I don't know what to think. I can't see the U.S. government coming together and planning this whole thing just to find an excuse for a war or two. But I think these conspiracy theorists are just too eager to blame some discrepancies on the government.
QUOTE(GTA_PlAyA_728 @ Nov 30 2005, 05:17 PM) [snapback]1013225[/snapback]
QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 30 2005, 07:23 AM) [snapback]1012434[/snapback]
I said similiar, not exact copy of the building.
Besides, watch the video. They mention I think 5 other example, without the Madrid fire included. Goes to show no one actually watched the video.
I watched the video and most of the stuff they said was all crap. When they talked about the plane that hit the grass in PA i have to admit i dont have any idea how i can go against that, but everything about the twin towers i can say is BS.
Lets see.. where should i start, their was so much useless crap in that movie i cant remember it all..
1.) They showed frames of the airplane hitting the 2nd tower. They said their was a flash before it hit the tower. It was to blurry to make anythin of it. But i did notice that 1/4 of the airplane was inside the building when their was a flash.
2.) They said that people reported hereing explosions in the building after the planes hit. Its a 110 story skyscraper.. every floor is connected to each other physically, electronically (wires going up and down the whole building) and elevators going up and down the whole building. Their could have been hundreds if not thousands of reasons why their was extra explosions. The witnesses said they HEARD an explosion, not actually see one.
3.) When the towers calapsed, the idiot that was narrating the video said their were explosions in the floors beneath the floors that were calapsing BEFORE it hit the floor that exploded. THAT WAS NOT AN EXPLOSION THAT WAS DUST BEING BLOWN OUT OF THE FRIGGIN WINDOWS FROM THE PRESSURE IN THE BUILDING. I guess its pretty easy to mistake it for an explosion if u have a mind of a mentally handicapped person.
4.) The guy was saying how people are stupid for thinking the buildings calapsed because of a fire. A fire.. Then he goes on talking about other buildings haveing fires. Did those other buildings get hit by an airplane? I dont think so..
They think the calapse was all planned out. That it looked like a planned out demolition.. NO.. Let me ask u guys this question.. How much does a Commercial airline plane weigh? hmm? They said each engine is 3 tons each alone. Can that kind of airplane be inside the WTC and still have enough support to be standing? Especially when it has a huge hole inside it. The huge hole lowers the chance of the the building standing, and the airplane adds a shit of a lot more weight.
And of course it looked like a planned out demolition.. Both buildings are just complete rectangles. If its pointed straight up like that its going to come down that way to. The floord pancaked onto each other. Now if it was the sears tower that calapsed, that would be a different story, the top of the sears tower would probably tip over and fall over because as the building goes higher it looses ground area.
They said they saw an explosion on the other side of where the second tower was hit and i guess they thought that was weird
Ya ok.. The plane is going 500 MPH.. I was suprised that the plane didnt hit the tower and came out shootin through the opposite side completely.
(I'm not defending the consipracists, I'm correcting you)
1) The plane wasn't inside of the building when that explosion happened, that was quite clear...
2) Your answer to the numerous explosions didn't explain how there were
numerous explosions. It just explained how they heard them. Even that explanation is faulty, because the firemen outside
of the building heard them too.
3) Nothing wrong here...
4) How does the weight of the airplane have anything to do with the manner in which it collapsed? It doesn't matter how perfectly square they were, the probability that they collapsed perfectly downward (as though all the main supports in the base were blown away) is low. Being that tall, and perfectly square, they should've fallen over, especially since there was only a huge hole in one
side of the building, increasing the chance that it would've fallen over. If you were to take a tall structure, and punch a hole in one side of it, you would figure it would collapse in the direction the hole is.
Anyway, the only things I find as relative evidence is the seizmographs and the damage to the lobby of the north tower, the Osama video, the video tapes of the Pentagon, the passport, and the government agents being instructed not to fly that day.
I want to know how they figured the steel had to have reached the melting point for the buildings to have collapsed, how they figure they could only have collapsed with the use of bombs (wasn't a jetliner a very large bomb?), how they figure there must've been bombs if the tower stricken on the corner collapsed first (which would collapse first: the one with a hole knocked in the side, or the one with it's corner structure blown out? Isn't the corner a major strong-point in a building? [cornerstone, anyone?]), how they figure the flash in front of the planes wasn't a big glare from the shining front of the airplane (glimmers off the windows), how they didn't think of the air pressure while the building was collapsing rather than explosions, how they figure the numerous explosions had
to have been bombs rather than the fuel exploding other things inside of the building (elevators falling, gas manes blowing, etc.), and how they figure that the molten steel in the basements couldn't have been from the intense heat smoldering in the rubble...
I believe that the government knew about it and allowed it (government officials not flying that day, the camera on top of the tower, the allowing of the planes to go off course for 40 minutes before action was taken, etc.)...I don't think they had the capability to perform it. @CaldMagi, you can't say that a bunch of Arabs in a cave had more capability of performing the operation than the U.S. government, because it had nothing to do with bombs (as the evidence points). The U.S. government could pull off what happened, not what you are theorizing happened...