9/11 conspiracy?

[dre2142]

How hard would it be to fly the jet low over the pentagon, fire the missle and fly over the atlantic with the fireball as your cover? Seems simple, that way people saw the low flying jet and an explosion. 1+1=2 for them. Understandable.


ROFL. Fly over the Atlantic? oh geez. Use fireball as your cover? ROFL.

I take it you have never been to NOVA or DC?

You really are a piece of work!

[dre2142]

WHy did Hani Hanjour fly a circle around the pentagon to line it up at that uninhabited, fortified area of the petagon?

Edit: first address my responses from earlier like you said you would.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm

[dre2142]

And the whole "hole" argument that you are posing....you havent specified which "hole" you are referring to...the one in C Ring?

In regards to the towers leaning...they did. Just watch the videos. And the pancaking effect wouldnt have taken any longer. That has been proven as well....comparing the time it took the towers to fall with the hundreds of controlled demolitions that have been done in the last 10-20 years.

So when did the guilty plant all of those explosions in every floor of the towers?

[seekupchuck]

And the whole "hole" argument that you are posing....you havent specified which "hole" you are referring to...the one in C Ring?

In regards to the towers leaning...they did. Just watch the videos. And the pancaking effect wouldnt have taken any longer. That has been proven as well....comparing the time it took the towers to fall with the hundreds of controlled demolitions that have been done in the last 10-20 years.

So when did the guilty plant all of those explosions in every floor of the towers?

Show me something that proves the pancaking would not require more than 15 seconds. It is physically impossible unless explosives were used.

As far as the fireball and massive explosions as a cover for the jet to make it off the scene amidst the ensuing chaos, I do not see this as being impossible. Wouldnt cameras from the opposite side of the pentagon be able to prove this false? I am assuming the building has cameras that observe the airspace above. This theory could be put to bed with these videos.

[seekupchuck]

Some quick things I need answered:

Where is the damage from the engines? The remains of engines.

Bush is on record saying that he watched the first tower get hit before he went into the classroom. How did he see this?

[seekupchuck]

Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine
(Interview with Lyric Wallwork Winik, Parade Magazine)
Q: This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?
Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.
They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center

[Trippin4136]

Yes. Watch the movie 9/11 In Plane Sight. It was posted a few posts back.


Are you serious man??

I watched the second tower get hit on LIVE TV....It was an American Airlines 737 as clear as day.

[Crazy#41]

^^

He also said Flight 93 was shot down, which I do believe to be the case.
That's the only conspiracy I believe in on 9/11.

No bombs in the trade centre towers.. I mean, com'n..

WHO, regardless of FBI, CIA or hired contractors would actually go into the towers and plant bombs with people actively working lol.

Unless the members of the bush administration did it themselves? lol


BUT about the cameras on pentagon, Yes.

There are dozens of cameras on the Pentagon, pointing in every direction.

Why none of those were released?

Who knows.

[dre2142]

Show me something that proves the pancaking would not require more than 15 seconds. It is physically impossible unless explosives were used. Its all speculation...for every expert you post up, I can post up an expert saying it is possible.


As far as the fireball and massive explosions as a cover for the jet to make it off the scene amidst the ensuing chaos, I do not see this as being impossible. Wouldnt cameras from the opposite side of the pentagon be able to prove this false? I am assuming the building has cameras that observe the airspace above. This theory could be put to bed with these videos.

Cmon, do you honestly believe that? Really? Not a single person saw the jet fly off into the sunset? Its a ridiculous scenario, and you know it. Stop grasping at straws.

[dre2142]

You dont find the scenario I just presented possible?

And also, it is BS that these witnesses are taken 100% at their word, and the firefighters and others at the WTC are "mistaken" when they heard multiple explosions. What a crock of shit. I guess the illegals mowing the lawn are more credible then FDNY.

A person witnessing a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon is much more credible than a FEW firefighters hearing loud noises at a building that was just hit by a commercial airline.

[dre2142]

Bush is NOT on record saying he watched the 1st tower get hit before going into the school...FALSE.

Explain these pictures, taken from inside the pentagon (landing gear, wheel hub, engine parts:
http://www.rense.com/general32/Damage9.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general32/landinggear002.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general32/aedrive6.jpg

What about this piece on the lawn? http://911u.org/CoDR/images/pentagonScrap.jpg
Heres a diagram showing the exact parts of that piece:
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/letterpiececomp.jpg

Rotor:
http://911review.org/Wiki/pentagon-rotor.JPG

[dre2142]

Some quick things I need answered:

Where is the damage from the engines? The remains of engines.

Bush is on record saying that he watched the first tower get hit before he went into the classroom. How did he see this?

Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parade Magazine
(Interview with Lyric Wallwork Winik, Parade Magazine)
Q: This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?
Rumsfeld: There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.
They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center


LOL. It has been shown that he wasnt using the term "missile" literally.....

[Beefsteak1138]

What about this piece on the lawn? http://911u.org/CoDR/images/pentagonScrap.jpg
Heres a diagram showing the exact parts of that piece:
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/letterpiececomp.jpg

Rotor:
http://911review.org/Wiki/pentagon-rotor.JPG

Planted by aliens, def.

[Beefsteak1138]

LOL. It has been shown that he wasnt using the term "missile" literally.....

Plus, "missile" doesn't have to mean what we traditionally think. Any object propelled through the air could be defined as a missile.....including a plane in this instance.

[dre2142]

Plus, "missile" doesn't have to mean what we traditionally think. Any object propelled through the air could be defined as a missile.....including a plane in this instance.


Exactly. It wasnt literal "missile"

[Beefsteak1138]

Exactly. It wasnt literal "missile"

I actually just blew a missile all over seekupchuck's mom's face.

[seekupchuck]

A person witnessing a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon is much more credible than a FEW firefighters hearing loud noises at a building that was just hit by a commercial airline.


There are as many witnesses who heard explosions that saw a plane hit the pentagon. Are you really trying to say it is not obvious, the difference between an explosion and a "loud noise" Now who is reaching? ROLF

[seekupchuck]

Are you serious man??

I watched the second tower get hit on LIVE TV....It was an American Airlines 737 as clear as day.

Oh, so close up, slow mo of those same videos are disregarded by you?Again, show me where it is clear as day that the vids show it to be a standard commercial jet.

[~Crashintome89~]

How hard would it be to fly the jet low over the pentagon, fire the missle and fly over the atlantic with the fireball as your cover? Seems simple, that way people saw the low flying jet and an explosion. 1+1=2 for them. Understandable.

:lol :lol :lol

Pretty fuckin' hard. God, you people really are dumb.

[seekupchuck]

^^

He also said Flight 93 was shot down, which I do believe to be the case.
That's the only conspiracy I believe in on 9/11.

No bombs in the trade centre towers.. I mean, com'n..

WHO, regardless of FBI, CIA or hired contractors would actually go into the towers and plant bombs with people actively working lol.

Unless the members of the bush administration did it themselves? lol


BUT about the cameras on pentagon, Yes.

There are dozens of cameras on the Pentagon, pointing in every direction.

Why none of those were released?

Who knows.


Why is this so hard to believe? I am asserting that this regime are criminals and cold blooded killers of the highest sense. Kind of in the same sense of the mafia. They believe they are soldiers in a worldwide struggle where you eat or get eat'n. If we can get our heads around this notion for mafias and other organized crime, why is it so hard to believe the Cheneys could do it? Only difference is they answer to no one, have unlimited funding, the best technology in the world, all the coverup material at their disposal and the media.

Still find it that hard to believe. We are to believe that 19 guys hated America so much and believed in their religious right to this planet so much that they would commit these acts, yet it is out of the question for this crime family to get a team of either real terrorists or blackwater type men within their circles to pull this off? When they would have had complete access to the buildings? This is one of the biggest misconceptions of the entire argument, that there arent people in this world to be contracted to do such a thing.

In addition, lets say someone woiuld get a conscience about what they did on their behalf a few years later. How do you think it would be received by the masses if some nut job came out and said "I was contracted by the administration to do this crime" He would be completely dismissed as a kook. They counted on this simple piece of human nature. So they actually never really had to worry about someone blowing their cove after the fact.

[seekupchuck]

Its all speculation...for every expert you post up, I can post up an expert saying it is possible.




Cmon, do you honestly believe that? Really? Not a single person saw the jet fly off into the sunset? Its a ridiculous scenario, and you know it. Stop grasping at straws.

What? Can we use the laws of physics please.

[seekupchuck]

LOL. It has been shown that he wasnt using the term "missile" literally.....


I am grasping at straws? He says "planes" into the wtc and "missle" into the pentagon! Why would he use missle as a synonym for plane.:lol

I think it was a Freudian slip of epic proportions.

[seekupchuck]

Plus, "missile" doesn't have to mean what we traditionally think. Any object propelled through the air could be defined as a missile.....including a plane in this instance.


:lolIf I have to admit certain claims w/in the truth movement are ridiculous, shouldnt you guys be held to the same expectations?

[Trippin4136]

Oh, so close up, slow mo of those same videos are disregarded by you?Again, show me where it is clear as day that the vids show it to be a standard commercial jet.

Because I saw it with my own freaking eyes LIVE as it happened. And then again 50,000 times that day from 100 different angles.

