9.11 Exposed

[Ali Huzaifa]

(bismillah)

10 years complete of 9.11,I have been watching video of twin tower fallling,and it didnt took me long to find out there is some thing fishy in falling of this towers,here is the video

if we consider that two plan hit this tower then we can easily find out that in no way tower shud fall the way they fall,it is easy to make out some explosive is used to make this tower fall.

here is the video which shows how old buildings are made fall using explosive,just check out the similarity.

US used this excuse to attack IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN,I am affriad next target is IRAN :no:

[Fink]

You didnt expose anything, just quacking the same tin foil rhetoric from people who have no clue what they're talking about. You said the 'US' used this excuse to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, yet on close examination we find that the 'US' was attacking both countries long before the incident happened. It was precisely our involvement in the ME that led to the events of 9/11. Sure it was a pivotal moment that Bush took advantage of to declare his personal crusade, but the idea that it all began on Sept. 11 is incorrect.

From an intelligence perspective, the notion that 9/11 was an inside job is laughable. But let me ask you before I continue, what do you mean by the ''US''? Are you insinuating that congress knew that 9/11 was an inside job? the Judicial branch? Our intelligence agencies?

[5a49]

The first hours people called CNN saying it didnt look like a plane, but looked more like a missle.

Videos are on youtube

[iSilurian]

, yet on close examination we find that the 'US' was attacking both countries long before the incident happened. It was precisely our involvement in the ME that led to the events of 9/11.

Are you insinuating that congress knew that 9/11 was an inside job?

hahaha, it is funny how nowhone seems to take notice of this. That last line was pretty funny as well. haha, congress...

That and i think its interesting how the WTC has been attacked by terrorists before, and yet nobody makes mention of this. When they attacked it two decades ago you would think everyone would have recognized that it was a target by foreign extremists. Now all of a sudden, its unreasonable to believe al queda was behind it? :P

Edited September 12, 2011 by iSilurian

[Ali H Syed]

hahaha, it is funny how nowhone seems to take notice of this. That last line was pretty funny as well. haha, congress...

That and i think its interesting how the WTC has been attacked by terrorists before, and yet nobody makes mention of this. When they attacked it two decades ago you would think everyone would have recognized that it was a target by foreign extremists. Now all of a sudden, its unreasonable to believe al queda was behind it? :P

that happend in the car park right? the first attack, but i fully disagree with you and fink, it was brought down by more than the planes, and what about the pentagon, did a plane hit it lol? thats absurd if the look its ridiculous that they can even sit there and expect the masses to believe that, oh i forgot they have. looks like media really is a powerful tool of control. al queda as we all know are a group of simple humans, who have been tricked into thinking that is what islam is about, im not denying that there is a group, but to where it originated from and who funds it, is another matter

(bismillah)

[Fink]

hahaha, it is funny how nowhone seems to take notice of this. That last line was pretty funny as well. haha, congress...

That and i think its interesting how the WTC has been attacked by terrorists before, and yet nobody makes mention of this. When they attacked it two decades ago you would think everyone would have recognized that it was a target by foreign extremists. Now all of a sudden, its unreasonable to believe al queda was behind it? :P

Yes the disconnect is they do not have a full understanding of how the US govt functions or who makes up our intelligence agencies. The politicians cant get away with a decent affair nowadays and our agencies are filled with people who hated Bush. From regulars to chiefs stationed abroad. They all understood the consequences of us meddling in the ME and regularly teach about blowback. No one, I repeat no one not even the president dares commit themselvs to a such an operation. They will be arrested and tried for treason.

Once one understands this , they will begin to disregard the noise surrounding 9/11. I am asked reguarly on other forums, since 9/11 is a complex operation why I think ''cavemen'' were able to pull it off and not the US govt? The reason is simple, Alqaeda doesnt have to hide it. The ''US'' govt (whatever the ''US'' means here) has to. On another note, having studied HS under the direction of a veteran of the agency, I can tell you that no intelligence agent would even propose such a style of attack.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

[Praetorius]

(salam) bro Ya Aba

I think it's futile to post that video, because people in denial like Mr. Fink and Mr. Isilurian clearly don't want to delve deeper into the matter nor ask questions, even when you have not tens, not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of scientists and architects banding together and risking their career to testify how false the official report on 9/11 was.

