9/11 Conspiracy Revealed

[crims]

Here's a very simple argument that shows 9/11 was a coverup:

First, look at the times:

9:59 AM - South Tower collapses.

10:28 AM - North Tower collapses.

5:30 PM - WTC7 collapses.

Now try to find the cause for WTC7's collapse:

No planes crashed into WTC7.

WTC7 collapsed 7 hours after the towers.

So a plane could not be the cause.

WTC7 had beams and columns of steel.

Steel loses integrity at > 1000*C.

Aviation fuel burns at < 500*C.

So a fire could not be the cause.

Conclusions:

Cause was not fire, and not a plane.

That means WTC7 collapsed by other means.

That's enough evidence to:

1.) Disprove the official theory

2.) Justify a new investigation

[Michael Hardner]

1) Wasn't the official theory on the collapse of that building supposed to be less than definitive ? Hasn't it already been said that there's a lot of uncertainty around that ?

2) Why would the entire investigation need to be restarted based on an error ? Considering the effort (physical, economic, spiritual) it required to investigate it, I think that would be a bad decision. There isn't much more to be learned about the incident by investigating the collapse of that building.

[crims]

You didn't get me. I'm saying it's a CONSPIRACY.

The official story about 9/11 is a lie.

9/11 was orchestrated by powerful people in USA.

Watch this video if you want to learn more: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...4991194&pl=true

[Michael Hardner]

We've already discussed this a lot on this board here.

To summarize :

No one has been able to explain how and why such a plot could ever be planned, approved and executed and who could/would do that.

The theories that are out there come from people with a penchant for mysteries - people who comb through the millions of facts out there to find unexplained incidents, coincidents or oddities then build their theories on that.

With an incident of this scale, there will always be these types of phenomena. To build conspiricies on that is simply destructive to society.

Research the 'umbrella man' at JFK's assasination. For years, he was thought to be part of some conspiracy but it was eventually explained.

[crims]

The theories that are out there come from people with a penchant for mysteries

Okay, but do you trust FEMA?

- FEMA was forbidden to mention demolition in their explanation (they were verboten)

- FEMA admitted that official explanation "only a low probability of occurrence."

- FEMA said the examined steel columns had rapid "sulfidation" and "oxidation"; (sulfur is used in explosives and burning it produces sulfur-dioxide)

[Michael Hardner]

Okay, but do you trust FEMA?

- FEMA was forbidden to mention demolition in their explanation (they were verboten)

- FEMA admitted that official explanation "only a low probability of occurrence."

- FEMA said the examined steel columns had rapid "sulfidation" and "oxidation"; (sulfur is used in explosives and burning it produces sulfur-dioxide)

Can you source these three pieces of information please ?

And what is your response to my assertion that "top down" the conspiracy theories make no sense, while "bottom up" investigations will inevitably lead to unexplained facts ?

Is there any point in combing through wreckage for years, when this is so ?

[crims]

Can you source these three pieces of information please ?

http://www.mediavillage.net/test/print.php?sid=823 ------>

6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m...urgy/index.html ------>

The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm ) “Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences [The coloring of the text is added here. See below for reason]) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.”...

The FEMA report can now be found at http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_...D/html/open.htm

And what is your response to my assertion that "top down" the conspiracy theories make no sense, while "bottom up" investigations will inevitably lead to unexplained facts ?

Well... what can be said? They really fucked it up.

Is there any point in combing through wreckage for years, when this is so ?

There's no wreckage. None. It was rushed out of the country and off to the smelters (FEMA only got a little time to examine it).

Here's some more to chew on. A few problems with the official explanation for WTC7:

- no plane hit WTC7 (building 7 in the picture below)

- nothing there could've reached temperatures to melt steel

- its steel was fireproof insulated

- it collapsed by freefall (first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds)

- it collapsed suddenly and totally (instead of portions breaking)

- WTC5 and WTC6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams

- no steel building ever collapsed from fire (except WTC's)

ANIMATION: http://commieware.myftp.org/pfm/wtc-7-small.gif

IMAGE: http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104wtc.jpg

So, by Ockham's Razor, by Laws of Physics, and by Common Sense, fire couldn't be the cause.

Better explanation is that a controlled demolition created an implosion in the lower floors, collapsing the entire building.

[Michael Hardner]

I read a large part of the first link, which took me fifteen minutes.

The writer, Dr. Reynolds, comes across as a scientific expert in the writing, which he is not. It would be more informative for an individual to have a counter-point to his claims as there's nothing to go on if you don't have the training to understand what he has written.

