This is just a question....please take a look at this site....
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/911scandal052305.cfm
2007-02-15 15:26:27 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
As far as i can tell Yes . But it was successful because it was not correctly reported or investigated . As they say in horse racing , the fix was in. Also they counted on the fact that people would never believe their government could kill its own citizens. Ignoring the obvious seems to be a republican character flaw.
2007-02-15 15:31:40 · answer #1 · answered by prole1984 5 · 6⤊ 2⤋
My, my, my, an finished boatload of stupidity and misconceptions to handle the following. metal does no longer want to be melted to reason structural failure. Temperatures of 1200 ranges F, very plausible in a jet gasoline fireplace, would have decreased the structural integrity of the metal in 0.5. This weakening of the molecular structure extra to the more beneficial forces of the increasing metal beams (thermal boom) is more beneficial than sufficient to describe the crumple of the failure of the metal structure. Your free-fall time is actual, besides the undeniable fact that you fail to educate that this time is an oversimplification of what's certainly occurring at the same time as a progression collapses. this may be the theoretical time it would take an merchandise to hit the floor being dropped off the right of the WTC tower, NEGLECTING air resistance or the different retarding stress. at the same time as this progression collapsed, the better flooring had to hit and push through decrease flooring one after the different (a retarding stress slowing down acceleration). This action would more beneficial than likely have slowed the progression's crumple critically. really, your assumption that the progression must be in free-fall is defective.
2016-12-04 05:58:17 · answer #2 · answered by schebel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's look at one, VERY SIMPLE fact(s).
Bush was in office for about 9 months before 9-11. So how did he plan, carry out, and execute this attack in just 9 months. While at the same time, ensuring that the thousands of people involved in the attack would keep queit about it.
Keep that in mind, as well as the fact that Clinton couldn't have sex in the White House without the entire country knowing about it, but Bush can carry out a huge attack.
2007-02-15 16:03:53 · answer #3 · answered by Chopper 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They just may be the biggest lie in history..
2007-02-15 15:32:57 · answer #4 · answered by ♥ Cassie ♥ 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
that article came from 911truth.org
that is a well known Conspiracy site full of lies, bulls***, half truths, and total nonsence that does not stand up to any sort of scientific proof. They have NOT ONE SHRED OF REAL EVIDENCE
All of their so-called evidence is on the order of the same crap you see printed in gossip mags like Weekly world News and National Enquirer.
2007-02-15 15:58:54 · answer #5 · answered by CG-23 Sailor 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, that was the ones the democrats told during their campaigns last November in order to get elected. Remember? Something about troop withdrawal if I recall.......
2007-02-15 15:31:39 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Probably the biggest in my lifetime.
2007-02-15 15:33:38 · answer #7 · answered by Brotherhood 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I don't know if it's the biggest lie, but it's a pretty big one.
2007-02-15 15:28:53 · answer #8 · answered by rtanys 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
and i guess the fact that the buildings are gone is your biggest argument that it's a lie....
2007-02-15 15:46:54 · answer #9 · answered by jeffrey m 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
No. That is a conspiracy theory that does not stand up to the cold hard facts of reality.
2007-02-15 15:29:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