Share
An increasing amount of Americans are questioning the official story of the events that transpired on Sept. 11, 2001. Rallying cries such as “9/11 was an Inside Job,” “9/11 Truth,” and “Investigate 9/11” have been swirling around.
According to the official story, as put forth by the federal government, 19 Sunni Muslims — planning and coordinating from the caves and fields of a remote Third World nation — hijacked four commercial jetliners, evaded the most sophisticated defense system in the world, and flew said jetliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. What drove these men to carry out the suicidal mission, the narrative goes, was not United States sanctions, interventions and occupations overseas, but simply the fact that “Americans are rich and free.”
Anyone who dares to question the official narrative is deemed a “conspiracy theorist.” This is quite ironic considering the official story itself is a conspiracy theory — after all, the very definition of a conspiracy is two or more people meeting in secret to carry out an evil or unlawful plan. Regardless of whether government officials are telling the truth about Sept. 11, those who question the official story raise some interesting questions that every American should at least consider.
Many questions still surround the collapse of 7 World Trade Center. Everyone is aware that 1 World Trade Center and 2 World Trade Center collapsed that day, but few realize another 52-story-tall building collapsed eight hours later. Typing “WTC7” or “World Trade Tower 7” into YouTube brings up thousands of videos of the building. To the unemotional and rational observer it is perfectly clear that fire and structural damage — neither of which were significantly present — did not bring the skyscraper down demolition style.
Before Sept. 11, fire had never collapsed a steel reinforced concrete skyscraper. Typing “skyscraper fire” into YouTube enables viewers to see dozens of skyscraper fires over the past few decades. Some of the fires were literally towering infernos that spanned dozens of floors. Not a single one of them collapsed. Miraculously, though, on Sept. 11, fires brought down three modern-day skyscrapers. It is incredibly difficult to bring down a skyscraper. Even under the controlled situation of a planned demolition, things go wrong. Typing “skyscraper demolition” into YouTube brings up numerous botched demolitions.
The mystery surrounding WTC7 has birthed groups such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This group, comprised of over 1,500 architects and engineers, is calling for a new investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. Family members of Sept. 11 victims have also started their own groups. One in particular, Remember Building 7, is in the process of flooding New York’s media with commercials about 7 World Trade Center.
A version of this article appeared in the Sep 13 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 61 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
There's very little worse than someone who refuses to believe basic science and engineering and I can't believe the CT gives a platform for false rumors flat out lies to be spread.
It's very simple. A plane fully loaded with jet fuel slammed into each building where the resulting fire weakened the structural supports until the buildings collapsed. Massive structural and fire damage to WTC7 caused its eventual collapse.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm
And specifically about WTC7: http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
Read those instead of watching some pixelated youtube footage with an agenda stapled to it.
Reply to this Top
Actually, it is impossible for fire to melt metal. That is why the NIST investigation called it a "new phenomenon," because it has never happened before.
Reply to this Top
By metal, I mean steel that is used in buildings, not an aluminum can.
Top
This is the building, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQeQi5XXfz0
Top
This is the building, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQeQi5XXfz0
Top
Congratulations, you have just weakened metal until it failed. Same idea.
Top
"go bend a paper clip in half until it breaks"
You can't bend a paper clip, therefore, it couldn't have happened. The government must have bent the paper clip.
Top
NIST documents (based on video and photo evidence) on 10 pages in their WTC 7 draft report that heavy steel section of WTC 1 were "ejected"/ "projected"/"expelled" during the destruction of WTC 1 and moved about 328 ft. horizontally. In the final report they write about "fragments" that "were forcibly ejected and traveled distances up to hundreds of meters." When one uses the NFPA 921, which was co-developed by NIST, to interpret the horizontal movement of heavy debris one has to notice that such movement is typical for high-order damage, and one has to conclude that it must have been caused by explosions that have such a high rate of pressure rise that venting effects take not place. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5joqbu7gkM&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP7DA03410FCC33F7A
All the relevant statements by NIST and from the NFPA 921 are included in the two parts video, and you will find the horizontal movement of several free-flying sections (from both, WTC 1 and WTC 2) documented and analyzed.
