9/11: What really happened on that day?

[phoenyx]

I take that to mean you started this thread because you wearied of having your lies so easily exposed on the 911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile??? thread and needed a new place to post your 9/11 CT lies.

You sound just like those who are quick to label anyone who believes the official story a shill. Just because you don't believe what I believe doesn't mean I'm lying. If you'd fully read the OP, you would know why I started this thread.

Not EVERYONE who doesnt believe the official story of the governments is a lying paid shill like sayit,faun,iroise and candyass of course.

the ones that come and just post one liner insults when they see an OP like this saying stuff like- "You fucking idiot,go somewhere else and troll and take that tin foil hat with you." or that other Bush dupe who earlier said this-"Wacko conspiracists like this go straight to my ignore list."

Now THOSE kind of people are just brainwashed Bush dupes in denial and dont want to look at the evidence. they are just brainwashed same as i once was for three years on this.

The ones that are paid shills that you are too ignorant to accept,are easy as pie to spot and include sayit,faun,iroise and of course their ringleader,the biggest troll of them all candyass.

Now I'm being insulted by my side of the fence as well -.-. A word of advice- calling someone ignorant generally isn't the best way to persuade them that you're right. As to sayit, Faun, Iroise and candy, it seems that you believe that anyone sticks around here and continues to disagree with you is a shill. Reminds me of many if not all of the people you mentioned think of truthers- they seem to think that truthers lie to get attention, apparently. Lots of speculation and a terrible waste of time on both sides. What we should be focusing on is the evidence.

they play dodgeball and go into evade mode changing the subject when they are cornered by pesky facts they cant address with bible length rants full of lies and propaganda just as their handlers instruct them to do so because gullible people like you OBSESSED over this,will waste their time on them unable to understand 9/11 is the least of our problems we have to worry about from the government right now.

If I felt I was wasting my time, I'd spend it elsewhere. As to what they do with the evidence, that's their concern. The only rule I have is that there has to be an adequate amount of civility in the discussion.

I was once gullible as you were and also ignorantly wasted my time on them for a few years but eventually wised up.

You've told me this story before -.-...

 

[phoenyx]

he wised up and became a paid shill

I trust your compensation package has all the perks ?

 

[irosie91]

he wised up and became a paid shill

I trust your compensation package has all the perks ?

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...[/Q


LONG LONG LONG ago----I was a kid with an older brother who read POPULAR MECHANICS regularly-----He once explained to me that GLASS has the physical characteristics of a LIQUID.------in fact it is "liquid" because all CRYSTALS
are "Liquid" sorta Then he went on to explain why glass
"FLOWS" I did not get it-----my major was biology---his was physics----he got to be the chairman of two of the most prestigious University Physics departments in the USA----was recognized by the president with the ?? PRESIDENT's FREEDOM AWARD for his work with NASA-----next time I talk to him I will ask him about the crystalline structure of the metal
of which planes are made and why they have the properties of
a LIQUID -------ok?

 

[phoenyx]

Technically, Popular Mechanics says that the majority of the plane was liquified rather then vaporized. I imagine Zeitgeist said vaporized, because liquid metal doesn't just disappear into thin air after the event. Here's the quote from Popular Mechanics:
**Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."**...

LONG LONG LONG ago----I was a kid with an older brother who read POPULAR MECHANICS regularly-----He once explained to me that GLASS has the physical characteristics of a LIQUID.------in fact it is "liquid" because all CRYSTALS
are "Liquid" sorta Then he went on to explain why glass
"FLOWS" I did not get it-----my major was biology---his was physics----he got to be the chairman of two of the most prestigious University Physics departments in the USA----was recognized by the president with the ?? PRESIDENT's FREEDOM AWARD for his work with NASA-----next time I talk to him I will ask him about the crystalline structure of the metal
of which planes are made and why they have the properties of
a LIQUID -------ok?

I transferred my response to the Pentagon event thread here, as it's a subject that we've been talking about for a while in this forum...
911 Pentagon - 757 or cruise missile???

