To clear a few things up here: 1. Weight. The bomber weighed about 185,000 pounds, they airline craft weighed roughly 700,000 pounds, quite the weight diferential. 2. Speed. The bomber was trying to avoid hitting the building at about 250mph, while the commercial plane intentionally flew at a faster rate into the WTC buildings at roughly 450mph. HERE is something interesting, its a forum that hypothesizes what would happen if a large jet slammed into the WTC....dated December 2000
i strongly believe it was a conspiracy...with all due respects to those who died. i still stand at the fact that kerosene can not burn hot enough to melt the steel found in the WTC's. And even more of the fact of the pentagon. The fact that no marks were left on the ground as other plane crashes have shown, makes me think it was otherwise.
Just to let you know that your link is broken Draw, there's an extra http prefix on the beginning. But I removed it and had a look. Its very interesting indeed, and unnervingly close to the actual event, but alot of the discussion there seems very speculative without much detailed technical evidence/reasoning to back it up. Your points are good though, and I feel this comparison between the bomber and the commercial jet is essentially pretty flawed.
I wasn't trying to use it as evidence, I just thought it was erie that they were discussing a similar topic to what we are now prior to 9/11. Oh and I fixed the link above, for those who were curious.
Sorry if I sounded like I was saying that, I didn't mean it like that at all, I was actually saying how your comments seemed to have alot more of a solid basis than the ones on those site. And I agree, it was a little freaky.
Hmm? If the Government really wanted their "conspiracy" to suceed, they would have killed the person who made that movie. What is the matter with killing a few more people? They already killed alot more. There is NO 9/11 conspiracy. Click me to read why there is NO conspiracy.
2 things... 1) They did kill a lot of "videographers" (if you will). I can't take the time to provide sources for this, but yes, a lot of video evidence was already destroyed. 2) Your link doesn't really lead me to much. =/
THIS is where you should have linked me. -_- Anyways, I just read it, and to me it sounds like a man who thinks he knows what he is talking about going on a hypocritical rhetoric rant. This man seems to have some issues pent up, because the whole time he goes on this rant, he is doing more then being pissed. He is being a complete asshole, saying derogatory statements, that only make me think less of him. As for the main point of his article, "Why is Dylan Avery still alive?" Why not? The government knows that there is no way to prove the conspiracy, they know that you cannot just arrest the government. They know that they have America by the balls, and on top of that, "Dylan Avery" isn't the only producer of said films. There is a great producer by the name of Alex Jones, who has a lot of videos and a lot of facts presented. Look him up via youtube. Get some information from it.
What most of you may not have taken into effect is this. The planes were hijacked using weapons that were easily identifiable in the x-rays. Whats to say that the terrorists couldn't have had bombs in the luggage in the undercarriage. These could have been connected to detonators carried on board the plane. When the planes collided with the trade centers the bombs could have been triggered, thus vaporizing the plane and most of the Trade Centers structural beams. In addition why would America have killed 3,000+ of their own citizens. Bush would not have done that. I'm going to through this out there that I support Bush. This is because he knows what would have happened if we did not invade Iraq. You can ask me because I know as well. I unlike many people actually have a Brain. Back to the point, President Bush only said it was his fault. In a way it was but it was also Clintons. He was busy doing useless and meanial tasks. He could have improved airport security. I'm 18 and when I was 11 I was understanding the security risk of horrible security in the airports. America knew about the WMDs in Iraq during Clintons term. He did nothing about them. Instead he weakened our military by a considerable ammount. We had a chance to prevent 9/11 but Bush could not have undone Clinton's mistakes in only 1 year. If anybody setup 9/11 it would have to be Clinton. I'm not saying he did do that but if anyone is to have the blame it is him. On another note, Obama wants to remove some of our military and do a troop withdrawel from the Middle East. When we have no military forces over there, then what is stopping Terrorist groups forming up again and coming to the US. Also America needs to think about is more than just protecting the Airways. What about the US/Mexico border. Mexico does not have as good of security as the US does right now. Terrorists can leave their country and go to Mexico and illegally immagrate across the Border. This is the same exact thing as Illegal Mexicans coming to the US. Guess what is right over the border. Texas. What is in Texas. NASA. If that is targeted by Terrorists we lose a lot of our Space Intellagence Sattelites. If that happens we no longer have the ability to detect Global Missile Launches. On another note, MISSILES ARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST RIGHT NOW! We have found them and they have been test fired. Those are not doctored photos. If NASA is destroyed we can have missiles heading straight for us from all over the world from enemies Terrorists could have been Collaborating with. America could be destroyed within a day that NASA is destroyed. It wont just stop there. Nuclear Missiles would cause Nuclear Winter. The worlds population will drop terrifyingly fast. This would be the Armaggedon. All of this could happen just because we withdraw troops from the Middle East. Wow I got off topic. Anyway I do not believe that 9/11 was a setup. Thank you for reading if you read all this.
Ok, if you think that it's normal terrorism, I suggest you watch Loose Change and Zeitgeist. And then post your response.
Who were those movies made by? EDIT: Those movies were not of factual information. They include footage of things that they claim are false. Also those movies were made by individuals who believe in the "Perfect World" AKA Liberals. These movies are based on opinions. Not true facts.