I will say that he puts in too much innuendo in his writing. Trucks with GPS are described thusly:

"New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS."

What does this mean ? Did all NYC trucks have GPSs or just the ones for this cleanup ? When was it done and why ?

This is exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about combing through the wreckage for oddities.

He claims that no one saw any buckling of the floor. I did read such a report early on in one of the 9-11 calls.

Well... what can be said? They really fucked it up.

What can be said is that there's no way such a thing could have be done. Without more evidence than this, we should all move on.

Here's some more to chew on. A few problems with the official explanation for WTC7:

- no plane hit WTC7 (building 7 in the picture below)

- nothing there could've reached temperatures to melt steel

They don't know what caused the fire is a better way to put it.

- its steel was fireproof insulated

- it collapsed by freefall (first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds)

- it collapsed suddenly and totally (instead of portions breaking)

- WTC5 and WTC6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams

- no steel building ever collapsed from fire (except WTC's)

Unexplained. Doesn't mean there was a conspiracy.

So, by Ockham's Razor, by Laws of Physics, and by Common Sense, fire couldn't be the cause.

Better explanation is that a controlled demolition created an implosion in the lower floors, collapsing the entire building.

Ockham's Razor demands the simplest explanation. Given the evidence, the simplest evidence was that the terrorists did it.

[Black Dog]

- no plane hit WTC7 (building 7 in the picture below)

But it was heavily damaged by falling debris from the other towers. About a third of the face of WTC7 --approximately 10 stories or about 25 percent of the depth of the building was crushed. That damage, combined with a fire that burned for several hours, plus design flaws, caused teh collapse.

- nothing there could've reached temperatures to melt steel

You don't need to melt steel, just heat it up enough to weaken it.

It's likely a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

- it collapsed by freefall (first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds)

- it collapsed suddenly and totally (instead of portions breaking)

- WTC5 and WTC6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams

- no steel building ever collapsed from fire (except WTC's)

I don't understand how the WTC was expected to collapse: was it suppossed to tip over like a falling tree? The pancaking effect was perfectly consistent with the design of the towers and the circumstances of their weakened structural integrity.

I'm open to arguments that the Bush administration ignored or underestimated advanced warning of the attacks and that incompetence, confusion and beauracracy hindered the response, but the idea that the towers were blown up is too ridiculous to contemplate.

[KrustyKidd]

You don't need to melt steel, just heat it up enough to weaken it.

Plastic and rubber melt. Washers that hold the beams tight used those. Steel flexes in temperature extremes far differently than the concrete attached to it. In all, you end up with a loose structure that is flexing and shifting at different times in all sorts of directions with heavy concrete attatched to it also shifting in various directions. Something should give.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm open to arguments that the Bush administration ignored or underestimated advanced warning of the attacks and that incompetence, confusion and beauracracy hindered the response, but the idea that the towers were blown up is too ridiculous to contemplate.

I would like to reiterate that rumour-mongering and discrediting of all government agencies - including law enforcement - weaken our institutions and breeds cynicism and mistrust and faithlessness. If these elements of democracy erode, we will be left with no trusted sources of information, and eventually an ability to achieve consensus.

[Black Dog]

I would like to reiterate that rumour-mongering and discrediting of all government agencies - including law enforcement - weaken our institutions and breeds cynicism and mistrust and faithlessness.

Some agencies are corrupt, incompetent and deserve every measure of cynicism, mistruts and discredit directed their way. To throw up a barrier and say no state agency should be subject to scrutiny is a far greater betrayal of democracy.

If these elements of democracy erode, we will be left with no trusted sources of information, and eventually an ability to achieve consensus.[/

The state does not equate democracy. As for "trusted source of information": trust is something that must be earned, not freely given. Indeed, when it come sto the government a lack of trust is completely healthy.

[Michael Hardner]

Some agencies are corrupt, incompetent and deserve every measure of cynicism, mistruts and discredit directed their way. To throw up a barrier and say no state agency should be subject to scrutiny is a far greater betrayal of democracy.

I'm not talking about scrutiny here. I'm talking about spreading rumours, discrediting institutions and making scandalous statements accusing people of murder.

The state does not equate democracy. As for "trusted source of information": trust is something that must be earned, not freely given. Indeed, when it come sto the government a lack of trust is completely healthy.

I disagree.

