jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (275 posts)

Was Al Qaeda responsible for 9-11?

  1. Claire Evans profile image91
    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago

    I was told this, "The Islamo-fascists who captured the planes of September 11 were singing 'Allah Akbar!' as the planes approached the twin towers on September 11, 2001. It was the last recorded messages from the cockpit before impact."

    Where is this proof of this?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This I have to say I don't find interesting and I don't think it matters, but I'll repost this anyway.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … lanes.html

      4) United Airlines Flight 93

      "At 10.01, Jarrah repeats "Allah is the Greatest!" before asking another hijacker: "Is that it? Shall we put it down?"
      His ally replied: "Yes pull it down".
      Jarrah rolled the plane onto its back, with shouts of "Allah is the Greatest" continuing in the cockpit.
      The counter-attack could still be heard as the Flight 93 plunged downwards, crashing just after 10.03 into an empty field in Pennsylvania, 20 minutes' flight time from Washington.
      As the 9/11 Report concluded: "Jarrah's objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United 93.""

      This is just an account from the black box, I haven't found the tape yet, and I don't have time to look right now, to be fair both could have been fabricated. I'm not a fan of the U.S. government of the time and wouldn't be surprised if they were involved. I'm not convince any plane crashed into the pentagon, but that is neither here nor there.

      You may be able to download the audio here http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/atcwav.shtml
      But it's doesn't matter because all of it could have been fabricated.

      1. Claire Evans profile image91
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Don't post me stuff that you say, "It doesn't matter". 

        That flight recorder proved nothing.   I didn't hear, "Allah Akbar!" Anyway, flight 93 was shot down.  There was no fighting for the controls:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnl … re=related

        Dick Cheney confessed he was the one who ordered Flight 93 to be shot down:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5GgZa9V0A8

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh Claire, those links mean nothing. Wether it was shot down or not still means nothing. I had seen a video that shows him helping victims of the pentagon at the time 93 crashed so he was not able to give the order anyway. I'm not sure if any of it is relevant in showing cause. Much of it can be fabricated after the fact anyway. The way the towers fell at almost the speed gravity would pull a free flowing object to the ground is also of concern, but doesn't prove a conspiracy.

          1. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Rad Man, it means everything! It means the US government was lying that the passengers fought for the controls and a struggle ensured between the hijackers and passengers with a recording that says, "Allah Akbar!"   What else are they lying about??

            It came from Dick Cheney's own mouth that he gave the order and from Rumsfeld's own mouth that Flight 93 was shot down.   Since Cheney knew that 9-11 was going to happen, he could give an order to shoot the plane down and "help" Pentagon victims at the same time.  Lol.

            What does the falling of the towers at free fall speed tell you? It tells you the towers didn't fall from heat stress and that it was a demolition.  What else does it look like?

            1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
              IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              it looks like Al-Queda hi-jacked planes and crashed them into buildings, this has all been de-bunked.

              1. Claire Evans profile image91
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Where was NORAD on that day? Please don't tell me you believe this nonsense.  What has all been debunked?

                1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
                  IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  NORAD was their however not given great advance by FAA. And I dont believe conspiracy theories, especially ones that have been debunked.

                  1. Claire Evans profile image91
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Can you explain this, please?

                    Before 9/11, it has always been standard operating procedure (SOP) for the Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with NORAD, to scramble jet fighters whenever an aircraft wanders off course or loses radio contact with air traffic controllers. In fact, it has been estimated that between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times.  In the year 2000, fighter jets were scrambled 129 times. So how did it happen that on 9/11 that not a single fighter jet engaged four commercial jets over a 90-minute period? How was it possible that the Pentagon, the headquarters of the biggest national military in the world, was hit a full 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation’s capital? Why has there been no disciplinary action for this appalling case of negligence?

            2. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Cite your source. No blogs accepted

              1. Claire Evans profile image91
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Go through the discussion.  I have posted the relevant links there.

        2. twosheds1 profile image61
          twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I watched those videos. Cheney said he gave the order that 93 be shot down, but also says IT WASN'T!

    2. 0
      Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am unaware of any empirical proof of the "Allah Akbar!" claim.

      What is the impetus for this question?

      1. Claire Evans profile image91
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Brian from Canada said that "Allah Akbar!" on the recordings of one of the hijacked flights is proof that religion, particularly Islam, was responsible for 9-11.   As you said, there is no empirical proof of such a thing and I'm going to need a HELL lot more than that to convince me Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11.

        1. 0
          Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Al-Qaeda and "religion" aren't the same thing. Either way, zealotry was responsible for 9/11.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            +++

          2. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I suppose people argue that if one kills in the name of Allah that is the Islam religion.  Doesn't it say in the Quran to kill infidels? 

            How much research have you done into who is responsible for 9-11 and just how ridiculous the official story is?

            1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
              IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              yes thats exactly what that means actually.

            2. The Suburban Poet profile image81
              The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              They probably shouted these things because they were about to die. People make the sign of the cross for many different things such as prior to an at bat in a baseball game or possibly just when a plane takes off (my boss does it everytime we travel). It is very common and for them to say it before their death is an extension of this in my view.

        2. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
          IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Just who do you think was responsible for 9/11

          1. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Mossad.   Those complicit were the US government (they knew before hand), Pakistan and Saudi Arab that I am aware of. 

            Here is what Benjamin Netanyahu (psycho) said about 9-11:

            "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,"

            What a sicko.

            1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
              IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Proove it.

              1. Claire Evans profile image91
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Just a couple of things to consider:

                Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:

                “All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”

                http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=622552


                Five Israeli army veterans were seen dancing with glee after the towers fell and they were arrested by the FBI.

                You can see them here:

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

                British intelligence reported in February 2002 that the Israeli Mossad ran the Arab hijacker cells that were later blamed by the U.S. government's 9/11 Commission for carrying out the aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. WMR has received details of the British intelligence report which was suppressed by the government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.

                A Mossad unit consisting of six Egyptian- and Yemeni-born Jews infiltrated "Al Qaeda" cells in Hamburg (the Atta-Mamoun Darkanzali cell), south Florida, and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates in the months before 9/11. The Mossad not only infiltrated cells but began to run them and give them specific orders that would eventually culminate in their being on board four regularly-scheduled flights originating in Boston, Washington Dulles, and Newark, New Jersey on 9/11.

                The Mossad infiltration team comprised six Israelis, comprising two cells of three agents, who all received special training at a Mossad base in the Negev Desert in their future control and handling of the "Al Qaeda" cells. One Mossad cell traveled to Amsterdam where they submitted to the operational control of the Mossad's Europe Station, which operates from the El Al complex at Schiphol International Airport. The three-man Mossad unit then traveled to Hamburg where it made contact with Mohammed Atta, who believed they were sent by Osama Bin Laden. In fact, they were sent by Ephraim Halevy, the chief of Mossad.

                The second three-man Mossad team flew to New York and then to southern Florida where they began to direct the "Al Qaeda" cells operating from Hollywood, Miami, Vero Beach, Delray Beach, and West Palm Beach. Israeli "art students," already under investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration for casing the offices and homes of federal law enforcement officers, had been living among and conducting surveillance of the activities, including flight school training, of the future Arab "hijacker" cells, particularly in Hollywood and Vero Beach.

                In August 2001, the first Mossad team flew with Atta and other Hamburg "Al Qaeda" members to Boston. Logan International Airport's security was contracted to Huntleigh USA, a firm owned by an Israeli airport security firm closely connected to Mossad - International Consultants on Targeted Security - ICTS. ICTS's owners were politically connected to the Likud Party, particularly the Netanyahu faction and then-Jerusalem mayor and future Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It was Olmert who personally interceded with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to have released from prison five Urban Moving Systems employees, identified by the CIA and FBI agents as Mossad agents. The Israelis were the only suspects arrested anywhere in the United States on 9/11 who were thought to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.

                More:

                http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22267 … -operation


                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5f4fbkn … r_embedded

                If you want to know the US and Pakistan involvement, go to my hub, "The US, Pakistan and Taliban love triangle."

                1. S Leretseh profile image80
                  S Leretsehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Loose Change does a very good job exposing the Bush Admin. as the one responsible for 9-11.  I believed it was the Arabs before watching this movie.  Also, much info on the internet exposing all the main parties involved in 9-11 - Bush, Cheney, Chertoff, Larry Silverstein. Mossad

                  Bottom line, all the people captured on 9-11 suspected of being involved in terrorist activities, were Israelis (including driving vans loaded with explosives!). Chertoff ordered all of them released - so they could go back to  Israel.  Just google 9-11 and Mossad, do the research and you can see for yourselves who pulled off 9-11 and why. The gov't version is ridiculous

                  1. Claire Evans profile image91
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You are absolutely correct.  It is also suspicious when you read the Mossad motto:

                    "By way of deception, thou shalt do war"

                    Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS (Army School of Advanced Military Studies) officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." Army School of Advanced Military Studies

                    http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=622552

                    Al Qaeda is not really at war with America and Israel.  They are recruited by them.  Here's the evidence:


                    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7279406_f248.jpg


                    Look at the Star of David around that Jihadist's neck.

                    See the link to see a better view:

                    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL … orist.html

              2. ElizaDoole profile image91
                ElizaDooleposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The Netanyahu quote about 9/11 benefitting Israel is here, and puts the comment in perspective.
                http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-neta … l-1.244044

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How does it put it into perspective? What a sick thing of Netanyahu to say that 9-11 benefited them.  You know what 9-11 achieved? It villianized the Muslims and made it look as if Israel had every right to call them terrorists.

                  That is what he meant.

              3. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Amazing how things change when you see the words in context .

                "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

                Netanyahu reportedly made the comments during a conference at Bar-Ilan University on the division of Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.

            2. The Suburban Poet profile image81
              The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              His comment while possibly unfortunate was true; it engaged the US militarily against the enemies of Israel. It is just a statement of fact and does not prove any prior knowledge. The commnet stand on its own.

          2. 0
            Sarra Garrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If you look closely at the 2nd plane that hit the 2nd tower there are no windows (such as windows on a passenger jet) there are no tail markings (as there are on passenger jets) and the plane is grey such as a military plane.  Who here believes in the "magic bullet" theory that killed Kennedy?!

        3. Repairguy47 profile image62
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What about them saying they did it? Seems to be proof to me.

          1. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Huh, Al Qaeda said they did it? Go through the entire comments section.  I'm not repeating myself.

            1. Repairguy47 profile image62
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Al Qaeda claimed responsibility!

              1. Claire Evans profile image91
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Lol

                1. Repairguy47 profile image62
                  Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Osama bin laden

                  ...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes

              2. American View profile image60
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Repair Guy,

                Yes they did, Osama Bin Laden bragged about it in one of his famous tape releases shortly after 9/11

                This is just one of several tapes

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkdFNLqJajM

                1. Repairguy47 profile image62
                  Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The OP doesn't seem to like facts!

                  1. Claire Evans profile image91
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If it is a fact that Bin Laden was involved why does the FBI say it has no hard evidence that Bin Laden was involved?

                2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The conspiracy theorists believe Bin Laden just woke up the morning of Sept. 12, turned on the tv and said, "Wow, why didn't I think of that?"

                  And, then decided to take credit for it when no one else stepped forward.

                  Uh-huh.

                  1. Claire Evans profile image91
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Wow, so you didn't know the part where Osama bin Laden denies having involvement?

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxmUFG9wOOQ

                3. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this
      2. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What does Allah Akbar mean/

        1. 0
          Chasukposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Apparently, the phrase is actually "Allahu Akbar," meaning "God is greater," "God is [the] Greatest," or "God is Great."

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahu_Akbar.

    3. twosheds1 profile image61
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They could have said "Go Browns!" or "Zeppelin rules!" or "Wouldn't you really rather drive a Buick?" but that wouldn't change the fact that al Qaeda was responsible. They have admitted it, all the evidence points to them. There is no reason to doubt, unless you're justifying your tinfoil hat.

