There's some good info from both sides of this subject here. I'm still reading through (mainly W.U.B's material, as there's a lot), but wanted to include a small observation. Apologies in advance if this has been covered.

Quite a lot of asbestos was used when building the towers. As we know, despite it's nasty toxicity, it is very heat resistant. That to me makes the jet fuel explanation suspect, as the asbestos would have minimized fire damage. As many of you have pointed out, the perfect trajectory of the falling buildings, and the presence of nano-thermite particles indicates a controlled demolition. Lets be real, jet fuel isn't going to burn through Earthquake grade solid steel I-beams. The poor attempt at claiming that fuel mixing with aluminum created the thermite-like reaction is ridiculous. The planes themselves are made of aircraft grade aluminum, and would be dropping out of the sky constantly.

Another key point was when Larry Silverstein purchased the towers in 2001 after a failed court order on the previous owners to remove the asbestos. The cost to remove the asbestos would have been in the tens of billions, if not more. Realistically the cost of removal was worth more than the towers themselves. Interestingly, Silverstein purchased terrorist insurance in the form of cash payout before he finalized his purchase of the towers. The amount he would receive from the payout would have been substantial. Seems like enough incentive there to me.

To add insult to injury, the first responders to the scene (police, firefighters, and EMTs) were exposed to large amounts of asbestos dust. Many of them have since developed an asbestos related form of lung cancer called Mesothelioma. None of them were informed of the hazardous conditions. Had they been, they could have issued respirators with the proper filtration. Factor in the people who died initially, those from lung cancer, and then those in the middle east who were murdered for that under false pretenses, and we're talking millions dead. I know the idea of sociopaths and psychopaths running the show is a bit scary, but that's what's going on.

Thanks everyone, I'm filling in some gaps on this subject that I was unaware of. The air traffic controller testimony that WUB posted is pretty telling in my opinion. I do agree with Hada that they let it happen, though I do think there were some contingencies in place to assure the towers fell (in the form of thermite bombs). I trust the word of firefighters, they know their incendiary sources.

Mrindigo wrote: Thanks for the post, mrindigo. According to this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_ari...round_Zero_illnesses

70% of first respondents became ill.

The other thing I would point out is that when buildings are rigged for controlled demolition, it often goes wrong and the building topples over, or fails to even collapse. Yet somehow on 9/11 the towers not only collapsed virtually perfectly vertically, the top of the twin towers began to lean one way, and then corrected. You can see here a series of much smaller buildings than the three that came down on 9/11, and the demolition of them goes horribly wrong. There are a few particularly dramatic ones, in which buildings destroy various things. (When I posted this on the DIF it just lead to a long, acrimonious debate, to which I didn't contribute, as I knew that would be exactly what would happen).

The first example was in Hackney, East London. The tower block being detonated here failed to collapse even close to fully. Note the dust clouds rising from the bottom of the building after the failed demolition has ceased.

Controlled Demolition Failure 1 - YouTube

Here is the same collapse from another angle:

Controlled Demolition Failure 2 - YouTube

The next very similar example is from Russia:

Controlled Demolition Failure 3 - YouTube

In this example from Plovdiv, Bulgaria, the tower beings to tilt halfway down, and eventually falls over to the right: (apparently the people speaking in Bulgarian are explaining what went wrong, I couldn't really comment, unfortunately):

Controlled Demolition Failure 4 - YouTube

Not entirely sure where the next example took place, but it's somewhere in the United States. The building again begins to tilt, and roughly half of the structure remains unaffected by the explosive demolition:

Demo Failure USA - YouTube

In the following example from Turkey, a section of the building becomes severed from the collapsing structure, and falls over to one side:

Controlled Demolition Failure 5 - YouTube

The next example is from Beijing, China. The supports of the building are not knocked out correctly, it leans to one side, and eventually topples over in that direction:

Controlled Demolition Failure 6 - YouTube

Here is a relatively small chimney structure being demolished in Springfield, Ohio. I won't comment as to what went wrong here, as it should become quite evident...:

Controlled Demolition Failure 7 - YouTube

In the following example from Egypt, a man is unfortunately killed when a building being demolished topples over in an unanticipated direction:

Controlled Demolition Failure 8 - YouTube

There are numerous further examples within this video:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wwDF58Hw9M#t=0m48s

Now here's another building in New York, in September, 2001. It collapses vertically, which usually requires demolition teams quite considerable effort to achieve and quite frequently goes wrong, despite the fact that there are no visible fires in the building and, of course, it wasn't a controlled demolition:

WTC COLLAPSE 1 - YouTube

Not only that, but, you may have read about this in the news, two other buildings also collapsed in very similar fashion in the same city, on the same day. Again, these weren't planned controlled demolitions, so one can only assume that these two huge massively overengineered skyscrapers, two of the largest buildings in the world, both collapsed vertically due to fire and impact damage, even though if this were to be attempted by a demolitions team for buildings of the magnitude of the WTC twin towers, it would take, conservatively, weeks of preparation. No such preparation required here:

9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation - YouTube
WTC North Tower collapse compilation - YouTube

If only some of those demolition teams could get on to the people that designed the World Trade Center complex! Their buildings destroy themselves! Truly a miracle of engineering! No wonder there was a desire to study them to see what could be learned from the collapses!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Some of the demo examples you presented were strikingly similar to 9/11, WUB. Similar images were precisely what came to mind when I heard the 'official story'. I just can't see how people can ignore the obvious. Yes, I have read and seen a lot of the building 7 material. A member of my extended family was living in NY at the time, so that was the topic of discussion for a bit. It's plain as day that it was demoed.

Haha! No wonder they had the debris under lock and key during the 'investigation'. They have to reverse engineer that immediately, because it was clearly designed by interdimensional beings from the ninth density. No other logical explanation is possible.

I thought this video footage could add to this topic. I know both towers were designed to withstand earthquakes and strong winds up to 140 mph. Here's some buildings from Japan swaying from the 9.0 Earthquake of 2011. I would like to know the age of those buildings and compare them structurally to the twin towers if possible. Call me crazy, but I think a 9.0 quake is a bit more destructive than a commercial airliner. In the video, they're just swaying due to the engineered earthquake damping systems. It's my understanding that the world trade center towers had such systems, though I'm not sure what they were rated for. Still, the kinetic and potential energy of an airliner would be miniscule compared to an Earthquake.

anyone who thinks it was Osma Bin Laden needs to take a step back and think about rationally

9/11 was an inside job. Of course. The pancake theory is ridiculous, those buildings, all 3, fell in free fall speed, which is what demolition does. The planes at the towers were nothing more than a diversion, and there was no plane at Shanksville or the Pentagon. The smoking hole in the ground at Shanksville that was supposedly caused by a completely disintegrated plane, was actually visible on USGS aerial surveys from as far back as 1994. Jet fuel is kerosene, and soes not burn hot enough to weaken steel, though C4 explosive will. Thermite was not a sure way, C4 is. It would have taken weeks to prewire those 3 buildings, so I guess the Mossad agent "terrorists" had access to those buildings for weeks prior to flying those planes into them... The technology for air to ground cell phone calls did not even exist until 2004.... 3 buildings, 2 planes, fire does not weaken steel or concrete, and those buildings were designed to absorb the impact of several fully loaded 707's in case of accident, which was deemed necessary after a b-52 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building in the 40's -- please note the Empire State Building is still there, and did not come crashing down in under 10 seconds into it's own "footprint". There was a fire in 1975 in one of the towers that burned for six hours at very high temperatures and scorched six floors near the bottom of the building and none of the structure was compromised....

On and on and on.... not to mention how a plane has a lockable cockpit door, that is sealed from the inside the minute there is a disturbance on the plane, and no badass with a boxcutter knife is going to take it down. in the '70's, hijackings were commonplace, and it always included bombs or guns, something like that... boxcutters? Bad story, badly written, the criminals were falling over themselves with that one. They didn't care how badly it was done.

ronisron wrote:
Obviously, both of these incidents were sheer flukes and I refuse to listen any more.

*sticks fingers firmly back in ears*

Ab Origine wrote:
That was the reaction of a lot of people.... just a forced state of willful ignorance. "NO..... it was a boogeyman in a cave who commanded 19 muslim maniacs to stick it to the US because they were jealous of our freedom, and they believe 72 virgins are waiting for them when they die....." Bad script writing, too many plot holes, lousy movie. A nicely staged stunt that would've made Houdini proud, but a stunt nonetheless, one that was designed to help the NWO/OWG into high gear.

ronisron wrote:
I said that a lot at the time. Think of the crappest, least thought-out movie script you could possibly come up with, and this is it. It might be funny if people didn't just buy it so readily.

I got so fed up with the amount off disinfo going around regarding 9/11 that I stopped bothering looking into it. I'm not sure what I hoped to gain really from rooting around for proof of it being an 'inside job', as if I were going to be the first person to be able to prove it or something.
I'm convinced that a lot of the 'conspiracy' stuff has been put out there to deliberately become debunked, to make people look stupid for falling for it.
Apart from several issues regarding it never having been resolved to my satisfaction, I'm just going with my gut instinct which tells me it was a massive hoax perpetrated by the military industrial complex purely for profit and strategy. But my days of reading about it and arguing the toss over issues regarding it are well and truly over, thank fuck.

The Space Bandit wrote:
Kind of 'Mission Accomplished' then?

I don't blame you though.