9/11 Paranoia,and Conspiracy Nut Jobs

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,001
86
48
Who do you think does the polls for the government? Conservative think tanks do it for Republicans, and Liberals for Democrats. 97% of the stuff you see on TV is bullshit. Most of the things the government says are bullshit. If you took the time to read newspapers from other countries, watch news broadcasts from other countries, and so forth, you may have a different outlook. I think most Americans are too afraid of that idea, they dont' want to believe the government controls their lives, when the government pretty much owns everyone because we all feed the system, and still vote for the same groups of families...

And why does everyone have to prove you wrong and dispute shit? It's not always a game about right and wrong, if you want to be an informed citizen, look up stuff for yourself as well. Instead of saying, "fuck you guys, prove me wrong." It wouldn't hurt to just look into it, although links would help...maybe I'll try to find some later.
 
Aug 8, 2003
5,360
22
0
43
BAMMER said:
Not one person who disagree's with me has disputed what I posted.
are u talking about your popular mechanics??? read the thread better then cuz i did.. specifically page 2 of this thread... are u going to distpute the facts that i brought up ?
BAMMER said:
That's what's funny.I just took a poll to...(and like those others,none of us were questioned).....100% of Americans believe the US Gov was not involved.
(2 people questioned)
Your polls mean shit.
ok.. disregard the poll because u can come up with an extreme example using only 2 people... great logic there buddy!! :mad:
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,283
113
BAMMER said:
Not one person who disagree's with me has disputed what I posted.

That's what's funny.I just took a poll to...(and like those others,none of us were questioned).....100% of Americans believe the US Gov was not involved.

(2 people questioned)

Your polls mean shit.

Not one person who disagree's with me has disputed what I posted.
We already did....

And then the challenge was for YOu to debunk Troll...which you still have yet to do....
 
Oct 28, 2005
2,980
25
0
42
www.myspace.com
Jesse fuckin' Rice said:
Were not...stop being a stubborn fuck face and watch..

Why does something important or fact...have to be written out???

Its called "interviewing" dick...maybe youve heard of it?

But i expect nothing less from a black,right wing,conservative Bush lover...if the government told you the sky was actually red...you would most likely believe them...and that...is sad.....
You've got to be a fucking idiot, I swear to God. I don't give a fuck if you do end up one day seeing me in person, and get pissed off, even take a swing at me. You are one stupid fucking idiot.

The fact you would even bring up race as if it somehow helps your completely fucked argument that TV interviews are just as good as research papers.....fucking incredible. Some Harvard Ph.D program that would be, no?:

"So, Mr. Thomas. You can either write a 400-page dissertation and take several years.....or make a 30-minute propaganda video in a week or two. Your choice!"

"......yeah, I'm gonna go with the 30-minute video. See ya soon!"



"stop being a stubborn fuck face and watch..".....what is this, the 1930s? Building support in movie theatres to bomb the Japanese by making them all look like dangerous criminals, subversives, etc.? Now you're going to bully me into watching the video, knowing that no research paper exists to back it up?



I mean.....come the fuck on now:

"Why does something important or fact...have to be written out???

Its called "interviewing" dick...maybe youve heard of it?"


My god that was the stupidest shit I've read in a long ass time.....I'll be laughing my ass off at it later, but for now all I feel is contempt for you and your kind.

One thing is for certain: If i EVER see you complain, ANYWHERE, that Americans watch too much TV, or that TV is mostly full of "crap", or ANYTHING SIMILAR.....then I'm going to re-post this EXACT QUOTE FROM YOU that more or less equates TV with Reading....or even worse, in this case, RESEARCH WRITING with PROPAGANDA VIDEOS.

Can of worms is an understatement here. It's not even really that fun to keep slapping you around about this because it's so easy to do. So i'll just stop and hope you never say anything this daft again.
 
Oct 28, 2005
2,980
25
0
42
www.myspace.com
Sixxness said:
Who do you think does the polls for the government? Conservative think tanks do it for Republicans, and Liberals for Democrats. 97% of the stuff you see on TV is bullshit. Most of the things the government says are bullshit. If you took the time to read newspapers from other countries, watch news broadcasts from other countries, and so forth, you may have a different outlook. I think most Americans are too afraid of that idea, they dont' want to believe the government controls their lives, when the government pretty much owns everyone because we all feed the system, and still vote for the same groups of families...

And why does everyone have to prove you wrong and dispute shit? It's not always a game about right and wrong, if you want to be an informed citizen, look up stuff for yourself as well. Instead of saying, "fuck you guys, prove me wrong." It wouldn't hurt to just look into it, although links would help...maybe I'll try to find some later.
Stand up and call for the Research Papers. Make these people on YOUR side of the argument stop trying to BRAINWASH with these cut-and-paste, hit-piece propaganda VIDEOS, and instead, INFORM THE PUBLIC with nothing but raw objective FACTS and ANALYSIS without all the SPIN that you love to accuse networks like Fox News of doing.

You're correct--this isn't about right or wrong. This is about information. But if the only information we're allowed to see is Pro-Government and Anti-Government, then thats just Democrats vs Republicans ALL OVER AGAIN. Break the cycle.....practice what you preach. DEMAND the Objective information from your peers that they WILL NOT grant their opponents.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,001
86
48
Depends on where the videos are from. Some of the ones I've seen are from the History Channel, and I've actually watched several different documentary type things on the History Channel regarding 9/11.

I do agree that YouTube videos aren't a good source of information, but they aren't ALL bullshit. You just need to be SMART enough to figure out what's real and what's not.

And, someone observing something could be information and could lead to a fact about the observer or the observed, and it's not written down. I'm not trying to say that TV is a better source than literature because it's not. TV is full of bullshit just like most other news outlets (in this country).
 
Oct 28, 2005
2,980
25
0
42
www.myspace.com
Cmoke said:
dont see how all that rebuttles your comment about me being a hypocrite, but you believe whatever you wanna believe, as far as bring up me attempting suicide for the 678th time. I tried to kill myself, it was interupted by a freind who saved my life. unlike you, i dont thrive for attention. I made the thread to tell folks i was out and wasnt comin back only because i been on these boards forever. Fact of the matter is you can believe whatever it is you wanna believe, but you cant run around claimn u know shit when you dont. then end.
I know quite a bit, friend. Not everything or even a whole lot, but surely quite a bit. The fact that I speak so mellifluously demonstrates just that, as I've mentioned before.

When you speak truth, it flows, because truth blends naturally with other truth. When you speak lies, it doesn't flow, because lies are all jumbled-messes of garbage. It's no wonder your rhythm is so easy to interrupt, and mine....is not.
 
Oct 28, 2005
2,980
25
0
42
www.myspace.com
Sixxness said:
Depends on where the videos are from. Some of the ones I've seen are from the History Channel, and I've actually watched several different documentary type things on the History Channel regarding 9/11.

I do agree that YouTube videos aren't a good source of information, but they aren't ALL bullshit. You just need to be SMART enough to figure out what's real and what's not.

And, someone observing something could be information and could lead to a fact about the observer or the observed, and it's not written down. I'm not trying to say that TV is a better source than literature because it's not. TV is full of bullshit just like most other news outlets (in this country).
I agree. This is all truth. But consider: nobody (sane) is going to argue that Sportscenter or Sponge Bob are trying to brainwash people, or that you're a mindless sheep if you watch the Sopranos or a Who's the Boss marathon.

But if you are going to start slandering, and claiming that our Government murdered over 3000 Americans in cold blood, you damn well better have more proof than someone's personal opinion and a few blurry photographs and screen caps. You need to have some HARD EVIDENCE that unbiased (limited bias, that is) scientists can sit down and say, "Yes. We agree with this information. This information is scientifically sound, and has only a limited amount of questionable material and no demonstrably incorrect information whatsoever."

That these links and this research is either of beind HELD FROM US, or DOESN'T EXIST.....despite the fact that Loose Change has been out for a while now.......says A LOT.

Either it's being held from us because the news was REALLY BAD--Loose Change was junk and full of enough holes to discount most, if not all, of the entire film..........Or it was EVEN WORSE--Loose Change was so full of holes that it didn't dignify a scientific review.
 

I AM

Some Random Asshole
Apr 25, 2002
21,001
86
48
Dirty Shoez said:
I agree. This is all truth. But consider: nobody (sane) is going to argue that Sportscenter or Sponge Bob are trying to brainwash people, or that you're a mindless sheep if you watch the Sopranos or a Who's the Boss marathon.

But if you are going to start slandering, and claiming that our Government murdered over 3000 Americans in cold blood, you damn well better have more proof than someone's personal opinion and a few blurry photographs and screen caps. You need to have some HARD EVIDENCE that unbiased (limited bias, that is) scientists can sit down and say, "Yes. We agree with this information. This information is scientifically sound, and has only a limited amount of questionable material and no demonstrably incorrect information whatsoever."

That these links and this research is either of beind HELD FROM US, or DOESN'T EXIST.....despite the fact that Loose Change has been out for a while now.......says A LOT.

Either it's being held from us because the news was REALLY BAD--Loose Change was junk and full of enough holes to discount most, if not all, of the entire film..........Or it was EVEN WORSE--Loose Change was so full of holes that it didn't dignify a scientific review.
All I'm gonna say is, Jack Herrer...Dude did research for the gov't about marijuana in the 70's, when he came back with good things to say about it, they were later destroyed and never allowed to test again. Do you think our government would let people figure this out? Do you think Hitler was all about letting people figure out his plan?

Let me ask you this...did you read the shit about Habeus Corpus being out the window now? How about the plan for MATRIAL LAW that was written by Poindexter under Nixon's administration...

There's shit going on behind the scenes, you just have to read between the lines. I'm not sayin ALL of the videos are bullshit or that ALL of them are credible. You can't tell either way really, unless you know WHO made them and what organization they work for (if any) and if they're independent, what's their motivation? I know there's a lot of wacky fucks out there, but our goverment IS corrupt and if you can't see it, that's very sad.

One of my home boys had this book about 9/11, I can't remember what it was called, but he said it had a TON of facts (written, obviously). I'll try to find out what it was called.
 

I <3 The Cock

My Dead Grandmother Was A Whore
Mar 5, 2006
445
0
0
36
Dirty Shoez said:
I agree. This is all truth. But consider: nobody (sane) is going to argue that Sportscenter or Sponge Bob are trying to brainwash people, or that you're a mindless sheep if you watch the Sopranos or a Who's the Boss marathon.

But if you are going to start slandering, and claiming that our Government murdered over 3000 Americans in cold blood, you damn well better have more proof than someone's personal opinion and a few blurry photographs and screen caps. You need to have some HARD EVIDENCE that unbiased (limited bias, that is) scientists can sit down and say, "Yes. We agree with this information. This information is scientifically sound, and has only a limited amount of questionable material and no demonstrably incorrect information whatsoever."

That these links and this research is either of beind HELD FROM US, or DOESN'T EXIST.....despite the fact that Loose Change has been out for a while now.......says A LOT.

Either it's being held from us because the news was REALLY BAD--Loose Change was junk and full of enough holes to discount most, if not all, of the entire film..........Or it was EVEN WORSE--Loose Change was so full of holes that it didn't dignify a scientific review.
I can't believe that people actually take these videos seriously
 
May 9, 2002
37,066
16,283
113
Dirty Shoez said:
You've got to be a fucking idiot, I swear to God. I don't give a fuck if you do end up one day seeing me in person, and get pissed off, even take a swing at me. You are one stupid fucking idiot.

The fact you would even bring up race as if it somehow helps your completely fucked argument that TV interviews are just as good as research papers.....fucking incredible. Some Harvard Ph.D program that would be, no?:

"So, Mr. Thomas. You can either write a 400-page dissertation and take several years.....or make a 30-minute propaganda video in a week or two. Your choice!"

"......yeah, I'm gonna go with the 30-minute video. See ya soon!"



"stop being a stubborn fuck face and watch..".....what is this, the 1930s? Building support in movie theatres to bomb the Japanese by making them all look like dangerous criminals, subversives, etc.? Now you're going to bully me into watching the video, knowing that no research paper exists to back it up?



I mean.....come the fuck on now:

"Why does something important or fact...have to be written out???

Its called "interviewing" dick...maybe youve heard of it?"


My god that was the stupidest shit I've read in a long ass time.....I'll be laughing my ass off at it later, but for now all I feel is contempt for you and your kind.

One thing is for certain: If i EVER see you complain, ANYWHERE, that Americans watch too much TV, or that TV is mostly full of "crap", or ANYTHING SIMILAR.....then I'm going to re-post this EXACT QUOTE FROM YOU that more or less equates TV with Reading....or even worse, in this case, RESEARCH WRITING with PROPAGANDA VIDEOS.

Can of worms is an understatement here. It's not even really that fun to keep slapping you around about this because it's so easy to do. So i'll just stop and hope you never say anything this daft again.
Are you mad?

I can tel youre a republican...everything needs to be in writing...

Andyou can WRITE somethign out...and then MAKE it into a video...

It seems people respond better to VISUALS....

Oh and by the way...id like to see you call me any of those things to my grill...i can give you a 206% guarntee you will walk away with half of your teeth missing, and eating breakfast,lunch & dinner...through a straw....

Watch your fuckin mouth...
 

I <3 The Cock

My Dead Grandmother Was A Whore
Mar 5, 2006
445
0
0
36
Jesse fuckin' Rice said:
Are you mad?

I can tel youre a republican...everything needs to be in writing...

Andyou can WRITE somethign out...and then MAKE it into a video...

It seems people respond better to VISUALS....

Oh and by the way...id like to see you call me any of those things to my grill...i can give you a 206% guarntee you will walk away with half of your teeth missing, and eating breakfast,lunch & dinner...through a straw....

Watch your fuckin mouth...
Are you fucking retarded?
 
May 10, 2002
3,391
4
38
42
@mob shit- your comments ideas and thoughts are automatically scraped because you have no input, knowledge, or common sense about anything. I think you are here to ride peoples dicks and talk shit. So why are you even speaking again? Please save yourself a little time and stop posting.
 
Oct 28, 2005
2,980
25
0
42
www.myspace.com
Jesse fuckin' Rice said:
Are you mad?

I can tel youre a republican...everything needs to be in writing...

Andyou can WRITE somethign out...and then MAKE it into a video...

It seems people respond better to VISUALS....

Oh and by the way...id like to see you call me any of those things to my grill...i can give you a 206% guarntee you will walk away with half of your teeth missing, and eating breakfast,lunch & dinner...through a straw....

Watch your fuckin mouth...
You seem to be the one who's mad, scrappy. I just feel contempt for you, a mix of sadness and pity.....but you feel actual anger.

Anyhow, if this video was "written" first.....THEN WHERE IS THE MOTHERFUCKING WRITTEN PAPER? Where are the GODDAMNED facts at?


This is ri-fucking-diculous. You people swear you're on the side of TRUTH and HONESTY and OPENNESS, and so far, all you offer is this piece of shit propaganda video with no reader to back it up. You just keep saying,

"Watch the video. Just watch it! Don't be stupid, watch it! Don't be a sheep! Just watch it!!!"

You sound EXACTLY LIKE your interpretation of the Government--"Just trust us! Don't ask questions....just trust us!" -- Almost makes you wonder if South Park was telling the truth.....no? Are you all on the payroll or what?

Provide the scientific research, or please, scale-back your mouth-blabbering, because it will have been proven that you are full of shit.
 
Aug 8, 2003
5,360
22
0
43
Dirty Shoez said:
This is ri-fucking-diculous. You people swear you're on the side of TRUTH and HONESTY and OPENNESS, and so far, all you offer is this piece of shit propaganda video with no reader to back it up. You just keep saying,
why? any link that is provided for you is dubbed "anti-republican" or made by a "nutjob".. so why try?? your not going to look at the facts but instead bash the person making it because thats your last resort..

Dirty Shoez said:
"Watch the video. Just watch it! Don't be stupid, watch it! Don't be a sheep! Just watch it!!!"

You sound EXACTLY LIKE your interpretation of the Government--"Just trust us! Don't ask questions....just trust us!" -- Almost makes you wonder if South Park was telling the truth.....no? Are you all on the payroll or what?
the diffrence between asking someone to watch a video and asking someone to flat out trust you should be obvious..the video provides some facts and is a presentation.. asking someone to just trust you denies the viewer/listener to make their own decisions... but i digress... its your intent to discredit by drawing extreme non-sequiter examples..
Dirty Shoez said:
Provide the scientific research, or please, scale-back your mouth-blabbering, because it will have been proven that you are full of shit.
*sigh*.. if u wish...

The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True::
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.

Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s. Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: &#8220;They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]&#8221; (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because &#8220;the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure&#8221; (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.
^^^
ok.. so far MIT says.. "planes did not cause significant structural damage"

There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: &#8220;steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.&#8221; Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: &#8220;It was the fire that killed the buildings. There&#8217;s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted&#8221; (Barter, 2001).[7]

These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800&#176; Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700&#176;F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]

Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300&#730;F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.

But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down.
or how about...
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen,John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about critical events in New York and Washington, DC

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which in their opinion has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expected from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory--that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this about--is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied. They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government's own investigation to be severely flawed .The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions .The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7,a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholars find profoundly troubling:

In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11,so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?


Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700&#176;F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800&#176;F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000&#176;F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93,which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered overran area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?
Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.
These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."
http://www.st911.org/
can u answer these assertions without bashing the people who made the claims? go search that popular mechanics article if u wish but i have debunked it before and will again..