16 replies to this topic

[fermin25]

I almost never believe in conspiracy theories, some of them are ridiculous. But in the morning 9/11 I had my doubts when I watched the video of the fall of World Trade Center, over and over again. The first question was, If a plane have the power to collapse a building, Why did the terrorist only use 6 planes when they could hijack a lot of planes? And why the WTC collapse like a demolition? Why this? Why that? I had doubts all the time and I thought and thougth but I was a child and never imagine that the own American Goverment could be behind the attacks until I saw the Zeigest documental.

Well I have watched a lot of documentaries and I am going to post topics related to the 9/11 here if you dont mind to expose the truth about 9/11. Please dont be closed mind. If you have prejuices please push "Alt + F4" in your keyboard right now.

Well I am going to start with the compilation of "Lies" about the official version:

Quote

1) Using a laptop in a cave in Afghanistan and 19 Saudi Arabian hijackers with box-cutters, Osama Bin Laden fooled the most expensive and sophisticated military defense establishment in the history the world. We accept this official explanation that Bin Laden did it even though no evidence has been provided that proves this.



2) The attacks of 9/11 are the result of "intelligence failures."



3) 9/11 was a "New Pearl Harbor." We unquestionably accept this paradigm and prepare for a righteous world war.



4) Bin Laden and Al Qaeda constitute America's #1 enemy. We forget that both Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are fabrications of American intelligence agencies like the CIA.



5) Three WTC buildings exploded, disintegrated, and collapsed at nearly the speed of gravity due to the impact of hijacked airliners into the buildings and the jet fuel fires. We believe this even though:

a. no steel buildings have ever collapsed due to fires and it is physically impossible for them to do so,


b. Building 7 was never hit by any kind of aircraft, and c) the planes that hit the WTC 1 and 2 most probably were not the hijacked airliners, but rather military drones steered by remote control.



6) The Pentagon was hit by Flight 77. And all the debris and human remains of this approximately 100-ton Boeing 767 disappeared because they were completely incinerated by jet fuel fires. We believe this story, even though:

a. the hole in the West Wing of the Pentagon is only 16 feet across and

b. no images of a Boeing 767 striking the Pentagon have been shown on any video tape. We are ignorant or unconcerned about the fact that


c. within 5 minutes of the crash, FBI agents confiscated surveillance camera film from three nearby buildings and have never released these to the public. Expert 9/11 researchers believe that what actually hit the Pentagon was a missile followed by a military aircraft such as a Global Hawk or F-16 fighter.



8) The U.S. government would never be involved in attacks upon "the Homeland." We believe this despite a long succession of "synthetic terror" events that have been staged in the past by our own government in order to galvanize public opinion to support imperial wars abroad and frighten them into giving up their civil liberties.



9) The U.S. needs to spend upwards of $450 billion a year to prosecute an endless "war on terrorism" in order to defend itself against state-less Al Qaeda "terrorists." We believe this even though:


a. the U.N. has estimated there are only about 2000 to 3000 members of Al Qaeda worldwide, and


b. Al Qaeda itself was created and funded and is still controlled by the CIA,

c) numerous documents prepared by neoconservative think tanks indicate that the goal of the Bush administration is to establish "full spectrum dominance" of the world, i.e., a global Pax Americana.



10) Probably the biggest lie of all is the "war on terrorism;" the notion that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had anything at all to do with 9/11 or Osama bin Laden and the 19 alleged hijackers.



11) Finally, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we still like to believe that the U.S. government acts in our best interests rather than in the interests of its corporate sponsors.



Each of these "Big Lies," by itself, is outrageous and preposterous. But you accept them because:

1) 9/11 was a fairly successful "psy op" against the American people,
2) we have become conditioned by the incessant barrage of propaganda we get from the mainstream media,
3) these lies are repeated over and over by all forms of media in what is called the "echo effect" (Franken, 2004; Rampton and Stauber, 2004), and
4) we feel we have to believe them in order to maintain our sense of safety and security. To question these lies means we must entertain some very scary realities. We might not want to learn that our government is a serial liar, torturer, thief, and murderer, indeed, a rogue, terrorist state (Chomsky, 1988, 2000; Blum, 2000). It is far easier and more comfortable to remain in the state of denial, perhaps the most over-populated state in the world.