      1. Claire Evans profile image91
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, where is there admission?

        Check this interview with Osama bin Laden shortly after 9-11:

        Following is the interview in full detail:

        "Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

        Usamah [Osama bin Laden]: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin true Muslim people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon.

        I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people."

        http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview- … t-in-9-11/

        My goodness, do you know how many times the CIA have faked videos of Al Qaeda?

        1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
          The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So do you believe Obama has committed a crime by ordering the murder of bin Laden?

          Also this link discusses the confession video aired on Al Jazeera back in 2004; Are you saying Al Jazeera was duped and aired a CIA doctored video? And if so how do you know this?

          http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2004 … 41029.html

          One more thing: are you a holocaust denier? I just want to know the extent of your assumptions about Jews.

          1. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            First of all, the whole Obama bin Laden "murder" was a fake.  It never happened.

            Former CIA agent interviewed back in 2008 confirmed bin Laden had been dead years ago.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njp0XYO6 … re=related

            You can hear it from his own mouth.

            The Pentagon has no records of bin Laden's death in the compound:


            I am not sure if you are aware that bin Laden was deathly ill when 9-11 happened.  He was dying of Marfan syndrome which caused kidney failure.  He would have needed dialysis if he hoped to remain alive.

            Taken from http://www.opposingviews.com/i/why-osam … rnment-lie

            "There are literally thousands of news sources that have documented 9 different instances in which Osama bin Laden was said to have died, but the most reliable story came from former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member, Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik. In an April 2002 interview with Alex Jones, Pieczenik said, “I worked with Osama bin Laden in ’78, ’81, and ‘79 when he was in Afghanistan…. And so we have a blowback with Osama. But what made it more difficult was, I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease. And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying. And you could see in those films, those made-up photos that they were sending us out of nowhere. I mean, suddenly, we would see a video of bin Laden today and then out of nowhere, they said oh it was sent to us anonymously, meaning that someone in the government, our government, was trying to keep up the morale on our side and say oh we still have to chase this guy when, in fact, he’s been dead for months…. I mean the whole thing was a, I mean it was such a hoax. I mean I said you would have to be, you know, blind and stupid to not realize that this is really being manipulating in trying to manipulate us…. And I think that Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, spilled the beans by accident three months ago when he said that bin Laden was dead because his kidney dialysis machines were destroyed in East Afghanistan”.

            The CIA has conceded to faking bin Laden confession videos:

            http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-cia- … video.html

            You can read about the history of those videos here:

            http://www.prisonplanet.com/epic-fail-t … tapes.html

            Even if the bin Laden killing back in 2011 was real, the NAVY seals had no right to shoot an unarmed man.  Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. 

            Al Jazeera is owned by the Illuminati.  Of course they lie.


            I don't see why you asked me if I am a Halocaust denier.  What's that got to do with anything?  It's like if you mention anything about Jews, like Mossad in my case, you must be anti-semetic have an agenda and hatred towards them.

            1. The Suburban Poet profile image81
              The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I consider Holocaust deniars to be Jew haters and emotionally compromised. Thanks for the info. I see what you believe. I'm done with the topic. Thank you...

              1. Claire Evans profile image91
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                How dare you imply I'm a Jew hater!  So no Jew is responsible for evil? And when someone points out the criminality of the Israeli Jewish intelligence agency, one is a Jew hater?  So if one condemns the Nazis, you are a German hater?

                Grow up.

            2. twosheds1 profile image61
              twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "Al Jazeera is owned by the Illuminati."

              That explains a lot. Good day, madam.

              1. Claire Evans profile image91
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LMAO! In other words, you've been pawned.

                How naive must you be to not know there are secret societies out there that own the world?

                But Al Qaeda hijacking planes makes far more sense!

                1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sweetie - I think you're the one who's been pawned.

                  You're seeing Mossad boogeymen hiding behind every tree. Very few of your "sources" are legit - and many of the videos cut out pertinent content because it counters the conspiracy.

                  I'm sad for you. I really am.

                  1. Claire Evans profile image91
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Prove what sources is not legit.  Refute the claims Mossad wasn't responsible.  Don't you think it's strange that some Mossad agents filmed the first plane hitting the towers and danced and shrieked with delight.  It's pretty amazing they caught the first plane on video and pretty sick they'd celebrate it.

                2. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
                  IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, it does actually. You finally got it.

                  1. Claire Evans profile image91
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Why are you in denial? You've provide NO evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11.

        2. twosheds1 profile image61
          twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And how do you know this interview is real?

          1. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It's quite ironic you doubt the authenticity of this interview when you believe 100% Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. 


            The claim was that bin Laden admitted to 9-11 which was a lie because the interview of bin Laden denying 9-11, came before any "admissions" that he was responsible. 

            Let's say we don't know the authenticity of either claims.  What is a fact is that Osama bin Laden was at death's door when 9-11 happened.  He had been sick for quiet some time and I don't think he'd have the health to plan such a thing.

            1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
              IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That isn't irony. Also Bin laden admitting to 9/11 is fact , unless of course you have proof stating otherwise. You just stated not knowing authenticity of either claims then go and spout off statements to be fact. And then another claim to be fact, yet no proof. So what illness did he have and why would said illness keep him from using his brain?

              1. Claire Evans profile image91
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The FBI would consider an admission from bin Laden as hard evidence but they say they have no hard evidence to accuse bin Laden on 9-11.


                If one was dying of kidney failure, I don't think they'd bother with attacks in America.  French intelligence said a CIA visited bin Laden at a Dubai hospital 2 months before 9-11.

                http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/no … .terrorism

                Read more here:

                http://www.infowars.com/top-doctor-conf … -syndrome/

    4. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We the USA are responsible for the attacks on 911. We planted the seed of unrest by awarding other peoples land to form Israel and we continue to back without question what Israel wants. What I don't understand is how the Palestinians could even agree to any negotitions implemented by the USA knowing how they were robbed by the United Nations of their land spearheaded by the USA in 1947. Truman didn't even like the idea as he signed it on behalf of the US. The general consensus from everybody on the Israeli side to the Palestinians is "get over it!". This will never come to an agreeable resolution until the parties that created this mess make an effort to rectify the unjust action in an unbiased way.

      So the next time someone says we (USA) suffered an "unprovoked" attack on 911, think about how you would feel if someone just declared your land somebody elses and the beneficiaries of that broad stroke of the pen bulldozed your house and moved you out to the suburbs with no compensation. Especially if your land had been in the family for centuries.

      1. Claire Evans profile image91
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Are you saying that USA is responsible for blow back or that Al Qaeda was not responsible for the attacks? Al Qaeda is in bed with the US and Mossad.  Al Qaeda does what they say and the US does what Israel says. 

        Did you know Israel created Hamas?

    5. EGAD Call profile image60
      EGAD Callposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes. This is such old news that it is ridiculous.

    6. safiq ali patel profile image70
      safiq ali patelposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps the truth is so well concealed that we human beings will never know what caused 9/11 and more specifically who was behind it. If 9/11 tells us anything it tells us that our word is dangerously in the hands of extremists and we need to make many changes if we are ever to be safe. Could I say for certain that it was the work of Al Qaydah. No I couldn't say it was that terrorist group for sure. What I can say thought is that hate for America has long been a part of some Islamist groups and perhaps in the aftermath of 9/11 we need to deal with filtering out extremism from our societies. Some people will agree with me on this and many will carry on being radical. The rest of us live painfully aware of what hate and extremism can do.

      1. S Leretseh profile image80
        S Leretsehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The fact that Israelis were caught driving around NYC (ground zero and at the brooklyn bridge) in vans loaded with explosives...is no myth.  The fact that larry siverstein's building #7 fell in a free fall is also no myth. In fact, he went on PBS and specifically stated that he gave the order (along with a fire captain_) to "pull" the building (avail on google youtube).  Well, ok, why did lary silverstein have enough -  carefully concealed - explosives in his building to demolish it? Larry Silverstein has never explained that. And why did larry silverstien have double indemnity clauses on his three leased buildings?  Also, where are the plane parts from the pentagon?   Where are the plane parts from Shanksville?

        It's true we'll never know a lot of things regarding 9-11.  But it is now an absolute certainty who pulled it off:: Bush, Cheney, Chernoff, Mossad.

        1. Claire Evans profile image91
          Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I whole-heartedly agree.

      2. Claire Evans profile image91
        Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I believe it is time for you to wake up.   America has caused a lot of suffering around the world and that is why it is hated by many.   As a society, we need to expose who really is responsible for such atrocious acts such as 9-11 and that is partly due to our world leaders.  There are shadow governments but that's a different story.

        We need to remember that Al Qaeda is a creation of the United States.  They used those terrorists to advance themselves in Afghanistan in the 70s.  America is supporting the Syrian rebels who are comprised of Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

  2. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
    IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago

    @Claire I'm responding to the post in the other forum.
       1. I don't think the hijackers were worried about leaving anything behind, they were going to die.
       2. Im sure they were in a high state of distress so a checklist wouldn't have been a stupid idea.
       3. yes people who go to the airport generally have passports.
       4. The plane was in fact not shot down it crashed near shanksville due to passenger revolt.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

    1. Claire Evans profile image91
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You can't really believe number 1 and 2?  Did Mohammed Atta also need to pack a document called, "How to be a terrorist in the US"?

      In the rental car of the Flight 11 hijackers is a manual on how to fly a plane.

      You'd think they'd now how to fly a plane by the time they hijacked the planes on 9-11.

      You miss my point about the passports.  One of the passports was on the plane, it survived the fireball when the plane hit the towers and fell during the implosion and got buried in the pyroclastic dust and then the FBI found it. 

      That's just laughable.

      Flight 93 was shot down.  That was verified by Donald Rumsfeld. 

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnl … re=related

      There is no cockpit recording of any sort of struggle and there is no plane nor bodies at the Pennsylvania crash site:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsS-xpyqi1w


      6) One of the accused (Mohammed Atta) packs a suitcase (in case he wants to visit relatives for a few days after the attack) with a "how to be a terrorist in the US" document (just part of the professionalism, mentioned above) that just happens not to be loaded on the plane (so that the incriminating document survives,.. what a surprise!).

      1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
        IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        1. Pointing and laughing is not a counter argument.
        2. Most people know how to drive when buying a car yet manuals come with them.
        3.No, I didn't miss your point about the passports.The plane did not hit the towers it crashed in shanksville,PA.
        4. No, flight 93 had crashed due to passenger revolt I already gave you the link about that.
        5. Suitcases tend to be missplaced, stolen, or lost. It happens.
        Terrorism is about making a statement otherwise they wouldnt be worried about covering every little detail, especially after Osama coming out and taking responsibility for the attacks.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          IAm, honestly, some people just don't respond well to facts. Claire appears to be one of them. You'll beat your head into the wall trying to show her the error of her ways - but it won't have an effect on her.

          There are people who live in the world of conspiracy - it lends some sort of value to their lives. They thrive on it. Heaven forbid you shine a light on their mistakes.

          I'd give it up if I were you. I took a look at her "sources." Grainy/cut/edited videos, questionable "hit" sites and complete conjecture. Her evidence won't get any better than this. She's put her best stuff out there.

          You know she's wrong. I know she's wrong. But, she will fight tooth and nail against common sense.

          1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
            IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Lol my brother told me the same thing but I am new at this so I figure it to be good practice.

            1. Claire Evans profile image91
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You didn't answer this:

              Before 9/11, it has always been standard operating procedure (SOP) for the Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with NORAD, to scramble jet fighters whenever an aircraft wanders off course or loses radio contact with air traffic controllers. In fact, it has been estimated that between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times.  In the year 2000, fighter jets were scrambled 129 times. So how did it happen that on 9/11 that not a single fighter jet engaged four commercial jets over a 90-minute period? How was it possible that the Pentagon, the headquarters of the biggest national military in the world, was hit a full 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation’s capital? Why has there been no disciplinary action for this appalling case of negligence?

