:thumbsup :thumbsup for the record i think for the most part everything went down basically like they said it did..

I think the cia had operatives that were aware of a plot and let it go down but i dont think they had any great details about it.. i think they know more than they do but freaked because nobody expected it to go down like it did.. i think whomever knew about it is also somehow involved in the anthrax ( bet you almost forgot about the anthrax ( just a hunch )

yes and no. i dont think they were in on it but i think they knew something really big was going to happen on that day. but didn't know exactly how to prevent it.

I believe it to a certain extent. i believe Bush knew about it and did nothing cuz it would be good for him, money wise. I hate that cocksmooch with a passion! :disgust

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons


there is your answer to the word 'conspiracy' - idiots.

lacking rational thought, you laugh at it.

fact: planes hit the buildings
fact: massive fire on the floors where the planes hit
fact: the buildings started to collapse at the point of impact with the plane

nut job theory: a controlled demolition, not a plane crash took down the towers.


I guess the demo guys knew which floor the plane would hit and planted their explosives in the same spot.

nope.....

also, the above is a lie.

A federal technical building and fire safety investigation of the collapses of the Twin Towers and 7 WTC has been conducted by the United States Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The goals of this investigation, completed on April 6, 2005, were to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster. The investigation was to serve as the basis for:
Improvements in the way in which buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used
Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials
Revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices
Improved public safety
The report concludes that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse. In addition, the report asserts that the towers' stairwells were not adequately reinforced to provide emergency escape for people above the impact zones.

Not true. There was a vast conspiracy within the White House and the Democratic Party to coverup Clinton's crimes.

Clinton should have been removed from office for his crimes.

well there are loads of conspiracy's, do u mean one in particular?

hey i have a B.Sc. Mathematics (honours) and i graduated with standing, meaning near the top of my class...and i can tell you the physics we took was quite a bit above what the engineers at my school were taking. They focused on application of equations...here is the variable here is the input for the variable..please subsitute the numbers in and give us your answer..lol
sound understanding of Physics those engineers got i'm sure..lol

I won't poke fun at your grammar as i know this is just an internet board and no one is really concerned with that. I know i sure AINT.

I do however doubt your rational thinking ability in this particular case. Where are theother huge buildings that fell over you ask? Well none ever have. However there are many examples of steel buildings going down..and none of them fell to the complete ruin of the WTC towers.

None of them prompted buildings beside them to also fall over(WTC 7).

None of them fell in on themselves acheving heat and intensity which you might only see when massive explosives go off or perhaps a Volcanic flow..lol

I understand your loyalty to your country and to it's leaders, it is perhaps even admirable. However i really think they got the better of you. I also believe you just don't want to believe the truth as it is quite ugly.


I'm not putting this on Goerge Bush...He is just a party guy..went to harvard partied it up with coke parties..He is probably a cool guy to hang with..lol

However the look on his face when he wwas reading that kids book was not...oh my god the horror...it was more like....those mother fuckers fucked me...in for a penny in for a pound...once he stole elections...he was an owned man..no way out

haha is this Brandon?

Dude, that's practically word for word Michael Moore's assessment of it in Farenheit 9/11. I think Moore raises some interesting questions in his movies, but you have to go beyond what he says and search for the other side of the argument and THEN decipher the truth. Believe it or not, Moore has an agenda too. (Some of the Bush/Middle East relationships are certainly disconcerting and further fuel the conspiracy theory, but SOME of them have been proven to be totally inaccurate datewise).

As for how Bush reacted? Should he have gone running from the room, arms flailing? He was in a room full of what, 7 year olds? While it doesn't look like his best moment, try seeing it from the OTHER side. He had a commitment to those children to act like the Commander in Chief and, like him or not (and I DON'T btw), he acted reasonably under the circumstances imo. After he got up to be briefed, the MEDIA started asking him questions in front of the children, who clearly had no idea what was going on. He showed a fuck of a lot more tact and concern for those children than the media did. HE told THEM that he'd discuss it in a few minutes. After being briefed, and presumably the children too, he came back and spoke to the nation. If anything, I think he showed a great deal of poise under extreme duress.

www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com is a movie I want to see, and I'd be curious to see your take on THAT.

Michael moore is part of their political agenda...when asked for the real answeres he gives back he doesnt know....alex jones knows...i know...everyone here knows..but he wont come out and say it.

Fuck michael moore...he is a tool used by the powers that be.

you want an eye opener watch the clip of Michael Tsarion i gave you
yes it is 3.5 hours long..yes it is kinda deep and not the type of stuff most would watch..it sure isnt easy to digest. I think you will do well with it.
I wouldnt recomment to everyone as i guess their attention span would not be able to get past the first couple of big words he uses.

However if you want to start seeing the big picture....he is one who paints it nicely.

