The videos in this link make a pretty good case for 9/11 being an inside job.
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

Be sure to watch "Painful Deceptions", "Loose Change", "In plane Sight", and "The Great Conspiracy".

Here are three more good ones.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...71955308136871
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81047&q=9%2F11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...04017463126290


A good case is made about the use of thermite to bring down the towers in this article.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

This video shows what looks like molten metal pouring out of the towers.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...aplanet+9%2F11

What looks like molten metal pouring out of the tower is explained in more detail starting at the 48 minute mark of this video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81047&q=9%2F11

There was still molten metal in the wreckage long after 9/11.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/e...lten_metal.jpg


There's a debate here about the use of themite.
http://worcester.indymedia.org/news/...95_comment.php
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-any metal smith can tell you that slag does not drip like shown since most slag is blown away and only a ribbon of slag remains above and below the cut typically with maybe a short drip or 2.. -any metal smith can also tell you that any cut would have been traced completely around the outside of the column, torch cutting does not leave slag on the outside of a cut, only on the backside. YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE SLAG dripping on the outside. This proves it was not torch cut and that it was Thermate, with no air pressure behind it which is why there is slag "running" down the inside and outside. -any metal cutter would also question why the rear cut is not a straight line, or why the cuts are not straight or horizontal all the way around.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've used a cutting torch to cut steel before and my experience squares with what this person says. I've never seen molten steel drip like the way it did in the picture. Also, the drips would have been on the inside.

This was being discussed on the Pentagon thread when it got closed. We never did get to continue with the discussion. Somebody said that the substance pouring out of the tower was probably burning wood embers but I never got to answer because the thread was closed. There's my answer above. The hardened metal under the cut doesn't look like it came from a cutting torch so it was probably thermite.


Also--
On post 1094 of this page of the Pentagon thread 911 pentagon I was asked to answer a list of questions.

In post 1123 of the next page 911 pentagon I answered the questions.

In the last post of the thread 911 pentagon (post 1166) the moderator said I hadn't answered the questions and closed the thread giving that as the reason for his closing it.
Question for the moderator--why did you say I hadn't answered the questions when the answsers to the questions were in post #1123? I want to hear an explanation from the moderator on this.

My question on post #1148 was never answered because the thread was closed. We were discussing the mathematical proof that Laguna2 presented in post #1096. I'd like an answer to my question.

Here it is.
As I've already mentioned before--the photo of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon are obviously not the nose of a 757.
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/730...on01gif8hw.gif
http://www.hongpong.com/lib/images/p...ntrast_adj.jpg

Unless this is a doctored photo, this settles the whole issue. That is the nose of an executive jet or a military plane--not an airliner. As far as I'm concerned the whole case is closed--9/11 was an inside job. I've never seen a good arguement from people who believe the official version.

Why did you start this thread?????

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

What's the problem? Aren't you a truth-seeker?
There were some questions that never got answered on the Pentagon thread. Also, if anyone disputes any evidence presented in any of the videos at the top of the first post, we can discuss it.

If you do not make specific statements about the videos content, why would anyone watch them? Videos may be used as supporting evidence at times, but you really can't just provide a lot of links, and hope that many people will watch them all and spontaneously start a discussion about them.

If you think there is something very specific, and not previously covered in each of these, please point it out, and try to give a time marker for where in the video we should expect it.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

The problem is that this thread will be no different from the previous "pentagon" thread...once again, your "argument" is linking to woowoo sites/videos.

What is it you hope to accomplish when you exhibit the exact same behaviors that resulted in the previous pentagon thread being locked??

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

There's so much good evidence in those videos that it would take too long to mention it all. If somebody asked me to watch a video and challenged me to find flaws in it, I would certainly do it. It wouldn't seem strange to me either. This is the only forum where I see this being an issue. I see the posting of videos on other forums and people watch them and comment on them. Nobody thinks it's strange.

When are you going to answer my question on why the Pentagon thead was closed?