Though these institutions are fallible, people on both sides of the political spectrum are very quick to accuse the other side of inhumanity. That goes beyond trust - it's bad faith.

[Black Dog]

I'm not talking about scrutiny here. I'm talking about spreading rumours, discrediting institutions and making scandalous statements accusing people of murder.

Well, I think in this case, the evidence against a conspiracy by high ranking government agencies to perpatrate a crime and cover up on 9-11 is thin enough that people can see through it. For a "scandalous statement" to gain enough traction to do serious harm to the reputation of an org, it has to be plausible. Which brings me back to the incompetence thesis... I don't think 9-11 was planned by the government, but I do think the people in charge of preventing such an event were too incompotent to do the job, which basically amounts to criminal stupidity. I've seen little in the past 5 years to put that theory to rest.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, I think in this case, the evidence against a conspiracy by high ranking government agencies to perpatrate a crime and cover up on 9-11 is thin enough that people can see through it. For a "scandalous statement" to gain enough traction to do serious harm to the reputation of an org, it has to be plausible. Which brings me back to the incompetence thesis... I don't think 9-11 was planned by the government, but I do think the people in charge of preventing such an event were too incompotent to do the job, which basically amounts to criminal stupidity. I've seen little in the past 5 years to put that theory to rest

Having worked my entire career in organizations where information is constantly misplaced, I can see how it would happen.

I take heart with your point that the conspiracy theory is too thin to damage confidence. I hope you're right.

[August1991]

I'm open to arguments that the Bush administration ignored or underestimated advanced warning of the attacks and that incompetence, confusion and beauracracy hindered the response, but the idea that the towers were blown up is too ridiculous to contemplate.

I think this comment situates the discussion properly.

Recall the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. If I recall correctly, the officer in the CIA who normally vetted targets was away on a training session and a replacement made the ultimate error.

As to September 2001, the decision to land planes that morning was not made by the FAA but by security officers of American Airlines and United Airlines who were in close communication. They were the first to be aware that something was amiss and they ordered the landing of commercial planes. The FAA learned of this after the fact.

From the FBI's failure to act on information obtained by its own agents before September 2001 to the INS sending out Atta's visa renewal six months after, there were numerous errors committed both before and after Septe

There is a perception that governments have all-encompassing powers, and are all-knowing. This is perception is false, although politicians and bureaucrats like to perpetuate the belief. Washington DC is like Ottawa, only bigger. Ugh.

[crims]

To Black Dog:

You don't need to melt steel, just heat it up enough to weaken it.

Kevin Ryan (from Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components used in WTC) sent a letter to Frank Gale at the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

He argued that the components used met all standards for resistance against a fire:

"We know that the components were certified to ASTM E119.

Time-Temperature Curves from this standard required samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000*F for several hours.

And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.

Additionally, I think we can all agree even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures reaching nearly 3000*F."

Days from writing this letter, Kevin Ryan was fired from his position.

And I'll mention this again because it doesn't seem like anybody took it seriously:

- no plane hit WTC7 (building 7 in the picture below)

- its fire was too small

- nothing there could've reached temperatures to melt steel

- its steel was fireproof insulated

- it collapsed by freefall (first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds)

- it collapsed suddenly and totally (instead of portions breaking)

- WTC5 and WTC6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams

- no steel building ever collapsed from fire (except WTC's)

- FEMA was forbidden to mention demolition in their explanation (they were verboten)

- FEMA admitted that official explanation "only a low probability of occurrence."

- FEMA said the examined steel had rapid "sulfidation" and "oxidation"; (sulfur is used in explosives and burning it produces sulfur-dioxide)

CLIP OF WTC7 FREE-FALL: http://commieware.myftp.org/pfm/wtc-7-small.gif

WTC COMPLEX LAYOUT: http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104wtc.jpg

Well, I think in this case, the evidence against a conspiracy by high ranking government agencies to perpatrate a crime and cover up on 9-11 is thin enough that people can see through it.

What about these very credible people:

- Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6470

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20...02755-6408r.htm

- Former Asst. Sec. Of Treasury Under Reagan Doubts Official 9/11 Story

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=99739

- Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

Attack Was 'Coup de'tat,' Buildings Were Demolished By Controlled Demolitions

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/...05insidejob.htm

One of them was from BUSH'S OWN TEAM!

It's rare that someone from the government itself voices a conspiracy theory... how much more obvious does it have to be?

AND don't forget, the government already admitted to planning to hijack fake planes in the 60's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

And Charlie Sheen...

