So....if the Bush's or the U.S. Government planned all this, then it would have to go back into the 1980s before the end of the Cold War. You see, Bin Laden fought against the Russians in Afghanistan. Later, he was trained in a terrorist camp. Then he funded such a training camp. Then he founded his terrorist group which eventually became Al Qaeda. So, all of this would have to go back to the early 1980s, but no one ever thinks about that. No one looks for the evidence, or even a motivation that goes back that far. Everyone is so focused on 9/11 and the Bush's that they don't stop to THINK about it.

Are all these Truthers going to sit back and tell us that this is a big old conspiracy when the foundation for such a conspiracy would have been built almost 20 years prior to 9/11, and yet there is not a single piece of evidence going back that far that has been brought forward in the 9 1/2 years since 9/11 happened?

It's time to get real.

They will just keep drinking their Kool Aid.

Seriously the fires were mostly out when the buildings collapsed like a house of cards. They didnt fall this way or that way, they didnt fall towards the weakest point, were the planes impacted they fell spontaniously into their own basements as if in a controled demolition. This would require that all vertical supports give way at the same time. I do not know the who or how but I suspect the why, and I do agree it has not been properly explained away. realy do you believe what you are told or what your own lieing eyes tell you? realy is pointless to argue this with most in a reasonable manner.

Classic strawman argument! They taught this in high school! If you can't prove it's not true than it must be true right? It's ignorance and it really is that simple!

Planes did all the damage and took all the buildings out.

See that is part of the problemb, The 911 commision said it was the fires not the planes. The reason on record, was the fire.

Again as with a great deal of americans I do not know the how or why of 911 I just know the facts do not match with reality.

Condi rice saying we had no idea they would use planes as missles when in fact war games were played with that scenario for years.

Bush and Cheneys refusal to testify under oath before the commitee

Norm Mineta testified before the 911 commsion "during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got to 'the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President...said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

Anyone know what plane they were talking about? I sure dont

Oh yeah u got to laugh at that stupid logic...guess it was not the gun but the bullet that killed somebody...and for sure it couldn't have been the gunman...

I am telling you what the commision report said caused the buildings to callapse as they did. It is a matter of record. You can approach the topic with logic and cognative skills or have a knee jerk responce to show your level of Intelligence.

I prefer to look at this topic objectivly. The basic quistions that go un-answered.


From Above "during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got to 'the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President...said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

Anyone know what plane they were talking about? I sure dont


Any Idea why Bush and Cheneye refused to testify under oath? after all we were lead off to war for it


These quistions and others are enough for me to doubt the official 911 report.

it don't get no more basic that planes crashing into a building...

whatever dude enjoyyour kool aid

For Dr. Niels Harrit, nanotechnology expert and a recently retired University of Copenhagen chemistry professor, it all began when he watched the collapse of the World Trade Center’s Building 7. Harrit watched it come down in amazement, noting, “I had to watch it again… and again. I hit the button 10 times and my jaw dropped lower and lower.”

The 47-storey structure, with a base the size of a football field, was not hit by a plane, but collapsed at free-fall speed seven hours after the Twin Towers, at 5:20 PM. “I had never heard of that building before and there was no visible reason why it should collapse in that way. Straight down, in 6.5 seconds. I have had no rest since that day,” Harrit says.

Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author, peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite – an ultra high-tech incendiary explosive, produced by the military and capable of slicing through steel beams. Nanothermite contains more energy than dynamite and can be used as rocket fuel.


Dr. Niels Harrit
In light of the new discovery by the Harrit team, the mysterious and disturbing features of the World Trade Center collapses can now be explained: buildings WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 all fell symmetrically, straight down into their footprints at nearly free-fall speed, producing thousands of tons of pulverized concrete dust.

New York Fire Department Captain Philip Ruvolo reported “molten steel running down the channel rails, like lava.” Weeks later, cranes were pulling red-hot girders, dripping steel, from the rubble piles.
http://theintelhub.com/2011/02/06/explosives-found-in-world-trade-center-dust/

Hello,

Meet another comrade in the fight for truth, Lt. Col. Guy Razer, member, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.

Besides being a decorated combat fighter pilot, Col. Razer also happens to know quite a bit about demolishing steel and concrete structures. As an Air Force weapons effects expert, he was responsible for wartime tasking of the most appropriate aircraft/munition combinations for target destruction, including steel and concrete superstructures. Col. Razer is also an expert on aeronautical structures, and has conducted advanced stress analysis on a variety of modern airframes.

Given his expertise in steel/concrete target destruction, and knowledge of metal structures, it would be safe to say this man can tell when a building has been imploded with explosives. Col. Razor is “100% convinced” the three WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. And that this was not orchestrated by a band of crazed “Muslim” amateurs lead by some guy in a cave in Afghanistan.