              1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
                IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The protocols in place on September 11th for both the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed several things:
                1.The hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear;
                   2.There would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command;
                3.Hijacking would take the tradition form, which is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.
                   The FAA and other air traffic control centers alerted NEADS (the Northeast Air Defense Sector, a part of NORAD) of the four hijackings, though with little or no advance notice for NEADS or NORAD to mount a response:
                They had a maximum 9 minutes advanced notice of the first jacking of American Airlines Flight 11
                They were notified about United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 AM, the same time that it crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center
                They had four minutes advance notice of American Airlines Flight 77
                They were notified about United Airlines Flight 93 at 10:07 AM, after it had already crashed. It is a long process for it to get to NORAD.
                   The hijackers had turned the transponders in 3 of the 4 planes off making it much more difficult to locate. And scrambling jets is a longer process than you think. Not sure about the andrews air force base. and as for the pentagon,  The people in the radar room had assumed it to be a fighter jet due to the maneuverability of the plane, they had then asked a hercules in the air to confirm, in the haze he had picked out a silver fuselage confirming it to be from american airlines boeing 757 or 767 by that time the plane had crashed.

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The first sign of trouble was at 08:13 am when the pilot wouldn't respond.  At 08:40 am only did the FAA inform NORAD that the plane was hijacked.   A controller heard a voice from the cockpit at 08:24 am that said: "We have some planes.  Just stay quiet and you will be OK.  We are returning to the airport.  Nobody move."

                  Pilots who realize their planes are being hijacked  are required to punch in a 4 digit code that warns the ground that the planes had been hijacked.  It was never used.

                  I cannot believe that the FAA and NORAD could be this incompetent especially since after the first plane hit.  To not intercept the second plane is mind-boggling.

                  The capabilities of NORAD is as follows:

                  "The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a United States and Canada bi-national organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands."

                  Objects from space? Attacks by space vehicles? But Flight 11 and others was too hard?

                  Altogether, NORAD planes didn't intercept any plane after 1 and a half hours between Flight 11 hijacking and the crash into the Pentagon. 

                  Note the reaction time of NORAD in this example:

                  "MINA, S.D., Oct. 25—A Learjet carrying professional golfer Payne Stewart and at least four others streaked uncontrolled for thousands of miles across the heart of the country today, its occupants apparently unconscious or already dead, before it plunged nose first and crashed in a field near this north-central South Dakota hamlet.

                  No one on the ground was hurt and there were no survivors aboard the aircraft, which came down in a marshy area about two miles southwest of here.

                  The cause of the uncontrolled flight and crash after the Learjet 35 apparently ran out of fuel were not known, but aviation experts speculated that the aircraft may have lost pressurization and that emergency backup systems failed as the plane's autopilot kept it in the air. Loss of pressurization above 30,000 feet would cause occupants of the aircraft to lose consciousness from oxygen deficiency in one to two minutes, the experts said.

                  During some of its eerie, almost four-hour journey from Orlando to a swampy grassland in South Dakota, the Learjet was shadowed by Air Force and Air National Guard jet fighters, whose pilots reported that the aircraft's windows were frosted over, suggesting that it had lost pressurization. The Air Force pilots also reported that the Learjet meandered from as low as 22,000 feet to as high as 51,000 feet, but never strayed from a northwest heading.

                  The military aircraft were not armed with air-to-air missiles, and Pentagon officials said they never considered shooting down the Learjet.

                  "The [Federal Aviation Administration] said this thing was headed to a sparsely populated part of the country, so let it go," a senior defense official said.

                  According to the FAA, the plane left Orlando, where Stewart lived, at 9:19 a.m. Eastern time today and was bound for Dallas. Stewart, a two-time U.S. Open champion, was scheduled to play later this week in the PGA Championship in Houston, the tour's final event of the year.

                  The FAA said air traffic controllers lost radio contact with the plane at 9:44 a.m., just after they had cleared the twin-engine jet to climb to 39,000 feet northwest of Gainesville, Fla. An FAA spokesman said that air traffic controllers noted "significant changes in altitude" by the plane, but that the aircraft's crew did not respond to repeated radio calls from the ground.

                  Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel.

                  Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s and a KC-135 tanker from Tulsa were ordered to try to catch up with the Learjet but got only within 100 miles. But two other Air National Guard F-16s from Fargo, N.D., intercepted the Learjet at 12:54 p.m, reporting that the aircraft's windows were fogged with ice and that no flight control movement could be seen. At 1:14 p.m., the F-16s reported that the Learjet was beginning to spiral toward the ground."

                  http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde … opic=19634

                  But it takes one and a half hours on 9-11 for an jets to be scrambled by NORAD.

                  In fact, this who NORAD/FAA business on 9-11 is such a bundle of lies that even those involved in the 9-11 Commissions reports were suspicious:

                  ome staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

                  Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

                  In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

                  "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

                  Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.

                  A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.

                  For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

                  In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.

                  Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

                  These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.

                  "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01300.html


                  And the FAA shredded tapes of 9-11 air traffic controllers statements:

                  http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article … idence.htm

                  Why? The whole official story of 9-11 is one monumental lie.

                  1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
                    IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You have completely disregarded everything I said in the past response.
                       On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

                    Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
                    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … ws/1227842

          2. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What facts have been provided? I haven't received any! You need to tell which of my sources are not credible. 

            What evidence have you provided that proves Al Qaeda was responsible?

        2. Claire Evans profile image91
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          1.)I'm sorry, but the story is just so ridiculous that I cannot help laugh.  I'm not laughing at you.   

          2.) Manuals come with cars showing you where the various things are like which side the indicators on, e.g.  They don't tell you how to drive a car like how to use the breaks, the functions of indicators, how to use the steering wheel, how to parallel park, etc.  These hijackers were supposed to have been trained for quite a while although they were quite bad at flying.

          3.)  I'm sorry, I assumed you knew which flight I was talking about because the manual was found in the rental car of the FLIGHT 11 hijackers.   So the passport was "found" at the twin towers or whatever was left of it.   No passport would have been found at the Shanksville crash site because there was nothing to be found.  No bodies, no plane, no nothing. 

          4.)  And what did you link prove? Nothing? So what was Rumsfeld going on about when he said the plane was shot down?  Are you just believing everything you read?

          5.) The point is?  Osama bin Laden made no such admission to attacking 9-11.  The FBI concedes that.  Did you know that on the FBI's most wanted list, bin Laden was never wanted for 9-11?

          You can see it here:

          http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

          When asked about this, the FBI said it was because there was no hard evidence against bin Laden.

          http://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-says-n … n-to-9-11/

          1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
            IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            These hijackers were not expertly trained, all they needed to do was turn a plane around fly it through the air then aim at a building however they are still human like the rest of us and prone to mistake. As far as the passports, im not sure I could give you an expert explenation, my best guess is that when the plane crashed into the North tower that small debris was propelled through the building before the flames could engulf and destroy it.
            Why is it that my links prove nothing yet yours do? Also that is true they didn't have enough to prosecute for 9/11, however in 2004 a video was released where he admitted to 9/11 and why.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_bin_Laden_video
            Oh and no I don't believe everything I read, I don't believe you.

            1. Claire Evans profile image91
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Actually, it takes quite a bit of training to fly a plane.  In fact, the Pentagon sources suggest that 5 of the hijackers were trained in Florida at US military bases.

              "THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla. known as the Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation, according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source."

              However, 

              "But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installations.

              http://prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijacke … bases.html

              Either way, among the hijackers were Saudi Arabia Force pilots therefore they were sufficiently trained.

              You cannot tell me that your explanation on how the passport was found is credible in the slightest.  Do you know how many tons of debris the towers left behind? And a passport somehow got found among the rubble? Why can't you be reasonable?

              And admission is all that is needed for the FBI to make him wanted for 9-11.  In fact, the Taliban said to the US, "Give us evidence bin Laden is involved and we will give him to you." None was presented.

              See how easy it is to fake these videos:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUiNiB2yVCQ

              One must ask oneself why Bin Laden denied 9-11 days after the fact yet comes out and says he is responsible.  He hardly looks as if he is dying in those confession videos.

              As I mentioned, bin Laden had Marfan Syndrome:

              "There are literally thousands of news sources that have documented 9 different instances in which Osama bin Laden was said to have died, but the most reliable story came from former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member, Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik. In an April 2002 interview with Alex Jones, Pieczenik said, “I worked with Osama bin Laden in ’78, ’81, and ‘79 when he was in Afghanistan…. And so we have a blowback with Osama. But what made it more difficult was, I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease. And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying. And you could see in those films, those made-up photos that they were sending us out of nowhere. I mean, suddenly, we would see a video of bin Laden today and then out of nowhere, they said oh it was sent to us anonymously, meaning that someone in the government, our government, was trying to keep up the morale on our side and say oh we still have to chase this guy when, in fact, he’s been dead for months…. I mean the whole thing was a, I mean it was such a hoax. I mean I said you would have to be, you know, blind and stupid to not realize that this is really being manipulating in trying to manipulate us…. And I think that Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, spilled the beans by accident three months ago when he said that bin Laden was dead because his kidney dialysis machines were destroyed in East Afghanistan”.


              In the 2004 confession tape, bin Laden had no problem moving his arm despite him in actuality him not being able to move his left arm properly due to his Marfan Syndrome.

              Have a look and tell me which you think the odd one out is in the stills of the various bin Laden tapes on this website:

              http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio … aden01.htm

              The reason why your links are not reliable is because it just states things without providing any evidence. 

              Is there any link of mine you don't think holds any merit?

              1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                In "No Easy Day," the SEALS took DNA samples from the body and those samples matched those on file for bin Laden.


                What would really be the point in faking the death of a dead man? A decade after he supposedly died?

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Is that so? Why does the Pentagon has no record of it?


                  "Citing the law, The Associated Press asked for files about the raid in more than 20 separate requests, mostly submitted the day after bin Laden's death. The Pentagon told the AP this month it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing bin Laden's body. It also said it could not find any images of bin Laden's body on the Navy aircraft carrier where the al-Qaida leader's body was taken.

                  The Pentagon said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin Laden's body if he were killed. It said it searched files at the Pentagon, US Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., and the Navy command in San Diego that controls the USS Carl Vinson, the aircraft carrier used in the mission.

                  The Defense Department told the AP in late February it could not find any emails about the bin Laden mission or his "Geronimo" code name that were sent or received in the year before the raid by William McRaven, the three-star admiral at the Joint Special Operations Command who organized and oversaw the mission. It also could not find any emails from other senior officers who would have been involved in the mission's planning. It found only three such emails written by or sent to then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and these consisted of 12 pages sent to Gates summarizing news reports after the raid."

                  http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/5061

                  Why would they fake the death of Bin Laden? To perpetuate the War on Terror, of course.  People wanted justice for 9-11 so they would support a man-hunt for Bin Laden even it is meant bombing innocent countries.  It also made Obama look like a hero which is convenient since his approval ratings dropped.  Bush's approval rating jumped exponentially after 9-11 and I'm sure the Bin Laden "confession video" in 2004 days before the US election secured Bush a second term.

              2. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
                IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I understand alot of training goes into learning to fly a plane. But thats from take off to landing and everything in between. Like I said hijackers weren't professional pilots.
                I didn't explain how they found the passport actually, I explained how they could have survived the crash. Why can't you be reasonable?
                The 2004 could mean that he didn't really have marfan syndrome. And why dont you check the sources on my links, following your logic the same reason my links aren't credible is the reason your links aren't credible.

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Two of the Saudi hijackers were professional pilots reportedly.  Yes, they were supposedly terrible pilots but they still had to learn to take off and land and use the controls.  There's another theory: they didn't have any flight training at all and the planes were guided into the towers by remote control.

                  Going back to the "training manual" business, etc, I came across a quote from FBI director Robert Mueller:

                  "The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection."