 

[candycorn]

Now I'm being insulted by my side of the fence as well -.-. A word of advice- calling someone ignorant generally isn't the best way to persuade them that you're right. As to sayit, Faun, Iroise and candy, it seems that you believe that anyone sticks around here and continues to disagree with you is a shill. Reminds me of many if not all of the people you mentioned think of truthers- they seem to think that truthers lie to get attention, apparently. Lots of speculation and a terrible waste of time on both sides. What we should be focusing on is the evidence.

I agree. And since you will accept nothing excpet evidence that has a some bizarre custody chain and dismiss out of hand anything else (including exhibits in a federal trial), I will no longer accept CIT interviews as evidence.

For all I know, they dubbed someone else's voice over all of the "witnesses" and pulled those guys out of some half-way house.

If you were not the one conducting the interview, it's inadmissible from now on and it's only admissible if the entire thing is submitted--editing lies of course.

So now I have an impossibly high standard of evidentiary acceptance too. I encourage everyone to follow your example and demand clear evidence chains of custody, trust nobody up to and including federal prosecutors (much less 2 asswipes on the Internet).

Thanks for showing us exactly what evidence should be like.

So what would you like to discuss now? More hearsay which is inadmissible?

 

[Capstone]

...I agree that the plane that approached the Pentagon was smaller then a 757, but I think that's about as far as we agree on that point. ...

Corroborated eyewitness testimonies that were gathered and recorded for posterity on the day of the incident cannot be ignored or discounted, particularly when what they "corroborated" flew in the face of the official narrative from the get-go. That's true, because we can reasonably preclude such accounts from the list of likely fabrications. Obviously, those who may have sought to fabricate eyewitness testimony in order to prop up the official storyline wouldn't have conjured up accounts that fatally contradicted it! Don Wright, Steve Patterson, and Omar Campos all saw the plane hit the building. Moreover, the plane that they and several others described bore a striking resemblance to the one pictured in my previous post (BTW, the Lockheed Jetstar has a long and storied history of government service, including stints as Air Force 2).

It should be said: unlike most of the OCT apologists I've engaged on the matter, I haven't ignored or denied the abundance of contradictory eyewitness testimony concerning the planes that were seen at or near the Pentagon at the time of the "attack"; I've endeavored instead to explain it. In my opinion, the coordinated flyover/strike, as described in my last post, does just that.

...As to the passengers on the 4 planes alleged to have crashed on 9/11, I believe that Phil Jayhan's work on the subject is the most persuasive:
Phil Jayhan: The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What Happened to the Passengers? - Golden Age of Gaia

I think it may not be quite the same as your own theory, but I think the differences are minor.

The thing that bothers me most about the BTS data anomalies is that they only involve the American Airlines jets - this despite the fact that those flights allegedly originated from different airports. The Bureau can only report what's been reported to it. If, for whatever reason, AA chose or was advised not to report on various aspects of the "hijacked" aircraft, then we'd expect the missing/incomplete data to apply to its planes only, which is exactly what we see on the relevant BTS reports. I'm not saying that's what happened; I'm just a bit leery of using those data anomalies as a foundation for the claim that Flights 11 and 77 never actually took off on 9/11/01.

On a peripherally related note, there was a huge stink raised a couple of years ago over some perceived anomalies in the FBI's crime stats for 2012. It turned out that those anomalies were due to the fact that the Sandy Hook killings were reported by the Ct. State Police instead of the Newtown Police Dept. - a fact that left egg on the faces of quite a few conspiracy theorists.

Anyhoo, as you rightly pointed out, the differences between my beliefs and those of Jayhan are pretty much academic. He doesn't deny that the passenger lists for 11, 175, and 77 were legit. He simply posits a different means for the doomed passengers' rendezvous with Flight 93. It's basically the same idea.

