Answer #1

Meeeeee! I think Bush did it, just saying! :)

Answer #2

I don’t even have words for this. I just looked at this statement for like, five minutes in disgust, trying to think of what to type, but I have nothing. Congrats, you have said something so baffling to me that I have no response.

Answer #3

Well-put, cassie. My sentiments exactly.

Answer #4

Well, we already know about the terrorist plot and there was no evidence of a cover-up. I only believe in conspiracy theories like the ones about the Kennedy’s and Marilyn Monroe. There’s actual reasons to suspect conspiracies there.

Answer #5

So cassie, you disagree its a conspiracy theory?

Answer #6

Totally agree with Natalie! I saw a documentary on it last year and a lot of things don’t add up. :)

Answer #7

thanks for your opinions!

Answer #8

Wait… So you guys think we were just hunting down Osama Bin Laden for nothing? Soldiers were giving up their lives just to give them up? People of America just planned to have 4 planes crash and kill thousands of innocent people? I am truly disgusted with you. How could you even think about it being a conspiracy? I’m only 13 and I even hate you.

Answer #9

Popular Mechanics magazine has published a very thorough debunking of the bogus “scientific” claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. See this intro, with links to information from the book and “related stories”:

Answer #10

I believe it was carried out in house. I have been posting about it here for a long time. I have gone into detail on a number of posts that can be tracked down in the archives. There is a lot of damning evidence implicating the Project for a New American Century being the perpetrators, in my opinion.

Here is a recent status update nee question that I asked on the tenth anniversary:

The accompanying video is a must watch.

Answer #11

David Ray Griffin wrote a book that takes Jim Meigs allegations to task, titled; “Debunking 9/11 Debunking.” I doubt anyone here will take the time to read it… but having read it myself… one is left exasperated at the lengths these debunkers go to portray the arguments of the truth movement in such a way that on the surface it looks as though they have debunked anything of merit. Go here to temper the allegations made by Meigs and the gang at PM…

Answer #12

P.M. responds to the “critique” in their FAQ.

Answer #13

Yeah, your only 13 and you barley know anything about this. Soldiers give up there lives to attack other countries bc america is greedy. they lost in vietnam and iraq and they still want to attack afghanistan for oil? I bet you don’t know that people make decisions for the president, so whether bush wanted to or not he had to make decisions that he didnt want to, such as 9/11, they knew it was coming.

Answer #14

I reckon it’s natural for one to respond when their assertions have been questioned. That a response is issued is less important than the constituent points made in the response.. and their validity. I find that most of the time the arguments made by “falsers” are mostly polemical. For example… Meigs.. by no means a scientist himself.. attacks the credentials of particular detractors while ignoring or dismissing the credentials of numerous fully credentialed experts in the truth movement. A popular tack of “falsers” when a “truther” refers to the numerous experts is to call this an appeal to popularity… or an appeal to expertise. So… they try to have it both ways. Jonathan Kay… editor at the Canadian neocon paper National Post… spent time in the truth movement playing amateur psychologist. He wrote a book following his sojourn titled; “Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground” Its sole purpose to analyze the mental constitutions of the truth adherents. The same with your buddy Chip Berlet and his pals at Political Research Associates. Their modi operandi are attacks ad hominem to try and marginalize the truth movement with aid from their fellows in corporate media outlets. It can only work with a generally ignorant public unwilling or unable to fact check for themselves.

Answer #15

Yea. I honestly think it was Bush Too!

Answer #16

So did I… :)

Answer #17

Well put Jen! :) Also Arielle, you hate someone based on their opinion? I think you need to grow up a little.

Answer #18

And you’re not letting your own bias affect that opinion at all, are you Gabby?

Answer #19

What do you mean?

Answer #20

“Its sole purpose to analyze the mental constitutions of the truth adherents.” That’s because you’re wacko {:^)

Answer #21

Thanks! i have a lot to say

Answer #22

I might be inclined to take that as an insult… but… taken with the countenance I see staring back at me… I can’t help but be overwhelmed with a sudden sense of remorse for the poor earthling mother who so callously had her baby swapped for something… we know not what… at birth sixty odd years ago. Just kidding… maybe.. but if you get to call me whacko… I think I get a free pass.

