my teacher told me a conspiracy theory about 9/11

[burner69]

I still find it highly unlikely that the US government would hijack three planes to do the damage they wanted, and then just missle the other target... it would be far too obvious what had happened, and considering there was clearly another plane hijacked it would seem simply bizzare to just make that one vanish and pop a cap in the pentegons ass.

Common sense and logic dictates that regadless of who was to blame (although the people who admitted it would seem the likely candidates for the defense) the pentegon was hit by a plane.

 

[superjuanchango]

The theory is HORRIBLY flawed. First of all, to respond to somone on the first page who listed why he thinks it happened. He mentioned the airliner firing missles AND a destructuion team blowing up the building. Looks like somone watches too many movies and judges all he knows off of them. Also, , what happens to the people on the airliners? They were taken to Area 51 and shot, maybe?

 

[B.Calhoun]

EDIT: Nvm point already proven.

 

[SirWence]

mm fireing missles i dont know about that lol . but watch the towers fall straight down and the weakend center that was melted by the fire which wasnt hot enough to melt steel .. (2500o F is needed) fire would peak at 1500 with the amount and type of fuel and then drop in temp. fast to 500-800 degrees. but that center fell last. That is exactly how the building would have been taken down if it was demolished. You cant prove me wrong nor can i get you to believe what i said so basicly w/e there is no way a plane hit the Pentagon 757 under NORADS view for 45 minutes .. sorry that just doesnt pardon the pun 'fly' .. and you can never be sure about the gov. and its desires read blood sport. or the grand chess board good reads and the man who wrote blood sport was murdered under 'odd' circumstances. I also recall a polling of people who lived in or worked in NYC it was somthing around 49-50% believed the gov. had knowledge the attack was coming or had a roll just somthing for your amusement but thats it for me peace :smoking:

 

[OCybrManO]

Here are the results of a poll taken by CNN last month:

Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Yes ... 89% or 9444 votes
No .... 11% or 1200 votes

(taken from LetsRoll911.org)

 

[burner69]

I'd LOVE to believe there is some big nasty conspiracy about 9/11 involving the government, and hell, maybe there is. But I've looked at the conspiracy websites, and have managed to find more convincing, unbias evidence to quickly debunk it.

As regards the temperature to cause the structure to break, I'm assuming the plane striking the building would have significantly weakened the structure and therefore the temperature required would be lower.

The only 'conspiracy' I can see at the moment is the political use of 9/11 to chuck in whatever laws they please, and use it as an excuse to invade who they want, for whatever purposes they want; all they have to do is bang on about how important it is, and people evidently start believing it.

This crazy world we live in.

 

[GiaOmerta]

I dont believe the United States did this to itself.

I do believe certain indiviuals allows it to happen.

 

[SirWence]

[Remeber the Reichstag but anyways]Tthose certain indiviuals happen to rule the nation if you will, America is less free with each passing 'bill' and no one does anything about it. Infact people openly give up there rights to the gov. out of fear and blind nationalism. Then they simply get the people to turn on those who dissent because they are 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy' because they dare call the war on terror (fear) bullshit. But yes as they say 'reep what you sew' keep giving your rights and freedoms and see what happens.. before you know it you will be in a police state and you will wonder "what happend" but you will have earned that police state. Again just look to Ben Franklin on this subject matter.

 

[burner69]

I dont believe the United States did this to itself.

I do believe certain indiviuals allows it to happen.

I'll second that.

 

[OCybrManO]

They were designed to withstand huge gusts of wind with much more force than the planes could have exerted. They were designed to easily withstand the impact of a 707 (which is lighter but faster than a 767). Many experts went on record later and said the buildings should have been able to withstand an impact from even the much larger and heavier 747.

The fire causing the fall is out of the question. The buildings were specifically designed to withstand fires and other tall buildings without as many precautions have been through more intense fires without collapsing. The temperature of the burning fuel was nowhere near the temperature required to burn/melt steel and concrete.

