That the movie I saw which made me believe it’s a conspiracy I think
93 is just a flight number. You can’t kill a number, though the airline may have “retired” it. Is there any good reason to think that plane didn’t crash where they said it did? Sorry, I don’t have time to watch a movie that may or may not be convincing. The web link was a turnoff from the beginning, suggesting the US government may be responsible. It happened on US soil, so the government is somewhat responsible by default. Same for the Pearl Harbor attack, even though that wasn’t fully US soil yet.
There were NO pieces of a plane AT ALL found where the hole in the ground was. NONE.
There were also no parts of a large plane found outside the pentagon. Only small aircraft parts. And the manuever that the “terrorist” did to hit the only “unoccupied and reinforced” part of the pentagon was almost completely impossible for a very advanced pilot to accomplish, let alone a “flight school failure”.
There was also virtually 0 chance of the damage that was done to either tower bringing down either one, let alone both of them. And there were detonation blasts that were heard and felt right before the towers “had a controlled demolition style fall.”
There was no possible way for building 7 to have come down, and yet the building owner (who made a TON of money from the whole ordeal) was being interviewed and told that they made a decision to “pull” number 7. It was (as they all were) clearly a planned demolition, and yet demolitions take weeks or months to plan…not hours while the building is on fire…
I could go on and on, but I’ll leave it at that for now.
OOOOH… Controversial…
I recommend watching Loose change (http://loosechange911.com/) even if you’re not gonna believe it. There’s definately some fishyness around the incident.
The thing about conspiracy theorists is that a lot of the time they do not give enough information to scientifically prove their case. But, none-the-less, conspiracy theorists are a good thing as they expose the information and then let others, such as more trustful media, dig through it and test the therories. Hopefully then it’ll all lead to the truth of what really happened, but time will tell. Here is popular mechanics articles that debunk some of the theories: http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/
And what is normally left behind when a fully-fueled airliner crashes straight into the ground at high speed? In other words, stop comparing it to normal airplane crashes. In a “normal” plane crash, you dump your fuel if you have time, and then you do everything in your power to “land” instead of crash. You don’t aim at the ground.
What happens to aluminum in a fire? You seem to be an expert on the subject so I’ll leave it to you to look it up.
Do you mean parts from smaller aircraft, or small parts of the big plane that crashed there? Otherwise, same as above. How did he manage to hit the new, unoccupied part? The consensus seems to be “just lucky I guess.” Nobody expected the building to withstand such a crash so well. My sister’s boss (in Farmington Hills, MI) had a son killed in that crash (in the Pentagon). He really doesn’t care what did it, his son is just as dead. What was your theory again?
Maybe he was just a dropout, not a failure? Real pilots know how to land. “Aiming” isn’t that hard at all. Why believe otherwise? Oh, as part of a conspiracy theory. What other common-sense stuff do you have to ignore? Oh yeah, physics.
Clearly you are not an architect. Or a physics expert. Or someone who likes to listen to objective explanations over zany conspiracy theories. There have been several specials that I’ve seen on TV that explain it so even you could understand, if you were objective. It’s the way those buildings were designed, with a central core and lots of support structure around the outsides, in combination with a raging fire of jet fuel. It wouldn’t collapse most buildings, but it did work there. In fact they must have planned it that way.
Remember, this was their second time trying to knock those towers down. The brute force method was tried in 1993. And though it caused lots of havoc, it failed to knock the buildings down. They were strong. In fact, the safety measures that were put into place after the 1993 bombings probably saved tens of thousands of lives. Otherwise, people would not have started evacuating as quickly as they did, and surely lots more would have been in the towers when they went down, or in the upper floors of the second tower when it was hit.
Heard by whom? People up where the towers started collapsing? Anyone who was up there is dead. People on the ground? Have you ever been to the WTC area, on a normal day? You wouldn’t be able to hear explosives going off on the 70 or 80th floors, especially with all the sirens and other chaos that was going on at that time.
Any such sounds that actually occurred at that time were either coming from somewhere else, or were the sounds of the first floors (in the fire areas) giving up the ghost and pancaking. Maybe that sounds like detonation blasts? We’re all experts on what that sounds like, right? 
As for your controlled demolition, what was it supposed to look like when the top part of the towers collapsed on the floors below? It looks like a four-sided waterfall of debris. Enough to do lots of damage to the neighboring buildings…
This is the dumbest part of your post. Despite the “controlled demolition,” enough “bad stuff” happened to the neighboring Building 7 to ruin its structural integrity. I don’t find this hard to believe when one of the tallest buildings ever built collapses a few feet away. Owner? The WTC is the property of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It’s not one man. The Port Authority made money from having its buildings knocked down and over a thousand people killed? Please explain how.
You mean Building 7? It wasn’t on fire.
- Normally when you demolish a building it’s not already about to fall down.
- Normally you don’t already have a debris field all around it, so you don’t have to be as neat as you otherwise would.
- Normally it’s not an emergency.
- Normally to think numbers 1-3 aren’t true, you’d have to have a good reason otherwise. That reason is…
Twin Towers a planned demolition? Yes. Are you saying not planned by the guys flying the planes, and their leaders? Do you believe the airplanes crashing into the towers isn’t what made them fall down? I’m not an architect either. But once having it explained to me I didn’t have trouble “getting it.” It all starts with believing my eyes, and keeping my ears open.
Did someone say that theonly non Pentagon parts found at the crash site were parts of a Flying Saucer? That this blaming it on Osama bin Laden (who mysteriously cannot be found) and the Osama video tapes concocted by the CIA are actually part of a cover up, to keep the truth that this was a Martian invasion!!!
!!!EEK!!!
I agree COMPLETELY.
Unfortunately, you falsely believe that the conspiracy theory is that the government had anything to do with it, when in fact, the conspiracy theory is that the government DIDN’T have anything to do with it.
Are you agreeing that Building 7 was a controlled demolition? Because the “official” story is that it wasn’t, even after Silverstein slipped up and said that it was “pulled”, they remained with their story that it was an accidental fall just like building 1 and 2. Oh, and speaking of that, Silverstein had a 99 year lease on the complex, he had JUST aquired the lease, and he fought (in the midst of all of this devestation and tragedy) to get double the insurance money that they wanted to give him (since it was two buildings and two seperate attacks supposedly). This means that he paid only 14 million dollars up to 9/11 and then fought to receive 5 BILLION dollars in insurance money.
Look, basically, you bore the hell out of me, shut up, or just watch one of the videos and then see what you have to say about it.
To every other personal attack that you made towards me, instead of towards the very simple FACTS that I put forth: grow up you assanine blowhard.
I don’t really care anymore to go into this on here. But I just finished reading their initial report that lead up to that book. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, and I don’t care what anyone thinks, but I just thought it funny, so I wanted to comment.
As I was reading the article, first off, half of the “myths” I’ve never even heard of, and I’ve watched every movie about this that I could find. This to me (though I know it makes me sound even more crazy) is as they said, false “myths” created by either stupid people or people trying to add fuel to the fire of debunking all the myths. So, anyways, of the rest of the myths that they “debunked” that I’ve actually heard of, the only thoughts that I had were, “Wow, and you are calling me crazy for believing the things I believe.” What I mean is that, the “facts” that “prove” the anti-conspiracy theories are (to me) MUCH sillier and harder to believe than the “facts” that “prove” the conspiracy theories.
If you are ever going to try to convince someone of your side, you’ll need to learn that calling people names and insulting them are not going to get your side to be looked at with much seriousness, if any. The insults will overshadow what you’re trying to argue.