9/11

And it's possible monkeys will fly outta my ass.

Likely? I don't think so.

it would be a huge conspiracy but there are some things that strike me as odd... especially the pentagon incidence...

Daiwa is right.  And if you are worried about the pentagon incident, maybe you can watch the film showing windows on a plane crashing into it.  Sorry, this is just a rehash of the French kook theory.

Oh, BTW, you may want to check out this link.  Kind of sinks that conspiracy theory.  But they will ignore it since it does not fit into their kook theory. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Oh, BTW, you may want to check out this link. Kind of sinks that conspiracy theory. But they will ignore it since it does not fit into their kook theory. Link

Dr. Guy, I took a look at your link but it doesn't really debunk some of my major questions. Like take Q2. Okay they explain the height but what about the wingspan? Also what about the engine and the wheel that were found? These are three questions I have yet to find a legitimate arguement for the 757. I cannot simply overlook such questions. Maybe I missed the answers.

Maybe I missed the answers

I think you did. The link was just one of the links that blows this kook theory out of the water. This one dealing with the Pentagon plane. And the kooks contention that the plane (first) that hit the WTC did not have windows is refuted by photgraphic evidence.

Look, I got questions too. But I am not going to hang myself out on a limb trying to prove it was a conspiracy. The problem with a conspiracy that large is that there are too many people involved, and they cannot keep their mouths shut.

But the beauty of this kook is that if you do not believe him, you are part of the conspiracy. A perfect crime in his book.

I wasn't talking about WTC only the Pentagon. I was watching the news when I watched the second one hit the other tower. I don't question that it was a passenger jet. I look at the evidence presented about Pentagon and I am just like Hmmmm. Seems fishy. I'm not looking for a conspiracy here just the facts. And unfortunately it seems like I have to sort out more trash than the crash.

And unfortunately it seems like I have to sort out more trash than the crash.

Fortunately, the facts are out there. I no doubt beleive that much is still not told. But there were too many witnesses that at least we know the how, just not the why. The Kooks try to contruct the how, in the face of irrefutable evidence. Now if they instead consentrated on the Why, that would be another issue. (That French Guy kind of did).

showing windows on a plane crashing into it

crashing into what the pentagon? if so i would love to see that

You'll recall that there was video footage of the first passenger jet crashing into the WTC, not just the second - that French camera crew interviewing a firefighter on the street when they heard the low-flying plane and swung the camera up to film it.

That's just one point. The logistics of a "conspiracy" this large are simply not doable in anything but a Hollywood film and someone's fevered imagination. Take the theories that the towers & WTC7 were taken down by demolition charges - just explain to me how the conspirators could have pulled that off, something that would have required weeks of work that could not possibly have been hidden from view. I don't care that the buildings fell down "too straight" - I'll just accept that gravity works.

A whole bunch of people were supposedly murdered just to take out Ron Brown, too, but I don't buy that, either.

Yeah the WTC conspiracy doesn't hold much water.

I don't care that the buildings fell down "too straight" - I'll just accept that gravity works.

Is there any record of any wind? If it was a windy day and they came straight down then maybe.

crashing into what the pentagon? if so i would love to see that

No, the WTC.  That was one of their statements.  That the first plane did not have windows.

One of the better conspiracy sites is AboveTopSecret.com

Here's one article on their site that is entitled: Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11

www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Thanks Secret Squirrel.

I don't care that the buildings fell down "too straight" - I'll just accept that gravity works.

It's a building, and it didn't collapse until well after the second plane hit. Considering that it fell apart in giant boulder sized clumps that probably weighed tonnes or close to it, it's not surprising the pieces had extremely limited ballistic paths. Wind resistance of any kind on a multi-tonne chunk of rock would kill flight speed.

I would be much more surprised if the building fell over rather than collapsing.

It's a building, and it didn't collapse until well after the second plane hit. Considering that it fell apart in giant boulder sized clumps that probably weighed tonnes or close to it, it's not surprising the pieces had extremely limited ballistic paths. Wind resistance of any kind on a multi-tonne chunk of rock would kill flight speed. I would be much more surprised if the building fell over rather than collapsing.

Cacto -

I agree with you. There is a theory that a bunch of (alleged) mechanical & building engineers have cobbled together which holds that we should be suspicious that the structural failures which initiated the collapse of each building occurred more or less "simultaneously" (allowing the buildings to collapse straight down rather than at least a portion of the buildings toppling over) and that the odds against that are too high. That it looked too much like a planned demolition to not be one. Eh.

The also claim that puffs of debris being ejected from upper story windows of WTC7 in the instant or two before its collapse becomes apparent externally indicate explosive charges were used. It's all garbage, but interesting to play with. They only have to look at the Sampoon shopping center disaster, though, to see that a large building can simply collapse in on itself, even without a fire.

a pack of innuendo, rumor and outright lies. Most of those things have been dealt with. They abuse the stock information, using the yearly, not seasonal averages for put, and they don't bother to check and see how those airlines had been covered in the news. This is no different than UFO alien people, who make their assumption and then gather facts that seem to prove it based upon their preconceived expectation.

The most heinous parts, if you ask me, is the abuse of the fact that the WTC was used on the covers of those reports with the crosshairs. I'd bet dimes to donuts that I don't even have to tell anyone why they were used there pre-9/11. You already know.

Because we had already suffered the first major foreign attack on American soil... at the world trade center in 1993. Is it a coincidence that they'd associate the WTC with terrorism? These jerks don't want to mention that, though, because they are trying to make it look like what's there is based on the people who printed it knowing what was going to happen.

I really, deeply feel sorry for people who can so easily go in for this stuff the way the folks we see on TV and the Internet do. How miserable and frightened must they live, believing such depressing, terrifying things. Let them live in their little hell of being afraid the black helicopters are coming for them.

I don't care that the buildings fell down "too straight" - I'll just accept that gravity works.

I remember watching this show, and that show said that first building had an intact inner column for short time, so outer walls fell first. I guess it kept building from tipping over while falling down. Second one was opposite, with inner supports falling first, helping it fall straight down by imploding.