The remaining steel walls and the core supports not affected by the impact should have been able to hold the rest of the building up. Also, one of the impacts missed practically the entire core and only hit the corner of the building (leaving probably around 90% of the load-bearing supports still standing)... yet, the building was still able to do a textbook demolition on its own instead of falling to the side like a tree with a wedge cut out of it? That's beyond lucky. That's a ****ing miracle. It fell better than ANY demolition I've ever seen in my entire life. They have trouble getting buildings a fraction of that height to fall straight down. One building doing that would be enough to cause suspicion... but TWO? You've got to be joking.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The impact caused the structure to become weakened, the incredible heat of the fire just helped it along. Since the buildings werent hit from the bottom, it makes sense that the fell down as they did. If it had been closer to the base then it would have been more suprising.

This link should shed more light on the subject.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structure had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, creating potentially enormously high temperatures. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

...

Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.

In the pictures provided you can see that it clearly didnt fall straight down, one side led the other.

 

[seinfeldrules]

im sorry sein but read his post, what he said made sense what u said didn't... it fell straight down, if it was leaned towards one side many buildings woulda been crushed... yet none were, it was all too well done to actually believe the planes caused that.

Are you an engineer? If you look at the picture you can clearly see the top part falling at an angle, the rest of the building fell down straight because of the 'pancake effect'. One floor flattened the next and so forth. Please dont attempt to dispute what real engineers said just to further your outlandish claims.

BTW My rebuttal was based an article which was published by Austraillians, they had no American connection.

 

[SirWence]

EDIT: Double post clicked twice sorry

 

[SirWence]

"outlandish" the only thing outlandish around here is you. You also ignore articles saying the oppisite by realengineers', and another thing ive witnessed many demo's my school building was brought down the same way those towers were as was our old massive clock tower. ive also watched every show on demoz on both the history and discovery channel and read up on it on the net also ( lack of social life must get to x-mas break faster so i can get it back) ive watched tower 7 get demolished and yes that tower was taken down, they went down almost exactly alike , but your correct on the 'tilt' however that tilt should not have caused a straight down it should have caused a tumble effect which would have killed many more people and destroyed much more if you smashed a hole into my house will it go straight down? In my opinion they were taken down , not saying who did it just saying they were taken down that way.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact.

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.

Written by an actual engineer, sorry, but you guys are just plain wrong on this. You sound as if you are foaming at the mouth over this crazy conspiracy plan. I'm glad that reasonable people don't give credence to such crazy claims. There will always be a few people I guess...

but your correct on the 'tilt' however that tilt should not have caused a straight down it should have caused a tumble effect which would have killed many more people and destroyed much more if you smashed a hole into my house will it go straight down?

Your house probably isnt 100+ stories tall and made of metal. If it were planned and the US was willing to kill thousands of its own citizens in this attack, why not make it topple sideways and kill a few thousand more? It would have incited the American public even further.

Your theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

 

[SirWence]

Written by an actual engineer, sorry, but you guys are just plain wrong on this. You sound as if you are foaming at the mouth over this crazy conspiracy plan. I'm glad that reasonable people don't give credence to such crazy claims. There will always be a few people I guess...


Your house probably isnt 100+ stories tall and made of metal. If it were planned and the US was willing to kill thousands of its own citizens in this attack, why not make it topple sideways and kill a few thousand more? It would have incited the American public even further.

Your theory has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

Of course it does and so does the cover story .. a fire took the towers down because it was damaged by a plane hit look at a the 707 plane and look at the 757 and 767 models. But as always Believe what you like but refrain from flaming over people like that it makes you seem even weaker as a debater. I do hate to say this but you cannot prove your theory which is what it is and i cannot prove mine because the gov is covering it up. To say there not proves how blindly you fallow them.

and if your little nifty sig. is what you really believe then most of the masses in this country dont deserve there freedom.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Of course it does and so does the cover story .. a fire took the towers down because it was damaged by a plane hit look at a the 707 plane and look at the 757 and 767 models. But as always Believe what you like but refrain from flaming over people like that it makes you seem even weaker as a debater. I do hate to say this but you cannot prove your theory which is what it is and i cannot prove mine because the gov is covering it up. To say there not proves how blindly you fallow them.

and if your little nifty sig. is what you really believe then most of the masses in this country dont deserve there freedom.

