I agree with that. However, virtually EVERY point you want to bring up in regards to the moon landing, I can send you a link to that dispells all of your points.

As for the 9/11 towers, I admittedly haven't done a ton of research on the subject, but still can find answers to most questions that make perfect sense.

But none of those answers are ever good enough.

You mean the guy who declared war on America in the mid 1990's? Ummm, cuz he is the leader of al Qaeda. Which is WHAT kind of an organization? HINT: NOT a construction company.

He has made plenty of statements as to his motivations and they are all public and easy to find.

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God," - Osama et al (1998)

Why are you avoiding the actual evidence of controlled demolition and the evidence that the tape was false?

"Professor Bruce Lawrence ... says the recent tape is a fake and that Bin Laden has been dead for years. "

Should I keep reading or does it get even more ridiculous than this?

Osama dead would have been such a victory for Bush and the Republicans. We're to believe that osama is dead and that the CIA is making faux Osama tapes? Osama dead would give Bush more support for his actions; not less. :1orglaugh

You sure don't want to talk about aliens seeding the earth or Castro killing JFK instead?

you mean the guy who worked for the CIA?
who helped fight the russian front for the usa?
you mean that guy?

that guy whos family owns about 7% of the usa?

is this the guy you are talking about? cause it is one thing to declare war...to get a voice in the news...it is quite another to attack a country.

why are some of the hijackers still alive?

what you belive that a couple planes can demolish steel buildings totally..yet you also believe passports fluttered down from the heavens and landed at the FBI's feet for them to use in their investigation...musta been an intervention from god himself


can you ask him to send me a 6 pack i feel like having some beers

Why do you avoid the even greater evidence of videotape of two Boeings plowing into skyscrapers, the buildings burning for a while and then collapsing?


You better run out and get your Illuminati discount card renewed. I heard they have some great specials this month.

Yes, exactly, the towers collapsing after having been hit by airplanes. Exploding and falling at almost free fall speed with no resistance from lower floors into its own footprint. Do you think you can fly? Because breaking the laws of physics seems to be no stranger to your frame of mind.

And what about building 7? What happened there according to your perfectly fox news conditioned reality?

He seems to have done quite well. I certainly wouldn't criticize his performance to date.

Al Qaeda is what again? A chain of Arab grocery stores? Wonder if they are going public soon. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ALQA

I <3 Colin :)

Oh my....

50 conspiracy nutjobs

i didnt want to tax anyones brain power so i saved them the effort

You seriously need a new hobby man.

Have you got some "proof" that "pull the building" is a term used to use explosives to take down a building?

sure how about tons of demolition experts and professionals claiming that is what it is

"breaking the laws of physics". Well, I have a degree in physics from Yale. What is your claim as to what was not "according to the laws of physics" and why? You seem to be discussing engineering questions more than physics questions. I don't think anyone has much experience in blowing up 100+ or whatever story buildings. I've seen two buildings hit by jets in my life. They both collapsed. What would an "ordinary collapse" of a 100 story building look like? I can't believe you even claim to know.

BTW. About the FOX news jokes. I don't watch TV news. Void of content.

You remind me of someone.
http://linkification.com/linked/gribble.jpg

Dont get hung up on stuff that takes focus from the bullet proof evidence. The building's collapse was an implosion exhibiting all of the features of a standard controlled demolition..

The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).

The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.

Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.

The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.

The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Right back at ya, babe.

I asked you to provide me some proof... cause I read some stuff where the demolition guys said it's NOT a term they use.

You have a physics degree from Yale, and you fail to see how impossible it would be for planes to bring down steel frame and column buildings. Man, I dont know what to say.

Here is an essay from a physics professor that I find very interesting http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf.

Also I recommend viewing some of Dr David Ray Griffins lectures, really good logic approach to the whole thing and its hard to deny the evidence he presents. Just have a look, with an open unbiased mind.