CNN Quickvote poll as of 3/25/06

Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?

Yes - 84% - 40700 votes

No - 16% - 7681 votes

Total: 48,381 votes

To Michael Hardner:

I would like to reiterate that rumour-mongering and discrediting of all government agencies - including law enforcement - weaken our institutions and breeds cynicism and mistrust and faithlessness. If these elements of democracy erode, we will be left with no trusted sources of information, and eventually an ability to achieve consensus.

Holy crap... if you so blindly believe everything they say, then there's really no point in me trying.

[KrustyKidd]

What about these very credible people:

Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds

I have testomony from an Arizona housewife who has a brother in law that one saw the towers while on vacation. He says it was terrorists.

An economist, get real.

Additionally, I think we can all agree even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures reaching nearly 3000*F."

Sure. They didn't have to melt though and nobody is saying they did so please stop putting words in people's mouths.

KK from last night

Plastic and rubber melt. Washers that hold the beams tight used those. Steel flexes in temperature extremes far differently than the concrete attached to it. In all, you end up with a loose structure that is flexing and shifting at different times in all sorts of directions with heavy concrete attatched to it also shifting in various directions. Something should give.

[crims]

Plastic and rubber melt. Washers that hold the beams tight used those. Steel flexes in temperature extremes far differently than the concrete attached to it. In all, you end up with a loose structure that is flexing and shifting at different times in all sorts of directions with heavy concrete attatched to it also shifting in various directions. Something should give.

Then the buildings closest to the Twin Tower collapse, with the largest firings, and weakest structure should've collapsed first:

- WTC5 and WTC6 were much closer to the Twin Towers

- WTC5 and WTC6 had raging fires

- they had much thinner steel beams

- but they did not collapse despite all this

- instead, WTC7 collapsed 7 hours after the Twin Towers

WTC COMPLEX LAYOUT: http://www.prisonplanet.com/pp190104wtc.jpg

[KrustyKidd]

Then the buildings closest to the Twin Tower collapse, with the largest firings, and weakest structure should've collapsed first:

Take a look at your diagram, they are short and squat and require less strength to provide that same or better structural integrity as their neighbors which are five to twenty times as high. It is only common sense they did not fall.

[crims]

Take a look at your diagram, they are short and squat and require less strength to provide that same or better structural integrity as their neighbors which are five to twenty times as high. It is only common sense they did not fall.

Then:

- WTC7 should've collapsed in sections

- should've been support by 76 other steel beams

- it would not have collapsed in free-fall (first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds)

- they would be the first steel buildings to collapse by fire in history

And how do you explain this:

- the steel beams were fireproof insulated

And the Pentagon crash...

- where are the remains of engines and wings?

- why is the hole so small?

http://members.shaw.ca/freedomsix/pics/pentcrash.jpg

- how did the light-weight carbon nose go through 9 feet of steel-reinforced concrete?

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/fli...aerial_traj.jpg

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/fli...de/punchout.jpg

- where is the nose that made this hole?

http://commieware.myftp.org/pfm/penthole.JPG

- why do satellite photos 4 days before 9/11 show white markings on the lawn of the crash trajectory?

BEFORE: http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/P...agon_9_7_01.jpg

AFTER: http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/P...gon_9_12_01.jpg

- why was the Pentagon hit in the only section renovated to withstand that kind of attack?

"It was the only area of the Pentagon [that] had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The area also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire." ~ The Los Angeles Times

- why were all 4 known tapes of the Pentagon crash confiscated by FBI?

From Sheraton National Hotel, from a Parking Lot, from CITGO, and from the Department of Transportation.

- why is "eyewitness testimony" so inconsistent about the Pentagon crash?

• "...I saw this plane, this jet, American Airlines jet coming..."
  
• "...I saw what looked up to a maybe a 20-passenger commuter corporate jet, no markings on the side..."
  