I consider myself quite open to the other side of any argument, but I'm sorry Brad, that was absolutely the hardest thing I've ever tried to listen to. I admittedly only had it on in the background while I was working, but what I heard (and every time I clicked back to view it) was a bunch of philosophical and cultlike talk...vaguely referencing the Bush administration. I only had it on for 45 minutes or so, so maybe it got more comprehensive, but it was REALLY difficult to listen to. Or maybe it was something I needed to watch. Maybe I'll try again this weekend.

But, as much as I'M willing to listen and see BOTH sides of the story, are YOU?

yes of course i am always open to more information.
yet none has come out. Where is the investigation of the ruins...no explosive materials found..that would shut me up...where is that info?
footage of the pentagon..that would shut me up...but where is it?
im really waiting for these things...id gladly concede if i were to be shown one piece of conclusive evidence...however there is none that exists now.

Are you serious? Explosives planted on the 80th floor will not bring a skyscraper down. What most of the public doesn't realize is that large buildings are built much differently than houses and smaller commercial buildings. The exterior of a skyscraper (also called a facade in the building world) is just a thin glass and steel wall that only SUPPORTS IT OWN WEIGHT. The weight (load) of all the floors is carried by the HUGE steel columns in the CORE of the building. Please note that the concrete floors DO NOT extend into this core.

Therefore what you have is 110 concrete 'donuts' suspended by this massive steel core. Now here is where it gets interesting. If the buildings did collapse because of pancaking floors (which is highly unlikely but possible) there would have been two 800-900 foot 'building cores' still standing as the floors would have pancaked AROUND these massive and undamaged steel cores.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/skyscraper2.htm

Now look at this frame by frame clip and you will see that the massive steel core of the buildings (watch the antenna tower closely) gave way first. This is 100% NOT POSSIBLE under the pancake theory.

One more thing. If you drop a slab of structural concrete 1000 feet it WILL shatter into a lot of small pieces when it impacts the ground. It will NOT be pulverized into a fine dust as was most of the concrete of the WTC towers. Considering that each floor actually only falls 10 feet (distance between any floor and the floor directly below it) and the towers were spewing massive amounts of this concrete dust AS THEY WERE FALLING you really have to suspend the laws of physics to believe this was a pancake collapse.

Oh yeah...and then there is building 7. You have to be an absolute tool to believe that was anything other than a controlled demolition. When it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and the owner calls it a duck...it's probably a duck.

:Oh crap

I believe there are a lot of disturbing questions that need to be answered.

thank you..nice post..but it is best to just trade insults with people here and leave logic at the door...as non of them are interested in seeing the logic

as once you do..you are faced with the realization that you have been had..in a big bad way

Just found these links:

9/11 TIN FOIL HATS ARE MELTING

911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the collapse of the WTC Towers

I just wanna visit Dreamland

100

Bush knocked down the towers

your schooling means nothing compared to the engineers schooling and experience.
The only thing I have loyalty to is common sense and the truth.
pretending to understand everything tfrom the expression on the president's face further undermines your credibility.

this is an absolute lie. Anyone familiar with the towers knows how thick the outer walls are and narrow the windows are because they did support the floors.

more lies. watch this video closely and you see the building begin to pancake exactly where the fire was burning.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...tml#northtower


continued lies. I guess in your zeal to reach the conclusion you *wanted* instead of the truth, it never occurred to you that the dust was created by tons and tons of sheetrock, eh?

yeah, because everyone knows that a fire buring out of control in a building will never cause its collapse. :thumbsup

Yes, your "rational thought" would tell you this. However, anyone who knows about engineering will tell you that this cannot be true. If it were true, then the exterior facade would have to be about 10 feet thick (at the base of the tower) as it would be supporting the weight of the entire building (109 floors) above it.

The only reasonable way to build a steel and concrete structure (over 100 feet high or more) is to have a central core that carries the load combined with a glass (or in this case glass and steel) facade. Get out your phone book and look up a random structural engineer or commercial architect in your city. Ask them if this is true, since you seem to belittle my knowledge every chance you get.

I agreed that the pancake theory was possible. All I am asking is that IF the floors pancaked where was the 800 foot high UNDAMAGED steel core of the north tower? Even if they somehow toppled over it's tough to miss 40 some 800ft. long solid steel colums.

Instead they found no pieces of debris larger than 30 feet or so. Which means that these 800ft. long steel colums (which were previously undamaged and designed to hold the weight of the entire building and then some) snapped into at least 27 pieces each (800ft./30ft. =26.66666). This seems rational to you?

Actually, I thought that is what it was for the longest time. Until I read that the powder that covered most of the city later in the day was comprised primarily of powdered concrete. That does not make sense to me but then again I am stupid and uneducated.