 

[phoenyx]

Now I'm being insulted by my side of the fence as well -.-. A word of advice- calling someone ignorant generally isn't the best way to persuade them that you're right. As to sayit, Faun, Iroise and candy, it seems that you believe that anyone sticks around here and continues to disagree with you is a shill. Reminds me of many if not all of the people you mentioned think of truthers- they seem to think that truthers lie to get attention, apparently. Lots of speculation and a terrible waste of time on both sides. What we should be focusing on is the evidence.

I agree. And since you will accept nothing except evidence that has a some bizarre custody chain

Clearly, you've never heard of the term 'chain of custody'. I think a wikipedia lesson is in order:
**
Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence.

Particularly important in criminal cases, the concept is also applied in civil litigation—and sometimes more broadly in drug testing of athletes, traceabilityof food products, and to provide assurances that wood products originate from sustainably managed forests.

The term is also sometimes used in the fields of history, art history, and archives as a synonym for provenance (meaning the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object, document or group of documents), which may be an important factor in determining authenticity.**

Source: Chain of custody - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bolded words after "chain of custody" were mine, as they're pretty important.

and dismiss out of hand anything else (including exhibits in a federal trial),

A kangarou court makes a mockery of justice. Just because Moussaoui said it was fine -after- he found out he wasn't going to be executed doesn't change this.

...I will no longer accept CIT interviews as evidence.

Suit yourself. I will continue to cite it as evidence though.

For all I know, they dubbed someone else's voice over all of the "witnesses" and pulled those guys out of some half-way house.

Did the U.S. Army Center for Military History and the Library of Congress also pull some of them out of some half-way house -.-?

 

[candycorn]

Now I'm being insulted by my side of the fence as well -.-. A word of advice- calling someone ignorant generally isn't the best way to persuade them that you're right. As to sayit, Faun, Iroise and candy, it seems that you believe that anyone sticks around here and continues to disagree with you is a shill. Reminds me of many if not all of the people you mentioned think of truthers- they seem to think that truthers lie to get attention, apparently. Lots of speculation and a terrible waste of time on both sides. What we should be focusing on is the evidence.

I agree. And since you will accept nothing except evidence that has a some bizarre custody chain

Clearly, you've never heard of the term 'chain of custody'. I think a wikipedia lesson is in order:
**
Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence.

Particularly important in criminal cases, the concept is also applied in civil litigation—and sometimes more broadly in drug testing of athletes, traceabilityof food products, and to provide assurances that wood products originate from sustainably managed forests.

The term is also sometimes used in the fields of history, art history, and archives as a synonym for provenance (meaning the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object, document or group of documents), which may be an important factor in determining authenticity.**

Source: Chain of custody - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bolded words after "chain of custody" were mine, as they're pretty important.

and dismiss out of hand anything else (including exhibits in a federal trial),

A kangarou court makes a mockery of justice. Just because Moussaoui said it was fine -after- he found out he wasn't going to be executed doesn't change this.

...I will no longer accept CIT interviews as evidence.

Suit yourself. I will continue to cite it as evidence though.

For all I know, they dubbed someone else's voice over all of the "witnesses" and pulled those guys out of some half-way house.

Did the U.S. Army Center for Military History and the Library of Congress also pull some of them out of some half-way house -.-?

Unless you have sworn affidavits (notarized) from the witnesses, we will just assume CIT is lying; just as you assume everyone that has a different version of events than you is lying to you. Sounds fair.

 

[Dale Smith]

...I agree that the plane that approached the Pentagon was smaller then a 757, but I think that's about as far as we agree on that point. ...

Corroborated eyewitness testimonies that were gathered and recorded for posterity on the day of the incident cannot be ignored or discounted, particularly when what they "corroborated" flew in the face of the official narrative from the get-go. That's true, because we can reasonably preclude such accounts from the list of likely fabrications. Obviously, those who may have sought to fabricate eyewitness testimony in order to prop up the official storyline wouldn't have conjured up accounts that fatally contradicted it! Don Wright, Steve Patterson, and Omar Campos all saw the plane hit the building. Moreover, the plane that they and several others described bore a striking resemblance to the one pictured in my previous post (BTW, the Lockheed Jetstar has a long and storied history of government service, including stints as Air Force 2).

