If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Why is there bangs and then smoke rise up the side of WTC2? These bangs were also reported. When WTC7 fell, how come there was a bang just before & why did the windows blow out? Why did the building shake throughout? How do you explain the pyroclastic flow if the structure just melted because of the intense heat? Why didn't FEMA or NIST mention the molten metal under WTC 1, 2, 7?
Here is another link to the 911 Eyewitness video which shouldn't take long to download on broadband.
Click
Before commenting you should actually watch it.
He got some of his men to dress up as poles and attack a radio station to get them involved.
And "our" guys have also a loooong history of this kind of thing -
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,714087,00.html
But what always gets me about the conspiracy theorists is how they think that our Government could do it, but not somebody else's government. The official version is just as plausible.
Personally I don't believe the rubbish about how it was the military wot dun it, but I do think Bush knew about it and let it happen. Given how easily the planes were taken, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA were involved, but I really don't think that it has anything to do with some cock-and-bull story involving holes and helicopters.
I personally think it was something known about, allowed to happen, and exploited. Sure, the government could well have done it, but why would they get their hands dirty when they could get 19 nutters to do it instead?
Anyone wish to give an explanation as to why it wasn't controlled explosions?
That such an act would be kept quiet isn't much of a surprise, really.
If it was just that and fire, how do you explain pyroclastic flow?
Plz watch the video ... I just watched it, the stuff on the twin towers was enough but building 7 ...
The fucking fires were at the bottom of the building, the top started to implode before anything else happened lol! It fell directly into itself, you can just see that its controlled ...
Watching that was reallly pretty disturbing, does get you thinking that there are some sick fucks in power...
Also watch the debris flying out of buildings 1 and 2 when they go down ...Explain how thats not an explosion?
This is another very interesting video that's well worth watching.
http://www.torrentz.com/t.php?id=2777
Video put together by www.reopen911.org - This is a free video to anyone who wants to watch it.
Do you really think that Bush and Co. would need to murder a couple of thousand people to go to war? Even Bush isn't that stupid. He would have gone anyway, eventually. He didn't care about the International reaction, or if he was mandated by the UN.
About the buildings.... you have to remember that the twin towers used a very different method of building - what made it so attractive to renters.. the large open planned offices. and no one thinks [or should I say thought] that a full laden 747 would purposively fly into a building.
Pyroclastic flows? Firstly it was dust and pyroclastic flows are from volcanoes.
Controlled explosions? You have got to be kidding, right?
Now I am no engineer, but a massive explosion will fatally weaken a structure to a point where the weight above the explosion point cannot be carried by the structure below, usually this would cause it to topple, but with the twin towers' almost unique design - it caused it to fall straight down. I think it was pretty amazing that they stood as long as they did.
With World Trade 7, for instance, if the fires caused the steel structure to weaken to a point where it could no longer support the weight of the building and this point was in the centre of the building then surely this will cause the controlled explosion-esque view.
Did you see the speed the buildings 'fell'? No wonder debris was flying everywhere. The anount of explosives needed to have brought down just one of the towers would be huge [look at the massive amounts that was used in the first terrorist attacks on the South tower].
People are putting 2 + 2 together and getting 4 billion odds.
lol are we talking volcanoes?
Improper fire proof maintenance on the steel structure's holding the building caused the beams to bend. Then with all the weight, they broke... and then it's like the domino effect... floor after floor knocked down.
what do you think happens when massive planes fly into buildings. A little whimper? Hell no, Bangs, big ones and intense structural dmage like you wouldn't belive.
Its already been explained. The buildings are designed to collapse downwards. if there was smoke coming out of the bottom, that was no doubt, the support buckling.
Also, people ar enot telling me anything new. I knwo about hitler and burning down the building. I know about America knowing about Peral Harbour before it happend but not doing anything. That proves nothing.
Wnats some more? I know the CIA experimented on american citizens, I know dummy biological weapons test were carried out on the population as well.
I have yet to find proven evidence of them murdering over 3000 of thier own people in one go for no real reason.
It really is just reaching. And I notice again people have not read what I said. I do belive in conspiracies, just not this one.
This was a terrorist attack that no doubt took years in the planning, probably strated not long after the World Trade Center bombing. Thats how real terrorism works.
I thinks its sad so many people want to blame horrific events on their own government when they have no proof. Its truely disturbing.
Also in February of this year, a 32-story building caught fire, the entire thing was up in flames. This building burned for two days but only several top floors collapsed onto lower ones... the building still stood.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html -seismic activity
Also watch building 7 go down - the fires are on the bottom 1 or 2 floors, the Roof starts to go into say the top 2-3 floors before anything even happens at the bottom, that makes no sense... or was it going to fall down anyway and its just coincidence lol?
Also almost all Bush's backing is from US oil companies, his decisions are very influenced by them. :impissed:
I mean that some conspiracies theories have merit. They are no doubt true. Admittedly its more of the minor ones like deaths callsed as suicide and such like that but no there are a few theories out there which have some merit. I have quite a few books on consipracies and various topics and you can't deny some of them.
I just think this 9/11 is such a big thing and people are bound to fom conspiracies around it. I just haven't seen any real ecvidence to back their claims. I know the American government are no saints but something like that?? really?? I don't think so.
I do think its a sad state of affairs that people are are prepared to belive claims like these of their own government,country and clulture though, so readily.
What do you mean something like that?? They used white phosphorous and burnt a load of innocent civilians, they also used napalm which isnt allowed (though they dont give a fuck).
They went to war with afghanistan because they were 'habouring' a terrorist, they were like err no were not, yet they still go to war anyway ... then there was the iraq war, hmm no WMD's :rolleyes: LOTS of oil though! Now bushs financial backing is happy for a while maybe he wont be as corrupt for a while
thought the examples you used there, none of them were americans were they? These supposed victims?
No one has seen any evidence to back up the US governments claims either. All we know is that two planes hit the two towers, both collapsed. Several of the people who they claimed did it have since turned up alive and well.......
It's been blamed on Osama, but there has been no evidence presented.
Of a man who vaguely resembles a fat Osama who is actually discussing football. Regardless of this, the man's a terrorist, and not the only one to have claimed responsibility just for the publicity. On something this important, don't you think it should be checked?
Exactly. The conspiracy theory that 19 men with half a dozen flying lessons made giant skyscrapers fall onto their own footprints also has no proof for it. All it has going for it is government backing, which to most intelligent people means nothing.
That the US did it is just as likely as anything else, given what we really know -i.e. fuck all.