Care to edit and repost? I can barely understand what you are saying.

 

[seinfeldrules]

why would they topple over the buildings, and destroy more buildings then they had to? they did enough w/ their job, all tilting the buildings over would do is make them have to clean up more and spend more money.

hahahaa so foolish. Why not just knock over the Statue of Liberty instead of taking down the two most important financial buildings in NYC? That would have cost so much less than the WTC with barely any of the casualties.

how can u sit there and say that the building fell on it's own.

Did you miss the part where two jumbo jets slammed into the side of the buildings?

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

im sad that more people do not think like me, and am glad there are people, cuz if not this gov't would have total control over its citizens. if you believe that this engineere could never have been paid off then u are a sad person. infact im not foaming at all, it seems that the people who think were against america are foaming. i love america but i hate the gov't that keeps taking our rights away, over something they either let happen or did.

how can u sit there and say that the building fell on it's own. LOOK AT IT, then look at any demolishins tape... it's the same shit, im sorry but UR theory has more holes in it then swiss cheese. why would they topple over the buildings, and destroy more buildings then they had to? they did enough w/ their job, all tilting the buildings over would do is make them have to clean up more and spend more money. people that think this way is what is taking our rights away slowly, and is what makes me sick about this country.

Knocking down the WTC was not something the terrorists expected to achieve. What caused the WTC to fall straight down was the fact that after the burning fuel and fire melted alot of the steel frame, causing it to lose its structural integrity, it was unable to support all the weight of the remaining 10 or so floors. Then the whole building took a dive.. it was just a huge chain reaction. It's not like the buildings fell right away.. it took them a while.. alot of people were trying to evacuate the buildings and all of a sudden they just plummeted to the ground.

So yes, we are saying that the buildings fell themselves because of structural failure not because thats what the terrorists had in mind.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

I don't believe it would be easier to do this than to simply use some of the huge Alaskan oil wells. But then again, the school teachers would miss out on teaching about how the caribou would be "wiped out" by oil drilling, all while neglecting to mention that the caribou herds in or around Anchorage Bay have flourished during our drilling there. It would be bad for x because then we would be too self sufficent for our oil needs. Oh, the pain..

 

[burner69]

For once seinfeld, I'm on your side here.

Guys, as soon as you start saying everyone who has evidence that disproves your theory has been paid off by the government... well... ur going into paranoia territory.

 

[fido139]

Consipiracy theory

Thats exactly whey they call them "conspiracy theories". They are just concocted theories by paranoid people. People who come up with these things also write and watch soap operas. There has been diabolical evil around since the dawn of man. Bin Laden is one of them. If you really want to get a good education in religious politics, just start reading the Bible, its amazing what you can learn in there. Really!!!!

 

[$niffy]

if you are in public school, hes is violating the law, have hiem fired

Yes, no offence to the thread starter but you don't seem to old. Teachers should never preach shit like that. Last time one did at my school i actually reported her (i wasnt being serious, she was the stupidest whore you'd ever see too)

lol those where the days

 

[Xenome]

Teachers shouldn't give their own opinion on theories like this, and/or present them as facts.

The students should be given the opportunity to figure out themselves what they think about it.

The teacher can noway be sure of this theories to be 100% true...it's all speculation with no single smallest piece of proof.

BTW: We all know that iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, therefor this theory is BS.

 

[burner69]

it's funny that u cant even believe people can be paid off... thats the biggest practice our gov't does... and conspiracy theories are everywhere, if u think bush is not evil and actually an honest man that speaks to god (HAHAHA) then their are many things wrong w/ you and that statement.

Yes, people can be paid off. But of all the engineers in the world, I'm sure if you asked any of them they'd say what happened on 9/11 is perfectly poss. What about the random engineers interviewed in mags/ newspapers/ i-net sites etc. Or have they all been paid off?

