I get told that is bad when I say that WTC attacks never happen.

But that is jus not true. Sure it do happen. All I write is, that there is overhelming evidence that it was not done as we are told to be done. I see no proof the Islamic maniacs did it. But I see plenty of proof that US goverment pull it. As the pull the WTC7.
(BTW, Silverstein (jew) owned it ATM (WTC 1, 2 and 7) and has get insured the buildings AGAINST terorist attack (firt insurance like this ever) and for a record price, witch he collected. Still nothing ring the bell?)

There is a big difference in what I write and what is claimed I write.

I was not denny WTC 1 , 2 and 7 demolition.

I denny that any plane hit Pentagon as well, as any plane crashed in PA. That's true.

Did you ever seen plane crash site? Plenty of stuff are there. Manytimes almost complete plane is being reconstructed from the rubble. Certainly engines are the most intact thing, as they are made from most advanced materials known to mankind.
And like I said - show me the engines. Almost 3m in dimater and 6 meters long, weighting 6 tons - of the best material available - they are just what? Disapeared? How much stupid one has to be to believe in such tales and lies?
Same as the "official cause of WTC brokedown"... Flames? No skyscraper building ever collapsed because of fire. It can't. The burning jet fuel temperature is nowhere near the temperature of the weakening point of steel. In fact, the weakening point is twice as high as the maximum recorded temp in the north tower. And melting point is 3x the fuel temp. And now come the tricky part - the steel has thermal conductivity. Good one. So, with all experiments done, the highest temperature recorded ever in case of fire was about 360C - thanks to the cooling by the mass of steel, witch disapeared the temperature quite effectively.

And what about a brief history of time?
8:46 - WTC 1 (North tower) hit by Flight 11.
9:03 - WTC 2 (South tower) hit by Flight 175.
9:59 - WTC 2 (South tower) collapsed just 56min after impact.
10:28 - WTC 1 (North tower) collapsed 102min after impact.

Question - what WTC 2 go down in half of the time that WTC 1?
Notice that WTC 1 is standing just half and hour after the WTC 2 do down. This fact alone give in question the "wanna-be explainations" of WTC 7 pull... "The building was damaged and caught fire, arrrrrgh, terrible, we have to pull it..."

Notice that most of the jet fuel, from the second impact to WTC 2 get off the building when the plane ALMOST miss it:

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/nalet%20na%20WTC%202.jpg
(What is that on the plane belly? I never seen airliner with such stuff...)

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/nakres%2...%20WTC%202.jpg

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/zasah%20WTC%202-1.jpg

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/zasah%20WTC%202-2.jpg


That's a proof that the "pull" (short world for demolition) happen to WTC 7 on purpose and not thanks to being "weaken" from the falling debris and little isolated fire capsules, like we are told so.

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/nakres%2...ni%20budov.jpg

As you can see, there are many buildings much closer to WTC 1 and 2 towers (WTC 3, WTC 4, WTC 5 and WTC 6), yet they aren't owned by the "right owner", so they stays and did not "collapsed" or not being "pulled"

And now a million dollar question.
How long it took to prepare pull of building like WTC 7...?

Now something to see.

For long, people looking on this photo:

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/detail%2...%20WTC%202.jpg
(original was published in Der Spiegel, Germany: http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/priletaj...%20WTC%202.jpg )

And asking what it is, on the little belly that Boing 757/767 and other planes have for the landing gear, just before the right "foot" one
It is obviously are some kind of missile or bunker buster (like what are found buried deep-in Pentagon), that initiate the huge explosion we all saw. At this point I would like remind you, that the integral tanks in plane wings are designed to do NOT blow under any circumstances. In fact, the fuel blow ONLY when it is sprayed into atmosphere. Ohervise it just burn - and only it's exhalation is, what is burning... And you can even light it on palm of your hand and do not get burned.
You are even safe to try it with normal gas

Anyway, what I want to say is, that since everyone seems concerned about the bunker-buster initiator, the division of the plane belly did not seems catch any attention. I have no idea, what it is, but looking on every plane photos on http://www.airliners.net - and I saw them thousads - is obvious that every (*)(*)(*)(*) commercial jet airplane have SMOOTH and clean belly. Check for yourself, Boeing 757:

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/Boeing%20757%202.jpg

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/Boeing%20757%203.jpg

Boeing 767:

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/Boeing%20767.jpg

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/Boeing%20767%202.jpg

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/Boeing%20767%204.jpg

...you see? Clean nice undivided belly. What about other airplanes? Airbus A300?

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/Airbus%20A300.jpg

Again - no divided belly at all.

Someone cut the plane in half in order to pack it up with explosives?