But, may Allah bless you all the more for exposing this video to me and others. Wasalam

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

(salam) bro Ya Aba

I think it's futile to post that video, because people in denial like Mr. Fink and Mr. Isilurian clearly don't want to delve deeper into the matter nor ask questions, even when you have not tens, not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of scientists and architects banding together and risking their career to testify how false the official report on 9/11 was.

But, may Allah bless you all the more for exposing this video to me and others. Wasalam

Doesn't matter bro, we win either way. There's advantages to saying it was Saudis that did 9/11, because they're the hub of terror against the Shia and against the decent Sunnis and righteous men and women, yet the US needs Riyadh as much as Riyadh needs the US since they both use Terror to control the Middle East, and to use as an excuse for the 'War on Terror', so blaming Riyadh helps shift public opinion against the Terrorists (Riyadh / Washington / Tel Aviv).

Secondly, although you'd get some hard heads, don't be dissuaded, coz most will really wonder about WC7, the evidence is clear as day, most people aren't moronic enough to believe a common fire (no jet fuel, nothing) brought down WC7. Can you imagine, if office fires could bring down whole buildings? lol, what a joke.

But for the sake of those innocent victims dying due to the so called 'War on Terror', those being slaughtered by drone strikes, those that were killed by the hands of terrorists in iraq and the 9/11 victims, the issue of WC7 must be propagated. The video already has half a million views, and 5,764 likes, 202 dislikes, which might say a lot. The commoners following ae911truth.org are growing and growing by the day.

[Ali H Syed]

500,000 iraqis i believe died? and 2 million orphans are just one of the results of the war

(bismillah)

[Fink]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

When you approach wtc7 as an isolated event and with predetermined bias offcourse you will claim it was a demolition. We have to look at it in context of what we are supposing. Many experts have also written solid material debunking these claims, so it is in a way immature to just post a youtube video without tackling the many issues surrounding a potential inside job. These videos are trivial at best if we do not understand the history behind 9/11, possible alternatives to the narrative, and the problematic human/intelligence factor that I hinted to earlier.

But I'd also like to point out that your claim WTC7 was brought down only by fire is incorrect.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

But I'd also like to point out that your claim WTC7 was brought down only by fire is incorrect.

what else was it?

These videos are trivial at best

uha, according to you. The video speaks for itself, and the people aren't convinced, especially since there's no proper evidence that a fire brought down WC7, everyone knows the history of 9/11. We can go ahead with the assumption that it was jet fuel that destroyed 1&2, but WC7 is a totally different matter.

In fact, assuming that an office fire did bring down WC7, the way the authorities are stagnating on providing the proper evidence that fire was enough to bring down WC7, doesn't help the mass-shift in public opinion. The numbers are growing by the day, and will continue to grow, unless the public are convinced.

[Ali H Syed]

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html-

thas sums allot of things up about the official story

(bismillah)

[Fink]

what else was it?

In addition to the fires, the structure was breached by a large number of falling plates (each plate weighing an easy 7-10k pounds) from WTC1.

Here is an excellent video showing the extent of the damage before collapse. Also its important to note that WTC7 was close to 50 stories high:

Edited September 12, 2011 by Fink

[Ali H Syed]

well to me, whatever they say, looks like wtc 7 was like a controlled demolition.

(bismillah)

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

Here is an excellent video showing the extent of the damage before collapse.

lol, that video did nothing but to further put into question the claim that an office fire brought down WC7.

[Fink]

what else was it?

uha, according to you. The video speaks for itself, and the people aren't convinced, especially since there's no proper evidence that a fire brought down WC7, everyone knows the history of 9/11. We can go ahead with the assumption that it was jet fuel that destroyed 1&2, but WC7 is a totally different matter.

In fact, assuming that an office fire did bring down WC7, the way the authorities are stagnating on providing the proper evidence that fire was enough to bring down WC7, doesn't help the mass-shift in public opinion. The numbers are growing by the day, and will continue to grow, unless the public are convinced.

You're reading too much into WTC7. Complex men like simple answers, If an intelligence agency carried out 9/11 they would Uhaul their evidence out not take a couple of months putting charges and opening themselves to allegations. The first rule of any modus operandi is economy of effort. Sure I look at it differently than you do, and I believe this to be a mere distarction because it fails to address the bigger issues concerning 9/11.

[Fink]

But you if you keep insisting that WTC7 was a demolition, you should research three things:

1) What are the differences between WTC 5/6 and WTC7

2) Why WTC5 and WTC6 did NOT fall , even though they were closer to WTC 1/2

3) The conditions of WTC5 and WTC6 after 9/11

After finding out the answers, tell us what you found.