Holy mother of wall of text. Try to use paragraphs, they are your friend. I am trying really hard to read this though, so you can have someone respond to you. Doubtful, but this is a possibility. You sir are not taking into account that the explosion cause was a legitimate explosion for the fact of fuel and etc. That isn't a fact, but have you considered it? Also have you considered honesty? Like pointing out where you know your points are not fact, and where you know they are, and if they are then try citing your sources, it does the world a lot of good. This question has been answered a thousand times. Oil. Money. Power. BAHAHAHAHAH He is man. He is fallible. He VERY easily would/could have done this. This is where you went wrong. zomg oil crisis. Try using your brain, and fixing your essay up before you submit it to the public. I mean...You have a lot of grammatical errors for being a man with a "Brain." Clinton very well could have. But what about when Bush received "warnings" of 9/11? Don't you think it would have been an appropriate action to increase airport security? I beg to differ. We had the military in all airports for a long time after 9/11. How long does it take to get them from point a to point b? I'd assume a week, max. ...You seem rather right-wing... They don't want anything to do with us. We are attacking them. That was the most off-topic pile of mind-humping I've read in a long time... I'm deeply disturbed... This would be another good place for a source. No, pushing the on-button for the Large Hadron Collider is Armageddon. I seriously doubt your points. To the fullest extent, you need to bring to me sources before I believe a word you say. Otherwise it just sounds like random banter being spurted out by some guy on the internet.
I'm not having a go at you for supporting Bush here, I disagree, but its only an opinion and this is hardly relevent. But what I want to say is that Bush indeed did know what would happen if he hadn't invaded Iraq, and that's that oil prices would be even higher right now if we we're on bad terms with them. Since no one else found any WMDs in Iraq I'm assuming you've gone there and seen them yourself, hmm? What Obama is actually proposing is a shift in troop distribution from Iraq to Afghanistan, and part of his reasoning is because he feels that Afghanistan is more of a threat to US security. His proposals are actually in the interests of protecting America from terrorism and attack, so your point here is pretty flawed. I live in the UK, and even I know this. I don't necessarily agree with Obama on this one, since I believe that the US should finish what it started in Iraq regardless of whether it was wrong or right, screwing a country over in the name of justice and democracy and then leaving them to pick up the pieces is completely unjust and hypocritical. But then I believe that we in the UK have the same responsibility as well. If you really believe that Iraq poses a threat in terms of terrorism then I really can't help you. It may be true that Iraq is, in certain ways, attractive to anti-US terrorists purely because of certain areas' strong anti US sentiment, but this is post invasion we're talking about. If you genuinely follow the line that Al-quaeda was involved with Sadam's administration, or that they were in some way "ganging up" on America then, as I say, I can't help you, try to help yourself. I assume your talking about the missile tests in Iran (as the missile tests in the gaza region conflict are shorter range cross border missiles, the idea of one actually reaching the US is laughable, seriously) which are, again, on a scale that only threatens the middle east area, as far east as the Turkey area. And this is the Iranians claiming this as they say they have updated missiles, observers of the tests say that it is not a new missile at all, but one that has been around and known about for 10 years (Source). These are not nuclear missile tests either, and Iran is still in the process of developing Uranium enrichment to a weapon level by their own admission, and they are notorious for exaggerating their capabilities to intimidate. The US is safe from middle east missiles, trust me, you can sleep soundly in your bed, and nuclear missiles are something even the Iranians aren't near capable of yet. I do believe that Iran is a potential future threat, and the issue must be adressed, but more to the middle east and Isreal than anything else, and fearing for the safety of the US in terms of missiles is frankly reactionary. Off topic indeed my friend, but who am I to criticise in this respect? Just please learn your own news before you worry your head about the rest of the world. EDIT: Damn you Tex! You beat me to it!
Very good rebuttle Tex. I bet you read Nemi's thread on debating. Either that or you're just naturally intelligent. Might I just throw in there that technically there isn't an oil crisis. I remember seeing something passed through congress or the government instated that Bush signed to have all gas price regulations removed. There for the gas companies and charge whatever they would like per gallon. I'm trying to look for the information on it right now... What I mean by this is that we have enough oil as of now, just no regulations on how much it costs. Venezuela pays 6 cents per gallon of gasoline...
god, you drew me out of my place of non-intervention on the debate forums...I guess I should finally start debating... to argue/debate, is common sense, nemi just put it out there for people who didnt understand how to use logic to get their point across Tex, however, has demonstrated that he knows how to use this inherent ability quite well...
Alright now i understand how it can be a setup. Planes would'nt crash straight through chill for a second and then blowup. If the twin towers were stronger, the plane would crash into it and fall straight down, not going through the tower, or it would blowup as soon as it hit.
Yes I am aware that the missiles in the Middle East are Short Range. The main idea is that they developed missiles right under our noses. Whats to say they are not developing LRBMs (Long Range Ballistic Missiles) now. My other posts were all opinions so don't call me an idiot for likeing Bush. I got about 13 PMs telling me how stupid I am for likeing Bush.
I don't agree with Bush's policy to go into war in Iraq, but that doesn't necessarily say that I dislike you for supporting him. Ergo, ATTACK THE ****ING POST, NOT THE PERSON.