Its not correct. I've also seen a youtube video claiming that the Gov used UAVs guided by a laser... haha

ironic.. is it not?

You are correct. it could of not of been a plane because everyone would of heard it and seen it flying so low to the ground but no one heard anything till the last second.

Ok, read it, and it's not correct in what it says.

Now, since I read that, you read this: http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Cause%20It.pdf

Really, read what an actual expert says, and show me where he's wrong. Show me a mistake in his calculations that prove it can't have been demolition, and had to be the combination of a giant impact of an airplane and the ensuing fire.

Whhhaaaaaaaaa?

Of course it was a plane, not a UAV. Look at the videos, look at the wreckage, look at the accounts. Both were CLEARLY airline passenger jets. Only the most asinine conspiracy types believe in this, so you must be the most asinine of conspiracy types.

You still fucking thing it was a plane ? How does the wings just slice through steel like a knife through butter ? A solid does not go into a solid the last time i remember. The wings would of collided and Bent outward's, not slice through the steel .

speed of the plane...mass of the plane...

Aluminum does not go through steel how dumb are u people !
the faster the " plane " went, Means the faster it would of bended into a jumble of plane parts.

Physics wes, physics. Lead is softer than both steel and aluminum, yet lead bullets will go right through both of them. Do you even think about these things before you post them?

Ever seen the aftermath of a tornado, where the high windspeeds will lodge blades of grass in telephone poles? It's very easy, actually. Make anything go fast, and it'll go through other things.

Here's an example: records are EXTREMELY fragile, yet this one was successfully lodged in a telephone pole due to its high speeds.

Again wes, think! Bullets vs. steel plates! Lead bullets, copper-jacketed bullets, all softer than steel, yet they go through! Yeah, they get severely damaged, but they go through, just like the plane.

Oh, and the building isn't solid steel, a whole lot of the outer wall is made of glass.

Oh, and the plane WAS just "bended [sic] into a jumble of plane parts", it wasn't sitting there on the other side wholly intact, it was very much destroyed, as was the building.

The "plane " Would of been huge compared to the building.
its not like a bullet thats super small and designed to go into objects, the plane is designed to be the most air efferent, not efferent at going into objects. The last time i was on on a Airliner and i looked at the wings, i saw a sticker on the wing that said " No step here "
meaning that the people who built it would of broke the wing if they stepped on it. But yet it will go through steel and stay intact with out bending or anything.
it just dont add up.

Read the edit, the plane was SHREDDED. It wasn't sitting there intact, of course not. It went through the wall, destroying the plane AND the wall. But it certainly wasn't going to just pancake on the side of the building. It smashed through, smashing the wall and the plane.

Just think of bullets ok wes they go through very solid objects

All things aside
lets just say that PBD is correct and buildings do turn into dust that way...
he does make some very good points about velocity, but still leads me to ask more questions.


why did BBC say tower 7 "collapsed" before it did?




you can see it clearly behind her left shoulder..
that alone leads me to believe the media was scripted.

What about that?

Simple. Reporting error due to misinformation. Ever played that "telephone" game where everyone sits in a row, and a secret begins at one end and you whisper the secret down the line, and when it gets to the end it's different than when it started? Same thing. There were no reporters down there, cell phones weren't working the city, radio communications were working but spotty information. Everything they were reporting was at LEAST third or fourth-hand information. One person says "everybody evacuate because that building is in danger of collapsing", the next person says "that buidling is collapsing", the next person says "they left because it was collapsing on them", the next person says "omg, the building collapsed!". See, wasn't that easy?

There are dozens of example sof misinformation being reported on live TV, because 100% of the reporting being done that day was by rumors and hear-say. They had no solid evidence except what was coming in via rumors, and they can't know what building is what when looking at a skyline like that.

