What's the best evidence 911 was an inside job?

I've always been extremely interested in the 'fake osama video'. Osama's probably dead before its release as far as I know. It seems obvious that this character is not Osama as well based on the fact that he looks fatter, flatter nose etc. as pointed out in Loose Change and other films. Who has the done the best study on this does any one know and how easy is it to say 100% that this is not Osama considering picture quality or other factors? The government put this out as proof against Osama and never seemed to even publically consider that is was not him I would love to see the analysis they did but obviouly never will. If it could be shown in a clear scientific way that this is definately not him and that it would have been easy for the government to realize this it would show undeniable involvement.
I also want to know what the heck hit the Pentagon! How and why is there not one gosh darn video clearly showing a plane hitting. I know how some think the government will release a good video later to try to make us look dumb for questioning it, but i want to know and sooner rather later and i want to see it! I simply cannot and will not believe that something could approach the pentagon and not get caught on any film. Does anyone here think they know what happened at the Pentagon cause they sure got me confused on this one..

Show "Best Evidences For An Inside Job..." by CB_Brooklyn

Many say: WTC 7

Many say:

WTC 7 collapsing
No plane at Pentagon
Mohammed Atta links to Florida Republican Party, also Pakistani ISI

Best Evidence you ask ?

The best evidence that 9-11 was an "inside job" is the physical evidence that was clearly observable to all. You compare that evidence with "the official story" of the 9-11 Commission Report and you have a giant lie and a cover-up. And from that giant lie and cover-up we can logically infer that 9-11 was an "inside job."

"Inside job" is just the needed sound byte phrase for the signs and T shirts 9-11 activists must employ when out on the streets trying to get the message across in a way the man on the street can grasp. We do not know the names of the people at the top who perpetrated this terrorist attack, and it may well have involved people from several different nations, so "inside job" cannot be specifically defined as clearly an operation of U.S. factions and people. However, we can say that 9-11 never could have been pulled off without the proactive help of insiders in the U.S. government.

We the activists must keep our focus on the physical evidence showing the official story is false, and we must concentrate our efforts to get a legitimate formal investigation of 9-11 going, and going very soon. Read and memorize "Why Doubt 9-11" from www.ST911.org (very top left of home page) for the 15 points of physical evidence that disprove the official story.

I personally wish that there were one formal petition where we all could concentrate our signatures to ask Congress for this investigation. I would like that petition to be managed diligently and submitted intermittently to the appropriate person or persons in Congress every time a new milestone in number of signatures is reached, rather than submitting the petition only one time. Then the managers of that one petition need to keep us all informed as to how many signatures so far.
And lastly, all of we activists need to stage our public demonstrations and appearances of every kind around that petition. We need to have larger and larger numbers of people in the streets promoting we the people's call for a true investigation, so many people with such a large presence and loud voice that we make it impossible for the flimflam artisists masquerading as congress members to ignore us. We need to hold their feet to the fire in an intelligent way, not a scattered and disorganized way.

Concentrate always on the physical evidence showing the official story is a lie and a cover-up. Keep on exposing all the cover-up moves by the president and his administration. Shine the spotlight on every lie and move to keep the cover-up and lie alive. That is where our power lies. There are a growing number of people who have been killed, put out of operation in some unhealthy way, or who have lost their jobs because they will not participate any longer in the cover-up.

We do not know what happened on 9-11 and who the main culprits are. I do not know if we will ever know that. But we know enough to warrant a real investigation, and we probably know enough right now to indict and prosecute for serious crimes a large number of people in our government.


Blessings from Dachsie in Austin.

Show "Good advice" by NIngen (not verified)

Planes? What Planes?

They just pulverized two giant buildings in broad daylight and convinced a conditioned population to buy a fairytale about boxcutters and airplanes.

Potential adversaries got the message loud and clear: "This is what we can do- don't fuck with us"

Come on people- it's not that complicated.

Open your eyes and think.

Show "Just to clarify . . ." by NIngen (not verified)

Please tell me you've seen

Please tell me you've seen the video of the second plane hitting the second tower and a large object (landing gear) arcing out the other side.

I've seen videos like that, of course

I am not talking about the South Tower. I haven't finished looking at what NIST said about the landing gear that supposedly passed through the South Tower, of which incidentally even NIST has no photo.

