9/11 Conspiracies - What do you think happened? - [Closes 13/05/07]

[RedStratocas]

i believe its all bullcrap, but the american goverment says a plan crashed into the pentagon, how ever, on video footage just after the ''crash'' there were no signs of any plane at all, also if a small commercial plane flew so low to crash into the pentagon, then surely all the lamposts/street lights would have been messed around and disloged, how ever NONE of them were messed up, And also if it was a small plane, then surely MORE of the pentagon must have been destoryed. Most conspiracy stories say that a rocket hit the pentagon, Wich i do believe, if this is the case why did the goverment hide it? It Baffles me.

It did knock down street lights. And the conspiracy is that the government did it, so thats probably why they'd hide it.

[HabboIsKrouts]

Variouse video footage has shown tht the path of the ''plane'' was coming from one angle wich was swarmed with traffic lights, NONE were disloged.

[Nixt]

Variouse video footage has shown tht the path of the ''plane'' was coming from one angle wich was swarmed with traffic lights, NONE were disloged.

If you look just above the far right block, you can make out the Plane. Seconds later, there was this:



Yes the pictures are grainy

In addition, two people on United Airlines Flight 77 used phones to contact others - saying that their plane had been hijacked. I assume that this hijacked plane disappeared of the face of the earth? No, it flew into the Pentagon .
There are also many witnesses who saw the plane come out of the sky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...t_77#Witnesses. Oh wait, don't tell me, the Government paid them or something yeah?

[Sammeth.]

Variouse video footage has shown tht the path of the ''plane'' was coming from one angle wich was swarmed with traffic lights, NONE were disloged.

None were dislodged, no. But they were all snapped and bent severely. They were damaged.

[24]

One point which i cant get my head around.
In that video (the one which attempts to disprove the chance that there were any explosions in the tower). If it collapsed because of the fire (aruged that the steel twists inwards because of the fire), then why did the tower fall as it did straight down – like a controlled demolition. Surely the corner column would have caused the above floors to fall towards the damaged area off to the side FIRST which then could of later caused the rest of the building to collapse. Or am i wrong there?

[Mr.OSH]

Very simple really, I think that terrorists hijacked several planes and attempted to crash them into the Twin Tower and succeed and the building's support frames heated up and the building collapsed. I don't think the government did anything.

[Sammeth.]

One point which i cant get my head around.
In that video (the one which attempts to disprove the chance that there were any explosions in the tower). If it collapsed because of the fire (aruged that the steel twists inwards because of the fire), then why did the tower fall as it did straight down – like a controlled demolition. Surely the corner column would have caused the above floors to fall towards the damaged area off to the side FIRST which then could of later caused the rest of the building to collapse. Or am i wrong there?

The video you are talking about is of the South Tower collapsing. On all videos you see of the South Tower collapsing, you will notice it didnt fall straight down. The top of it, tilted over and toppled slightly, caused by the inward column.

Another thing I dont understand is the famous picture of the woman standing in the hole of WTC1, after the plane struck. How she survived beats me, and the fact she can stand where fire was burning with ease surprises me, as that fire was supposed to be weakening steal structures.

[theman0001]

TBH, Loose Change Pretty Much Answers This Question;


Loose Change;
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...q=Loose+Change

Make Your Own Opinions But I STRONGLY Urge You To Watch That Video If You Have An Hour And A Half Spare

tbh all that video did was prove how noobish you all are, it asks why windows next to the impact weren't smashed, then later it says that there were 2 inch thick blast proof windows..., also this the windows still would have been smashed if a tomohawk had hit them.

also (nothing to do with loose change) i think that the plane weackend structures by smashing into them not melting them
loose change says something should have happend, then later on explains a perfect theory why that thing would not have happend

[Mentor]

Make that clear in your post then. "if you match the size of the planes up with the towers the plane's are almost the same size," We cant read minds you know.

Well i didnt think anyone would be stupid enough to assume a plain is as tall as one of the world trade centers.

My dad's work has around 15 CCTV's. I have seen them all. It depends how much money you are willing to spend on them. You can get really good quality ones. Not all of them are crap black and white ones.

Does your dad work in a CITGO Petrol station? which all use the same mass brought cctv camras in there petrol stations. which happen to be crap.

Company's dont get the insurance money, the plane industry is worth alot more than the insurance on the twin towers was, scareing people of flying, massivly reduceing there profits is a pretty stupid business practice.

Gold under the twin towers.

Which was recovered and none of which went to any airline companys. Or did the goverment do it, i mean seeing as the $160 billion doesnt come close to covering even a fraction of what the iraq war is costing, which was sparked by 9/11's terroist hot bed dislusions.

You ever read the news? Or do you have a social life? If you did, you would know that America attacked Afganistan.

We invaded Afghanistan? no i never knew that, all this time i thought we were working with afganistian's authority's...

If you watched Loose Change like you said you did, and you read my first post in this debate, you would realise they did a lot of drills.

Doing drills makes bombs strapped to supports invisible now does it?

Close friend of Bush? Just when I thought you couldnt get stupider. Oasma's brother is a good friend with Bush, NOT Osama.

that was bush senior?

It was a big building, easy to hide things.

The bigger the building the more bombs and wireting needed, so that wouldnt really help.

[Seatherny]

Well i didnt think anyone would be stupid enough to assume a plain is as tall as one of the world trade centers.

Knowing you, you probably are stupid enough to think they are the same size.

Does your dad work in a CITGO Petrol station? which all use the same mass brought cctv camras in there petrol stations. which happen to be crap.

That petrol station could have had high quality CCTV.

Which was recovered and none of which went to any airline companys. Or did the goverment do it, i mean seeing as the $160 billion doesnt come close to covering even a fraction of what the iraq war is costing, which was sparked by 9/11's terroist hot bed dislusions.


We invaded Afghanistan? no i never knew that, all this time i thought we were working with afganistian's authority's...

Wth did you say America never attacked Afganistan then. Stop contradicting yourself.

Doing drills makes bombs strapped to supports invisible now does it?

So you are saying, if I hide something in the worlds tallest building, you can easily find it?
Who says they were strapped to the supports? The bombs could have been near them - and the rooms could be locked.

that was bush senior?

What was Bush Senior? Bush Senior was mates with Bin Laden?

The bigger the building the more bombs and wireting needed, so that wouldnt really help.

Your spealling is awesome for an 18 year old :]. Its easy to hide bombs in such a large building. The bombs could have been detonated remotely or something.[/QUOTE]