9/11 Was an Inside Job

[bewitched]

then there's Saudi AQ cells. they attack transportation targets. look at the stats, pre911 was train, post 911 was tanker truck and train, it's very there are 3 year patterns.
AQ Iraq attacks with shoulder fired missiles (Stellas supplies by Saudi), mostly target blackhawks and use Iranian IEDs. and most of them are from Saudi.
there are also cells from Morroco who are specialists in smuggling. they recruit illegals in Mexico because they can fit in while Saudi's consider themselves more educated and a higher class.

most terrorists are educated and engineers. including Osama and Atta.
there are some very distinct patterns.
but more importantly there is a common theology.

 

[Andy]

The myth is that they busted a myth.

The pictures that were shown, were at ground level but I didnt see any verification that part of the metal was not cut with plasma or whatever method in a purposeful manner in an effort to clear the debris.

Look around that pillar. There isn't even a place to stand. Further, the guys in the photo were fireman, they are looking for bodies not clearing debris. Also, did you see any guys with MIGs or Plasma cutters in any picture? No, they used cranes and cutters. Finely, even if any of that were true, they would have no reason to cut at those angles. They would slice straight through. The building is already down, they have no reason to 'walk the building over' with an angled cut.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/World_Trade_Center

Wow... I actually have the reverse opinion about this site. The PopMech site was far more informed than this! Just look at these non-answer!

Controlled demolitions always are initiated at the bottom of a building, to take advantage of maximum gravity forces.

Uh... If you are going to disguise a controlled demolition as being caused by a plane crash, you don't blow out the first 5 floors, 80 floors lower than where it hit... you start it at the crash area.

If the World Trade Center collapsed due to controlled demolition, as the theory goes, the explosive charges would have had to survive the crash of airplanes into the buildings. (at ~500 miles per hour)

This would not be hard. Even if the explosive on the floor hit were somehow damaged, the floor above and below would be all that's needed. I wager some charges were damaged, and most were not.

In fact, this explains a lot in my mind. There are cell phone conversation, that are used to disprove controlled demolition, in which people said the floor had fallen out. I think that supports the theory.

What would cause a whole floor to fail uniformly at the start before the supposed inferno of heat weekend the steel? Perhaps the plane set off the demolition charges on that level, causing it to fall?

Also, doesn't this make the pancake theory less likely? One floor fell onto the one below, yet the lower one didn't fail too. It held up both for an hour.

When a controlled demolition occurs, you hear the very loud and very distinct sound of the charges going off. These will repeatedly go off, in a quick, regular pattern, for 10+ seconds prior to the structure collapsing. While some people heard what "sounded like an explosion" at the World Trade Center, this is not what they heard or described. Nor is any such sound of demolition charges going off heard in any videos of the collapse.

There is no response to this because... it's just wrong... I heard it. It was very clear. The description of the witness very much describes exactly that. So I don't know what they are talking about.

The detonations in a controlled demolition go off in a very regular pattern, not at all like the random squibs seen on 9/11

They were not totally random. On the floors below where the plane it, the squibs are in a complete pattern around the building. Remember the question above about the plane damaging some of the charges? The random squibs at, and above the plane crash are exactly what I would expect.

Further, when you see any squibs above the where the plane crash, doesn't that sorta eliminate the possibility of it being air forced out by the floor giving way? If the floor falls... air should rush IN that floor.

Fires in the World Trade Center burned at temperatures as high as 1,100°, which is more than sufficient to cause structural failure and collapse.

Um, physics says that's not possible. So either everything we've been taught about physics is wrong... or... something other than wood/paper/jet fuel, were burning. In which case, what was it, and how did it get there.

Implying that windows were not broken by fires and resulting heat on 9/11, thereby indicating temperature of fire, is illogical. The windows were already broken (by the aircraft impact)! There was nothing more for the fires and heat to break, by the time the fires engulfed the many floors of the WTC buildings.

