And I was flying the fourth and because I was stoned too we accidentally crashed into a field

Mr X wrote:

And I was flying the fourth and because I was stoned too we accidentally crashed into a field

At least you're still OK! Thank god I wasn't on the planes. Couldn't even walk in a straight line to the airport.

I didn't survive... you see I am actually a ghost :o

[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbtmshpFGgw']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck62MzAunFU']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2CA2byEe6M']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhmV3Mp6J6M']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi1WVM4k1vw']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ebbtvRZ4E']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

I planted the dynamite. Sorry guyz.

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------



Read my post. If the fire could melt steel, which it absolutely cannot, the building would have fallen over like a tree. Not straight down into itself.

And to answer to your question, it's an 80 story building. You have to allow a small tolerance for this sort of thing.


Watch the WTC7 video. The government's story is literally that the building caught on fire, and suddenly perfectly collapsed.

[ame='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A']YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]

Slyguy7 wrote:

Read my post. If the fire could melt steel, which it absolutely cannot, the building would have fallen over like a tree. Not straight down into itself.

And to answer to your question, it's an 80 story building. You have to allow a small tolerance for this sort of thing.

Read my post again. 1. Fire wouldn't melt steel. It would weaken and distort it. 2. It wouldn't fall over like a tree. GODDAMNIT READ MY FUCKING POST.

Also, your answer doesn't reveal anything about why the bottom half didn't move first. If it were a controlled demolition on the ground, the entire building would have fallen together, NOT the part above the airplane crash first. Are you implying that the explosives were planted on the exact same floors as the plane crash sites?

Watch the video of the towers falling. The top starts falling, then, consecutively down the side of the building, you can see puffs of dust as the explosions occur. They didn't all go off at once. Do you think the government wanted to be that obvious?

The puffs of dust is most like debris.

So you're saying that they put explosives in the middle of the buildings? 1. That's not how controlled demolitions happen. 2. There weren't anymore explosions in the videos.

If you could see "puffs of dust" from explosions, you could see the fires. If the explosions were strong enough to trigger the collapse of the towers, you should also be able to hear them. You couldn't. You know what I heard? 40,000 tons of metal and shit falling when the supports gave out.

Unless you have at the very least a basic engineering degree, you wouldn't know what happens when the steel structure of a building fails.

Mr. Fag, please speak to Dr. Jerry Russell who has a Master's degree in Engineering from Stanford University (and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Oregon).

---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

As for why they did it:

10. The September 11, 2001 Attacks


Like many buildings built in the 1970s, the twin towers were constructed with vast quantities of cancer-causing asbestos. The cost of removing the Twin Tower asbestos? A year's worth of revenues at a minimum; possibly as much as the value of the buildings themselves. The cost to disassemble the Twin Towers floor by floor would have run into the double-digit billions. In addition, the Port Authority was prohibited from demolishing the towers because the resulting asbestos dust would cover the entire city, which it did when they collapsed, resulting in many cancers with a confirmed link to the WTC dust.

Despite its questionable status, in January of 2001, Larry Silverstein made a $3.2 billion bid for the World Trade Center. On July 24, the Port Authority accepted the offer. Silverstein then took out an insurance policy that, understandably, covered terrorist attacks, which happened seven weeks later. To date, Silverstein has been awarded almost $5 billion from nine different insurance companies. What was an asbestos nightmare turned into a $1.8 billion profit within seven weeks.

Donald Rumsfeld said about the Pentagon on the morning of September 10, 2001: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." That bombshell was pretty much forgotten by the next morning. So, as a reward for losing $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, taxpayers patriotically forked over another $370 billion and counting to invade Iraq. True to form, the Pentagon promptly lost $9 billion of that money, too.

Eight days after the attacks, the 342-page Patriot Act was given to Congress. That same week, letters armed with anthrax from a US military lab entered the mail. Subsequently, while Congressional offices were evacuated, examined, cleaned and nasal cavities swabbed, the Patriot Act remained largely unread. Then, with little debate, the Patriot Act became law, giving the Bush administration unprecedented power to access people's medical records, tax records, information about the books they bought or borrowed and the power to conduct secret residential searches without notifying owners that their homes had been searched.

In early 2001, executives from Shell, BP, and Exxon met with Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force while it was developing its new national energy policy. Later, the companies freely admitted interest in profiting from Iraq's oil fields, even before the US invaded Iraq. And now? A new Iraq hydrocarbon law expected to pass in March 2007 will open the door for international investors, led by BP, Exxon and Shell, to siphon off 75 percent of Iraq oil wealth for the next thirty years.