                  Originally stated on this site:

                  www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm

                  ...but the page has been removed.  What a surprise.

                  5 of the hijackers are still alive.

                  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

                  In order for you to believe that passport was preserved, it had to be found and how could it be found among ton of debris not damaged?

                  You need to read my links.  It is a fact he has Marfan Syndrome and that is a life-long thing.  You don't recover from it.  You don't suddenly have paralysis and then recover.

                  “He is Marfanoid,” says Dr. Richard Devereux, a clinician who treats patients with the illness at the Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York. “He seems to have long fingers and long arms. His head appears to be elongated and his face narrow … It’s certainly conceivable that he has the Marfan syndrome and could be evaluated for it.”


                  Can you not see the difference in appearances in the various shots of bin Laden? He is plumper in some and in one has a jet black beard.

                  Anyway, I found a video of Bin Laden denying involvement in 9-11:

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxmUFG9wOOQ

                  On Al Jezeera of all places.   The video was soon pulled down and replaced by the same video of Bin Laden with the subtitles changed claiming he said he was involved.

                  Here is why I believe your Wikipedia source is unreliable.

                  1.) The plane was shot down according to Donald Rumsfeld.
                  2.) There was no evidence of a plane crash let alone any sign of a black box at the crash scene. 
                  3.) Cellphones didn't work in planes back in 2001.

                  "The husband of a flight attendant on one of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 has, during an interview, revealed his astonishment at receiving a cell phone call from his wife that morning. The reason for his surprise: "because cell phones don't work on a plane."

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBjgV1pl … r_embedded


                  To investigate this matter, scientist A. K. Dewdney conducted a series of experiments using mobile phones from a small propeller aircraft, over the city of London, Ontario in Canada. (He noted that, "not only is the cell phone technological base in Canada identical to its U.S. counterpart, but Canadian communication technology is second to none, Canada being a world leader in research and development." [4]) Dewdney found:

                  [C]ell phone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8,000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8,000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2,000, where they become merely unlikely. Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem. An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cell site long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cell site, when the call has to be handed off from the first cell site to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure. [5]


                  http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/ … -cell.html

                  I think at the most, the cellphone reception would have been intolerable.  I don't think a single word would have been word because of the poor reception.

                  Then how are God's green earth did they contact their loved ones? The voices appeared to be the same as the victims.  Were they coerced? The passengers may not have been in planes at all but on the ground.

                  Here is a call from CeeCee Lyles, one of the airhostesses:

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6LPSRGwkoA

                  At the end of the call, a voice is heard saying, "This is great."


                  Why can't you accept you have been lied to? If the FBI lied about details of 9-11, then why should we believe what they say?

                  I'll get back to the Norad comment.

                  1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                    HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I've made cell calls for over a decade during flights as long as the plane wasn't over the ocean.

                    The BBC site that says some of the hijackers were alive was published two days after the attacks. The FBI admitted that the identities were in doubt at that time.

                    Air traffic controllers recorded  the voices of the hijackers in some cases - meaning "something" was going down on those planes. Otherwise, the pilots could have easily overridden any "remote" control.

                    The idea that the passengers were coerced to make calls from the ground is ludicrous. That suggests they were taken somewhere and then slaughtered. Yet, DNA from passengers was found at both the Pentagon and in PA.

                    Maybe Osama was or was not ill, but there is such a thing as "misdiagnosis," at any rate.

                    The problem with all these conspiracies is that they don't hold up under a microscope.

                  2. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
                    IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    How many questions are you going to ask me about his passport? I dont know how do you find things, Claire? WOW, you dont like my links because they disagree with you? Yeah thats why I posted them, because we are in a debate? that video you posted could be fake? Oh and here this is about the cell phone dillema  http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at … de.htmlWhy cant you except that maybe you have been lied too?

  3. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    It was proven that Al Qaeda is American. Who won big after Sept 11 is the real question? The military industrial complex and the American oil companies. Now can we deduce that the culprits were Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld given that they all had an interest to promote by invading Iraq?

    1. Claire Evans profile image91
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes we can.  Bin Laden gained nothing from 9-11.

      1. Josak profile image62
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If he had not we would not have repeatedly claimed responsibility.

        1. Claire Evans profile image91
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The question is, did he claim responsibility?

    2. HowardBThiname profile image90
      HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I would love a link to that "proof" Max.

      1. Claire Evans profile image91
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        He wasn't born in America.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think maybe he meant the name "Al Qaeda," and not the leader or the group, itself.

          1. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, he did.  Members of Al Qaeda isn't actually a terrorist group technically but rather a database of terrorists willing to work for the West, were created by Pakistan and the US.

      2. maxoxam41 profile image79
        maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It was proven by an English spy from the MI6 and an American journalist! That's not news! It's not my fault if you're not curious enough!

      3. maxoxam41 profile image79
        maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Do you want me to babysit you too? If you're searching for the truth, you will find it. If you're pretending, you'll ask your interlocutor for a link!

    3. A Little TRUTH profile image86
      A Little TRUTHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      maxoxam41, I agree with you.  I look at it as a simple murder mystery.  In order to solve a murder, you first look for a motive.

      So let’s ask:

      “Who benefited from the murder of 3,000 people?”

      The Patriot Act followed right after, so we should ask:

      “Who benefited from the Patriot Act?”

      Didn’t the United States Government, and/or the elite bankers that control it benefit greatly, partly by the increased power that the Patriot Act gives them?

      The war in Afghanistan and the perpetual War on Terror also immediately followed.  Doesn’t the US Gov benefit from continual war - always having a big enemyor two out there in order to justify its huge defense spending, and ever increasing surveillance powers?

      Everyone knows that the world changed in a big way on that day.  Who is benefiting from that change?

      Do we have a motive?

      Do we have a suspect?

      Also, I think that anyone that just happened to not show up for work at the twin towers that day is a potential suspect.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image79
        maxoxam41posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A little truth scares everybody! Who wants to acknowledge that their government used them for personal greed? Nobody I guess or not the majority! If we admit it what does it say about our government that is supposed to protect us? That the government and the people are independent entities with contradictional interets? In the US versus Ellsberg, the antagonism is explicit.
        And now they want us to believe that Syria, Iran are evil without looking on the far east of the middle east, I meant Saudi Arabia or Qatar! If we have to destroy real dictatorships let's aim at Saudi Arabia and Qatar!

        1. A Little TRUTH profile image86
          A Little TRUTHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, the truth can be scary, even a little truth.  But action cures fear.

          And questions still remain:

          Do we have a motive?

          Do we have a suspect?

          I suggest action, based on the answers.

      2. Claire Evans profile image91
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting comment.  Plans to invade Afghanistan were made months before 9-11.  It just so happened that 9-11 happened to give them the pretext to invade.  They were even negotiating a pipeline deal with the Taliban right up to August 2001.

        Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTCs, scored big money because he has insured them against terrorism in July 2001.  When he became the leaseholder, $20 million of maintenance had to be done.  The towers were full of asbestos and it had to come off.  That would have been an impossible job almost.  But Larry's problem magically disappeaered on 9-11.

        The Project for New Century America outlined in 2000 that a new "Pearl Harbour" was needed for the US to have global dominance:

        It was established in the spring of 1997 and was founded by the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsveld.  Bill Kristol is the chairman.  Other members included, Richard Perle, dubbed “The Prince of Darkness” who is former chair of the Defence Policy Board, Elliot Abrams of the National Security Council, former presidential candidate, George Bauer, Governor Jeb Bush and former director of the CIA,  Robert James Woolsey.


        "... Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor. ..."

        Could the US really extend its power in the Middle East without 9-11?

        Another excerpt:

        "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. The plan calls for Permanent Military Bases in Iraq to dominate the Middle East including neighboring Iran.

        As for advanced warning, only 400 Jews died.  This could be why:

        "Odigo Systems, an Israeli company with a New York City office received an advanced warning by email that an attack was going to occur in New York City the day of the attack. This is verified by their CEO. They were probably not tipped off by Arabs!

        Zim American Israeli Shipping Company, also considered to be a front for the Mossad and the CIA broke their lease in one of the twin towers which cost them $50,000 and moved out about a week before the attack. Perhaps they had an advance warning. According to Ex-Navy intelligence officer Wayne Madsen, the company was controlled by the CIA and the Mossad."

        http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=622552


        "Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

        Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

        "I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya.

        As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only to people on their "buddy" list, as is the case with ICQ, the other well-known Israeli instant messaging application.

        Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message."

  4. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    No Clair, Al Qaeda was not responsible for 9/11. They were merely the patsies.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmbPh3u7_q0

    Iraq and Afghanistan were the targets for the greedy corporations. Oil and lucrative government contracts. For example, Halliburton charged $2.5 million for a $3 thousand fuel haul. $100 for a small bag of laundry.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ

    9/11 was an inside job.
    www.AE911truth.org

    Lots of videos and scientific papers that prove controlled demolition. And it takes weeks or months of preparation in 3 buildings of the sizes which were demolished. Heck, CIA was a tenant of WTC7. Bush family security company was in charge of keeping bad guys out (or in).

    And the Rockefellers knew of 9/11 at least a year before it happened.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaOj-rOGZFE

    Even Hollywood knew of 9/11. Sneaky and subtle -- the 1999 movie, Matrix, had Neo's passport on screen for less than a second, upside-down and too small to see. But the expiration date on his passport was 9/11/2001.

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6436380_f248.jpg

    Coincidence? Was it a coincidence that George H.W. Bush gushed about the New World Order on 9/11/1990 -- exactly 11 years before 9/11? Our new "Pearl Harbor" (what the neocons lusted after in their 2000 plan for a New American Century) was the big send-off for the New World Order. The "expiration" of American liberties -- our passport to freedom.

    1. A Little TRUTH profile image86
      A Little TRUTHposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent links 94, lone77star!

      That first video especially.  It’s interesting that the news reporter said that a terrorists passport was found blocks from the crash site “if you can believe that” In other words, it only happened if you can believe it!

      Wow, I didn’t know that about Neo’s passport!

      Re. demolition, I am an engineer.  On the morning of 9/11, I was watching the first building go down live on the TV monitor at work.  I said to the engineers next to me “Wow, it must have taken months for someone to install all those charges in the building.” There was no question in my mind as to how the building came down.  But then, like everybody else, I was glued to the TV for weeks afterward, and thru the excellent mind control conditioning, I ended up believing most of the official story!  Later, after almost no TV for a month, I came to my senses and realized that my initial assessment, that it was a controlled demolition, was correct.  It showed me how powerful of a mind control tool the TV is.

  5. khmohsin profile image61
    khmohsinposted 4 years ago

    With the passage of a lot of time this question still exists and have its own importance. I don't think so that Alqaeda is the responsible for such type of attacks. It was just a big drama like the martyr of Usama Bin Laden. If the Alqaeda was of such capability to enter in America and attack such a secure place then why it didn't happened again in America even US attacked on Taliban badly. I condemn on all this favors of Taliban. They can't do so

    1. Claire Evans profile image91
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No way would Al Qaeda have the sophistication to bypass the USA's security.   People argue that America's security has beefed up because of 9-11 and so Al Qaeda doesn't have a chance.  They keep getting "busted" like the Christmas bomber and underwear bomber even though they were FBI recruits. 

      The TSA mans the airports of the USA.  Those idiots who steal and fondle people and let real weapons through.  Yep, Al Qaeda is really afraid of them!

  6. k12rswow profile image61
    k12rswowposted 4 years ago

    Iamanatheist.  don't be an atheist anymore.  Believe in Jesus

    1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
      IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Haha and why is that?

      1. k12rswow profile image61
        k12rswowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The Lord suffered for us by his own will.  He cares for us more than we'll ever know.  The Father punished the son (Jesus) for our sinful nature.  Then he was raised from the dead and is now glorified.  We owe him.
        Call upon Jesus name.  In fact; challenge him.
        Peace

        1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
          IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I can't challenge that witch does not exist.

