9-11/WTC question

so, i was wondering... you know the explosions that happend in the towers after the plane crashs? the ones that were sooo obviously put there to take the building down completely... why doesn't anyone say anything about the possibility that they were a type of hurricane/desaster protection? cuz i remember from watching the descovery channel a few years ago that they'll construct really tall and/or potentially structually dangerous buildings with demolition explosives in case the building was deffenatly going to fall so the building wouldn't cause even more damage.

even if this is true, i agree that everything else is overly suspicious. i'm not getting at anything here, really. i'm just wondering.

 

lol

you might as well be suspicious

Republicans have been trying to get the Anti-Terrorism Bill passed since 1993, after the Waco incident (but that was during Clinton's watch), and bam, it immediately gets passed after 9/11??

it's not the first time the admin has caused "collateral damage" to get legislation passed, and used the media to influence mass opinion.

gotta figure, CIA and Clear Channel operate closely together, so you'll never see the full story.

paranoia?? heh, yeah right..
more like reality.

 

no man... see... i totally said that i wasn't getting at anything (and i put it in the paranoia thread cuz there were like, 5 threads it coulda gone in and i got sick of trying to decide) but anyway...

no one needs to go into the plot... i'm simply wondering why i never hear anyone saying "well you know, those explosives were there in the first place, as a type of "fail safe" if the building topels (so it doesn't go crashing into other shit)"

i never hear anyone saying whether they were there to begin with or not. no one even adresses the topic. it's not like it's a secret when buildings have them and if the gov't was hiding whether the building was rigged with them or not, why don't they up their stance and say that they were always there. it's a pretty big blow to them because you can see that they're going off... you can hear it and people have talked about it.

i'm not even saying that it might be an explanation. it's totally out of nothing but curriosity.

 

yea, out of the thread topics this could fit in, i'd say paranoia is the least related. ...but whatever, i've given my disclaimer.

 

I suppose they were strategically put there, wouldn't quite make sense that they were there all along; and the "paranoia" rhetoric is just that; a response to would-be accusations from people who dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory" , simply because it can't be proven

(if it could be proven, don't you think the shift of attention would be mainly on the behavior of government, rather than foreign policy and "terrorists"? )

but most of the news you see on TV has been through a great deal of filtering. it's how they cover their own butts.

 

i'm not really sure if you're responding to me

are you just like, using this thread to rant about stuff?

cuz like, it really seems like you're not reading my posts.

and if you are, you're skimming and comming up with insane impressions of what i'm asking

btw, i agree with you, you're "preaching to the quire" here, it's just not what i'm saying or asking.

 

I am directly replying to what you've written

"I suppose they were strategically put there, wouldn't quite make sense that they were there all along"

my mention of media/Clear Channel is pertinent, in that you won't likely hear the full story, ever.

 

Guys, the world trade center collapsed from fire damage caused by the plane crashes.
Even building 7, which was not hit by a plane.
Duh.
Despite fire fighter transcripts saying they had the fires out, despite the towers being designed to withstand multiple jet impacts, despite fuel not being hot enough to melt steel...
the towers collapsed due to fire damage, and 110 stories fell in 8 seconds. Makes perfect sense.

No, the pentagon was not hit by a missile.

 

Answers in red.

 

how do you know?

are you one of them???

 

http://prisonplanet.com/multimedia_priorknowledge_firefighterstape.html

there ya go, bud

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm

there's about the 8 seconds, so it may not have been 8 exactly, pat yourself on the back...then watch loose change

http://question911.com/links.php

 

yes, the reptilians told me

after they MADE ME ONE OF THEM!!! muwahahahaha

 

Dude, that's a conspiracy website, get a credible source.
And even if they somehow DID fight it, which I doubt, the steel did have time to expand, a lot.

Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4763320529356355623&q=wtc+collapse there is still fire right before the collapse.

 

dude, every website a conspiracy website, unless its run by a Time-Warner/Clear Channel subsidiary.

 

"According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds" from your website. Towers don't fall in slow motion like you see in movies, that's a very ignorant way to think. They do follow the law of gravity, the resistance is really small compared to what was going down.

I did watch loose change, twice.

Read this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
If you don't I'll copy paste everything in it.

 

great.

so somebody please tell me, with a link, how the supposedly "world's most secure building" allows a passenger aircraft, to fly over restricted airspace, and plow into it, because I for one, would like to know..

or maybe planes fly 20 feet above the pentagon all the time, huh?
because there are ALL SORTS of links debunking the myths and conspiracies of the Pentagon hit, in fact, lots of books and news reports addressing the Pentagon attack...right?!

 

I don't comprehend your post very well.

But you see, there are facts, in written/paper reports. And then conspiracies come, which usualy get debunked by the facts. A news program won't report about a conspiracy that got debunked because that just goes back to the facts.

 

my question is "how did a plane get over restricted airspace, without being shot down" ?

fact: you can't just fly a 757 (or any plane for that matter) directly over the Pentagon, without it being intercepted.

 

Hmm, pardon my ignorance but I never heard that a plane flew OVER the pentagon. Could you please provide the source of this information.

 

you're right, it flew INTO it. (even more suspect)

there's a certain radius, called restricted airspace (a "no-fly" zone), that a plane is not allowed to enter; if it does, it receives radio warning, and if necessary, is shot down.

so, with your inclination for sources, I was wondering if you could provide me with one that shows why and how this particular plane was able to breach restricted airspace, and hit the Pentagon.