[iSilurian]

that happend in the car park right? the first attack, but i fully disagree with you and fink, it was brought down by more than the planes, and what about the pentagon, did a plane hit it lol? thats absurd if the look its ridiculous that they can even sit there and expect the masses to believe that, oh i forgot they have. looks like media really is a powerful tool of control. al queda as we all know are a group of simple humans, who have been tricked into thinking that is what islam is about, im not denying that there is a group, but to where it originated from and who funds it, is another matter

(bismillah)

Yes a plane hit the pentagon too. I mean really, think about it. If an AA plane didnt hit the pentagon, dont you think their organization would say something? Or do you believe that their company was part of the conspiracy too? How about the airports themselves? Were they part of the conspiracy too?

Maybe this shadow government paid off twenty thousand people and locked the others in guantanamo bay? :P i mean really, lets use our brain here.

[Psychopath]

I don't think anybody is in 'denial' per se. There is a striking lack of evidence on the part of the conspiracy theorists, but you also cannot put anything past the US government (or indeed, any other government). The only way any of it could be proved would be if some extraordinary piece of evidence came through in the future (by WikiLeaks or a similar organisation). I can't see that happening right now, in all honesty.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Psychopath

[Praetorius]

I don't think anybody is in 'denial' per se. There is a striking lack of evidence on the part of the conspiracy theorists, but you also cannot put anything past the US government (or indeed, any other government). The only way any of it could be proved would be if some extraordinary piece of evidence came through in the future (by WikiLeaks or a similar organisation). I can't see that happening right now, in all honesty.

Doesn't the fact that the government withholds, to this very day, all the info contained in the black boxes of the planes that crashed point toward a hidden agenda? What is there to hide from the public when they so strongly claim it was terrorists from Riyadh?

How about the hundred phonecalls to the victims families supposedly from the victims themselves, which had crystal clear reception despite coming from an airplane? Last I checked, the phone technology used in airlines during early 2000 didn't permit such a high quality phonecall at significant altitudes...

Edited September 12, 2011 by Legio Invicta

[Basra]

I don't think anybody is in 'denial' per se. There is a striking lack of evidence on the part of the conspiracy theorists, but you also cannot put anything past the US government (or indeed, any other government). The only way any of it could be proved would be if some extraordinary piece of evidence came through in the future (by WikiLeaks or a similar organisation). I can't see that happening right now, in all honesty.

The official story (the government story) is full of holes and problems anyone (even if they believe this weak official story should be able to admit that) now whether that means the US government/New World Order thugs that run Amerikkka did a straight up false flag attack, used unwitting patsies as agent provocateurs, or at the very minimum had clear foreknowledge of the events of that day and let them go forward anyway (to use later) is another debate that people can have. But again the official story is full of so many shocking absurdities (so much so that even 6 of the 10 members of the government's own 9/11 investigation panel have after the fact come back and said their own report is faulty and the government is at the minimum hiding stuff! Again this is the US government's own panel!) One of the most ridiculous claims (that I don't really care how a believer in the official fairytale tries to absurdly "explain it") is the notion that paper passports can allegedly survive the crash of an airplane, a fireball, and then magically float down to the street where they are allegedly found AFTER the collapse of both towers (in allegedly perfect condition with no burns or damages at all, like they were a fresh new passport just issued!) note this was the original claim of mainstream US media, they later switched their story and claimed a passerby found the unburned paper passports (aka our alleged magic passports) after the planes crashed but before the towers collapsed: http://www.informati...rticle25821.htm

So we have magic alleged indestructible, flame retardant (and apparently crash and explosion proof) paper passports, but the government allegedly never found the planes' black boxes! You believers in the US government's official fable really shouldn't even bother trying to explain this ridiculous situation (for your mainstream media/US government fable) as you just make yourselves sound more ridiculous. Any person can see paper passport vs. indestructible black boxes that survive and are made to survive everything (like all sorts of fiery plane crashes, crashes into the middle of the ocean where they are found afterwards, etc).