Yes governments do pay people off though, I don't dispute that, but suggesting that everyone is being paid off is daft. For example if it was common knowledge that only demolition charges could have collapsed the towers, don't you think that even those who had been paid off by officials wouldn't sell their story for A LOT of cash to the media. If the government paid everyone off who knew this it would soon come to light that this is a regular occurance and theerfore suspiscion would arise. It hasn't.

I personally, and this is merely personal opinion, think bush is evil. Literally. I don't believe he talks to God, or if he does God's not like the one I've been told about. "Yes Bush, desert Afghanistan and leave it to rot." "Ahh, bush, yes, legalise torture." "Pass constraining patriotic acts" "Hello again Bush, kindly rig the votes so you get into power, f**k democracy"

It's crap - people who believe that bush religious... kindly look at what he's doing in the world.

But he isn't paying off engineers.

 

[Calgar]

Well anything is possible, but I think the chances of that beeing true are very small, and could you explain that thing about the US beeing in Vietnam because of oil, cause that is not what I learned at school, in fact my schoolexams this year are all about the vietnam war, we have got a whole book just about that, and I never read anything about the oil.

And why should the american goverment teach out to their own student that they went to vietnam to get oil??
I dont know if its true but if it is well then i sure wouldn't tell that to the youth of the country.

 

[vzap]

Interesting all this... Though I would never affirm this conspiracy theory is 100% correct, I must say as soon as the US went after Iraq following 9/11, the idea it could have been done by the US themselves to justify an otherwise injustifiable war did cross my mind. Guess we'll have to wait 50 years or so before we get to know the thruth, if ever.

As for free speech, I am french but have worked in and visited the US several times. What I feel like saying is that, for a so called free speech capital nation, the US is VERY poor in information (media, education) for 2 reasons: the media are invaded by neo-cons (ie: Murdock), the real media barely get a chance to be heard, and people generally don't talk about politics much, even in education, it is taboo. So much for your free speech dreams, Eq...

 

[Javert]

http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/chapters2003/Appendix-Sept.11.htm

Article by my Physics professor at UC Berkeley.

The planes did the job, not inside explosives.
Learn your engineering. Learn your physics.

The Fire and the collapse
The terrorists chose to use the fuel of the airplane as their weapon. They chose transcontinental flights since these flights would have full fuel tanks. The airplanes probably contained 60 tons of fuel each, maybe more. Airplane fuel contains 10x the energy, gram per gram, as TNT. Thus the energy was equivalent to about 600 tons of TNT, more than half a kiloton. However, fuel doesn't explode unless it is well mixed with air. We'll describe what happened in the impact in a later paragraph.

The terrorists chose early-morning flights. This was possibly because, in the U.S., such flights have the best on-time records. The terrorists wanted to have several attacks take place almost simultaneously. Their scheme would work only if the flights left on time.

The steel columns were covered with insulation, and were designed to maintain their strength for 2 to 3 hours of burning. However, the material that burned was not office furnature and paper documents. The wings, with their fuel load, probably remained in the building, where they provided fuel for the subsequent burning. The fierce burning that took place over the next hour was slowly fed by the fuel leaking out of the remains of the tanks.

At high temperatures, steel will melt. At much lower temperatures, it weakens. The jet fuel created a holocaust far hotter than planned for in the building. When the columns weakened, they became vulnerable to buckling. When buckling takes place, it takes place quickly. When one column buckles, it puts more weight on the others, and they buckle too. The columns for an entire floor (maybe for several floors) buckled at one time. The upper floors then slammed into the lower floors. The impact multiplied the force on these lower floors, and they buckled. The process continued as each lower floor continued to buckle in turn. In a few seconds, the entire building had collapsed.

Did the terrorists know this would happen. No. This was a new mode for the collapse of a tall building that was completely unanticipated. I can't rule out that some engineer, sometime, didn't write a memo pointing out this failure mode, but it was not well known. If it were, the building would not have had 300 firemen in the building at the time of collapse.

It is the fire that eventually caused the buildings to collapse. It was not the impact of the plane; it was not the explosion.