The physics are different there because the modelled Flight 175 was moving faster and the trajectory of the landing gear would not be through the massive core, but through "just" two external walls and office space, along perhaps with some interaction with the floors. I question NIST's assumption of a horizontal trajectory through the building for the landing gear, given that they have the starboard engine moving downward after impact.

I'm skeptical, but am not prepared to say it could not have happened. NIST's own models place serious doubt on the engine passing through the South Tower and exiting at 120 mph to end up were it did -- none of their scenarios could get the engine out of the building at all, though they said that changing some variables could get it out of the building. NIST NCSTAR 1-2, p. 284

As for the videos that purportedly show "Flight 175" plane parts shooting out of the South Tower, they could be faked like the video of Flight 175 melting into the South Tower, or they could be authentic but depict something other than the landing gear or engine. Maybe something was shot out to mimic plane parts flying out.

I don't know, and don't really care, because I already know that "landing gear" from Flight 11 was planted several blocks south of the North Tower. That is an incontrovertible fact.

NIST agrees, obliquely, saying:

"Based on where it landed, it is considered likely that the wheel that landed on the corner of Rector and West Streets also passed through the core, although this conclusion is not as well supported as for the other wheel [found closer to WTC1 embedded in a panel section of external columns]. " NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, p. 78. It's not supported because their own models show it is impossible, and the location and direction of impact of "Flight 11" means that the landing gear would have to go through the core to get where it "landed" and came to rest. Since that is impossible, the only explanation is that the wheel was placed there.

Who would have an incentive to do such a thing other than someone trying to create the impression that a plane hit the North tower? I can't think of that, and am not interested in thinking it is a brilliant disinfo "honeypot" to discredit the "movement."

I am the movement, and so are each of you. Think for yourselves.

Could the person that neg-rated please explain?

This is solid analysis, based on the NIST report.

Is it the last comment I make? Is thinking for one's self bad?

Just a little disingenuous?

You know it was not your comment about independent thinking.

I don't know if sincere no-plane advocates will ever see their opinions welcomed at 911blogger. You can thank the completely disingenuous disinfo spammers who beat you here. You're quite a bit more thoughtful, but the whole subject has been contaminated.

I didn't downrate either of these posts, incidentally.

Yes, but just a little

My question stands as to why my sincere, well-explained comment is negatively rated. I suppose I am suggesting that the reason is that civil and rational inquiry is discouraged here on some issues.

I refuse to believe that this forum is not open to consideration of facts. What I describe above is a fact -- there is no way that wheel passed through the North Tower and flew to Recter and West. Prior "disinfo spammers" are irrelevant. Arguments need to be considered on their merits.

I can think of someone who you may be speaking of. I don't know his intent. He's been called a "they." Maybe they are. I don't care. I happen to agree with a good portion of what he/they is/are saying, and wish he would tone it down. He may trying to discredit these valid ideas, "contaminate the whole subject," as you say. Or he, or they, for that matter, may think this is the best way to communicate these ideas under these circumstances. It's not how I would do things, but maybe I'm wrong. His intent is not important. The ideas stand on their own and MUST be considered on their merits. Otherwise this "truth" movement needs a new name.

The conclusions I draw are reasonable: the only other reasonable explanation for that wheel being where it was is that it was planted there, and a reasonable inference from that is that it was planted to hide the fact that a Boeing 767 did not hit the North Tower. There are other possible explanations---Jim Hoffmann would call this a "honeypot," I imagine---but I'm going to pull out Occam's Razor and say the simplest explanation is best, particularly since there is other evidence showing that Flight 11 did not hit the North Tower.

In any case, the planting of demonstrably false evidence is in itself a significant fact.

I didn't think it was you, incidentally, and like how you deport yourself here. If you had rated me negatively for being disingenuous or sarcastic, I would have accepted that. Thank you for responding, and best regards.

Let me rephrase this: "I

Let me rephrase this: "I happen to agree with a good portion of what he/they is/are saying, "

I agree on the physics of the "planes." The means by which the buildings were annihilated is still speculative, but all possibilities should be discussed. Agit-prop on this issue is definitely premature and inappropriate, in my opinion -- more persuasion is needed.

