You fucking idiot I have already said that the official version is bullshit but you're not gonna make people use their brains by throwing more bullshit at them. i.e. your simpsons linked to 9/11 post/thread whatever.

The buildings collapse from the top and fall straight down. So just no on this point.
This has already been explained, over and over time and time again by people who are actually engineers and not just message board posters like you and I. In short, the steel didn't have to completely melt, just reach a point where it was no longer capable of holding the weight of the floors above it. As the floors began to collapse, inertia and gravity REQUIRED the buildings to fall down.

There are pictures of not only chunks falling on tower 7, but a huge section of the corner of the building missing .

You're right, we'll never know the whole truth. Who knew what and what, who financed who, etc etc.

There are some things that most sane people can agree on.

1) WTC Towers 1 and 2 were in fact hit by hijacked civilian jet airplane.
2) The Pentagon was hit by a hijacked civilian jet airplane.

These two points are just common sense. When more than one solution can explain the same problem the simplest is most often the correct one. It's Occam's razor. Even if the US planned and executed the whole operation it makes no sense what so ever to pretend to hijack then have to hide planes after you pretend crash them in to buildings all the while trying to fool everyone. You would simply crash planes in to the buildings instead.

I want some drama guys...

The towers fell under 10 seconds flat. a free-falling object is an object which is falling under the sole influence of gravity. That is to say that any object which is moving and being acted upon only be the force of gravity is said to be "in a state of free fall." Such an object will experience a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s.


Fair enough, it that were true, then the central core that held the building up, would have remained standing. The floors around the core would have been the ones to collapse.

I have yet to see those pictures.

North Face showing "Fires"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid..._northface.jpg

South-West Face showing "Fires"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...east_fire2.jpg

South walls intact in the background AFTER tower 1 and 2 had already collapsed:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../b7_nofire.jpg

FEMA picture of north face intact during attack:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...s/fig_5_20.jpg

Warchild, when you have a free 2 hours to spend, watch this movie.....let me know what you think afterwards :)



(incase the stupid embedding doesnt effin work.... https://youtube.com/watch?v=0kHhc67GopM )

They weren't planes but the REAL conspiracy is that they weren't actually buildings. The real buildings had been removed 24 hours earlier by intra-planetary displacement lasers. So in reality it was all just TV fakery.

they did it, why they don't show Pentagon videos, simple why?

I have heard of the false flag operation BS, but I highly doubt the government would pull something like this. They may do so pretty underhanded shit, but this would be over the top to think that they were involved.
Just my :2 cents:

Because they never have, right? Do some research.

Never have what?

The bottom???? Did you EVER watch any video of the collapse? Sorry but you are either very fucking blind or very fucking...err blind.

30 minutes...i see you did your homework well. So what wouldve been better for you? 1 hour apart? 2 buildings with the same kind of damage are supposed to show the same damage after a day? Or when exactly? Please tell me.

Another typical dumb conspiracy idiot argument. The steel didnt need to melt. I'm not sure if it did or not but at the temperatures it reached it lost already 30 or 50 or whatever % of its strength. Figure the rest out for yourself.

Youre seriously comparing a tree with tons and tons of metal and concrete stacked on top of eachother..wow?

All explained in several documentaries...the best one probably discovery channel...oh wait, they are part of the conspiracy as well right.

The only valid argument you have and also the only one i cant answer. Ohter than that you are a retard and everything you question is explainable and actually explained. Youre just too busy looking for conspiracy shit to actual find some real info on the subject.

Someone should beat the stupidity out of you. Fucking retardboy.

Let me guess.....you voted Republican.

I came here to have a mature and objective discussion with people like WarChild. I personally don't care why it happened or who did it, it is merely my opinion based on the research that I've done and the conclusions I personally have made. You keep paying your taxes, doing your 9 to 5 and following the herd. Have fun in your bubble.