• "an American Airways 757" ~ Tim Timmerman
  
• "We heard what sounded like a missile" ~ Tom Seibert
  
• "A 757 airplane 50 feet over Interstate 395" ~ Jim Sutherland
  
• "I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane" ~ Lon Rains
  
• "It looked like a 737" ~ Terry Morin
  
• "It sounded like a missle" ~ Michael DiPaula
  
• "You could almost see the people in the windows" ~ Steven Eiden
  
• "...the plane ... banked slightly to the left, drug its wing, along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon" ~ Steve Anderson
  
• "...came from behind us and banked to the right" ~ Gary Bauer
  
• "The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet" ~ Vin Narayanan
  
• "The plane passed perhaps 50 to 75 feet above the roof my car at great speed" ~ Mary Ann Owens
  

[KrustyKidd]

- WTC7 should've collapsed in sections

- should've been support by 76 other steel beams

- it would not have collapsed in free-fall (first 100 meters in 4.5 seconds)

- they would be the first steel buildings to collapse by fire in history

Should've, could've. Maybe it had something to do with having an inordinate amount of diesel fuel (tens of thousands of gallons) feeding the fires which raged all day. Hardly a 'normal' fire situation for any building.

- the steel beams were fireproof insulated

And only designed to be fire resistant for short duration rather than long term.

- where are the remains of engines and wings?

I've seen pictires of them and explanations of other crashes that were less traumatic and had more unrecognizable debris.

- why is the hole so small?

Try cramming an alluminum aircraft at seven hundred miles per hour into a building. Something is going to give in both the craft and the building. Sides, you said it was reinforced.

- where is the nose that made this hole?

I would imagine disintigrated after going through that reinforced concrete.

why do satellite photos 4 days before 9/11 show white markings on the lawn of the crash trajectory?

Barely visable beside the tracks of the contractor's trucks.

- why was the Pentagon hit in the only section renovated to withstand that kind of attack?

Why wasn't it hit five meters to the right or left? I don't know, why wasn't it hit in another area?

- why were all 4 known tapes of the Pentagon crash confiscated by FBI?

Gone to the same home the Zparuder film spent thirty years in I imagine.

- why is "eyewitness testimony" so inconsistent about the Pentagon crash?

They are all saying the same thing if you read it with an open mind "holy shit, it all happened so fast I can only give you an impression of what I saw and heard.'

[crims]

Should've, could've.

...you're a fucking PSYCHO! If you would allow an architect to make a building with that attitude, or an investigator to research the death of thousands of people, there has to be something mentally wrong with you.

Maybe it had something to do with having an inordinate amount of diesel fuel (tens of thousands of gallons) feeding the fires which raged all day. Hardly a 'normal' fire situation for any building.

Doesn't matter how much fuel there is, it still burns at the same temperature.

It's unlikely, if not impossible, that ANY hydrocarbon there could burn hot enough to cause collapse.

Try cramming an alluminum aircraft at seven hundred miles per hour into a building. Something is going to give in both the craft and the building. Sides, you said it was reinforced.

Then why do the holes go through 9 feet?

You saw when the planes hit WTC. The plane didn't fly out the other side. How would it go through Pentagon's STEEL-REINFORCED CONCRETE?

- where is the nose that made this hole?

I would imagine disintigrated after going through that reinforced concrete.

Then how would it make such long holes?

By Ockham's Razor, Laws of Physics, and Common Sense, it must be a missile.

They are all saying the same thing if you read it with an open mind "holy shit, it all happened so fast I can only give you an impression of what I saw and heard.'

Read more carefully then!

Some say there were markins and windows, other's say there weren't.

Some say it was a giant jet, others a small commuter plane, and others a missile.

Some say it banked left, others say it banked right.

Some say it dragged its wing through the ground (even though there was no trace on the lawn).

Some say it was 50 to 75 feet, others 25 (cars should've been blown away).

It's just so ridiculous. Look - here's the OFFICIAL STORY + SOME LOOPHOLES:

Terrorists from Saudi Arabia trained by Osama hijack planes.

One plane crashes into the Pentagon, dissappearing completely, making a tiny hole.

For no reason, FBI then confiscate all 4 known tapes of the Pentagon crash.

Another plane crashes in the middle of nowhere, leaving no remains.

9:59 AM - South Tower collapses to the ground in aproximatly 10 seconds.

10:28 AM - North Tower collapses to the ground in approximatly 10 seconds.

Later, at 5:30 PM - World Trade centre 7 suddenly collapses for no reason.

South Tower was hit last and only by its corner but collapsed FIRST,

while North Tower was hit first and directly at centre but collapsed SECOND.

7 of 8 blackboxes (made of stainless steel and high-temp-insulated silica) are destroyed,

BUT one of the terrorist's passports (made of paper) somehow flew out of his pocket,

out of the burning inferno, on to the streets below, where it was found somehow by FBI amidst all the panic.

Steel leftovers are then rushed out of the country and to the smelters (FEMA got only a little time).

Then US Army invades Afghanistan to hunt for Osama, but gets nowhere.

