Secrets Can't Be Kept Forever ...

[dalegg 143]

Aha, but see you forget that the former FBI director John O'Neil had taken a job as security chief for the World Trade Center, and never fessed up to why he left that briefcase with all those secrets unguarded. Possibly the purpose was to actually assasinate O'Neil before he went public with who his contact in the conspiracy was and punish him for disagreeing with the Administrations approach to Anti-Terrorism. Eh? Think outside the box man.

Is it not possible there could be a simple (innocent) explanation?

I'll not deny that there are questions to be answered - but I don't see those questions pointing towards a conspiracy, as much as hiding incompetance on the part of government officials and agencies.

Various administrations have funded dictators and "Freedom fighters" like the Mujahadeen - both directly and through intermediaries. A disaster on the magnitude of 9/11 would (and did) open up pandora's box of dirty secrets and difficult questions. Its not really a surprise why the government would want to conceal the extent of their involvement in supporting such people - to put a distance between them and a less than salubrious past.

Wait, wait, wait. I've got a better explanation. Remember the planes that hit the WTC were not the missing flights loaded with all of those live passengers. They were unmanned drones, and unless the whole building was expolded, investigators would be able to easily see the planes that hit the building were not the missing passenger planes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wait, wait, wait. I've got a better explanation. Remember the planes that hit the WTC were not the missing flights loaded with all of those live passengers. They were unmanned drones, and unless the whole building was expolded, investigators would be able to easily see the planes that hit the building were not the missing passenger planes.

What happened to the people on those flights who didn't return home then...?

[mawilson 2,133]

Wait, wait, wait. I've got a better explanation. Remember the planes that hit the WTC were not the missing flights loaded with all of those live passengers. They were unmanned drones, and unless the whole building was expolded, investigators would be able to easily see the planes that hit the building were not the missing passenger planes.

The planes were real, I'm afraid.... I know someone who lost a friend on that flight.

It's possible, however, that the same group of people that blew up the towers also hired

and trained a bunch of Islamic idiots (who thought they were working for bin Laden) to

hijack 4 planes and fly them into the twin towers, the Pentagon and the White House.

[mawilson 2,133]

It's definitely more believable than the idea of some guy limping between a cave and

a kidney dialysis machine organising this from Afghanistan.

[Heracles 417]

I like the beginning part of it. That guy is about as much of a traditional conservative as lenin and lennon...

I guess the original designers must have been in on it as well. Considering that guy himself stated that the building was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 at low speed, not a 767 at maximum velocity..

Funny how selective he was with cutting out the Discovery channel documentary he copied the initial engineer's extract from as well as other scenes. Another reason why I cannot stand hard lefties. You guys are just full of ###### and use deception in a sickening way..

I wonder if you would have said the same thing if the hard left had control of the office at the time?? Actually come to think of it, considering the big un-patriotic mouth the hard left side has, logic and previous example tells us that if it was a conspiracy, the conniving left politicians would have jumped on this..

God some of you guys are idiots. For example, the display of 'what do demolitians look like', the composition of the building is not the same as the WTC. One would have noticed the explosion at the lower level in the demolished buildings visible in the examples. Where was the explosion on the lower levels of the WTC if the buildings were deliberatley blown up?? As the bimbo stated the demolishion of a building begins from the bottom up. Yet the WTC shows absolutely no sign of that, apart from sound..

Million dollar question, how is it they can find bone fragments yet no one found absolutely any evidence of explosives?? Every bomb site has remains of the bombing..

A disaster on the magnitude of 9/11 would (and did) open up pandora's box of dirty secrets and pose more than a few difficult questions. Its not really a surprise why the government would want to conceal the extent of their involvement in supporting such people - to put a distance between them and a less than salubrious past.

Yet somehow no one has spilled the beans.

Funny how the hard left loves the 'innocent till proven guilty' amendment yet is first to accuse someone with opposing views of a conspiracy and a crime on mere hearsay. People need to watch "The devils advocate' to understand the motives of the hard left...

Edited September 18, 2006 by Infidel

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Wait, wait, wait. I've got a better explanation. Remember the planes that hit the WTC were not the missing flights loaded with all of those live passengers. They were unmanned drones, and unless the whole building was expolded, investigators would be able to easily see the planes that hit the building were not the missing passenger planes.