Answer #23

There are way too many open questions about 9/11, and no proper investigation was ever conducted. I don’t think we will ever know what really happened. My personal belief is that 19 al Qaeda terrorists flew planes into the the WTC, the pentagon, and in PA. They were not missiles, nor were they remote controlled planes. I also do not believe the buildings in NYC were demolished. I have seen the evidence claiming a controlled demolition, and I do not think it is true. I think the reason some of this stuff gets traction is because people try to find precedence in an unprecedented event. But the biggest reason for this view is that a conspiracy will only work, if only a handful of people are involved. The more people involved, the harder it is to keep secret. The number of people it would have taken to set up explosives in WTC 1, 2 & 7 would have been tremendous. Just think about how that would have been done. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people would have been involved. There is no way something like that could have ever been carried out without someone who knew about it slipping up, or out right confessing. That being said, I do believe that it was an “inside job” to an extent. I think that Bush/Cheney knew something was coming, and they welcomed it. They may even have had detailed knowledge of how it was going to happen. They needed an excuse to invade Iraq, which is something they desired even before coming to office. And 9/11 gave them that excuse. Back in 1997 a think tank was formed call the Project for New American Century (PNAC). It was set up by a group of neocons including William Kristol, Elliot Abrams, Bill Bennet, Scooter Libby. Richard Armitage. Richard Perle, Zalmay Khalilzad, Robert Zoellick, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Cheney. Most of these people ended up in the Bush administration. PNAC did not try to hide its agenda. They made it very clear. They felt that a strong militaristic approach was needed to deal with situations in the middle east, and particularly Iraq. In 1998 they sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to use whatever means necessary to remove Saddam from power, including military power. Clinton of course declined to do that. In 2000 PNAC issued a white paper that detailed how the US should deal with the Mideast, and it called for armed conflict as the means to achieve certain goals. They also said that the American people would have no appetite for the type of long and arduous war effort it would take. They said the only way people would support it would be through “some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor”. And a year later, after Bush took office, they got their new Pearl Harbor, and their excuse to invade Iraq. And there are other questions that have never been answered satisfactorily, like where was NORAD on 9/11, and why did Bush completely ignore every warning given to him regarding al Qaeda, from the Clinton admin telling them it was their biggest threat, to Bush’s own intelligence briefing in August that reported the plot to fly planes into buildings. A lot of this is circumstantial, but I tend not to believe in coincidences of this magnitude.

Regardless, what is needed is a full and thorough investigation. I have no hopes that will ever happen.

Answer #24

Well, it adds up. Bush didn’t do anything for about 3 hours after the attack. You know what he was doing? Reading to little kids at a school. I actually believe that Bush was mad because the president of Iraq made threats against his father, so he started the war in Iraq and framed Osama BinLaden and the Al Quaeda “terrorists.”

Answer #25

Just want you to know, I’m the one who “liked” that, lol.

Answer #26

I kind of do..

Answer #27

I’m guessing you wanted others to know you liked it as an affectation of humility… because you know I was alerted to it on my alerts dropdown tab… or perhaps you’re just a masochist.

This is one perk of being an anonymous coward like myself. Nobody know how homely I be. I was really just kidding though… I actually find you to be quite striking… judging by Amish standards.

