The Strongest Public Domain Evidence of 9-11 Fraud

[larsenbcaptain of 1,000]

Mark, if you're still lurking...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM

I'm baaaaack. I watched the video here Col. and Mr Gage even admits that his group does not have the whole THEORY as to how it happened, who did it, and why. That is why they are calling for a new investigation of the evidence that has been uncovered. So Mr Gage himself is admitting that they do not have all the answers on who to place responsibility for in the downing of the buildings.

That is what I have contended all along yet I continue to get condescending remarks and slurs from the likes of Rob and Love and even you my good buddy about my intelligence because I don't come out and agree this was a false flag conducted inside job operation. Yet not one comment from anyone about anything I posted explaining alternative theories to reports of the molten metal which was one of the items discussed.

I am convinced that it is you guys who are not interested in finding the truth about what really happened on 9-11. You are only interested in re-emphasizing and agreeing on what you already believe to be the on;y answers in this case. There is not any alternative explanations for any of these questions in your eyes. Only those answers with which you already are totally invested in and know to be the truth.

Yet even your own spokesman admits that all the answers are not yet available as to who to assign total culpability. This is too funny. Its a shame you and your buddies don't see the irony here.

Mark, the whole thrust of what Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Dr. Jones and so many others are doing and have done in investigating 9/11, is to force an independent investigation, to not only clarify what brought the WTC buildings, but to find out who did it, why they did it, and how they planned and brought it off. This has always been their goal.


Why would they go to this great and largely unappreciated trouble? They aren't getting rich doing so and they've incurred a great deal of grief. It's simply because the official explanations are soooo inadequate, and even scientifically fraudulent. To get a good handle on this, you really need to read some of the detailed analyses of why this is so. Dr. David Ray Griffin's books, particulary his book on the collapse of WTC 7 fill the bill. This was suggested to you ages ago. Have you done this yet?

The good thing is you don't HAVE to have very good scientific chops to understand the arguments, evidence, testimony, conflicting testimony that Griffin presents, to realize something is drastically wrong with the official hypothesis and subsequent investigations.

Now if the official explanation and investigations are wrong in so many essential ways, you have to wonder why the government sticks to their story. The fact they do so, raises realistic suspicions as to whether certains persons in government had some direct or indirect involvement. It really LOOKS like an inside job, to one degree or another.

Mark, following is an excellent analysis of the foreknowledge of the collapse of Bldg 7, presented by Dr. Graeme MacQeen. He goes into exhaustive detail in analyzing why the apparent collapse of Bldg 7 was based on action-based foreknowledge. I really think you will find this illuminating, especially if you bring an open mind to it and listen to and follow his arguments as close as you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... cF4flr2dYs

This is really excellent. Let me know what you think.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Here is but one of many that has been published. I could post several others I have read.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm


Now isn't it important that we look at these alternative explanations and see if any make sense before making accusations that may or may not be true? That is all I am doing when I bring up alternatives to consider.

Do you get paid for "bringing up alternatives?" In any case, I did read the reference you provided. Their explanation for molten steel in the basements is the kinetic energy of the collapse converting to heat and melting the steel.


There are serious problems with that explanation. The kinetic energy of the building is not enough to pulverize most of the concrete in the towers as well as demolish the steel structure. The steel structure was specifically designed to withstand ALL of the potential energy of the building (later converted to the kinetic energy) with a multiple margin of safety. The fact that all this structure disintegrated at free fall speed, i.e. providing ZERO resistance to the upper floors is the indisputable testament to the use of metal cutting explosives/incendiaries.

The presence of molten steel in the basements, and nano-thermite signature in the dust is an additional support to this already irrefutable conclusion.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Yet not one comment from anyone about anything I posted explaining alternative theories to reports of the molten metal which was one of the items discussed.

I just posted the response to that in my post immediately before this one.

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

Mark, if you're still lurking...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM

I'm baaaaack. I watched the video here Col. and Mr Gage even admits that his group does not have the whole THEORY as to how it happened, who did it, and why. That is why they are calling for a new investigation of the evidence that has been uncovered. So Mr Gage himself is admitting that they do not have all the answers on who to place responsibility for in the downing of the buildings.

That is what I have contended all along yet I continue to get condescending remarks and slurs from the likes of Rob and Love and even you my good buddy about my intelligence because I don't come out and agree this was a false flag conducted inside job operation. Yet not one comment from anyone about anything I posted explaining alternative theories to reports of the molten metal which was one of the items discussed.

