hundo :)

The earth is flat. To think otherwise is absurd. :thumbsup

I was being sarcastic and agreeing with you with rhetorical questions.

At ease soldier!

The ones that suffered the most damage did not collapse.

Most buildings suffered more damage from falling debris than WTC 7. They suffered extreme damage and because of the amount of asbestos were absolved by their insurance holders, helped along by the presence of iron microspheres that pointed to WTC for damages.

Iron micro-spheres can only be created by extreme heat, which if all you had was airplane fuel, could not possibly exist.

The US administration claimed it did, and claimed falsely Al-Qaeda had a deal with Sadam and trained in Iraq. All lies. Because of 9/11 the government had public support for this vast expenditure of money and human life.

Hunting down Mujahideen jihadists who trained and worked with the US in Bosnia, Chechnya, the Balkans and countless other "revolutions" since 9/11 - and who were reportedly still on the payroll on 9/11 including Bin Laden.

If tall steel buildings weren't demolished properly and they were allowed to "collapse" it wouldn't be perfectly symetrical, at least not three times in one day. When tall buildings are hit by earthquakes and other disasters, they tip over. When demolitions fail, the buildings tip rather than collapse.

The 9/11 commission reported only facts that suited the official story. They omitted anything contradictory - such as hundreds of firefighters' reports of explosions before collapse, building workers reporting explosions before the planes hit, etc...

What's significant with the 9/11 Commission Report (which the head of the commission admitted was incomplete, and complained along with other members - some of whom resigned over this - was obstructed from the beginning) is not what it reports, but what it omits.

The Joint Inquiry let leaders and officials testify whatever they wanted - many later contradicted or proven false and ignored. The same "incompetents" who failed at their jobs that day were all promoted without exception.

The FEMA report showed indications of anomalous steel corrosion not explained by office fires. FEMA was replaced by NIST. NIST used a small percentage of the steel from WTC (the parts directly impacted by the planes, the parts hit by debris) and ignored the rest as irrelevant, and used computers to create a simulation of everything that lead up to the collapse but nothing during the collapse, and nothing after (foundry-temperature fires and molten steel in the collapse areas).

The investigations were artful contrivance and avoidance of available evidence.


Plenty of people have come forward disputing claims, trying to report evidence, and simply been gagged, ignored or had their security clearances revoked.

Apart from being obstructed and "influenced" by administration sources, the investigation would never have happened if it hadn't been for the wives of victims harassing the governmen. When it was finally approved, it had no budget.

Thousands of experts have not examined the proof, or are too concerned with their grants and careers to challenge the government version.

Originally I just thought this was pay back for what the US was doing in other countries (establishing permanent army bases in Saudi Arabia etc...). But the many other weirdnesses of 9/11 as reported, and the flimsy uncorroborated government version, and seeing the collapses and then finding out about all the pre-9/11 knowledge of "terrorist" (US CIA assets and employees) activity inside the country, and the coincidental multiple failures of air support and protection that day, made me look deeper into it all.

The government maybe didn't do it, but their failures and/or deliberate (?) lack of action that day are either way criminal.

So you're saying your believe what the government tells us about this litmus test rather than investigate? I mean, all the evidence was shipped off before it should be analyzed forensically - how could anyone believe any one thing above another in this case?

Plans for the division of the Iraq oil fields were drawn up months before 9/11 by the Bush administration

Bush has said he needed an "excuse" to invade Iraq and that 9/11 was an opportunity.

Between the end of the cold war and 9/11, government military spending went down and flatlined. This was very bad for the Carlysle Group and Bush Sr.'s other friends.

The Taliban had to be removed and replaced in Afghanistan by someone who could secure the oil pipelines (US now has permanent military bases there to do this), and allow heroin poppy production to start again (under the Taliban, heroin had reached an all time low; the CIA need drug running to keep foreign operations financed), and there are many other mineral and ground rights available post-war in those two countries to be exploited by US interests.

The "fire units" had been pulled out hours earlier.

Yeah, that's an addendum and a weak one at that; although it calls for the killing of American citizens to provoke a war etc.... it was rejected by Kennedy, who then fired the author of that proposal.

To me it's a distraction. There's many other "false flag" actions that were actually acted upon (GLADIO, the Gulf of Tonkin lie, the USS Liberty attempt, etc) which just don't corroborate anything about 9/11 and can only be used as background confirmation of government willingness to create terror... in the past.

This is just too short sighted on your part.

You're completely ignoring the relationships between world oil suppliers and US interests, politics and military interests. You forget the relationships between the US and Saudi Arabian oil, BCCI, and many more corporate interests.

You're right but the US and US corporate interests have a huge interest in world oil distribution as well as the fact that these countries control the price of oil...

It didn't collapse in stages. It fell smoothly through its entire structural support system as though it didn't exist.

There were multiple angles of the fall of the building.

Even if the building fell at freefall for one second, it would be suspicious - but it fell for over 2 seconds. The rest was at near freefall. Nothing causes this except sudden, dramatic removal of all support around the perimiter and support and core.

Unless god opened a hole beneath it or it was a mathematically improbable one-time occurrence, which it wasn't it occurred 3 times that day, it can only mean there were other methods used.

Uh... how has the 9/11 commission or the NIST investigation brought any facts? How has the FBI brought any facts? Really... just post them since they're "factual"..

Actually that's full of shit. The "security reasons" destruction rationale is not endorsed by any rational "truther" - it is not a basic belief of any conspiracy theorist or truther, unless they are the absolute fringe.

Most "truthers" disbelieve the official version, and would like a forensic examination of the event, which hasn't happened yet.

Actually the vaults of the CIA, SEC etc which were beneath the WTC were found and photographed empty. The photos were initially released, but then suppressed. The photographer was accused of his wife's murder/suicide, and he had to escape to South America.

Really? Can you link or quote some?



:D

If there is nothing to hind why are they hiding everything?

i have just one single question ... why has all rubble been shipped to china BEFORE any examination took place? THAT really nags me ...

And why were all the dump trucks ready to pick up the refuse before the crashes, and why were the so-called "students" who were celebrating and high-fiving in front of the burning buildings, taking snapshots, allowed to return to Israel, where they had served more than just standard military duty?

So many whys...

Very surprised to see some of this information appearing on the mainstream

oh yes because who ever planned the most intricate operation on the planet even thought of dump trucks too :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Well find a reason or some pre-existing situation that required all those removal vehicles to be there, and then you can have your :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

If you can't (and from research you won't) why don't you waste your time looking up some of the info in this thread instead of posting lols...

Actually that stuff about the other van, explosives, Israeli "students" etc. was only shown once and then replaced in the mainstream media by the official myths, including the "United 93" story... all sad.

link? proof?

From



:D

lol nice "proof." you are a credulous simpleton.

The first clip was taken minutes after building 7 collapsed; the second incorporates it. This is apart from he 120 trucks Guilliani was talking about the next morning.

It's a small thing, but just another of the hundreds of "small things" that make up the unusual circumstances of 9/11.

They could have been part of the half-dozen exercises being coincidentally run that day by NORAD and the military... just sayin'

:D