WTC-7 for best evidence. Close 2nd is 16 ft initial impact hole

at Pentagon (a Boeing 757 can NOT disappear into a 16' hole!) No giant engines, seats, luggage, nor passengers @ the Pentagon, & no HONEST video of what struck the Pentagon! No to mention Hanjour & his fellow fall-guys could NOT have flown hundreds of miles, nor perform acrobatics to hit the small, renovated wedge of the Pentagon!

I agree with those who point

I agree with those who point to WTC-7 as the best evidence. But don't fall for the no-Boeing-at-the-Pentagon trap. What hit the Pentagon was AAL77. The seemingly small hole and other mysteries are quite ably explained by Jim Hoffman here:


There probably are videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon, but they have not been released to us. The reason is obvious. The government has a motive in keeping us in the dark so we continue to purse the No-Boeing nonsense.

Oh, it's not a "seemingly small hole" at the Pentagon! It WAS

a hole too small for a Boeing 757 to fit through!

Kavorkian, why do you claim that AA77 slammed the Pentagon?

Key physical evidence demonstrates that AA77 did NOT hit the Pentagon.

don't worry Anon...

he's just trying to assist with the suicide of the truth movement.

it's so obvious that AA77 did not the Pentagon that, as with building 7, people are tasked with going around saying those are the "weak arguments".

Then they'll suggest you push instead things like the $100,000 in booze, coke, and stripper money to Mohammed Atta by someone who the FBI claims is a pseudonym for some Pakistani.

What that has to do with the demolition of the world trade center is never really made clear, though.

Alls you gotta do to show people that AA77 was nowhere near the pentagon is do an online image search for "Tom Horan Pentagon" and you'll have a hi-res photo of the facade and lawn before the whole section mysteriously collapsed and guys in suits brought out pieces of silver colored metal to drop on the lawn...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


How come no military jets intercepted nor even

videoed or photographed AA-77 as it flew all over the Eastern USA for 2 hours? And AA-77 was allowed free reign to fly all about the country 45 minutes after "hijacked airliners" slammed into the WTC??? That is called a military stand-down!!!

To be exact...

...the Pentagon was hit 34 minutes after the second tower was hit....(still a long time with Andrews 12 miles away).

....and considering Cheney

....and considering Cheney was tracking the plane as it approached the Pentagon from the PEOC. It's obvious the military knew what was up with Flight 77.

If there's no plane, there's no standdown

Radar couldn't track and pilots could not intercept what was not there.

I'm just saying, the "stand-down" argument assumes a plane for which there is no evidence that it was near DC.

The same goes for New York, I think, but please consider that argument separately.

Please explain your negative rating

As I said, New York is a separate argument. Did you negative-rate me for that, or for the argument that the "stand-down" argument assumes a plane for which there is no evidence was near DC? I thought it was "OK" to talk about no plane at the Pentagon, and I would hate to see the baby thrown out with the "bathwater."

War games.

Drills being run at the same time of the attacks. That's not a coincidence.

Best evidence is reliable

Best evidence is reliable testimony by people with first hand accounts that contradict the official story....

1) Norman Minetta exposes that "flight 77" was tracked into the pentagon from at least 50 miles out.
2) Norman Minetta exposes that Commission lied about Cheney's were abouts between 9:00 and 10:00 on 9/11.
3) Richard Clark (in his book) exposes that the Commission lied about Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, and Gen Meyers wereabouts between 9:00 and 10:00 on 9/11.
4) Laura Brown, FAA Head, expoese that the SS and Military new about ALL hijacked planes from the live teleconference started shortly after the first plane hit the WTC.
5) Bush admits that emergency procedures were put into place after FIRST WTC strike, contradicting the idea that noone knew the event was not just an accident.

All of these points, and more, are true and verifiable and completely prove that the 911 Report is bogus and a new investigation in needed. The fact is that there is still the slightest possibility that F77 hit the pentagon, F93 did crash, and that WTC 1, 2 and 7 failed structurally due to the fires and damage. THEREFORE, a new investigation can only be justified by irrefutable evidence of lies and coverups. REMEMBER, the government usally get caught from the coverup, not the actual event.

WTC-7 failed structurally due to fires & damage? It was 350 feet

from the closest tower! It would've had only comsetic damage!