I will post the real facts in another post later. Please be patient.

Notice from truefusion:

Quoted part taken from here.

[Echo_of_thunder]

hmmm will I only can tell you this much, why they collapsed was due to the weakened steel in the buildings due to the intense heat from all the jet fuel. got to remember these plane had not been in the air very long and had been heading to LA Cali. Secondly building #7 along with it surrounding buildings had been damaged from the falling pieces of not just the towers but the planes. as for why hitting the WTC? easy. they had been a hub for world trade. not only American but many other countries of the world. That's why they tried to get it the 1st time. not only to screw up the USA but the world in general.

[TheDisturbedOne]

fermin25, on Oct 22 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

I almost never believe in conspiracy theories, some of them are ridiculous. But in the morning 9/11 I had my doubts when I watched the video of the fall of World Trade Center, over and over again. The first question was, If a plane have the power to collapse a building, Why did the terrorist only use 6 planes when they could hijack a lot of planes?

And why the WTC collapse like a demolition?
Why this? Why that? I had doubts all the time and I thought and thougth but I was a child and never imagine that the own American Goverment could be behind the attacks until I saw the Zeigest documental.

From right there I see that you don't know all the facts. They hijacked four planes. They chose to use these planes since they weren't fully booked (less people to deal with rebelling) and they were cross country flights. If they were to hijack 10 planes they would need more people, and even less attacks would be successful. Because the middle of the building was weakened and caved in due to the fire. The top floors (above where the plane hit) added to the weight (creating an almost free fall speed) and pulled the building down with it. Ever played Jenga?
Sounds like a load of bologna to me, this documental.

fermin25, on Oct 22 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

Well I have watched a lot of documentaries and I am going to post topics related to the 9/11 here if you dont mind to expose the truth about 9/11. Please dont be closed mind. If you have prejuices please push "Alt + F4" in your keyboard right now.

I have prejudice about liars, but that's about it.

fermin25, on Oct 22 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

1) Using a laptop in a cave in Afghanistan and 19 Saudi Arabian hijackers with box-cutters, Osama Bin Laden fooled the most expensive and sophisticated military defense establishment in the history the world.

We accept this official explanation that Bin Laden did it even though no evidence has been provided that proves this.

Indeed he did. Two bored idiots managed to fool the same system, and killed 168 people doing it (Oklahoma City Bombings). 9-11 was just a larger scale.
Other than the numerous videos showing Osama praising the attacks and the numerous training facilities that were found, you are correct about that last part.

fermin25, on Oct 22 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

2) The attacks of 9/11 are the result of "intelligence failures."

3) 9/11 was a "New Pearl Harbor." We unquestionably accept this paradigm and prepare for a righteous world war.
4) Bin Laden and Al Qaeda constitute America's #1 enemy. We forget that both Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are fabrications of American intelligence agencies like the CIA.

What?

fermin25, on Oct 22 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

5) Three WTC buildings exploded, disintegrated, and collapsed at nearly the speed of gravity due to the impact of hijacked airliners into the buildings and the jet fuel fires. We believe this even though:

a. no steel buildings have ever collapsed due to fires and it is physically impossible for them to do so,


b. Building 7 was never hit by any kind of aircraft, and c) the planes that hit the WTC 1 and 2 most probably were not the hijacked airliners, but rather military drones steered by remote control.

a. Three happened on the same day. These aircraft were used as missiles and were driven into the buildings at a high speed. The aircraft were FILLED with jet fuel. Add to that the weight of the many floors above it, the weakening of one main area could cause the whole building to collapse, which is EXACTLY as it happened. See: http://www.representativepress.org/BowingD...Explosives.html

b. You're telling me that you've never seen a fire spread to another building. Add the debris from the other two buildings, a fire can bring it down.

c. You're joking right? I assume you have never seen the pictures.

fermin25, on Oct 22 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

6) The Pentagon was hit by Flight 77. And all the debris and human remains of this approximately 100-ton Boeing 767 disappeared because they were completely incinerated by jet fuel fires. We believe this story, even though:

a. the hole in the West Wing of the Pentagon is only 16 feet across and

b. no images of a Boeing 767 striking the Pentagon have been shown on any video tape. We are ignorant or unconcerned about the fact that


c. within 5 minutes of the crash, FBI agents confiscated surveillance camera film from three nearby buildings and have never released these to the public. Expert 9/11 researchers believe that what actually hit the Pentagon was a missile followed by a military aircraft such as a Global Hawk or F-16 fighter.