Please let the experts do the conclusions. Youre way too simple for this shit. And your research is Loose Change and shit like that. Give me a fucking break.

That made me giggle a bit.

FYI, 2001 called and wanted its conspiracy back

You go girl, you are on a roll today ;)

Glad that you know me so well to think that "i am too simple for this shit".

I will make sure that the opinions given by life long architects, pilots and engineers in my family are completely dismissed. Why don't you send me your email and phone number? You could just take their jobs tomorrow since you are so well versed in all this "shit" as you so well have pointed out and apparently physics go by your rules, not nature's.

AR-Melody=Frank???

No it has not, there is not one single credible news source or expert who has come forward saying this. No one


Only an uneducated tinfoil hat wearing drama queen would expect to see bodies and wings at the wreck like that, oh but there were plane parts

http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...t77-debris.jpg

Witnesses have also claimed to have seen a plane so...


American people got suckered into the terrorist story - its complete bollocks.[/QUOTE]


I think you are the one getting suckered here, you should stop listening to people that suffer from schizophrenia on late night radio

Where is the proof that Osama bin Ladin was responsible for these attacks? There is none. All that exists are statements and tortured confessions from terrorists ... and a video confession from a man who does not quite look like Osama.

I am shocked when I think how foolish Americans are when they have faith in GW Bush and the cia to tell us honest and accurate information. In the "art of war" it is written that "all warfare is based on deception".

And the usa military and cia are masters of war. At the very least, an intelligent person would be skeptical of the story purported by Bush.

"The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a ?transformation? of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A ?catalyzing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor??was seen as necessary to bring this about." -PNAC
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_..._harbored.html

I don't know, but if you look at the public profile, it is a picture of a girl, so who knows.

I never cast off conspiracy theories myself, but the people who say those planes were holograms or something are totally crazy and just stirring shit. :1orglaugh

Here is something else to think about ....

Larry Silverstein leased the WTC complex only after GW Bush was elected president. I wish, with all my heart, that Al Gore has been elected.

In which case, Larry Silverstein may have decided not to lease the WTC ... and an attack on WTC may not have occured.

Why?

Because it is well know that Bush loves war, especially against muslims and especially if it profits certain "defense" companies, which also profits Cheney. On the other hand, Al Gore is a much more average person who, although corruptable, inside him there is at least a small amount of care and concern about average americans (unlike Bush).

I pray to god that Americans never elect another president like Bush again. Don't you remember how Bush was initally opposed to the idea of creating a 911 commission? Bush does not give a fuck about truth and justice. Everything he says or does is suspect.

911 was an inside job, anyone who cant see it must be under some kind of powerful hypnotic spell.

Put the crack pipe down.

http://www.rochardsbunnyranch.com/rock/tinfoil.jpg

Former 9/11 Commissioner admits missile hit the Pentagon
https://youtube.com/watch?v=cUmr9dFbf2c

Rare Pentagon 9-11 Surveillance Camera Video of Impact
https://youtube.com/watch?v=paWiZ2Y8fRg

PENTAGON CRUISE MISSILE LC UNCUT
https://youtube.com/watch?v=u3_liaBfg2U

911 WTC "Missile Path" - ENHANCED NBC Chopper 4 Footage
https://youtube.com/watch?v=gKvTep2cdF8

NBC footage features a Missile..(911Newss)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=yVgTDagvjWM&feature=related

9/11 Witness: Jennifer Oberstein - No Plane
https://youtube.com/watch?v=g3cpHxbIIV4

WTC 2nd hit peter strid shows us the missile ( FAKE WITNESS)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=AY8k5K1t_44

No Plane Witness
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ilzKAG6l1B0

WTC Witness heard Sonic Boom from...Missile on 9/11
https://youtube.com/watch?v=iqrdX0rX64U

WTC Witness Saw a Missile on 9/11
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aHVg9P73lQ0&feature=related

9/11 SECONDARY DEVICE
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aGYjM8Nyb0I