I don't need some crackpot in a google video to trying to be dissuaded.

Argument there were "explosives" in the Towers is ridiculous enough, but now you people have gone so far as to say those WEREN'T two American Airlines jets that hit the Towers??

GET FUCKING REAL.

[seekupchuck]

Bush is NOT on record saying he watched the 1st tower get hit before going into the school...FALSE.

Explain these pictures, taken from inside the pentagon (landing gear, wheel hub, engine parts:
http://www.rense.com/general32/Damage9.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general32/landinggear002.jpg
http://www.rense.com/general32/aedrive6.jpg

What about this piece on the lawn? http://911u.org/CoDR/images/pentagonScrap.jpg
Heres a diagram showing the exact parts of that piece:
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/letterpiececomp.jpg

Rotor:
http://911review.org/Wiki/pentagon-rotor.JPG


A spokesman from Rolls Royce has said clear as day that the parts found, including the rotor did not come from any engine used in the Boeings

[seekupchuck]

Because I saw it with my own freaking eyes LIVE as it happened. And then again 50,000 times that day from 100 different angles.

I don't need some crackpot in a google video to trying to be dissuaded.

Argument there were "explosives" in the Towers is ridiculous enough, but now you people have gone so far as to say those WEREN'T two American Airlines jets that hit the Towers??

GET FUCKING REAL.

We are trying to present evidence in this thread, milwaukees best induced rants from the resident meathead.

[Trippin4136]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rKtvTBQ7uY

Pause this at 0:57. If that's not a commercial jet? What is it?

And namecalling...nice!! That doesn't make you look any less credible than you already are.

I'd rather be called a "meathead" than living in some deranged, crazed self-indulgence where my daily life is consumed by fear and conspiracy.

[seekupchuck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rKtvTBQ7uY

Pause this at 0:57. If that's not a commercial jet? What is it?

And namecalling...nice!! That doesn't make you look any less credible than you already are.

I'd rather be called a "meathead" than living in some deranged, crazed self-indulgence where my daily life is consumed by fear and conspiracy.

OK, go debate the difference between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. That makes you sane! It is exactly the opposite. I am not ruled by fear, which is why I can admit that we are being dominated and used by a scary regime. You are to scared to admit it. I sleep fine knowing I am not being duped by these fellas.

Wow, I must have hit the nail on the head with that meathead comment huh? Ill see you and your popped collar at Alpine sir! Well bong some brews brah!

[seekupchuck]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rKtvTBQ7uY

Pause this at 0:57. If that's not a commercial jet? What is it?

And namecalling...nice!! That doesn't make you look any less credible than you already are.

I'd rather be called a "meathead" than living in some deranged, crazed self-indulgence where my daily life is consumed by fear and conspiracy.


You can NOT tell this is a passenger plane from that video.

[Trippin4136]

:lol Nothing to say about the video huh??

You have psyched yourself into believing something that isn't there. Talk about DUPED!

Run along...:lol

[Trippin4136]

You can NOT tell this is a passenger plane from that video.

Have you ever been to an airport?

[Beefsteak1138]

OK, go debate the difference between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. That makes you sane! It is exactly the opposite. I am not ruled by fear, which is why I can admit that we are being dominated and used by a scary regime. You are to scared to admit it. I sleep fine knowing I am not being duped by these fellas.

Wow, I must have hit the nail on the head with that meathead comment huh? Ill see you and your popped collar at Alpine sir! Well bong some brews brah!

Don't forget that John Titur predicted all of this too!

[dre2142]

A spokesman from Rolls Royce has said clear as day that the parts found, including the rotor did not come from any engine used in the Boeings

Link

[dre2142]

You can NOT tell this is a passenger plane from that video.


Oh please. This is really getting comical with you.

[dre2142]

What? Can we use the laws of physics please.


Exactly. Yes...laws of physics. Nothing you post can show that the laws of physics proves that the pancaking isnt possible in that time frame.

[seekupchuck]

Have you ever been to an airport?


Have you ever seen military issued jets from the bottom? They look exactly the same.

[seekupchuck]

Its all speculation...for every expert you post up, I can post up an expert saying it is possible.




Cmon, do you honestly believe that? Really? Not a single person saw the jet fly off into the sunset? Its a ridiculous scenario, and you know it. Stop grasping at straws.

Could this have been the plane that fired missle, flew back into airspace?

http://www.theonlinewire.com/articleView.aspx?ID=3008

I thought no one saw a plane? Says here secret service saw this Airforce plane, capable of firing missles.

[dre2142]

Have you ever seen military issued jets from the bottom? They look exactly the same.

Are you saing that all of the videos of the planes hitting the towers are from below?

[seekupchuck]

Exactly. Yes...laws of physics. Nothing you post can show that the laws of physics proves that the pancaking isnt possible in that time frame.


http://911review.org/Reports/Pancake-Theory_Collapse.html

Can we say it is probably impossible?;)

[seekupchuck]

Are you saing that all of the videos of the planes hitting the towers are from below?

Huh? No, the video he posted showed it from below. My point was it looks no different in that video than an Air Force jet, like the planes shown in the movie. Much like the Boeing E-4, but the one with only 2 engines. I cant remember what that one is.

If someone can post a video or picture of the planes at the wtc showing it clearly to be a commercial passenger plane, I will concede this point.

[dre2142]

Could this have been the plane that fired missle, flew back into airspace?

http://www.theonlinewire.com/articleView.aspx?ID=3008

I thought no one saw a plane? Says here secret service saw this Airforce plane, capable of firing missles.


Interesting, but there is very little speculation that THAT particular plane swooped down across the Potomac, knocked down some light poles onto the interstate, fired a missile, and then lifted up over the skyscrapers on the other side of the Pentagon with no one seeing it do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgF9Fd4UyMY

[seekupchuck]

Interesting, but there is very little speculation that THAT particular plane swooped down across the Potomac, knocked down some light poles onto the interstate, fired a missile, and then lifted up over the skyscrapers on the other side of the Pentagon with no one seeing it do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgF9Fd4UyMY


Interesting. I had never seen that video.

[~Crashintome89~]

Could this have been the plane that fired missle, flew back into airspace?

http://www.theonlinewire.com/articleView.aspx?ID=3008

I thought no one saw a plane? Says here secret service saw this Airforce plane, capable of firing missles.

How can that plane fire a missile if it's circling above it's target?

[Trippin4136]

Have you ever seen military issued jets from the bottom? They look exactly the same.

You know of any camera angles that caught the planes from 700 feet off the ground?? How can YOU prove it was a military plane? How about that.

[seekupchuck]

How can that plane fire a missile if it's circling above it's target?

:lolWell, first of all, I believe it would still be possible to hit an exact point on the pentagon from waaaaay above.

But I was trying to say it was possible for this to be the plane that may have flew just above the pentagon, fired the missle and escape to the airspace above.

[~Crashintome89~]

:lolWell, first of all, I believe it would still be possible to hit an exact point on the pentagon from waaaaay above.

But I was trying to say it was possible for this to be the plane that may have flew just above the pentagon, fired the missle and escape to the airspace above.

No, then it's not possible. Therefore you are wrong. What about all the damage in the grass area? How did that happen if the plane was all the way up there?

[comerelaxnow]

Oh, so close up, slow mo of those same videos are disregarded by you?Again, show me where it is clear as day that the vids show it to be a standard commercial jet.

ok so what happened to the commerical jets that just happened to disappear that day?

[seekupchuck]

You know of any camera angles that caught the planes from 700 feet off the ground?? How can YOU prove it was a military plane? How about that.


I am speculating based on the pictures that show a potential pod on the undersidde of the jet, that would indicate it was not a commercial boeing.

I wouldnt be able to prove it, because someone could say it is a doctored photo, and in all honesty that is possible. Again, the official report is the one with all of these POTENTIAL pieces of evidence that suggest an alternative possiblity. I would tend to put the burden of proving these questions false, on the official story side of the argument.

[seekupchuck]

ok so what happened to the commerical jets that just happened to disappear that day?


Again, if what I speculate happened, happened, gettin rid of a few jets that are thought to be destroyed anyway, would NOT be a problem.

Also, what exactly happened to the jets is not relavent to this argument if I am just trying to prove the improbability of the official story. I more just have to show enough questions that cant be ultimately answered.

[comerelaxnow]

Again, if what I speculate happened, happened, gettin rid of a few jets that are thought to be destroyed anyway, would NOT be a problem.

and the people who died on those planes?

[seekupchuck]

and the people who died on those planes?

What about them? I would argue they were disposed of, if thats what you mean.

[seekupchuck]

Doesnt the fact that this is argued by folks like you, give credence to the POSSIBILTY the official story may not be 100% truthfull?

[comerelaxnow]

Doesnt the fact that this is argued by folks like you, give credence to the POSSIBILTY the official story may not be 100% truthfull?


not even alittle

[seekupchuck]

not even alittle

I think you are wrong and certain people engage in the argument hoping to dig and dig and that they will come up with the ultimate proof that the official story is infallible. But it never happens. When what they thought would be a slam dunk with a little research, doesnt come together so easily, anger and confusion ensues.:D

[Trippin4136]

Personally, I'm not trying to prove the gov't's story is 100% infalliable. I believe there are plenty of cracks in it, I just think you're a fool if you think anything other than commercial airliners hit the WTC.