* Also, why 700°C is required to break windows?

Physics again. Glass and plexiglass expand at specific rates in relation to heat. As the glass expands, the size of the window frame does not. Again, the frame is steel. Who wins, glass or steel? Steel wins, glass breaks. Since the size of the window is known, and the expansion rate of the glass is known, as well as the relative strength of the glass is known... you can determine at roughly what temperature the glass will break.

Yes there were windows that had not broken. There are dozens of videos where glass windows on the same floor that the plane hit, are in perfect undamaged condition.

Granted I have not done these calculations myself. Which is why I have not brought up this point prior to now. Nevertheless, the counter brought up here is completely bogus. If the glass does break at 700ºC, then based on the claim the heat wiped out the entire floor at the same time, then every window around the entire building on all 3 floors hit should have busted out long before the collapse.

A video taken of the collapse shows at 11 seconds that the collapse of the South Tower is still under way. The cameraman began running at that point, but the sound of the building collapsing continues for many more seconds.

That video.. unbelievable. There are DOZENS of videos out there, many from static points of view, and from far better angles, that CLEARLY show the buildings being completely demolished in 11 seconds.

For them to dishonestly choose this particular video in order to make this specific point, is near laughable. This is a clear cut case of coming up with a conclusion, and finding something, anything to try and fit the conclusions they already determined to be true.

But even more ironic, watch the video... stop it just as the camera turns toward the tower... In that frame, bottom right hand corner... what do you see? You also see it on the still frame on the main video page.

Do you see it? White smoke rising from the BASE of the tower PRIOR to the tower coming down. Where does the white smoke come from? Remember from the first response? "Controlled demolitions always are initiated at the bottom of a building" Huh...

FYI, white smoke doesn't come from dirty burns like paper and wood products. That smoke was black. So what causes white smoke? Demolition charges do. So does Thermite.

This site answers nothing. Even less than the sub-par job PopMech did.

Now buildings that experience incredible forces, not such as those that are hurricane strength across an entire building, but a force not experienced in known nature happens to a small but important part of the building. Those buildings often buckle under the stress as seen and described at the time.

Those with controlled demo come down much more uniformly.

As per the sounds people heard that sounded like individual explosions as the buildings collapsed can be attributed to the rush of air out of the structure as it fell on top of itself.

There is video comparing a controlled demo versus anything heard on 9-11 and the noise difference, tempo, and nature of the sound is different.

For now, I'm going to move on pasted the plane impact force of nature type argument. Not because I don't believe in my view, but rather because it's clear we are both subjective. Your view, my view. Until you have a video of a similar plane going into a similar building, and having it fall down without any "loose ends", then we are just going in circles.

Now everything else you mention... I would expect. See, unlike a real legit building demolition, the twin towers were a bit different. The method would be different since they had to make it look like the plane did it.

Also, unlike a building that would be gutted completely, the towers had dry wall, hung ceilings, and thick glass in every window. Plus unlike most buildings, the twin towers had a core, a protected, isolated, reinforced middle section that contained the primary supports for the entire building. This is where most of the demolition charges would have to be.

All of this would result in a muffled sound. It wouldn't be the same tone, or the same pattern, or the same tempo. The fact there was a tempo, was a tone, and was any pattern, is the problem.

But more than that, again what is telling is what questions were ignored! They claim that the fire reached 1100ºC... Wonder woman is standing on the floor the plane hit... she is not melting... does that woman in the picture look like she experiencing 2000ºF to you?

The Slurry walls in the basement... they were moved. By what? What damaged the walls in the basement!

 

[Andy]

Allow me to clarify

then there's Saudi AQ cells. they attack transportation targets. look at the stats, pre911 was train, post 911 was tanker truck and train, it's very there are 3 year patterns.
AQ Iraq attacks with shoulder fired missiles (Stellas supplies by Saudi), mostly target blackhawks and use Iranian IEDs. and most of them are from Saudi.
there are also cells from Morroco who are specialists in smuggling. they recruit illegals in Mexico because they can fit in while Saudi's consider themselves more educated and a higher class.

most terrorists are educated and engineers. including Osama and Atta.
there are some very distinct patterns.
but more importantly there is a common theology.