 

[Javert]

well burner like wence said, the chance of 2 buildings of that height doing the same exact thing, is next to impossible... the planes weren't american airlines, they had a green symbol on the tail... right their proves many people wrong. how many times do people have to say, THE FUEL AND FIRE FROM THE PLANES COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THE STEEL TO MELT.

Perhaps the only thing seinfeldrules and I can ever agree on is that neither of us can understand your grammar...

 

[burner69]

well burner like wence said, the chance of 2 buildings of that height doing the same exact thing, is next to impossible... the planes weren't american airlines, they had a green symbol on the tail... right their proves many people wrong. how many times do people have to say, THE FUEL AND FIRE FROM THE PLANES COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THE STEEL TO MELT.

I wouldn't say impossible at all. They collapsed after two planes crashed into them. Not that impossible at all really.

The planes weren't american airlines? Kindly show me a photo that proves this, and then explain why the aeroplane's blackboxs were recovered there. Then explain where the two hijacked planes, and their passengers went to. Then explain why people on that plane phoned their loved ones to say they had been hijacked. Then explain who crashed this green tailed plane into the building. Then explain why they would hijack two planes, then crash another two planes into the WTC.

Find proof against some or all of these points and you have an argument. Until then you're grabbing at straws that lead nowhere. I've read the sites you seem to be getting your info from, and believe me, as exciting as they sound, their arguments can easily be disproved at the first hurdle, or they rely on bold statements which are impossible to prove wrong. There are better conspiracies out there, with quite a bit more going for them than "green tipped planes crashing into explosive packed buildings" crap.

Sorry, but it is crap.

 

[SirWence]

For once seinfeld, I'm on your side here.

Guys, as soon as you start saying everyone who has evidence that disproves your theory has been paid off by the government... well... ur going into paranoia territory.

------------

Just because your paranoid doesnt mean someones not after you.

And why did hitler torch the reichstag just curious .. and what did he get out of it?

And the melting point of steel is roughly 2500 F the fire would never have reached near that 1500 at most then a rapid decline. if the fire would cause a collapse it would have been after hours not some 58 or so minutes.

And i love in general how no one was held accountable or was basicly fired. and the 9/11 commision was such bullshit it makes me want to gag christ. Name me one tough question they asked, and why wasnt it under oath and why was the commison not bi partisan. and no one it was not a bi partisan commision look who was on it.

Sad to say i dont think they could have pulled off this "attack" without the help or "allowence" of some 3 letter orgs.

Hate to say it but Freedom and Democracy which we arent a democracy in the first place are mroe or less dieing in this country look around you no privacy left and people saying here are my rights keep me safe.. pfft cowards :flame:

And sein if you truly believe this yourself "No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation- General Douglas MacArthur " Then most of the people in country should not have the blessings of freedom.

 

[burner69]

------------

Just because your paranoid doesnt mean someones not after you.

And i love in general how no one was held accountable or was basicly fired. and the 9/11 commision was such bullshit it makes me want to gag christ. Name me one tough question they asked, and why wasnt it under oath and why was the commison not bi partisan. and no one it was not a bi partisan commision look who was on it.

Hate to say it but Freedom and Democracy which we arent a democracy in the first place are mroe or less dieing in this country look around you no privacy left and people saying here are my rights keep me safe.. pfft cowards :flame:

Ha, yeah, they're at my door now man

Officials always get out of crap - like why the hell is nobody being held accountable for the aweful Iraq WMD info... oh wait... they're being made president of Iraq... strange world we live in.

Democracy is turning around it seems, yes, I want to read up a bit about these new patriot acts Bush is introducing, I've heard they're quite messed up... and starting to look like the start of police state rules... oooh dear

 

[SirWence]

Ha, yeah, they're at my door now man

Officials always get out of crap - like why the hell is nobody being held accountable for the aweful Iraq WMD info... oh wait... they're being made president of Iraq... strange world we live in.