Well it's never caused a tall steel structure to collapse in the past...ever. So I'm not sure what you are trying to say. There are similar buildings that have burned out of control for more than 24 hours and yet they stood tall.

http://hypergene.net/blog/images/upl...adrid_fire.jpg

One more thing...does this fire really look 'out of control' to you?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid.../docs/3073.jpg

NIST?s findings do not support the ?pancake theory? of collapse, ......

Here

However... I agree 100% that the building began a straight downward collapse, then began to topple... But.. your intelligent engineers said that the bldg. lunged forward and fell.. not very observant of them..

I take it you never actually read the STARR report huh =(

every chance I get?
I've never noticed you existed before your attack post.
now, I'm sure that your here slinging porn because of your exceptional knowledge of building so these links will mean nothing to you but we've already seen that you aren't interested in the truth, just your version.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc_graphic.gif



They were destroyed, just as the exterior columns were. read my link.

this is another lie.
plenty of pieces bigger than 30ft.:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...iles/crane.jpg

you got a link for that story?

here's what I read:
Lioy and his collaborators examined the dust using microscopic, inorganic, organic, and particle size fractionation analysis. They found plaster, paint, foam, glass fibers and fragments, fiberglass, cement, vermiculite (used as a fire retardant instead of asbestos), chrysotile (asbestos), cotton fibers and lint, tarry and charred wood, and soot

The USGS team also analyzed WTC dust using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and X-ray diffraction analysis. Like Lioy's group, USGS scientists discovered a complex mixture of materials: glass fibers (up to 40% in some samples), gypsum (wallboard), concrete, paper, and other construction debris. "I was just amazed at how many glass fibers there were," Meeker said. The high concentration of glass was due partially to windows, but primarily to ceiling tiles. SEM revealed that much of the glass was present as odd-shaped fibers and spheres. "It's not an effect of the collapse," Meeker said. These compositions are compatible with "slag wool," a common component of ceiling tiles and other building materials.

All of the samples were very alkaline. Aqueous suspensions of Lioy and Chen's dust samples ranged from pH 9 to 11.5. Nobody was surprised by the high pH values, which are mainly due to cement dust. CaOH, CaCO3, and CaSO4 from cement, wallboard, and other construction materials permeated the samples.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

I read your link..

It is possible that the blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact.

It is possible? conditions may have? It is likely?
This is what I was talking about earlier.. Lots of speculation and opinions..

Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso


It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.


Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

You moonbats are funny
and no I am 100% positive its not a conspiracy, those who believe it is give way too much credit to this administration

There is no possible way to leak what really happened to the public without a worldwide fallout.

So, let the peasants keep consuming and 'round and 'round it goes.

all vastly more reasonble and sound than the tinfoil hat ideas.

I never looked into 9/11 conspiracies until recently and when I did stumbled upon the work of David Ray Griffin. The official story(ie, 911 commission report) is akin to that of the single magic bullet theory. I found the following real interesting, especially:

David Ray Griffin - 911 Commission Report: Ommissions and Distortions
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...+ray+gr iffin

9/11 Mysteries
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...12003&q=9%2F11

911 revisted
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...09939&q=9%2F11

Given the evidence provided by the 911 comission conspiracy theory and the so called other conspiracy theories. There's no doubt in mind mind which holds more water.

No but I beleive in the 7/11 Slurpy's ;-)

(bad joke blame it on the wine)

I'll go as far as saying I believe the world trade center was a controled demolition.

Some of the conspiracy theories are WAY out there though.

Yeah, our government planned it. Hundreds of people were involved, billions of dollars destroyed, and yet no one said a word. Right.

Yes, there are hundreds of unanswered questions. And there always will be. It could be valid reasons for this - security issues - or perhaps the govenment doesn't want to waste millions of dollars attempting to answer the never ending questions.

Everything that is being questioned seems easily explained to me.

Does it look like there were little explosions down the side of the WTC as they fell? In fact, it does. And I'm guessing that when millions of pounds of concrete come crashing down the air pressure alone could cause that.

Why does it look like the hole in the Pentagon is so small? Maybe it's because it hit a wall of 16 foot concrete and the damn concrete didn't budge? Need proof? Take a look at the WWII bomber that hit the Empire State Building in the 1940's. Where did the wings go? I have no idea. But you do honestly mean to tell me that 160 feet of wing span full of fuel didn't just vaporize on impact?

What about the hundreds of people that were on these airplanes? I guess someone just killed them all, right? Must have taken dozens of people to kill them all - yet no one felt guilty about this?

Anything is possible with the Bush/Cheney connection.

I take just the opposite view.

Name one thing they have done in six years that leads you believe they have the competence to pull something like that off.

No I didn't ...:)

i don't feed into it anymore.