I still believe it's doubtful that the Saudis, as in the government, is involved. I never suggested that the Saudi people are not involved. That's almost a given fact.

The Saudis have been fighting groups within their country for years. They have beheaded, and imprisoned people for terrorist or terrorist supporting activities on a routine basis. The fact that military grade weapons from Arabia, find their way into the hands of terrorist groups, doesn't surprise me when you realize the military, despite the Crown Prince, supports their cause.

We are way far into the realm of speculation here, far more than I want. But even if the Crown Prince was never in danger... if the fact he was here in the US, and 1 of the only 2 planes in the sky after the attacks, was widely known, I wager the public opinion of the Saudis would drop vastly, greatly endangering them in our national policy. If I were the Crown Prince, I'd have been anywhere but in the US if I knew my people were about to make a hit.

Moreover, I would not be going through a week worth of heavy negotiations with the PLO and Israel and the US, to finely come to a lasting peace agreement in the middle east, when I knew that my own people would 'blow away' any chance of it happening. Why bother?

Last of all, I can't ever imagine being stupid enough to go make a pay off in person for a terrorist attack against the largest military power in the world. That screams of idiocy.

However from here on, I'd like to stick to what happened. Until we can finely get the real answers to what exactly happened, attempts to determine who caused it, will be met with "You are a conspiracy nut!".

 

[bewitched]

I still believe it's doubtful that the Saudis, as in the government, is involved. I never suggested that the Saudi people are not involved. That's almost a given fact.

The Saudis have been fighting groups within their country for years. They have beheaded, and imprisoned people for terrorist or terrorist supporting activities on a routine basis. The fact that military grade weapons from Arabia, find their way into the hands of terrorist groups, doesn't surprise me when you realize the military, despite the Crown Prince, supports their cause.

We are way far into the realm of speculation here, far more than I want. But even if the Crown Prince was never in danger... if the fact he was here in the US, and 1 of the only 2 planes in the sky after the attacks, was widely known, I wager the public opinion of the Saudis would drop vastly, greatly endangering them in our national policy. If I were the Crown Prince, I'd have been anywhere but in the US if I knew my people were about to make a hit.

Moreover, I would not be going through a week worth of heavy negotiations with the PLO and Israel and the US, to finely come to a lasting peace agreement in the middle east, when I knew that my own people would 'blow away' any chance of it happening. Why bother?

Last of all, I can't ever imagine being stupid enough to go make a pay off in person for a terrorist attack against the largest military power in the world. That screams of idiocy.

However from here on, I'd like to stick to what happened. Until we can finely get the real answers to what exactly happened, attempts to determine who caused it, will be met with "You are a conspiracy nut!".

who do you think fund things in Saudi?
the Saudi government controls everything in that country, they are a theocracy, they even control thought.
this conspiracy theory stuff is fun until some become a follower of someone's theory and campaign for it. understanding the motivation behind the attacks is the only way to understand what really happened. it's about ideology.
do you know why the date September 11th was picked, do ya?

 

[Bunz]

For now, I'm going to move on pasted the plane impact force of nature type argument. Not because I don't believe in my view, but rather because it's clear we are both subjective. Your view, my view. Until you have a video of a similar plane going into a similar building, and having it fall down without any "loose ends", then we are just going in circles.

Also, unlike a building that would be gutted completely, the towers had dry wall, hung ceilings, and thick glass in every window. Plus unlike most buildings, the twin towers had a core, a protected, isolated, reinforced middle section that contained the primary supports for the entire building. This is where most of the demolition charges would have to be.

But more than that, again what is telling is what questions were ignored! They claim that the fire reached 1100ºC... Wonder woman is standing on the floor the plane hit... she is not melting... does that woman in the picture look like she experiencing 2000ºF to you?

