens should respond to the future efforts to improve defense through the sacrifice of our liberties. Still to this day the public are seeing attacks occur that "coincidentally" point to this country's supposed need to be further intruded upon for the sake of safety. Now it's cyberspace. Before, it was illegal wire taps.
• Reports of pieces of Flight 93 being found 8 miles away.

7: I believe a missile hit the Pentagon. Why?

• Both Rumsfeld and a
  stated that a missile hit the Pentagon. The official response to that slip up was Dick Cheney coming forward to explain Rumsfeld's slip up. (I have seen the Rumsfeld press conference with this slip but as with most of the most incriminating comments, it's become a rarity. I guarantee it exists and will link it once I find it. The official transcripts from the dod's website has been taken down.
• The visual evidence

8: I believe bombs were used to bring down the WTC buildings. Why?

• The 3 seconds of free fall at WTC7 even though no plane or immense fires supposedly weakening that structure. All of the fires were small.
• The speed at which the North and South tower fell that contradicts the official "pancake theory" that through their own explanation, would take 66 seconds for the collapse. Even NIST disputes that theory.

9: I believe that NEWS agencies were aware of WTC7's scripted collapse. Why?

• No, she was not standing in front of a blue screen with the backdrop added in. During her report, she moves and states "it is still on fire."

Anyways, I am not exaggerating when I say there are dozens of other inconsistencies that have led me away from the original story. It's tough to remember everything during one post but that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Rustycage

[Rustycage]

GEN. ARNOLD: Thank you, sir, and I will try to do that to the best of my ability. And perhaps General McKinley has some data that he could shed light on, because I have been retired a little while, and do not have access to the staff for some of the very specifics on that. But I will try to do my best.

As you know from previous testimony from General Eberhardt to Congress, we were in the middle of a NORAD exercise at that particular time, which means that basically our entire staff was focused on being able to do the air operations center mission, which was our job to do. We had just come out of a video teleconference with the NORAD staff and with our folks at that particular time, when I was handed a note that we had a possible hijacking at Boston center, and it had come from the Northeast Air Defense Command, Colonel Bob Mahr (ph), who is commander up there, and he had requested that I call him immediately. And I was upstairs in our facility, immediately went downstairs, picked up the phone, asking on the way to my staff, "Is this part of the exercise?" Because quite honestly, and frankly we do do hijacking scenarios as we go through these exercises from time to time. But I realized that it was not. This was real life.

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

[Nobodys_Fault]

9: I believe that NEWS agencies were aware of WTC7's scripted collapse. Why?

• No, she was not standing in front of a blue screen with the backdrop added in. During her report, she moves and states "it is still on fire."

Wow. You'll believe fucking anything. What completely incomprehensible reason would government conspirators have for telling the BBC of their plot to demolish WTC 7 with explosives? The guy that directed Loose Change even draws the line there:

"Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it? I didn't really want to put that line in the movie."

-Dylan Avery

[Rustycage]

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled. (The fact that there was an exercise planned for the same day as the attack factors into several conspiracy theories, though the 9/11 commission dismisses this as coincidence. After plodding through dozens of hours of recordings, so do I.)

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

9: I believe that NEWS agencies were aware of WTC7's scripted collapse. Why?

• No, she was not standing in front of a blue screen with the backdrop added in. During her report, she moves and states "it is still on fire."

Wow. You'll believe fucking anything. What completely incomprehensible reason would government conspirators have for telling the BBC of their plot to demolish WTC 7 with explosives? The guy that directed Loose Change even draws the line there:

"Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it? I didn't really want to put that line in the movie."

-Dylan Avery

And this does what to discredit the broadcasted report seen from the link? Not. A. Damned. Thing.

116. On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military’s response to the realworld terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004)

9/11 Commission report

[Nobodys_Fault]

And this does what to discredit the broadcasted report seen from the link? Not. A. Damned. Thing.

Plain old common sense discredits it. Why in the WORLD would they need to give the reporters a head's up?

[T.wa.T]

Shepard Smith from Fox news reported either building 5 or 7 coming down way before it actually did. I'm not saying the media knew or didn't, I'm just throwing it out there.

The whole 9/11 thing is crazy. I don't know what to beleive.

[Rustycage]

09:04:50

—Is this explosion part of that that we're lookin' at now on TV?

—Yes.

—Jesus …

—And there's a possible second hijack also—a United Airlines …

—Two planes?…

—Get the fuck out …

—I think this is a damn input, to be honest.

"The last line—"I think this is a damn input"—is a reference to the exercise, meaning a simulations input" - The Article

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608

And this does what to discredit the broadcasted report seen from the link? Not. A. Damned. Thing.

Plain old common sense discredits it. Why in the WORLD would they need to give the reporters a head's up?

This does what to explain the report broadcasting the collapse 26 minutes early? Not. A. Damned. Thing.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building

By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.

Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.

The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.

An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.

In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."

The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Rustycage

[Nobodys_Fault]

116. On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military’s response to the realworld terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004)

9/11 Commission report

This proves what exactly? That NORAD were conducting their annual training exercise in which a threat to North American airspace is simulated? On 9/11 the scenario chosen was an attack from the Soviet Union because the Russian Air Army was conducting major bombing exercises for the first time since 1993. General Eberhart says it "took 30 seconds to adjust" because the commision was investigating the possibility that preparation for the exercise compromised the military's response to the 9/11 attacks.

