Do you think it was the plane that made the WTC building tumble down?

Answer #1

what kind of question is that?,

Answer #2

easy question to answer: I have just watched this film 11/9 and it was told there that the WTC crash was a conspiracy?

Answer #3

easy question to answer: I have just watched this film 11/9 and it was told there that the WTC crash was a conspiracy?

Answer #4

it is @ amandasam

Answer #5

Sri are you talking about the documentary ‘9/11 In Plane Site’ ?

Answer #6

these programs are quite convincing+have been sucked in myself in the past, check NWO on google+David Ike,

Answer #7

I think it was the fire from the kerosene. It was so hot that it was making the steel structures unstable. That’s why the towers came down. That explanation is most logical to me. I do not believe that there were any explosives in the scenario.

But I’m not really sure about whether every information that came through the media about the background was correct. I do find it a plausible theory that they may have shot the fourth plane - the one that came down on a field.

And I do believe that the US-Secret Services have been faking evidence in order to find living people to make responsible for the attacks. I do not think that Saddam Hussein ever had anything to do with 9/11 and I do have doubt that Bin Ladin has been hiding in the Afghan mountains. I’ll rather believe that he shaved his beard, got a new passport and has retired to Florida.

Answer #8

haha imagine that he might be working on the Bush Ranch,stranger things have happend,

Answer #9

I believe it’s much more to the 9/11 story than we’re being told. I just saw a documentary last nigh about it on the “Above Top Secret (dot) com” website, and even if I’m not much of a believer in any conspiration theories or stuff like that, I must admit that this case is strange. There’s so much doubt in all the explanations from the so called experts who worked for the government, and also very many things pointing towards foul play. The kerosene is just not capable of burning in hot enough temperatures to melt steel. The buildings was designed to withstand a direct hit from a plane, when the buildings collapsed, they fell down just like in a controlled demolition, and also, when they was cleaning up, there was this mass of red hod lava-like mass, burning for days lying at the bottom, and there is nothing in a plane that can make something like that. There’s just so many things that can, or will not be explained. But I really don’t know what made it collapse, and I think people will cling to the conspiracy theories forever.

Answer #10

they allways have allways will,

Answer #11

I’m not gonna get into my personal opinion to much on this one but I think many factors played into the towers falling, from the planes to conspiracy to the structure of the building

Answer #12

That’s what I want to know, Lazr. Before now I was 100% certain that it was the place crash that caused the colepse of the building. But few days ago, I watched this film “9/11: conspiracy” (I forgot the director of the film, but famous one) explaining scientifically that it is IMPOSSIBLE for A SINGLE PLANE could cause the building colapse in “smooth” falling…

Answer #13

I’ve watched many programmes about this. In my opinion it was the US government. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the tower was destroyed like any building being demolished because the metal girders at the bottom of the building had melted inwards, this is a common way to demolish buildings. Also, the heat from the plane crash wouldn’t have been enough to melt the metal at the top of the building, which suggests that there was another cause to the collapse. Another thing is, before the plane hit, there was a flash out of the window of the tower (cant remember why this has any relevence). Finally, the plane went missing for longer than it should have to reach the tower. This is important because when the plane hit the building there is photographic evidence of some sort of container attached to the bottom of the plane. The amount of time it took to get to the tower was long enough for them to switch the plane.

My facts are a bit rusty because these are all out of memory because i’ve watched many programmes about this..

Answer #14

I missed the part about the container. It was not shown in the film.

Answer #15

Well, there is some speculation over this. Some people are arguing that it is a container, while other people are arguing that its just shadows that make it look like its a container.

Answer #16

the shows that you watch, are hell bent on proving its a conspiracy, but u’ll never know. the truth. as far as i am concerned, there would be no reason for the american government to actually fly planes into its buildings sending their economy plunging, so just that they could invade Afghanistan, and a few other mid-eastern countries. no sense at all, the conspiracy theories are just put of by “”certain”” people to lift the stereotypes of their beliefs. AND BTW, yes a planes is capable of bringing down the whole tower. Tough its wings never touched the 4 corners of the buildings, ( thats where the strong beams are located, they hold the building up)it does not mean they weren’t damaged. and FYI those planes weren’t some small cessna skyhawks, they were jets big, high powered jets.and and explosion from the engines would spring parts all about damaging beams all over. AND yes JET FUEL when ignited, its able to burn steel (in the planes they are kept in fireproof containers). and the plane barley reached 1/4 its destination before crashing, that tells you how much fuel it would have had. the concept is similar to the UNO stack game,remove parts in the wrong place, and your screwed. in this case because the plane’s wing span was not long enough to cover the whole width of the building,the building didn’t topple forwards like being pushed from the side, instead it fell directly downwards due to lack of support from the center of the building. once again, it maybe a conspiracy but it may not. but the idea of explosives under the building is crap, considering the building STARTED collapsing from the top and not the bottom! sorry to debunk that theory but studying engineering allows me to tell you weakness and strengths of buildings!

Answer #17

Absolutely not in my oppinion, you should watch some of the documentaries on it if you havent already, it really opened my eyes on a lot of things to do with government

Answer #18

I am not sure where I watched this. It is in a VCD lent by a friend.