The Slurry walls in the basement... they were moved. By what? What damaged the walls in the basement!

Hi Andy,
A few things, firstly, what damaged the basement walls, well I would venture to say the 110 story building collapsing and being exposed to forces it was not meant to handle.

THe photo of the woman in the hole, I have seen, and I am not convinced it isnt doctored. That is also another problem I have with quite a few of the suspicious photos. Especially of the wreckage and rubble. No way for me to verify the authenticity.

As for the plane impact, I understand your views on going in circles. I think without a similar scenario and effect happening, we will never know for sure. I will also say I hope that never happens again to prove or disprove these theories.

At this point I dont think either one of us will be convinced otherwise without new and substantial evidence to support one side or the other. So I will say that you handle yourself well and respectful. I appreciate it, as sometimes it doesnt remain civil.

As a side note, I watched a show on TWA 800 last night, now there might be something there.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Physics, that's why. I believe in physics. I believe that when the laws of physics says jet fuel can't melt steel.. that ... jet fuel can't melt steel.

When physics says steel pillars at ground level are cut at 45º angles, that a random explosion 80 floors up, can't do that.

When Physics says steel melts at 1300º C, and physics says jet fuel and paper and wood products can not possibly reach that temp, and yet I see melted steel... then I know that jet fuel was not the only thing used.

My eyes. I believe that when I see a women standing in the hole where the plane struck, and waves for help, that she must be an invincible wonder woman, to not feel the melting heat of a fire that supposed to be 1650º F.

Finely, personal witnesses. The firefighters that charged into the building, reached the 80th floors and said there were 2 or 3 isolated fires, and 2 hoses would be all that's needed to put them out. Shouldn't they have been melting too?

All that other anti-bush political propaganda crap, yeah I ignore that. But physics? You want me to just ignore virtually every truth I learned in high school and college? You want me to believe that the physical laws that govern the universe were suddenly suspended on one day in September of 2000? That's a bit much.

I have seen many explanations of the Physics... and no one can ever explain to me how it was set up to explode, why, how , or how no one noticed bombs planted all over the place...and no one saying a damn thing.

Physics would suggest that the wtc did not just fall....we know that 2 large Jumbo Jets full of Fuel hit them...and there is nothing to suggest that there where bombs set up ( outside of crazy theories with no facts) so using logic would one not suggest that the most likely cause would be large planes crashing and burning? Along with structures failing do to Design? If you are a man of Science you would know that you cant base things on just saying the plane does not seem to be enough..so just jumping to Conspiracy.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Hi Andy,
Now as far as conspiracies go, I believe the Saudis are the most likely to have something to do with it. Lets consider a few things. 15 of the 19 hijackers as you probably know were Saudis. OBL, obviously a Saudi, and a very well connected one. The House of Saud is a known supporter of terror groups. Seems awfully suspect if you ask me.
Also, even if they had something to do with it, what would the response have been? Not much different.
Even with us having bases in the KSA at the time, if you think the situation in Iraq was ever bad, the situation for American troops trying to occupy the KSA would make Iraq and Afghanistan look elementary.

Of course I have no proof, but while we are in conspiracy mode....

Look at the big Picture...the Sauds are also under attack and suffered from this attack. See the thing is Americans think we where the main goal of this attack..we are not, the Saud Family and Government was the target, they wanted to push us apart. This is part of a larger Internal war between Radical Sunni vs Moderate Sunni and the Shia... We got hit as a way to Isolate and hurt them... name one thing the Sauds gained? then look at the potential losses they risked...would it even come close to making sense? nope.

and why where there mostly Saud hijackers? simple Bin Ladin trusts his own, and that's his major Recruiting area, and like I said Sauds where as much a target in this attack...just not in the Death toll...but in the effect.

 

[Aaron Burr]

Holy Moly! NoSpaM4Me posts over here?! Using the exact same post from another site?

