The Black Vault

9/11 Incontrovertible Proof NIST lied - John Gross Lead Engineer

It's 2012... Am I seriously seeing the same fricken debunked "evidence" being trotted around, while STILL refusing to acknowledge that 2 fully fueled passenger jets crashed into and exploded inside the buildings, unlike all these fires used for comparison?

Consider the source meaning the poster, but there are still many with the same argument here. Are you the same Rob from a few years ago?

Rob61872 wrote:It's 2012... Am I seriously seeing the same fricken debunked "evidence" being trotted around, while STILL refusing to acknowledge that 2 fully fueled passenger jets crashed into and exploded inside the buildings, unlike all these fires used for comparison?

Rob... unfortunately, yes, some still believe in some of these original rumors and speculation. I, for one, am not a believer in those rumors that the government planned it, and it wasn't aircraft that hit the towers.

I have looked at 9/11 extensively through the years, and filed quite a few FOIA requests. I can definitively say, in my summation anyway, that:

a) The cover-up, if any, is in relation to the MASSIVE intelligence failure that stretched across multiple agencies. No one person is responsible for the failure... we just got hit/blindsided. Plain and simple.

b) It is feasible that United 93 was shot down by U.S. Fighter Jets, and that President Bush was not made aware of it. He, himself, has admitted he gave the order... but the "heroic passengers" brought it down before they got there. Although that sounds great, I believe if the fighters did get there, the President would be left in the dark.

I truly am a believer in "plausible deniability" and believe the President is left in the dark on many issues. United 93 would definitely be one of them, if, in fact, it was brought down by us.

Some of the other theories and conjecture is just ridiculous... IMHO.

greeney2 wrote:Consider the source meaning the poster, but there are still many with the same argument here. Are you the same Rob from a few years ago?

Maybe... Maybe not...

blackvault wrote:

Rob61872 wrote:It's 2012... Am I seriously seeing the same fricken debunked "evidence" being trotted around, while STILL refusing to acknowledge that 2 fully fueled passenger jets crashed into and exploded inside the buildings, unlike all these fires used for comparison?

Rob... unfortunately, yes, some still believe in some of these original rumors and speculation. I, for one, am not a believer in those rumors that the government planned it, and it wasn't aircraft that hit the towers.

I have looked at 9/11 extensively through the years, and filed quite a few FOIA requests. I can definitively say, in my summation anyway, that:

a) The cover-up, if any, is in relation to the MASSIVE intelligence failure that stretched across multiple agencies. No one person is responsible for the failure... we just got hit/blindsided. Plain and simple.

b) It is feasible that United 93 was shot down by U.S. Fighter Jets, and that President Bush was not made aware of it. He, himself, has admitted he gave the order... but the "heroic passengers" brought it down before they got there. Although that sounds great, I believe if the fighters did get there, the President would be left in the dark.

I truly am a believer in "plausible deniability" and believe the President is left in the dark on many issues. United 93 would definitely be one of them, if, in fact, it was brought down by us.

Some of the other theories and conjecture is just ridiculous... IMHO.

I believe people knew something was gonna happen, hell I wouldn't put it past some people within the government wanting it to happen, or some simply seeing it as an opportunity to push an agenda after the fact, but I've seen no evidence that it was committed by the government... All I've seen is theories changing, and being changed by the very same people who said on 9/12 that the evidence supporting their theory of the day was 100% proof. Without even addressing the insanity that someone was claiming here that the planes were holograms, I remember there being some really outlandish ones, with stealth missiles, underground nukes, with some people believing it was all used, and just to take out an office building, and none of them take into account the jumbo jet flying into and exploding inside the building, I just don't get it.

Oh I'm sure you are a much more pleasant person than that old Rob I was thinking of. He joined the foriegn legion or something, and had a wife named Dizzygirl or something like that. I'm sure its a case of mistaken identity or something.

America

I really hate to muddy the waters but I just wanted to throw this out there.

I don't think we will get to the ultimate truth of 911 because the conspiracy theorists are fixated on the inside job theory and the government just wants it all to go away. But I don't believe that Bin Laden and al Qaeda did it all on their own. I think someone was behind them. I don't want to name names and it doesn't matter because no one is going to listen anyway.

jwebb wrote:Well, it definitely was not a hoax, I have been there, it actually happened kid... Judging by the picture you probably meant inside job, that is a different matter, I sure hope it wasn't.

The attack of the world trade center was caused for the most part by the TRAINING OF TERRORISTS BY THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION who did support Al Queda Fighter Osama Bin Laden in his fight against the "EVIL EMPIRE" of the Soviet Union, which was founded at the first by the "murder of the russian Czar", all this will also be clearly explained in the new book by MR JOSHUA BETHEL now I do not wish to give away too much info, therefore I will merely state that THE GERMAN KAISER did in fact not like the fact that the Russian Monarchy protected the murderers of the Crown Prince of Austria, so he declared war on Russia which gave him the right to KILL A Czar which he did by sending "Lenin and Trotzky" east to take him out!

