911 Conspiracy

six8 said:

you conspiracy theorists have no conclusive evidence, just theories. where are your facts. until proven otherwise i will just have take my government's word on this one.

Click to expand...

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in this thread where I have supposed, or injected any kind of a theory whatsoever. You won't find it because all I have posted in this thread are 100% true and verifiable facts and called you out for your ignorance.

You say you have shown evidence that they knew planes could be used to fly into buildings, but NO WHERE in the links you provided does it say that the intention is to bring the buildings down. You see they never entertained this scenario in all of their studies because the Govt knew it wasn't possible.

Even IF the gov't did know planes could be used, AFTER 911 they said that no one in the administration had even envisioned such an act, which is pure 100% lies, your own links prove that. Yet you are still blinded.

what would mentioning the buildings would fall down have to do with terrorists flying planes into them. isn't that scenario a big enough threat to leave out, the "o and by the way the buildings would fall." my point was it was shown prior to 9/11 planes would be used by terrorists and furthermore WTC could withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. the second statement was proven wrong.

NoDrama said:

I challenge you to find ANYWHERE in this thread where I have supposed, or injected any kind of a theory whatsoever. You won't find it because all I have posted in this thread are 100% true and verifiable facts and called you out for your ignorance.

You say you have shown evidence that they knew planes could be used to fly into buildings, but NO WHERE in the links you provided does it say that the intention is to bring the buildings down. You see they never entertained this scenario in all of their studies because the Govt knew it wasn't possible.

Even IF the gov't did know planes could be used, AFTER 911 they said that no one in the administration had even envisioned such an act, which is pure 100% lies, your own links prove that. Yet you are still blinded.

Click to expand...

six8 said:

what would mentioning the buildings would fall down have to do with terrorists flying planes into them. isn't that scenario a big enough threat to leave out, the "o and by the way the buildings would fall." my point was it was shown prior to 9/11 planes would be used by terrorists and furthermore WTC could withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. the second statement was proven wrong.

Click to expand...

Because excluding 9-11-2001 no skyscraper had ever fallen due to Airplane crash OR fire. So no one could have envisioned a plane causing a building to fall, becasue it was not possible and had never happened, although airplanes have hit skyscrapers before, but of course none of them fell down, and then you have the dozens of skyscrapers that have endured fires that were HUNDREDS of times more fierce than the twin towers fires were and none of those dozens fell. So to assume that fires cause high rise buildings to fall is patently false, I can show that in EVERY case except a single day out of history, skyscrapers are immune to falling from fires.

Pic of a building that caught fire and burned for 32 hours, engulfing every single floor and burning everything to a crisp inside. The building never fell and never even got close to falling and it does not have asbestos covered steel beams like the trade centers did.

this DID NOT FALL. They are using it today.

NoDrama said:

You say you have shown evidence that they knew planes could be used to fly into buildings, but NO WHERE in the links you provided does it say that the intention is to bring the buildings down. You see they never entertained this scenario in all of their studies because the Govt knew it wasn't possible.

Even IF the gov't did know planes could be used, AFTER 911 they said that no one in the administration had even envisioned such an act, which is pure 100% lies, your own links prove that. Yet you are still blinded.

Click to expand...

They were all set to do something like this in the 60'S but Kennedy was able to stop it before he was assassinated. I think they were going to blame Cubans or Russians for that one.

making the claim for an event never happening before, does not exclude it from ever being able to occur.

six8 said:

making the claim for an event never happening before, does not exclude it from ever being able to occur.

Click to expand...

How many times do you think 2 airplanes will make 3 huge buildings collapse again? Ever? I think I'm pretty safe to say that it will never happen again. A one time event in all of human history.

beardo said:

They were all set to do something like this in the 60'S but Kennedy was able to stop it before he was assassinated. I think they were going to blame Cubans or Russians for that one.

Click to expand...

Operation Northwood 1962

you can say the same for another pearl harbor happening. but to those who had a mission to do it, one time was enough. i'm not saying i don't have my suspicions of the government, nor like their governing tactics. however, arguments can be made for and against the WTC attack, i choose to believe terrorist did do this.

NoDrama said:

How many times do you think 2 airplanes will make 3 huge buildings collapse again? Ever? I think I'm pretty safe to say that it will never happen again. A one time event in all of human history.

Click to expand...

If you believe that terrorists flying passenger planes brought down the 2 towers and WTC 7 then I have a deal for you on some land I have been trying to sell for 20+ years LOL.
Those buildings were "pulled" way too much evidence confirming this to ignore or sweep under as a "Conspiracy Theory" although the perps want you to do just that.

Dr. Judy Wood has a very unique perspective surrounding the events of 9/11. She has a presentation on youtube. What it amounts to is the possibility of the use of direct energy weaponry, and has evidence to backup her theory. It is sort of hard to explain but it questions the theory of controlled demolition. It is definitely a must see for anyone who is interested in finding out the truth. An interesting thing is not alot of people know about her theories because no one wants to allow her air time to speak not even Alex Jones. Mostly because almost everyone is convinced it was controlled demolition. Almost as if this is the alternative to the official story that they wanted us to buy, or misinformation. Think about it if you are convinced that it was a controlled demo then you are less likely to consider an alternative especially when there are tons of engineers and architects backing up the disinfo. I honestly don't know if we will ever know the truth about what happend.

[video=youtube;-vyBYmv3bwY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vyBYmv3bwY&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

Jesse goes after the truth.

Well with what I have seen it just does not add up to the official story. Because it does not add up to the official story someone, somewhere, somehow is lieing and they are lieing for a reason. The benefactors are pretty clear from the disaster and ensuing wars, policy changes both foreign and domestic, trail of missing cash, insider trading. My question is why in the hell aren't we doing more about it? Where is the momentum breaking down?

canuckgrow said:

My question is why in the hell aren't we doing more about it? Where is the momentum breaking down?

Click to expand...

p[people are doing things, but once you get to the politicians they are the ones who are completely obfuscating things. Hear Joe Lieberman deny that building 7 even fell.

[video=youtube;ccGKbdaY1y4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccGKbdaY1y4[/video]

NoDrama said:

[video=youtube;-vyBYmv3bwY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vyBYmv3bwY&feature=player_embedded#![/video]

Jesse goes after the truth.

Click to expand...

You can rest assured knowing that if Jesse Ventura was going to reveal some real info there would no way it would be allowed to air.

Can we open this poll back up?