Democracy is turning around it seems, yes, I want to read up a bit about these new patriot acts Bush is introducing, I've heard they're quite messed up... and starting to look like the start of police state rules... oooh dear

Indeed that new intel bill gives the power to form a NATIONAL ID at the snap of the fingers fun fun

 

[burner69]

And imposes the death penalty on fifteen new violations, including some extremely vague ones. Also potentially allows the government to remove an americans identity as an american, and throw them in a cell indefinatley.

Many very disturbing things.

 

[Javert]

javert if you cannot read that then you must be handicapped or something... nothing in what i said was gramatically incorrect... i could read it fine. if you have a problem reading what i wrote then i suggest you go back to language arts class.

If I may quote: "...right their proves many people wrong."

If you see my public profile, I am beyond 'language arts' classes. And you needing to attack me personally rather than attack my source diminishes your stature, so don't bother. I'd rather attack your source/argument as well, if I was able to read it.

And the melting point of steel is roughly 2500 F the fire would never have reached near that 1500 at most then a rapid decline. if the fire would cause a collapse it would have been after hours not some 58 or so minutes.

And i love in general how no one was held accountable or was basicly fired. and the 9/11 commision was such bullshit it makes me want to gag christ. Name me one tough question they asked, and why wasnt it under oath and why was the commison not bi partisan. and no one it was not a bi partisan commision look who was on it.

I would assume that the steel was already very weakened by the force of the impact and the explosion, so that number probably wouldn't hold up. Plus, the steel need not melt entirely, just enough to have its strength largely diminished.
As for your second point, I agree. The purpose of the 9/11 commission was not to find conspiracy theories, but to hold someone accountable. Of course no one in our gov't refuses to take the blame, and the president refused to testify, so that's where we are now.

 

[SirWence]

My location states my opinion on the subject heh, and my opinion is now being a sad reality, i was asked well then how long will it take!? 1 day after the next terrorist attack in America. thats how long. It's so sad that people in this country have become so weak and/or blind. Nothing destroys' a 'free' country faster then blind nationalism and fear mongering.. And fear and war are the best ways to keep a people 'in check' its all classic signs just read 1984 and look at 2004 not much of a difference it makes me very sad though.. because i know i cant beat the 'system' but i will still try to anyway

 

[burner69]

well burner like wence said, the chance of 2 buildings of that height doing the same exact thing, is next to impossible... the planes weren't american airlines, they had a green symbol on the tail... right their proves many people wrong. how many times do people have to say, THE FUEL AND FIRE FROM THE PLANES COULD NOT HAVE CAUSED THE STEEL TO MELT.

'Well burner' is an introductory statement and should be suceeded by a comma.

'like wence said, the chance of 2 buildings' comma should be a semi-colon.[/B]

right their proves many people wrong their suggests ownership by a second party, rather than 'there' which seems to fit better as it suggests placement; "Right there"

I'm only f**king with ya mate, just so you know you're not alone;

And imposes the death penalty on fifteen new violations, including some extremely vague ones. Also potentially allows the government to remove an americans identity as an american, and throw them in a cell indefinatley.

Many very disturbing things.

Also potentially Should begin with an 'it'.
americans identity possesive apostrophe
in a cell --> into

Who cares about grammer, spelling, this is a forum guys, lets debate.

And by the way, read the evidence that explains how the structure could have collapsed after a plane slammed into it. Believe me, things are more interesting if you take into account both side's evidence. You feel a bit more knowledgable for it - and yes I do listen to other people's arguments, and have changed my opinions on this forum after hearing both sides of the story.

There are some good unbias 9/11 sites out there, which you'll be glad to know pin some blame on the government, but through sorting of evidence discover answers I think we all find a bit closer to the truth.

 

[burner69]

Nothing destroys' a 'free' country faster then blind nationalism and fear mongering..

Quote of the day for me

 

[burner69]

exactly burner, it's small gramatical errors. it's not like you cant read it b/c i didn't put a , somewhere... i mean seriously... who the **** cares about that?

Meh, screw ppl who tell u otherwise.

but seriously, have a goose at some other opinions, it's v.easy to get caught up by an interesting theory without looking for other sources. Very easy to start believing what you're being told; ask anyone who watches FOX news

 

[SirWence]

thanks for makeing that quote of the day