I am convinced that it is you guys who are not interested in finding the truth about what really happened on 9-11. You are only interested in re-emphasizing and agreeing on what you already believe to be the on;y answers in this case. There is not any alternative explanations for any of these questions in your eyes. Only those answers with which you already are totally invested in and know to be the truth.

Yet even your own spokesman admits that all the answers are not yet available as to who to assign total culpability. This is too funny. Its a shame you and your buddies don't see the irony here.

Mark, the whole thrust of what Richard Gage, Kevin Ryan, Dr. Jones and so many others are doing and have done in investigating 9/11, is to force an independent investigation, to not only clarify what brought the WTC buildings, but to find out who did it, why they did it, and how they planned and brought it off. This has always been their goal.


Why would they go to this great and largely unappreciated trouble? They aren't getting rich doing so and they've incurred a great deal of grief. It's simply because the official explanations are soooo inadequate, and even scientifically fraudulent. To get a good handle on this, you really need to read some of the detailed analyses of why this is so. Dr. David Ray Griffin's books, particulary his book on the collapse of WTC 7 fill the bill. This was suggested to you ages ago. Have you done this yet?

The good thing is you don't HAVE to have very good scientific chops to understand the arguments, evidence, testimony, conflicting testimony that Griffin presents, to realize something is drastically wrong with the official hypothesis and subsequent investigations.

Now if the official explanation and investigations are wrong in so many essential ways, you have to wonder why the government sticks to their story. The fact they do so, raises realistic suspicions as to whether certains persons in government had some direct or indirect involvement. It really LOOKS like an inside job, to one degree or another.

Mark, following is an excellent analysis of the foreknowledge of the collapse of Bldg 7, presented by Dr. Graeme MacQeen. He goes into exhaustive detail in analyzing why the apparent collapse of Bldg 7 was based on action-based foreknowledge. I really think you will find this illuminating, especially if you bring an open mind to it and listen to and follow his arguments as close as you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... cF4flr2dYs

This is really excellent. Let me know what you think.

I appreciate your civil tone here Love. It is much different than the dozens of condescending jabs from several that I have encountered in discussing 9-11 in the past. I would be happy to watch the video and respond. Thanks for sending it my way.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=McF4flr2dYs

This is really excellent. Let me know what you think.

It is EXCELLENT! Thank you.

[larsenbcaptain of 1,000]

Here is but one of many that has been published. I could post several others I have read.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm


Now isn't it important that we look at these alternative explanations and see if any make sense before making accusations that may or may not be true? That is all I am doing when I bring up alternatives to consider.

Do you get paid for "bringing up alternatives?" In any case, I did read the reference you provided. Their explanation for molten steel in the basements is the kinetic energy of the collapse converting to heat and melting the steel.


There are serious problems with that explanation. The kinetic energy of the building is not enough to pulverize most of the concrete in the towers as well as demolish the steel structure. The steel structure was specifically designed to withstand ALL of the potential energy of the building (later converted to the kinetic energy) with a multiple margin of safety. The fact that all this structure disintegrated at free fall speed, i.e. providing ZERO resistance to the upper floors is the indisputable testament to the use of metal cutting explosives/incendiaries.

The presence of molten steel in the basements, and nano-thermite signature in the dust is an additional support to this already irrefutable conclusion.

RIght. Mark's kinetic energy-into-heat explanation violates the Law of Conservation of Energy; especially impossible when you consider that so much of the concrete was turned into small particles, even dust, before it hit the ground.

A building falling in near-free-fall time, would use up virtually all the potential energy it possessed to do so; not enough left over to also pulverize the concrete, etc.

To get a handle on how much energy it would take to pulverize so much concrete in mid-air (even the alleged soft concrete used in building floors), I suggest Mark take his 12 lb sledge hammer, grab a large block of concrete then start wailing away at it until he's able to produce a pile of dust.

It would also be useful to his argument, if he could site any case whatsoever, where a collapsed building brought down by explosives or any other way , EVER produced molted steel at its base, let alone molten or yellow-hot steel that persisted for 2-3 months.

[larsenbcaptain of 1,000]

I appreciate your civil tone here Love. It is much different than the dozens of condescending jabs from several that I have encountered in discussing 9-11 in the past. I would be happy to watch the video and respond. Thanks for sending it my way.

Mark, it's me, larsenb. Unless you're handing out terms of endearment; then I'll be forced to duck

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

I appreciate your civil tone here Love. It is much different than the dozens of condescending jabs from several that I have encountered in discussing 9-11 in the past. I would be happy to watch the video and respond. Thanks for sending it my way.