Now George Bush knowing the nature of these "terrorist thugs" as they were later called while they were called "freedom fighters" while they were fighting the "OTHER EVIL EMPIRE", did something to annoy them very badly:

HE SENT A SECRETARY OF THE STATE,not a current but a former one to the State of Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban and had him state:

You can either allow us to build a pipeline through your country in which case we give you the "red carpet treatment" and if you refuse we will give you a "carpet bombing", needless to say to state this to "freedom fighters" was not exactly well received and the result of course was the "attack on the world trade center" this has never been fully brought out, so I will bring it out here, also I consider it highly doubtful that fire itself could bring down that structure, I consider it highly likely the structure was "demolished" from the inside and the language bares it out, the "structure demolished" itself it states in the official report, a "demolishing" is based on internal explosives that were triggered after the attack on the world trade center itself! Therefore I conclude it was indeed a "governmental conspiracy" that was involved in that attack, while it is true the "government did not just to it to itself" and foreign mercenaries were indeed involved, it is "very interesting" to note that these "foreign mercenaries" were at one time at least under the payroll or on the pay roll of the US government and were "hailed as freedom fighters"! So, be careful who you make your enemies America, they may come back to "BITE YOU"!

Rob61872 wrote:It's 2012... Am I seriously seeing the same fricken debunked "evidence" being trotted around, while STILL refusing to acknowledge that 2 fully fueled passenger jets crashed into and exploded inside the buildings, unlike all these fires used for comparison?

I do not believe that even a "full fledged explosion" of all the fuel in those two airliners could have brought down the world trade center, the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING was once hit by a plane too, and it did not collapse,even through there was a fire, clearly the "structural engineers" so build these structures to withstand high temperature fires, to minimize loss of life in the event of a fire, therefore as a trained engineer, electrical but having studied facilities engineering I do understand that "Building codes" are ever strict in this regard and a "BYU SCIENTIST" was disciplined for stating that the WORLD TRADE CENTER was "attacked from the inside out" as well, and I believe it for I know about the "secretive conspiracy" that could have and most likely did do this job to "get a casus belli" meaning they needed a "cause for war" and a simple fire would not have been a cause for war, that is why both structures had to be "demolished completely"!
The same "demolition companies" were later called upon to "finish the job they started"!


JOSHUA BETHEL WILL EXPOSE THIS EVIL CONSPIRACY FOR YOU, if you only give him a chance they have always "sought to promote war" and have found "reasons for it" and quite frankly to keep this conspiracy in your government is a sure fire way to "promote more war" in the future based again on "poor evidence and crazy logic" but as always "very lucrative" for the kings in power for they profit when the "blood flows in the streets", as even a greedy Jew MR ROTHCHILD once put it!

Rob61872 wrote:It's 2012... Am I seriously seeing the same fricken debunked "evidence" being trotted around, while STILL refusing to acknowledge that 2 fully fueled passenger jets crashed into and exploded inside the buildings, unlike all these fires used for comparison?

There is absolutely no question in my mind, that this "evil conspiracy" was indeed involved in the attack on the world trade center in a number of ways, while this will not be mentioned in the book by MR JOSHUA BETHEL here are some reasons for "a well planned attack" on the World Trade Center, MR PRESIDENT BUSH was having some "lower approval ratings" and needed an attack to improve his "popularity" as a president and SO HE ANNOYED HIS ENEMIES to the point where they decided to attack, a similar case could be made for "PRESIDENT BENITO JUAREZ" he too was "begging for an attack" on Mexico, I and Joshua Bethel have the evidence to prove this is indeed the case, he did ask JAMES KNOX POLK to attack his country so that he could accept the "25 million dollar offer" since it was too lowball to really pay for the amount of territory, if he was "standing in Mexico City" he stated to James Knox Polk with the army of Zachary Taylor placing the sword to their chest so to speak, then he would be able to sell the land north for the cheap price offered, and it was all arranged by the two presidents who wrote to each other, while indeed, there was "no such official agreement" on an attack to "provoke a known terrorist freedom fighter" to anger after they "successfully took over a country" is clearly "akin to asking for an attack" don't you agree? After all he did threaten a war against Al Queada and he got one!

THERE IS PLENTY OF PROOF THIS IS INDEED THE CASE AND YOU CAN SET IT DOWN ALMOST AS A RULE, no war happens just because one party decided to go to war, there is always two parties to any fight!