[seekupchuck]

Personally, I'm not trying to prove the gov't's story is 100% infalliable. I believe there are plenty of cracks in it, I just think you're a fool if you think anything other than commercial airliners hit the WTC.

why would there be cracks if what they say happened happened. I dont rule out commercial airlines hitting the wtc either. I dont see that point making either story a winner.

[seekupchuck]

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/24-japan-questions-9-11-and-the-global-war-on-terror/

Entire nations are questioning this now.

[pkrfan97]

and the people who died on those planes?

ever seen Lost? :haha

[~Crashintome89~]

No, then it's not possible. Therefore you are wrong. What about all the damage in the grass area? How did that happen if the plane was all the way up there?

I am still waiting for an answer to my question....

[comerelaxnow]

i bet you bush killed lincoln

[dre2142]

What about them? I would argue they were disposed of, if thats what you mean.

Youve been watching FRINGE, havent you?

[JMcCartyFBI]

Three questions for those who believe in the conspiracy:

(1). How many people had to have been involved to pull it all of? My estimate of people just that we know about (witnesses in NYC and DC, airline and airport personnel across the country, people working late in the buildings in the days before the attacks, the crime scene investigators, etc.) comes out to nearly 1,000 people. If there was a conspiracy, naturally there would have to be more.

(2). On that note, what conspiracy involving those numbers of people has ever successfully remained hidden? Obviously, if there is one, hardly anyone would know about it since it was successfully hidden, but surely there would be conspiracy theorists like yourselves that believe that such a cover-up exists. And I'm not talking about something ridiculous like those flat-earth nutjobs we found last year. I'm talking about a conspiracy with a discernible motive, which involved over 1,000 people successfully keeping their silence.

(3). Why would an administration with that kind of power not also fabricate the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Planting manufactured chemical and biological warheads would have been far, far easier than orchestrating 9/11, and it would have saved the administration an infinite amount of time and embarrassment. Bush has not gained one thing from the lack of WMDs, and he has lost quite a bit. Why get dragged through the mud when you have that kind of power?

[seekupchuck]

I am still waiting for an answer to my question....


there was very minimal damage to the grass area, relative to the circumstances of the official claim.

[Tiduwho]

How.....after evidence is placed in front of your face...over and over...disproving this nonsense OVER and OVER, can these people still "dig" to try and find more crap to put eerie music to and call a conspiracy?

[seekupchuck]

Three questions for those who believe in the conspiracy:

(1). How many people had to have been involved to pull it all of? My estimate of people just that we know about (witnesses in NYC and DC, airline and airport personnel across the country, people working late in the buildings in the days before the attacks, the crime scene investigators, etc.) comes out to nearly 1,000 people. If there was a conspiracy, naturally there would have to be more.

(2). On that note, what conspiracy involving those numbers of people has ever successfully remained hidden? Obviously, if there is one, hardly anyone would know about it since it was successfully hidden, but surely there would be conspiracy theorists like yourselves that believe that such a cover-up exists. And I'm not talking about something ridiculous like those flat-earth nutjobs we found last year. I'm talking about a conspiracy with a discernible motive, which involved over 1,000 people successfully keeping their silence.

(3). Why would an administration with that kind of power not also fabricate the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Planting manufactured chemical and biological warheads would have been far, far easier than orchestrating 9/11, and it would have saved the administration an infinite amount of time and embarrassment. Bush has not gained one thing from the lack of WMDs, and he has lost quite a bit. Why get dragged through the mud when you have that kind of power?


1.) I dont see this many people having to know about the plan, maybe roughly this many who werent willing or analytical enough to throw up a red flag. But as far as actual participants, not nearly as many. I'll give you an example: Norad. On the surface people may think you need all these aircontrollers and workers to be complicit, this is not true. All you need is a little confusion and a strong trigger man(cheney). This concept follows through the operation for the most part. Compartmentalization. (i'll take 20 letter words for $500 alex).

Once again, remaining people that find out or catch wind of the op and may try to whistle blow are either silenced or simply allowed to speak their "crazy" toughts. They discredit themselves by speaking the conspiracy in the first place. Most people with careers and families, this is quite powerfull, not everyone is a hero.

2.)I think my answer above would cover this as well. The same concepts apply IMO.

3.)This is a valid question. You think they would have. I think that 9/11 is the most important thing to get accomplished because that is what allows for the never ending, never questioned war in the first place. It is the justification for not finding WMD's. It justifies all they need. If it wanes, there will be another event. But this was their Reishtag IMO.

[seekupchuck]

How.....after evidence is placed in front of your face...over and over...disproving this nonsense OVER and OVER, can these people still "dig" to try and find more crap to put eerie music to and call a conspiracy?


Take the eerie music away and there are unanswered, important questions.

It is funny to me that you consider the releasing of the pancake theory(which is how 3 buildings fell on that day) as nonsense! Also funny how everyone trying to debunk this theory hoots and hollers about physics, but then in the same breathe tries to convince me that laws of physics dont apply to this bogus pancake theory. You disregard the Conservation of Energy principle all together, like it isnt legitimate.

So your "physics" are the BS claims of a biased PM magazine. Where every single claim is refutted by an equal amount of physicists and engineers, because they tackle debatable topics.

My "physics" involves the conservation of energy and gravity. undebatable.

Yeah, I hate the fuckin music in SOME of these videos, but get over the over-production of these wannabe film makers. BTW, if you read, there is no music;)

[Tiduwho]

Take the eerie music away and there are unanswered, important questions.

It is funny to me that you consider the releasing of the pancake theory(which is how 3 buildings fell on that day) as nonsense! Also funny how everyone trying to debunk this theory hoots and hollers about physics, but then in the same breathe tries to convince me that laws of physics dont apply to this bogus pancake theory. You disregard the Conservation of Energy principle all together, like it isnt legitimate.

So your "physics" are the BS claims of a biased PM magazine. Where every single claim is refutted by an equal amount of physicists and engineers, because they tackle debatable topics.

My "physics" involves the conservation of energy and gravity. undebatable.

Yeah, I hate the fuckin music in SOME of these videos, but get over the over-production of these wannabe film makers. BTW, if you read, there is no music;)

What's the sample size of skyscrapers that have collapsed in a manner similar to the WTC? Next, what is the sample size of skyscrapers that have been hit by commercial airliners?


The simple fact of the matter is, just because something happens that is unexpected or different from what scientists/engineers/etc thought before, doesn't mean that there has to be something extravagant to explain it. There was no such thing a moving black hole, until they discovered one in 2002. They were always thought to be stationery, but with such a small sample size, they were proved wrong.

The same principle applies to what happens when a commercial airliner hits a skyscraper.

[Tiduwho]

When referencing the engineer's specs pre-911 in relation to the WTC, what it should be able to withstand etc etc.....


While your out making crazy accusations, why not just make a logical one first? Maybe the construction/engineering/etc that went into it was all shitty. Maybe they did a shitty job.

Why are some things taken as constants and relied on, while others are questioned? Opinions pre-911 = honesty, gold-plated. Opinions post-911 = biased, big brother got to them.

[seekupchuck]

What's the sample size of skyscrapers that have collapsed in a manner similar to the WTC? Next, what is the sample size of skyscrapers that have been hit by commercial airliners?


The simple fact of the matter is, just because something happens that is unexpected or different from what scientists/engineers/etc thought before, doesn't mean that there has to be something extravagant to explain it. There was no such thing a moving black hole, until they discovered one in 2002. They were always thought to be stationery, but with such a small sample size, they were proved wrong.

The same principle applies to what happens when a commercial airliner hits a skyscraper.


Well. I guess if you want to get all cosmic about it that works. Since I guess there could be certain moments in time when laws of physics cease to exsist, so....

These are two of the most basic and irrefutable laws of physics we have, come on. Just because building real big, building fall hard steel melt, doesnt render the FUCKING LAW of ENERGY CONSERVATION invalid!

So, what we have come to now is that the official story and all its supporters are gonna fall back on the argument, that some laws of physics may not be accurate! I believe I have just proved the validity of the 9/11 truth movement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

[seekupchuck]

When referencing the engineer's specs pre-911 in relation to the WTC, what it should be able to withstand etc etc.....


While your out making crazy accusations, why not just make a logical one first? Maybe the construction/engineering/etc that went into it was all shitty. Maybe they did a shitty job.

Why are some things taken as constants and relied on, while others are questioned? Opinions pre-911 = honesty, gold-plated. Opinions post-911 = biased, big brother got to them.


Maybe the people who built the WTC did a shitty job!?
Maybe the laws of gravity and energy arent what we thought they were?

Do you like apples?

[seekupchuck]

So now we have discreditted 2 completely different architechtural techniques. The core column technique, used in the towers and whatever the fuck technique they used on #7.

Seriously, if it is at least not becoming plausible that they COULD have helped them friggin buildings come down with explosions, then I do not know what to say.

[Koreelove]

9/11 deserves an independent investigation. Period.

[dre2142]

These are two of the most basic and irrefutable laws of physics we have, come on. Just because building real big, building fall hard steel melt, doesnt render the FUCKING LAW of ENERGY CONSERVATION invalid!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which is what? What law of physics are you referring to?

What is the time frame that shouldve happened if explosives arent involved? Please answer those two questions.