What happened to the people on those flights who didn't return home then...?

Hauled off to area 51...

[dalegg 143]

What happened to the people on those flights who didn't return home then...?

This one is a bit tougher to understand. Apparantly the passengers on flight 93 were taken to an empty NASA research center in Cleveland where samples of their voices were taken to generate the fake phone calls to their loved ones. Since there were also phone calls made from the planes that hit the WTC maybe they were taken there too. There is of course the problem that the passengers' remains were found at the WTC crash site, so we have to believe that

a ) The DNA results from the WTC crash site were falsified. or

b ) The passengers were killed in Cleveland and their bodies loaded on to the other planes. This does however cause a problem with the element of time though, so more likely

c ) The passengers unwittingly originally boarded the unmanned aircraft in the first place and the flight attendants didn't notice.

The planes were real, I'm afraid.... I know someone who lost a friend on that flight.

Yes, they were. And that's why this whole line of unmanned aircraft is so disgusting. 9/11 Conspiricy theorists will tell you that unmanned aircraft hit the WTC. I am not making that stuff up I wrote above. This actually comes right out of another one of their films.

I don't know about the rest of you, but whenever I see re-enactments of the planes hitting those buildings, it is very hard for me to hold back tears I feel for those people, because you can hear in their voices that they knew their death was coming. It is sad too for the people in the buildings themselves, but they were at least somewhat ignorant that the buildings were going to collapse on them. The people on those planes knew their fate when they saw the buildings and had to suffer it anyway. There were young children on those planes. And there are people that want to tell you that it didn't happen.

I like the beginning part of it. That guy is about as much of a traditional conservative as lenin and lennon...

By the way, like this matters. Why should it be hard to believe Republicans believe this theory? Remember that Democrats are more in line with the Michael Moore theory- that the President is incompetant and ignored evidence leading up to 9/11 that maybe could have helped stop it, that he was always more obsessed about Iraq and took his eye off the ball. The last thing Democrats want to support is that the President and/or his staff were smart enough to pull something like this off.

A lot of Republicans however feel duped about being misled into the Iraq war because of ties to 9/11. It's a lot easier to believe that an elaborate plot was at the heart of tricking you into believing we had to go to war in Iraq than to just admit you supported a bad idea.

I guess the original designers must have been in on it as well. Considering that guy himself stated that the building was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 at low speed, not a 767 at maximum velocity..

But Infidel, it was designed to withstand the impact of a 707!!! So how could it fail? I think the tobacco companies should have used this defense. "It is illogical for kids to smoke cigarettes because we designed them for adults". Or maybe Ford could have used this with the exploding Pintos "We designed them to withstand the impact of a normal automobile, so bombs must have been placed in the back of those cars." Everyone knows if you design something to do something, it will do just that!

Funny how selective he was with cutting out the Discovery channel documentary he copied the initial engineer's extract from as well as other scenes. Another reason why I cannot stand hard lefties. You guys are just full of ###### and use deception in a sickening way..

Yeah, I got a kick out of that too. The lady says "what remains standing?.. why does PBS fail to explain what happened?"-- as if this was never explained. Notice also how the narrator shows people hanging outside the towers because they were trapped by the debree. It had nothing to do with fire. The people who jumped out of the buildings were really annoyed by the debree.

The deception doesn't end there. There's a part of the video where they replay witnesses who said they heard "explosions that sounded like bombs, like someone had fired off detonations". She turns that around and says there are "reports of bombs". Most explosions probably sound like bombs but in all actuality most explosions are not caused by bombs so this is deliberate miswording to confuse the listener and make them think they heard something that wasn't said. They think it's fun to see how many people they can get to buy off on this, when in fact I'm pretty confident they don't believe it themselves.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Million dollar question, how is it they can find bone fragments yet no one found absolutely any evidence of explosives?? Every bomb site has remains of the bombing..

The evidence is hidden in the same place as the bodies of the supposed passengers and all the others who were offed to keep the truth from getting out.....