Vis-a-vis flying, I’d venture to say Col. Razer is probably the most experienced pilot (in terms of type diversity) with whom I’m acquainted. He has not only flown high-performance fighter-bombers such as the swing-wing supersonic F-111 Aardvark (which bombed Libya in ‘86) and F-15E Strike Eagle (a Desert Storm mainstay) , he was an instructor on F-16 and F-18 interceptors to boot. He’s even flown the incredible B-1 Bomber. To cap off an amazing military aviation career, Col. Razer is one of relatively few pilots from the West to have flown the Russian MiG-29 fighter and the Su-22 fighter-bomber.

Once you’ve read his comments, and perused his resume’ (below), please ask yourself:

Is Col. Razer, too, another “nutty conspiracy theorist”?

If you are an engineer or a pilot — or indeed, belong to any of the following categories: please, lend us your support by joining one of many organizations striving for 9/11 truth. It’ll cost you nothing more than the few minutes it would take to visit one of the following websites and submit your name:

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org/

Scientists for 9/11 Truth
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Actors & Artists for 9/11 Truth
http://www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org/

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
http://mp911truth.org/

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/

Actors, Artists, and Athletes for 9/11 Truth
http://www.aaa911truth.com/

Thank you in advance for your support.
http://theintelhub.com/2011/02/20/retired-usaf-pilot-col-guy-s-razer-says-911-was-inside-job-perpetrated-by-us-government/

As long as people believe that repuplicans came from outer space to save the world we will be in trouble. roe vs wade we hate we will end. 1972? almost 40 years later they have kept thier promice.

but on the other hand I will listen to firefighters who were thier. who were lied to in the aftermath and died many of them from lung disease when they were lied to about the air being safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

We been through this before.

some few years back another fire occured that cause a bridge colapse in california. A bridge was hit by a fuel truck carrying jet fuel. The bridge steel did the same exact thing. The steel lost its tensile strength because of the intense heat. (JP4 burns at such a high tempeture that, although it will not 'melt' steel it will cause the steel to 'slump' like silly putty.

the reason the buildings fell into their own foot prints is because the concrete encased steel girders that form the outside skeleton 'slumped'. Concrete without its steel support structures will follow the quickest route to the ground... In this case straight down. The supports below the falling 'damaged' portion of the building could not support the weight of the structure 'above' the damaged portion... building becomes rubble. Why do people keep bringing this up in a new thread.

why not just call up the old thread and rehash it there... Is it because it was throughly debunked in that thread.

I am sure that is what you have been told. It is good to respect authority.

profesional people have put their reputations on the line with nothing to gain and everything to loose. Pilots say it would be impossible for amatures to fly those plans and hit the targets, engineers say the buildings shouldnt have fallen like that and never have in the history of sky scrapers even buildings bombed in ww2 never fell like that. Even when a chemist puplished a PEER review paper on the explosives found in the DUSt of the twin towers the american sheeple keep braying. I am sure thse people have nothing better to do than face ridicule. The truth is to horrible to contemplate for most.

Pulling" Building 7
A PBS documentary about the 9/11/01 attack, America Rebuilds, features an interview with the leaseholder of the destroyed WTC complex, Larry Silverstein. In it, the elderly developer makes the following statement:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

This statement seems to suggest that the FDNY decided to demolish the building in accordance with Silverstein's suggestion, since the phrase "pull it" in this context seems to mean to demolish the building. At least that interpretation appears to be supported by a statement by a Ground Zero worker in the same documentary:

... we're getting ready to pull the building six.

Building 6 was one of the badly damaged low-rise buildings in the WTC complex that had to be demolished as part of the cleanup operation.

An alternative interpretation of Silverstein's statement is that "pull it" refers to withdrawing firefighters from the building. However, according to FEMA's report there were no manual firefighting operations in Building 7, so there would not have been any firefighters to "pull" -- at least not from inside the building.

WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY.

That Silverstein would admit that officials intentionally demolished Building 7 is bizarre for a number of reasons. Silverstein Properties Inc. had already won an $861 million claim for the loss of the building in a terrorist incident. FEMA's report states that the cause of the building's collapse was fires. Presumably FEMA and the insurance company would be interested in knowing if the building was instead demolished by the FDNY. Moreover, the logistics of rigging a skyscraper for demolition in the space of a few hours would be daunting to say the least, particularly given that demolition teams would have to work around fires and smoke.

An Overlooked Explanation
A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.

Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building 6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous.

site:controlled-demolition.com pull
site:implosionworld.com pull
Searching Google with the query demolition pull and filtering out sites referring to the Silverstein pull-it remark returns only one result in about 10 pages of results that uses 'pull' to mean demolish:

City staff have contacted the property owner by phone to request that he obtain a demolition permit and pull down and demolish the building

A review of the numerous websites that assert that Silverstein's remark constituted an admission of demolishing WTC 7 is revealing. Few such sites note that the physical characteristics of the collapse exactly match conventional demolitions, or that fires have never before or since felled steel-framed high-rise buildings -- two facts that constitute an overwhelming case for the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Instead, the pull-it controversy seems to have created a distraction, eclipsing the case for controlled demolition.



Huh?