Is it being a "conspiracy freak" to ask
WHY is it that the worlds greatest military power FAILED to defend even its own HQ?

There is only one possible response to nonsense like this. That is, of course, with more nonsense. (I refuse to edit this masterpiece.)

Valued consumer*,
it is always our intent as Evil Conservatives to delude and confuse the Gullible*, however I think this is a case where we have been harmed by our phenomenally wicked success in doing so.

9/11 does not = "Reichstag fire!" as you assert. This claim was sent to our division of LogicTM& ReasonTM and was found to have flaws in it's basic premise. In actuality, 9/11=0.8181818, as complex mathematical experimentation eventually proved out. Further, it was determined that the preceding part of your assertion, that the "worlds most powerful military FAIL(ed) to defend it's HQ", violates a basic PrincipleTM of LogicTM. If 9/11 was in any way analogous to the Reichstag fire, I.E. that they were both "inside jobs", then, by the reasoning of your own claim, the attack on the "HQ" by those whose planned the same attack, was a success.

Unfortunately, the "Military and Industrial ComplexTM cannot take credit for this particular action, as their direct competitors, Al-Qaeda, have already done so.

I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank you for your question. Although misplaced, (belonging rather in the conspiracy section of this Forum,) I am always happy to take the time to respond to the concerns of our Consumers*.

I hope you will continue to enjoy our brand of Evil exclusively, as your previous missive expressed a rare appreciation of our line of petroleum based childrens toys, "Drek" TM and "Drek" for girls, this "X-Mass" season.

Sincerely, etc..etc..

 

[Bunz]

PFOS,
I dont really think the Saudi royal family had anything to do with it. I can be a bit cynical but I am not dillussional. That being said, there certainly is some circumstantial evidence isnt there.

name one thing the Sauds gained? then look at the potential losses they risked...would it even come close to making sense? nope.

Well lets look how the Saudis turned out after 9-11, what did they get?

Record income from oil wealth, possibly a trillion dollars of which Hamas, Hezbollah, probably AlQ and the Iraqi insurgency will benefit.

Thier largest foreign military threat...gone. Dead. And it was done without committing one troop to it officially. Free watch dog and body guard service when it comes to Iran.

I could go on and on. But the KSA left the scene like bandits on 9/12 and have been quietly lining thier pockets since.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

PFOS,
I dont really think the Saudi royal family had anything to do with it. I can be a bit cynical but I am not dillussional. That being said, there certainly is some circumstantial evidence isnt there.


Well lets look how the Saudis turned out after 9-11, what did they get?

Record income from oil wealth, possibly a trillion dollars of which Hamas, Hezbollah, probably AlQ and the Iraqi insurgency will benefit.

Thier largest foreign military threat...gone. Dead. And it was done without committing one troop to it officially. Free watch dog and body guard service when it comes to Iran.

I could go on and on. But the KSA left the scene like bandits on 9/12 and have been quietly lining thier pockets since.

well 1 you need to look at the Risk Reward ratio....Higher gas prices where going to happen do to oil Demand not Sept 11...also Iraq has a much greater impact on that right now then 9-11. Gas Prices went up for about a week due to 9-11 that's about it..The possible outcomes could have ranged from Oil Embargo's loss of all Military Support, and who knows had we really felt they where behind it, the Saudis could have been Afghanistan....

As for its biggest threat? who Afghanistan? If you meant Iraq...the only Reason Iraq is in this is Bush is a lying piece of ***** and Americans are dumb pieces of ***** The Sauds where most likely as shocked as anyone to find out 70% thought the Hijackers where From Iraq. Had they been behind it, they could have easily 1 faked or 2 recruited Iraqis to carry out the mission...

Iran is and always was the Saudis biggest Threat , Iraq is actually more of a Threat soon as the Shia take power long term verses Sunni Saudi Arabia.