Answer #28

I agree with most of what you say here. Where we disagree is in the realm of conjecture. J. Fletcher Prouty… a CIA liaison… in his book; “The Secret Team” describes how covert operations are compartmentalized deliberately… making it all but impossible to trace low level operators back to upper management. The compartmentalization means that the majority of conspirators need not even know their full roles in the plot. This gives most of the conspirators plausible deniability as well. How many people would it take to rig the buildings for demolition… and how long would it take that crew to set it? That the buildings could have been rigged under cover is easier to believe knowing that Marvin Bush was on the board of directors for the WTC security contractors… Securacom. Without a proper investigation… it is hard to speculate as to how many people with full knowledge of the conspiracy were required. A proper investigation is impossible at this point… so much of the evidence has been destroyed. The steel from the beams that could have been tested for explosives has already been recycled. We are told that three black boxes from the jets were destroyed… the one recovered from Flight 77 shows no record of the cockpit being breached. Bin Laden… his dad was instrumental in the creation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International that funneled money to the mujahedeen… was said to have been a CIA asset during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan with the alias Tim Osman… was capped… bagged… tagged and buried in Davey Jones’ locker before he could be questioned. Anwar al-Awlaki… who has suspicious ties to US intelligence was assassinated. So… it is unlikely that a proper investigation can ever occur now. What do we know now? Well… for one… we know that many members of the Bush Administration were calling for a Pearl Harbor type event so the US could go out and establish its military dominion across the planet that would give their companies access to natural resources and war contracts. We know that WTCs 1, 2, and 7 were the only steel framed skyscrapers ever to have suffered full collapse initiated by fire damage. We know that they were explicitly designed to withstand the impact from jetliners. The Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 Bomber in 1945… causing a 4 alarm fire but only suffered minor damage. We know that the National Institute of Standards and Technology could not replicate the purported initiation of the collapse in their trial tests… and have only managed to accomplish the results they claim to be true with computer model simulations with highly exaggerated input values. We know that over 1500 credentialed Architects and Engineers have gone on record stating that the collapses were impossible the way they have been explained. We know that samples of nano thermite were recovered from the debris. We know that pictures of the steel beams taken at ground zero show remarkably similar cutting patterns to those made by thermite against steel. We know that kerosene doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. We know that eight of the nineteen hijackers’ namesakes were living on military bases prior to 9/11. We know that Sibel Edmonds intercepted communiques between Al-Qaeda and CIA agents just prior to 9/11. What we do know… and what we have some evidence alluding to… is just too big a coincidence for this to have any better explanation currently… other than it was planned and carried out in house. It stretches believability beyond the breaking point… that those in the administration who had immediately decided to carry forward with their militaristic desires… got their wishes fulfilled in the exact manner they had described… when taken with the rest of the evidence.

Answer #29

I understand about compartmentalizing, but I just think that is a little to much to swallow. Even if people didn’t know why they were doing what they were doing before hand, they would have understood afterward. I don’t believe the scope of something like that could be kept secret. And if the goal was the new Pearl Harbor, why did they need to go beyond 4 hijacked planes hitting targets in NYC and DC? That alone would have been enough. Why would they need to demo the buildings? It seems like that would add so much more complexity and risk of exposure, when it really wasn’t necessary. You know, Keep It Simple Stupid. Regardless, we both agree the official version is so full of holes, it can’t possibly be the truth.

Answer #30

And weeks before the “attack” there were men in suits inspecting the buildings for no apparent reason and when the buildings fell, they went straight down, each floor crumbling individually as it went. Experts say this shouldn’t have happened, and that it looked like individual bombs were going off on each floor.

Answer #31

This was planned before there really was a solid alternative media in the internet. I think that PNACs planning was a little antiquated. They didn’t foresee the role the internet would play as a medium through which to investigate. PNAC were still under the illusion that the corporate media they virtually monopolized was the only method of information gathering the public had access to… so they felt confident to get a little carried away. It tended to work in the past for them… and even when some of the members were implicated in Iran Contra… nothing ever came from it… as is the case here. As far as people with a working knowledge of the plot coming forward… again… we don’t know how many people it would have required with a working knowledge… who weren’t fully aware at the planning stages… but if those people were well compensated for their roles… and risk their lives and the lives of their loved ones by coming forward… what would be the impetus? E Howard Hunt came forward with a death bed confessional for the role he claims to have played in the Kennedy assassination almost 50 yrs after the fact. The banker… Frank Vanderlip… came forward with the role he and a handful of other bankers had in writing the Aldrich Plan that would become the Federal Reserve Act some 25 years after he attended the secret meeting on Jekyll Island. Who is to say that because it hasn’t happened yet… it won’t? Who knows if any of the minor players are even still alive? We have no idea who they could be. Perhaps the planners saw them as a liability and got rid of them. Laws don’t seem to affect these elite… so… could they have had the men “su!cided” like the D.C. Madam or Dr. Bruce Ivins or Gary Webb? This is a distinct possibility. This is all conjecture on my part… having thought through the same scenarios and problems you bring up here. I have come to a different conclusion than you… because I cannot get past the physics of the collapses… or the coincidences… or the evidence… or the cui bono factor. PNAC benefited greatly… just the way they had called. Buildings dont fall down this way… Lightning doesnt strike three times on the same spot on the same day. If you haven’t yet watched the video on the link I gave earlier on this thread… you should. To date it is the most authoritative on the WTC 7 collapse… without actually getting into the meat of the science.

