9-11 was an inside job

[KBCraig]

http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/MOV/Painful_Deceptions.html

Wow... the most agonizingly long non-sequitur I've ever seen.

[Russell Kanning]

It looks to me like a 757 never hit the pentagon and that building 7 was demolished.

[Kat Kanning]

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,635160132,00.html

Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
      The physics of 9/11 ? including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell ? prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
      In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
      In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
Image
Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.
      Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
      "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes ? which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
      As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."
      Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation ? that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse ? can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.
      Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "
      In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:

      ? The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" ? and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

      ? No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

      ? WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors ? and intact steel support columns ? the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

      ? With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing ? and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

      ? Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

      ? Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel ? and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

      ? Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

      ? Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

      Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."
      Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.
      Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.

[free55]

This  hread title is ridiculous and insulting to Americans. 

There's a lot of good stuff on this site, but this is manure, plain and simple.

[Michael Fisher]

I have to agree that these claims have zero credibility.  A few simple questions cannot overturn the mountains and mountains of evidence to the contrary.

I'm still watching closely to see if conspiracy theorists come up with anything concrete.

Nothing so far.  *shrug*

[Pat McCotter]

I say if the government is this far gone Atlas has shrugged and the FSP is worth nothing.

[Russell Kanning]

Aren't we atlas and we are shrugging by what we are doing in NH?

[Russell Kanning]

This hread title is ridiculous and insulting to Americans.

There are many Americans that are insulted that the government ignores their stories about what they saw and heard on 9/11 like basement explosions.

[Russell Kanning]

I'm still watching closely to see if conspiracy theorists come up with anything concrete.

The concrete was blown up and the evidence carted away. All we have is tapes, photos and people's memories.
Would you like to read a good book?
'The New Pearl Harbor"

[Russell Kanning]

How does a plane hit the pentagon without being shot down by its missle defenses? It is made to defend against a missle attack. How could it not stop a plane?

[Russell Kanning]

Why do people get mad and disgusted by the mere questioning of the official federal government version of 9/11?

[KBCraig]

I don't get mad and disgusted by people questioning the official version and seeking the truth.

I just laugh at the people who always assume that everything is a conspiracy by some secret cabal, and that every official explanation is a cover-up. I do get irritated when they start claiming "proof" when they have nothing but supposition, and they then build layer upon layer on nothing more than shifting sands.

I'm especially distrustful of those claiming to have proof, but who don't offer it into evidence, and with those whose biggest "proof" is denial of their claims.

edited to add:
I'm sorry if that sounds disparaging to Russell, Kat, or anyone else here on the Underground who happens to believe that the WTC was brought down by something other than (or in addition to) airplanes.

My comments have been about those who engage in the professional conspiracy industry, peddling snake oil to the choir, who always promise a little more "inside scoop" in exchange for another book sale. Traveling revival preachers have nothing on the conspiracy industry when it comes to shearing the flock.

Kevin

[JonM]

The people who attacked the WTC in the 90s used car bombs in the basement.

It could be there is something to the idea that explosives were used to bring down the WTC.? That doesn't mean the government did it.

[Michael Fisher]

There are many Americans that are insulted that the government ignores their stories about what they saw and heard on 9/11 like basement explosions.

???

Basement explosions?  Is that why the underground malls were all actually intact weeks after 9/11?  I've seen the video footage of them intact after 9/11.  Someone could have lived down there for weeks with all the food and drinks, it was in such good condition.

And of course building 7 collapsed - MANY buildings collapsed from the damage.  Others further away had pieces of WTC beams stuck in them.  The source of these theories have no credibility and cannot override the mountain of evidence that I've seen with my own eyes.

Is it really that hard to imagine that the government was just too stupid to stop 9/11, JUST like they were too stupid to protect New Orleans.  Yet people claim New Orleans was flooded intentionally as well on these whackjob conspiracy theorist websites.

No offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization.  It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers. 

[Russell Kanning]

In the previous year the military was able to intercept every single possible hijack situation ..... but then failed 3 out of 4 times on 9/11