WTC 7 - Pull It By Larry Silverstein (pull it = controlled demolition term)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

wtc Demolition "flashes" of charges going off
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wYhXLhfWDB0

NEW* ANGLE OF WTC TOWER FLASHES
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fa61Q3g4rbM

Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition
https://youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

911 WTC "SECOND BLAST" WITNESS: RESZKA (NO PLANE)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=kiCF4tL5Vqk

WMD LIES - Bush Cheney Rumsfeld etc. - THE ULTIMATE CLIP
https://youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

9/11 Shanksville Eyewitness Susan McElwain
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_gliHOhXYFQ

flight 93 eyewitness admits not seeing dead bodies
https://youtube.com/watch?v=5fU-FyKAL9A&feature=related
Robin Cook, the Database and Secrets

On the day after the July 7th, 2005 bombings on London transport, former foreign secretary Robin Cook MP wrote what turned out to be his penultimate newspaper column for the Guardian. In it he revealed something about al-Qaeda that perhaps he shouldn't have.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.

Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

As far as I know, this was the first time publicly, in the anglophone world, that the al-Qaeda name had been explained as referring to a computer database.

In the francophone world, a colourful former French military intelligence officer, Pierre-Henri Bunel, had had a book published in 2004, "Proche-Orient, une guerre mondiale?", extracts of which appeared [in French] on a French conspiracy website. The extract went into some detail of how al-Qaeda originally referred to a computer database of Islamist fighters. But, AFAIK, it was not until after Robin Cook had revealed the same in the Guardian, and after his death a month later, that an English translation of Bunel's words appeared on the web. It's a rough translation, which doesn't read well. But the basic outline of his account accords with what Cook had revealed.

Here's my suspicion: that Robin Cook knew nothing about P-H Bunel's book or article, and that his knowledge of the origin of the Qaeda name stemmed solelyfrom his time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In other words, that both men had, independently of each other, revealed that, as they understood it, the designation 'al-Qaeda' had originally referred to a computer database. And, according to Bunel, that that name had been operative at least by the mid-'80s.

But yesterday MI5 the government published its 'narrative' of the July 7th bombings [.pdf]. Annex 3 of the whitewash was a chronology of the development of modern jihadism. Extract:

c1984 Radical preacher Abdullah Azzam set up an organisation called Maktab al-Khidmat (MAK) "Bureau of Services" to disseminate propaganda about jihad in Afghanistan. Usama bin Laden (UbL) joins.

1989 Withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. UbL returns to Saudi Arabia. Decision by MAK to continue to support jihadist causes. Thinking around "the base" or "foundation" (translation: Al Qaida) for further operations articulated.

1988-89 UbL disagreement over focus of the cause and starts to form Al Qaida. [...]

So, MI5's version of the aetiology of the 'Qaeda' name makes no mention of computer databases, or its use by western intelligence agencies before 1989, and it repeats previous explanations as to its origins. So, either Cook and Bunel were wrong, or they were right but wrong to reveal it. And while Bunel is a peripheral figure lacking credibility, Robin Cook was neither.

When I first read Cook's July 8th article, and the zinger about 'al-Qaeda' as a database, I wondered about what secret he might reveal to us next. But now I wonder about what, say, MI6 thought about the possibility of the former foreign secretary, who had signed the Official Secrets Act for life, revealing other things that he shouldn't (if, that is, the database story were true). Then, it would have become a matter of national security. How could they prevent him from repeating his mistake? Could they have had him arrested and charged under the OSA? Did they try to speak to him, between July 8th and August 6th, 2005, to warn him as to his future conduct?

If Robin Cook was starting to spill secrets, his sudden death one month later would have saved the defence, intelligence and security services from having to confront a difficult problem, one which would have had no obvious, certain solution.


he Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded in early 1997 as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC are the views that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] It has exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]


?The process of transformation,? the plan said, ?is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event?like a new Pearl Harbor.?

