- did it really fall at freefall speed?
- how do you know it's not possible for it to have fallen due to internal damage?
- how did a busy office building have demolition charges placed in it without anyone noticing?
- if it was a controlled demolition, why can you observe the collapse of the penthouses from east to west, showing that the internal structure was collapsing shortly before the "free fall" began?
- why are there no signs of explosion?
- how did the charges remain operable after 7 hours of fires had their chance to burn up the wires and ruin detonators?
And someone explain this to me because I don't understand. I have a very hard time comprehending it. Why are there only 2 ways this could have been done? It was either a group of religious fanatics or it was thousands of fbi agents, firefighters, demoliiton experts, scientists, CIA, rescue workers, police, airline pilots, NSA, the majority of the House of Representatives, air traffic control, high-level military contractors, and the entire Bush administration.
that's a pretty big list dude. haliburton gained a shitload of military contracts as a result of the war though, and i think Dick Cheney was the CEO/President of the company or something, so if that's what you're looking for then yeah the Bush Administration profited from 9/11, but imo it was them seizing the opportunity and taking advantage of the crisis rather than orchestrating the greatest conspiracy in human history for a relatively meager profit, especially when they could have made more money much more easily through other methods
if anything, the military industrial complex grew massively as a result of 9/11, nothing else. the military in america also has alot of leverage over congress from what i know, in terms of lobbying and bribes.
you're saying that you think it's possible someone other than the USA/Al Qaeda funded the terrorists? i guess that's "possible" but there's literally no evidence to indicate it so i don't see what point you're even trying to make here other than posing hypotheticals that will lead nowhere
It says something about America's ego that they have to come up with these wild, inane conspiracies just so they can deny the fact that some po-dunk, backwater assholes from the Middle East managed to catch us off guard.
Ah yes I'm a jingoist because I'm arguing that America is on the same level as the rest of the world.
It says something about your ego that you're generalizing any country or race in such a way.
2. It is possible for a building to collapse in several ways I am sure, but it's that it fell straight down. Just visually it seems more sane for me to believe a demolition occurred rather than a rare collapse process.
3. They must have been really sneaky!
4. I don't know.
5. There are some 'unofficial reports' of people finding explosive residue near the remains. Cannot be proven though. But there are several witness reports that have been recorded by various different reporters that have heard several explosions in a row that would suggest that there might have been a demolition.
6. No clue. Different type of explosives perhaps? Fire resistant wiring!
My only question is, if the video that I posted is true. Then why would the NIST falsify their report? Even if it isn't true why would the free fall part of the destruction of the building be of little significance? Shouldn't all areas of this type of investigation be treated with the same amount of attention?
and this is supposed to prove that the Bush Administration pulled off the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind?
9/11 never actually happened. all the flouride in the water just made us think that it happened.
Ive just finished a module in metallurgy where these two ideas where experimented on and would you believe it? When steel gets hot it turns into butter. Form your own opinions and don't just regurgitated what a voice over the internet tells you.
Fun fact: Osama Bin Laden has been threatening to attack the United States since the beginning of the Clinton Administration.
Just thought that little tidbit would put to rest the idea that Bin Laden was invented by the Bush Administration.
My only question is, if the video that I posted is true. Then why would the NIST falsify their report? Even if it you don't believe it... why would the free fall part of the destruction of a building be of little significance? Shouldn't all areas of this type of investigation be treated with the same amount of attention?
911 Conspiracy Thread V.31 - Where We Barely Grasp What 'Freefall' Speed is or What it Even Means
2 One off course plane, sure. But Two or three planes, dozens of miles off course? I dunno man.
3 Intercept, not shoot down. If deemed a serious enough threat I'm sure they'd shoot it down.
and if you did a bit of research you would know they actually did end up deciding to try taking the planes down, by ramming them with jets because by the time they knew what was going on, they had no time to load weapons systems. when a plane starts going off track and isn't responding, your first response isn't "shoot down the passenger aircraft!", it's "figure out whats happening!", which they did, until the towers had planes in them
I'm sorry but I still feel like this was an inside job just so the American Government can have an excuse to have their way with Iraq.