Edited September 12, 2011 by Basra

[Fink]

The official story (the government story) is full of holes and problems anyone (even if they believe this weak official story should be able to admit that) now whether that means the US government/New World Order thugs that run Amerikkka did a straight up false flag attack, used unwitting patsies as agent provocateurs, or at the very minimum had clear foreknowledge of the events of that day and let them go forward anyway (to use later) is another debate that people can have. But again the official story is full of so many shocking absurdities (so much so that even 6 of the 10 members of the government's own 9/11 investigation panel have after the fact come back and said their own report is faulty and the government is at the minimum hiding stuff! Again this is the US government's own panel!) One of the most ridiculous claims (that I don't really care how a believer in the official fairytale tries to absurdly "explain it") is the notion that paper passports can allegedly survive the crash of an airplane, a fireball, and then magically float down to the street where they are allegedly found AFTER the collapse of both towers (in allegedly perfect condition with no burns or damages at all, like they were a fresh new passport just issued!) note this was the original claim of mainstream US media, they later switched their story and claimed a passerby found the unburned paper passports (aka our alleged magic passports) after the planes crashed but before the towers collapsed: http://www.informati...rticle25821.htm

So we have magic alleged indestructible, flame retardant (and apparently crash and explosion proof) paper passports, but the government allegedly never found the planes' black boxes! You believers in the US government's official fable really shouldn't even bother trying to explain this ridiculous situation (for your mainstream media/US government fable) as you just make yourselves sound more ridiculous. Any person can see paper passport vs. indestructible black boxes that survive and are made to survive everything (like all sorts of fiery plane crashes, crashes into the middle of the ocean where they are found afterwards, etc).

The passport adds nothing to the story, and this talk is rarely heard outside of conspiracy circles.

[iSilurian]

does anyone else just break out laughing at the idea that the US govt would shoot a missile at its own defense building? hahahaha ok ok. sorry, it had to be added to the discussion.

and just to keep that last post bumped up, because im interested in a response.

Yes a plane hit the pentagon too. I mean really, think about it. If an AA plane didnt hit the pentagon, dont you think their organization would say something? Or do you believe that their company was part of the conspiracy too? How about the airports themselves? Were they part of the conspiracy too?

You have the people, the airliners, the employees at both airports (2 not including the other planes), the owners of the planes, on top of that we have president bush shooting missiles at his own building, and controlled demolitions. I mean, if this is all truly a conspiracy theory, about 100 thousand people are probably involved and they all must have been too bone headed to think of an easier plan. This is a country in which the government can pass laws to economically tear those buildings down in a week, let alone would it waste time shooting missiles and paying off thousands of people.

Maybe this shadow government paid off twenty thousand people and locked the others in guantanamo bay? :P i mean really, lets use our brain here.

Edited September 12, 2011 by iSilurian

[Fink]

does anyone else just break out laughing at the idea that the US govt would shoot a missile at its own defense building? hahahaha ok ok. sorry, it had to be added to the discussion.

Lol

[Psychopath]

does anyone else just break out laughing at the idea that the US govt would shoot a missile at its own defense building? hahahaha ok ok. sorry, it had to be added to the discussion.

Maybe you aren't a history student. Look up 'Operation Northwoods'. Food for thought, that's all I'll say.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Psychopath

[Fink]

Maybe you aren't a history student. Look up 'Operation Northwoods'. Food for thought.

Thats a bunch of baloney, you obviously dont know what operation Northwoods was.

[Psychopath]

Thats a bunch of baloney, you obviously dont know what operation Northwoods was.

:rolleyes:

I didn't make any great claim. Open your mind a little.

[iSilurian]

Maybe you aren't a history student. Look up 'Operation Northwoods'. Food for thought, that's all I'll say.

well, lets compare the two.

Extreme unpopularity in the 60s, during the cold war after a time of numerous military failures, verses 2011 which already had widespread dislike for Saddams regime, the taliban and al queda. The US government invaded Iraq over non 9/11 related reasons as well, incase you didnt know. Perhaps you think it was urgent to invade afghanistan? In which nobody is really getting any resources nor really any benefit at all? The US govt already had the support it needed to take down al queda and the taliban, there is no need to involve tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in a conspiracy, followed by shooting missiles at its own prominant buildings.

Also, the northwoods plan didnt involve the coverup of multiple planes, airports, plane companies and tens of thousands of people. It didnt involve bombing of important structures like the pentagon and/or multiple skyscr@pers right in front and center of the US public. It didnt even involve the harming of civilians. There is a huge difference between sinking an empty ship and shooting a missile at the pentagon and blowing up a bunch of civilian buildings.

and on top of all this, the plan was rejected and the man who proposed it was fired.

These two concepts are vastly different, so different that it boggles the mind as to how someone could actually consider it an argument.

