YOUTUBE THERE IS NO REASON TO BAN THIS! - 9/11 inside job

READ ME! READ ME!



I believe 9/11 was a self inflicted wound - an excuse to invade wherever and do whatever.
It had no personal cost to anyone on government, so please ignore Bush's 'pain'.

This video addresses one of many points:

1. The middle of each twin tower was reinforced - there is a grey band visually showing us excactly where.
2. JUST below this REINFORCED section, comes the largest explosion squib seen on the day. Of course, becuase its reinforced, it needed more explosion to bring it down!

Its certainly not compression / 'pancake' theory, as its at least 20 floors below.

Please offer a viable alternative, all those who doubt.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1010192776487825352

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 9/11
• bush
• iraq
• inside
• job
• false
• flag
• charlie
• sheen
• 9-11
• lonelygirl15
• sex
• wii
• ps3
• iphone
• halo
• porn
• towers
• iran
• fast
• bang

[nithilis]

Ok the building was already collapsing when you see a tiny poof of smoke compared to everything else. the building was already collapsing noting could have stopped it. also that poof of smoke could have bean caused by anything. You have no facts all you have is speculation and a hypotheses with no data to back it up. its people like you who make everyone so paranoid and anti government.

[davidfoshee]

HAHAHA yeah morons who don't listen to what mainstream media tells , people who use their own eyes and brain to piece something together for themselves....what a bunch of idiots...Whats even better is the true morons who get on here and try to make a fool of the people with the real proof. I'm sure your the kinda person who believes the swine flu is going to kill us all because the media won't stop talking about. Too bad the normal flu kills 76000 people a year but you'll never hear that

[SuckDeezNutzBitch]

@nithilis hahaha No evidence? Oh boy, we have so much evidence it's not even funny. What evidence do you have? "oh, it can be anything" Obviously you don't know anything numb skull

[enlighteningshockras]

@nithilis hey bush talks about there being explosives in buildinds 9/11 .youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP­4I&feature=autoplay&list=PL9E7­58331EBB7DF4A&index=29&playnex­t=3

[Onesimus2637]

The entire Clinton Adminstration is an embarassment - time after time they prove it. Albright is a total fool, Sandy Burger is too busy stuffing documents down his pants to protect his insider political buddies. Now we have another administration that is an even larger embarassment. Imagine Hillary Clinton as Sec of State! the only thing worse is Obama bowing down to these murderous neadrathals. God Bless our troops and may he give our snipers protection and perfect aim in times of need.

[unclesamsnephew666]

@tidyboyd you're a joke. you say you aren't avoiding anything and then you offer this pile of shit...

"signing that contract 6weeks before the 911 isnt 100% proof"

...in response to

"WHY is a terrorism rider on an insurance policy for a building that had been targeted by terrorists (true or not--it was bombed) only 8 years earlier suspicious?"

I didn't ask if it was 100% proof, I asked why it is suspicious. answer it if you expect an answer to your questions.

[tidyboyd]

@BarkyVonSchnauzer1 Yo ballbag, are you going to answer my question? Law of falling bodies? havent heard a peep out of ya since I mentioned it? whats up? cat got ya tongue?

[tidyboyd]

@unclesamsnephew666 yea im just a crazy guy looking at the facts instead of listening to the mainstream media. Im not avoiding anything, signing that contract 6weeks before the 911 isnt 100% proof any idiot could tell you that (mentioning no names). Could you please tell me what molten pools of metal were doing at the bottom of the world trade centre and would you like to take a look at the steel support pictures after the buildings have come down?

[unclesamsnephew666]

@tidyboyd

so let's hear it, tidybowl. WHY is a terrorism rider on an insurance policy for a building that had been targeted by terrorists (true or not--it was bombed) only 8 years earlier suspicious?

explain what is suspicious about that. dont bother bringing up new shit, old shit, fake shit or whatever. just have the balls to explain why you think insuring a building already bombed against terrorism is suspicious. give it a shot. you won't die if your explanation is absurd.