9/11. The Fall of World Trade Center. (title edited)

[Bullet]

So you think the government is trying to cover up the conspiracy theorists by playing them off as nutjobs?

government has their hands in everything down to the mop bucket you buy in a store.

government can keep it covered through the media, Media keeps everything of importance covered up most of the time, although fact remains also a Seattle Website on 9/11 reported Flight 93 has landed in Cleveland in fears of a bomb threat.

Theirs a SS of the page from that date to, so the question is........... how do you make a goof up that big unless it had some truth to it? This aint a media cover up because sometimes the media will slip up, when they do, it makes headlines. So the question is, what really happened to Flight 93? I bet that very plane is still in flight under a different number.

http://www.911inplanesite.com/bomb_threat.html

Not to mention I dont think their was a shred of wreckage or anything from that supposed plane when it crash landed.

 

[drmario]

Not to mention I dont think their was a shred of wreckage or anything from that supposed plane when it crash landed.

You where there? I didn't know that.

 

[Bullet]

You where there? I didn't know that.

do you have to be when the Media is covering it from 22 different angles for 3 months?

whatever crashed there was too small to be a Boeing 747.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Heres the thing also, from what we know of the media. Everyone from Al Quaida/Taliban has admitted junk they were never involved in, this after the military going into Afghanistan, they taking credit for things they didnt do including the bombings of civilians, downing of helicopters, anything else.

We like to believe Bin Laden was responsible after him saying that, it dont mean its true given their track record.

do you have to be when the Media is covering it from 22 different angles for 3 months?

whatever crashed there was too small to be a Boeing 747.

The Media is something I dont put any faith in either.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

I don't think the government did it.

 

[Mew*]

The government is really wacky. I don't doubt they would try to pull something off like this. Just look how crazy they get about covering up UFO crashes for no apparent reason... in the case of setting up these terrorist attacks they would at least have a decent motive. anyway....

What about how they forced local businesses around the Pentagon to hand over tapes so they wouldn't go public. What about how they wouldn't release their own footage. What about how when the footage supposedly leaked the frame rate was so bad that there was no plane there. What about how when Bush heard of the news of the SECOND crash he continued to read the children at the school he was visiting their story book. Upon news of the first crash he decided to go into the school instead of taking action.

Just very fishy. And there is lots more than that stuff.

Interesting things to consider.

 

[meditite rox]

Plus, the link to the universal emergency phone number...

I don't really see how "time flies" like people say. I barely remember my reactions and stuff to that... Sorry... I'm just being honest. It seems like it was a really long time ago.

Maybe because you were only 7 at the time? That's why I barely remember.

 

[Umbreon28]

there was actually a missle the government tried to cover up that flew into the pentagon

 

[Mew*]

Hmm, never heard that.

However I do know they wouldn't releae footage of a plane hitting it, despite using the plane as the excuse for the damages. And that they seized all video tape footage from local businesses which they wouldn't release either, and that there wasn't much debris...

 

[Bullet]

Thats the thing about the whole Pentagon thing to, the hole in it was way smaller then the plane that suppose of hit it.

But lets say Planes did hit the World Trade Center, you can recall huge flames all around the towers, yet the plane that hit the pentagon had very minimal flames, some people with pictures and photos from the media even show many objects like Books, Desk, and such not even touched by flames or anything right where the impact took place.

I am looking into evidence of another pic/video of the first plane that hit the tower in which the left wing completely disappears just before it hit the tower, I dont think things like this is suppose to happen unless a hologram image was involved.

Not to mention look up laws of inertia and gravity and see if a plane can fly that low at that speed.

 

[Absoltrainer]

Ok so about the hologram on the missles.

Where the people on the plane invisible? Did they blow up the plane first.....


people died on the planes....if it was holgram, then where did those people come from?

 

[Bullet]

Well I surly didnt know no one who was on those planes.

take a look at this; http://www.911inplanesite.com/bomb_threat.html

Thats a shot from the website of a news station saying Flight 93 landed in Cleveland in fear of Bomb Threat.

I bet if people did enough research they may just find that people on those planes were false names.

People did die in the WTC collapse, theirs no denying that. I question though if anyone was on these planes seeing as they were cleary not passenger planes, these planes that hit the towers were a type plane used by the Military, I do believe it was the Air Force or Navy plane.

We dont know anyone died on these planes except what the media tells us, and their information comes from the government.

 

[Brawler]

Bullet, you REALLY don't know what you are talking about.

Those planes were commercial flights. They hijacked the planes, and took over the flights.

They did it to cause fear. Osama did a horrible thing that won't happen again.

And every person on all planes died. That's a fact.