Answer #19

I’m going to repost a post of mine from a previous thread. I have listed a very small amount of evidence implicating the US government with the events of 9/11:

Besides the evidence that would implicate the US government staging this event in order to bring war to the middle east in an effort to acquire oil reserves and fill the coffers of war contractors, the physics of the collapse of the towers points to controlled demolition.

First, to address some whistleblowers, the Zelikow report omitted many testimonies and other information that conflicted with their [Philip Zelikow was a member of Bush’s cabinet] story.

They omitted Norman Mineta’s testimony concerning an aid updating Vice President Cheney as to the ETA of Flight 77 and asked Cheney if the orders still stood. One can infer that the orders were to have NORAD the North American Air Defense system to stand down and not attempt to intercept the incoming jet.

Two Air Force captains testimonies were expunged from the record when their timeline conflicted with the FAA’s, corroborating the belief that NORAD had ample time to be alerted and to intercept the jets once their transponders had been disabled.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of Army intelligence had warned the CIA of chatter that Al Qaeda had been preparing for an attack in the United States. The info came to be given the codename Able Danger. Lt. Col. Shaffer tried to publish a book detailing the effort put into obfuscating his warning only to have large portions of the book redacted by the US intelligence services.

Sibel Edmonds, a Turkish language translator for the FBI, discovered duplicity among American intelligence assets and reported it to her superiors. The info mostly concerned arms being transferred through Turkey to members of Al Qaeda. She was then fired from her job and issued a gag order to prevent her from talking to congress. State secrets privilege was cited as the justification for the gag order.

Hani Hanjour, the supposed pilot of Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon could not fly a paper airplane in an empty hangar. According to flight instructors, he could not fly a single engine Cessna with enough proficiency to rent the plane. Flight Data Recorders for Flight 77 record the cockpit doors never having been opened the entirety of flight. How could terrrists storm the cockpit without opening the door?

Osama Bin Laden was a former CIA asset by the cover name Tim Osman. He had procured weapons from the US during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan fighting with the mujahedeen. The Mujahedeen was financed by the US and formed under the direction of National Security Advisor. Zbigniew Brzezinski under President Carter. The name Al qaeda is Arabic for “the database” and is the name for the list of mujahedeen fighters who comprise it.

The most glaring omission on behalf of the Zelikow Report was the collapse of WTC7. The 47 story building located about a city block away from 1&2 collapsed entirely at free fall speed, despite not having been hit by a plane. Was this not important enough to receive an investigation, let alone mention, by the report?

Back to the towers. The physics of the falls doesn’t add up. The NIST report that was used to explain the initial collapse, not the complete collapse, had to rely on computer modeling with widely exaggerated input ratios to even produce a collapse in the damaged portions of the building. The structural rigidity of the undamaged portions of the towers, following a collapse of the damaged portions and the weight of the tower that had been sustained by the damaged portions, should have forced the debris to fall away from the standing structure where the open air offered less resistance. Over 1400 architects and engineers have concluded that the collapse of the buildings were impossible as they have been explained by the government. Collected debris from the trade centers has been proven to contain active thermate, an explosive used by demolitions experts. All of the steel from the trade centers was recycled before an independent investigation could be carried out to see if explosives were used.

Answer #20

You fail to comprehend the innerworkings of the conspiracy. The war fomented by the attacks has balkanized Iraq and established a US presence in central Asia… which can be used to pressure Iran, and Russia. This also facilitates the establishment of western style usury based banking systems in an area where Islamic fee based banks have predominated. War contractors have profited. Oil barons have profited. Banks have profited. The government is infested with the elite or their adherents who prosper from this war. The transference of wealth from the middle class to the upper class is ubiquitous with wars like these. Besides, one need only refer to the mission statement of the Project for a New American Century to find justifications for the invasion… and for a list of names complicit in the planning stages. The empire state building sustained a crash from a ten ton B-25 bomber in 1945 and only suffered $1 million in damages. In fact these three bldgs are the first steel framed bldgs in history to suffer full collapse from fire damage… many having the entire structure gutted but the steel frame standing. We are told fire melted the WTC steel. WTC 7 wasn’t struck, but fell at free fall speed. You are incorrect in your assertion that the WTC towers only had steel beams on the perimeter. In fact, a central core of beams spanned the entire height of the buildings. Here is a complete floor by floor listing for the towers: under ideal conditions, which isn’t the case in the wtc attack, a fully fueled 757 crashing and emptying its fuel in a building is capable of producing temperatures up to 495 degrees fahrenheit. Steel loses half of its structural capacity at 600 degrees fahrenheit. Like I mentioned in my post, even NIST had to exaggerate the input ratios to explain why the part of the building exposed to the highest temperatures to duplicate the cause of the collapse… this only reproducible in a computer model. The buildings fell at free fall speed… which is impossible except for the theory that the buildings structural integrity was compromised ahead of the collapse… and thermate has been found in the debris of the rubble to corroborate the theory.

Answer #21

this shld clear doubts! [link removed]

More Like This
Ask an advisor one-on-one!

Arja Shah Law

Criminal Defense Lawyer, DUI Lawyer, Legal Services


Title Agency, Real Estate, Property Law


Morgan Legal Group PC

Legal Services, Law Firms, Attorneys