[Chuckles 0]

Million dollar question, how is it they can find bone fragments yet no one found absolutely any evidence of explosives?? Every bomb site has remains of the bombing..

.

..

There was evidence of explosives. Sulfur compounds found in the analysis of the steel, buckling of girders not effected by the plane crash that can only be explained by extreme high heat, like that of a thermite blast, but not by the collapsing of the building, supporting beams 'cut' at 45 degree angles are clearly seen, consistant with the type of shape charge blast typical in a demolition.

Where is my million dollars ?!?!!

[Welshcookie 17]

I for one don't feel 'ignorant' because I don't believe in the conspiracy theories....I have watched the documentaries, read the articles, watched the films posted on here and I am just not convinced

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yet somehow no one has spilled the beans.

Funny how the hard left loves the 'innocent till proven guilty' amendment yet is first to accuse someone with opposing views of a conspiracy and a crime on mere hearsay. People need to watch "The devils advocate' to understand the motives of the hard left...

If you want to deny that the CIA has funded and trained people like Bin Laden, be my guest. I didn't think that was in doubt - but I could be wrong.

"Hard Left" again eh? What movies do I have to watch to understand the motives of "Australians with a business and engineering background?"

[Marc and Olga 0]

I often wondered what happened to the "strong" and "massive" core columns.

I mean IF the heat from the fires cause the collapse as the official "theory" claims then why were there not towering sections of these core columns?

How was it they were leveled to the ground?

Since I am certain someone will ask why I thought they were strong and massive:

the towers were essentially hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core.

and

With a strong shell and core such as this, the exterior walls could be simply light steel and concrete. With the massive core and lightweight shell for structural integrity, Robertson created a tower that was extremely light for its size.

source

This IS the first video that actually asked that question.

edit:forgot to end a quote!

Edited September 18, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[Heracles 417]

There was evidence of explosives. Sulfur compounds found in the analysis of the steel, buckling of girders not effected by the plane crash that can only be explained by extreme high heat, like that of a thermite blast, but not by the collapsing of the building, supporting beams 'cut' at 45 degree angles are clearly seen, consistant with the type of shape charge blast typical in a demolition.

Where is my million dollars ?!?!!

I have it here along with a trophy of intelligence for you.

As one would have noticed the upper part of the twin towers bent forwards, on a 40 to 45 degree angle, prior to collapsing..

"Hard Left" again eh? What movies do I have to watch to understand the motives of "Australians with a business and engineering background?"

I have a trophy for you as well. Just tell me where to mail it B)

Edited September 18, 2006 by Infidel

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There was evidence of explosives. Sulfur compounds found in the analysis of the steel, buckling of girders not effected by the plane crash that can only be explained by extreme high heat, like that of a thermite blast, but not by the collapsing of the building, supporting beams 'cut' at 45 degree angles are clearly seen, consistant with the type of shape charge blast typical in a demolition.

Where is my million dollars ?!?!!

I have it here along with a trophy of intelligence for you.

As one would have noticed the upper part of the twin towers bent forwards, on a 40 to 45 degree angle, prior to collapsing..

"Hard Left" again eh? What movies do I have to watch to understand the motives of "Australians with a business and engineering background?"

I have a trophy for you as well. Just tell me where to mail it B)

Thought long and hard about that one didn't you

[Heracles 417]

I often wondered what happened to the "strong" and "massive" core columns.

I mean IF the heat from the fires cause the collapse as the official "theory" claims then why were there not towering sections of these core columns?

How was it they were leveled to the ground?

The core did collapse. If one has a look at the building they would notice that the levels above the point where the plane hit were in tact. Therefore the sheer weight of these levels collapsed the lower core. The building did not begin to crumble from the top or from the bottom but rather from the point of impact.. What the movie falls to mention is that once the point of return is reached in a building, there is no going back. I saw a documentary on the national geographic channel showing how a building in Singapore collapsed out of nowhere. Funny how the remains look like WTC..

Bush was rather a smart idiot to think of this up, execute and not spill the beans about it. After all he is an idiot right, so he should have slipped about up something..

Thought long and hard about that one didn't you

You got it. That is why I am giving you the trophy..

Edited September 18, 2006 by Infidel