Most of you might be saying I am crazy, but look at the evidence, lets start out with 9/11:
"Official" Government Statement: The collaps of the towers was caused by burning jet fuel .
Maximum Burning Point Of Jet Fuel: 1000 F
Temperature At Which Steel Starts To Weaken: 1500F
So if that were true, then that "fire" broke the laws of science!
The second subject is how the towers fell, those tower fell straight down, like a controlled demo, in the weeks before 9/11 they had drills were most of the towers were evacuated and witnesses reported seeing crates and government officials entering.
As the towers were falling you could see little explosions about 10-15 floors down from he wreck as it was falling, like a controlled demo. So you people don't go and tell me that it was jet fuel cause it wasn't!
Now on to Part 2
2007-01-05 10:44:37 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
as an informed human being i am inclined to agree with cena hater. if you dont believe me then check this out and decide for yourself http://www.loosechange911.com/ as far as who pulled the strings it was the bush administration looking for a way into iraq for oil.It was a masterful plan pulled off almost without a hitch but the knowledge of what really happened is starting to surface
2007-01-05 11:15:50 · answer #1 · answered by patsfan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't believe I am delaying going out tonight to answer your juvenile question, but I'll give you something to read quick before you go to bed.
You mentioned the "little explosions" that supposedly prove a controlled demolition caused the collapse of the towers. Actually, what you saw was compressed air being forced out as the floors collapsed down upon one another(and the people inside). It's just like when you slam a book's cover shut and air rushes out.
I noticed an answerer stated that the Bush administration orchestrated this catastrophe so that it could invade Iraq for oil. Did Clinton orchestrate the 1993 World Trade Tower bombings in order to invade a country?
2007-01-05 11:16:25 · answer #2 · answered by aDWsd 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So you're saying that there is much more to the whole event than what we've told and that we have'nt been told the truth.
I'd have to agree with you there too many programs investigating the event show incosistences with what the public has been told.
Who do you think pulled the strings
2007-01-05 11:06:44 · answer #3 · answered by simon c 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The New World Order is nothing of the kind and an affront to anyone's intelligence.
2007-01-05 10:56:04 · answer #4 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That "Popular Mechanics" magazine article explained all this.
You're boring. Nice try. Time to let your parents use the puter again, back to cartoons for you.
2007-01-05 11:00:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK, got it. Can you tell us where Elvis is now as well?
2007-01-05 10:55:04 · answer #6 · answered by Beachman 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