For the NIST study you might look at their exclusion of evidence, here an article about their exclusion of the physical evidence of WTC steel; the columns from those stories that gave unexpectedly way on 9-11 were systematically excluded from being examined (in case of the core columns) or from being adequately examined (in case of the perimeter columns). http://www.ae911truth.org/documents/How_NIST_Avoided_a_Real_Analysis_of_the_Physical_Evidence_of_WTC_Steel.pdf
Reply to this Top
NIST documents (based on video and photo evidence) on 10 pages in their WTC 7 draft report that heavy steel section of WTC 1 were "ejected"/ "projected"/"expelled" during the destruction of WTC 1 and moved about 328 ft. horizontally. In the final report they write about "fragments" that "were forcibly ejected and traveled distances up to hundreds of meters." When one uses the NFPA 921, which was co-developed by NIST, to interpret the horizontal movement of heavy debris one has to notice that such movement is typical for high-order damage, and one has to conclude that it must have been caused by explosions that have such a high rate of pressure rise that venting effects take not place. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5joqbu7gkM&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP7DA03410FCC33F7A
All the relevant statements by NIST and from the NFPA 921 are included in the two parts video, and you will find the horizontal movement of several free-flying sections (from both, WTC 1 and WTC 2) documented and analyzed.
For the NIST study you might look at their exclusion of evidence, here an article about their exclusion of the physical evidence of WTC steel; the columns from those stories that gave unexpectedly way on 9-11 were systematically excluded from being examined (in case of the core columns) or from being adequately examined (in case of the perimeter columns). http://www.ae911truth.org/documents/How_NIST_Avoided_a_Real_Analysis_of_the_Physical_Evidence_of_WTC_Steel.pdf
Reply to this Top
Have you looked at the official reports that you claim to be a fully scientific and definitive take on these matters? They are filled with science that would have earned a high school physics student a C at best. There are many omissions where reliable data was overlooked. People who defend the NIST report and other official physical stories speak as if the results came out of general and common sense science, yet the events would be a stark and lone anomaly. As stated in another post, the falling of building 7 was not in line with general science, but starkly strange, and stated as requiring new theory. Physics is highly reliable. It seems backwards to adjust our sense of physics to one case rather than adjusting our take on one case to physics. ...Jet fuel was not a major fuel source for building 7. Even if it was, it is basically kerosene, an organic carbon-based fuel that does not burn at radically high temperatures. Instead of thinking with your ego and sense of resolve under authority, consider appealing to what should be the ultimate authority for any case such as this; physics and the history of its valid usage in non-political cases. If you do this, it seems there is little hope for building 7's demise being a mere gravitational collapse of 'weakened' steel. If you can manage it, please stop thinking with pre-established political certainty, and think with pre-established general physical certainty. thank you.
Reply to this Top
I do believe "something" flew into the Pentagon, but it wasn't a 747. The point of entry is too small and where are any evidence of wings? There isn't any. Could have been a missile. Real investigations should be done and just don't believe what the gov't tells you to believe..
Reply to this Top
Actually, I was there, and saw WTC7 from a couple of blocks away during
the majority of the event. There was NOT much fire at all in association with
WTC7 -the building when standing was physically separate from both the North
and South Towers. It stood essentially as close to them as the AMEX Building on
the crossing of the West Side Highway. The AMEX building, much like WTC7 DID
experience 'grazing' and 'punctures' from the collapse of the Twins however there
was no direct fire in any of those buildings. Even the Deutsch Bank Building, again,
the same distance from the Twins was severely 'punctured' and 'grazed' by debris
but it too stood solid until it was dismantled last year. There really is NO good
explanation as to why WTC7 came down. It was not an issue of engineering failure.
Likewise, it most likely was not the intense heat of jet fuel that brought down the Twins,
it was interior support column structural damage from the direct impact of the jets.
The fire most likely helped to further weaken what was actually steel supports being
sheered as if by scissors.
A good example was PNC Bank in Philadelphia which burned for 4 days
on its upper floors. While the steel supports did 'sag' by several
feet there was never any collapse. It was eventually dismantled.
There are legitimate questions as to why WTC7 actually came down.