Mark, it's me, larsenb. Unless you're handing out terms of endearment; then I'll be forced to duck

My bad Bro. I mistakenly thought Love had sent your thoughtful post. I should have known it wasn't from him because it was so civil.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

My bad Bro. I mistakenly thought Love had sent your thoughtful post. I should have known it wasn't from him because it was so civil.

My apologies, Mark. I simply tired to pint out that you sound like a paid liar.

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

My bad Bro. I mistakenly thought Love had sent your thoughtful post. I should have known it wasn't from him because it was so civil.

My apologies, Mark. I simply tired to pint out that you sound like a paid liar.

I knew you would eventually figure me out Love. I'm making $100,000 per year posted on an obscure LDS forum to a couple dozen people who bother to post at all so as to sabotage the 9-11 truther movement by questioning who was responsible for the operation. Dang! I guess I'm going to have to start posting in my other identity to throw you off for a bit. Get those posting fingers warmed up Mosby. Its time to party.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

My bad Bro. I mistakenly thought Love had sent your thoughtful post. I should have known it wasn't from him because it was so civil.

My apologies, Mark. I simply tired to pint out that you sound like a paid liar.

I knew you would eventually figure me out Love. I'm making $100,000 per year posted on an obscure LDS forum to a couple dozen people who bother to post at all so as to sabotage the 9-11 truther movement by questioning who was responsible for the operation. Dang! I guess I'm going to have to start posting in my other identity to throw you off for a bit. Get those posting fingers warmed up Mosby. Its time to party.

I knew it!

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Mark has to make over $100,000, otherwise, he wouldn't be able to afford all those hula pies he's getting a sugar rush off of. I always knew he was paid to wreak havoc in here - he may even be CIC or CID.

[iamse7encaptain of 1,000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=McF4flr2dYs

I just saw that, and yes, it was excellent. It's quite obvious NIST (i.e. the Government) is lying. Because I'm relatively new to all this (it's been only about 5 months of looking into this), I have a question about the witness of explosions. I don't know exactly how controlled demolitions work, but I believe Barry Jennings reported hearing explosions in the morning, but the building came down later in the afternoon. I also believe there were reports of hearing explosions just before WTC 7 comes down as well, but why the explosions several hours before it comes down? Don't the explosions occur immediately before it comes down? Thanks.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=McF4flr2dYs

I just saw that, and yes, it was excellent. It's quite obvious NIST (i.e. the Government) is lying. Because I'm relatively new to all this (it's been only about 5 months of looking into this), I have a question about the witness of explosions. I don't know exactly how controlled demolitions work, but I believe Barry Jennings reported hearing explosions in the morning, but the building came down later in the afternoon. I also believe there were reports of hearing explosions just before WTC 7 comes down as well, but why the explosions several hours before it comes down? Don't the explosions occur immediately before it comes down? Thanks.

Good question. And I have an answer. Demolitions of WTC1, 2, and 7 were not conventional. They had to keep the noise level down to avoid suspicions of pre-planted explosives. So what did they do?


a) They "pre-softened" the buildings during an extended period of time (several hours in case of WTC7, and about an hour in case of WTC1 and 2), prior to final collapse with a combination of smaller explosions and thermite.

b) They used "soft" explosives like nano-thermite for the final bang, that triggered the immediate collapse.

But again, because you cannot use conventional explosive cutter charges as freely, and are restricted to less noisy, but slower metal cutting incendiaries like thermite, you have to PRE-SOFTEN the building ahead of time to achieve a smooth and complete collapse. This is precisely what was observed on 9-11, it was a master-piece of unconventional semi-"quiet" controlled demolition.

[iamse7encaptain of 1,000]

LoveIsTruth: Okay, that's certainly plausible. It certainly wasn't a conventional demolition when you look at the sheer force. Debris catapulted out, paper pushed out like crazy, and the entire building (minus the steel) is being turned to dust. Just absolutely pulverized.

What is your theory on WTC 7? I mean, this building is the smoking gun for many people - it's this building that has led people to discover and research other evidence of cover up and government complicity. Just when you watch that lecture, the insiders really screwed up here with WTC 7. It's just blatant. Do you think United 93 was headed there, but because it was taken over by citizens, they decided to bring 7 down anyways?

[ChemtrailWatchercaptain of 100]

.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Do you think United 93 was headed there, but because it was taken over by citizens, they decided to bring 7 down anyways?