And this does what to discredit the broadcasted report seen from the link? Not. A. Damned. Thing.

Plain old common sense discredits it. Why in the WORLD would they need to give the reporters a head's up?

This does what to explain the report broadcasting the collapse 26 minutes early? Not. A. Damned. Thing.

Let me break it down for you...

The fire department knew by 2.00PM the building would soon collapse.

Firefighters relayed this information to news outlets.

By the time it reaches the BBC it has been miscommunicated from "soon collapse" to "has collapsed."

In a rush to be the first to break the news, they report it. Bad journalism happens quite often. She even opens the story with "Details are very, very sketchy."

[Rustycage]

Of course it exists. No one denies that. Alot of decent people who would never participate in any "false flag" attack believe in it as well, as it is a world view and not just a practice going on. I'm just saying all of the pieces being presented don't seem to fit to me.

If you want my opinion on what happened, I'll give a quick overview. I may overlook some things but to sum it up quickly since I'm not writing a term paper here:

1: I believe that it was a military op false flag event staged to increase the publics support for additional military funding, expansion and invasion of other countries. Why do I believe so?

• PNAC details prior to 9/11 the need for a catastrophe like Pearl Harbor to improve it's efforts for global security and American prosperity. Immediately after attack, Pearl Harbor comparisons are thrown around like peanuts at a baseball game.
• Just one of the supposed coincidental affiliations of PNAC is Dick Cheney.
• Who told NORAD(North American Aerospace Defense Command) to stand down that day? Dick Cheney as testified to by Norman Mineta.
• The aftermath of the attack lead to increased military spending, expansion and invasions.
• Who was one of the main financial profiteers of the invasions? Haliburton made 40 billion off of the Iraq war. Who has ties to Haliburton? Dick Cheney

2: I believe it was to have the label of a military "exercise gone wrong" if in fact things weren't covered up very well. Conspirators in a situation may not even know they are a conspirator with a simple "ooops" from those in charge. Why do I believe it could have been?

• Confirmed military drills on the day of 9/11 detailing "terrorists flying planes into skyscrapers." Operations Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian. References are made in the 9/11 commissions final report.

3: I believe that there was market knowledge beforehand regarding the attacks that show it to be no surprise. Why?

• Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
• Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
• Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
• Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
• Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes
• Here is a graph showing you the activity of the PUT/CALL options ratio purchased for United Airlines days prior to 9/11
• A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.

  -- CBS News, September 26

• A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above normal on the day before the attacks.

  -- CBS News, September 26

• No similar trading occurred on any other airlines

  -- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] ³

• Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. ⁴
• Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put options in the four trading days before the attacks.

4: I believe that WTC7 was brought down to cover up investigations into insider trading scandals of investment banks and possible investigations into a missing 2.3 trillion dollars from the Pentagon. Why?

• Rumsfeld holding a press conference on September 10th about how 2.3 trillion is missing from the Pentagon's budget.
• On the day of the attack, suspicions were raised about the activity.
• The SEC and EEOC lost thousands of documents pertaining to investigations of such trading and possibly into the missing trillions. The EEOC could recover documents from backup but the SEC wasn't so lucky. (The link is the backup transcript from the original source that has since had the article removed. Typically like all websites that report suspicious activity)

5: I believe that the Pentagon was attacked for reasons listed in #1. An attack on the beating heart of the defense structure is catastrophic and practically forces people to believe there is a terrible weakness.

6: I believe that if a flight 93 was truly in Pennsylvania(note: I am leaving out the reports of Flight 93 landing at another airport while it is supposedly in the air), it was shot down. But I don't believe it was shot down out of threat for the white house. Why?

• The supposed flight that hit the Pentagon had a clear shot at the white house but supposedly flies by it to then change path and hit the Pentagon according to the official story. They are only a few miles apart.
• The immediate aftermath of the Flight 93 story is the label of "Patriotism." A story of self sacrifice for the good of the country's safety. An example of how citizens should respond to the future efforts to improve defense through the sacrifice of our liberties. Still to this day the public are seeing attacks occur that "coincidentally" point to this country's supposed need to be further intruded upon for the sake of safety. Now it's cyberspace. Before, it was illegal wire taps.
• Reports of pieces of Flight 93 being found 8 miles away.

7: I believe a missile hit the Pentagon. Why?

• Both Rumsfeld and a
  stated that a missile hit the Pentagon. The official response to that slip up was Dick Cheney coming forward to explain Rumsfeld's slip up. (I have seen the Rumsfeld press conference with this slip but as with most of the most incriminating comments, it's become a rarity. I guarantee it exists and will link it once I find it. The official transcripts from the dod's website has been taken down.
• The visual evidence

8: I believe bombs were used to bring down the WTC buildings. Why?

• The 3 seconds of free fall at WTC7 even though no plane or immense fires supposedly weakening that structure. All of the fires were small.
• The speed at which the North and South tower fell that contradicts the official "pancake theory" that through their own explanation, would take 66 seconds for the collapse. Even NIST disputes that theory.

9: I believe that NEWS agencies were aware of WTC7's scripted collapse. Why?

• No, she was not standing in front of a blue screen with the backdrop added in. During her report, she moves and states "it is still on fire."

Anyways, I am not exaggerating when I say there are dozens of other inconsistencies that have led me away from the original story. It's tough to remember everything during one post but that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Just so the above poster doesn't totally ignore 99% of the post and the replies push it back. If you want to debate it with me, then debate it all, not just one little cherry picked piece.