9/11 is a turning point in The Unites States. There are those that would say it's an inside job pulled off by a power hungry Cabal and that the official story is only that... a story? I don't know what it is ... but my "free thinking" mind tells me to dig deeper.. that's all.. not saying it is or isn't.. just a curious mind..
Why is it so many people are willing to jsit back and take it at face value when so many other people including " American Military " say it's false and or dubious ?
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=13016 ..
Don't repond to this with any rhetoric or without at least checking the link... no one with a lick of sense would not want to know what really happened on that fateful day 5 years ago..
So if you call it a conspiracy theory without anything to back it up ..you are a fool and a fraud.. Democracy is a participatory sport ! Don't say you are patriot without knowing what it means.
2006-09-01 07:40:07 · 11 answers · asked by hardartsystems 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
When you compare any story to the laws of physics, and they do not match, at the very least that part of the story is false.
I have been doing research on both sides of the 9/11 issue and there are several items that violate physics.
1. If you time the news footage, you will find that the top of the towers hit the ground at free fall speed. Even though jet fuel burns at approxamately half of the melting temperature of steel, the steel at that temperature will have lost aproxamately 60% of its strength. No mater how structurally compromised the struck floors were, the towers could not have fallen at free fall speed. This can only occur when there is no support anywhere under the falling structure. That is not even taking into account 70+ floors of structural steel below the affected area which would have stopped or at the very least slowed the rate of decent.
2. You cannot take out multiple light poles on the way into the pentagon with out leaving massive amounts of debris in the path from the poles knocking chunks out of the plane much less the flaming fuel spill it would have produced. The Boeing fuel tests proved that a plane hitting even a single light pole would rip the wing off creating a huge fireball immediately. There was no debris or scorch marks anywhere other than the scorch marks at the building itself. Furthermore if you examine the photographs carfully you will find that the poles are laying in the wrong direction from their bases to have been struck by a plane.
The laws of physics do not conveniently change for anyone no matter how much rhetoric that people spew. We will probably never know the truth about who was responsible, but we do know that the story our government has fed us doesn't hold water.
2006-09-01 08:09:40 · answer #1 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
I have felt for some time that the label 'conspiracy theorist', with its overtones of 'crackpot', was a distraction. Because any examination of history shows that the Powers That Be (and this definitely includes the American government) have, time and again, committed treasonous acts against the people they claim to represent. Given this history, why are people who suspect more of the same automatically treated as lunatics? Easy: by discrediting truth-speakers it's easier to continue with treason.
2006-09-01 17:02:30 · answer #2 · answered by poorcocoboiboi 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well if you break the words down then it's pretty simple: conspiracy: collusion between multiple parties to commit a certain act
theory: (although often used wrongly, this definition applies) opinion, conjecture, unproven fact
Put them together and you have exactly what Loosechange is: collusion between multiple parties to commit the act of conjecture or opinion.
By the way: I have checked the links, the blogs, the videos. They have all be refuted and disproven. SFC Buswell may very well be a patriot and war hero. For this I salute him. He is also entitled to his opinion, as are we all. What people forget about opinions and free speech is that we must be williing to accept the consequences of our actions, opinions, and speech. Liberty without responsibility is chaos.
2006-09-01 15:20:05 · answer #3 · answered by johngjordan 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
One problem with your website: It has an advertisement for Nostramus on the side panel. He was a kook. I've read his prophecies. One is only a prophet if ALL of their prophecies come true.
As for the rest, I don't doubt that people have questions, that isn't the problem. It's in man's inquisitive nature.
The problem I have with the conspiracy theories, is that they leave too much in doubt. Not only that, but they've been disproven, not just by the "official" report (I'm not one to believe something just because it's "official), but by many other sources, which are not, as far as I know, all connected to the government.
I watched Loose Change, In Plane Sight, I've gone to infowars and prisonplanet, I've read the so-called "proof"...and then I searched deeper...and every one of my questions were answered.
www.popularmechanics.com Search for the story entitled "9/11: Debunking the Conspiracy Myths."
www.youtube.com Search for the series of films "Screw Loose Change." (They can also be found on Google)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/...
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://underground.soulawakenings.com/ti...
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.ht...
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_...
http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1348......
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/05/l...
2006-09-01 15:01:05 · answer #4 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
I'm reluctant to answer you truthfully lest I lose any credibility, however...
It is painfully obvious that flight school drop outs did not fly those planes; experienced pilots did, with knowledge of the planes' guidance systems. They were reset to the target areas.
Some of the passports used match people who were known to be not in the US, but alive and well in other parts of the world. These rookie pilots may have been given instruction in flight but were not behind the controls. So the question still remains, who was?
However, the facts exist that the crashes occurred. Any one who disputes that with nonsense about missles, disguised F/18s or thermite is off the deep end and engaging in rumor mongering.
The question remains who did it and who backed them? Why send the bozos to flight school and risk drawing attention to themselves, anonymity is their best ally. Was it to give them rudimentary flight experience so they would understand the basics and be able to assist the terrorist pilot? Was it in case something happened to the pilot, or if he changed his mind about his committment to the cause, they could take it down controlled and try to find a target of opportunity?
My guess, and just a guess... Saudi pilots, from Saudi airlines. They do buy a lot of Boeings and would be familiar with the hijacked planes. Hell, maybe they were financed by Al-Qaeda, WTF, maybe Iraq, but what is for certain is the people accused of carrying out the plot weren't the same ones from the flight schools. At least the ones flying those jumbos.
However, I've seen the doctored footage of the towers falling, and the remains from ground zero where the "thermite" was planted... thats horseshit.
I've seen the picture of the inner wall of the C ring building where the engine came out and people say "a plane couldn't have made this hole...". That why the conspiracy theories are dismissed outright, because so many portray fiction posed as fact that they are immediately debunked and thrown on the scrap heap.
They remain conspiracy theories because most have been debunked and the rest have no credible evidence to support them. Until credible evidence to the contrary is present they remain theory, and every false and doctored photo makes the argument harder to prove.
To sprcpt: I can't dispute #2 because I've never seen this approach to the Pentagon, Ive only seen pictures.
Your reasoning behind #1 is totally false. The flash point of jet fuel is not the temperature at which it burns. Jet fuel burns much hotter than the melting point of steel in the quantity of fuel present.
When the one floor collapsed it still had 40 floors on top of it and the fires weakened many floors, so once it started falling the combined weight of everything above was far more than the structural steel could possibly support. I recognize your degrees but every mechanical engineer supports the towers collapsing exactly as they did and wonders how they stood for as long as they did.
2006-09-01 15:47:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 5⤋
Amen! Thank you and keep speaking the truth. Without doing a bit of research, one has no place to criticize another who has. The official story is a theory and will be until proven otherwise.
2006-09-01 14:48:13 · answer #6 · answered by MishMash [I am not one of your fans] 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The conspiracies ARE the links.
Follow the money trail.
These people are making money off the nuts that believe them.
All conspiracies have an agenda behind them.
2006-09-01 14:51:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
These "people" are disloyal to the USA and to the memories of the people who were killed on 9/11. They should be put on trial for treason and put in prison forever!!!!
2006-09-01 16:55:47 · answer #8 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
"..you are a fool and a fraud.."
Yup, that's what they are, fools and frauds - the Weak Sisters have a real problem with diarrhea of the mouth, don't they?
2006-09-01 14:47:47 · answer #9 · answered by Walter Ridgeley 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
That works both ways.
2006-09-01 16:05:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