See: http://www.oilempire...gon-photos.html
a. http://www.oilempire...-jpg/hole11.jpg 16 feet is a load of bolonga.

b. The security cameras at the Pentagon didn't capture it because the plane was moving so fast!

c. See the website. In re to the tapes, whenever a crime is committed, surveillance tapes are always seized if they may have images of the crime. It happens all the time. A good amount of the time they are never released to the public either.

fermin25, on Oct 22 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

8) The U.S. government would never be involved in attacks upon "the Homeland." We believe this despite a long succession of "synthetic terror" events that have been staged in the past by our own government in order to galvanize public opinion to support imperial wars abroad and frighten them into giving up their civil liberties.

What?

fermin25, on Oct 22 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

9) The U.S. needs to spend upwards of $450 billion a year to prosecute an endless "war on terrorism" in order to defend itself against state-less Al Qaeda "terrorists." We believe this even though:


a. the U.N. has estimated there are only about 2000 to 3000 members of Al Qaeda worldwide, and


b. Al Qaeda itself was created and funded and is still controlled by the CIA,

c) numerous documents prepared by neoconservative think tanks indicate that the goal of the Bush administration is to establish "full spectrum dominance" of the world, i.e., a global Pax Americana.

a. Wouldn't you want those 2000 to 3000 jailed and prosecuted? Obama is continuing the war as well.

b. Another joke.

c. That goes against 99% if not 100% of the conservative mentality.

fermin25, on Oct 22 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

10) Probably the biggest lie of all is the "war on terrorism;" the notion that the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had anything at all to do with 9/11 or Osama bin Laden and the 19 alleged hijackers.

You're telling me that the Taliban had nothing to do with 9-11? They were in control of Afghanistan before we came in.
As for Iraq, the USA helped to take down one of the largest mass murderers in history, and prosecuted him as well. Sure it had nothing to do with 9-11, but we still made progress there.

fermin25, on Oct 22 2009, 05:13 PM, said:

11) Finally, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we still like to believe that the U.S. government acts in our best interests rather than in the interests of its corporate sponsors.

I never believed that. The less government, the better.

[Watermonkey]

Wow. I can see why you're "Disturbed". It must be painful for you when a ray of truth is shown piercing your dark reality.

Every time your say "what", you appear to just dismiss what has been quoted instead of actually thinking and analyzing. Right above you say, "another joke." What does that mean? Are you not aware that "Al Quadia" (however you spell it) is a creation of the CIA? I thought that was common knowledge. Building 7 came down after the owner of the Port Authority, can't recall his name (Silverstien), said "Pull it.", common vernacular in the building demolition world. He admitted to this on national television. It came down at free-fall speed after the area was cleared of people in a perfectly executed demolition that must have taken months to plan. Buildings 1 and 2 did the same thing, at the same speed, and only one thing can explain that: Controlled demolition. You're a fool if you believe Kerosene can melt structural steel. (For the uninitiated, Jet fuel= Kerosene= JP-4= Diesel -for all practical purposes. My ATV can take any of those fuels and run just fine, all of them have similar burning characteristics, British Thermal Units, and temps.) Perhaps if it burned for a year or two, and even then the weakened steel wouldn't be so uniform as to bring the building straight down into its own footprint at free-fall speed. It's obvious for anyone with working vision and a TV that the fuel was nearly completely consumed in fire within a few seconds of impact. Common! No one can be that blind! I've had my wood burning appliance so hot the metal on the top glowed orange, and I'm betting that's as hot as Kerosene (diesel) would burn, and it's still structurally sound. Granted, it's garbage steel compared to structural steel, but by your logic and unsound science it'd be a melted pool of metal burning its way through my concrete foundation, much like what was found to be in the sub-floors of the twin towers for weeks after the event. Yes, something melted the steel in those buildings, but it wasn't JP-4. There was a scheduled drill at NORTHCOM that very morning to simulate the exact event that allegedly occurred, hijackers flying planes into the twin towers and pentagon and Richard (can't say "*BLEEP*" here for some reason LOL) Cheney was there to tell them to stand down when requests came in to dispatch fighter jets to intercept the remaining planes.