Answer #32

SOME “experts” say that they shouldn’t have fallen straight down, but most say that is exactly what should have happened, that they were designed to fall that way. No matter what, nothing of this magnitude has happened before, so we can not necessarily look at past collapses and expect the same exact results. And the “bombs” going off on each floor may have just been the weight and pressure from above blowing the windows out.

Answer #33

Since most of this is conjecture I will just leave it at that. As I have said, I would love to see a real investigation, but as of now there is still too many things that don’t make sense. But you didn’t address one of my points that I would like to hear your opinion on. Why would they have needed to demo the buildings. Wouldn’t 4 hijacked planes hitting targets in NY & DC be enough for their “new Pearl Harbor”? And have you ever thought that maybe they are purposely feeding the conspiracy theorist extreme scenarios so they cast doubt on the real scenario, including the simplest, that the planes were hijacked by terrorists and our government knew about it and let it happen. No offense, but some of the conspiracy theorists sound pretty nutty. What better way to deflect attention away from a real conspiracy than to bring every nut job out of the wood work claiming these over the top theories that most people just will never take seriously. Just some food for thought…

Answer #34

PNAC clearly stated that they needed a Pearl Harbor type event. Verbatim the quote from Rebuilding America’s Defenses; Strategy Forces and Resources for a New Century reads… “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. The death toll following the attacks at Pearl Harbor was 2,350. The death toll following the attacks on 9/11 was 2,753. As I have already stated… the WTC towers were explicitly built to withstand the impact from jetliners. When the B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945… only 14 people died. Without bringing the buildings down… would enough Americans have died to warrant these endless wars and convince us to forfeit our liberties? Without having the gruesome and awesome video footage of three of the tallest buildings on the planet hurdling down to revisit over and over would it have been enough to bring about their revolutionary change? I know they couldn’t have deliberately hit their target so accurately with any amount of planning… that they did hit so close… suggests that this was their new Pearl Harbor. My best guess is that WTC 7 was chosen as a target because it housed evidence crucial to ongoing SEC investigations PNAC members were no doubt party to. It was probably rigged and waiting to be hit by United flight 93 when either the passengers overtook it or it was intercepted by a scrambled jet… and it never made its destination. Once WTC 7 suffered damage from the debris of the other towers… knowing that an inspection would have revealed the planted charges… the decision was made to go ahead and implode it as planned. I don’t think that the conspirators could have a hand in the truth movement… because the movement is founded on the principle laws of physics. I’m no physicist… but I know enough to know that objects in motion tend to stay in motion… and objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. When a smaller object in motion is met by a much larger object at rest… the larger force residing in the object at rest will cause the larger to maintain its position and force the smaller object’s momentum to shift. This didn’t happen in any of the WTC towers. The upper portions of the buildings met virtually no structural resistance… falling at free fall speeds for the most part. This is why so many “nutty” architects and engineers are behind the truth movement. Not because they BELIEVE in anything… It’s because they know it could not possibly have happened any other way.

Answer #35

Steel beams jutting upwards are not designed to collapse downwards, Jimahl. Think about it… take a pencil and try to crush it lengthwise. There are many examples of steel framed buildings burning for much longer… and none before collapsed. The Empire State Bldg suffered a direct hit from a B -25 bomber that led to 4 alarm fire and only received minor damage. WTC 7 wasn’t struck by a plane… it suffered superficial damage… and still fell exactly like so many other controlled demolitions have fallen. I give a link below of an interview with one of the architects of the WTCs in which he states the buildings were designed to withstand the impacts. Here is a link to a site with over 1500 architects and engineers who disagree with your consensus of experts stating that this is exactly what should have happened… despite being unable to replicate the results… EVER!

Answer #36

Yeah, I’m one of the conspirators, in secret alliance with Rotten Sheep - shhh! {:^P

What really happened is I didn’t notice this was a question, not an update, so I didn’t think you would get alerted about who liked it.