It should be said: unlike most of the OCT apologists I've engaged on the matter, I haven't ignored or denied the abundance of contradictory eyewitness testimony concerning the planes that were seen at or near the Pentagon at the time of the "attack"; I've endeavored instead to explain it. In my opinion, the coordinated flyover/strike, as described in my last post, does just that.

...As to the passengers on the 4 planes alleged to have crashed on 9/11, I believe that Phil Jayhan's work on the subject is the most persuasive:
Phil Jayhan: The "4" Flights of 9/11 - What Happened to the Passengers? - Golden Age of Gaia

I think it may not be quite the same as your own theory, but I think the differences are minor.

The thing that bothers me most about the BTS data anomalies is that they only involve the American Airlines jets - this despite the fact that those flights allegedly originated from different airports. The Bureau can only report what's been reported to it. If, for whatever reason, AA chose or was advised not to report on various aspects of the "hijacked" aircraft, then we'd expect the missing/incomplete data to apply to its planes only, which is exactly what we see on the relevant BTS reports. I'm not saying that's what happened; I'm just a bit leery of using those data anomalies as a foundation for the claim that Flights 11 and 77 never actually took off on 9/11/01.

On a peripherally related note, there was a huge stink raised a couple of years ago over some perceived anomalies in the FBI's crime stats for 2012. It turned out that those anomalies were due to the fact that the Sandy Hook killings were reported by the Ct. State Police instead of the Newtown Police Dept. - a fact that left egg on the faces of quite a few conspiracy theorists.

Anyhoo, as you rightly pointed out, the differences between my beliefs and those of Jayhan are pretty much academic. He doesn't deny that the passenger lists for 11, 175, and 77 were legit. He simply posits a different means for the doomed passengers' rendezvous with Flight 93. It's basically the same idea.

No one died at Sandy Hook......ask me how I know. A passenger plane did not hit the Pentagon..ask me how I know. Dick Cheney took over command of NORAD in June of 2001....unprecedented and then he allowed an alleged jet to get within the parameters of the Pentagon while giving stand down orders and we have testimony of that.

Norman Mineta testifying before the 9/11 Commission, though it was omitted from their final report. He told Lee Hamilton:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out…and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”

 

[phoenyx]

...I agree that the plane that approached the Pentagon was smaller then a 757, but I think that's about as far as we agree on that point. ...

Corroborated eyewitness testimonies that were gathered and recorded for posterity on the day of the incident cannot be ignored or discounted, particularly when what they "corroborated" flew in the face of the official narrative from the get-go. That's true, because we can reasonably preclude such accounts from the list of likely fabrications...

I responded in one of the Pentagon attack threads here, as I think this particular aspect of 9/11 deserves a thread all to itself...
Hmmm. Pentagon. Plane? MISSILE??

 

[Mr Natural]

In order to justify the much planned Iraq Fiasco, the Cheney/Bush people had their good buddies the Saudis round up some of their crazies and teach tem how to fly loaded airplanes into the World Trade Center conveniently located in Liberal dominated NYC.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The issue is The Twin Towers Anomaly.

How could a 150 ton airliner destroy a 400,000 ton skyscraper in less than 2 hours and make it come down in less than 30 seconds? Regardless of which conspiracy is responsible the physics should be explained.

Then the physicists must explain why they didn't explain in by January of 2003.

psik

 

[SAYIT]

The issue is The Twin Towers Anomaly.

How could a 150 ton airliner destroy a 400,000 ton skyscraper in less than 2 hours and make it come down in less than 30 seconds? Regardless of which conspiracy is responsible the physics should be explained.

Then the physicists must explain why they didn't explain in by January of 2003.

psik

You can't be this devoid of 9/11 knowledge 15 years after the attack so I must conclude you don't really care about facts or truth ... just your agenda (whatever that happens to be).