          1. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Witch?

            1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
              IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Which*

  7. k12rswow profile image61
    k12rswowposted 4 years ago

    Who designed a bird, or a fish?  The entire of nature just screams intelligent design.  Then once something is in place such as celestial bodies.  How is it maintained?  One walk  out in nature says "God created".  Hubble has not found any other planet like ours out there.  How far can Hubble see?  Just look at things, and ask how they were made?  Military for instance spends millions in engineering dollars studying bugs and birds.  Who first engineered wings?
    Just consider these things brother.
    Peace

    1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
      IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They wern't designed, they were products of evolution.
      Actually we have found a planet extremely similar to ours.

      1. k12rswow profile image61
        k12rswowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        When was the last time you saw an I pod grow on tree's.  The evolution arguments have been refuted many times over.  Pro-evolution profs teach natural selection in the morning, and in the afternoon they teach entropy.  They always loose.  By the way, who told you that you were an atheist?

        1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
          IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          What? not sure what you mean by that.
          What "evolution arguments" have been refuted?
          Nobody told me I was an atheist I became athiest on my own.

          1. k12rswow profile image61
            k12rswowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The lefties don't use the argument of evolution anymore.  It doesn't work.  Instead the have abandoned it for natural selection.  If your going to be an atheist, at least keep up with your ring leaders.

            1. Josak profile image62
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What the flying...  natural selection is the process through which evolution works, indeed natural selection is an integral part of the theory of evolution.

              1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
                IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Haha Josak you were a second faster than me.
                K12rswow if you are going to argue with an atheist you should look up the words you are using.

                1. k12rswow profile image61
                  k12rswowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Darwin's original definition of NS is very different from the new upgraded definition of NS.

                  1. Josak profile image62
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Basic principle is the same, the theory has been refined in the years since as all theories should be but it has not changed.

        2. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          AHAHA Evolution is rock steady and even the Pope has acknowledged it as fact, there is no valid scientific argument against evolution. As for evolution it is in fact an aspect of entropy the variety of life we see around us is far more chaotic than a lifeless barren rock. I also suspect you are confusing entropy in it's linguistic use with the theory of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics which is a pretty massive error.

          1. k12rswow profile image61
            k12rswowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry pal, that's not going to work with me.  Order to dis-order is what we are experiencing everyday.  Everything decays and reverts back to it's basic elements.  Pope! C'mon.
            Evolutionist had to come up with natural selection ever since intelligent design was introduced into the argument.  I wrote a short hub http://k12rswow.hubpages.com/hub/Intelligent-Design-er

            It just can't be refuted.  Why doesn't a foot grow on your face?  Imagine four nubs?  Everything has it's place, it was thought out, and put there by intelligent design.

            1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
              IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              That doesn't happen because of natural selection actually.
              And what isn't going to work with you?

            2. Josak profile image62
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ah so you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics which you are horribly misinterpreting firstly the laws of entropy are laws only when applied to direct physics they do not apply to biological processes. More to the point chaos thrives in evolution, look at the massive variety of bizarre creatures we see around us it's complete chaos, if they can survive then they exist, when mutations occur that are not beneficial they are quickly killed off.

              Why doesn't a foot grow in your face? because if it did it would make you less likely to survive. Very simple, even children understand this stuff.

              1. k12rswow profile image61
                k12rswowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                """""firstly the laws of entropy are laws only when applied to direct physics they do not apply to biological processes. """"""   
                I guess you were born on planet mars.  Enthropic principles apply to everything.  When an animal dies in the woods, it decays.  Order to disorder.  When a tree falls.  Again, it decays.  You are really not good at physics, and your pal makes a lousy atheist.  At least make an original argument, instead of rehashing very old and tired arguments. 

                I'm so sorry Claire.  This does tend to happen when numbnuts scour the net.

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Anyone who brings up the discussion of evolution again will be reported to the moderators.

                2. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
                  IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You must be one of them.

    2. Claire Evans profile image91
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can we please stay on topic?  Create a different forum thread for this discussion on evolution.

  8. CJWood71 profile image82
    CJWood71posted 4 years ago

    Wow!  I have read through the posts on this thread and found it quite interesting.  I intended to simply read and learn something, with no intention of getting involved in the debate.  I guess it has not worked out that way.

    I have read so many posts and links proving that 9/11 was a conspiracy, an inside job.  All this "proof" comes from questionable sources and obviously edited videos. 

    I think there were mistakes on 9/11, there were holes in our defenses that have hopefully been corrected.  To suggest that it was an inside job and yet all these years later, nobody has talked is not realistic.  I loved the part about all the cell phone calls from victims being made from the ground.  That alone would require a lot of people keeping a lot of secrets, something that never happIens in this modern internet world.

    Now I guess that Obama is in on the game.  So tell me, did Obama fake Bin Laden's death to get reelected?  Or did he order the murder of an innocent man?

    1. Claire Evans profile image91
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don't you think the "proof" that Al Qaeda was responsible comes from unreliable sources? I see no obvious editing in the argument for an inside job.  Can you give me an example?

      No, there were no holes in the US defenses.  I think you should read just how sophisticated NORAD is.  They can monitor pending terrorist attacks from space. Mistakes cannot be made when the Bush administration apparently had months of warning before the attacks.  The Pentagon has the most surveillance cameras than any other building in the world yet they didn't capture a plane going into the Pentagon.

      When it comes to the cellphone calls, only a few loved ones received calls.  One couldn't believe that his wife contacted him from a cell because he said cell phones don't work from planes at the time. 

      Do you know what happens to people who blab about 9-11?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU


      I may just shut up, too, if I was threatened like this.

      Obama definitely was in the plot to fake Bin Laden's death to boost his popularity.  The story is so ridiculous that I cringe that people believe it.  You know the "situation room" photograph that was shown with Hilary Clinton having her hand to her mouth in "shock" along with others supposedly watching the live feed of the assassination? It turned out to be staged.  Why?

      Bin Laden was not an innocent man when it comes to terrorism.  However, it is not right to shoot a man who is not threatening the lives of those who came to capture him.   He was entitled to a fair trial.  Of course that wouldn't happen because 9-11 would have been exposed if you argue from the point of view that the raid really did happen.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image90
        HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I watched four minutes of the lame video - then shut it off. Nothing but conjecture. For anyone thinking of watching it - don't waste your time. It's the stuff of Middle School rumor mills.

        1. Claire Evans profile image91
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So where's your proof that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11?

      2. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
        IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The lack of intelligence you display amazes me, it really does. I have given you proof. you refute nothing but think you do just by saying "oh really, you believe that?" Your sources are either bias, dont site sources themselves, both, or they completely contradict what you are saying. Oh but the part that contradicts what youre saying is wrong but the rest is right? It doesn't work like that. Its either a credible source or not. Do you remember when you said you were being so logical, more logical than me? I gave you a page on logic. Read it. You use logically fallacious argument and youre intellectually dishonest. The debate is over Claire, now you just look pathetic.

        1. Claire Evans profile image91
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Lol.  What proof do you have when the FBI says they have no hard evidence?





          Yes, your sources aren't biased, right? 911myths Fox News and Wikipedia could never be biased, right? I mean, your sources contradict one another.  First there is no hard evidence then there is irrefutable evidence. 

          The debate is over because there is no way you can refute my last argument.  I told you a thing a thing a two about logic.  Tell me, have you ever come across an argument where there is speculation and facts in the same article?  Of course you have.   I also like to use mainstream sources that don't back up the official story. 

          If you want the perpetrators of 9-11 to laugh at people like you, go for it.  I just don't like being duped.

          1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
            IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            >>>>Yes, your sources aren't biased, right? 911myths Fox News and Wikipedia could never be biased, right?<<<<

            Yep, you've got it.

            >>>> I mean, your sources contradict one another.  First there is no hard evidence then there is irrefutable evidence.<<<<

            No they don't 

            >>>>The debate is over because there is no way you can refute my last argument.<<<<

            That isn't why the debate is over, I've refuted all of your arguments and now youre like a little kid just sitting there asking why why why. In fact the mojority of the time you don't make any arguments nor do you refute mine.

            >>>> I told you a thing a thing a two about logic.<<<<

            No you haven't,in order for you to do that you have to know what logic is.
             
            >>>>Tell me, have you ever come across an argument where there is speculation and facts in the same article?  Of course you have.<<<<

            Not a credible one.
             
            >>>> I also like to use mainstream sources that don't back up the official story.<<<<

            Earlier you said you don't like to use mainstream media sources. And thats because you have a classic case of confirmation bias. 

            >>>>If you want the perpetrators of 9-11 to laugh at people like you, go for it.  I just don't like being duped.<<<<

            Well you say you don't like being duped, its apparent thats not going very well for you.

            1. Claire Evans profile image91
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol

  9. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Wow ! the origional question ,statements here only prove one thing !  Give some people an iota of conspiracy theory thought and they will run like dogs to the  food bowl !  As a proud American , I am ashamed that there are those who think 9/II was an inside job . Questioning   your government in a free and open society is all fair and good ,...... however ,jumping to these idiotic conclusions are nothing short of having  only a belief in the  "Boggy Man "mentality .

    Cheney and Rummy  had to give permission for a shoot down!  Dosen't mean that it  happened! , if you can't accept that possibility  ,then you can't understand  the need ! The awesome responsibility of that requirement  alone is way above your abilty  to accept ,obviously !

    You can also bet your bippy that Pres. Obama would do the same !  Does that mean that he has ?

    1. Claire Evans profile image91
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No one has jumped to conclusion.  It's based on intense research.  I mean, why would George Bush be hanging out with Bin Laden's brother on the day of September 11th? Isn't that strange to you?

      Have you heard of Operation Northwood?  Well, it proposes a false flag operation to blame on Cuba and you will see some disturbing facts:

        According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of anti-Communism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.

      These were the actual proposals:

      *"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."

      *"Advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican [Republic] Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. 'Cuban' B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with 'Cuban' messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and 'Cuban' shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach. Use of MiG type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation."

      *"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."

      Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."

      Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception:

      An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.

      From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident.

      http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL … woods.html


      So now if the US can plan this why not 9-11?

      ,...... however ,jumping to these idiotic conclusions are nothing short of having  only a belief in the  "Boggy Man "mentality .



      Just make sure you don't have "sheep" mentality.


      Rumsfeld had to give permission for fighter jets to intercept hijacked aircraft but he would not.  Even when Flight 77 was on its way to the Pentagon.  Despite knowing what happened to the Twin Towers, he said he had no idea the Pentagon would be threatened.

      Anatoli Kornukov, the commander-in-chief of the
      Russian Air Force to say: "Generally it is impossible to carry
      out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA
      yesterday. (...) As soon as something like that happens here, I
      am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."

      http://911review.com/means/standdown.html

      Only much later did Cheney approve of interception and this is when Flight 93 was shot down.

      So despite the fact that Rumsfeld denied he could have realized the Pentagon would be attacked,  Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testified to the contrary:

      "When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated. I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member, who had no new information. Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC."

      ***

      I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said 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?"

      http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/20 … irmed.html

      He deliberately prevented any defense against the Pentagon fully aware a plane was coming.

      1. American View profile image60
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Bin laden was the black sheep of the family and was an outcast. The Bin Laden family is extensive and very rich; they made their pile in construction.

        Judging them by Osama would be as unfair as judging the entire McVeigh family by the sins of Tim or the entire Kaczynski family by what Theodore did.

        1. Claire Evans profile image91
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So you don't think Bush would want Bin Laden's brother to reveal the location of Osama because he is wanted for dillions of terrorist attacks?   You don't think it's strange that Bush Jnr was negotiating a pipeline deal with the terrorist group the Taliban?

          We also have the problem of Bin Laden being a CIA agent Tim Osman. 

          Consider this also:

          "Salem Bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz bail out George W. Bush's Company Harken

          1988: Bin Ladens Bail Out George W. Bush: Prior to this year, President George W. Bush is a failed oilman. Three times, friends and investors have bailed him out to keep his business from going bankrupt. However, in 1988, the same year his father becomes president, some Saudis buy a portion of his small company, Harken, which has never performed work outside of Texas. Later in the year, Harken wins a contract in the Persian Gulf and starts doing well financially. These transactions seem so suspicious that the Wall Street Journal in 1991 states it “raises the question of ... an effort to cozy up to a presidential son.” Two major investors in Bush’s company during this time are Salem bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz. [Salon, 11/19/2001; Intelligence Newsletter, 3/2/2000] Salem bin Laden is Osama’s oldest brother; Khalid bin Mahfouz is a Saudi banker with a 20 percent stake in BCCI. The bank will be shut down a few years later and bin Mahfouz will have to pay a $225 million fine (while admitting no wrongdoing) (see October 2001)). [Forbes, 3/18/2002]



          Bush Family Attorneys Run Terrorists Escrow Account

          Texas: Prosecutors applied the label of "un-indicted co-conspirator" to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust in connection with a July trial in Texas for five officials of a defunct charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

          US Prosecutors accused American Islamic Groups Named of funding Hamas Terrorists, Holy Land Foundation (HLF), the Council on Arab Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The Director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, is on trial with other HLF defendants and has been directly connected by FBI testimony as working for Hamas terrorists and Sami Al Arian.  Nihad Awad got together with George W. Bush when Bush was governor of Texas.

          Bush family attorneys, Akin and Gump, ran the escrow account for "Holy Land Foundation" (HLF). Wealthy Saudi billionaire banker, Khalid Mahfouz, was a HLF board member and financed the Bushes in Arbusto and Harken energy. Even though MSNBC has reported that Khalid Mahfouz Continues AlQaeda & Hamas Funding for Saudis, Mahfouz has aggressively used British lawsuits to sue US book authors Rachel Erhenfeld (Funding Evil) and Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr (Alms for Jihad) who have written about Mahfouz ties to Hamas and Muslim terror funding. Mahfouz protestations of innocence in England’s liberal courts are seriously brought into question by a September 13, 2001 report by France's foreign intelligence agency, revealing that Bin Mahfouz was known to be one of the architects of a banking scheme constructed for the benefit of AlQaeda’s Osama bin Laden. The report also claims that both U.S. and British intelligence services had knowledge of this. See Legal Terror: Bush Backer MAHFOUZ Sues to Destroy Two Books Exposing Muslim Terror Funding."

          http://libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/b … onanza.htm

          So know Bush has been linked to funding Al Qaeda.  Wow.  The Bin Ladens were rotten to the core as Bush is.

          1. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I will not waste time with this as it has been debunked many times. Your own story contradicts itself about Harken. You really need to look outside the talking points of those looking to profit off of 9/11

            1. Claire Evans profile image91
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              As far as I know, it has not been debunked that Bin Laden was a CIA agent.  It most certainly hasn't been debunked that Bush negotiated a pipe-line deal with the Taliban shortly before 9-11. 

              I don't get what you mean by Harken being contradicted.

              Don't you think Bush profited from 9-11?

              1. HowardBThiname profile image90
                HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think Bush profited. If anything, 9-11 destroyed what little chance he had for a successful presidency.

                1. Claire Evans profile image91
                  Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, you might want to watch this:

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj-p0YF1k-U

                  Bush earned big bucks after 9-11 through his business the Carlye Group.  Why? Because it sells weapons and they supplied weapons to be used in the war in Iraq.

                  And he benefited from the oil in Iraq.

  10. k12rswow profile image61
    k12rswowposted 4 years ago

    Well Horse, everyone thought that too.  One thing that disturbed me was the residual burning, and the clean center collapse.  Look up thermite, and then watch the 911 videos.  Gives you a new perspective.  Also, the buildings collapsed from the top down; they didn't break apart where the planes hit.  The structural integrity at the top was fine.  Lastly each floor had an explosion, so that the buildings fell as a syncro demolition.  Meaning they didn't go left or right.  Yeah, the debate is still out.

    1. Claire Evans profile image91
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah, never saw buildings fall like that due to dying fires emitting thick black smoke.

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nothing you said was accurate, there were no floor by floor explosions, the building did not collapse from the bottom up as is the case in a controlled demolition. The collapse began on the floor at the point of impact nd the building did as it was designed to do, collapse into itself.

      1. k12rswow profile image61
        k12rswowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There is plenty of amateur video and eye witness accounts to support the series explosions,  and re-read my post, I said top down.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I've never seen any indication that there were floor-by-floor explosions. Yes, the natural way for the building to collapse after sustaining that type of damage was from the top down.

          1. k12rswow profile image61
            k12rswowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ok sunshine, since your too lazy to look it up yourself, I've provided just one of many links
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfJtsAVoxOA

          2. k12rswow profile image61
            k12rswowposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, didn't mean to get sarcastic with you.  I've been dealing with some people on this site, that don't do genuine research and spout nonsense.  Or their great claim to research is Wikipedia.

        2. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am curious, what are the explanations you read about these floor by floor explosions that never occurred. Who makes those claims?  Where you there to hear or see it?

          1. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How do you know those explosions didn't happen floor by floor? Were you there?

            Explosions from the towers were heard every 20 minutes about.  Watching these videos, it's pretty obvious bombs were used. 

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT8aYGtyi-M



            Below the floors of the impact, you see sparkles as if they are bombs.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_3zof_GagA



            Why were these bombs never part of the official story?

            1. American View profile image60
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Claire

              Thank you for asking the question "was I there" because YES indeed I was there.

              I was an LT in FDNY for 15 years and have the health issues today to prove it.

              The first video shows an explosion and people are expected to believe that explosion came from inside the WTC and  caused the collape. That of course comes from the narrative of those who are making money on this and people are falling for it hook, line and sinker. If you look closer you see that there is a dust cloud behind them, the towers were already down at this point when you hear an explosion. After the towers fell, they covered many cars and emergency vehicles. There were many gas, diesel tanks and tire explosions afterward. Trust me, I know. There were many times during rescue when one popped everyone jumped.

              Are you aware of the many characteristics of fire and what transformations it takes inside of a structure? Do you know the reactions of backdrafts or flashovers in a structural environment? Are you aware of the reaction of certain materials? Are you aware of the fact of fluid seeking its level, what it does when it finds and opening to say oh like an elevator shaft? and what happens when the burning fuel pours down those shafts to the bottom, like say the parking garage? And what would burning fuel set on fire in a parking garage? What do you think happens to a vehicle on fire without fire suppression? 

              Have you ever been to Manhattan? Ever wonder why it is so noisy there? It is because of the way the buildings are so big and bounce sound. You could set off a firecracker, just one, ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers as to how many went off and from what direction it came from.

              1. Claire Evans profile image91
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, that's strange because many FDNY firefighters said the bombs came from inside the building.   One said, "There's a bomb in the building." Why would a fire fighter say it's a bomb, and the mainstream media, when it was just diesel tanks exploding, etc?

                If you  watched the video you'd see this.  In fact, a janitor claimed that one bomb went off at the base of the towers.  This is corroborated in this video:

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE2V6ajL4F4

                Here smoke is seen at the base of the towers before the towers collapse.

                Can you explain the sparkles that were seen coming from the floors before the floors above imploded on them? Why were there horizontal projections?

                This is the horizontal projections during a demolition:

                http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7295562_f248.jpg

                These are the horizontal projects from the twin tower collapsing:


                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7295569_f248.jpg

                It's obvious that the dust is pyroclastic dust.

                This is pyroclastic smoke from a volcano:

                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7295585_f248.jpg

                This is pyroclastic dust from the twin towers

                http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7295586_f248.jpg

                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7295589_f248.jpg







                Are you aware that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple plane crashes? Are you aware that the fires were dying? Are you aware that no steel buildings have ever collapsed before 9-11? Jet fuel can never be hot enough to comprise the integrity of a building to the extent it collapses especially falling at free fall speed.   What would comprise the integrity would be thermite and seen by this molten steel coming from one of the towers:

                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/4384153_f248.jpg


                We also have to consider this:

                "The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers each collapsed in less than fifteen seconds, close to free fall (see this video clip, originally from http://thewebfairy.com/911/).  Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only one second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is conclusive evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels."

                I just cannot believe that all the steel joints of each floor gave away at the same time unless by demolition. 




                So you would hear explosions every 20 minutes because of this?


                http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7295589_f248.jpg

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Claire

                  “Well, that's strange because many FDNY firefighters said the bombs came from inside the building.”

                  One of the reasons I do not give interviews after any calls including 9/11 is because how firefighters have their statements taken out of context. Most if not all firefighters said there were explosions heard inside the building, others added that it was bombs to the story. Some were asked what did the explosions sound like and they said like a bomb going off and next thing you know, the media and truthers are saying the firefighters are claiming there were bombs. I know this to be true because it happened to firefighters I know, who by the way tried to sue to get those statements retracted but lost. Once more I want to ask you do you know the characteristics of a fire inside a structure, flashovers, backdrafts, the reactions within the environment?

                  The video you showed was debunked almost as fast as it was shown. The camera angle for the Danish news caster video is showing the north tower and is obstructing the view of the south tower. It is as the south tower is collapsing as evident of the citizens running away. I do like the fact they try to create a false narrative of a person walking towards the tower. Ask yourself this, who walks or runs to situations others are running away from, then go back and take a closer look at the video. If you are honest with yourself in what you see, you will see it is a fully geared firefighter doing what he suppose to do.

                  In the beginning of the video were the gentleman points out the cloud on the left of the tower, notice the cloud is white. There are no white clouds in fires and explosions, the only white cloud is steam cloud as water is put on a fire, turning the black smoke to white steam. What is that little cloud sitting there, I do not know, but it is a cloud to itself, nothing feeding into it, very unusual. I will say this, they claim the video has never been seen again and I will disagree. It is a CNN clip from an interview of Tom Clancy. It would take many hours to research, but I bet the clip could be found on You Tube and I would not be surprised if there is no cloud in the original interview.

                  Here is an eyewitness account that saw the plane crash into the Pentagon including seeing the aftermath debris. Yet the truthers want you to believe the Pentagon was hit with a missile and there was no plane. The first part is a news reporter on the ground when the towers collapse happened.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vWzIo5yst4

                  1. American View profile image60
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Claire,

                    You make good points about the collapse , but they are from the view or assumption that the building is designed and built like all other high rises, it was not. It is an original design and never doe again.

                    The main supports holding the structure were on the interior quadrant. This was done for 2 reasons, one, to absorb the direct hit of an airliner, and the owner wanted as much floor space as possible. To do so meant removing interior columns generally used for structural support. Another side effect to this was the exterior beams being non main support beams would be smaller and not be able to carry much exterior weight. Thus one of the reasons for the aluminum exterior. The other was the aluminum was to help displace the impact of a direct airliner hit, as we can see it did.

                    This design was also unique because it was designed in the event of a major collapse event, that it would collapse into itself by having the floors pancake into themselves, also another success as that is what has occurred.

                  2. Claire Evans profile image91
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Most don't give interviews because they are terrified as hell.   People tend to be punished for speaking out.  If firefighters claim there are bombs in the building and sound like bombs then it is logical for the media and truthers to claim they claimed there were bombs.   How can you deny this? I don't know of any steel buildings imploding because of flash-overs and back drafting.





                    What a second...firefighters wear white T-shirts and jeans on the job? No protective gear? A firefighter would walk towards a collapsing building because he would know that he wouldn't be able to get near the building without being killed.  Firefighters were ordered to evacuate the north tower when the south tower collapsed.  He wasn't running, either.  He was moving casually.






                    Steam cloud?? That's ridiculous! That white smoke is a characteristic of thermite!   

                    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7299460_f248.jpg

                    Do you really believe steam clouds could be that thick and reach 60 floors up?  Are you also suggesting this CNN footage is doctored? Come on.





                    First of all, we have to take into account who the so-called pilot was:

                    The 9-11 Commission's Report stated that Hanjour, the pilot who crashed the plane into the Pentagon, was a terrible pilot.  What is the truth though?

                    "But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled
                    270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing fromOn Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked' (washingtonpost.com) 8/26/11 3:04 PM"

                    Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm,possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."

                    http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0912-WashPost.pdf

                    What is the truth? Either Hanjour was actually an incredibly talented pilot or else the 9-11 Commissions Report is lying.  When that report was compiled they knew damn well what skill was needed to make such a maneuver.  If Hanjour was a terrible pilot, then we must entertain the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon and not a passenger plane. 

                    In fact, Hanjour would have had to do the impossible and it's impossible because it doesn't align with the facts:

                    "So from a mile out, the man who could not properly land a Cessna at a small airport in Maryland weeks earlier, zeroes in on the conveniently chosen western façade of the Pentagon, flies 20 feet off the ground in a Boeing 757 at 400 mph, clips a number of lamp poles on his way in, apparently providing no adverse interference to his flight path, then runs into a tree and a generator trailer, before depositing the enormous aircraft perfectly in between the first and second floor of the United States' military headquarters. Leaving no visible scratch on the Pentagon lawn, no large sections of airplane, no cars from the adjacent I-395 disturbed by the enormous jet-wake, and no publicly available video evidence of this incredible feat - despite the existence of at least 83 cameras on buildings and lamp posts encircling the Pentagon.

                    "I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)

                    "Furthermore, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings."

                    In response to Sagadevan's essay, a pilot contacted the writer to report the following. And while it doesn't reference Flight 77 specifically, surely the comments apply to all flights that morning. Including AA 77:

                    "Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the 'hijacker's' final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a 'hit'. How these rookies who couldn't fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension."




                    Why was there no video footage of the plane going into the Pentagon? It has the most cameras in the world but no plane was captured on film?

                    And just because Mike Walter from USA Today say he saw a plane doesn't mean it was.   He said it was like a cruise missile with wings.

                    Maybe like this?


                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7302477_f248.jpg

                    That's a tomahawk missile.

                    At 04:21m I see no sign of plane wreckage, etc.  Two radiation experts say that high level radiation levels were detected 12 miles from the Pentagon.

                    "Two high profile radiation experts concur Pentagon strike involved use of a missile. Also Geiger counter readings right after the attack shows high levels of radiation 12 miles away from Pentagon crash site.

                    A radiation expert and high-ranking Army Major, who once headed the military's depleted uranium project, both contend the Pentagon was hit by missile, not a commercial jetliner, adding high radiation readings after the strike indicate depleted uranium also may have been used.

                    "I'm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used," said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home."

                    http://rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm

                2. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Claire,
                  Having drilled in the WTC complexes and an owner of a construction company, I am well aware of the design of WTC. It was not designed like any other building in the world. To answer your question
                  No, the fires were not ”dying down”, they were still burning strong.
                  “Are you aware that no steel buildings have ever collapsed before 9-11?”  Not true, on a small scale, many commercial buildings have collapsed from a fire. If your question is no other high rise stell building has never collapsed, well that is not true either. Here is a clip of the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Notice at the 22 second mark the “sparks” of metal just like the one you refer to from the WTC. Does this mean this building was bombed too, does that mean they used thermite here as well? You can see the same sparks and the collapse in the second clip.
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVna … re=related
                  “Jet fuel can never be hot enough to comprise the integrity of a building to the extent it collapses especially falling at free fall speed”.
                  The common misconception is that people think that steel has to melt before it can collapse, far from true. Truth is a building collapses due to the twisting of the steel, long before it melts. Due to the twisting of the steel, architects design commercial buildings to collapse into themselves or their footprint. Steel will weaken and begin to twist at 600 degrees. Jet fuel can burn in an open pit at 700 degrees, add in enclosing it inside a structure and it can reach 2,000 to 3,000 degrees inside, more than enough to twist the steel.

                  1. Claire Evans profile image91
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You forget many crucial factors in this case.  The top 6 floors fell and there was NO pancake collapse. Why did those falling floors not make the floors beneath them collapse to the ground as is surmised happened to the twin towers.   The entire Windsor Tower was on fire and even then did the Tower not collapse to the ground.  There was a skeleton left behind and the narrator of the story said the building had to be DEMOLISHED.  Did the Twin Towers have to be demolished? No, there was nothing left of them.  As for the sparkles, which is just bits of fire on the debris falling in my opinion, come from the burning floors.  The sparkles from the Twin Towers, on the other hand, came from the floors that weren't on fire and hadn't even imploded yet.


                    “Jet fuel can never be hot enough to comprise the integrity of a building to the extent it collapses especially falling at free fall speed”.





                    The initial explosion when the planes hit consumed most of the jet fuel. To address your point earlier, for this reason, the fire was dying after about half an hour. 

                    "On the morning of September 11th, 2001, New York City firefighters seemed to have the World Trade Center fires under control. Take, for instance, this excerpt from one of their radio transmissions after they had reached the uppermost floors at the point of impact: “Battalion seven … Ladder fifteen, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.” Two of the men’s voices on these tapes – Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca, had reached the South Tower’s 78th floor. From all accounts, those who had heard these New York Fire Department tapes said that the firefighters judged the blazes to be manageable"



                    You can hear this recording here:

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU3APV3UxOg

                    Here is the picture of the south tower with big grey smoke.  That is indicative of a dying fire.  My goodness, it was dying before the other plane hit the north tower!

                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7298869_f248.jpg

                    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7298871_f248.jpg

                    And I'm supposed to believe that fires that could hardly be seen weakened steel to such an extent that it collapses and in such a short time! The north tower collapsed in 01:45 m and the south tower collapsed in one hour.

                    The problem is that the WTC7 had a relatively small fire and was not hit by a plane and thus could not have been inflicted with a fire laden with jet fuel.


                    Please explain the horizontal projections on the floors undamaged and why molten steel was seen pouring down the towers.

  11. k12rswow profile image61
    k12rswowposted 4 years ago

    AV, do you believe there was thermite used to weaken the building?

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      K,

      No I do not and her is why. To successfully use thermte you first have to go to all the structural columns and build a receptacle  and attach it to the steel. Then, you need to fill each receptacle. Now you have to add the fuse and run a line to a remote place where you can set off all those devises you planted. Do you think in a building of about 50,000 people no one would notice someone running wires? Or the remote place would not be found before you are ready to complete the job?

      I wrote an article here on hubpages you are free to go read. I cannot give you the link as it is a violation of their TOS. In the article I spoke with an expert who owns a demolition company. He said it would take 8-12 months to properly set up a detonation job to take that building down, not to mention they industry does not use explosives on buildings that high.

      1. Claire Evans profile image91
        Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Did you know that the WTC was closed for about 36 hours over where all the security cameras were switched off and bomb sniffer dogs were removed?  During that weekend there was construction with all sorts of wiring involved.  The dumb excuse for this was that Internet cables were being "upgraded".

        Did you know months before 9-11, the elevators were being "modernized"?  How was the the director of the security company for the WTC? Marvin Bush, Bushies' brother.   When the security company installed their security in 1999, wiring for explosives could have been placed. 

        The WTC was evacuated a couple of times weeks leading up to the terror attacks.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHawFS0oJlU



        Technology exists today that denotations are made via remote control.  See the interview with the demolition expert.  Now why would some demolition experts say it was demolished and not others? It doesn't matter HOW they did it but what the evidence is that demolitions were used.  I can't believe that demolition expert you are referring to can't recognize a demolition.

        1. IAmAnAtheist profile image59
          IAmAnAtheistposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This proves nothing, much like all of your "arguments".

          1. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Why are you still here? I thought you didn't want to correspond with me anymore.

          2. American View profile image60
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            “Here is the picture of the south tower with big grey smoke.  That is indicative of a dying fire.  My goodness, it was dying before the other plane hit the north tower!”

            Really, are you kidding me, you do not even know which tower was hit first. Give me a break. Here is a link to a timeline, I suggest you read it.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_f … 11_attacks

            I also think you should take your own advise for yourself that ypu posed to someone else earlier here on this thread, "Just move on, please.  Nothing I say will get through to you.  Continue to live in your denial world."

            Your writings here are prime examples as to why we do not give interviews. I personally have been hounded solidly for 6 years after 9/11. The only reason I do not get hounded now is because when at one time when I moved I changed everything along with my address. I no longer use my name on anything on the web so I cannot be traced. It is an un-written code firefighters follow, no interviews. Sometimes the brass would make us do one for publicity sake.  But with instant reporting today, questions get asked and people just answered, any of those answers were taken out of context. That was when FDNY clamped down and stopped all interviews.  But you want to spin that fact into a fear factor. Do you think people who are willing to die at any moment on their job have a fear of what they say? Please.

            I am not going to respond to your entire last response as it is just more far reaching misinformation. But I will point out a few things as to why I am not going to respond anymore.

            "Technology exists today that denotations are made via remote control.  See the interview with the demolition expert.  Now why would some demolition experts say it was demolished and not others? It doesn't matter HOW they did it but what the evidence is that demolitions were used.  I can't believe that demolition expert you are referring to can't recognize a demolition."

            Advanced Explosives Demolition ask for Mr. Kelley. I used them twice in lower Manhattan to remove buildings and erect new ones in there place for Trinity Church Real Estate Investments INC. I got to watch professionals up close do theirj ob. Now I will say they did not use thermite on these projects. These projects were extremely smaller than taking down the WTC, but the basics are the same. BTW, Mr. Kelley is recognized as one of the best Demolition experts in the country.

            I also want to address you statement "It doesn't matter HOW they did it but what the evidence is that demolitions were used" Claire, when you present your theory and it gets debunked you cannot take the argument "it does not matter, but I know that is what happened". Your theory was based on thermite which I showed you was not possible. And since we know thermite was not used, out the window goes your "white cloud" theory. Another correct, thermite cloud is grey, it looks white in the burn picture because when thermite burns it creates a whiteout effect form the intense brightness of the burn. Once the flame goes out you will see the real color of the cloud as evident when you look to the top of the picture.

            Thermite would require some magnesium strips as an intermediate booster to achieve the proper ignition temperature which makes thermite not a remote detonation candidate.

            Mike Walter was not the only on the ground witness that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. I cannot believe how far you are reaching trying to compare a 747 to a tomahawk cruise missile. They are not even close. What next, because it has wings it was a cardinal, or a finch, or even a blue jay?

            So is it your position then that the building was "armed and wired in the 36 hour period when the buildings were closed? Let's take a look at that from a math perspective. See when I bid jobs I understand all the intricacies of the job from material to labor and price accordingly. So lets' check this out.

            We know that in an office building situation the main support beams are enclosed withing the sheetrock walls so they are not eyesores. So in order to do the demolition properly, especially if you want to stick with the thermite theory, it must be attached directly to the steel beam. So job one, cut an opening in the sheetrock to expose the beam. There are 244 main support beams on every floor and we must blow each floor in sequence to bring the building safely down. So if you take everything into consideration, time to walk between holes to cut, bathroom breaks, coffee breaks, and the rest, let's say it takes 15 minutes per hole cut. There are a total 26,840 when you add all the floors, at 15 minutes is 6,710 hours to complete the task. Or to put it another way, 280 days, and that is just to cut the hole, no bomb placed, no wires run, no  central hookup. I think we can see it could not be done in a 36 hour time frame. Also 26,840 wires bundled together going to a detention panel bundled together would be about 5 feet around, not easy to hide that.

            This is just common sense stuff truthers refuse to acknowledge. Your wrong statement the firefighters having the fires under control, not knowing which tower was hit first, not understanding the effects of flashovers an backdrafts and more. You just ignore the fact I was there, I was there for the next 3 weeks having never left the site. I worked, napped on the street, went back to work. 

            So take car Claire, nothing anyone will ever show you will you believe, noteven someone with first hand knowledge.

            1. Claire Evans profile image91
              Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I do feel somewhat sorry for you.  It cannot be easy to think the government stole the lives of those many heroic firefighters. It's much easier to think evil Muslims did it.   I feel sad for the firefighters who are too scared to speak out.   Don't tell me this nonsense that firefighters would not be scared by threats.  What if they were threatening their children?



              No, it's information you can't refute, unfortunately.



              Thermite is not used in all demolitions .  Even the best demolition experts can be paid off.  In other words, he was paid off to forget what a demolition looks like.



              You haven't debunked the fact it was demolished.  You haven't even explained the molten steel.  Go ask Mr Kelly about the molten steel.  How did you show me using thermite wasn't possible? Just refer that to me again?  How do you know there was no flame where that smoke was coming from?   And of course white smoke was coming from the towers where it was burning.  There's the molten steel that you refuse to address!  It's just funny how you say I'm not allowed to not know but you don't know what the white smoke is and you don't know what caused the horizontal projections and molten steel.  Different standards for you, hey?

              http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7303212_f248.jpg

              And we see the white smoke at Ground Zero:

              http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lxHkFGQPc90/S … educed.jpg

              There's the molten steel and white smoke at Ground zero!

              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7303221_f248.jpg





              I was thinking about this and have come across this theory:

              "These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply
              demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way.  That is, the buildings were brought
              down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have
              caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction.  Therefore, shaped charges and
              other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that. 
              Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed
              otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted
              (or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether).  This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005).  The mixing is accomplished by
              adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000).  The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways. The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999).  Sol-gel nanothermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural framework
              (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004). 

              Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003).  But it is important to remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials. It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nanothermites were developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998, Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002).  These LLNL scientists reported that --

              “The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus” 
              (Gash et al 2002).

              The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings,underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008).  This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening.  The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005).  Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006).  It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing."

              Isn't that interesting that non-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC? That would have melted the steel.  The bombs may not even have thermite. 

              http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2 … Nano-1.pdf





              Walter said it was a like a cruise missile with wings.  Tomahawks are cruise missiles.   I mean, you haven't addressed how impossible it is that a plane can enter the Pentagon like that.  So please explain how such an impossible move was caused by a terrible pilot?



              I never said it was done in 36 hours.  Read my comment and sources again. 

              Did you know months before 9-11, the elevators were being "modernized"?  How was the the director of the security company for the WTC? Marvin Bush, Bushies' brother.   When the security company installed their security in 1999, wiring for explosives could have been placed. 

              The WTC was evacuated a couple of times weeks leading up to the terror attacks.

              Watch!

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHawFS0oJlU


               

              Oh, so that firefighter that spoke of the isolated fires that could be knocked out what delusional? How does any fire get under control when flash-overs occur all the time.   If you worked on the site, would you not have seen the molten steel and the white smoke? Did you know there were hot spots months after 9-11? Did you know that recovery workers had the soles of their shoes melted off?

              "Out on the rubble it's still, I believe, 1,100 degrees. The guys boots just melt within a few hours."

              One of the more unusual artefacts to emerge from the rubble is this rock-like object which has come to be known as "the meteorite". "This is a fused element of molten steel and concrete all fused by the heat into one single element."

              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7305289.jpg


              This is what a gun looked like retrieved from the rubble:


              http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7305290.jpg

              Have you seen this before?


              http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.php




              The problem with you is that you cherry pick.  You ignore a lot of my arguments that aren't convenient to you.

            2. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              As for the plane that hit the Pentagon - that one I can confirm. I was not there - did not see anything, but a lifelong friend, a professional witness for the FAA, was called to the wreckage. He took numerous photos and showed me copies. He pointed out different parts of the destroyed plane. I could not have recognized those parts - they were so badly demolished, without his help. But yes, a plane definitely hit the Pentagon.

              1. Claire Evans profile image91
                Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, the FAA aren't capable of lying....not!

                Show me those photographs! The FAA also showed me where the pink unicorn was buried at the Pentagon crash site.  It means nothing until I provide the evidence.

                http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7305990_f248.jpg


                I see no plane debris here? Did he take photos inside of the Pentagon?

                Can you explain the plane wasn't caught on camera going into the Pentagon?

                1. American View profile image60
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "All of the columns of the floor that collapsed had to have buckled at exactly the same time for it to fall symmetrically."

                  Please, it is getting embarrassing for you at this point. Controlled Demolition, ALL columns do not buckle at the same time. Interior first floors are discharged first, proceeding to second third and so forth. At a predetermined point, depends on the building and landing points, the outer beams get discharged.

                  Have you not really looked closely at a demo. the middle of the building falls first while the exterior stands for a few floors. Notice that is not what happened at WTC. the entire structure fell all at once in one piece from the point of impact up.

                  So lets follow Claires plan. They blew the upper floor first, which means the pilot had to be such a genius pilot he knew to hit the 78th floor. So at 400 plus MPH, the pilot counted from the ground up 78 floors so he could be sure to crash into the appropriate floor. Then they detonate the 78th floor first which goes against all rules of demolition because controlling the drop would not be possible.

                  "
                  This is completely irrelevant because normal fire could not have made the steel buckle.  As I mentioned, all the jet fuel was consumed within 15 minutes.  For heaven's sake, I don't know how the WTC was designed for airplanes to go into it just to have a short burning fire bring it down?"

                  Finally glad to see you admit you do not understand the design of the building. That is at the core of why you fall for most of the truther stories. It has been proven scientifically that the jet fuel did not burn off in 15 minutes.

                  As for your continued claim steel does not give way to heat, Bless your Heart.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA

                  1. Claire Evans profile image91
                    Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I meant that the columns supporting the floors had to have failed at the same time.   Is it not true that the core consisted of 47 steel columns that were attached to each floor? All of that would have had to fail in order for it to fall at free fall.  Correct?

                    Reports say that the weak single-bolt connections in the towers contributed to the collapse.  Weak bold connections? Is that a good idea where designing a building that is meant to deal with the strong winds and multiple jets going into it?

                    "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

                    Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center

                    The FEMA and NIST

                    Those building were very solid and secure.  It's just an embarrassment to think they were designed to implode after a fire that didn't even burn for 2 hours,

                    I cannot for one moment think the designers would comprise the integrity of the twin towers just for floor space.  It was meant to withstand severe earthquakes.

                    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL … heory.html




                    About a second before the north tower collapsed, the antennae dropped 12 meters.  This is irrefutable evidence that the floors giving way did not cause the collapse.  For the antennae to have dropped, the hat truss structure strengthening the core must have suffered severe damage.  It could not have been this damaged as the fire damage was 10 floors below the top three floors spanned by the massive angle I-beams.  It was intact.

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXhpC1p1lYo


                    Another strange thing to note is that the upper part of the south tower rotated and tilted for 2 seconds so that its roof overhung its base by at least 80 feet at one point.  The law of conservation of momentum would have made it topple over and not "go back into place" and continue to fall.  It just seems the designers of the WTC were able to defy the law of physics.

                    http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mac … n_features


                    With WTC7, it "kinked" in the middle to that the outer parts of the building were raised higher than the middle.   You see that line going across the top of the building before the collapse? What is it?

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus

                    And here you see a puff of white smoke start to emerge from the top of WTC7 just before it collapses.  What was that? There was no fire on the top of the building.

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp … re=related



                    Not if you consider the planes were flown by remote control.  Then the controllers would know exactly where to fly it in.  Who says the 78th floor got detonated first?

                    At the point of impact, there was obviously thermite there. You can see by the molten steel pouring out of the South Tower just prior to its collapse.  In other words, the steel just melted which jet fuel fire cannot do.

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6f9Jpfz1Vo




                    Finally glad to see you admit you do not understand the design of the building. That is at the core of why you fall for most of the truther stories. It has been proven scientifically that the jet fuel did not burn off in 15 minutes.


                    I thought it got twisted from the heat, etc, but didn't melt? Isn't that what made it weak?  Funny, the FEMA report says that the jet fuel was consumed within 15 minutes.   So they are lying then?

                    Actually the 9-11 Commissions report lies quite a bit which is strange because they could just regurgitate what you say.



                    I notice the building is still standing.  Wow.  If only the twin towers were designed like that!

                    Here are a few points to consider:

                    Pieces of the towers were shot out at least 70 meters when the collapse happened.  Why the horizontal projection?


                    Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of you just ignoring most of my points! Do you not know what molten steel is or what a demolition looks like? How did WTC7 fall? It is utterly embarrassing for you to admit your arguments have failed by just disregarding the arguments you can't answer.  Go back and answer EVERY argument I have posted.

  12. American View profile image60
    American Viewposted 4 years ago

    Claire,

    Not sure why my last post to you went to IAMANATHEIST , but it was meant for you.

    One last thing, I forgot to mention this. If you go back and look at the video as I suggested last time, you would see the person walking to the dust is a FULLY geared firefighter. Also, it is against code for FDNY personal to wear white tee shirts  or Jeans on duty,. We are required to wear dark blue uniform pants, "b" uniform shirts, approved promotional FDNY tee shirts(shirts that promote the FDNY or engine, or truck assignments.

    Once more another inaccurate detail.

    1. Claire Evans profile image91
      Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sorry, I didn't see it.  I also think it's weird that the "firefighter" was just looking on swaying about.  You can see it is a man with a white T-shirt and jeans.  He looked like he had a back-pack.  That is not an oxygen tank. Did the guy have a helmet on? 

      I bet you it was a photographer wanting to get rare shots.  When the towers came down, the dust came across at an amazing speed.  He should have been caked in dust.

      Please, this denial stuff is really sad and frustrating for me.

      1. Zubair Ahmed profile image79
        Zubair Ahmedposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Claire Evans - all respect to you for fighting all those sane people, it would appear anyone that disagrees with the norm is insane so everything that you say will fall on deaf ears as most in the Western world have been brain washed to such an extent - that even if a news channel reported that they own father or mother had been arrested for terrorist activity they'd believe it without a question.

        Keep up the good work maybe some day someone will wake up and smell the stench of what they are being fed.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Zubair,

          Interesting comment from someone who was not there. Claire is entitled to her opinion, but she does not like it when the facts get shown. It appears you may not like them either. Ask yourself this, if the truthers were correct, why do they not just push their theory for free? Why make millions off it?

          1. Claire Evans profile image91
            Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            As if witnesses don't lie or are in denial about things! 



            But you aren't showing me facts that support your argument.  To support your argument, you need to refute ALL of my arguments.  Not just some.  Don't just overlook the molten steel because it's inconvenient to you.  I put every effort into addressing every single point of yours which you cannot reciprocate!



            And that is supposed to debunk the "truthers"? Wow, I suppose if lecturers didn't charge for their lectures on a scientific hypothesis, for example, they can't be telling the truth!

        2. Claire Evans profile image91
          Claire Evansposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks

          I know it falls on deaf ears.  People have this knack to deny the truth even when it bites them in the butt.  This is how evil thrives.  It just needs people to ignore it for it to succeed.

          Whenever someone supports the official story and starts calling "truthers" insane, it is a dead give-away that their argument is very weak. 

          I write these comments for the sake of those who may be reading and have some back-bone to consider the possibilities.  I also enjoy debating.  That's why I'm here.

  13. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    Okay conspiracy nuts , The mother ship has arrived !  You must  follow the orders of the leaders , line up according to height and weight and then proceed  after reaching 35,000 feet , move  to the nearest exit  take this back pack {I promise theres a parachute inside" and jump !...........:-}

  14. The Suburban Poet profile image81
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    Claire blamed Mossad. There are things I can say about that but to me it shows there is something deeper than just 9/11 in her life that drove her to that conclusion. It is very important that Israel be blamed. You can connect the dots.

 
working