It's very obvious what caused WTC 7 to collapse. What did the NIST studies miss? Why ignore the evidence and just post a stupid youtube video instead.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

In its progress report, NIST released a video and still-photo analysis of 7 World Trade Center before its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, NIST's interim report on 7 World Trade Center displays photographs of the southwest façade of the building that show it to have significant damage. The report also highlights a 10-story gash in the center of the south façade, toward the bottom, extending approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[41][3] A unique aspect of the design of 7 World Trade Center was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 sq ft (186 m²) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns severely compromised the structure's integrity.[42] Consistent with this theory, news footage shows cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately before the collapse, which began at the penthouse floors.[3] In video of the collapse, taken from the north by CBS News and other news media, the first visible sign of collapse is movement in the east penthouse 8.2 seconds before the north wall began to collapse, which took at least another 7 seconds.[3][43]

The working hypothesis, released in the June 2004 progress report and reiterated in a June 2007 status update, was that an initial failure in a critical column occurred below the 13th floor, caused by damage from fire and/or debris from the collapse of the two main towers. The collapse progressed vertically up to the east mechanical penthouse. The interior structure was unable to handle the redistributed load, resulting in horizontal progression of the failure across lower floors, particularly the 5th to 7th floors. This resulted in "a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure."[40][44][3]

On August 21, 2008, NIST released its draft report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, beginning a period for public comments.[33] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[45] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[46]

Conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition.[54][55][56][57] The draft NIST report rejected this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.[58]

wtc Demolition "flashes" of charges going off
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wYhXLhfWDB0

High quality video of WTC collapse (BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM) explosives going off
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jyWoWWX6YtA&feature=related

9/11 NYC Firefighters Controlled Demolition (WITNESSES)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

I didnt know fires can create secondary explosions

PornoStar69 :thumbsup

you're putting out good information.

it's important that the sheeple in america, the former great republic of FREEDOM, wakes the fuck up and stops is nazi fascist regime!

and this second hitler obama! :disgust

peace!

Why is anyone trying to argue with these delusional trolls? Not like their minds are going to change based on actual scientific evidence or the findings of thousands of engineers and scientists.

Let them think they're special, that they've uncovered some deep secret and that somehow that makes them better than the rest.

That's what it's really about, conspiracy theorists will latch onto any crackpot idea that will make them feel like they are "in" on something and if only the rest of the world would see it their way then they would gain the recognition and respect that they imagine that they deserve while tossing out buzzwords like "sheeple" and "drink the kool-aid".

And by the way, I'm currently working in an office full of PhD engineers and statistical theoreticians (focusing specifically in large-scale construction) and they have a laugh riot every time someone email forwards one of those bullshit 9/11 conjectures.

Hasnt like 300 phd engineers/science professors/phyics professors joined up and debunked the Govs theory that fire brought down the twins towers? LOL

Is pornstar69 the new id of Phoenix? Where is Franck when you need him.

Wrong. There is one dumbass who made a 9/11 presentation and has gotten 300 people to sign his petition to "get more information"

Many of them say they believed in a government conspiracy before 9/11
Many of them said they "knew" something was wrong on the day of 9/11 (Pretty quick analyzing the evidence, eh?)
Most of them have no experience with large-scale construction or high-rise buildings
Most of them have no experience with the physical properties of construction materials

And 300 people with Architects licenses and Engineering degrees don't quite match up against thousands and thousands of Engineers who specialize in structural engineering and materials physics who think you're full of shit.

Here are some quotes from those 300 special folks:

Some excellent experts, eh?

And even they would think you're a crackpot for thinking it wasn't planes going into the buildings.

well well well MattO comes from Texas surprise surprise - what did Srg Hartmann say about Texas? hmmmm

I will debunk whatever you say MattO

but for now i'm off and awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwyyyyyyyyyy bye for now.

you guys probably think that hitler killed all them jews too