[Crazy#41]

Rant

I do see some of your points but honestly, WHO put the bombs in the Trade Centres?

Was it FBI? or CIA? or Contractors?

And if it is any of the above... Why didn't they question why the hell they were doing it when it's occupied full of hundreds of people..

I don't get that argument..

[~Crashintome89~]

there was very minimal damage to the grass area, relative to the circumstances of the official claim.

There were skidmarks, right? How did that come about?

[seekupchuck]

Which is what? What law of physics are you referring to?

What is the time frame that shouldve happened if explosives arent involved? Please answer those two questions.


http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm

Something reasonably above free fall speed, would be rational. I posted a demonstration earlier in the thread that seemed pretty accurate.

Another point people go to without much thought is the melting of the steel.

First, I would argue that the fuel and fire would not be sufficiaent to melt this steel. ( I will concede that there is conflicting accounts within the science world on this point)

Giving the fact the steel melts or weakens sufficiently as the official story says, the collapse of the steel is still inappropriate. If the steel support columns were ALL sufficiently melted/weakened between the floors , say 70-90(these are both EXTREME EXAGERATIONS to demonstrate my point) and they gave, this would not explain the failure of the 46 steel columns from floors 1-69 or 91-110!

Would someone care to take a stab at explaining the failure of the steel not affected directly by the fire? WHich, again, many scientists refuse would even melt the affected columns.

[seekupchuck]

There were skidmarks, right? How did that come about?

I would have to see a picture to give an opinion.

[seekupchuck]

I do see some of your points but honestly, WHO put the bombs in the Trade Centres?

Was it FBI? or CIA? or Contractors?

And if it is any of the above... Why didn't they question why the hell they were doing it when it's occupied full of hundreds of people..

I don't get that argument..


Does Blackwater give a fuck? As long as they are getting paid?
The fact in this world is that there ARE mercanaries willing to whatever. Outside contracting being necessary, only assuming they do not have capable people within this organization of evil elites.

So, no it most likely would not have been FBI, I wouldnt rule out CIA, but most likely independent mercanaries or people from within said death cult.

[seekupchuck]

9/11 deserves an independent investigation. Period.


You are 100% correct. That is ALL they want. People honestly will tell you that the 9/11 Comission IS INDEPENDENT. Do I have to break down why this is hilariously wrong?

[seekupchuck]

I gotta go for now. Thanks to those keeping it civil, I appreciate the opp to discuss this.:thumbsup

[dre2142]

http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm

Something reasonably above free fall speed, would be rational. I posted a demonstration earlier in the thread that seemed pretty accurate.

Another point people go to without much thought is the melting of the steel.

First, I would argue that the fuel and fire would not be sufficiaent to melt this steel. ( I will concede that there is conflicting accounts within the science world on this point)

Giving the fact the steel melts or weakens sufficiently as the official story says, the collapse of the steel is still inappropriate. If the steel support columns were ALL sufficiently melted/weakened between the floors , say 70-90(these are both EXTREME EXAGERATIONS to demonstrate my point) and they gave, this would not explain the failure of the 46 steel columns from floors 1-69 or 91-110!

Would someone care to take a stab at explaining the failure of the steel not affected directly by the fire? WHich, again, many scientists refuse would even melt the affected columns.

The sole fact that the plane took out the amount of girders that it did at impact is enough to weak those 6-7 floors of each tower.
And the explanation of the lower floors failing is the fact that the weight of the towers above it weakened them.

A flaw in your argument is that there would have had to been HUNDREDS of detonations on HUNDREDS of steel beams in BOTH towers for it to fall by controlled demolition. ALSO, MILES of wiring between every single floor in BOTH towers for it to have been done properly to get it to pancakce by controlled demolition.

In addition.......yeah, the first few floors did pancake, but there no videos that show the bottom 50 floors "pancaking" due to the dust and debris, are there? (rhetorical question because I already know the answer)

[seekupchuck]

The sole fact that the plane took out the amount of girders that it did at impact is enough to weak those 6-7 floors of each tower.
And the explanation of the lower floors failing is the fact that the weight of the towers above it weakened them.

A flaw in your argument is that there would have had to been HUNDREDS of detonations on HUNDREDS of steel beams in BOTH towers for it to fall by controlled demolition. ALSO, MILES of wiring between every single floor in BOTH towers for it to have been done properly to get it to pancakce by controlled demolition.

In addition.......yeah, the first few floors did pancake, but there no videos that show the bottom 50 floors "pancaking" due to the dust and debris, are there? (rhetorical question because I already know the answer)

The plane did NOT TAKE OUT as many Steel columns as you are trying to suggest, if any! This is why the plane explodes, because of the strength of the steel.

And if that section of the steel was weakened enough, you still dont answer the question as to how the steel on the lower 70 some floors fails! If anything, the place where the floors are attached to the steel columns would fail, leaving, what many engineers have concluded, a pancaked set of floors and a still standing 70 floors of steel columns. Also, the steal columns from above the impact point would still be in tact, no? In the pile of rubble.

Wait a minute. You are saying that the flaw in my argument is that there wouldve had to have been hundreds of explosives and wires etc. to pancake the building? But your theory pancakes the building with ZERO EXPLOSIVES! WHAT?

I do not find the sufficient wiring of the building to be impossible given the access available to these guys. Also, if you account for the presence of thermite, this becomes a lot easier.

[comerelaxnow]

Wait a minute. You are saying that the flaw in my argument is that there wouldve had to have been hundreds of explosives and wires etc. to pancake the building? But your theory pancakes the building with ZERO EXPLOSIVES! WHAT?

I do not find the sufficient wiring of the building to be impossible given the access available to these guys. Also, if you account for the presence of thermite, this becomes a lot easier.

i took what he said as that IF bulidings pancaked BECAUSE of controlled demo, there would have to be hundreds of explosives and wires which of course would not go un noticed

are you telling me that someone did all of that work and nobody noticed it??

[Koreelove]

i took what he said as that IF bulidings pancaked BECAUSE of controlled demo, there would have to be hundreds of explosives and wires which of course would not go un noticed

are you telling me that someone did all of that work and nobody noticed it??

the best way to hide something is to put it right in front of your face.

[Tomriddle]

Good Lord.

[comerelaxnow]

its just proof of how out of control and blown out of proportion this whole George Bush bashing has gotten. that a group of idiots would sit around and somehow try and prove that george bush and our own government attack ourselves on our own land.

[buzz05232000]

its just proof of how out of control and blown out of proportion this whole George Bush bashing has gotten. that a group of idiots would sit around and somehow try and prove that george bush and our own government attack ourselves on our own land.
It's more like how out of control the availability to voice one's opinion has gotten.

You put a bunch of nut-jobs on a messageboard and anything can happen.

[dvalukis]

crazier things have happened since the beginning of time.

[dre2142]

The plane did NOT TAKE OUT as many Steel columns as you are trying to suggest, if any! This is why the plane explodes, because of the strength of the steel. What are you basing this on? Obviously a guess on your part

And if that section of the steel was weakened enough, you still dont answer the question as to how the steel on the lower 70 some floors fails! If anything, the place where the floors are attached to the steel columns would fail, leaving, what many engineers have concluded, a pancaked set of floors and a still standing 70 floors of steel columns. Also, the steal columns from above the impact point would still be in tact, no? In the pile of rubble. Did you not see the pile of debris? There are thousands of bent steel girders

Wait a minute. You are saying that the flaw in my argument is that there wouldve had to have been hundreds of explosives and wires etc. to pancake the building? But your theory pancakes the building with ZERO EXPLOSIVES! WHAT? No, Im saying that you are claiming that explosives were used....and that if in fact explosive WERE used, the scenario I posted would have had to have occured. In my scenario (and what truly happened), the upper floors did pancake, and the bottom floors were just taken out by the weight above it. Are you going to address the fact that you have no idea idea if the bottom floors pancaked or not?

I do not find the sufficient wiring of the building to be impossible given the access available to these guys. Also, if you account for the presence of thermite, this becomes a lot easier.Ok, lol


:thumbsdow

Also please address the fact that there were no explosions outwards. Have you never seen a controlled demolition? Guess you dont watch the NG or Discovery Channel.

[seekupchuck]

its just proof of how out of control and blown out of proportion this whole George Bush bashing has gotten. that a group of idiots would sit around and somehow try and prove that george bush and our own government attack ourselves on our own land.


Well you have certainly gotten to the bottom of the situation!

[seekupchuck]

It's more like how out of control the availability to voice one's opinion has gotten.

You put a bunch of nut-jobs on a messageboard and anything can happen.


You make me feel much better about the team I have who believe this, verses people like you who dont. Which is the more deranged statement?

"There may be aspects of the official story that are false or covered up. Cant explain exactly why, but there are alot of unanswered questions."

or

"The ability to voice ones opinion has gotten out of control"

[seekupchuck]

:thumbsdow

Also please address the fact that there were no explosions outwards. Have you never seen a controlled demolition? Guess you dont watch the NG or Discovery Channel.


I have seen a controlled demolition. The most perfect one I have seen is Building 7.

Who owns NG and Discovery?

[seekupchuck]

I had a bonfire last night. With this fresh in my mind, I laid a pipe right across the fire. The fire was raging for 8 hours. The pipe is virtually unscathed this morning. Im not sure what kind of metal it is, or if the fire reached 1450 degrees or just 1440 degrees, but it was puuurrty hot.

How thick were these tempered steel girders? How many were there? What temp does steel weaken at? How long will it withstand this temp before sufficiently weakening? How hot does jet fuel burn? Why was the fire and damage so different at the pentagon?

On the explosive setting topic, I would not be able to guarantee this since I had never been inside, but isnt the core column structure seperated from the main areas of the building?

[seekupchuck]

crazier things have happened since the beginning of time.

Many, many, many.:thumbsup

Most often perpetrated by the masters.

[dre2142]

I have seen a controlled demolition. The most perfect one I have seen is Building 7.

Who owns NG and Discovery?

You saying theyre in on it too?

And I wasnt referring to 9/11 specials on those channels...Im referring to the many many many specials they have on controlled demolitions....hotels, skyscrapers, casinos, etc.

[~Crashintome89~]

I have seen a controlled demolition. The most perfect one I have seen is Building 7.

Who owns NG and Discovery?

lolololololz. Too bad you don't know what 'pull it' means in firefighter terms. :lol

[rconverse]

I had a bonfire last night. With this fresh in my mind, I laid a pipe right across the fire. The fire was raging for 8 hours. The pipe is virtually unscathed this morning. Im not sure what kind of metal it is, or if the fire reached 1450 degrees or just 1440 degrees, but it was puuurrty hot.

How thick were these tempered steel girders? How many were there? What temp does steel weaken at? How long will it withstand this temp before sufficiently weakening? How hot does jet fuel burn? Why was the fire and damage so different at the pentagon?

On the explosive setting topic, I would not be able to guarantee this since I had never been inside, but isnt the core column structure seperated from the main areas of the building?

Hmmm. I'm no expert, but I would think that an explosion of a highly flammable substance such as gasoline would create a much, much larger heat source than some logs. I could be wrong though.

[Scuba Jeremy]

I don't know much about who caused 9/11, but I applaud the Republican's use of this tragedy for political gains.

Real men of honor.

[rconverse]

I don't know much about who caused 9/11, but I applaud the Republican's use of this tragedy for political gains.

Real men of honor.

:rolleyes

Why not use it? It happened, didn't it?

[Scuba Jeremy]

Shameless.

[dmbinchicago]

Seriously, guys. You are trying to argue with people who are not rational. If this were a conspiracy, it would be the most pointless and far-fetched schemes in world history. Stranger things have almost certainly not happened.

It's a bunch of theories and guesses involving explosions, alleged "eyewitnesses" and architectural claims made by non-architects. Regardless of all that, I have yet to see one person lay out what they think really happened. It's been over seven years now... surely SOMEONE could at least say "this is how they could have pulled it off...". So go ahead. Make the case for a conspiracy involving hundreds, if not thousands, of government operatives. Tell us why people in the highest offices (who had been in office only eight months at most) would risk their political careers and their lives in order to pull off the biggest conspiracy/mass murder in United States history. Otherwise nobody will ever take you seriously.

[rconverse]

Shameless.

Why do you troll around just saying how much you hate republicans? We get it. Republicans are the enemy. Seriously, it's tired.

[Scuba Jeremy]

I don't think I said anything about hating Republicans, but you know best.

Not everything is black and white, but certainly, playing a "BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID" video at their convention was a disgusting partisan use of the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans, not all of whom I'm sure wanted video footage their untimely demise to prop up a political party.

That was just horrible. Feel free to disagree.

[ShotgunDMB]

For Scuba :thumbsup
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tudwfldzeNw

Actually, the lack of indepth discussion about Radical Islam in this election has depressed me. Love the video.

[Elliott Evans]

I award this thread one star.

[~Crashintome89~]

This thread is unpatriotic, and therefore, fails.

[Elliott Evans]

This thread is unpatriotic, and therefore, fails.

Failtriotic?

[seekupchuck]

Seriously, guys. You are trying to argue with people who are not rational. If this were a conspiracy, it would be the most pointless and far-fetched schemes in world history. Stranger things have almost certainly not happened.

It's a bunch of theories and guesses involving explosions, alleged "eyewitnesses" and architectural claims made by non-architects. Regardless of all that, I have yet to see one person lay out what they think really happened. It's been over seven years now... surely SOMEONE could at least say "this is how they could have pulled it off...". So go ahead. Make the case for a conspiracy involving hundreds, if not thousands, of government operatives. Tell us why people in the highest offices (who had been in office only eight months at most) would risk their political careers and their lives in order to pull off the biggest conspiracy/mass murder in United States history. Otherwise nobody will ever take you seriously.


First, these are not "alleged witnesses" they are real witnesses, I dont think anyone disputes this. The f'n architect who built the towers:lol is on record saying that the buildings would not and could not collapse according to the circumstances.

Second, we are not trying to be right, we are simply asking questions that have not been sufficiently answered.

And the answer for the last part is easy. A never ending war on terror and control of the people through fear.
Pretty simple actually.

[seekupchuck]

This thread is unpatriotic, and therefore, fails.


Britney Spears! Is this you?

[VanHorneDog]

I had a bonfire last night. With this fresh in my mind, I laid a pipe right across the fire. The fire was raging for 8 hours. The pipe is virtually unscathed this morning. Im not sure what kind of metal it is, or if the fire reached 1450 degrees or just 1440 degrees, but it was puuurrty hot.

How thick were these tempered steel girders? How many were there? What temp does steel weaken at? How long will it withstand this temp before sufficiently weakening? How hot does jet fuel burn? Why was the fire and damage so different at the pentagon?

On the explosive setting topic, I would not be able to guarantee this since I had never been inside, but isnt the core column structure seperated from the main areas of the building?

all metal needs to do is creep a little and its integretty can cause failure. include contact from the plane and the fire. It would be fairly easy to assume that the steel could plastisize and cause the floors to crumble. this greater amount of weight bearing down on the lower floors is probably waht caused them to fall too.

it makes sense.

[VanHorneDog]

First, these are not "alleged witnesses" they are real witnesses, I dont think anyone disputes this. The f'n architect who built the towers:lol is on record saying that the buildings would not and could not collapse according to the circumstances.

Second, we are not trying to be right, we are simply asking questions that have not been sufficiently answered.

And the answer for the last part is easy. A never ending war on terror and control of the people through fear.
Pretty simple actually.

one thing wrong with this, never trust an architect who's building it is. they lie like crazy.

[TheTallOne]

First, these are not "alleged witnesses" they are real witnesses, I dont think anyone disputes this. The f'n architect who built the towers:lol is on record saying that the buildings would not and could not collapse according to the circumstances.


I also believe that the architect of the Titanic said that the ship would not sink, even if hit by an iceberg.

If you were the designer of a building, would you say "Oh shit, I guess my design wasn't too good" or would you say something to cover your ass?

[VanHorneDog]

I also believe that the architect of the Titanic said that the ship would not sink, even if hit by an iceberg.

If you were the designer of a building, would you say "Oh shit, I guess my design wasn't too good" or would you say something to cover your ass?

except i know this first hand, studying architecture and all. :lol

[subho]

It was a really inhuman activity.

_______________
hotel sausalito (http://www.thelodgeattiburon.com/) Perfect Acai Juice Berries (http://www.acai.vg) Cosmetic Surgeons UK (http://www.cosmeticsurgeons.co.uk) Virus Removal Software (http://www.cyberdefender.com/antivirus-products/antivirus-software.html)

[jimibadfish]

I also believe that the architect of the Titanic said that the ship would not sink, even if hit by an iceberg.

If you were the designer of a building, would you say "Oh shit, I guess my design wasn't too good" or would you say something to cover your ass?

The titanic guy...What did he say after the fact?

Also, I didn't know buildings were built to withstand commercial jets slamming into them at full speed.

FWIW, I don't believe 9/11 is a conspiracy, but honestly.

[dmbinchicago]

First, these are not "alleged witnesses" they are real witnesses, I dont think anyone disputes this. The f'n architect who built the towers:lol is on record saying that the buildings would not and could not collapse according to the circumstances.

Second, we are not trying to be right, we are simply asking questions that have not been sufficiently answered.

And the answer for the last part is easy. A never ending war on terror and control of the people through fear.
Pretty simple actually.

Someone who BUILT THE TOWERS saying what they "would not" collapse... after they have collapsed... is not a very strong argument. Besides that, I doubt the architects accounted for the impact and explosion of a 200-ton jet when designing the towers.

Anyone can ask questions. Anyone can masturbate over architectural oddities. If all you are going to do is ask endless questions, that's fine. Just don't act like you have a point unless you want to put forth an actual theory.

[themaker111]

I really don't think this conspiracy holds much weight but I do think it's plausible.

[TheTallOne]

The titanic guy...What did he say after the fact?

Also, I didn't know buildings were built to withstand commercial jets slamming into them at full speed.

FWIW, I don't believe 9/11 is a conspiracy, but honestly.

The Titanic guy died when the ship sank, so he didn't have a chance to say anything. As for your other point, the architect of the WTC is claiming exactly what you are saying is implausible. He does not believe that his buliding could have been brought down by the planes. What part of my argument do you disagree with?

[Tiduwho]

I really don't think this conspiracy holds much weight but I do think it's plausible.

....That an administration that can't even keep a few wiretaps secret, managed to silence thousands from opening their pieholes about the Master Plan?


That's plausible? :lol

[seekupchuck]

one thing wrong with this, never trust an architect who's building it is. they lie like crazy.


I understand where the point lies, but the origional guy I qouted said that there are a bunch of "non-architects" making architechtual(sp) claims.

You say it is possible the way the building came down. Thats fine, other scientists agree. Many scientists have the opposite opinion however, and say it is impossible. My problem is the most heavily referenced engineers, scientists, etc. referenced for the offical story, are conflicted and juiced in sources. The research on the conspiracy side is unbiased, unless you believe that these people want to prove the conspiracy so bad they would manipulate science and compromise their morals.

[seekupchuck]

The titanic guy...What did he say after the fact?

Also, I didn't know buildings were built to withstand commercial jets slamming into them at full speed.

FWIW, I don't believe 9/11 is a conspiracy, but honestly.


The buildings were built exactly for that! That is one of the main things they considered with buildings so high in such a heavily populated city.

[seekupchuck]

Someone who BUILT THE TOWERS saying what they "would not" collapse... after they have collapsed... is not a very strong argument. Besides that, I doubt the architects accounted for the impact and explosion of a 200-ton jet when designing the towers.

Anyone can ask questions. Anyone can masturbate over architectural oddities. If all you are going to do is ask endless questions, that's fine. Just don't act like you have a point unless you want to put forth an actual theory.


The theory has been laid out countless times and is actually quite simple.

War is the best way for elites to control people and make money.

You need a pearl harbor, reischtag, lusitania, gulf of tonkin event to unite the masses against a common evil. Get their permission to go to war and use our children to fight it. What do these all have in common? Fabricated and conspired. 9/11 is remarkably similar.

The current administration(the same guys who have orchestrated everything from Iran Contra and the arming of Bin Laden, to arming Sadaam with chemical weapons and fighting him in two wars) alligned with the international banking elites, figured out a way to have endless war and a license from the people to fight it and erode civil liberties at home at the same time.

Now, if the events listed above to pull this can be pulled off, 9/11 could certainly be pulled off. The technology and tools available today for the operation and coverup are endless.

Add in an obvious disregard for human life and bingo.

[seekupchuck]

I really don't think this conspiracy holds much weight but I do think it's plausible.

That is very reasonable. I dont care if people think it is unlikely or most unlikely, but when people say it is not possible, it shows something else is there.:thumbsup

[seekupchuck]

....That an administration that can't even keep a few wiretaps secret, managed to silence thousands from opening their pieholes about the Master Plan?


That's plausible? :lol


Someone coming out and exposing a wiretap would not receive 1/100000000000th of the scrutiny or backlash from someone coming forward with this. They are INSTANTLY dubbed a nut job and ruined. This has been carefully set up. Whats one of the first things Bush said after the events? "Let us not tolerate any outrageous conspiracy theories, those trying to redirect the blame" or something to that effect. Why would it be so important to tell the people what to think?

[Dads_obsessed]

You need a pearl harbor, reischtag, lusitania, gulf of tonkin event to unite the masses against a common evil. Get their permission to go to war and use our children to fight it. What do these all have in common? Fabricated and conspired. 9/11 is remarkably similar.

“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Hermann Goering

[dmbinchicago]

The theory has been laid out countless times and is actually quite simple.

War is the best way for elites to control people and make money.

You need a pearl harbor, reischtag, lusitania, gulf of tonkin event to unite the masses against a common evil. Get their permission to go to war and use our children to fight it. What do these all have in common? Fabricated and conspired. 9/11 is remarkably similar.

The current administration(the same guys who have orchestrated everything from Iran Contra and the arming of Bin Laden, to arming Sadaam with chemical weapons and fighting him in two wars) alligned with the international banking elites, figured out a way to have endless war and a license from the people to fight it and erode civil liberties at home at the same time.

Now, if the events listed above to pull this can be pulled off, 9/11 could certainly be pulled off. The technology and tools available today for the operation and coverup are endless.

Add in an obvious disregard for human life and bingo.

You still have not laid out any type of theory for how it happened. You just keep saying "it could be pulled off" or whatever. I'm sure you realize how incredibly deep and wide a conspiracy like this would have to be. It would also expose very high-powered officials to totally needless risk. You really believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and many others would risk their entire lives so that they could go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan? Actually, they never even used 9/11 as a reason for going to Iraq. It's just a baseless accusation, and as I said, it's not even a conspiracy theory. Nobody has ever put forth a kind of theory on how the biggest conspiracy in world history could plausibly have taken place. Please say something other than "it could happen".

[seekupchuck]

You still have not laid out any type of theory for how it happened. You just keep saying "it could be pulled off" or whatever. I'm sure you realize how incredibly deep and wide a conspiracy like this would have to be. It would also expose very high-powered officials to totally needless risk. You really believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and many others would risk their entire lives so that they could go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan? Actually, they never even used 9/11 as a reason for going to Iraq. It's just a baseless accusation, and as I said, it's not even a conspiracy theory. Nobody has ever put forth a kind of theory on how the biggest conspiracy in world history could plausibly have taken place. Please say something other than "it could happen".


Why do you need my speculative account of that day? What does that do for you? My goal is noy painting the exact picture. Just to call out enogh inconsistencies, so people accept the possiblilty that we received a polished, half true, or blatantly false story. Thats it, if you cant take all these inconsistencies tie-ins and place them together into a reasonable scenario, that is not my problem.

Read the thread, watch the movies and read the links posted. It is all right there.

[Lcsulla]

The theory has been laid out countless times and is actually quite simple.

War is the best way for elites to control people and make money.

You need a pearl harbor, reischtag, lusitania, gulf of tonkin event to unite the masses against a common evil. Get their permission to go to war and use our children to fight it. What do these all have in common? Fabricated and conspired. 9/11 is remarkably similar.

The current administration(the same guys who have orchestrated everything from Iran Contra and the arming of Bin Laden, to arming Sadaam with chemical weapons and fighting him in two wars) alligned with the international banking elites, figured out a way to have endless war and a license from the people to fight it and erode civil liberties at home at the same time.

Now, if the events listed above to pull this can be pulled off, 9/11 could certainly be pulled off. The technology and tools available today for the operation and coverup are endless.

Add in an obvious disregard for human life and bingo.

Another thing they all have in common is that people do not agree on what happened.

Gulf of Tonkin was blown out of proportion. That one is fishy to me.

Lusitania, I do not believe there was any conspiracy there.

Pearl harbor could just as easily have been negligence as conspiracy. The losses at Pearl weren't even the biggest strategic impacts of that day.

No one is certain on what happened during the Reichstag fire incident. I could be sold either way on that one, both sides stood to gain by covering up any role in the affair.

[seekupchuck]

Another thing they all have in common is that people do not agree on what happened.

Gulf of Tonkin was blown out of proportion. That one is fishy to me.

Lusitania, I do not believe there was any conspiracy there.

Pearl harbor could just as easily have been negligence as conspiracy. The losses at Pearl weren't even the biggest strategic impacts of that day.

No one is certain on what happened during the Reichstag fire incident. I could be sold either way on that one, both sides stood to gain by covering up any role in the affair.


That is cool, but I believe 9/11, at least qualifies as you descibe the others...when people try and portray it as a slam dunk case for one side or the other, it is disingenuous.:thumbsup

[lotas]

You still have not laid out any type of theory for how it happened. You just keep saying "it could be pulled off" or whatever. I'm sure you realize how incredibly deep and wide a conspiracy like this would have to be. It would also expose very high-powered officials to totally needless risk. You really believe that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and many others would risk their entire lives so that they could go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan? Actually, they never even used 9/11 as a reason for going to Iraq. It's just a baseless accusation, and as I said, it's not even a conspiracy theory. Nobody has ever put forth a kind of theory on how the biggest conspiracy in world history could plausibly have taken place. Please say something other than "it could happen".
They sure as hell used 9/11 in regards to Iraq. They used 9/11 to get a blank check from America, "whatever it takes". Money, armed forces, increased military production, and everything that goes along with it.


And do you think that would've been the first time a president or official has risked their job for a great reward?

I don't know how anyone in their right mind could take these two bits of fact:

-The government (either FBI, NSA, Dept. of HS, whoever) immediately seized all surveillance tapes within range of the Pentagon crash.

-Bush and Cheney refused to be questioned individually about/following the 9/11 attacks.



I honestly do not get how you could know those two bits of info and still not even QUESTION your government.

[dmbinchicago]

[/B]


Why do you need my speculative account of that day? What does that do for you? My goal is noy painting the exact picture. Just to call out enogh inconsistencies, so people accept the possiblilty that we received a polished, half true, or blatantly false story. Thats it, if you cant take all these inconsistencies tie-ins and place them together into a reasonable scenario, that is not my problem.

Read the thread, watch the movies and read the links posted. It is all right there.
No, conjecture and guesswork is "right there". A theory is not there at all.

They sure as hell used 9/11 in regards to Iraq. They used 9/11 to get a blank check from America, "whatever it takes". Money, armed forces, increased military production, and everything that goes along with it.


And do you think that would've been the first time a president or official has risked their job for a great reward?

I don't know how anyone in their right mind could take these two bits of fact:

-The government (either FBI, NSA, Dept. of HS, whoever) immediately seized all surveillance tapes within range of the Pentagon crash.

-Bush and Cheney refused to be questioned individually about/following the 9/11 attacks.



I honestly do not get how you could know those two bits of info and still not even QUESTION your government.

The fact that they "used" the attacks does not even begin to implicate them in the attacks. Again, you keep talking about things that happened after the event, and not looking at the immense conspiracy that would have had to already be in place.

[ismith75]

Abstaining from the intricacies, the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy is a preposterous idea and a complete joke. For those who claim this to be the truth, be completely honest with yourself and ask "Do I really believe this or am I simply playing devil's advocate for the hell of it?" This thread should be ended.

[seekupchuck]

Abstaining from the intricacies, the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy is a preposterous idea and a complete joke. For those who claim this to be the truth, be completely honest with yourself and ask "Do I really believe this or am I simply playing devil's advocate for the hell of it?" This thread should be ended.


Exactly.:lol

[dre2142]

-The government (either FBI, NSA, Dept. of HS, whoever) immediately seized all surveillance tapes within range of the Pentagon crash.







And? Immediate evidence gathering. Its already been shown that none of the surrounding cameras were angled properly to catch the plane .

[VanHorneDog]

I understand where the point lies, but the origional guy I qouted said that there are a bunch of "non-architects" making architechtual(sp) claims.

You say it is possible the way the building came down. Thats fine, other scientists agree. Many scientists have the opposite opinion however, and say it is impossible. My problem is the most heavily referenced engineers, scientists, etc. referenced for the offical story, are conflicted and juiced in sources. The research on the conspiracy side is unbiased, unless you believe that these people want to prove the conspiracy so bad they would manipulate science and compromise their morals.

actually i believe boths sides are completly biased, i mean one side is the government trying to explain the situation without room for error (either for hiding something or not, you dont want holes in your argument) and those on the conspiracy side want attention and money (even if the believe, they still want attention).

i just look at it this way, yes some people think its not possible, some of them are very smart and have degrees in things i dont understand. But, so do a lot of othere scientists in other fields. Its called science, just becuase one person believes that its not true and basses that on science doesnt mean that he is wrong.

The physics of what happened on 9/11 are incredibly hard to explain becuase nothing like that has ever happened before. so of course scientist will disagree, some becuase they want attention and money, and some becuase they think its important to REALLY get to the bottom of the science behind the collapse.

which, as an architect or engineer it is incredibly important to their field. what if they figure out these extreme situations and a technology to corrrect it that creates a new super material?

Science is never at a concensous of 100%, becuase the goal of research and science is to generate more research and more science.

they are a truely selfgenerating field.

[dmbinchicago]

actually i believe boths sides are completly biased, i mean one side is the government trying to explain the situation without room for error (either for hiding something or not, you dont want holes in your argument) and those on the conspiracy side want attention and money (even if the believe, they still want attention).

i just look at it this way, yes some people think its not possible, some of them are very smart and have degrees in things i dont understand. But, so do a lot of othere scientists in other fields. Its called science, just becuase one person believes that its not true and basses that on science doesnt mean that he is wrong.

The physics of what happened on 9/11 are incredibly hard to explain becuase nothing like that has ever happened before. so of course scientist will disagree, some becuase they want attention and money, and some becuase they think its important to REALLY get to the bottom of the science behind the collapse.

which, as an architect or engineer it is incredibly important to their field. what if they figure out these extreme situations and a technology to corrrect it that creates a new super material?

Science is never at a concensous of 100%, becuase the goal of research and science is to generate more research and more science.

they are a truely selfgenerating field.
:thumbsup:thumbsup

And it's easy for 99% of the people, who do not understand physics or architecture, to get worked up when someone in the 1% says something controversial. That is why, in order to have a serious discussion, someone needs to put forth a theory of WHAT HAPPENED and how this massive plot was carried off. Otherwise it's just jerking off over stuff that you (and I) don't understand.

[VanHorneDog]

:thumbsup:thumbsup

And it's easy for 99% of the people, who do not understand physics or architecture, to get worked up when someone in the 1% says something controversial. That is why, in order to have a serious discussion, someone needs to put forth a theory of WHAT HAPPENED and how this massive plot was carried off. Otherwise it's just jerking off over stuff that you (and I) don't understand.

regardless of the "plot" to destroy the buildings, it is still hard to understand the physics.

I dont agree with the 9/11 consipiracy theorists. Everything i learnd in architecture school suggest that they fell due to extreme situational causes that are explained well enough for my liking. But, there are holes in the argument that scientifically need filling. Saying that those holes explain the theory is just silly. No science is 100% and if you think it is you are stupid and dont understand the world of science.

The fact alone that it woudl take so much cover up for something so insane to happen is good enough reason for me for it not to have happened.

i find that people just want attention.

[themaker111]

....That an administration that can't even keep a few wiretaps secret, managed to silence thousands from opening their pieholes about the Master Plan?


That's plausible?

I've heard people talk about this conspiracy theory before and most non-believers hide behind the same tired points as yours. Honestly, your close-mindedness cracks me up. :lol

[dre2142]

Tired point? lol.

[seekupchuck]

And? Immediate evidence gathering. Its already been shown that none of the surrounding cameras were angled properly to catch the plane .


I needed a good laugh this morning:lol

[Beefsteak1138]

I needed a good laugh this morning:lol

Me too:

http://www.antsmarching.org/forum/search.php?searchid=2209427

[seekupchuck]

actually i believe boths sides are completly biased, i mean one side is the government trying to explain the situation without room for error (either for hiding something or not, you dont want holes in your argument) and those on the conspiracy side want attention and money (even if the believe, they still want attention).

i just look at it this way, yes some people think its not possible, some of them are very smart and have degrees in things i dont understand. But, so do a lot of othere scientists in other fields. Its called science, just becuase one person believes that its not true and basses that on science doesnt mean that he is wrong.

The physics of what happened on 9/11 are incredibly hard to explain becuase nothing like that has ever happened before. so of course scientist will disagree, some becuase they want attention and money, and some becuase they think its important to REALLY get to the bottom of the science behind the collapse.

which, as an architect or engineer it is incredibly important to their field. what if they figure out these extreme situations and a technology to corrrect it that creates a new super material?

Science is never at a concensous of 100%, becuase the goal of research and science is to generate more research and more science.

they are a truely selfgenerating field.

Very reasonable:thumbsup I will say there are a few money makers on the conspiracy side, but the majority are authentic with their intentions and curiousity, especially the victims family members who want an independent investigation. Aside from that, I agree with your post:thumbsup

[seekupchuck]

:thumbsup:thumbsup

And it's easy for 99% of the people, who do not understand physics or architecture, to get worked up when someone in the 1% says something controversial. That is why, in order to have a serious discussion, someone needs to put forth a theory of WHAT HAPPENED and how this massive plot was carried off. Otherwise it's just jerking off over stuff that you (and I) don't understand.

Why is it so important for you to use misleading numbers if your argument is so strong? You can not ignore certain facts, repeat falsehoods and expect to get any credit except for being in the comfortable, shrinking majority on this subject.

The most qualified people in the world believe the official story to be impossible. The most high profile experts on the official side are usually compromised in some way. Whether you find it convenient or not for the side you have pre-chosen, in science, it is a negative to have your experts compromised.

[Dads_obsessed]

I needed a good laugh this morning:lol

Man, it must really piss off the authorities that because of mis-placed camera angles they are not able to shut up the Conspiracy theorists with a good video. What a bummer.

[seekupchuck]

Man, it must really piss off the authorities that because of mis-placed camera angles they are not able to shut up the Conspiracy theorists with a good video. What a bummer.


It also must piss off them off that the guy who was in charge of buying the cameras got those ancient cameras with the 10 degree viewing field. Especially when camers are available with almost complete peripharel vision and stunning HD quality, and only if they would have put them every 20 ft apart instead of every 50ft. But I guess maybe they were strapped for cash at the PENTAGON, especially given the fact that Rummie "misplaced" 2.3 trillion dollars that he admitted to.:lol

[lotas]

It also must piss off them off that the guy who was in charge of buying the cameras got those ancient cameras with the 10 degree viewing field. Especially when camers are available with almost complete peripharel vision and stunning HD quality, and only if they would have put them every 20 ft apart instead of every 50ft. But I guess maybe they were strapped for cash at the PENTAGON, especially given the fact that Rummie "misplaced" 2.3 trillion dollars that he admitted to.:lol
:thumbsup:thumbsup...I can't walk into my bank or a post office without being filmed from half a dozen different angles, you can't tell me the damn Pentagon doesn't have some multi-million dollar surveillance setup.




Now I have a question...can anyone point me to another event like this, in which either

a.) plane runs into tall skyscraper and it pancakes

b.) plane runs into grounded building and plane "disappears"


I'm not arguing that you can't, I'm honestly asking for an example so I can research it a bit if you guys know of any.

[dre2142]

I needed a good laugh this morning:lol

Youre clueless...absolutely clueless. Im sure you still think the Citgo tape has the missile hitting the Pentagon too, huh?

Or does the Doubletree video have the COMMERCIAL JETLINER firing a missile, then lifting up, being shielded by the "fireball" and no one on the other side of said fireball saw the airliner fly over NOVA?

[dre2142]

:thumbsup:thumbsup...I can't walk into my bank or a post office without being filmed from half a dozen different angles, you can't tell me the damn Pentagon doesn't have some multi-million dollar surveillance setup.




Now I have a question...can anyone point me to another event like this, in which either

a.) plane runs into tall skyscraper and it pancakes

b.) plane runs into grounded building and plane "disappears"


I'm not arguing that you can't, I'm honestly asking for an example so I can research it a bit if you guys know of any.

Exactly....it hasnt happened before, so that must mean that its impossible.

[Koreelove]

:thumbsup:thumbsup...I can't walk into my bank or a post office without being filmed from half a dozen different angles, you can't tell me the damn Pentagon doesn't have some multi-million dollar surveillance setup.




Now I have a question...can anyone point me to another event like this, in which either

a.) plane runs into tall skyscraper and it pancakes

b.) plane runs into grounded building and plane "disappears"


I'm not arguing that you can't, I'm honestly asking for an example so I can research it a bit if you guys know of any.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm

[dre2142]

b.) plane runs into grounded building and plane "disappears"


I'm not arguing that you can't, I'm honestly asking for an example so I can research it a bit if you guys know of any.

Sure thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eCo29OVJow&feature=related

Explain

[Koreelove]

Sure thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eCo29OVJow&feature=related

Explain

No offense, but that is hardly proof. You have no idea what that wall is made of and also, if it was the same material then it would have behaved that same way, leaving a hole.

[dre2142]

No offense, but that is hardly proof. You have no idea what that wall is made of and also, if it was the same material then it would have behaved that same way, leaving a hole.


Proof of what?

He asked for a video of a plane hitting a grounded building and disappearing.....there it is.

But in the Pentagon case, the plane didnt just "disappear".

[dre2142]

Also, please explain to me where the missile would have come from..because from the videos that were released, you see something thats pretty damn low come into the frame

[dre2142]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=mJtlkTAjhW0

[Koreelove]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=mJtlkTAjhW0

I think I missed it. What is it that I am looking for here?

[VanHorneDog]

the reason the pentagon doesnt release their good video sources is that it would compromise the secruity of the building. a 2-second camera or a crappy survailance camera are one thing. but actually showing a HD 360 degrees camera that is hidden in a light pole is not a good idea. might give people too much information.

the pentagon (at least that side) was made of the toughest material that you could put in a building of that scale and wall thickness. They reently just renovated it for this reason. so, i think you could compare the f-4 going into dust on a 6 ft section of concreate with a 767 plowing into far more than that. plus there was debre. so it didnt totally go away.

[dmbinchicago]

Why is it so important for you to use misleading numbers if your argument is so strong? You can not ignore certain facts, repeat falsehoods and expect to get any credit except for being in the comfortable, shrinking majority on this subject.

The most qualified people in the world believe the official story to be impossible. The most high profile experts on the official side are usually compromised in some way. Whether you find it convenient or not for the side you have pre-chosen, in science, it is a negative to have your experts compromised.

:lol Yea, I forgot you were sticking to the facts and not hyperbole.

You keep saying it's "impossible" -- but IT HAPPENED. Everyone saw it. Now how is it plausible that such a huge conspiracy has not had a single leak after seven years? You keep yammering about doubts and impossibilities relating to the actual buildings, but you still have not said anything that addresses how the biggest conspiracy in modern history has been carried off perfectly, with absolutely zero trace.

[dre2142]

Why is it so important for you to use misleading numbers if your argument is so strong? You can not ignore certain facts, repeat falsehoods and expect to get any credit except for being in the comfortable, shrinking majority on this subject.

The most qualified people in the world believe the official story to be impossible. The most high profile experts on the official side are usually compromised in some way. Whether you find it convenient or not for the side you have pre-chosen, in science, it is a negative to have your experts compromised.

So when the most qualified people in the world say its impossible, you take there word and it means that there is a conspiracy involved

When the most qualified people in the world say it IS POSSIBLE, you write it off as meaning they are in on it...yet you claim that the total people that would have to be involved is less than 1000.

Interesting.

[seekupchuck]

:lol Yea, I forgot you were sticking to the facts and not hyperbole.

You keep saying it's "impossible" -- but IT HAPPENED. Everyone saw it. Now how is it plausible that such a huge conspiracy has not had a single leak after seven years? You keep yammering about doubts and impossibilities relating to the actual buildings, but you still have not said anything that addresses how the biggest conspiracy in modern history has been carried off perfectly, with absolutely zero trace.


Are you seriously messing with me? If so, thats pretty good:lol

If not.....READ THE :lolFUCKING THREAD!

[seekupchuck]

So when the most qualified people in the world say its impossible, you take there word and it means that there is a conspiracy involved

When the most qualified people in the world say it IS POSSIBLE, you write it off as meaning they are in on it.

Interesting.

No, I never said that! I think it is equally plausible, both stories. I just happen to believe the conspiracy info a bit more....thats all!

[dmbinchicago]

Are you seriously messing with me? If so, thats pretty good:lol

If not.....READ THE :lolFUCKING THREAD!

I've read it. I've also read other material from conspiracy nuts. None of them, yours included, has explained how the actual "conspiracy" was carried off. Without a theory, it's just masturbating over bullshit. Obviously the buildings were not built to withstand over two tons of steel and 10,000 gallons of jet fuel crashing into them at 800 miles per hour. That doesn't mean that the government set up the attacks. There is zero evidence to support that claim.

[Dads_obsessed]

:lol Yea, I forgot you were sticking to the facts and not hyperbole.

You keep saying it's "impossible" -- but IT HAPPENED. Everyone saw it. Now how is it plausible that such a huge conspiracy has not had a single leak after seven years? You keep yammering about doubts and impossibilities relating to the actual buildings, but you still have not said anything that addresses how the biggest conspiracy in modern history has been carried off perfectly, with absolutely zero trace.

If it was carried off perfectly, we wouldn't be talking about it.

[Koreelove]

I had a conversation with a woman a few months ago who served in the armed forces for many years. We had a few drinks and we were just talking about casual stuff, nothing serious. I decided to ask her about 9/11 because I was just so curious to what her reaction would be. I asked her "What do you think about 9/11?" I shit you not, a look of pure terror struck her face. I asked her what? And she said nothing. Then I just asked her if she thought 9/11 was an inside job. She started to open up about it and said that she wasn't sure if it was an inside was it was DEFINITELY covered up.

She was privy to some information and what she told me was that what made her literally LEAVE the armed forces was the simple fact that the Bush Administration had the Bin Laden family safely exported from our country. She couldn't understand why, especially the Bin Ladens, were safely taken out of US custody. I know this is not nearly enough info to prove anything, but I thought it was interesting.

Also, information like this ARE leaks. People seen with wires in the buildings for weeks prior to the incident are LEAKS. Alot of people would tell you that the WTC buildings was getting internet upgrades....but who knows. We wouldn't be arguing this point if the plan went smoothly.

as far as the Pentagon, I do not believe a plane hit it. But again, I'm only basing it on visuals from the site.

WTC - I don't necessarily think it was controlled demolition because of the way the building fell. yes, it fell at free fall speed, but with controlled demolition, it implodes and these buildings blew outwards. Bombs? Very possible. did fall from aircraft hitting it? hmm....likely no

WTC 7 - 100% controlled demolition in my opinion and what I have research regarding the characteristics of the fall.

These are only my thoughts and I know that they are shared by others. It's alot to wrap your head around. My only complaint about this whole thing is that the people that died that day were CHEATED out of a thorough and fair investigation. They only got what the government gave them and to me, that is not good enough. They deserve much more then that.

why is it that a suicide victim gets more of an investigation? At first look it's a suicide, but if you look further into it, it was found to be a murder.

The people who did this need to be brought to justice, whether it be Bin Laden, Bush, the FEDs, or whoever. For some reason the story has been told, but with so many holes. We deserve answers, especially to the families of these people.

And on a side note....to those who never thought to question your own government...wow.....where is your patriotism?

[dre2142]

If it was carried off perfectly, we wouldn't be talking about it.


Even if it were carried off perfectly, the conspiracy theorists would still be picking it apart.

[dmbinchicago]

"Wow" is right.

Anyway, I am not saying we shouldn't question... I'm just saying that if this conspiracy actually took place, it would have involved many, many high-placed people as well as even more lower-level people. Not only that, but the high-level people would have been taking needless risks. We're talking about very little personal reward compared to very great personal risk. You are telling me that this administration was in place for eight months and managed to put together and execute the biggest and most intricate crime in US history-- possibly in world history? I just don't see it. Who planned it, what benefit did they receive, etc. Just saying that they used 9/11 after the fact is NOT proof of anything that happened before the fact. It simply shows that they know how to use events to their political advantage, which nobody is arguing. Again, if someone puts forth a theory, I'd listen. Nobody has done that, though.

[dmbinchicago]

Great article from Matt Taibbi, who is about the most ardent opponent of Bush and everything he stands for.

The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspir acies).

[Koreelove]

"Wow" is right.

Anyway, I am not saying we shouldn't question... I'm just saying that if this conspiracy actually