And btw, that’s “Amish Yisroel”

Answer #37

OK, I see where you are coming from regarding the death toll. Don’t necessarily agree, but I understand your reasoning. You say the Towers were built to withstand an impact. No disrespect, but I can not take just your word for it. There are plenty of people who say they were not able to withstand impacts of this magnitude. People also said the Titanic was unsinkable. The comparison of the B-25 crash into the Empire State Bldg is not even remotely close to the WTC crashes. A B-25 is tiny (I know, I have actually been in one) compared to a 767. And the speed of the B-25 was no where near the 500 to 600 miles per hour the 767s were going. And the amount of jet fuel on a full 767 is about 24,000 gallons compared to the B-25 which could only hold a maximum of just under 1000 gallons of fuel (and not jet fuel). And where the B-25 hit was at the 80th floor of a 102 story building that tapered up to a point. The weight supported above that point was no where near the weight above either impact point in the towers. Especially the south tower where the impact was much lower. Just the fact that they were able to control and extinguish the B-25 fire (the only one ever at that height) tells you it was no where near as severe. The building was reopened 2 days later. I never called the architects and engineers nutty. But you do keep throwing around that 1500 architects and engineers number. That number represent the number of signers on a petition to congress demanding a full and independent investigation. That does not mean they all agree it was definitely demoed with explosives. It means they want an investigation. So do I, and I don’t really believe that is what happened. In fact all major architectural and engineering journals and organizations do not agree with explosives theory. We have been through much of this before, and I really have no desire to rehash it all. But lets suffice to to say, even though I don’t believe this is what happened, I am all for investigating every avenue. I just think that logic dictates that a conspiracy this size is not possible. Not that I wouldn’t put it past the powers that be.

Answer #38

Please tell me what I said that is not true? Some experts have endorsed the explosives theory, but most have not. I already addressed the B-25 crash and the 1500 petition signers below. If I take a 500 pound block of concrete and put it on top of a pencil standing up right, it will crush it. Again I go back to, you are trying to find precedence in an unprecedented event. And unless you con do it full scale, you might never be able to replicate it.

Answer #39

I do not believe it was a conspiracy. It is too large of a tragedy for me personally to even comprehend that. I am not talking about the facts, I am just saying I would not be able to handle it if it were a conspiracy. I would loose faith in humanity. Do I think the governemt is capable of doing something huge and decieving the public into believing there was a completely different cause? Yes I do, but I also need to believe that they wouldn’t. This is simply my opinion.

Answer #40

Here is the exact wording of the petition 1627 credentialed architects and engineers signed: TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.


The Undersigned A full list of the signatories including their credentials follows. Maybe this time you can check my links before you ask me to repeat myself…”You say the Towers were built to withstand an impact. No disrespect, but I can not take just your word for it.” I gave you the link to Architect, Frank E DeMartini… the WTC Construction Manager… who was first brought on to assess the damage created by the ‘93 attacks. Since it was too much trouble to ask you to click on the provided link… I will give the video a post of its own.. just sit back and relax and enjoy the 36 second show. Here is how this works… you say that all “MAJOR” A&E orgs. dismiss the demo theory. Then I give a counter example. Then you say my example isn’t “MAJOR” enough. So… I wont play the semantic game. List the architects and engineers who are on record dismissing the theory. I agree that the B-25 Bomber example could not have been as severe as the jetliner impacts… I don’t know the specifics you are giving… but I wont question them. Though you are correct when you say that the B-25 would not have had jet fuel [kerosene] It would have used an extremely high octane [110-120] grade gasoline… which burns significantly hotter than kerosene. If you were wondering why your info source worded it that way [not jet fuel]… this is the reason. The North tower 1 WTC stood 110 stories tall and was struck at the 95th floor… leaving 15 floors above the impact zone. The South tower 2 WTC also stood 110 stories and was struck at the 81st floor… leaving 29 floors above the impact zone. The Empire State Building stands 102 stories tall and was struck at the 79th floor leaving 23 floors above the impact zone. The Empire State Building also has a 203’ antenna spire atop the 102 stories. I’m not sure how you have determined the weight differential between the WTCs and the ESB above the impact zones… but the difference doesn’t appear to be as “nowhere near” as you claim. WTC 7 wasn’t struck by a plane… and still managed to collapse symmetrically at virtual free fall speed. In order for such a collapse to occur… the structural integrity would have had to have offered no resistance… and done so uniformly across the entirety of the bldg the entire way down. I don’t think you fully appreciate the complexity of the theory you are proposing… logically.