Then US Army invades Iraq to prevent a WMD attack (even though the invasion gives them all the reason to use the WMD's).

The WMD's are then never found (supposedly suicidal terrorists would rather die in battle and give Bush look stupid than to use WMD's to defend themselves), and everyone forgets about Osama.

Just imagine the conversation they had in Iraq:

SADDAM: "Shit shit! The Americans are coming!"

SOME GUY: "Should we use the WMD's to defend ourselves?"

SADDAM: "No, smuggle the WMD's over the border so we have no way of using them."

SOME GUY: "AYE AYE!"

SADDAM: "Buahahah... Bush will look like an idiot for coming here. Stupid infidels!"

SOME GUY: "Allah akbhar! Allah akbhar! Allah akbhar!"

How stupid can a person be?

[KrustyKidd]

Should've, could've.

...you're a fucking PSYCHO! If you would allow an architect to make a building with that attitude, or an investigator to research the death of thousands of people, there has to be something mentally wrong with you.

Doesn't matter how much fuel there is, it still burns at the same temperature.

It's unlikely, if not impossible, that ANY hydrocarbon there could burn hot enough to cause collapse.

So what you are saying is that steel does not bend and buckle at high temperatures? Beg to differ, we used to heat the rails to close gaps of feet with only propane heat. Concrete does not expand at the same rate as steel and, with rivets loosened due to melted lock washers you have one heck of a lot of metal bending at irregular spots wieghed down by concrete doing the same in various unpredicatable ways. If you think this occuring for over six hours would leave any building unscathed I believe you are wrong.

Then why do the holes go through 9 feet?Then how would it make such long holes? By Ockham's Razor, Laws of Physics, and Common Sense, it must be a missile.

When any object has enough inertia its gong to go somewhere. The force of any object with metal in it travelling at those speeds is going to go through just about anything a certain distance. Leaving of course, not much in big pieces.

Some say there were markins and windows, other's say there weren't.

Some say it was a giant jet, others a small commuter plane, and others a missile.

Some say it banked left, others say it banked right.

Some say it dragged its wing through the ground (even though there was no trace on the lawn).

Some say it was 50 to 75 feet, others 25 (cars should've been blown away).

Yep, it was moving pretty fast.

Then US Army invades Afghanistan to hunt for Osama, but gets nowhere.

Not really. They did carry out two of the three objectives in that they toppled the Taliban and removed Al Queda's headquarters.

Then US Army invades Iraq to prevent a WMD attack (even though the invasion gives them all the reason to use the WMD's).

They invaded Iraq to influence Saudi behavior to take care of their Al Queda infestation and to provide a base for themselves in the ME to continue to prosecute the war on terror. Objective met on the first immediately and the second soon to come.

The WMD's are then never found (supposedly suicidal terrorists would rather die in battle and give Bush look stupid than to use WMD's to defend themselves), and everyone forgets about Osama.

Saddam was not a suicidal terrorist. He was a despotic dictator who placed his own political and personal survival above all. Osama is not forgotten however, he is still a target for the ten thousand or so troops still after him. Only the hesitation to kill hundreds if not thousands of Pakistani people in order to do it prohibits his capture.

[crims]

Not really. They did carry out two of the three objectives in that they toppled the Taliban and removed Al Queda's headquarters.

And they gave it to the Northern Alliance... You realize that those are druglords?

THEY HANDED THE COUNTRY OVER TO DRUG DEALERS!

Opium production in Afghanistan grew 400% since 2001.

Al-Qaeda were the good guys in Afghanistan.

Anyhell, I did some more research. How they planted the bombs:

Ben Fountain (financial analyst working at WTC) said:

- weeks before 9/11 there were unannounced and strange drills

- sections of Twin Towers and WTC7 were evacuated for 'security reasons'

Scott Forbes (worked at Fiduciary Trust in South Tower) said:

- his company was given 3 notice that 48th floor and up would have power-off

- reason given was cabling upgrade to increase WTC's computer bandwidth

- a power-off had never happend prior to this

- because of power-off, the security cameras, ID systems, and elevators were inoperable

- there were "plenty" of engineers going in and out of the WTC

- they had free access throughout the building due to security being off

Daria Coard (guard at Tower One) said:

- security was working 12-hour shifts during previous 2 weeks because of numerous phone threats.

- on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed

All this was authorized by Marvin Bush (Dubya's brother).

He owned Securacom, which provided security for WTC.