I could go on and on and on and on, but there's just no waking up the people who can't even acknowledge that false flag events have occurred in this country in the past. Two of the most famous are the attack on Pearl Harbor Dec 07, 1941 and the Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us in to S.E. Asia, a winnable war over opium (not unlike Afghanistan today) that was lost intentionally. There was also the scenario brought to the table during the JFK administration that the president rejected involving attacking our own military assents in the Bay of Pigs or somewhere in the Cuban waters then blaming it on Cuba to start a war with them. Operation Northwoods I think it was called. These three events are relatively common knowledge because the U.S. government has declassified them and admitted to the truth behind them. From a link I posted below:

Quote

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods, to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba", See Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalres...es/NOR111A.html ).

You ask about the Taliban? Why in the world would you think they had something to do with 9-1-1? Because of Bin Laden? Believe the propaganda if you want, but they put down the opium crops there, but here come the Americans and now? Three times the opium crops are being grown and they're being protected by American soldiers. Think they signed up for that? And on and on... nothing to see here, move along...

If you're ready to see, start with infowars.com, then move on to listen to shows on the Republic Broadcast Network.

Edited by Watermonkey, 23 November 2009 - 01:59 AM.

[buxgoddess]

There seems to be more of a nuisance going on with the 9/11 incident. With reports coming that Bin Laden is still alive in the Pesawar district of Pakistan and is still making plans, it seems a bit ridiculous to believe that a mastermind like Laden will take a decade to plan another attack. I definitely doubt the intelligence system of any country for that matter to be intelligent enough to figure out what the terrorists are planning behind closed doors. The stories that the intelligence was able to trace the plan and get to action by avoiding the damage or attack is a bull *BLEEP*. I can guarantee that out of 100 plans such made not even two gets to the intelligence branch. If you compare the number of attacks hat have been occurring in countries like Iraq after the Gulf war, Pakistan after the Afgan war and India with the ongoing war with Pakistani ISI military, you will bet and agree that the intelligence system is a farce and is just wasting the national resource and money. Whenever a terror attack fails the credit goes to the intelligence bureau bur 90 percent of attacks go undetected until the damage is done.

The 9/11 was an intelligence failure no doubt about that but then there are reports and evidence that the attack was not only by air but also on the ground where adequate measures were taken months before to amplify the attack. The presence of excess people on the twin tower that day also indicates that there were plans made to bring in more people into the towers

[Spudd]

The 9/11 conspiracies grow old. The government has nothing to gain from the destruction of a landmark and the loss of 3,000 innocent lives. Some of the "facts" in your post aren't even true, which makes the whole thing look poorly thought through and bogus. Random statistics and details that don't support the main point are also present here. Then there's garbage in there like this:

Quote

9) The U.S. needs to spend upwards of $450 billion a year to prosecute an endless "war on terrorism" in order to defend itself against state-less Al Qaeda "terrorists." We believe this even though:


a. the U.N. has estimated there are only about 2000 to 3000 members of Al Qaeda worldwide, and


b. Al Qaeda itself was created and funded and is still controlled by the CIA,

c) numerous documents prepared by neoconservative think tanks indicate that the goal of the Bush administration is to establish "full spectrum dominance" of the world, i.e., a global Pax Americana.

It's nothing but outlandish speculations and wild accusations. Point A has no reason to be there, B is a statement of conjecture presented as fact with no backing whatsoever, C is also an over the top accusation without backing. Where's the proof? Where is the evidence? There is none. You are creating a conspiracy where there is none. While it may be cool to think about some big underlying conspiracy that goes all the way to the top, if you have no proof you shouldn't go around spreading it. Your article is a statement of a theory, and a theory full of holes at that.

[anwiii]

well said. thank you for speaking up. i kept looking at this thread and my emotions would immediately turn to anger that people would turn 911 and the destruction caused by it in to a u.s. government conspiracy and cover-up. it's unthinkable. if it was a conspircay and pre planned and the truth came to light, there would be no more government. there would be a revolt. maybe another civil war where the nation is split.

i know our goverment isn't perfect and i can probably safely assume their were conspiracies in the past and some ideas behind theories are correct, but this event sure does not deserve ideas behind a conspiracy.

i am not a perfect person nor a perfect america, but i am an american who loves this country and to believe anyone who can post or believe in any conpiracies behind 911 is UN-AMERICAN.

it made me sick reading what i did in this thread and i knew all i could do is close out or get banned from posting again because of my bluntness and uncaring thoughts towards people who can write such nonsense.

all this thread was about was the intention to plant seeds in american peoples minds to stand against the u.s. government. and in my opinion, anyone who can do that needs to be questioned an interogated to protect the liberties and freedoms people have a right to in the united states and against the seeds that others may want to plant to turn against the country and government that guides us.

