I would like an explanation. furthermore the following YouTube video has footage of BOTH towers being hit by planes as well as them collapsing with the head of both towers collapsing into the body of the towers. thereby creating the crash.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv4s3fn8jDc&mode=related&search=
2007-06-29 06:29:47 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
my heart is still pounding from the video.
2007-06-29 06:30:11 · update #1
jeb- so the planes that crashed in the buildings just sat there? see the video
2007-06-29 06:37:05 · update #2
No credible evidence exist proving they fell by bombs. Infact, by implying common sense you can see why thinking bombs dropped the buildings is completly insane. 1. The buildings collapsed down, they didn't explode out. 2. In order to demo a building of that size would take massive explosives, and you would have to notch main support beams. How the hell did they get the explosives in without any one seeing them! 3. It's been explained over and over again by demolition experts, army core of engineers, and many other credible sources that the blast from the plane tore all the fire protection from the steel beems. The fuel from the plane burned so hot to soften the steel, which then gave. There is no evidence of any thing else.
2007-06-29 06:37:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anthony S 2 · 6⤊ 11⤋
I think it could be possible that explosives could have been planted in the WTC before hand by the terrorist themselves. Of course a theory but a much more sensible one I think. Inside Job people call it...well look at the UK...Doctors were on the list of the last terroist attacks, 9/11...pilots. They are out there in the wide open just blending in with the public until they decide to strike. How do any of us know there were not suicide bombers in that building amongst the dead. It was so destroyed there was no way anyone could know. They could have simply been employees in the WTC and no body ever new and never will. But again just a theory but seems much more plausible then some of the others I have seen.
2016-05-18 22:53:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh dear, that's just the same ol propaganda crap made to keep you fearful. I love that "when will they attack next!" And the music, it's so scary and dramatic. ROTFLMAO!!!
First, let me point out that in the first scene they flash the same 19 highjacker boogieman, but what they didn't tell you is that at least seven of the highjackers stood up and were alive after the attacks. But let's not get caught up in that let's stick to the impact of the planes.
Ok planes hit the buildings we all agree on that. The towers were designed to withstand multiple jet impacts. Ok so if it had not been for the bombs we would still have the twin towers today plus WTC 7 (not hit by plane but still crashed in the same controlled demo pattern of 1 and 2).
But why should you listen to me? Let's hear it from the eyewitnesses on 9/11. Take some time and look at this and think with a rational mind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxir-WRA9IY
And here you can hear what sounds the sequence of detonations:
http://www.ricksiegel.com/web/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=119
And if you really want to know why people still believe the original conspiracy theory, please watch this short clip about the power of media control and how it has mislead us. This clip also has reporters on 9/11 saying that the FBI's working theory was that a van loaded with explosives was detonated at the point of the planes impact.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5182535448932065917
And finally, a very damning movie of exactly why we cannot trust the treasonous mainstream media:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3068002046571410986
2007-07-01 01:18:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
The theory is that our government needed a good excuse to go to war with "the terrorists" and ultimately with Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein, so it was a planned event with the help of our governments Saudi friends. They needed to create a great fear in the minds of Americans to rally behind Bush's move to go to war. Note that shortly after starting the war with Bin Laden, our troops were sent to Iraq, leaving Bin Laden in Afghanistan intact. WHY? The key behind all the madness is the oil fields in Iraq. Taking out a couple of buildings in New York, and sacrificing a few thousand people is really a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things if you add up all the money that they are getting from all that oil they are pumping out of Iraq daily. (Keep in mind that the number of soldiers that have been killed or maimed has well surpassed the amount of people that died on 9/11). Over a million barrels of oil a day at $60-$70 per barrel is a lot of money. We really don't hear much about the oil though do we. It would make some people in power do some evil things to get control of that. That's the theory, as crazy as it seems. Makes you wonder if our government could be that corrupt, and what kind of world we really live in.
2007-06-29 07:00:59 · answer #4 · answered by Dan 3 · 8⤊ 1⤋
rather than stupidly stereotyping somebody as a 'conspiracy theorist', ask yourself another question : how come the mass media has given so little coverage (and none which could be described as fair or balanced) to those who have questioned the Official Account of 9/11, or to those who have pointed to alternative explanations and/or evidence?
Even if one was to dismiss the idea of explosives and controlled demolition at WTC , there's still mountains of circumstantial evidence to throw doubt on the official account plus there are many important omissions from Zelikow's 9/11 Commission Report -- why?
2007-07-01 02:01:24 · answer #5 · answered by celvin 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Not bombs, thermite used to cut the core columns, molten steel found in TC1, TC2, and TC7 5 weeks after the collapses, also physics, conservation of mass, those buildings fell at near free fall speed without resistance from the lower floors, also jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, notice how black the smoke was in those fires, that is from carbon particles a product of incomplete combustion, meaning those fires were not hot, 800f at the most basically a contents fire not enough oxygen to provide an intense fire. Most of the jet fuel was exploded outside the building. There is no way fires alone brought down 3 buildings. But Hey, thats my opinion.
2007-06-29 06:58:35 · answer #6 · answered by wtfsept11 2 · 11⤊ 3⤋
Sounds good what about building #7?
Look into this and you will see that the best explanation is controlled demolition.
Improbable Collapse
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782
A New Standard for Deception by Kevin Ryan
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032
911 Revisited - Scientific and Ethical Questions by Steven Jones at BYU
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4395179434521008566
2007-07-01 00:27:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
sheeple believe many things. how do you like being part of the herd?
911 was an inside job!
oh by the way. I would like to sell you the London bridge.
going rate. 7 billion dollars. (same as the windfall of mr. Silverstein.)
2007-07-01 04:08:44 · answer #8 · answered by peace 3 · 7⤊ 0⤋
In the weeks prior to the buildings being hit by missiles there were several "closures" on of which the bomb sniffing dogs were taken out of the building. Why was that? Firefighters and even news reports on that day describe bombs going off. Slow Motion footage of the buildings falling at a 'free fall' speed show explosions out of the building on the lowers floors that were not yet collapsing. Giuliani had the rubble barged off to China before anyone could examine the evidence. 3000 people died there it was a crime scene why did they not treat it like a crime scene. Those are a couple of reasons why I don't buy the 'Official' Story
2007-06-29 06:38:02 · answer #9 · answered by anch49 3 · 11⤊ 5⤋
How many times did you hear the word "explosions" on 9/11?
2007-06-29 06:35:00 · answer #10 · answered by jeb black 5 · 12⤊ 1⤋