According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a Bronze Star recipient with 22 years of experience in intelligence operations, a classified intelligence program codenamed Able Danger had uncovered two of the three 9/11 terrorist cells a year before the attacks and had identified four of the hijackers. Shaffer alerted the FBI in September of 2000, but the meetings he tried to set up with bureau officials were repeatedly blocked by military lawyers. Four credible witnesses have come forward to verify Shaffer's claims.

In August 2001, a Pan Am International Flight Academy instructor warned the FBI that a student (Zacarias Moussaoui) might use a commercial plane loaded with fuel as a weapon. The instructor asked "Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?" Moussaoui was then arrested on immigration charges, but despite the repeated urging of the school and local agents, FBI headquarters refused a deeper investigation. The US also received dozens of detailed warnings (names, locations, dates) from the intelligence agencies of Indonesia, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Jordan, India, Argentina, Morocco, Russia, Israel, France and even the Taliban. It would seem that the entire world was onto the bungling Saudi hijackers and somewhat perplexed that the US wasn't taking preventative actions. But in each case the US, as if by design, chose not to investigate.

Instead. Condoleezza Rice, on May 16, 2002, stated: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."

We also know that on the morning of 9/11, multiple Air Force war games and drills were in progress. The hijackers would have never made it to their targets without these war games: Operation Northern Vigilance ensured that many jet fighters that would have normally been patrolling the east coast were flying over Alaska and northern Canada in a drill that simulated a Russian air attack, complete with false radar blips.

Remarkably, operation Vigilant Guardian simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector, while real hijackers were in the same airspace. This drill had NORAD and the Air Force reacting to false blips on FAA radar screens. Some of these blips corresponded to real military aircraft in the air posing as hijacked aircraft. That's why when NORAD's airborne control officer, Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, heard Boston claim it had a hijacked airliner, her first words were, "It must be part of the exercise."

Changing colours

If you follow the money, you can see that the people with the most to gain occupied the key military and civilian positions to help 9/11 happen, as well as to cover up the crime. Such is the hallmark of false flag operations throughout history. But the incredible scale of the 9/11 sham, and the sheer number of people who still refuse to see the mountain of truth in front of their eyes...that's what makes the September 11, 2001 attacks the greatest false flag operation of all time.

Hermann Göring, a Nazi leader stated: "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."



Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, a book still forbidden in some countries (such as France), wrote: "In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people...will more easily fall victim to a great lie than to a small one."

Mr. Jerry Russell has nothing on Dr. Joseph Stanislaw who has a PhD in Civil Engineering from MIT since 2004.

Fuck that, tl;dr.

You know what, I could give less of a shit what conspiracists think about 9/11.

I actually read the whole thing, and it's a pretty interesting read.

That aside, just because someone benefits from an action doesn't mean they perpetrated it. You have to be one hell of a cynic to think that a New York entrepreneur willingly killed over 3,000 people to write off a redesign expense.

Yeah, I'm not buying into that.

I like the oil story better anyway. It's more logical.

I guess. It was 2 AM then, though. Was too sleepy to bother to read. I'll perhaps read it some other time.

With very little effort I can pull up the evidence to show this conspiracy theory to be useless drivel.

Simply type "why the 911 conspiracy is wrong" and cycle through the relevant information, the website at 3 was most illuminating.

I would personally like to raise a more general point about that of human nature. How on earth would you set about convincing huge numbers of experts that destroying the twin towers was a morally right thing to do? Let alone somehow trying to convince someone to fly planes into a building for the monetary benefits. After going through all this trouble not to cover their tracks would be a rather large oversight.

Or maybe they handed this conspiracy theory to idiots to lull us into a false sense of security.Hmmmmmmm in that case they are brilliant and they probably know far more that is right for us simply due to their vast intelligence, I for one adore our new overlords.

If it takes you "so little effort" please post links to this "illuminating" information.


As far as I know, the perpetrators behind 9/11 have not admitted they have killed 3,000 people, and therefor have not tried to convince anyone of anything. Furthermore, trying to convince people it was the morally right thing to do is futile. That argument will last all of two seconds. In any case, the reason for 9/11 was to gain more power, and not for religious/moral reasons of any kind.


I see you have failed studies concerning religion. Terrorists, especially of Islam-based religions, believe that their life is a tool to help the greater good ("god," more power to fellow terrorists, etc) and if dying is helping, so be it.


Good to know.

Steven wrote:

As far as I know, the perpetrators behind 9/11 have not admitted they have killed 3,000 people, and therefor have not tried to convince anyone of anything. Furthermore, trying to convince people it was the morally right thing to do is futile. That argument will last all of two seconds. In any case, the reason for 9/11 was to gain more power, and not for religious/moral reasons of any kind.

Al-Qaeda has admitted to conducting the attacks, unless you believe the videos and admissions they made were falsified by the U.S. government.