Spudd, on Nov 22 2009, 04:41 PM, said:

The 9/11 conspiracies grow old. The government has nothing to gain from the destruction of a landmark and the loss of 3,000 innocent lives. Some of the "facts" in your post aren't even true, which makes the whole thing look poorly thought through and bogus. Random statistics and details that don't support the main point are also present here. Then there's garbage in there like this:



It's nothing but outlandish speculations and wild accusations. Point A has no reason to be there, B is a statement of conjecture presented as fact with no backing whatsoever, C is also an over the top accusation without backing. Where's the proof? Where is the evidence? There is none. You are creating a conspiracy where there is none. While it may be cool to think about some big underlying conspiracy that goes all the way to the top, if you have no proof you shouldn't go around spreading it. Your article is a statement of a theory, and a theory full of holes at that.

[Watermonkey]

I don't know why it's so difficult to do a simple internet search. Type in "cia al-qaeda history" and see what you come up with. I randomly chose this article and will quote the introduction here and add bold to highlight important details to this discussion.

Quote

Introduction

One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to "fabricate an enemy". The "outside enemy" personified by Osama bin Laden is "threatening America".

Pre-emptive war directed against "Islamic terrorists" is required to defend the Homeland. Realities are turned upside down. America is under attack.

In the wake of 9/11, the creation of this "outside enemy" has served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the war in the Middle East and Central Asia. Waged on the grounds of self-defense, the pre-emptive war is upheld as a "just war" with a humanitarian mandate.

As anti-war sentiment grows and the political legitimacy the Bush Administration falters, doubts regarding the existence of this illusive "outside enemy" must be dispelled.

Counter-terrorism and war propaganda are intertwined. The propaganda apparatus feeds disinformation into the news chain. The terror warnings must appear to be "genuine". The objective is to present the terror groups as "enemies of America."

Ironically, Al Qaeda --the "outside enemy of America" as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks-- is a creation of the CIA.

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of the "Islamic brigades". Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and "kill the evidence" on how this "outside enemy" was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number One".

The US intelligence apparatus has created it own terrorist organizations. And at the same time, it creates its own terrorist warnings concerning the terrorist organizations which it has itself created. Meanwhile, a cohesive multibillion dollar counterterrorism program "to go after" these terrorist organizations has been put in place.

Portrayed in stylized fashion by the Western media, Osama bin Laden, supported by his various henchmen, constitutes America’s post-Cold war bogeyman, who "threatens Western democracy". The alleged threat of "Islamic terrorists", permeates the entire US national security doctrine. Its purpose is to justify wars of aggression in the Middle East, while establishing within America, the contours of the Homeland Security State.

See the rest of the article if you're interested in learning something new. If not, please, put your blinders on tightly and close your eyes. Everything will be all right. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=7718 (Sorry. It's been too long and I don't recall how to make that a nice clickable link. If a mod wants to modify it, I'd welcome that. Thanks.)

Edited by Watermonkey, 22 November 2009 - 11:38 PM.

[anwiii]

when your opening line to support conspirosy theories is to pinpoint 1 person and call him disturbed. discredits anything you have to say in the future as you are grabbing on to thin air while falling to your imminent death in your personal beliefs in what you read about theories. for ever circumstance that happened on 9/11. there are multimple theories. not just one. theories that put seeds in to brainless americans that can't think for themselves to understand the realistic possibilities. 9/11 was not about government control but it did give the perfect excuse to prepare ourselves for a safer future. alot of the original theories were started when certain people were misquoting other people. other theories were based on batent lies that could easily be disproved. other theories in what 1 or two people noticed in photographs were disproved. even the theory about the pentagon and the whole smalled than the wingspan of an airplane.

as far as the cia and the reation to the taliban, i have no doubts they are related in one way shape or form, but however they are related for intelligence purposes had no relation to 9/11 events.