Had Sept 11 been set up by anyone to attack Iraq....dont you think they would have made sure there was at least something that looked like a Iraq connection? LIke I said, Bin Ladin wanted it to be connected to the Sauds, and damage our Relations...and as much as we say terror never works....where are all the US troops that where SA? Thats Right we moved them all out right after....Giving Bin Ladin one of his Main Goals.

 

[Andy]

Saudi

Record income from oil wealth, possibly a trillion dollars of which Hamas, Hezbollah, probably AlQ and the Iraqi insurgency will benefit.

Thier largest foreign military threat...gone.

Free watch dog and body guard service when it comes to Iran.

I could go on and on. But the KSA left the scene like bandits on 9/12 and have been quietly lining thier pockets since.

I am not convinced Oil prices are due to the war. I believe the real cause of high prices is supply and demand. The demand being raised by booming asian markets, specifically China.

Even then, the Saudi Royal family is in no need of money. They make Bill Gates look like the owner of a quicky mart. The Cost/Benefit analysis is way off. A few more coin for oil, for the risk of the US cutting ties, canceling our purchase of their oil, and possibly having us stomp their country flat and hunt down the Saudi Royal family with our bombs. I may not like the Saudis, but they are not this stupid.

Further, if Iraq becomes a close ally of the US, they could unseat the Saudis as the dominate supplier of our middle east imported oil. They could lose far more money than they would gain.

I was not aware that Saudis had any issue whatsoever with Iraq prior to the war. In fact, I was under the reverse impression... but perhaps I'm wrong.

This assumes Iran's absolutely insane ruler would... what exactly? Not be there? Not be making nukes? Not defy the UN, the US, and pretty much everyone?

 

[Andy]

Liars

If you meant Iraq...the only Reason Iraq is in this is Bush is a lying piece of ***** and Americans are dumb pieces of *****

So was the CIA... and Bill and Hillary.... the British... Israel... and a number of other source. Also the completely fabricated photo of a clearly visible decommissioned jet at a known (or fabricated) Iraqi training camp, plus the fabricated Iraqi military defectors who gave fabricated reports of fabricated foreigners being trained at referred to camp in how to take over a plane and fly it using non-firearm weapons.

So your view is that pretty much everyone on the planet that would be in the know, was lying? That somehow you, and similar people, sitting at a computer listening to CNN, know more than everyone else?

Well... at least you got the "Americans are dumb pieces of *****" part right.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

So was the CIA... and Bill and Hillary.... the British... Israel... and a number of other source. Also the completely fabricated photo of a clearly visible decommissioned jet at a known (or fabricated) Iraqi training camp, plus the fabricated Iraqi military defectors who gave fabricated reports of fabricated foreigners being trained at referred to camp in how to take over a plane and fly it using non-firearm weapons.

So your view is that pretty much everyone on the planet that would be in the know, was lying? That somehow you, and similar people, sitting at a computer listening to CNN, know more than everyone else?

Well... at least you got the "Americans are dumb pieces of *****" part right.

1. I dont listen to CNN
2. I have no idea what you are talking about...are you trying to say Iraq was behind 911? I dont have the slightest clue what all that just ment

 

[Andy]

Scientifically...

I have seen many explanations of the Physics... and no one can ever explain to me how it was set up to explode, why, how , or how no one noticed bombs planted all over the place...and no one saying a damn thing.

Physics would suggest that the wtc did not just fall....we know that 2 large Jumbo Jets full of Fuel hit them...and there is nothing to suggest that there where bombs set up ( outside of crazy theories with no facts) so using logic would one not suggest that the most likely cause would be large planes crashing and burning? Along with structures failing do to Design?

How do we know for certain there were 'failings' due to design? The scrap from both buildings was taken and destroyed immediately, and no investigation was allowed to examine physical evidence.

SCIENCE
There is tons of logical and scientific evidence to suggest that more than the planes had to have been used.

The very fall of the first 2 floors alone raises a dozen questions. Each cross-member and floor support was, not just bolted, but welded into place.