Answer #41

The video I promised… WTC Construction Manager Frank A. DeMartini describing the towers.

Answer #42

You’re talking about a 40,000 to 1 weight differential ratio. The point… it takes a lot of force to accomplish. Instead of claiming a consensus… prove it. I have given you a list of 1600 experts… provide some names to back your claim. When NIST tried to replicate their assertions… they managed to achieve a warping of about 3 inches over a 40 ft steel beam span. The weren’t attempting to replicate the entire collapse… only their theory of an initiating catalyst. They failed the most basic test of science… because their science isn’t sound.

Answer #43

I’m sorry… I’m going to need an interpreter. Does anyone else speak geezer?

Answer #44

All of the replies didn’t give it away?

Answer #45

All who think it is a hoax are stupid and can’t see the truth

Answer #46

i do

Answer #47

Not sure what part you didn’t get. Amish Yisroel was a bilingual pun, based on “Am Yisroel” (pronounced like Am in Amish), which means “the people Israel,” the Jewish people.

Answer #48

I didn’t have time to respond till now. I did indeed miss the link. Sorry, but I can only devote so much time to this, and I do rush sometimes. I have looked into what he said, not from the video (cant at work). I will just say that he referred to a 707, which is smaller than the 767. Not by much, but is smaller and lighter. As I said before, the builder of the titanic also said it was unsinkable. And I am sure he was not thinking about a plane that was purposeful flown into it, loaded with fuel and going at top speed. He was referring to an accidental crash.

The ESB and the WTC were built very differently in method, style and materials. I was only guessing at the weight above the impact location based on the shapes of the buildings. The ESB, as I said, is tapered to a point. The B24 hit only 6 floors below the main observation deck. Above that it narrows quite a bit. The 102nd floor observatory is tiny. I have been there many times. And the antenna spire was not yet built when the B24 crashed. It wasn’t put there until the early 50s. I did find out that the total weight of the ESB 340,000 tons, the weight of each WTC tower was 500,000 tons. So I would say that I was probably correct when I said the weight of the towers above the impact points was much more than the ESB above it’s impact point.

You are right, the WTC7 did not get hit by a plane. But it did get hit by tons and tons of debris from the north tower when it fell. And huge raging fires burned for 6 hours before it finally collapsed. Firemen started warning that the building would collapse about 2pm, and that is when they pulled all the firemen back. They saw a huge bulge in the southwest corner. And the WTC7 did not fall symmetrically. It fell backwards and to the east. Debris hit the building across Barclay Street to the north. Do you think all the firemen stating that the building was going to come down a full three hours before it actually did, were in on the conspiracy too?

Considering there are probably more than a million architects and engineers in the world, 1500 is not very many at all. It is nothing but a petition, and in no way address anything technical. You ask me to show you the journals and organizations that do not support the conspiracy theory. They are numerous. If you really want them, I will give them to you. But it might be easier if you gave me even one professional journal, or peer-reviewed study that supports the theory that the WTC was brought down by explosives.

Again, I always come back to the fact that the size and scope of a conspiracy like this would be virtually impossible to pull off without definitive proof revealing itself. So far I see a lot of cherry-picking of data, and nothing concrete.

Answer #49

Wow!!.. How good of them to choose a vagrant as ambassador and spokesperson. Way to go Yisroel! Is it some sort of outreach program?

