Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Osama at first said he didn't do it, then a few weeks later, a pudgy version of Osama said he did.
Exactly what I meant when I said something is shady. I don't know who's behind 9/11 but I don't think it's Osama. There's a reason he's been overlooked in this whole occupation in Iraq.
Would the insurance companies still have to pay claims if 9/11 was a government conspiracy? If not, I bet the insurance companies would have worked hard at successfully exposing such a thing.
They did give Larry Silverstein (who held the leases on both towers and incidentally told firemen to pull it, as in Tower 7) a hard time. I think he ultimately did prevail.
Three heavily reinforced steel frame buildings collapsed at free fall speed on 9-11. One of which was not even touched by an airplane, the other 2 had relatively minor damage and fires burning, and were built to withstand multiple air crashes. No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire before in history.
There were molten pools of steel found at the bottom of all 3 buildings that burned for months. Fires produced by the jet fuel did not come close to that required to produce those pools.
The buildings were relatively bare of flammable materials, and were designed to isolate fires.
Who planted the explosives? Well, a security company with ties to Marvin Bush presided over the building for months before 9-11. Occupants reported banks of elevators being made unavailable for use for days at a time, and loud rumbling noises were heard on supposedly vacant floors.
Every one of these topics you brought up can be easily explained if you bother to do a little unbiased research and use some common sense. A basic understanding of science also helps.
Some people are so obsessed with the big, bad govt that they check their brain at the door and believe any goofball website they come across. It kinda reminds me of the Limbaugh dittoheads, but in a 180 direction.
The real conspiracy is not about planted explosives or missiles hitting the Pentagon. It's about how the Bush administration took advantage of a very terrible event (that probably could have been prevented) and used it to do a little nation building in the middle east.
Seriously..........Does ANYONE know how tower 7 collapsed? Seriously.
Yeah, it was seriously damaged by the debris caused by WTC1. There was a large rip on the south side, 20 stories tall. Firefighters were not letting anyone in the area because they were concerned it was going to fall.
Yeah, it was seriously damaged by the debris caused by WTC1. There was a large rip on the south side, 20 stories tall. Firefighters were not letting anyone in the area because they were concerned it was going to fall.
Well then this explains Larry's Silverstein's comment to "pull it?" I guess that is a controlled demolition term. I've heard him say "pull it." He now says he said "pull back." Just curious.
And I disagree with what you say above. If it were as simple as that, all the controversy surrounding WTC7 would not be so.
Does anyone believe the first WTC attack was by Bush too?
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Bush did this in the way you are phrasing it. However, if you reviewed those links I provided, it does give pause.
One other thing I forgot to mention and I don't know if it's been mentioned here were the simultaneous drills taking place that a.m. simulating exactly what was to happen (which is why people were so confused when it ended up being a real attack) and also NORAD's standdown.
I think the one thing that clinched all of this for me more than anything was actually hearing a 25 year veteran pilot (in person) along with another pilot and an air traffic controller really discuss the avionics and just how complicated that Pentagon maneuver would have had to be and that only a very seasoned pilot could have pulled it off, if even then. Anyway, if you are interested in data it can be found on that 911pilotsfor truth link I provided.
Well then this explains Larry's Silverstein's comment to "pull it?" I guess that is a controlled demolition term. I've heard him say "pull it." He now says he said "pull back." Just curious.
And I disagree with what you say above. If it were as simple as that, all the controversy surrounding WTC7 would not be so.
There are eyewitness accounts of the building leaning and making all kinds of creaking noises. They thought the building was going to fall anyway.
You won't find that kind of info on conspiracy sites. Why? Because that type of info doesn't sell 9/11 books. They are bigger cherrypickers than Bush and his cronies. It's disgusting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
