9/11 Drills. The real proof of inside job.

[air_bn]

Originally Posted by skulb

Well, you notice that we`re up to 518 views and so far none of the resident shills have honored us with a visit here. They`re either shell shocked or plugging like mad at one of the shill sites to look for fake arguments.
It`s this stuff and then there`s WTC 7. There`s just no way they can explain it and not look like complete maroons. All they can really do is insult us.

I'd stick with the provable drills angle, 7 is just another distraction.

[skulb]

Originally Posted by air_bn

I'd stick with the provable drills angle, 7 is just another distraction.

I always thought so too, but WTC 7 is an eye opener for a lot of people. And every other detail of the 9/11 unraveling benefits from understanding the drills, and in the case of WTC 7 that it was the likely fourth target, the emergency management center for Giuliani, FEMA and CIA and the most likely place from which 9/11 was staged in New York. Demolishing it is likely to have been an act of destroying the evidence, and the people involved need to be held to account for treason and/or war crimes. In any case, the obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7 is incontrovertible evidence supporting my general claims regarding the drills. It fits perfectly with what I just alleged about the function of it on 9/11.
Point by point the drills are a mirror of the actual event, which makes me wonder why so few people are talking about them. My guess is that it`s so damning it can`t possibly be brushed off as a "conspiracy theory". Anybody in the truth movement not talking about the drills are a bit suspicious I think.

[skulb]

I think Ruppert broke the topic with 5 drills in his first post 9/11 book, and then it gradually grew as more research was done, and Tarpley`s count apparently stopped at 15, but I have a first edition of his book and am not sure which drill I am missing.
The expanded count of 46 drills deals with preparatory drills exercising elements of what took place on 9/11, but which took place in the years preceding it. Some of these took place the year prior to 9/11 and some as far back as during the first Clinton administration, but they are all topically relevant to 9/11 anyway, and since it was an inside job it would have been in planning at the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, PNAC, Mossad, Mi6 and the media for years, possibly decades.

[skulb]

Originally Posted by air_bn

Yeah well it seems like it superficially but 7 has been made so.

I don`t understand the argument or agree. WTC 7 was an obvious controlled demolition, and realizing this confirms the larger understanding of 9/11 as having been organized through a vast complex of drills and exercises to push it along the bureaucratic processes of the US establishment.
There`s no need to linger on the issue because there quite literally is nothing to debate. The building was blown up. So in that respect I agree that WTC 7 is a dead issue. It proves foreknowledge and because of the large scale, systematic blackout of the issue it proves inside job, and no sensible person can fail to understand it. Just the shills.

[lizzy]

This is the info the Snowdon should have given the world - but THAT wasn't his job - to tell the world some REAL factual truths that might really wake the sleepers' up.

[skulb]

Originally Posted by lizzy

This is the info the Snowdon should have given the world - but THAT wasn't his job - to tell the world some REAL factual truths that might really wake the sleepers' up.

Well said. It`s the best proof that Both Snowden and Assange are NSA/CIA operations that they won`t touch 9/11 facts with a barge pole, and instead pretend the official tissue of lies is the truth, and slander the only sane people left in the world by calling us names. I think of them like intelligence pole dancers: `Just give me lots and lots of attention (stuff dollar bills down my underwear) and let me pretend to hide in a Latin American embassy, and I`ll give you some more doctored information from the CIA/NSA. Trust me!`
It`s all a laughable hoax.

[air_bn]

Originally Posted by skulb

I don`t understand the argument or agree. WTC 7 was an obvious controlled demolition, and realizing this confirms the larger understanding of 9/11 as having been organized through a vast complex of drills and exercises to push it along the bureaucratic processes of the US establishment.
There`s no need to linger on the issue because there quite literally is nothing to debate. The building was blown up. So in that respect I agree that WTC 7 is a dead issue. It proves foreknowledge and because of the large scale, systematic blackout of the issue it proves inside job, and no sensible person can fail to understand it. Just the shills.

7 does nothing of the sort.It was hit by debris of the tower no runnig sprinklers and those long spans again.

[skulb]

Not even NIST claimed this btw. Popular Mechanics did, but then the editor there is Michael "STASI" Chertoff`s nephew, so I would hardly take that seriously. It is also physically impossible and a laughable pile of manure.

For future reference: repeating a lie on TV does not make it true.

[skulb]

If you can`t understand that "falling debris" and some office fires don`t cause 47 story buildings to freefall you really have no business calling anybody names because, alas, you are a moron.
But why don`t you stop derailing the thread with your pathetic crap and explain the drills to me, Mr Government Lover. If you aren`t interested in doing that, get the hell out of my thread!

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by skulb

Just thought I`d recap the many drills and exercises taking place on 9/11 in some detail for the benefit of any who might have missed this crucial political evidence of an inside job on 9/11.

Thank you....

Yes. FEMA was there ON MONDAY NIGHT and they were All ready for tuesday morning as heard in this clip!

www.apfn.org/audio/fema.rm

[skulb]

Originally Posted by dude111

Thank you....

Yes. FEMA was there ON MONDAY NIGHT and they were All ready for tuesday morning as heard in this clip!

www.apfn.org/audio/fema.rm

Yeah, that was Tripod II I guess. Sick bastards...

[air_bn]

The drills and exercises are even on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ember_11,_2001

[skulb]

Originally Posted by air_bn

The drills and exercises are even on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ember_11,_2001

Just some of them, and it certainly doesn`t explain that the 9/11 attacks were carried out through them, or that there were more of them going on that day than on any other day in history. It also fails to mention that the drills perfectly mirrored the attacks and/or helped sabotage emergency responses.
Amalgam Virgo was even "monitoring" the alleged hijackers and it is obvious that these guys were patsies or props in that drill. This drill was also part of an ongoing bogus investigation into the "al Aida cell" being "run" by Mohammed Atta, but all the files regarding this sabotaged investigation were destroyed shortly after 9/11.

http://decryptedmatrix.com/live/s-e-...lly-destroyed/

The significance of the drills has not been exposed to the public, and Wikipedia`s pointless little article is a whitewash trying to hide this crap in plain sight. It just takes about five minutes of digging into all this before you realize that it`s all dirty. You`re just willfully ignorant, and there`s no point even talking to you unless you can see this stuff. It just could not be more obvious.

[sarge sharpei]

Agree re snowden, btw other fake whistleblower jeremy scahill is now selling the '3000 people died on 911' fiction. he blurted this sentence out at the end of a PBS interview with charlie rose.

If the media is selling it, its 100% lies.

[skulb]

Originally Posted by alljokesaside

elements within every government of every nation of the world know that 9/11 was
an inside job. (and moreover know that it was mired in fakery, with a belgian politician
recently remarking (on the record on camera and in parliament) that 9/11 was 'made up'-
which it was, with fake video, witnesses, reporting, victims etc. (there are 1,200 bodies
completely unaccounted for from the twin towers rubble - consider they were not there
in the first place - consider also all the concurrent drills and exercises that day
to carry the illusion).
the fact that none have spoken out on this and simply allowed American and Britain (and others)
their middle eastern rampage speaks volume about the levels of control the world as a
whole is really under (the auspices of the Roman Empire).

(a thought just struck: what if the official 9/11 story (and all it's details) are simply
the played out 9/11 war-game scenario and not-real-world exercises final report or
outcome or fantasy assessment of this fantasy scenario that so many were engaged
in? it might be our mistake to take it as representing reality (remember there is no
legal obligation on the newsmedia (which they own) to report the truth).
if this was the case then you can be sure (they do rely on their legalese which
allows them to keep everything above board and in accordance with common or
natural law) that all the necessary paperwork detailing what is exactly the
real situation is in place and recorded and understood at the appropriate locations
and at the appropriate levels.
i believe private and legal arrangements were put in place seperately to take down
the towers efficiently, safely and without injury - all the victims were created or
generated identities for the purposes of the 9/11 war-game exercise).

Anything is possible I guess. At any rate the event was a carefully managed staged event whether the reported number of people died or not, and in that sense not real at all. Most drills take minor changes to turn them into live attacks and that is why they`re designed the way they are. The government wants the option to activate the drills for political purposes and it did just that on 9/11. For example most military drills has a fake enemy within the script but if the blue team is ordered to fire real bullets at the real strategic enemy instead of fake bullets at the red team you now have a war. If the red team is ordered to stand as close to the real strategic enemy as possible the change in the script is negligible.
An "anti terrorist" (terrorism is a tactic and having a war on terrorists is therefore as nonsensical as having one on flankers or infiltrators. Only idiots use this word without quotation marks.) drill will inevitably have a fake bomb or some other narrative device built into it during the design phase. By switching the fake bomb for a real bomb you have a "real" "terrorist" attack.
I think this is simple enough that we don`t really need to explore the angle that the entire thing was staged. Lots of people lost loved ones that day, which is why there are support groups and such for berieved 9/11 families. I have a hard time understanding how these people could be actors considering the energy they spent fighting the incompetence and corruption of the W regime. Some dead people make the impact of the synthetic "terrorism" event greater and therefore magnifies the political capital gained by the people responsible for the event.

The main reason I don`t bother with the claims about fake deaths is that they barely change the 9/11 event at all in my head so the benefit of clarifying this issue is very small indeed. It was fake fake fake, whether 3000 people died or 500 or nobody.

[cousin_frothy]

It appears that you have provided a concentration of evidence to support the notion (that I agree with) that 9/11 was an inside job.

Where you seem slightly off track is that, strong evidence and proof are two separate things. You appear to have falsely unified them.

Though this does not mean that your posts are incorrect, merely that they are not proof.

[skulb]

Originally Posted by cousin_frothy

It appears that you have provided a concentration of evidence to support the notion (that I agree with) that 9/11 was an inside job.

Where you seem slightly off track is that, strong evidence and proof are two separate things. You appear to have falsely unified them.

Though this does not mean that your posts are incorrect, merely that they are not proof.

I guess you`re right. It`s just that the two alternative interpretations of the evidence, that the drills didn`t really happen or that it was all just coincidence, seem to me to be so insanely unlikely I have discarded them completely in my mind.
To the extent anything can be truly proven I think this has been because of the glaring lack of any other way to interpret the evidence. I agree it doesn`t show you Wile Y Coytote pushing the plunger so in that sense it`s not conclusive proof. But not even the shills have been in here to suggest some other way to apply the evidence that doesn`t make 9/11 an inside job. I mean, aliens or just anything! Maybe you can think of something, but I can`t.
As soon as somebody presents a believable alternative interpretation of the evidence I will keep considering the combined evidence strong enough to be proof. When they do I will agree that it`s just evidence again.

[cousin_frothy]

Originally Posted by skulb

I guess you`re right. It`s just that the two alternative interpretations of the evidence, that the drills didn`t really happen or that it was all just coincidence, seem to me to be so insanely unlikely I have discarded them completely in my mind.
To the extent anything can be truly proven I think this has been because of the glaring lack of any other way to interpret the evidence. I agree it doesn`t show you Wile Y Coytote pushing the plunger so in that sense it`s not conclusive proof. But not even the shills have been in here to suggest some other way to apply the evidence that doesn`t make 9/11 an inside job. I mean, aliens or just anything! Maybe you can think of something, but I can`t.
As soon as somebody presents a believable alternative interpretation of the evidence I will keep considering the combined evidence strong enough to be proof. When they do I will agree that it`s just evidence again.

Well are you judging the whole 'conspiracy' based on the drills, I mean if the drills were not at those times, would you be stating that the official report is correct?
The one thing about this whole 9/11 event that appears to get over looked quite often is that, yes your analysis in the absence of 100% proof seems logical, If we're to use logic, where proof is lacking, and treat the most logical result as if it were proof, then we have to use the same logic for everything that lacks proof in relation to 9/11. I hope you agree.

So a logical conclusion is that people would work out it's an inside job.
In such case where is the logic of the conspirators, when they create a false flag event, and indeed do have drills, as the drills are likely to attract the attention of the investigator, thus being illogical.

Imo the drills and the event have been tied together this way to keep people off track. There is also debate about flight paths, tracking radar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSzHmHnR78.

Again it causes debate.
Debating drills and radar tracking.

It seems to me that all this is a side issue. What really happened on 9/11 is that some type of weapon/technology was disclosed to the world.

The aeroplanes were meant to divert the eye of the public, make no mistake the US showed one of their cards.
You've probably guessed that I'm in the Judy Wood camp on this subject, Bin Laden's 'Punch & Judy' show is distraction.
Something charred cars that were parked half a mile away, not heat, if it were heat people and other objects would have been charred/scolded/burned also. . . There sure is more to this than meets the eye.
I rather think a logical conclusion is that US ops wanted to demolish the WTC's anyway, they wanted to try out their new technology on that. . And the aeroplanes (including drills) were supplementary agendas that were attached politically to gain in the middle east region and to conceal their real drill.

[skulb]

Originally Posted by cousin_frothy

Well are you judging the whole 'conspiracy' based on the drills, I mean if the drills were not at those times, would you be stating that the official report is correct?
The one thing about this whole 9/11 event that appears to get over looked quite often is that, yes your analysis in the absence of 100% proof seems logical, If we're to use logic, where proof is lacking, and treat the most logical result as if it were proof, then we have to use the same logic for everything that lacks proof in relation to 9/11. I hope you agree.

So a logical conclusion is that people would work out it's an inside job.
In such case where is the logic of the conspirators, when they create a false flag event, and indeed do have drills, as the drills are likely to attract the attention of the investigator, thus being illogical.

Imo the drills and the event have been tied together this way to keep people off track. There is also debate about flight paths, tracking radar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSzHmHnR78.

Again it causes debate.
Debating drills and radar tracking.

It seems to me that all this is a side issue. What really happened on 9/11 is that some type of weapon/technology was disclosed to the world.

The aeroplanes were meant to divert the eye of the public, make no mistake the US showed one of their cards.
You've probably guessed that I'm in the Judy Wood camp on this subject, Bin Laden's 'Punch & Judy' show is distraction.
Something charred cars that were parked half a mile away, not heat, if it were heat people and other objects would have been charred/scolded/burned also. . . There sure is more to this than meets the eye.
I rather think a logical conclusion is that US ops wanted to demolish the WTC's anyway, they wanted to try out their new technology on that. . And the aeroplanes (including drills) were supplementary agendas that were attached politically to gain in the middle east region and to conceal their real drill.

They`re murderers and thieves, not geniuses. If the drills had been a major issue in the MSM or in the debunker crowd I would agree with you and think it`d be really suspicious, but it isn`t. Apart from a very few early media reports like the ones I linked to they have hardly been mentioned at all, so it`s not as if this is something that`s been added to the narrative to cause discussion. It hasn`t caused any discussion. What settles it for me is that all "terrorist" attacks are accompanied by drills and you can look into them all one by one and you`ll find matching drills going on at the same time or in the case of Oslo in 2011 the morning before the event. Since 9/11 is an obvious false flag whichever way you approach it you would therefore expect to find drills going on and indeed there were. This is the final evidence needed when you come from the forensic angle and have seen all the suspicious stuff in New York and the Pentagon, because if you didn`t find drills there would be some chance it was a genuine "terrorist" attack, if such a thing even exists. That is why I consider the drills the proof of inside job; the final piece of the puzzle that moves it beyond doubt.
As for Wood and her claims I have no way to prove or disprove them, and although it`s possible she`s right I need some evidence that`s not ambiguous. Nano thermite produces rust and molten iron as its main byproduct. There was rust on the vehicles you mentioned and molten iron in the basement. There`s nothing there that disproves the hypothesis that nano thermite was used to demolish the towers. In fact, more or less all the evidence available supports this.

[cousin_frothy]

Originally Posted by skulb

They`re murderers and thieves, not geniuses. If the drills had been a major issue in the MSM or in the debunker crowd I would agree with you and think it`d be really suspicious, but it isn`t. Apart from a very few early media reports like the ones I linked to they have hardly been mentioned at all, so it`s not as if this is something that`s been added to the narrative to cause discussion. It hasn`t caused any discussion. What settles it for me is that all "terrorist" attacks are accompanied by drills and you can look into them all one by one and you`ll find matching drills going on at the same time or in the case of Oslo in 2011 the morning before the event. Since 9/11 is an obvious false flag whichever way you approach it you would therefore expect to find drills going on and indeed there were. This is the final evidence needed when you come from the forensic angle and have seen all the suspicious stuff in New York and the Pentagon, because if you didn`t find drills there would be some chance it was a genuine "terrorist" attack, if such a thing even exists. That is why I consider the drills the proof of inside job; the final piece of the puzzle that moves it beyond doubt.
As for Wood and her claims I have no way to prove or disprove them, and although it`s possible she`s right I need some evidence that`s not ambiguous. Nano thermite produces rust and molten iron as its main byproduct. There was rust on the vehicles you mentioned and molten iron in the basement. There`s nothing there that disproves the hypothesis that nano thermite was used to demolish the towers. In fact, more or less all the evidence available supports this.

What you say about the drills during terror events is the exact point, the powers that be know that this has been noted by investigators, so to keep doing that is 'illogical'

How were cars charred half a mile away from the scene?

How can nano-enhanced thermite turn buildings to dust?

http://drjudywood.com/articles/scien...ficMethod.html
read the bit about starwars beams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2dI-yRkFXY