Here's a clue: the airliners did not destroy the Towers. Just as we watched, the fires weakened enough support to cause the weight of multiple floors to collapse and crush the floors below. This is not rocket science but if you can't accept what so many of us observed on 9/11/01, physicists won't be able to help you.

 

[psikeyhackr]

The issue is The Twin Towers Anomaly.

How could a 150 ton airliner destroy a 400,000 ton skyscraper in less than 2 hours and make it come down in less than 30 seconds? Regardless of which conspiracy is responsible the physics should be explained.

Then the physicists must explain why they didn't explain in by January of 2003.

psik

You can't be this devoid of 9/11 knowledge 15 years after the attack so I must conclude you don't really care about facts or truth ... just your agenda (whatever that happens to be).

Here's a clue: the airliners did not destroy the Towers. Just as we watched, the fires weakened enough support to cause the weight of multiple floors to collapse and crush the floors below. This is not rocket science but if you can't accept what so many of us observed on 9/11/01, physicists won't be able to help you.

A distinction without a difference. But there have been so many other fires in skyscrapers that were bigger and lasted longer and yet the buildings did not collapse. So your comment is really just bullshit.

But then firefighters got to the 78th floor of the south tower and reported back that the fire could be "knocked down with two lines" and then the building suddenly collapsed in less than 30 seconds.

I guess fire fighters don't know shit about fires.

It is also curious that in 1940 it only took 4 months for a college professor and his students to build a 50 ft 1/200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillation. No computers in 1940. But in FIFTEEN YEARS we do not have physical or virtual models of the north tower collapse to explain how it came down so quickly.

Sorry that I am so devoid of knowledge! Let's just say that I am devoid of BELIEF.

PROVE IT!!!

psik

 

[phoenyx]

In order to justify the much planned Iraq Fiasco, the Cheney/Bush people had their good buddies the Saudis round up some of their crazies and teach tem how to fly loaded airplanes into the World Trade Center conveniently located in Liberal dominated NYC.

Perhaps some Saudis were led to believe that this is what their role would be. Based on what I have seen, however, their real role was primarily that of patsies. Here's a link on the 9/11 hijackers:
At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive

As to Hani Hanjour in particular:
"This guy could not solo a Cessna 150 ... and what I mean by solo is a pilot's first time out without anyone in the cockpit with him. It's the most simple, the most fundamental flying exercise one can engage in..."
Read more at: Flight 77 Hijacker Hani Hanjour - 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire

 

[phoenyx]

Dick Cheney took over command of NORAD in June of 2001....unprecedented and then he allowed an alleged jet to get within the parameters of the Pentagon while giving stand down orders and we have testimony of that.

Norman Mineta testifying before the 9/11 Commission, though it was omitted from their final report. He told Lee Hamilton:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out…and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”

I find that this is a point that those who believe the official story generally don't want to deal with- it is very hard to fit this into their narrative that 9/11 wasn't an inside job...

 

[phoenyx]

Now I'm being insulted by my side of the fence as well -.-. A word of advice- calling someone ignorant generally isn't the best way to persuade them that you're right. As to sayit, Faun, Iroise and candy, it seems that you believe that anyone sticks around here and continues to disagree with you is a shill. Reminds me of many if not all of the people you mentioned think of truthers- they seem to think that truthers lie to get attention, apparently. Lots of speculation and a terrible waste of time on both sides. What we should be focusing on is the evidence.

I agree. And since you will accept nothing except evidence that has a some bizarre custody chain

Clearly, you've never heard of the term 'chain of custody'. I think a wikipedia lesson is in order:
**
Chain of custody (CoC), in legal contexts, refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence.

Particularly important in criminal cases, the concept is also applied in civil litigation—and sometimes more broadly in drug testing of athletes, traceabilityof food products, and to provide assurances that wood products originate from sustainably managed forests.

