9/11 Coincidences and oddities!

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/oddities/2001.html

Go here, read, educate yourself on our corrupt government.

I'm only posting in the Gen Conv. because I don't want it to be a Conspiracy, but more of an educational based reading material.

Edit: Go here too http://www.911review.org/Wiki/TwinTowers.shtml

Edit#2: Also check this flash animation out about the Pentagon - http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pentagon.html#Main (brought up in the Conspiracy Forum)

I don't believe most of that stuff. Just seems to odd to me. If the USA government knew about it, there would need to be a motive to let such an attack happen. I don't see any reason as to why the USA would want such a thing to happen. Corrupt as government officials may be, I doubt that they are evil.

And as for the second link, my dad saw the plane fly into the second tower on TV, live, on a commercial television station. Unless the newscasters were in on this cahoots as well, I don't see how this would be possible.

I also watched it at school. After the first one hit, we stopped and turned on CNN. It was amazing, some dumbass flew his plane into the World Trade Center, we we're all stunned.

A few minutes later another plane came into sight, and people started to scream, it then bashed into the second tower. But after a while of them burning, the smoke turned black (meaning no fire) and then the Reinforced concreted steel towers imploded outwards, on themselves.

Me and my friend we're shocked by it, he's a pyromaniac, and loves explosives, he had told me that the planes couldn't have exploded like that , so much afterwards, but at the time I didn't believe any of the shit coming out of his mouth, but I felt very patriotic and sad for our countries loss. But all of this evidence is just amazing not to second-guess Bush's administration, and Bush himself.

EDIT: Here look at this http://thewebfairy.com/video/charges.going.off.wmv It's a video of the charges going off, you can see, after it has stopped burning you can see the explosives going off and the building start to synchronously crumble amongst itself,

As much as I dislike the Bush administration, I don't see this as much factual evidence against him. They are more like interesting little tidbits that make you wonder if something that far-fetched is happening, but in all likelihood, it's probably not. I kind of see this as the "Tupac alive theories." Many of those seemed to make sense at the time, when we were all caught up in the moment. They seemed like a reality. Hell, I believed he was alive myself. But now, looking back at it, the people who "discovered" those tidbits about Tupac probably had to look pretty damn hard to find that. I see this as much the same way.

Hell, if you wanted to, I'm sure you could find a way that you could blame me for not preventing the terrorist attacks.

Mj, did you actually go to those sites or not? The one link shows how there is no way a 787 could make an impact like that, it was explosives. The 2nd link is the same. I doubt the Bush administration set it up, let alone bush. But somebody in the heiarchy of our govt. may have. You can't say that the stuff they say isn't true.

And everybody knows tupac got capped, iz da factz niqqa.

Mj, did you actually go to those sites or not? The one link shows how there is no way a 787 could make an impact like that, it was explosives. The 2nd link is the same. I doubt the Bush administration set it up, let alone bush. But somebody in the heiarchy of our govt. may have. You can't say that the stuff they say isn't true. And everybody knows tupac got capped, iz da factz niqqa.

Well, I didn't read the whole thing, but I got the gist of it. I'll admit, I didn't read everything about the explosives. Regardless of those facts, even scientists fuck up sometimes. And anybody can put together a web page and make it say whatever they want. Not to discredit your source or anything, but we actually saw the plane run into the WTC. That's pretty convincing evidence. Plus, it would take a whole lot to pull off a manuver such as faking a plane flying into the WTC. You would practically have to silence all of downtown New York, because just about everyone there would have seen it. Unless, of course, you're implying that the planes flew into the WTC, and there were bombs inside, but that just wouldn't make any common sense. I don't know the physics of it to agree or disagree with the point of the explosion, so I'm tossing that fact out for now, because I really don't know how credible this source is. I'm not saying that it was, or wasn't a set up, I'm just saying that I don't know. I simply find it hard to believe that such a thing was set up.

