I did. I looked at the video's and scientific tests regarding the time it takes to collapse 'naturally' compared to when you blow up the parts between the floors... Quite simple really if you know how gravity works. Let's just stick with "it's very interesting".
Things go wrong...thats all i can really say...i doubt there is really anyway to fully predict how a plan crashing into a building can go...
911 was an inside job. It was a Black Op carried out by members of our government in order to get the patriot act passed and further weaken the US. 911 was also used as a excuse for the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ultimate goal is to give control to the UN and bring about a world government. I may sound extremist but I don't care. If you guys want a video of convincing evidence you should go and download Alex Jones movie "911: The Road to Tyranny." You don't have to pay a dime for it. You can find it on almost any P2P network. The so called "conspiracy theorists" have been saying this for years, and their evidence has much weight. I just update my blog with an Article about 911. If you want to read it, see for yourself:http://theconspiracyzone.blogspot.com/2005/12/911-missing-black-boxes-in-world-trade.html There is no way two planes bought down those buildings. Firefighters said they heard bombs going off in the building, and seismograph data suppots this, Here are a list of more questions all you people out there who believe the government need to ask yourselves. 1. Why did WTC building number 7 fall on 911 even though it was hit with no planes and suffered only minor fire damage? 2. Steel does not begin to melt until about 3000 degrees. The human body melts at 1600 degrees. The official story said that "the heat from the jet fuel melted the support beams and caused the building to fall." If this is true, why are there photos of people standing in the cracks of the building waving for help. Shouldn't they have been incinerated by the heat? 3. Why did Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC towers, get on tv after 911 and say "they pulled the building"? 4.Why are numerous firefighters saying bombs went off in the building and why is a investigation not done on this? 5. The WTC was a crime scene. It is a federal crime to take any evidence from a scene. Yet mayor Giuliani allowed the scrap metal and concreted from the towers to be sold to foreign countries like China. Why was this done and why is their no investigation? 6. Why was video footage of the pentagon attack consfiscated by the FBI and not allowed to be seen by the public? 7. Why did NORAD not launch F16s in the sky to intercept the planes and destroy them before they hit the towers? 8.Why hasn't Bin Laden been captured and why does Bush not talk about him? And these are just a few of the questions the Bush Admin won't answer. It was an inside job, plain and simple. Bin Laden worked for the CIA and the Mujaheeden were CIA operatives used against the Soviets and the Serbs. I'm ready to debate anybody in this forum about these facts.
Wow Nintendo, I didn't even notice that. It seems you're in a different timezone. Thats pretty creepy.
I've seen a documentary on Geographic Channel and it was based on the towers collapsed by the plains and not by allegedly explosives and i found it very convincing. U.S. Gov attacking it's own people? just to go to war with iraq for oil? To far fetched if you ask me, the whole WMD issue was and is proven a far more better way to come up with an excuse to go to war.
I admittedly did not read the articles yet. So, I am not going to comment at all on their plausibility at all. I will read them when I have more time. I just wanted to add that I DID see a documentary shortly after 911 which attempted to answer the question of why the buildings collapsed and it was pretty convincing. They interviewed architects, including the designers of the WTC and they basically didn't design the buildings to withstand such an impact. It is a credit to the designers that the buildings stood for as long as they did. The 2 major factors that the designers attributed to the collapse were the intense heat, which was dispersed throughour the impact area in pockets. Some areas were very hot, while others were not. That COULD account for why metal was failing, yet people were waving for help. The metal was weakened by the fire. The second factor that they pointed to was the "open concept" of the building interiors. The building designers wanted an open concept inside the building, so they used as few support pillars as they could, maximizing useable (sellable) square footage and maximizing profitability from that space. Because of this, there was not enough internal support to keep the building standing. The building was built in a time when they actually were trying to prepare it with a plane crash in mind because of NY history with buildings and planes. But, at the time of construction, nobody could invision planes big enough to tear such a big hole in the side. To make a long story short, the documantary seemed pretty plausible when these factors were thoroughly explained. I'm not discounting anything in any article. I'm merely adding what I saw and it seemed plausible to me that these planes could do the damage that they did after seeing that documentary. (I wish I could remember the name of it.)
My very first post. I hope to be here a lot in the future. I think I saw the some documentary that Edz mentioned. At least the show I watched approached the subject from an engineering/architectural standpoint. It described how the Towers were built; problems with the flame retardant insulation and how the towers flattened like a house of cards once the trusses gave way and the top floors “pan caked†onto each other. A truss is only as good as its weakest point. Since they were not adequately protected, it was only a matter of time before they failed. The metal did not have to melt; it only had to deform enough for the trusses to lose their structural integrity. It’s pretty straight forward really.
A few interesting points you bring up, i do not beleive everything of what you said this whole 'world government' idea is interesting but doubtfull. I highly doubt bin laden was a CIA agent...it just doesn't fit all that well...
Edz who owns the geography channel? The documentary you watched on tv was designed to cover up the real serious questions behind 911. Did it answer all the questions I raised in my first post? If it did not then its a waste of time. If I carried out 911 and had control over the mass media(like tv) the first thing I would do is run a bunch of "documentaries" explaining the structures and why the buildings fell. Since most people suck at science and physics, they would believe whatever I put on tv. Despite this intelligent people would be able to see through my transparent lies. You don't understand the mind of a evil genius. You also don't seem to understand the philosphy of George Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel. It is called a "problem reaction solution." Blow up your own people and blame it on a foreign enemy in order to increase your own power. Here is a history lesson for you people. After Hitler had his own Reischtag building set on fire, he turned around and blamed it on the Communists and passed the "Enabling Act." After 911 Bush blames the attack on Bin Laden and passes "The Patriot Act", which gives the federal government more dictatorial power. Am I the only one who understands history and can see these similarities?
Oh well, if you want to go there, read Killtown on 9/11: 150 Smoking Guns and Alex Jones' Infowars Tesla, yes, the Reichstag springs to mind. Wonder what atrocity will need to be inflicted to provoke a war with Iran given the current commentary on the Petroeuro v's the Petrodollar?