The term is also sometimes used in the fields of history, art history, and archives as a synonym for provenance (meaning the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object, document or group of documents), which may be an important factor in determining authenticity.**

Source: Chain of custody - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bolded words after "chain of custody" were mine, as they're pretty important.

and dismiss out of hand anything else (including exhibits in a federal trial),

A kangarou court makes a mockery of justice. Just because Moussaoui said it was fine -after- he found out he wasn't going to be executed doesn't change this.

...I will no longer accept CIT interviews as evidence.

Suit yourself. I will continue to cite it as evidence though.

For all I know, they dubbed someone else's voice over all of the "witnesses" and pulled those guys out of some half-way house.

Did the U.S. Army Center for Military History and the Library of Congress also pull some of them out of some half-way house -.-?

Unless you have sworn affidavits (notarized) from the witnesses, we will just assume CIT is lying; just as you assume everyone that has a different version of events than you is lying to you. Sounds fair.

First of all, it's not -my- version of events, it's the version that the majority of the witnesses in the best positions to know the flight path the plane took in its final approach to the Pentagon. Secondly, I have never just "assumed" any of the witnesses were lying. If I had, I wouldn't have spent a considerable amount of time discussing various witnesses that he himself brought up with Faun.

 

[phoenyx]

The issue is The Twin Towers Anomaly.

How could a 150 ton airliner destroy a 400,000 ton skyscraper in less than 2 hours and make it come down in less than 30 seconds? Regardless of which conspiracy is responsible the physics should be explained.

Then the physicists must explain why they didn't explain in by January of 2003.

psik

I think one physicist named Steven Jones did a pretty good job of it...
In this paper I question the “official” story that the collapses of the high-rise World Trade Center buildings on 9-11-01 were

 

[phoenyx]

The issue is The Twin Towers Anomaly.

How could a 150 ton airliner destroy a 400,000 ton skyscraper in less than 2 hours and make it come down in less than 30 seconds? Regardless of which conspiracy is responsible the physics should be explained.

Then the physicists must explain why they didn't explain in by January of 2003.

psik

You can't be this devoid of 9/11 knowledge 15 years after the attack so I must conclude you don't really care about facts or truth ... just your agenda (whatever that happens to be).

Here's a clue: the airliners did not destroy the Towers. Just as we watched, the fires weakened enough support to cause the weight of multiple floors to collapse and crush the floors below. This is not rocket science but if you can't accept what so many of us observed on 9/11/01, physicists won't be able to help you.

A distinction without a difference. But there have been so many other fires in skyscrapers that were bigger and lasted longer and yet the buildings did not collapse. So your comment is really just bullshit.

But then firefighters got to the 78th floor of the south tower and reported back that the fire could be "knocked down with two lines" and then the building suddenly collapsed in less than 30 seconds.

I guess fire fighters don't know shit about fires.

It is also curious that in 1940 it only took 4 months for a college professor and his students to build a 50 ft 1/200th scale model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in a wind tunnel to study the oscillation. No computers in 1940. But in FIFTEEN YEARS we do not have physical or virtual models of the north tower collapse to explain how it came down so quickly.

Sorry that I am so devoid of knowledge! Let's just say that I am devoid of BELIEF.

PROVE IT!!!

psik

-Some- models have been done. Not in the detail I imagine you'd like, but good enough to make their point nonetheless. Take this simple one that is simply bringing up Newton's laws of motion...

 

[rightwinger]

I believe:

- When the towers and WTC7 were built they were wired with explosives so that someday they could be imploded on government command
- Our leaders secretly planned to kill thousands of Americans on 9-11 and laughed maniacally as they did it
- We waited 30 years for terrorists to fly into the towers. and then remotely exploded the buildings at exactly the point of impact
- People jumped from the towers because they heard the government was going to explode them
- WTC 7 was allowed to burn for hours before it was remotely exploded without concern that the fire could mess up the prewired explosive charges
- A missile flew into the Pentagon and the actual 757 was flown to a remote airfield where our government executed the passengers
- A missile was launched at Shanksville and Flight 93 was diverted elsewhere and all the passengers were killed by our government