I don't know, but I heard that the plans for that day were more grandioso than panned out: they wanted one of the planes to hit the Capitol building and suspend operations of the Congress with martial law nation wide, but some of the military who were not in on the know, did their duty and actually shot the plane down so it did not reach the Capitol. It most likely was a drone, just like the two planes which hit the towers, and of course it was a missile that hit the Pentagon (no plane wreckage there).

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=McF4flr2dYs

I just saw that, and yes, it was excellent. It's quite obvious NIST (i.e. the Government) is lying. Because I'm relatively new to all this (it's been only about 5 months of looking into this), I have a question about the witness of explosions. I don't know exactly how controlled demolitions work, but I believe Barry Jennings reported hearing explosions in the morning, but the building came down later in the afternoon. I also believe there were reports of hearing explosions just before WTC 7 comes down as well, but why the explosions several hours before it comes down? Don't the explosions occur immediately before it comes down? Thanks.

Good question. And I have an answer. Demolitions of WTC1, 2, and 7 were not conventional. They had to keep the noise level down to avoid suspicions of pre-planted explosives. So what did they do?


a) They "pre-softened" the buildings during an extended period of time (sevela hours in case of WTC7, and about an hour in case of WTC1 and 2), prior to final collapse with a combination of smaller explosions and thermite.

b) They used "soft" explosives like nano-thermite for the final bang, that triggered the immediate collapse.

But again, because you cannot use conventional explosive cutter charges as freely, and are restricted to less noisy, but slower, metal cutting incendiaries like thermite, you have to PRE-SOFTEN the building ahead of time to achieve a smooth and complete collapse. This is precisely what was observed on 9-11, it was a master-piece of unconventional semi-"quiet" controlled demolition.

LoveIsTruth, EXACTLY.

This video explains it very well.



and this one:

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

Mark has to make over $100,000, otherwise, he wouldn't be able to afford all those hula pies he's getting a sugar rush off of. I always knew he was paid to wreak havoc in here - he may even be CIC or CID.

It aint cheap living in Del Mar mate. Romney even drops by from time to time from his estate in La Jolla in order to strategise our next moves on the LDSFF. I own you chumps.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=McF4flr2dYs

I just saw that, and yes, it was excellent. It's quite obvious NIST (i.e. the Government) is lying. Because I'm relatively new to all this (it's been only about 5 months of looking into this), I have a question about the witness of explosions. I don't know exactly how controlled demolitions work, but I believe Barry Jennings reported hearing explosions in the morning, but the building came down later in the afternoon. I also believe there were reports of hearing explosions just before WTC 7 comes down as well, but why the explosions several hours before it comes down? Don't the explosions occur immediately before it comes down? Thanks.

Good question. And I have an answer. Demolitions of WTC1, 2, and 7 were not conventional. They had to keep the noise level down to avoid suspicions of pre-planted explosives. So what did they do?


a) They "pre-softened" the buildings during an extended period of time (several hours in case of WTC7, and about an hour in case of WTC1 and 2), prior to final collapse with a combination of smaller explosions and thermite.

b) They used "soft" explosives like nano-thermite for the final bang, that triggered the immediate collapse.

But again, because you cannot use conventional explosive cutter charges as freely, and are restricted to less noisy, but slower metal cutting incendiaries like thermite, you have to PRE-SOFTEN the building ahead of time to achieve a smooth and complete collapse. This is precisely what was observed on 9-11, it was a master-piece of unconventional semi-"quiet" controlled demolition.

Yep!

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Mark has to make over $100,000, otherwise, he wouldn't be able to afford all those hula pies he's getting a sugar rush off of. I always knew he was paid to wreak havoc in here - he may even be CIC or CID.

It aint cheap living in Del Mar mate. Romney even drops by from time to time from his estate in La Jolla in order to strategise our next moves on the LDSFF. I own you chumps.

I have very fond childhood memories of Del Mar - I really miss the fair there riding the ferris wheel and being able to overlook the Pacific Ocean.

If you and Mitt are collaberating here in the forum, why doesn't Romney donate any money to Brian to help keep the site going? Cheapskate.

[Squallycaptain of 1,000]

Inside job? Check these out.

WTC Videos
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... index.html

Firehouse Discussion
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence ... ehouse.mpg

Destroyed Flight Evidence
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evid ... royed.html

Destroyed WTC Evidence
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/destroyed.html

Ground Zero Cleanup/WTC Steel Removal
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

Molten Metal
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... steel.html

Aluminothermic Residues
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/residues.html

Freedomfighter, those are all theories - do you have any evidence to back up your theories of evidence? I'm certain there has got to be an alternative scientific explanation for Muslims suspending the laws of physics and for the presence of nano-thermate.

Sarcasm?

I just don't appreciate, having presented many possible facts as to what happened, in favor of the conspiracy theorists, I'm told they are just theories by someone I thought was in favor of not accepting the mere idea that the planes caused a fire, and the fire brought down the building. Just what does this kind of response do to provide my efforts any merit?

I think Col was being sarcastic in his response above.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Freedomfighter, those are all theories - do you have any evidence to back up your theories of evidence? I'm certain there has got to be an alternative scientific explanation for Muslims suspending the laws of physics and for the presence of nano-thermate. Sarcasm?

freedomfighter wrote:

I just don't appreciate, having presented many possible facts as to what happened, in favor of the conspiracy theorists, I'm told they are just theories by someone I thought was in favor of not accepting the mere idea that the planes caused a fire, and the fire brought down the building. Just what does this kind of response do to provide my efforts any merit?
I think Col was being sarcastic in his response above.

I'm not too about it. My shortage of knowledge cannot compete with those with intellect overload. I'm just glad there are those willing to think outside the box. Thanks.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Were there any evidences of explosions?...you decide!

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Were there explosions...you decide!

As if it were disputable.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Were there explosions...you decide!

As if it were disputable.

By some, yes. I think these are quite convincing.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

By some, yes. I think these are quite convincing.

I agree. Actual sounds of explosions and countless first hand witness accounts as well as mainstream media reporting multiple loud explosions before and after the planes hitting the towers is quite convincing!

But seriously, who disputes it? Perhaps people who have never taken the time to look it up?

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

By some, yes. I think these are quite convincing.

I agree. Actual sounds of explosions and countless first hand witness accounts as well as mainstream media reporting multiple loud explosions before and after the planes hitting the towers is quite convincing!

But seriously, who disputes it? Perhaps people who have never taken the time to look it up?

I don't know, having not read every post in this thread nor other threads dealing with this topic, if Obiwan has changed his mind or not. On the first page of this thread he disputes it. But I also posted the videos so any current and future members having doubt about how the buildings came down can analyze these findings and come up with their own conclusion.

I DON"T LIKE THIS POST NUMBER 6 6 6

[alexoyarzuncaptain of 10]

Since most people in this forum know that 9/11 was an inside job, it is interesting to look beyond this, and try to understand the reasons why still many people in the United States don't want to accept this obvious fact. Here is an interesting little essay I wrote titled: "September 11, 2001 - Why people don't see the obvious - An Open Invitation". The main point being this: the more outrageous the act of deception, the easier the deception, since the more outrageous become the implications of the act. Most people have an ingrained belief against the implications of a 9/11 inside job, and therefore, don't see it, or choose not to see it. You can see the entire essay at my website www.thenewcovenantforthenewera.com. Scroll down to the Appendix and it is the first essay, click on it and it will open in PDF format. The truth will set you free! Keep up the good work!

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Mark, some quick questions...

1. Would you expect molten metal to be present under all 3 WTC buildings because of 2 airplanes?
2. Do gravity-induced building collapses possess enough energy to turn said structure's metal and concrete into pulverized dust at free fall speed in almost perfect symmetry DURING collapse? Likewise, would a gravity-induced collapse be able to turn human bones into tiny, unrecognizable pieces? Hint: study the laws of conservation of momentum and kinetic/potential energy for your answer
3. Were nano-particles discovered in the WTC dust?
4. Who manufactures nano-technology?
5. How many warnings did the Bush administration ignore from other nations about the attack?
6. Who was in charge of security for all of the airports whence the planes took off as well as the WTC complex?
7. Who sat on the Board of Directors for that company?
8. Were there 5 Mossad agents seen filming the event and then dancing and celebrating afterwards?
9. Who profited from 9/11?
10. How much was it going to cost to remove the asbestos from WTC's 1 & 2? How much money was made from their destruction, who made the money and what kind of international ties did he have?

Google is your friend - go for it.

Every one of your questions can be explained logically with differing conclusions by various experts in the field Col. I have sent you several answers to these questions over the years but you continue to just ignore anything anyone else says regardless of expertise if it does not line up with your version of things. We are fighting a losing battle here. You only want to entertain what you already "know" to be true. So be it.

Why not post that here for all to see?