Reply to this Top
Thank you Chris Dunn, this is a necessary and brave article.
There's very little worse than someone who can't apply high-school physics, a stopwatch, and their own eyes to realize that all three WTC buildings collapsed at or near free-fall speed, symmetrically and into their own footprint, exhibiting all signs of a controlled demolition.
Furthermore, no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed completely and rapidly due to fire.
Some people will never change their minds regardless of the evidence; that's the hallmark of faith and religion. For those who believe in science as a method of inquiry, the facts will speak for themselves. What you do with those facts is a matter of courage and integrity.
Reply to this Top
@eyes-open
Of course no steel framed high rise building has collapsed due to fire. A normal fire does not burn at the temperature that JET A (aviation fuel) does. As a former structural engineer, I can assure you that once metal (even steel) has been superheated enough...and it was - by JET A...it will lose its structural characteristics and is not capable of supporting what it was designed to support. You also have to consider the structural members that were taken out by the impact itself, which has been completely ignored in most of these accusations!
Once various members are taken out, and the steel columns left are subject to a JET A fire, everything below the compromised members is subject to the force of everything ABOVE the compromised members accelerated in freefall (or close to it)for the distance of a few floors worth of height.
I've studied this myself. I can't speak to the Pentagon disaster, but conspiracy theories about the WTC are complete rubbish. I've done the study. I've used the science. My guess is you have not. STOP IT!
Reply to this Top
Dude, you have not studied it. You did not even read the article. He was not talking about the tall towers, he was talking about the 50-story building that collapsed demolition style. WTC7 WAS NOT HIT BY A PLANE. Read before commenting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQeQi5XXfz0
Top
Is it really that hard to believe?
Top
DUUUDE... I HAVE studied it. Perhaps you should study the comment I was responding to... you know, that one that suggests "all three WTC buildings collapsed at or near free-fall speed, symmetrically and into their own footprint, exhibiting all signs of a controlled demolition."
I was not speaking of the article.
Read before making jerk comments.
Top
Roughly 80% of the dispelled jet fuel upon impact actually was 'ejected' from
the interior of the North and South Towers. A portion of it poured down elevator shafts, but the majority of it was propelled beyond the building's 'box' and burned
as it cascaded toward the ground. What we all saw burning was simply the combustible material within the building - paper, plastics, carpeting, drapes,
people, and furnishings. The Twins did not 'hold all of the burning jet fuel as if it
were a self-contained fishbowl of burning gasoline; much of it burned 'in the air'
as it left the opposite quadrants of the building.
Top
Roughly 80% of the dispelled jet fuel upon impact actually was 'ejected' from
the interior of the North and South Towers. A portion of it poured down elevator shafts, but the majority of it was propelled beyond the building's 'box' and burned
as it cascaded toward the ground. What we all saw burning was simply the combustible material within the building - paper, plastics, carpeting, drapes,
people, and furnishings. The Twins did not 'hold all of the burning jet fuel as if it
were a self-contained fishbowl of burning gasoline; much of it burned 'in the air'
as it left the opposite quadrants of the building.
Top
@eyes-open--yours are quite obviously closed. It is clear to me why you are a FORMER structural engineer. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. In the case of the Twin Towers, neither did jet fuel burn long enough to matter. Additionally, most of the fuel burned outside the buildings. The high smoke density evidenced by both Twin Towers indicates oxygen starvation and even lower fire temperatures.
Your studies obviously did not include WTC7, nor the expulsion of steel beams laterally. Neither of these factors have ever been explained by the government conspiracy theorists. I've done the study. My guess is you have not.
Top
High-school physics is not calculus based. You should be embarrassed if you think it's applicable to this highly nonlinear system.
Reply to this Top
@Adam: firstly, whether high-school-level physics is taught with calculus or not depends on the high school. Many schools around the world can and do teach calculus and physics together, to teenagers.
Secondly, in case someone doesn't know the kinematics equation in question, google "kinematics equations". Plug in known heights of the buildings, along with using 9.8 m/s^2 as a (acceleration), and zero for initial velocity to solve for t, time for the distance covered. height = 1/2 * g * t^2, in case it's needed.
Watch videos of the collapse, and time them. Compare the numbers. Did all that concrete and steel slow anything down? Not really. Did the asymmetry of the damage cause any imbalance of forces during the collapse? No, straight down, remarkably even. Well, hummmm...
Top
If you think h=1/2*g*t^2 combined with a grossly estimated 9.8 and timing from a youtube video are in any way sufficient, you really shouldn't be commenting. Reckless assumptions can make any physics equation do what you want it to.
Your results, using the principles of kinematics, have actually disproven the theory you propose. The problem is that you measured the time it takes for the rubble to come to rest. You have made the assumption that the roof falls to ground level, or zero height. The fallacy lies in that the rubble height was in the ballpark of 10% of the building height. Therefore it's estimated that the roof of the building moved only 90% of the building height. The time for that to happen is what you have actually measured. You have stated that the video/experimental time is equal to the time you calculated from the known 100% height value. So you have, in fact, proven that it was not freefall.
well, hummmm...
Top
Wow, someone thinks he's smart, and he didn't even get calculus-physics in high school.
Read the guy's post and see the big picture, the nitpicking is tiresome. Are you saying the collapse wasn't free-fall, especially the 80-90% of the collapse that's visible with the WTC7 collapse? Are you saying changing the height by 10% makes a critical difference to the free-fall observation? It doesn't. I took only the height I could see collapsing, and clocked that; it's still essentially free-fall speed.
Or if you're saying you have a better model with a closed-form analytic solution, we'd all like to test it out.
Top
There are people on both sides of this who are incapable of reason over emotion. The best way to rid one's mind of possible bias is to use highly reliable principles over clear data. David Chandler has a nice video on youtube showing how to see the free fall of bldg 7. A comment stated that the timing of a youtube video is unreliable. This is simply not true. Of course it varies from reality, as it is a copy, but not to any large extent. That is a terrible argument. The building apparently fell without any resistance, with all gravitational potential energy being cleanly converted into the kinetic energy of the falling building for a long period (see chandler video). This implies that the energy to do the work of ANY other process (crushing, pulverizing, moving thing around, etc) is either small and hiding in the error, or was supplied by another source. This is where I admit my limit, I don't know how to calculate the energy needed to pulverize the concrete, etc. of that portion of the fall, but it seems to me this would not be small, and could be somewhat easily given a lower bound envelope by a competent engineer or physicist.
Top
@Bill
I don't think I am smart, but what I said is a fact in refuting the claim in the anonymous comment. My point is that using the kinematics equation is bastardizing physics and that the the anonymous post makes the wrong conclusion from the observation. I don't agree that that is the way to solve the physics problem and agree that a closed-form analytic solution would be super. I was merely showing that the person analysis was fundamentally flawed and spewing ignorance.
The argument of freefall versus not freefall is an ignorant one because the videos only allow you to see the outer edges of the main towers which would be in freefall because they fall away from center.
You can feel free to continue to take my comment out of context and say that I was conveying it as THE way to do physics. No harm to me. Or, you could learn to read, and see that I was only referring to the method of the comment above.
The main take away from all of this is the first sentence of what see-david-chandler-and-more said, which is that "There are people on both sides of this who are incapable of reason over emotion". You could produce a closed-form solution and it would still be disagreed with.
Top
you need to include a 1st order term to the original differential equation to account for air drag. you wouldn't be able to just integrate from acceleration all the way to position to get the time of drop and i can promise you, you would come to a much more realistic solution if you did this.
for example h=1/2gt^2 implies the object is a point mass of negligible size (which steel girders and all their surface area are not)
so to get a better model (and remember, that's what these are, they are MODELS = IDEALIZATIONS, the actual experimental data could show something different depending on the quality of your model - which h=1/2gt^2 is a very simplistic and not accurate except for small, heavy objects with minimal surface area in free fall)
solve this diffEQ instead: sum forces = m*acceleration = (0 if using high school physics), = -drag force (=1/2*Bottom Side Surface Area*air density*coefficient of drag*velocity^2)
Top
in addition, pieces of the building did not fall straight down in a flat line, no doubtedly when a floor collapsed some pieces were proppelled outward and those may be the pieces you were actually able to see in the video footage among the rubble. to more accurately represent that you would want to use a vector representation of the velocity and drag forces. to more accurately describe the collapse of the building itself, it might be more wise to include some kind of term that represents how each floor impedance the preceding falling floors collapse and then to do that for the whole building would probably require you to discretize the entire system because and solve a solution for each floor. (this is just how I would have approached this, but there could be many ways to approach it and if anything it would serve you right to try multiple ways of solving this problem just so you have an idea as to how accurate any of your solutions are). but to continuously preach this idea that because your high school physics formula doesn't accurately predict the fall of this specific building is to continuously perpetuate a falsehood and demonstrate how ignorant you really are.
Top
My highschool Physics is calculus based...i didnt know there was another option
Top
Chris, thank you for your bravery. I also believe 9/11 was a coverup, especially Building 7. Thank you, again, for trying to spread the TRUTH
Reply to this Top
And there it is... Rock bottom.
Congratulations CT.
Reply to this Top
Rock bottom was a Harry Potter column over summer session. This 9/11 column is actually really good. I have NEVER met a single person who has studied 9/11 for themselves who actually believes the official story. Even a few Tech professors know it is a lie.
Reply to this Top
Agreed...on the Harry Potter column being Rock Bottom. Nothing will ever be worse than that.
Although I don't know what Tech profs you're talking to. Mine (steel and reinforced concrete professors) have not jumped onto the conspiracy theory bandwagon.
Reply to this Top
Oh yes it's really brave of you to blame the government for this elaborate conspiracy. Do you really think that Bush would kill innocent Americans? of course not let's be serious. The truth behind 9/11 that all of you are too scared to admit is that Israel was behind the attacks. Israeli special forces orchestrated the entire attack to get America involved in Middle Eastern affairs because congress was about to cut out aid to Israel prior to 9/11. Israel doesn't care if a few gentiles have to die. They run this country and are preparing for a new Jew world order. So run along and if you want to believe your safe theories then go ahead. I on the other hand am ready for the real threat. The jews are behind this and you don't have the balls to face facts.
Reply to this Top
Finally someone who gets it!...The Jews are behind it. They crave to rule the world and force math, fiscal prowess, gefiltefish, nova, and bagels down the throats of those who dare defy the new Jew world order!
Reply to this Top
The world is ready.
Reply to this Top
For Shame.
Editor In Chief Zach Crizer and Opinions Editors Scott Masselli and Sean Simon need to immediately issue an apology and a retraction for this article. They have editorial discretion and to allow a piece of garbage like this to get published not only serves to embarrass themselves, but also tarnishes the reputation of our institute of higher learning. Chris Dunn has revealed himself to be someone who never needs to be taken seriously ever again, and his paranoid delusions warrant no response. Someone at the CT needs to take responsibility for this sad insult to the dead.
Reply to this Top
@Disgusting
This is an opinions piece. The CT is not reporting it as fact. I personally feel that what is said in the piece is asinine, for the most part. But Chris is entitled to his opinion as much as you or I are - regardless of how disappointing it may be. The CT doesn't have a great record, but there have been similar opinions pieces put out in much larger newspapers.
If you feel this is an "insult to the dead," you need to move to another country that does not value freedom of speech.
Reply to this Top
Hey anon, write a letter to the editor refuting Chris's points. Put your name out there with a letter. I'm actually glad to see pieces that stir controversy. Better than the normal garbage you read in the Roanoke Times or see on Fox and CNN.
Reply to this Top
Thank you so much Chris Dunn for this excellent article. Ignore the haters. There is no reasoning with them; no amount of evidence against the official story will convince them. They remind me of the people who insist Jesus really did break the laws of physics and walk on water, and they do this out of nothing more than blind faith. For many, blind nationalist faith in the inherent "benevolence" of the USA makes people willfully blind to facts. I'm reminded of the "good Germans."
Reply to this Top
But there is no evidence. There is no explanation as to how/why the CIA or whatever managed to rig three skyscrapers up for demolition without anyone noticing. When there is a credible alternative to the so called 'official story' then I'll give it its due credence.
Reply to this Top
This isn't an article, it is an opinion piece, which explains why none of the 'facts' presented are substantiated.
Reply to this Top
The burden of proof is on those making the claim, not vice versa. I've yet to see a single piece of remotely solid evidence provided with any conspiracy theory.
There is a reason why the vast majority of physicists, civil, and structural engineers agree with the "official story".
Reply to this Top
Please reference this very thorough Popular Mechanics article on all of your "inconsistencies."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center
"We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified." -James Meigs
Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked - Popular Mechanics Editor Note - The Lies Are Out There - Popular Mechanics
Reply to this Top
Popular Mechanics' attempts to discredit non-governmental 9/11 conspiracy theories have been thoroughly raked and skewered over the years, e.g.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=sr_1_1
Reply to this Top
"To the unemotional and rational observer it is perfectly clear that fire and structural damage — neither of which were significantly present — did not bring the skyscraper down demolition style"
Really? Show me the OTHER side of the building otherwise you are speculating without any basis in fact.
Everyone likes a good conspiracy...right up the point it fails under the sunlight of facts....
Reply to this Top
If you think this brought the building down, you are only kidding yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4SEhMpbo74&
Reply to this Top
I don't know why they don't educate themselves. Iran has also been saying the same thing for years but no one in West will believes us. Oh, you forgot to add that all the Jews didn't show up for work that day. We still have to do that hiking trip to that beautiful park in Northern Iraq I've been telling you about...
Reply to this Top
Ok sure, so next thing you're going to tell me is that the pyramids were built by aliens, Nessie is really a government experiment gone wrong, and that our world is flat?
Reply to this Top
The first guy to say the world was not flat was treated the same way you are treating Chris.
Reply to this Top
Great article. Sadly, nobody will question the government's story. It amazes me that people will not investigate 9/11, when this government lies constantly. Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs in Iraq, remember the Maine, Lusitania... need I say more?
"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable" - H.L. Mencken
Reply to this Top
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM
It's clear to me that NIST are lying.
Reply to this Top
Yes! Yes! the CIA, George Bush, Israel and US military planned and executed this at the highest levels. Please keep following me on Twitter.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/September_11/irans-ahmadinejad-repeats-911-conspiracy-theories-anniversary/story?id=14492467
Reply to this Top
Don't listen to Ahmadinejad, listen to me, Al Queda!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/28/al-qaida-ahmadinejad-911-conspiracy
Top
To know what really happened to WTC7, simply watch this 15 minute video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
Reply to this Top
To know what really happened to WTC7, simply watch this 15 minute video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
Reply to this Top
To know what really happened to WTC7, simply watch this 15 minute video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
Reply to this Top
The 'article' is very poorly written. When something is this amateurish, its assertions lose credibility. Not to mention that his arguments are ridiculous. And of course all of the nutcases have to chime in. Get a life people.
Reply to this Top
Three things.
1. If the "truth" is so glaringly obvious, why are there fourteen versions of loose change, etc? If you say the official is so obviously wrong, then show me something that is obviously right. Youtube science and quote mining is not good enough to prove you right.
2. If you want me to take you seriously, then offer me counter arguments to the official version and don't play the, "that tape isn't proof because it is from the government so it is doctored," card. If you can't prove something wrong you can't just say it us faked by the government.
3. Don't tell me to ask questions, I believe the official reports to be right. You must prove them wrong. Just because one thing may not be explained doesn't make them wrong. "A fire has never brought down a skyscraper." "Polio had never been cured." Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.
Reply to this Top
wow. No wonder this this country is going down the tubes. By default, the above poster trusts government until it is proved government lied. /facepalm
Guess you still believe a lone nut killed JFK.
Reply to this Top
I am shocked and disappointed that this article was allowed to print. As someone who had friends who lost family members in the Pentagon I am extremely disappointed that someone could be so callous to think someone would murder thousands of people just to go to war in the middle east. Finally why don't you ask all the people in Arlington that day who clearly saw a plane flying low to the ground directly at the Pentagon. Or those in New York who saw the planes first hand hit the towers. Your ignorance and stupidity is astounding.
Reply to this Top