A bogus reason was given for the locking of the other thread. The thread was locked because you people were cornered.


You can show scorn for those sites but you're not going to impress any thinking people like that. If you want to impress people, you have to do a good job of refuting the arguments in the videos and sites. Let's hear your counter arguments on the thermite issue.

David,
Your "side" makes a big deal about how never, ever before in history have skyscrapers been brought down by fire, yet on 9/11 it is "claimed" that three fell due to it (you always forget the impacts...)
However, you claim they were taken down by thermite/thermate. How many demolition jobs have been done using thermite? Can you name any CDs that used it? Would not your claim be equally "implausible" by it's apparent lack of precedent as well?

This is simply a variation on the old "prove me wrong", except in this case it's "prove the videos wrong"....

That's not how science works....

...showing that you have a misunderstanding of just how science works...

I'll not dignify this with a response except to say that as long as you reject reality, you will have difficulties when posting to science related boards.

I'm not interested in impressing anyone. I am interested in rational discussion. I don't see the same coming from you.

The onis is on you to prove yourself right...not on us to prove you wrong.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

There were no impacts on building 7.


The stuff I posted shows that it can be done. There is a video of what looks like the same stuff that comes from burning thermite pouring out of the tower just before the tower fell. I don't see how anybody can just ignore that. You are less than objective.

As I said in the first post of this thread--as far as I'm concerned the evidence I've presented closes the whole case--9/11 was an inside job. I rest my case on it. If you think what I've presented is inconclusive, tell me why.

David C, can't you just say, by your words, what do you think about 9/11, instead linking to multiple videos, as you did over and over again?

Yes, I'm VERY concerned. I'm concerned that, despite you were being shown wrong countless times in many threads, you're still linking to videos which are simply wrong.

Could you please stop moving the burden of proof? It's up to you to show the rest of us what's wrong with the "official story".

__________________
Wplynalem na suchego przestwor oceanu,
Woz nurza sie w zielonosc i jak łodka brodzi...

You know, you can lead a horse to water...

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Since you've closed the case, you won't need to post links to any more videos...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I gave several examples--thermite, the photo of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon. I just said that there's a lot more in the videos and I invited people to find flaws in them so we could talk about them. I can't see anything wrong with that.
I didn't say concerned. I said cornered. If you think something is wrong, say why in detail. Be specific. You can scream that I have been shown wrong. Didn't you guys say that this object on the right of the photo was smoke and that the plane couldn't be picked up by the camera?
http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/730...on01gif8hw.gif
http://www.hongpong.com/lib/images/p...ntrast_adj.jpg
911 pentagon (post #1050)
Is that an expample of how you guys show that I'm wrong? You guys could "Show" that the earth is flat.

You're not going to impress thinking people with empty rhetoric and patronizing attitudes. Tell me why the thermite theory is wrong. Watch a video and find a flaw in it that we can discuss.
As I said before--as far as I'm concerned the info I posted settles the whole issue--9/11 was an inside job. Give me something besides empty rhetoric and patronizing scornful attitudes.

Go back and look at post #12. He did not address any specific issue such as the theory about the thermite. Why doesn't somebody find a flaw in this analysis and point it out so we can talk about something serious?
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf
This empty rhetoric just wastes time.
Also, my intention wasn't to insult--I was just pointing out a fact that people of normal intelligence don't need to have pointed out.

What happened to the post that was there a minute ago? Did you delete it just before I responded to it?

I deleted it because it is useless to discuss this subject with you, and I feel no need to continue...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

If you want to actually impress me, you'll have to refute the arguments I've presented. This is really pretty basic. I've said it before and I'll say it again--they'd laugh you out of the debating hall.

David C do not start your video clip posting marathon again. Just like the movies, anyone can create anything on video. If you do not start using your own words this thread will be closed - sooner rather than later.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Stop with the ad homs. This time your ban will be permanent.

