9-11 was an inside job

[akmisrmaadi]

I haven't put much time into researching the 9/11 stuff nor  have I read much of this thread, just the last few posts.  I haven't formed a strong opinion on what "really happened."   My apologies if the questions below have already been debated or discussed.

I'm under the impression a 3rd building collapsed but was not hit by a plane...akmisrmaadi how did that happen?  I'm also under the impression this received scant attention in the 9/11 commission report.  Somebody enlighten me what the "official" response has been to the collapse of the 3rd building and why it wasn't mentioned. 

try google.

its my understanding that the building was on fire, and was being pummeled by debris from the two gigantic skyscraper buildings that just fell near it.

i really don't see how its a stretch for a building to collapse that is near two skyscrapers that just folded onto themselves.

well, i guess dick cheney could've set the explosives himself. because thats the only way NO ONE ELSE would've found out about it.

[akmisrmaadi]

Ockham's razor

so obviously george bush and dick cheney planted the explosives themselves and also flew the airplanes into the ground, pentagon, and towers using remote control.

[jaqeboy]

You may have missed a post or 2 - I know there were only 1661 before yours... You bring up a few things that have been fairly well-covered, both here and elsewhere.

Would you consider listening to a recording of David Ray Griffin's recent talk at Boston University? I think it's just over an hour long.

9/11 conspiracies are truly idiotic. there are pictures and videos of the planes hitting the towers, and there are pictures of plane wreckage scattered all over the grass at the pentagon.

as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.

as well as VIP people who died on the planes.

i hate the govt more than anyone else i do not believe any conspiracy about 9/11. we watched it happen on live tv. not much you can say about that

govt, especially at the federal level is completely and utterly incompetant. there is no possible way they could pull off 9/11 without anyone knowing.

IMPOSSIBLE.

people who come up with all these conspiracies are really just making themselves look stupid

[akmisrmaadi]

no, i have no interest in listening to it. because all the physical evidence is enough for me to believe it.

if 9/11 was "an inside job" it will come out eventually. but we all know it wasn't.

[jaqeboy]

...
I'm under the impression a 3rd building collapsed but was not hit by a plane...akmisrmaadi how did that happen?

Correct - no plane hit. 7 WTC, also known as the Salomon Building in some news reporting, collapsed at approx. 5:20 PM. Explosions were reported in the building after the WTC plane hits and before the collapse of 1 or 2 WTC. The collapse of the building was reported by a fireman at 10:45 AM, by CNN at approx. 4:20 and by BBC at approx. 4:57 PM (I don't have the exact times handy). The impending collapse was reported by workers leaving the area and explosions were heard by firefighters and various others in the half hour preceding the collapse.

  I'm also under the impression this received scant attention in the 9/11 commission report.

Though I haven't read the Commission report, I have heard that it was not mentioned at all.

  Somebody enlighten me what the "official" response has been to the collapse of the 3rd building and why it wasn't mentioned. 

NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, a Commerce Department agency) issued a report in the fall of 2008, stating that the collapse occurred due to fire and not due to damage to the building from debris from the tower's collapse. I'll dig you up a response to the NIST report - it was roundly ridiculed by the 911Truth community.

[jaqeboy]

OK, that's all I wanted to know. The link is in a post somewhere previous, if you should have a change of heart.

no, i have no interest in listening to it. because all the physical evidence is enough for me to believe it.

if 9/11 was "an inside job" it will come out eventually. but we all know it wasn't.

[jaqeboy]

You pretty much covered the range, though on your last one, I would say "black ops people" did the dirty-work in a well-organized, compartmentalized plot, which Dick Cheney probably knew about and played some role in. I would also say that they are all conspiracies, the question for the curious is "which conspiracy?"

The new video "Re-Thinking 9-11" by Ground Zero Minnesota gives a similar breakdown.

I think there is a whole spectrum of "conspiracy theories" and that most of the members on this forum subscribe to some conspiracy theory within that range.  Ranging from no conspiracy to ultra-conspiracy:

fairy tale version: radical Islamic terrorists took down the towers because they hate freedom.
conspiracy of explanation (Ron Paul position): radical Islamic terrorists took down the towers because of bad U.S. foreign policy.
conspiracy of incompetance: radical Islamic terrorists took down the towers but the U.S. government could have prevented this and is covering up its incompetance.
weak complicity: a criminal element within the government either assisted radical Islamic terrorists or performed the job.
strong complicity: Dick Cheney took down the towers.

Any others?

[akmisrmaadi]

these ridiculous conspiracies really really make people in the "freedom movement" look like kooks.

if you're going to believe in a conspiracy at least believe in one that has a slight possibility of being true.

there are people who say planes never hit the buildings even though it happened on live tv and literally hundreds of video records of the same thing.

what would you say to someone whose loved one called them while on the plane telling them exactly what was happening...

what do you say to the literally thousands of people who watched the plane fly into the pentagon.

this is the reason these people are written off immediately.

i highly doubt there are CIA agents faithful enough to commit suicide so we could have a war in iraq.... if you want to believe it was an inside job.

i need a goddamn thesaurus so i don't keep repeating ridiculous and moronic

[Tunga]

It used to be a long and expensive process to bring down a skyscraper in a manner and fashion that didn't damage surrounding buildings.

Weeks were spent drilling holes in columns and planting explosives in key areas of the building to be demolished. Structural engineers studied construction drawings of the target and made recommendations as to where to place charges, what to cut where and when in a precise manner.

Since 9-11 however, the cost of demolishing a building has been drastically reduced.

Now it is generally accepted that instead of wiring columns "deep in the infrastructure" as Peter Jennings once said, it is only necessary to partially damage a few vertical members high up in the structure to be destroyed. Then with the addition of a few hundred gallons of kerosene    poured down an elevator shaft some office furniture thrown in for black smoke effects and then just wait an hour or so and presto!

The entire building collapses into it's own footprint.

Turner Construction has realized a huge savings from this evolutionary revolution.

They are the go too guys in the field. Unfortunately all the research and development gleaned from this new formula for success was destroyed on 9-11.

Oh well maybe history will repeat itself with the Sears Tower in Chicago. We see Larry Silverstein recently bought that property too.

[akmisrmaadi]

lmao

[Tunga]

Turner Construction is world renowned. 

The Israeli movers and artists not so much. Spot lights up!!!

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=145451

[mackler]

as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.

When you say "thousands" I take it you mean two thousand or more.  I would be interested in seeing these accounts.  Where can I find them?

there are people who say planes never hit the buildings even though it happened on live tv and literally hundreds of video records of the same thing.

When you say hundreds, you mean like 200 or more, right?

I would love to have a look at these 200+ video records you're referring to.  Perhaps you could tell us where one can view these.

govt, especially at the federal level is completely and utterly incompetent. there is no possible way they could pull off 9/11 without anyone knowing.

Incompetent?  May I remind you the federal government put men on the moon 1969--a dozen actually and not one died on the way.  You call that incompetent?

[akmisrmaadi]

as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.

When you say "thousands" I take it you mean two thousand or more.  I would be interested in seeing these accounts.  Where can I find them?

there are people who say planes never hit the buildings even though it happened on live tv and literally hundreds of video records of the same thing.

When you say hundreds, you mean like 200 or more, right?

I would love to have a look at these 200+ video records you're referring to.  Perhaps you could tell us where one can view these.

govt, especially at the federal level is completely and utterly incompetent. there is no possible way they could pull off 9/11 without anyone knowing.

Incompetent?  May I remind you the federal government put men on the moon 1969--a dozen actually and not one died on the way.  You call that incompetent?

use google

and for your third point, the "government" did not "put men on the moon" they simply paid for it.

almost everything is contracted out

[jaqeboy]

...

  Somebody enlighten me what the "official" response has been to the collapse of the 3rd building and why it wasn't mentioned. 

NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, a Commerce Department agency) issued a report in the fall of 2008 [correction: 21 August 2008], stating that the collapse occurred due to fire and not due to damage to the building from debris from the tower's collapse. I'll dig you up a response to the NIST report - it was roundly ridiculed by the 911Truth community.

Here is a charitable account in OpEd News (24 August 08) of the NIST report on 7 WTC: http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/NIST-Releases-Long-Awaited-by-Jeremy-R-Hammond-080824-967.html

Here is Dr. Frank Greening's 29 August 2008 Withering critique of the new WTC7 report on 911Blogger.

Here is Kevin Ryan's scathing critique of 10 September 2008, The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak, on 911Truth.org's site.

Here is the report itself on NIST's site: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

FEMA issued a "Building Performance Study" report in 2002, which the NIST report rebuts, in part: http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm.

An excerpt from Ryan's critique:

In a famous book by Antoine de Saint Exupery, a little prince from another planet asks the narrator to draw a sheep. After several unsatisfactory attempts, the narrator simply draws a box and tells the little prince that the sheep is in the box. The little prince then exclaims — "That is exactly the way I wanted it!"1

Just so, the Bush Administration asked its scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for an explanation as to what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. In response to this request, NIST drew up a series of fanciful stories over a period of years, each story differing from the previous one. Finally, after seven long years, NIST published its last story for WTC 7 by simply saying, in effect: "The explanation is in our computer."2

As expected, however, this explanation in a box leaves much to be desired for those of us who prefer to live in reality, instead of in a fictional world. On the other hand, we are learning something from NIST with this new report, and that is that when government scientists begin working for a political agenda above all else, there is no limit to the extent of deception that they will engage in. We also know that those who have produced the NIST WTC reports must now assume personal responsibility for the ongoing 9/11 Wars, and the millions of deaths that will result from those wars.

NIST begins with a few little white lies, and never looks back

NIST unveiled its WTC 7 report by making a new diversionary claim that it worked only three years on the investigation. But, to the contrary, we know that NIST began its work in August 2002 and decoupled its WTC 7 report in June 2004, after creating hundreds of pages of detailed reports for WTC 7.3 The investigation ostensibly began anew in September 2005, after the report for the towers was sputtered out. Since then — other than for several "responses to FAQs" on the report for the towers — NIST has focused entirely on WTC 7. This means that, in full, NIST worked on its final explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 for at least five years, not three.

However, as the reader will see, NIST did learn from its experience in deceiving the public about the towers. One way in which NIST learned to avoid criticism was to pretend that it had considered alternative theories. In its presentation on the draft WTC 7 report, NIST claimed, "We were very open to alternative theories." But that claim could be seen as true only if one turned a blind eye to many facts indicating the exact opposite was true, including the following:
...

[jaqeboy]

as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.

...

I would love to have a look at these 200+ video records you're referring to.  Perhaps you could tell us where one can view these.

...

There is a site that has all the known videos on it. I'll see if I can find that.