Answer #50

I sacrificed an earlier attempted reply at the alter of ctrl+c… So this reply will be somewhat truncated. You’re wrong. See… how quick was that? Well… let me go somewhat deeper. You’re wrong. Mr. DeMartini clearly says the towers were built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707… and goes on to say that by his estimation could withstand numerous stikes. This directly contradicts your statement… but as you have said… you didn’t watch the video. I refuse to transcribe it for you. You’re wrong. The antenna spire sat atop the Empire State Building when it was struck in 1945… don’t you recall the iconic Harryhausen Kong swinging from it in 1933? Where do you come up with these facts and why do you not fact check yourself? The antenna was added in 1952.. not the 203’ spire I cite that it sat on. The rest of your assertion is just your guesstimation… and you don’t consider the fact that the majority of the weight of skyscrapers is materialized closer to the ground. Steel beams that compose the structural rigidity taper down near the top of skyscrapers. A lot of the weight we;re talking about are structures meant to keep the building standing. You were wrong about the opinions of the 1600 architects and engineers who signed the petition. Now you are dismissing those experts as irrelevant. You’re wrong. You can’t assume that every other architect or engineer on the planet agrees with NISTs conclusion… this is a logical fallacy. You’re wrong. WTC 7 falls symmetrically and at virtual free fall speed… exactly like controlled demolition. There is plenty of video evidence to corroborate this claim. There are pictures taken after the collapse that show the minimal amount of damage the much larger WTC 7 inflicted on one of the nearby bldgs. Not that I expect you to check that link… but intellectually honest people should. Video and scant photographs of the south facade of WTC 7 following the collapse of WTCs 1 and 2 show superficial damage only. I am sure that the building was hit with debris… but I disagree with the claim that the debris could have contributed to the collapse. To NISTs benefit… they have likewise concluded that the collapse of WTC 7 was not due to the superficial damage done to the facade… they ascribe the collapse to fires… but like I have said… they cannot demonstrate their conclusion. You are wrong in asking Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth to offer up a peer reviewed study. You know they did not have access to the evidence with which to build a study. You’re wrong… I did not ask you for journals or peer reviewed studies. I know that the government has deep enough pockets that it can cajole any number of scientists to offer up sophistic studies seconded by other owned scientists. I asked you for names of those willing to go on record and support NISTs conclusion. Those not receiving large sums of gov’t grants would be preferred.

Answer #51

Umm, sorry, you lost me. Who are we talking about??

Answer #52

No need to apologize… senility is a common ailment for those long in the tooth. We were talking about your gorgeous if grungy goatherdesque… yisroeli, yiddish self.

Answer #53

i highly doubt that our president at that time would kill thousands of innocent people just for nothing… not to mention the cost to the national government. why destroy our own valuable property? 9/11 was a terrorist attack.

Answer #54

These long teeth are very convenient for scratching at minor irritants {:^) But dang, if I’m to be designated as the Chosen One, I wish someone would let me know! Oh wait, you just did.

Answer #55

You called yourself the people Israel… so if there is any question of discriminating taste… it shouldn’t be laid at my doorstep.

Answer #56

My personal opinion? This is incredibly inconsiderate! Many people have lost loved ones due to this catastrophe, including myself, but yet you fell that the best place to bring this topic up is fun-advice, where anyone can see these questions? I totally respect that you all have your own opinion but at least think about how myself and others feel when seeing these harsh words. I mean, would you like to hear that your sister was basically murdered by the president, whom she was inspired by?

Answer #57

My condolences. However I am confused as to how asking questions in regards to who the true culprits were who carried out the destruction of lives can be construed as inconsiderate? I did not lose any loved one in the tragedy… though I can imagine if some tragic event cost me a loved one… I would rather know that a thorough investigation had been carried out and that the individuals responsible were brought to justice. If there was a question as to those culprits prospering from the murder of a loved one… I think I would want to know it… and seek justice. Are you not of this same mind? All Americans did lose a part of themselves on that day. We have waged war in the middle east that has cost us our loved ones and tax dollars. We have lost hard won civil liberties in the name of national security. Should our deference to those who choose to believe the official account be such that we forfeit these rights in their honor? Or are we obliged to seek out justice for thousands and thousands of lives lost in the tragedy.. and in its wake… and hopefully to prevent another occurrence in the future? Questioning our government and the power behind the throne is a right I would rather see exercised than discouraged by more people with ties to the event. More and more families of loved ones lost on 9/11 are doing just that.

Answer #58

i doo

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

Malik Usman

Technology, Web Development, Digital Marketing


Bufete de abogados Miranda Ri...

abogado de defensa criminal, abogado de DUI, abogado de derechos civiles


Morgan Legal Group PC

Legal Services, Law Firms, Attorneys


ROSS & ASMAR Attorneys at law

Immigration Law, Criminal Law, Civil Litigation