It seems to me that there are 2 different arguable things that happened on 9/11. First off, and the one that's much harder, is who they were and who is connected to them. This information may or may not be ever known. But one thing that is fact to me is what we were told happened is a definate lie. I remember that day seeing those buildings come down in 10 seconds and saying to myself," wow, that looked like a demolition?" It is scientifically impossible for those building to have come down from the planes. Heck, even the Engineer's of those buildings said that. Those planes collapsed faster than if you dropped a pool ball from the top of it! Even the owner of those 7 buildings was caught in a lie stating, "the fireman told me at 4 pm that building 7 was on fire and should be demolished." So he had it totalled and later stated, "well, the fireman really didn't tell me, I just assumed it was needed." Just so happens that building contained all of the CIA and FBI info, specifally everything that was going on with Enron. Couldn't he atleast gotten the paperwork out before he totalled it? You then look at the Pentagon incident where not one person or camera caught a picture of the plane going into the Pentagon, and also there hasn't been 1 piece of the plane found. NOT 1, even the area's width isn't close to what it would be if a standard 747 hit it. With all of this scientific proof out there, along with finding out its possible that Bin Laden is dead, I ask why arent we talking about these things? Do you still believe that what the 9/11 commission presented as the facts are true?

Also, if you get a chance, go to Zeitgeistmovie.com and watch they're documentary, its fantastic. Won an award at the Sundance film festival earlier this year

That statement is incorrect.



Virtually everything in that movie has been debunked.

By you saying thats incorrect, you saying you know more than the Structural Engineers who built it? This is not my opinion, I'm going off an interview that they gave.

Why would someone demolish a building with people in it - Not good financial sense.

No, I'm going by this article, among others:

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report, oddly by Popular Mechanics magazine.

There are other debunking sites that will show that you've been mislead, if you care enough to read them.

Ah, the infamous Popular Mechanics hit piece. I can sum the article up like this:
Myth: what your eyes tell you. Fact: what the government tells you

I noticed that in the section on building 7, they failed to mention that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC, admitted to demolishing the building(7) on PBS. Still, PM would have you believe that the WTC was just constructed like crap, and all of the buildings were designed to fall and melt. If this were true, even that would be suspicious.

The section on the Pentagon says nothing about the absolute lack of video of the Pentagon being hit, even though there are cameras all around. PM apparantly doesn't think this is suspicious enough to even mention. It does talk about how the plane lost 1 wing:"In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns". No mention as to why the pristine lawn lacked the huge rut which a wing would make.

You know, that sounds like the typical conspiracy theory mantra -

"The government never tells the truth

and the facts are alway misrepresented."


Oh, I can't find any site showing specifically where Larry Silverstein stated that he had the building demolished, other than after he and the NYFD officials agreed that the building was too far gone to save.

OK, so you DID find it. The answer is in your own post. AFTER WTC7 was too far gone to save, they agreed to demolish it. The thing is, you can't "pull" a building just like that. The building had to already have been rigged for demolition. What, you think they sent a demolition crew carrying explosives into a burning building?

Do you have a link where he said that explosives were used,

or are you assuming that he used them?

Do you have links where he expounded on that phrase to describe how he had the building demolished,

or are you assuming that he did?

Is assuming ever a good basis for an argument?


Of course, this site must be dismissed by conspriacy theorists, too -

Debunk911myths - Larry Silverstein discusses where the word "pull", on a building that size, would mean to "pull out the firefighters" because the building was too far gone to save.

Silverstien used the demolitions industry term "pull it" which in the same PBS show was used in that same context (referring to the demolition of WTC6). Silverstein much later tried to say he meant "pull the firefighters"(after people caught on to the fact that the charges had to already have been set), however, your Pop Mechanics article says,"There was no firefighting in WTC 7".

Quote by Silverstein, "They made the decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Oh, and John, at least my argument is consistant. 2 posts ago you agreed that he had it demolished until the implications of that were made clear.

Ah, poorly phrased - instead of

"Oh, I can't find any site showing specifically where Larry Silverstein stated that he had the building demolished, other than after he and the NYFD officials agreed that the building was too far gone to save."

It should read "Oh, I can't find any site showing specifically where Larry Silverstein stated that he had the building demolished. He and the NYFD officials agreed that the building was too far gone to save."

He did not use the word "pulled" until after it was agreed that the building was too far gone to save.

I notice you deflected my request for links where he said that explosives were used or that did anything actively to have the building demolished.



Nope nothing about explosives there. It is consistent with making the decision to pull out any firefighters and allow the situation to take it's course. Very similar to what firefighters do across the country when fighting building and house fires once they determine that the building is lost.

I agree, your argument is consistent - consistent in it's attempt to missrepresent what happened.

This post has been edited by JohnWho: Jan 27 2008, 06:45 PM

Wikipedia Office of Strategic Influence. Government program started right after 9/11, its purpose is to lie. The first lie they told was that they are only going to lie to foreigners. The second lie was that they shut the program down (when in fact they had only changed the name). This propaganda office disseminates fake news like the popular mechanics article you cite(hence the totally out-of-place article in a POPULAR MECHANICS magazine). You can probably link to a dozen "the government's good" sites, but this flood of lies from the serpent's mouth means that you need to decide who you can trust. The government has proven themselves untrustworthy on every occasion we have had to trust them. The 9/11 story sounds like pure BS coming from a compulsive liar. Perhaps the chronic secrecy, lies, and obfuscation has made finding out the whole truth impossible, but where there is smoke there is fire. Who had motive and opportunity? Who benefited? The Bush administration.

AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!!!!!!

So, if I'm understanding correctly, the Bush administration planned the hijacking of planes, purposely crashed them into the WTC, and had explosives set up to finish the job. First of all, not only does that sound immensly ridiculous,

But WHY? There has been a ton of throwing conspiracy theories around, yet not one post I can find mentions the point of doing such terrible acts. We could have gone after Bin Laden even without 9/11, because he's attacked us on more than one occasion. Iran was about nuclear missiles, not 9/11.

What would have been the motivation? I can't think of any.

Oh, and as for the impossibility of the towers coming down. I'm taking an AP physics course in high school right now, and I can say for near certainty, that there is no way somebody could account for all the forces acting on every object in that building when that plane hit. There would have been so many resulting elastic collisions, frictional forces, momentum, ect.ect.ect., it is impossible to calculate every single thing. Most likely, something hit into something else, which hit into something else, which hit into something else, ect. ect. ect., and being able to calculate all those probabilities and collisions is impossible. Chances are, something happened that the Engineers haven't accounted for.