:P

i understand how that works..
*Simply. Error of memorization due to the deception. Of all this " played; telephone" the game, where he is firm all in a line and where segretezza of the beginning to an extremity and you of segretezza of the bisbigliano in the soffit of the line and alcangam in the extremity it' Diverse S this, when to begin? The same thing. It had journalistas to the cellular soffit here, calls by telephone to weren' T, of that fits in the action the city, communications of the radio, despite was fit in the action stained the information. Much that one memorised, was third party of the information at least or of the hand of a quarter. A person says " all defecate, because this construction is of collapsing" in the danger; , the following person says " that Buidling is collapsing" , the following person says " they were, because in zerbröckelte of them" , the following person says " omg, zerbröckelt of the construction! ". You see, wasn' T those simply?*


See.. simply

but dont you think that the actual chances of that "game of telephone" will really happen.
towers 5 and 6 were in waaaay worse condition than 7. why were those 2 not mentioned. the odds on that have got to be 1000000 to 1. she nailed it dead on with the 47 storey solomn brothers building. since no other buildings have ever fallen like that in history, how was she to guess that?

when have we ever seen buildings do down except in controlled demo?


i dont believe it was simply coincidence.

But WTC7 going down wasn't a surprise to the people that were actually down there. They knew it was in danger, they had already gotten everyone away from that building because they knew it was in danger. It makes perfect sense that word would start getting out about the building being in danger of falling down. It makes sense that as it got closer to collapsing, and they realized it was getting closer, word would start getting out. It makes perfect sense. Sure it's long odds, that's why only one station was reporting it instead of all of the stations.

And as far as having the details, the details get filled in in the news room as they process the rumors. "Salomon building in danger of falling down". the news room goes "what the heck is the salomon building?" so they google it, and include a description of the building along with the report of the rumor they just got. Misinformation happens, and it happened a LOT that day because there was NO ONE in the area after it was evacuated, and most all lines of communication in the city were down.

fox news also reported early...
the said it had fallen. but then it goes down right in front of them.
why did they "just get news" it had fallen when it hadn't?

BBC wasnt the only one

0:47

30 seconds early? Ever heard of a tape delay?

Heck, they could've been WATCHING the BBC report and gotten it from there, since that fox thing was apparently 30 minutes after the BBC thing aired.

And that's even a local Fox affiliate, that's not the national network. Why in the world would THEY, of all the news organizations in the world, have advance knowledge? Fox-5 WTTG, local news in the DC area, was given top-secret knowledge of impending national catastrophy? Yeah right.

If they were giving that info to every tiny little affiliate in the country, or even just in the northeast, you're talking about tens or hundreds of thousands of people that had to be "clued in" to things before that happened. And yet somehow they're all keeping quiet?

And the anchor even mentions "we have no way of knowing" in regards to multiple things being reported, they were working off of rumors and hearsay, 100%.

like the Manhattan Project?
how long did that stay secret for.

besides, fox said "this just in from new york." not bbc said this 20 mins ago from the UK.

The BBC's reporter was in New York, right?

And the Manhattan Project was people out in the middle of nowhere with only need-to-know people. With this, you're talking about an order of magnitude more people, in the internet/tabloid/blog age where there are MILLIONS of people that will lap up and believe the story from some small news affiliate. There are millions like you and wes that would LOVE to have one, single person come forward from a news organization and say "the news station received advanced word before it happened, I was there", yet not one single person has come forward. How is that possible?

Instead, everyone at the news organizations is saying "there was misinformation, there was confusion, errors were made because there were no communications, only rumors and hearsay that day".

Had you ever heard of any media reporting on the events before it actually happened until this thread?

also have you seen this..


if they caught terror suspects from the day of, why was the public never made aware?
most people still have never head of this GW bridge story

So some Israelis in a moving van arrested by a racial-profiling cop prove....what exactly?

Israel - Israelis detained on George Washington Bridge on 9/11 sue Department of Justice

the article mentioned says nothing about explosives..

was dan rathers report disinfo?