I do not understand how the official story can make sense to anyone who have studied the alternative theories, especially not if they have a degree in physics. It must be mind control and brainwashing.

ah so y ou have a degree in physics from yale?

congrats...now then brother....tell us how the building managed to fall at G

what happened to the resistance?
also...since the building was impacted on the side...how did it manage to fall compltely into itself..where i think most people expected it to fall sideways or at the very least..since it was all demolished from the fire..how come the top part of the tower didnt fall over...it was missing whole sections of steel..why didnt it lean one way and then go over?


how did explosions reach the basement and ground floors? there was no direct tube like an elevator shaft or anything.

please explain in phsyics terms and save the image posting to others

please also explain how normal steel is melted into red hot piles in the basement
and why it b ursts into flames weeks after almost no oxygen for weeks

Is there any proof that a building that's undergone the type of damage those ones did would NEVER come down in a way that resembled a controlled explosion?

.
.
.
I just want to know the TRUTH, no matter what it is.

Which of these statements does not belong? Which one is most likely fake?

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God," - Osama (1998)

?As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.? ? Osama (2001)

"After a little while they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center." "The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it." ? Osama (2001)

Read this about the pullit remark http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html.

i usually give people the benefit of the doubt..but i dont think this ass clown has a physics degree from anywhere

he probably has a Physical diploma..lol

I recommend you watch the documentary 911 mysteries, its on google video and on the site in my sig. Watch that one to get an overall grasp on the whole deal and then you can dive into the scientific essays and the lectures. I recommend lectures by Dr David Ray Griffin and Stephen E. Jones.

911 mysteries will answer alot of your questions.

You have to be kidding. Colin has been around this biz forever, and it's quite well known he has a degree from Yale.

Good grief. Now there's a conspiracy theory about people's educations. :helpme

Yeah, disputing the laws of physics is probably something someone who had a degree like that would do.

View these 2 clips, they explain how brainwashing and mind control works and shows how these methods where applied on the events of 911.

http://www.911truthdatabase.com/content/view/64/27/

why the fuck would that be a conspiracy theory?

i dont give a fuck what he thinks

but when you have to say..i have a degree in physics from yale

i want you to back it up with some thought on the subject matter

how can he possibly have graduated a free thinker if he can't see the truth in front of his own eyes.


perhaps it is just easier to buy the "official story"

ok... well once again, someone is taking a term and using it in a manner that's not exactly the same... i.e. that page links to 2 pages to attempt to "prove" that "pull" or "pull it" is used to refer to demolishing a building.. but it's not.. It's used to refer to a subsequent action within an explosion in order to get the buildings to collapse into itself etc. or to setup other things to "pull" part of the building or columns etc. in a specific direction... but it's NOT used to refer to the overall context of demolishing a building.

I have the same issue with those that say "pull" is used to refer to "pulling" the firemen out... one of the people trying to discredit the demolition theory did the same thing and gave tons of proof that "pull" is used to refer to pulling the firemen... But I didn't see one example in his "proof" where pull it was used in the same context. So once again, someone in this discussion taking information and twisting it for his own agenda.

It's funny because I was reading up about this a few days back when I saw that clip of Kerry where he seems to be confirming the explosion theory.. but so far I still haven't come accross any "conclusive" proof... If anything, things like what I've pointed out above appear to discredit the conspiracy people.

Freefall would take about 9 seconds.

The published range of the fall time ranges between 8 and 18 seconds.

You're just picking a number you like and saying the acceleration of the top floor was G.

The psychiatrists and psychologists mentioned in the article in the link below have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false. Moreover, many of these mental health experts have concluded that the government's account is so obviously false that people who believe the government's version are in psychological denial.

http://www.911truthdatabase.com/content/view/63/28/

Yes. That's it. Your open-mindedness has lead you to "the truth that is out there" and everyone who disagrees with you has obviously been mind-controlled and brainwashed. :thumbsup

you check any video you like from the day

the maximum time you will be able to give the towers falling is about ten seconds


18 seconds is way out

What the fuck are you talking about published range fall time differences. Check out all the videos and take the time with your watch. Even if it was 18 seconds, that does not explain anything.

9.4 seconds fall time is my calculation for the north tower, the south is similar.

The 9/11 attack on the US was seen in person by thousands of people in person and many more on live TV. With any event that has ever taken place, people can witness the same thing and walk away with different stories about what happened. Last weekend my buddy and I were cruising down the freeway and saw what seemed to be a late 1960s Lincoln. While talking about it later we discovered he thought it was gray and I thought it was black. How can two people think the same car was different colors?