It would be utterly retarded to kill so many people and destroy millions of dollars worth of buildings on purpose.

It would be utterly retarded to kill so many people and destroy millions of dollars worth of buildings on purpose.

Billions. The cost of each of those buildings ran into billions.

I don't believe it. The buildings had in internal skeleton of support beams which held the building up. They melted after tonnes of jet fuel started on fire. After they were weakened enough, by the weight of the upward floors, they gave out, and the towers crumbled.

there is much more that holds up a building than just the steel frame. Even if they didnt melt, the weight of the top of the building would EASILY bend the steel. Besides, what would be the benefit of all this?

Besides, the one guy who "couldnt fly" could have learned. When those planes are in the air, they are basically computer operated...if you have basic flying skills, is it really that hard to crash into a building? the quote about the who they said could never fly was probably because he sucked at taking off or landing..... did he take off or land? No. Invalid info.

Then there was the whole thing about the FBI being there within minutes to get tapes... why would the FBI want the tapes..? i dunno, to review them and see what the fuck just happened?

http://www.wftv.com/newsofthestrange...94/detail.html


There.

I agree. This is just a stupid conspiracy theory by idiots.

jesus christ. i'm siding with d3v on this one.

why? watch the videos. it's fucking photographic evidence that there was something else knocking those towers to the ground when you watch them fall STRAIGHT DOWN.

two words: CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.


oh, and if that's not enough, click the third link d3v posted. if they're not hiding anything, why did they say a plane crashed into the pentagon? a plane clearly did not.

I don't believe it. The buildings had in internal skeleton of support beams which held the building up. They melted after tonnes of jet fuel started on fire. After they were weakened enough, by the weight of the upward floors, they gave out, and the towers crumbled.

jet fuel doesn't burn steel. http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Muslim...dPhysics.shtml

after the fires had been extinguished by the WTC's built-in sprinkler system, demolition charges were set on specific parts of the skyscraper's internal framework.

and each conspiracy theory has its blind, idiotic followers who believe in it because they think they have evidence where evidence is nil.

All of those photos and videos could in fact be altered in some manner. Do you go take all your money out of your bank account and burn it? FUCK NO! Damnit, that's basically like what you're trying to make us believe.

KJ For all you know, 9/11 never happened. The govt. taped it, staged it, and destroyed the buildings themselves, hired hundreds of eyewitnesses, and killed thousands of people. But according to CNN all you know is the Al-Qadea attacked us... " .. "

Jet Fuel cannot burn fast enough to melt fucking steel. And when you watch the video, after the fires are out, and there is BLACK smoke, there is an explosion, and the demolition of the building takes place.

The contention is not that the fire melted the structural steel. Only that the heat made the steel weaker and more malleable at the higher temperatures. Steel becomes weaker as its temperature increases. The fire is not isothermal, some parts would have reached higher temperatures than others. The author mentions the amount of structural steel in the buildings as if implying that the planes would need to melt all or a significant proportion of it to collapse. All that was required was that the steel supports were sufficiently weakened in a few small, but critical, areas and then the building would come down.

. .

Another thing I looked up and found out is that the adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene is 1727 degrees celcius, whereas the melting temperature of steel is 1570 degrees celcius. Even if temperature was significantly less than 1727 degrees celcius the metal would buckle.

Ahahahaha. That's fucking genius. Good job MJ.

I've been reading this thread... Just FYI, this is horse shit, people.

Black smoke does not indicate the end of a fire. Black smoke indicates black fucking smoke. Ever seen a tire burn? Guess what you get: A fuck of a lot of black smoke.

Also, how can a plane not explode after it crashes into a fucking building? It's a damn airplane. Cars can blow up... Milk tankers can blow up. I'm pretty fucking sure if an airplane runs into a motherfucking building, the engine catches on fire, the fire spreads through the plane and hits a fuel line, and the fire goes up the fuel line into a tank, the plane will blow the fuck up.