So now that we have settled that, it is even more laughable to believe the US would shoot a missile at a building like the pentagon and at numerous skyscr@pers

Edited September 13, 2011 by iSilurian

[Psychopath]

well, lets compare the two.

Extreme unpopularity in the 60s, during the cold war after a time of numerous military failures, verses 2011 which already had widespread dislike for Saddams regime, the taliban and al queda. The US government invaded Iraq over non 9/11 related reasons as well, incase you didnt know. Perhaps you think it was urgent to invade afghanistan? In which nobody is really getting any resources nor really any benefit at all? The US govt already had the support it needed to take down al queda and the taliban, there is no need to involve tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in a conspiracy, followed by shooting missiles at its own prominant buildings.

Also, the northwoods plan didnt involve the coverup of multiple planes, airports, plane companies and tens of thousands of people. It didnt involve bombing of important structures like the pentagon and/or multiple skyscr@pers right in front and center of the US public. It didnt even involve the harming of civilians. There is a huge difference between sinking an empty ship and shooting a missile at the pentagon and blowing up a bunch of civilian buildings.

and on top of all this, the plan was rejected and the man who proposed it was fired.

These two concepts are vastly different, so different that it boggles the mind as to how someone could actually consider it an argument.

So now that we have settled that, it is even more laughable to believe the US would shoot a missile at a building like the pentagon and at numerous skyscr@pers

I don't believe you or I could ever fully know the reasons behind Afghanistan. I also never claimed the two were analogous. I also, in no way claim that Operation Northwoods serves as any evidence to support the conspiracy theories. You appear to have drawn quite a few false conclusions from what I have said.

I think it is worth contemplating about how much care (or a lack thereof) exists about the civilians within all the faculties of a global superpower government (a government which is, I add, far too big to be compromised by the physical collapse of its own defence buildings). It is also worth contemplating how governments are willing to deceive the entire nation into submitting to their agenda.

Finally (well, finally for this dead-end discussion), I think the possibility that such a traumatic event may invoke a whole variety of emotions and serve,in some sort of role, as an agent to sway pockets of the public opinion in favour of Iraq. I'm sure that you will not deny that the events of 9/11 induced quite a lot of anti-Islam fever through the United States. I also think that you may be aware that many members of the nation are so unaware about political events and uneducated about many a culture or religion alien to their own that they quite easily fall prey to submitting to any agenda fed to them by the government. I think it is worth entertaining that you cannot put much past governments and the more powerful they are, the more they can do.

I will reiterate to you that I do not (and neither should anyone else) consider this to be evidence. No. It is simply that I think that it isn't right to shun off any possibility that some of what the conspiracy theorists say may have some merit. That nobody should dismiss the possibility, no matter how faint, that they could be thoroughly misinformed by organisations, institutions and authorities much bigger than them - or indeed by anything else - is a conviction that I hold quite dearly. Once a person shuts that door, it can be very difficult to open it once again because we often get set in our ways with time, along with beliefs, ideas and notions, which may or may not be the product of misapprehension or deceit.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Psychopath

[iSilurian]

I don't believe you or I could ever fully know the reasons behind Afghanistan. I also never claimed the two were analogous. I also, in no way claim that Operation Northwoods serves as any evidence to support the conspiracy theories. You appear to have drawn quite a few false conclusions from what I have said.

Ah ok, fair enough, though it was implied, i will disassociate you from the others, no worries. The rest of your statement is fair as well.

[Psychopath]

Ah ok, fair enough, though it was implied, i will disassociate you from the others, no worries. The rest of your statement is fair as well.

I'm actually on your side, here. My opposition was only to a particular statement of yours. Lack of evidence (or at least, convincing reasoning) = lack of belief.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Psychopath

[Ali Huzaifa]

2000+ military, intelligence, industry professionals say the official account of 9/11 is false!

"All the proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated." -- David Ray Griffin, Professor Emeritus, author of 11 books on 9/11 - including the just published 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State Crimes Against Democracy Succeed."

MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE PERSONAL.

"Scholars and professionals . . . have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official 'investigations' have really been cover-up operations." -- Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, Former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development

"It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics." -- Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense

"Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away." -- Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) fighter pilot with 300+ combat missions

"I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate." -- Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Dep Asst Sec Defense in Reagan Admin

"No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn't make the turns with a 757. You couldn't fly it in over the highway. You couldn't fly it over the light poles. You couldn't even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence." -- Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret)

"What we saw happen on that morning of September 11, 2001, was the result of a highly-compartmentalized covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country." -- Alan N. Sabrosky, Former Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College

PILOTS AND AVIATION PROFFESSIONALS.

"The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon." -- Rob Balsamo, Commercial airline pilot (4000+ hours), Co-founder Pilots for 9/11 Truth

" . . . it would have been highly improbable that even a seasoned American test pilot, a military test pilot, could have flown a T-category, aircraft like the 757, into the first floor of the Pentagon because of a thing called Ground Effect." -- Capt. Fred Fox, Retired commercial airline pilot (33 years with AA)

"I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School, and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did." -- Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret), commercial airline captain (27 years), 23,000+ total hours flown

"No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 ever crashed at Shanksville. . . . And no Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center." -- John Lear, Retired commercial airline pilot (19,000+ hours)

"The Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757. A Boeing 757 did not crash in Shanksville Pa." -- Gordon Price, Former Fighter Pilot Royal Canadian Air Force, Retired Air Canada captain

". . . sometime in the near future, it will become common knowledge that the events of 9/11 were an 'inside job' designed, engineered and committed by a very large and 'in control' rogue element within our United States federal government". -- Glen Stanish, Commercial airline pilot (15,000+ hours)

". . . an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon." -- Capt. Russ Wittenberg, Retired commercial pilot (30,000+ hours)

ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS.

"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished." -- Hugo Bachmann, Professor Emeritus, Former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

"I have 'known' from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them." -- Daniel B. Barnum, Fellow American Institute of Architects

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. . . . I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door." -- Frank A. DeMartini, Architect and WTC Construction Manager

" . . . all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives." -- Richard Gage, Founding member Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

"Symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly". -- David A. Johnson, B.Arch, Professor Emeritus, F.AICP

"I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not." -- Danny Jowenko, Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V. (European demolition and construction company)

"Obviously it [WTC 7] was the result of controlled demolition and scheduled to take place during the confusion surrounding the day's events." -- Jack Keller, Professor Emeritus, Fellow American Society of Civil Engineers

"The 9/11 Commission Report is fatally flawed. The major conclusions of The 9/11 Commission Report, the official, conspiracy theory, are false." -- Enver Masud, Former Acting Chief Strategic & Emergency Planning, U.S. Dept of Energy, Consultant USAID and World Bank, author "9/11 Unveiled"

UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS.

"9/11, a carefully crafted ersatz-religious event, crafted by atheist neocons to dupe folks of good faith, has been exposed as a lie." -- Dr. Kevin Barrett, Co-founder Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, Host of The Kevin Barrett Show and Truth Jihad Radio

"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States" -- A. K. Dewdney, Professor Emeritus, Member Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven

"Despite the absence of any visible fire at the time of collapse, the government report alleges WTC Building 7 is the first and only steel-framed high-rise building in the history of mankind to collapse simply as the result of a fire." -- David L. Griscom, PhD,Research physicist, Member Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

"Muslims could not have had access to the . . . super controlled demolition blasting agent found in . . . dust samples from Ground Zero or to the buildings themselves to implant that material beforehand." -- James Hufferd, PhD, Founder 911 Truth of Central Iowa, Grassroots Coordinator of 911Truth.org

"I provide thirteen reasons for rejecting the official hypothesis, according to which fire and impact damage caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, in favor of the controlled-demolition hypothesis." -- Steven Jones, PhD, Former Professor of Physics, Principal Investigator U.S. DOE, Adv Energy Projects

"Truth, Ethics and Professionalism are completely lacking in the official aftermath and investigations surrounding the 911 disasters. Unfortunately we went to war predicated on lies, sustained in lies, and perpetuated in lies." -- Hamid Mumin, Ph.D., Prof. Engineer, past President of the Canadian Council of Professional Geoscientists

" . . . this is the first time that families have been attempted to be silenced through a special fund, . . . the airlines approached members of Congress and the Senate to get their bailout and their immunity . . . starting on 9/11." -- Mary Schiavo, JD, Former Professor of Aviation

"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished". -- Jorg Schneider, Dr hc, Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

[Philip]

So what happened to the AIRPLANE that hit the pentagon? It evaporated? :) very interesting that there isn't even a screw remaining of it on the lawn in front of the "impact" zone .. Now that is almost laughable subhan Allah .. Anybody ever hear of a plane disappearing completely upon impact?!

Peace

[Ali H Syed]

So now that we have settled that, it is even more laughable to believe the US would shoot a missile at a building like the pentagon and at numerous skyscr@pers

well it definitely wasnt flight 77:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm