With all the lawyers, investment bankers, and other financial services employees who fill Wall Street and work extremely long hours, how was the government able to set up several major demolition projects without anyone knowing? Not only that, but for WTC 1 and WTC 2 they were able to crash commercial airliners into the spot where they set up the demolition explosives and were able keep those explosives and detonators in place.
by bumping your own threads and posting even more links to unsubstantiated websites, you further and further prove yourself to be more gullible than the "debunkers" you are trying so desperately to prove wrong. 1. no one is reading your links, blogs, or youtube pages. 2. you started a WTC 7 thread and posted a link to the Pentagon crash, then quoted yourself to bump the thread. MORE OMINOUS YOUTUBE LINKS PLEASE
"The Zogby polls have been sponsored by organizations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911truth.org" give me a poll and I can spin the results any way you like...
Lots of eyewitnesses saw a plane. Body parts/DNA were recovered for all the passengers but for one baby IICR. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t1wQ2BJsgx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t1wQ2BJsgx0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Discuss whatever you want, whenever, but the point to make (which I suggested much earlier in this same topic) was the youth factor: If you didn't understand what was going on in real time back in 2001, it makes sense that some individuals here would be more naive and block-headed in believing entirely ridiculous theories. No one will or has to admit it, but it's purely psychological; people like ToyCen want to believe there is more out there, even when the "evidence" is an absolute joke. Gullibility may be a factor, but I think this is just a case where if someoe says something enough, it somehow is assumed to be fact.
This is a couple of years old, great animated explanation with picture backup...no sound. There seems to be a problem playing in right away...after you press play let it fully load then it will play. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YVDdjLQkUV8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YVDdjLQkUV8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
as far as polling i think its pretty funny that for a substantial part of the bush presidency there was a higher percentage of americans who believed the government was involved with 9/11 than approved of the job he was doing.
What kind of flawed theory is that? You were in junior high school 10 years ago, therefore everything you say is automatically incorrect. Seriously?
When the hell did I say your theory was incorrect? I only supplied a legitimate reason for your logic.
This theory that a missile struck the pentagon instead of an airplane is really very lame. We've already seen planes hitting the twin towers, what's so hard about beileving that it was really hit by an airliner. What is fishy is the collapse of the twin tower since it was supposed to withstand that kind of incident as claimed by structural engineers. and the consistent response during interview of the people who were inside the building that they were hearing explosions. There were minimal casualties inside the pentagon.... it's really crazy to think that this was an inside job but there are questions that need to answered....
It's the easiest part of the conspiracy to debunk, there is so much evidence that it was flight 77...I really don't know why it's not just dropped by the truthers. Physical impacts were what the towers were supposed to withstand. Planes fully loaded with fuel and that the fireproofing materials were blown off by the impact was not taken into consideration. Fire didn't melt the steal, it weakened it and along with the structural damage sustained in the impact, the towers fell. Fuel and debris fell down the elevator shafts and caused fires and explosion sounds in the lower parts of the buildings.
As a civil engineering student (structural engineering is a subset of civil), this claim is one I hear all the time and is just plain stupid. Yes, the WTC was built to sustain crazy incidents, but no one could have ever designed a tower to take a plane's impact midway. The fact that it didn't collapse instantly should show you how sturdy it actually was. Now, I have no proof of this, but I'm guessing the building was built to take explosions from the ground (as it had in the past). To actually say that someone could have even thought of designing a building to stay standing when there is a gaping hole halfway up reeks of ignorance. Let's not even get into the massive amounts of jet fuel that were thrown into the mix. Also, have you ever heard steel snap? I'm guessing you haven't because it sounds almost identical to an explosion. This, combined with the many, many things that an office building contains that could explode when caught on fire are a simple, logical explanation. One last thing... let's say you were in New York the day of the collapse. A reporter on TV asks you what you heard. You recall a loud booming sound (the structure finally giving way) and then the tower falling. Now, what other word do we have in the English language that accurately portrays those events? "It was like an explosion..." is about as vivid as anyone could be, and the fact that the English language doesn't really have another word for "loud boom" has turned into proof of explosives.
Why does everyone keep bringing up the Pentagon? The focus should be on the planes that crashed into the towers if you want to focus on the attacks. It was not an inside job. On the day of the attack, my parents picked me up early from school. As soon as I got home, I started watching the news. The media kept asking questions like who is responsible for these attacks, and they started saying Timothy McVeigh (because of his history in bombing buildings). This man was already dead, and yet they knew he was the main suspect. Then they were unsure who to blame. Then they began to mention Osama Bin Laden as a possible suspect. Within 3-4 hours, without any evidence, the blame was on Osama Bin Laden. The government hates bringing up McVeigh and his group, because they don't want them to receive any support at all. They think groups of people will start burning Social Security cards, drivers licenses, and worst of all...American currency. I'm not saying that is the answer. I am happy with my life. I just think it's sad that people die not knowing what they are fighting for. Tell people America is the biggest, baddest country on the planet. That we could blow up the entire world five times over if we wanted. That we can take whatever we want from whomever we want. You will have your supporters, and you will have your nay sayers. Just like you do now with 9/11. We have no say, no matter what, so the least we deserve is the truth. I can live with that. I can die with that.
So McVeighs people hijacked the planes and crashed them or terrorist Muslim extremists did that? Because McVeigh was briefly mentioned on 9/11, his people are the masterminds?
I'll reassure you they knew more in those 3-4 hours than you realize. Do you think they are going to take a week to check the passenger manifest? Its pretty likely they knew Bin Laden was a common denominator within moments they realized the plane was hijacked.
The reason I said think about the planes was because it's a very tough question. Neither are correct.
Has anyone mentioned that WTC7 would have been the first STEEL building EVER to collapse because of fire? It had NEVER happened before. Look it up.