So the official story is that heat from the fire weakened the steel across a floor plan the size of a foot ball field... homogeneously.... and caused every single bolt.... and every single weld... on every single support.... to all break at the exact same time.... again, across the area about the size of a football field... NO!!! Come on people... THINK!

Beyond that, we know for a fact it wasn't homogeneously hot, if hot at all. As stated before... there is a picture with a woman standing at the hole waving. Are are telling me that directly above her head, that floor support is 1500ºF or more, and she just... couldn't feel it? She'd have melted! Think! That photo is scientifically impossible if the official story is true.

Not to mention, as I stated in other posts it is scientifically impossible for those fires to reach the temperatures claimed. Could not happen.

Further, there have been other fires on large skyscrapers that burned hotter, and burned far longer, and burned on far more floors, than did the twin towers, yet they never fell.

BOMBs.
I haven't really addressed this because whether I know 'how they rigged it' is less important to me than 'did they rig it'. I mean, if the scientific evidence overwhelmingly show it must have been rigged, the novelty of knowing how they rigged it, it just bonus information.

But, FYI, the claims are numerous as to how it was done.

First, there was a weekend long power down on both buildings. This includes security cameras, and security doors.

Second, many many floors were empty, and many occupants were moved to different floors over the prior months. The theory goes they rigged an empty floor, then request those on another to move to that floor, then rigged the one they left.

One of the theories as to why someone would want to demo the buildings to begin with is because of low attendance. The buildings were far too vacant to support the cost of upkeep.

Third, you make it sound like demolition charges would be difficult to hide. Go look at some of the videos, the charges are actually quite small. It's not like they had a huge bundle of wires with "Construction C4 Charge" written on the side.

Fourth, the charges would be placed on the steel support beams. In any office building you have ever been in, do you normally see the beams running through the middle of the floor? No? There's drywall over it. Right! So... is it possible the charges could be behind the drywall on the support beam? Hmm...

Fifth, bomb sniffing dogs that routinely were used at WTC, and a common sight in the past 40 years, were removed in late 1999. Interesting huh.

Sixth, Since no one anywhere has a logical explanation as to why there was molten metal spilling from the side of the building... nor an explanation of how melted steel beams were found... I am convinced that Thermite was used. The nice thing about Thermite is that, at a burn temp well over 1300ºC, any evidence of construction charges, blast caps, or wire, would be incinerated. The only evidence left by Thermite would be sulfur... and it was. Sulfur was found all over WTC debris.

 

[Andy]

Iraq

I have no idea what you are talking about...are you trying to say Iraq was behind 911? I dont have the slightest clue what all that just ment

CIA informatin indicated Iraq helpped fund 9/11.
Bill and Hillary both on different occassions said that Iraq was surporting terrorist actions against the US prior to 9/11.
British intel claimed the 9/11 terrorist met with Iraqi operatives.
Israel intel suggested Iraq and Al Quida had connections and that 9/11 mastermind had met with Iraqi covert agents in France in 2000 prior to 9/11.
A number of other sources including Germany and France support these findings.

In the late 90s, defectors from Iraq claimed that Iraqi military was training non-iraqi citizens how to take over a plane without firearms. This story was repeated with more than a few Iraqi defectors, and was collaborated with details of the exact model of plane used, description of the base, and locations. A satellite photo of the location did reveal the base, and the decommissioned plane located exactly where they said it would be.

Testimony of the defectors also collaborated that Saddam did in fact support terrorist actions against the US, and one even is said:
"The gulf war never ended for Saddam Hussein. He is at war with the United States. We were repeatedly told this." -Iraqi Defector (New York Times, November 8, 2001)

So... to answer your question...
"are you trying to say Iraq was behind 911?"
YES. Iraq, Saddam, indisputably gave support to 9/11 and likely many terrorist attacks prior. I am not saying Osama did not... only that clearly Iraqi was involved.