This is your assignment David C: Write up what YOU think happened. No videos, no web sites, just your idea of what really happened. Post it today - before 6:00 PM CST - OR I will close this thread.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Good Luck David ... you are wasting your time here ..

It is the duty of this forum to deny any possibility of any complicity in any facet of the events of 9/11 ... though they will go on and on about "science" and totally disregard plain logic ...

You might as well be talking about UFO's ... which get the same treatment regardless of the evidence ...

See you after the Iran war ... which is all what 9/11 so cleverly is leading us to ....

You people sure know how to avoid the issues you can't deal with.
I've been asking people to refute the theory about the thermite. So far nobody seems able to refute it.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about the bogus reason for which the Pentagon thread was closed. I don't expect an answer though.
I think it's pretty clear that all of you know that 9/11 was an inside job. I doubt many viewers are taking you seriously.
As far as I'm concerned the whole case is closed based on the evidence I posted above. If you don't think so, refute it.
That's all the time I have today. I'll continue in a day or two.

My bold.

Fine if the case is closed for you there is no reason to keep this thread open. I'll be back around 6 for so. If you have failed to post as I have requested, the thread will be closed.

I think you know 911 wasn't an inside job and you just like to yank our collective chains.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Perhaps you'd like to take the time to present an argument favoring a 911 inside job. Of course, we want your own ideas and not a bunch of stuff you've gleaned from the CT sites.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Regardless of the evidence???

So it is your opinion that credible evidence has been presented for the existance of alien visitors?

Present it. (In another thread, of course. )

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Be sure to actually read the NIST report (the full one) at some point, then come back and tell us where the mistakes are.


Seriously, I'll debate with you on the whole "steel does not fail due to fires" kinda crap if you want, but you'll have to actually state a case rather than just post links to a wheen of crappy videos.

__________________
Okay, okay, Mr. Contractor...you can have an extension of time under clause 25 but forget the consequent direct loss and expense under clause 26 - I mean, hell, I thought it was obvious that the foundations went under the walls but there you go.....

...now, I need a clause 13A quote for C4 coated rebar, please.

David C, we spent the entire other thread, in painstaking detail, going over and over each one of these inane claims. EVERY single point you've brought up has been conclusively debunked, in your other thread, and others like it. That you completely ignore that and start your same old link bombing, "they'd laugh you out of the debate hall" rubbish, etc... is sad, as in sad for you. I look forward to the closing of this rubbish pile.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

No impacts on 7? What about the tons of falling steel from WTC1? What about the gaping hole reported by the firefighters? What about the structural damage they reported? The creaking noises? Oh, most certainly 7 was impacted and suffered serious fire.
The "molten" material falling from the tower's corner...if this was thermite initiating the CD collapse, should there not be a LOT more sightings of the stuff, as it had to be planted all around the structure? Why just this one sighting? And again, what other CD has ever used thermate/ite? I'm not ignoring the sighting, I'm just not "assuming" it's thermite/ate. When was the thermate planted? How? Your CD theory has just too many questions that noone has ever answered.

I see nothing in these videos that cannot be explained by clever editing, ignorance of the subject matter, and outright lying.

I'll need to see supporting evidence from other sources--ideally original sources, not second-hand video clip interpretations--and solid answers to the technical and historical questions raised in this thread, before I can accept the story told by these videos over the official story.

I'm sorry, David, but the official story has a lot less holes in it. If you can't see that...

(I mean, the video clips themselves are second-hand interpretations of the evidence. David C's analysis of the clips is, of course, third-hand. It'd be nice to see David's analysis of the evidence itself, rather than his analysis of someone else's video interpretations of the evidence.)

If somebody asked me to watch a video and challenged me to find flaws in it, I would certainly do it.

Cool. how about watching this one.

There were no impacts on building 7.

Now that is laughable.



By the way David, you seem to keep avoiding the question of if you believe that Eric Hufschmid (the creator of Painful Deceptions) is a reliable source, why is that?

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran