http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m.../gifs/what.gif

Well I have no desire to make enemies, so I will leave amicably.

ZP happens to be intelligent far beyond his years, I don't know if he's college-educated, and honestly I don't care.

Again I have no opinion on the Vancouver scenario, but how many of you have fallen for the simple chainletter scam hehe.. I'd be willing to bet, more than one!

I could heap up evidence, as I know ZP can as well. But it's in vain. And it'll change nothing. If anyone thinks I'm cowering in the corner with this, PM me. I just have too much respect for the forum to continue with this.

I graciously depart from thread...

Back to a serious level, I still truly believe it was a miracle that the towers collapsed the way they did. Can you imagine the utter devastation and chaos if either or both of the towers fell sideways? :oh: As terrible as it was, it could have been much, much worse.

In any case, try to create a conspiracy theory around these facts, mkay?

[YOUTUBE]bMZ-nkYr46w[/YOUTUBE]

Thiessen, please don't use the degree game, I know many people with degrees that are dumber than shit, literally, ignorant, and loud mouth fools. You have yet to put forth some credible evidence besides attacking me saying I'm 19 (I'm 23 if you must know). So if you think degrees mean something, then why have 800+ and growing architects and engineers joined the AE9/11truth movement in the USA? What do you call that phenomenon?

Freezebyte, since when is speculation considered evidence? That video is science fraud, the whole video is full of assumptions as if they were facts! Makes me sick. I bet you haven't even watched the video I posted have you? There is heaps and heaps of evidence for the "conspiracy" side of this, and what does the official story present you? Nothing, but a far out story about some men from caves with box cutters that managed to slip past the pentagon, CIA, FBI, NSA, IRS, homeland security, the military, whatever else.... and crash not one, not two, not even three planes, but four, don't you think that seems a little far fetched?

Also, Thiessen, I said try and explain WTC 7, you said they pulled it? Well, seeing as it takes weeks to plan and carry out a demolition project like that, I can't see that happening on the morning of 9/11. Here is an idea, maybe they set all the charges in the few weeks before when they have power shut downs, bomb sniffing dogs removed, and during that time the building had abnormally high levels of dust and contaminants in the air. Maybe you want to go tell all the firefighters who were actually there that they never heard bombs going off, that they never saw floor by floor explosions? Are you going to go call them liars?

Remember this, the best place the hide something is in plain sight.

Um - no, that's actually not true. You chose to ignore the facts that I did state. Using the example of experience is not a game. Its real life. There is a reason that, generally speaking, people without credentials dont achieve levels of being "an authority figure". Its not about the piece of paper, its about the knowledge gained. Its not about reading something on a website - its about seeing it happen in real life, and seeing why things do and dont work. I dont care what your opinion is, I do care that you have made statements regarding facts that simply arent true (I will use the 757 engine statment as an example). Yes, that entire chain of events was technically feasible.

And tell me this. What would you tell a six year old that argues with you that Santa Clause is real (assuming you weren't concerned with their feelings)? The reason they can believe is because they haven't experienced enough to be able to rationally make the connections. I see the same thing here.

If all this stuff that you've gathered from these various websites were true, more credible sources would have been all over it, and you'd see nothing but this on the news. I fear that your sources are the modern equivelent of tabloid news papers - I can start a website and put anything I want on it, and do it without retribution.

The civil engineers are saying that the buildings may not have been built to the specs that were claimed by the builder. They couldn't prove that because the debris was removed in a manner that facilitated them finding the bodies, as opposed to a method that allowed the engineers to study the dynamics of the collapse.

As far as explosions after the fact, consider this.
You have many broken gas lines. You have uncontrolled electrical sparking. What do you think is going to happen when those two are combined in a devastation zone like there was there? Have you ever been in a building right after an earthquake almost completely demolished it? There is gas everywhere, and there are electrical lines everywhere. I almost didn't make it out because of the gas. The building next to mine exploded - but it had been relatively stable during the quake - same effect as #7. And its not just the gas that can cause the explosions - its the dust. Once the ppm gets high enough, just a static spark can blow up an entire building (being from where you are from, do a search on grain elevator explosions).

Gotta run - wifey says she wants some...:na:

You are absolutely hopeless. You keep on speculating, speculating, speculating on everything, which, if you were educated properly, you would know is not scientific at all, and deviates the facts from fiction.

Shanksville, Pennsylvania
 

There is not much to say about this one except that whatever hit the ground, it was not a plane that was in one piece when it hit the ground. Debris was scattered over 4 miles radius around this peculiar hole in the ground with virtually no debris around it. Oh, wait, what about all the jet fuel that that would have been ignited at the crash?? You don't see any fire damage, except for the small crater the size of a Volkswagen golf (judging by the hole next to the garage... shouldn't the garage have been completely destroyed if a jet liner crashed there? LOL)

Donald Rumsfeld made a Freudian slip about this one as well, he said on the news about blah blah the other false flag terrorist attacks in Madrid, etc. He says "...the plane that was shot down over Pennsylvania..." Don't tell me it was just a mistake or confusion from another event, because there was no other event that a plane got shot down.

The air traffic controllers were told to evacuate from the tower, they said 'they couldn't see the plane from 15 miles out, which was quite odd for a plane it's size'.

A photographer at the location said all he could see nothing but a gouge in the earth and some broken trees. The Fox news anchor said the same thing!

The whole area was sealed off from anyone, and was considered a 'crime scene'... wait a minute, if that was a crime scene, then what the F#$K was New York? An accident?

honestly this thread is hopeless,as one of the apparently uneducated fools that sees 9/11 as a true terrorist attack,arguing is pointless.please close this thread!--josh

Pentagon
 

First of all, WHERE IS THE HOLE TO FIT A 757 INTO?!? That alone is enough to sound the "BULLSHIT ALARM".

Where is all the fire damage from all the fuel onboard? You saw the huge fireball on the twin towers (of which most of the fuel would have been burned off in the immediate explosion), but here you can clearly see open offices with the walls blown off with books and stools seemingly undamaged by the fire (or lack there of)??

Why does the plane have no wings? Aren't 757's principle of flight from the fundamental effect of air flow of an air foil wing? So where are the craters in the Pentagon where the wings should have been? Did they fall of before hand? Did they break off when hitting the building? If so, where are they then?

Why are is there hole roughly 7 feet diameter that goes through not one, not two, but THREE rings on the pentagon! So how can the fuselage do that kind of damage (made of aluminum...), and the wings (which would weight a large portion of the total mass of the plane) not do ANYTHING to the front of the building, not even to glass windows!! The only thing that could possibly do that would be maybe a small military drone aircraft (UAV?), or a bunker buster missile.

The engine is way too small to be from a 757 jet liner, but does line up with the size of engine used in the Global Hawk UAV. The wheels left in the debris also are a match for design and size to a UAV as well. Not saying it was a UAV though... we have no definite evidence of what it was, but it wasn't a 757!

Human remains... hgmm... I mean no human remains, nothing... how can you have no human remains and have pieces of fuselage on the lawn of the Pentagon with seemingly "American Airlines" letters and colors, that aren't even burnt? Ya, that adds up!

Check out the pictures.

whenever you get off your soapbox,people might actually pay attention......im done now.--josh

How about you actually read it, and stop being so bloody ignorant.

how about you stop acting like you have something to prove and stop trying to force your opinion down everyone elses throat. if your so certain your right,get off your computer chair AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!--josh