I don't know what it is, but it apears on all the pictures and it is visible from all anges - and I refuse to believe that this is a terrorist with boxcutter, cutting the poor plane in half.

Now what about Flight 93, supposedly crashing near Somerset, Pennsylvania. Now that's cool! I saw only photos and the reports that says nothing bigger that, say a foot, was not found. No bigger piece of debris.

And I already got a report that the Flight 93 landed at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport :sigh:


I would like to remind you, that the "crash site" in Somerset, PA, looked nothing like crash site. I seen many crashsites and many of the debris from plane, however I never seen crashsite so empty...!
As you may or may now know, a Boeing 767 uses either Pratt & Whitney PW4062 or General Electric CF-80C2B8F engines. These are pretty big suxxkas, mate And since they are made of titanium, they are ALWAYS found. Deformed, but found. You hardly can "dispose" them into pile of "next-to-nothing"...

Where is the plane?!

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/hleda%20se%20letadlo.jpg

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/hleda%20...etadlo%202.jpg

http://ax2.old-cans.com/WTC/hleda%20...etadlo%203.jpg

...or at least any piece of it that looks like a plane? There was, up to 9/11 NO CRASHSITE like this - w/o a plane. Alway at least tail section get preserved. Both motors, deformed, but preserved. Always.
Now - where is anything that looks like a plane?!



Few questions.

Why no scyscraper ever fall because of fire?

Why people, who point that out get kicked of their jobs?

Why, when "...we should not tolerate outrageous conspiraci theories..." did not US goverment release any kind o informations that would blast the dubts away? For example I would like see from the security cameras on Pentagon what happend.
If it is like what we are told, WHY our Goverment witholding the proofs?

If you're going to analyze grainy pictures of airplanes, why no mention of this:

The right (top) engine extends the full depth of the wing, but the right (bottom) engine appears to be glued to the front of the wing.

Perhaps the problem is the photo, not a conspiracy?

There's been plenty of stuff written about Flight 93 and Cleveland -- most noting, correctly, that the speculation is based almost entirely on confused and inaccurate statements made by Cleveland's mayor at a morning news conference. There's only a problem here if you assume everything everyone said was accurate -- which makes no sense on a confusing day like 9/11.

Also, if Flight 93 landed safely, what happened to all the people on board? And the plane?

As for the Pentagon -- there are plenty of photos showing plane wreckage at the impact site. And Popular Mechanics, among others, explains how the holes in the building were created.

This stuff is really getting old. Uninformed people obsessing over grainy pictures, using leaps of logic and the statements of people under stress in a rapidly changing environment where nobody has a complete picture of what's happening as evidence of a conspiracy. Sheesh.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Holy crap, yet another moron out there with one of these retarded conspiracy theories.

Haven't we seen these threads a million times? Do we even need to address this yet again and feed into this nonsense?

__________________
Be Alert: The world needs more Lerts

i'm glad SOMEONE here speaks my language! good point!! i agree. it was all in zionist interests

Actually, while I was living in Japan for a while I saw a documentary discussing this very issue. It made some interesting points, such as the fact that the hole in the Pentagon was not nearly wide enough to account for the wingspan of the Boeing passenger airliner, and there also wasn't enough debris. I don't know, though. It's intriguing to say the least, but I refuse to believe Bush is that evil.

__________________
PF cru 4 life

i do believe USA has same standard procedures. planes that hit the towers were in flight and for more then 1/2 hour.

what a coinsidence: islamic ragheads, camel riding, box cutter knife equipped managed to fend off US airforce jets from intervening
oh boy,

WTC 2 was hit much lower.

__________________
What's this i hear bed? Word has it you and Pam are sleeping together.

Thus has more weight bearing down on the affected areas. The melting point of steel need not be reached- that is after all when it becomes liquid. It only needs to expand to the point at which it buckles.

Another thing: seeing as though the towers did collapse from the points of impact any hidden explosives would have to be from that point yes? Can you effectively protect explosives from the impact?

Also as for the Pentagon attack I gott interested for a time in that after that rather interesting film with the nice music. I didn't look into all of it ( and I'll probably still be a little worried until some of those other cameras turn up), but the thing about the size of hole can I think be explained.

The hole matched(or atleast was a lot closer to the size of) the weightier part of the plane: the floor of the main body. Remember that the Pentagon is rather sturdy. The hollow part of the plan is sheared off and hurtles forwards ( and of neccessity down) to be carried in the wake of the floor, which punched through the hole. The wings similarily shear off, finding the least resistance in going into the hole as well. Last bit might be plausible, the sources arguing it usually said that the wings following into the hole is well documented in other crashes.