What if I showed you definite proof of bombs planted during 911?? would u believe??

Question

http://www.911revisited.com/video.html

Answer 1

No, I wouldn't.

Answer 2

Why don't you ask those who've lost loved ones in those buildings if they care who blew them up? Knowing won't bring them back. Knowing those responsible have been outed won't keep them warmer at night. And I've seen all those so-called "proof" videos. Isn't technology amazing? Have you seen Forrest Gump? That's not real either. And, just for the sake of insanity, it was true that it was bombs that blew up the buildings, what about it? What can you do about it now? Put them all in jail? Prove we've got a corrupt government? Prove there were multiple conspiracies? We already know as much as the stomache can tolerate about government. Instead of looking under the carpets for conspiracies, go out and live a life that will make a difference in your corner of the world. If we all did that, at the same time, life would be so much sweeter. <*)))><

Answer 3

What a crock---I guess my biggest reason for skeptism is this.
Why would the US Government choose to blow up the world trade Center if they can accomplish the same goals by blowing up an AIRCRAFT CARRIER or an Embassy in Africa or just assinating a former PRESIDENT or other political figure.


The outrage would be just as great--the policies of the USA would be the same as they are now. But the chance of discovery would be a lot less and it would have been much easier to cover up.

Instead you want us to believe that the Bush people somehow came into power under a cloud of contraversy and then was able to pull off the most horrific attack in the history of the world in broad daylight and under the most intense scrutiny of the world press and get away with it. When it can't get away with hiding pictures of ABU-GHARIB prisoners in butt pyramids. Or "finding" WMDs in a country it overran and controlled the airspace and the ground and the PRESS during the first month following the invasion.

REST assured that if the BUSH admin was capable of pulling off 9/11 nine months after coming into office--FINDING WMDS in IRAQ two years later would have been easy.--whether they had to fly them in to IRAQ in a secret plane and have CHENEY stumble on them with the press corp following him around.

Conspiracy theories are the loons way to say--they have it too good in a country they hate.

Answer 4

Wow, pretty sick to think that the government would do that..and it's obvious why..invade Iraq..and Americana's are too full of themselves and live in such a protected bubble that they can't put it together... It was crazy to see the controlled demolition of buildings and then see the WCT do the same thing...WOW it is common sense if you see the examples... Also very weird that the 7th building ( filled with white collar crimes) Blew up just like a controlled demolition just because of two little fires? Where did they come from? Also they showed buildings made of the same structures burning over 18 hrs and No collapse...It's obvious that it was blown up( not by jet fuel either doesn't burn hot enough) BIN LADEN DIDN"T BLOW UP THE TOWERS it was you own government...stupid fools..can anyone say Pearl harbor?

Answer 5

You really believe youtube? If you do then I have some ocean front property in Montana to sell you! If you do then the truth does not matter to you. Read the March 2003 edition of Popular Mechanic. There you will find what truth is!

Answer 6

I wouldn't believe it because irrefutable evidence already exists that it was not due to "bombs" as follows:

1) Reports of explosions being heard are not true.

Quote: “NIST reviewed all of the interviews conducted by the FDNY of firefighters (500 interviews) and in addition conducted its own set of interviews with emergency responders and building occupants. Taken as a whole, the interviews did not support the contention that explosives played a role in the collapse of the WTC Towers.”

From Section F of http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

2) Puffs of air are seen all the time in demolitions and therefore they mean nothing.

Structural Engineer Jon Magnussen says it is fairly common phenomenon in building collapses. “You could actually have a collapse starting at the top of the building, and the air could come out of the bottom, going down the elevator shafts. It finds the path of least resistance.” (Pop Mechanics, “Debunking” p.45)

3) There was no seismic evidence of explosions before the collapse

Columbia University has permanent seismographic recorders that were running on 9/11 which clearly show no explosives preceding the collapse of Towers 1 & 2, or of WTC7 . See page 2 of
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

4) Engineers have proved that the collapse resulted from the impact & the fire. Therefore, there is zero need to invoke bombs. See NIST’s explanation at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
(Click on “Impact to collapse” )

===============================
Some other points:

THE COLLAPSE OF WTC7 WAS NOT SURPRISING

Even though they were NOT hit by the jets, numerous buildings over a wide area were hit by debris from the collapsing towers and were destroyed.

This includes: The Marriott World Trade Center , 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church (which wasn’t even in the WTC complex). The Deutsche Bank Building was also outside the WTC complex & was massively damaged, and was declared a total loss in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_attack#Damage

As for WTC 7:
According to NIST "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." See http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5#wtc7

WTC7 was only 400 feet from WTC1. Since WTC1 is over 1300 feet tall, as they pealed away, the large perimeter columns from WTC1 struck WTC7 & many other buildings with terrific force due to their high starting position. Archival photos shows perimeter columns lying on the ground up to WTC7. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

In addition, WTC7 was built straddling a Con-Edison substation. This meant that its walls had to carry a tremendous amount of force and were vulnerable to impact. In addition, WT7 contained numerous fuel tanks for generators, some holding 6000 gallons of fuel, & this contributed to its destruction.

Finally, at least 6 fires started in WTC7, each of which was described as “large” but there was no water to fight them. The fires were left to burn because the building started to lean and firefighters decided it was too dangerous to enter.

Workers testified that the east side slumped, then collapsed, pulling the rest of the building with it.

See NIST’s (National Institute of Science & Technology) description of the collapse of WTC7 at
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

Answer 7

Sure, I'd be foolish to deny definite proof. The problem for you is, no such proof exists or can exist. (I assume you mean bombs planted BEFORE 9/11)

Answer 8

Since I don't use sound on my computer, I have no idea what argument is made for your theory. (Having no sound cuts through the bullsh** considerably). Besides, the article you ask us to watch is one hour and twenty three minutes long. That isn't going to happen. No.

In answer to your question, though....YES, bombs were used...they were airplanes loaded with jet fuel.

Answer 9

Is this the sequel to Loose Change? Looks like they improved the special FX. I give it a 2 out of 5 stars.

Answer 10

It's a silly question. If I showed you definite proof that we have been invaded by green-headed monsters from Pluto, would you believe it? One person's proof is another's paranoid delusion. Take your medication.

Answer 11

Your version of the truth seems to have been created.