you can quote all you want about theories and speculations. you can even quote from simi respectable sources. that would be no different that quoting from the american media to expose and discredit all the post 9/11 theories.

they don't call them conspiracy theories for nothing. all they are are theories. no facts to support them. only lies, misquotes, seeing things in pictures that weren't there, and a wild imagination.

you talk about learning something new, and if we don't want to, we should put our blinders on. when you have facts to support your beliefs without using theories as your own imaginary world of facts, then please....teach me something new. otherwise, maybe you should open your own eyes.

you seem to think you can talk about the cia like you know more than most in the general population....when in fact, you know didly squat and rely on outside sources of the united states to believe in to to plant little seeds in your own head because you are incapable of coming up with your own beliefs.

fact- every theory about 9/11 that happened that day has been discredited....like the fires that took down the buildings. what the original poster did post about because he's anti-american and didn't want to include the realistic possibilities is that the fires didn't have to melt the steal. they only had to weaken the steal.

anyway, you discredit your own self by calling someone disturbed within your opening lines...and rather than state facts, only theories and by quoting sources that aren't reliable.

you, are the one disturbed. you are weak minded who has no ability to distinguish fact from fiction. and this anti-america talk about how our government killed innocent people to protect a nations future is ridiculous.

let me ask you something oh wise one. why didn't these thories start popping up soon after 9/11? why did it take years before theories started to arise? maybe just time enough to make up a story and get recognized if their imagination is ever to become true in their own little world of fairy tales.

one of the main theories was 9/11 was pre planned by the united states goverment. there were no theories about this pre 9/11. your talk about the cia and alqaeda history has nothing to do with 9/11 theories. in fact...the theorists were watching t.v. like all the rest of the american public in dismay without a theory.....oh...until a couple years later.....hahaha!

you're a joke. now go change your diapers since this has been a messy bed wetting experience for you.

Watermonkey, on Nov 22 2009, 05:42 PM, said:

I don't know why it's so difficult to do a simple internet search. Type in "cia al-qaeda history" and see what you come up with. I randomly chose this article and will quote the introduction here and add bold to highlight important details to this discussion.



See the rest of the article if you're interested in learning something new. If not, please, put your blinders on tightly and close your eyes. Everything will be all right. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=7718 (Sorry. It's been too long and I don't recall how to make that a nice clickable link. If a mod wants to modify it, I'd welcome that. Thanks.)

[Watermonkey]

Anwiii: I don't know if you noticed, but "Disturbed" is found within a poster's handle: "TheDisturbedOne". I was referring to that in my opening line. If he has something to say about it, let him. I don't think he needs you to come to his defense. If my using his name to cast light upon his conclusions necessarily casts doubt upon my views, then you're only using superficial baseless arguments to discredit what I've written. If you have something to argue, by all means, bring it. If you're only going to bring insults and ignorance to the conversation, you'll be talking to yourself.

The theories regarding what happened on Sept. 11 2001 began that day, some would say they began some time before the events actually took place. It certainly didn't take years or even months for them to form. It's like the Ft. Hood shooting. The following day I was listening to Lame Stream talk radio and someone brought up the fact that only an incredible marksman could have generated that kind of causality rate on a military base no less. It was immediately and falsely dismissed by the host of the program, but it's one of the main details that simply doesn't fit the facts and leads one to believe that there's something missing in the official news reports. Like, for starters, there was more than one shooter. Same thing occurred to me on the morning of Sept. 11. I watched as those buildings fell and immediately began to question the story because I knew buildings don't just fall in like that unless there are high paid experts behind the scenes making them fall neatly. In the history of the world with the exception of the buildings that came down on that day, there has never been a single case of a high-rise steel re-enforced building collapsing from fire. Buildings have burned for days and not collapsed, yet on a single day three buildings are destroyed and you believe they came down because there were fires in them? I call that belief pure naivety, plain and simple.

I won't tolerate any more personal attacks from you Anwiii. You've been warned.

I'll take this discussion one step further than the OP did. Let's list the reasons buildings don't behave as WTC buildings allegedly did on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. From http://www.ae911truth.org/ :

Quote

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft at 60 mph
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

Edited by Watermonkey, 23 November 2009 - 02:35 AM.