Here's my responses to your bullshit..... Oddly enough, I'm reading a book about how 9/11 was set up by our government.

Buildings collapsed at free fall rate - no resistance

The top of the building fell, bringing down all of the weight on top of it.

Experts agree it is scientifically impossible that fire could have brought down the WTC towers 1 and 2 or building 7

Fire didn't bring down the buildings. Not sure what you saw that morning, but I saw two very large fucking planes - HUGE planes - plow into the two towers. The damage to the structure itself might have been enough to bring down the towers, but it didn't. The combination of the original impact, the resulting fireball, the damage to the structure itself, and multiple fires on many floors is what brought down the buildings.

Have you ever been to the WTC? I have. The entire building is an airlock. When you go outside at that height, the wind whips around. Imagine having a fire that high up with the wind flaming the flames.

Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. But it suffered damage from debris falling, was on fire also, and not to mention both towers fell and it's debris covered the entire area.

Many eyewitnesses from all perspectives reported multiple explosions at the scene.

There were multiple explosions at many different levels of both WTC towers. On one of them (or perhaps both) some of the elevators shot down to the main lobby and created a fireball in the main lobby. This happened on multiple floors, and I'm willing to guess on any floor where there was a "sky lobby".

Video evidence clearly shows explosions as the buildings (1 & 2) collapse

I watch for this every time I see footage of the towers falling and I do in fact see something. It sort of looks like a puff of smoke. This "puff of smoke" could be nearly anything. Perhaps it's debris from above; Perhaps's it's some kind of a gas or water line exploding as the building above it starts falling. Hell, perhaps it's the steel or concrete giving way as millions of tons of crap fell on it and it couldn't hold the weight.

Larry Silverstein used demolition term when he talked of building 7 "we made that decision to pull the building"

I have no idea who Larry Silverstein is and frankly I don't care. I read this statement as "we've decided to pull all personel from this building because, duh, it's on fire".

Reliable eye-witnesses such as former janitor William Rodriguez heard explosions in the basement before the first plane hit.

This has nothing to do with anything. I'm not sure what this chap or his buddies heard, but it could have been anything. And being as it happened before the plane hit, well, doesn't mean anything. If it happened before the plane hit it didn't bring down the building.

Substantial insider trading around 911 has never been properly investigated.

We should look into this. I think a two year study of trading patterns over the past ten years will reveal many things about how Jewish companies and other companies operate. The thought line here is that a number of Jewish companies did some odd trading deals the day before 9/11. I'm sure that if it's looked into, tens of thousands of companies of interest - Jewish and otherwise - didn't do anything special that day or the day before.

Several of the apparent hijackers have been found to be alive.

Yes.

I don't think we are sure exactly who each and every one of them are. It's entirely possible that we have wrong information on some of them.

NORAD did not respond to normal standard operating procedure due to high level government interference related to drills taking place on 911.

What would be normal standard operating procedure be in the event that multiple plans are hijacked and rammed into tall buildings at multiple locations? Seems to me this wasn't a miltiary thing but a Federal Government thing, being as planes are run by the FFA. And when the FAA called the Military they said "well, you guys need to get some planes up or something".

Also seems to me there was a lot of confusion about which planes were hijacked, where they were, and their status.

My god, if you beleive this was the work of anyone other than terrorists.... bring something to the table that can't be quickly explained away by simple logic already.

If you had a physics degree Colin and where not in total denial you should be teaching us, not the other way around.

Well, here is a paper by the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

So I guess you don't know what to say about THAT either.

Well, I know what to say about that and I already said it. No one has any experience in blowing up 100 story buildings.

I have one question to everyone here who thinks that the government is telling the truth about 9/11...

Where is Osama Bin Laden?

I would venture to guess that if the government really wanted to find him they could.

So, is Osama Bin Laden really just a real life Keyser Soze? I think so.

Oh and also to those who keep arguing here, why don't you take the time to evaluate the evidence before chiming in and screaming conspiracy? Maybe you may learn something. You will sit in front of your computer all day but do you even open your eyes and use the internet for what is it designed for (beyond porn)?

where is the next attack?