 

[Mew*]

Bullet, you REALLY don't know what you are talking about.

Those planes were commercial flights. They hijacked the planes, and took over the flights.

They did it to cause fear. Osama did a horrible thing that won't happen again.

And every person on all planes died. That's a fact.

But man, you're just listening to what the media and government say... you need to do some outside research to find out all the crazy coincidences on that day... trust me then you'll start getting suspicious.

Like how before 9/11 no steel framed buidings ever collapsed due to fire, because the temeratures aren't hot enough to weaken it. How on that day THREE fell. And how the one wasn't even hit, and how it had files from the government that they didn't want and Enron. What about how they all fell into each other, and the little one, you could see like the center tower gave in like a controlled demoltion. How about how they fell at free fall speed? How about how the owner said to "pull" it, a term used to demolish a building. How about how the owner collected massive insurance money from the destructions which he was recorded giving permission to "pull it". hmm...

Oh, and how about how the before 9/11 high up officials but they signed a thing saying that a the US needed a new Pearl Harbor to change our military policy.

 

[furrymuskrat03]

amazing. when this happened, i was 4 and at my mom's pt appointment and i was like "OOOOOOOH Big Planes" but later found out they werent nice planes. Really, a sad day, tho i didnt see this topic until njow :/

 

[drmario]

But man, you're just listening to what the media and government say... you need to do some outside research to find out all the crazy coincidences on that day... trust me then you'll start getting suspicious.

Like how before 9/11 no steel framed buidings ever collapsed due to fire, because the temeratures aren't hot enough to weaken it. How on that day THREE fell. And how the one wasn't even hit, and how it had files from the government that they didn't want and Enron. What about how they all fell into each other, and the little one, you could see like the center tower gave in like a controlled demoltion. How about how they fell at free fall speed? How about how the owner said to "pull" it, a term used to demolish a building. How about how the owner collected massive insurance money from the destructions which he was recorded giving permission to "pull it". hmm...

Oh, and how about how the before 9/11 high up officials but they signed a thing saying that a the US needed a new Pearl Harbor to change our military policy.

So using your logic, what makes your sources any more reliable than the government and media?

 

[Bullet]

So using your logic, what makes your sources any more reliable than the government and media?

Photographic evidence, eye witness reports.

 

[Mew*]

Yeah, Bullet is right. But it is also the law of physics like how the towers shouldn't have fallen that fast if it naturally collapsed, and the properties of steel--steel doesn't melt in fire yet Bush uses that as the excuse. Many firefighters that were in it reported explosions going off. And then there are facts like how before 9/11, no steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire, yet on that day three collapsed.

It's all too fishy when you think about it, and they had at least one motive, they wanted to go to war.

 

[Prime]

There are a lot of fishy things about 9/11. I did a report in my Public Speaking class talking about the fishy things. The third building that fell on 9/11 was 'pulled' by the person who owned it, and he had a very large insurance plan on it and collected pretty soon after.

For those who don't know what 'pulled' means, it means that people go in and plant explosives in support bearing locations and when they are blown, the entire building collapses.

If you can youtube it, youtube the following of building 3, and watch how falls exactly like the two trade towers that fell.

Think about that.

 

[DarthPika]

Yeah, Bullet is right. But it is also the law of physics like how the towers shouldn't have fallen that fast if it naturally collapsed, and the properties of steel--steel doesn't melt in fire yet Bush uses that as the excuse. Many firefighters that were in it reported explosions going off. And then there are facts like how before 9/11, no steel framed buildings collapsed due to fire, yet on that day three collapsed.

It's all too fishy when you think about it, and they had at least one motive, they wanted to go to war.

You do realize that the terrorists could have put their own bombs in the building if they had wanted to?

If you seriously think that the president would do such a thing to go to war, then your head is messed up. :/

 

[Mew*]

Yeah, well how would the terrorist have set up the buildings to collapse in on them selves so neatly? That requires a lot of precision and expertise--not to mention excruciating time. If terrorists really wanted to knock it down completely, they wouldn't have wanted it to fall down in its own footprint so neatly. They'd want max destruction like the whole thing falling over killing more people and destroying more property.

I honestly think that the government would do something like this. In 2000, guys like Cheney who later surrounded Bush when he was elected signed the Project for the New American Century, which stated that global dominance of America would be a long process, unless some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor would happen. Interesting how a catastrophic event happened one year later huh?

Everything ties together on the side I believe. But if you still believe Terrorists did it, there are all kinds of contradictions and shady areas. It's not that they just wanted to go to war, but war would be how America would become Globally dominant... exactly what they wanted.