A) there was damage from

A) there was damage from falling debris - so it was within range of being hit.
B) the south side photos, videos do show smoke (and were there is smoke there is fire) to such a degree you can't even see most of the south facing.
C) it is bogus, as we see in many WTC 7 CD discussions, to simply show the 3 sides that did not have damage and were the fires were bearly visible.

All I'm saying is that there is plenty of room for debunkers to point out these obvious issues to discredit truthers. Therefore, it is, by far, not the best evidence.

Is there a picture of this massive damage to the south side....?

I haven't seen it.

7 was 350 feet away, right?

None of the closer buildings imploded, right?

And, even if it was damaged on the South Side and there were fires, NO WAY IN HELL IT FALLS IN 6.5 SECONDS & IMPLODES LIKE IT DOES IN THE CLASSIC WTC7 VIDEO.

If those 3 poinst are the best they can do to dismiss 7 being CD, it's laughably pathetic....

a) If you haven't seen the

a) If you haven't seen the southside pictures/video then it calls into question your real familiarity with WTC 7. Do your own research - it only takes 10 secons on Google, but here is one...


b) The question was not to disprove CD of WTC 7, it was a question of best evidence.

c) with regards to questioning only 3 points presented - I'd just like to say that quantity is no substitute for quality.

d) Finishing your remarks with an insult is childish and unnecessary. There is no one that believe strong then I do that 9/11 was an inside job. In order to spread our belief we need a strong case, not one that can be easily thwarted. The fact is the testimony and writings of Clark/Brown/Minetta have far more weight then speculation about building 7.

You know as well as I do when the NIST report comes out about WTC 7, it will NOT support CD. The media will draw on this endlessly to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. But the MSM will find it much harder to drag down the testimony of Clark/Brown/Minetta.

That's not to say that WTC 7 isn't a great lead in for people to become truthers. But, again, there is better (safer) evidence.

You're trying to tell us that a couple of (arson) fires in a few

windows of the massive WTC-7 developed into some sort of controlled demoltion that made the entire building implode into its own footprint at free fall speed??? Bullshit!

I'm not entirely convinced

I'm not entirely convinced that the smoke in that video is coming from WTC7. It could be coming from the rubble.

I understand what you're saying though. It's easy for critics to dismiss WTC7.

Your "video" is a fake: the shadow (triangle- bottom center)...

on the north face of WTC7 is impossible. The sun would be to the southwest and much lower.

(see shadow at 00:15, as well as a different version at 00:08)

many of the videos are forgeries, my anonymous friend.

a quick viewing of "911 Octopus" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3800904570402529537&hl=en

may be helpful guiding your efforts.


WTC-7 was struck by what? The nearest tower was 350 feet away!

What caused the "massive damage" & "fires" to one side of WTC-7 as you claim??? Then why did it implode in a symmetrical, controlled demolition if one side of the building was so “severely damaged”? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Why did Larry Silverstein say: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

That "smoke" along the south side of WTC-7 either came from a

picture shot just after when of the towers fell, or as the incendiaries inside WTC-7 began cutting the steelwork .

To paraphrase a well-known Real Estate cliche....

(pun intended, "Lucky" Larry.....)

"It's WTC 7, WTC 7, WTC 7"

I think Larry Silverstein's

I think Larry Silverstein's purchase of the towers (the first time ever that they were privately owned) just a few weeks before 9/11 is highly, highly suspicious. Imagine a fictional Joey Tortigilia purchasing a pizza place down the street, it burns down three weeks later, and Joey makes $1.5 million off of the insurance. The only difference between the two is the scale of the disaster, therefore no one considers the obvious because it's too unsettling....

(Naturally, I am not claiming 9/11 was merely an insurance scam.)

not the ONLY difference

Joey Tortiglia will sound to most people like someone who may have mob ties, like Joey Soprano would. It's perfectly acceptable in America to suspect Italians of being mafiosi.

Now when your name is Larry Silverstein, and someone suggests that maybe you are part of a criminal mob called "Zionists", you will find many people will defend you and your conveniently collapsing buildings and call your accusers änti-semitic".

Interesting that with so many Jewish gangsters in American history like Mickey Cohen, Bugsy Siegel, and Meyer Lansky, it's overwhelmingly the Italians who are victims of stereotyping in this regard. I wonder if this would be the case if there were more Italians in Hollywood. Would there be a show called "The Silversteins" about a lovable family of real estate tycoons who dabble in mass murder... Hm?


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero

WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force


Bingo. Great post. It's

Bingo. Great post. It's only recently that I learned that Lansky was probably bigger than any Italian mobster. Hollywood is the key in molding such stereotypes.

Imagine trying to produce a movie about the Jewish mafia. Not gonna happen. Period. Funny too how Arabs are always cast as villains and terrorists. I hope Spielberg's next movie is about the Lavon Affair.

This could be the exception that proves your point

but Once Upon A Time in America was about Jewish mobsters.

On the other hand Sergio Leone edited Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Seigel out, even though they were in the original novel. He says it was an artistic decision. Supposedly de Niro and Woods play characters loosely basd on Lansky and Seigel.


Robert Steele has a great riff on this....

....on last Saturday's Webster Tarpley radio show.....he just goes off on Silverstein & Guiliani and their profiteering on the destruction/cleanup of the WTC. in the first half of the second hour of WT's show...(even if he does get Lucky Larry's name wrong...


This show is worth hearing even more so for hearing these two describe the impending cataclysm that is the coming Iran attacks. Steele was on fire. Basically he's saying we've got sociopathic gamblers (Cheney) at the helm who will unleash unparalleled destruction to save themselves from the disgrace that is the now the unquestioned (even by Cheney) failures of neo-con aggressions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The first part of the show: http://www.rbnlive.com/ (go to archives or pocasts)


For two wars that required a paralyzing and catalytic event before said paralyzing and catalytic event ever took place?

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002


Refusing to investigate said paralyzing and catalytic event until forced to, and then stacking the deck to make sure a real investigation never took place.

Nah... there's no reason at all to suspect our beloved President, and his adminstration..

"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002


Implementing the plan that they had written prior to the attacks.

they not only needed 9/11..... they wanted it

it happened or was made to happen

they more than took advantage

They profit at every turn

now look at what they are doing to this country..... are they being blackmailed into selling our country out.....by those who could blow this cover?

Afghan invasion

I've always thought the Afghan invasion plans, selectively announced to certain diplomatic allies MONTHS BEFORE 911, was a bit of circumstantial evidence which didn't get enough emphasis,

Also Cheney, wargames:

and of course WTC7,


"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002


And where was the propaganda that always precedes a war? Seems like the knew it would not be necessary.

Actually, I think there was some propaganda

in regard to Afghanistan. We heard lots and lots and lots about how bad living under the Taliban was for women in the late nineties -- and chances are, it did really suck. On the other hand, eliminating or greatly reducing the power of the Taliban has not turned Afghanistan into a feminist paradise. It was really hard to muster a lot of sympathy for the idea of national sovereignty, though, when the Afghanistan war started, because it was easy to view it simplistically as offing some incredibly misogynist mofos.

That's true

I was thinking in the period immediately preceding 9/11. I 'm not sure about this at all -- it's just my recollection.

Good point

"It was really hard to muster a lot of sympathy for the idea of national sovereignty, though, when the Afghanistan war started, because it was easy to view it simplistically as offing some incredibly misogynist mofos."

I think you're right that this had an effect on the anti-war left. If I remember correctly the Taliban actually improved things for women, at least relatively and temporarily, in the sense that they were being raped by armies of warlords before that. Don't quote me on that, and this could itself be propaganda from when "we" were doing business with the Taliban.

Anyway, I think the misogynism of the Taliban had an effect on the antiwar left in going to war. The right just wanted to nuke Afghanistan to glass after 9/11, and these ideas were widely held, I think. I actually heard a woman, who either identified herself as or sounded like a soccer mom, advocate nuclear war to protect her children. This was on NPR in 2002 or 2003 .

What about no Black Boxes recovered at WTC, but....

....we get the pristine "Magic Passport", for one of the alleged hijackers, found in the street below after those massive explosions and "fires that brought down the towers"?

Wasn't this the only time Black Boxes were not recovered in a plane crash? Is that right? I do know they are kept in the tail of planes.

(Nod to greenback on this).

Not bad evidence.

Not bad evidence.

The non-plane crash in Shanksville, hands down

The forest wasn't even fully burnt until the next day!


See my sig for the rest about Shanks...


Focus on the botched crash scene at Shanksville.