Really? The NIST report about WTC7 has evidence about who was behind the attack? What evidence is that?
The topic isn't about 'who was behind the attack'. A sock puppet incredulously stated that 'no muslims had been implicated in the attack', referring to the hijackers implied by the title of this thread. zulu1 said, To which you replied, So the topic is about the elaborate and convoluted hoaxes 'truthers' ascribe to, one of which is the controlled demolition of WTC7. That was addressed in the NIST report.
Not if you compare it to the numbers from the other countries surrounding Israel in that poll, which had much higher percentages. Thus why I found it surprising, I would have suspected the Palestinians to have an even higher percentage, not a much lower one. Maybe the fact that they deal with them up close and personally has taught them that they aren't the all-controlling/all-knowing/all-powerful Jews that most CTers like to think.
Do all buildings damaged from fire for an hour or just collapse nowadays? WTC7..that collapsed too. Don't any buildings do anything except fall straight down any more? Since 2001, how many buildings have collapsed in a fashion to WTC1,2,or 7 since? Any? How about prior to? I'll take ONE. Please provide a video, a pic...SOMETHING. WTC7 should trigger all kinds of red flags with anyone. You don't hear much about WTC7 and the fact that no plane hit it. I wonder why? The "story" you claim with WTC7 is a great story. This, because this happened, then this, then something else, and THEN, it just collapsed straight down. Like I said, a fantastic story, but not much else. No doubt all of these nonsensical claims were "officially" put forth, after near a decade of working the BS into something "special". Confusion, whoops...we didn't mean to say it fell twenty minutes too early. Everybody knew it was going to fall, all day long. Fantastic tales of BS and more BS.
WTC7 didn't fall straight down. It damaged several other buildings when it fell. The statement that it fell straight down is a 'truther' myth. Several other buildings in the WTC complex were destroyed also. Why do 'truthers' ignore them? WTC7 is discussed almost non-stop, yet some 'truthers' still complain that they don't hear much about it. WTC7 is a building, hit by another building that collapsed, killing ... no one. The reason no one was killed in the collapse of WTC7 was because the FDNY recognized early the peril it was in and pulled everyone away from it. Perhaps we could return to the topic of this thread, now?
The building fell pretty straight down to me. I've seen it fall via video over and over and over. For all intents and purposes...it was straight down. HTTP://WWW.AE911TRUTH.ORG if you havent seen the video after all these years. Of course, you have, but, refuse to acknowledge what you see. It was "pulled" all right. Everybody google WTC7 video collapse...see if it doesn't look like it's falling straight down. See who's propagating (then write down their names, and pay no more attention to them). Look for yourselves. Truth is easy to find.
Firstly, the the buildings didn't come straight down...Secondly, there have been no other examples of two planes smashing into buildings as happened on 9-11. So there are are no comparative examples. If there are no comparatives, its impossible to compare.
Hello Dave - thanks for confirming my suspicions that actually no CCTV actually exists of most of these hijackers ! I personly find that very strange - you know using a international airport and not once being filmed , As for blind spots etc - that's a little silly comment - as the airports in question were state of the art and I'm sure they had some professional install thier CCTV - Were the cameras off on that day do you think ?
Sorry bulls - there is in fact zero CCTV evidence of any hijackers at Boston Internatinal airport and Newark int airport - Your links show nothing on regards to these two hijacking locations .
Just looked into too it Boston int airport was 30th largest in world Had 4 billion spent on it Yet still no CCTV of mass murders using the facilities ! Strange but true !
They must have had those same, cheap inoperative cameras as were used at the Pentagon. Either that or they were confiscated as well. LOL
So? Let me guess, "they" had patsies set up to take the fall but "they" failed to provide pictures of them to satisfy people like you? You guys need to come up with some sort of logical story...eventually. Don't you think.
Sorry I'm not totally with you- I have 100% for sure seen CCTV from the pentagon attack - be it a long time ago - I'm soley trying to track down CCTV of I think 13 from the 19 hijackers .
Candy...isn't it interesting that the WTC 1 and 2 buildings come straight down on themselves from an airplane smashing into them near the top, although planes have smashed into buildings before without total collapse? Doesn't that make you go "HUH?" Isn't it interesting that a plane supposedly smashed into a recently reinforced wall at the Pentagon, leaving little evidence of a plane, and some of the pieces that have been produced as evidence, were not even from the type of plane they say smashed into it? Or that the very next day, the crash site was bulldozed and covered? Or that the graphic evidence produced is dubious to say the least? Isn't it interesting that a plane supposedly crashed in the county in Pennsylvania, leaving no plane parts? They "say" the parts all carried into a near by lake...has anyone drudged the lake? Where's the parts? Where's the bodies and purses and luggage and WINGS? Isn't it interesting that the national air defense was, that very morning, on maneuvers simulating an airline attack on the WTC? That the pilots were indisposed and confused by all the chatter that sounded rather similar to the maneuvers they'd been sent on? That the airspace was essentially undefended that particular morning? Isn't it interesting that 2 of the world's highest building came down and pulverized all the cement to dust? No blocks? Gee...is that possible? And isn't this terribly interesting? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o"]9/11: DAN RATHER SAYS WTC COLLAPSES LOOK LIKE DEMOLITIONS - YouTube[/ame] "Truther's" have theories that are full of holes...the official story and 9/11 commission report is also full of holes. Any "reasonable" person would have to say that more went on that morning than we are being told. To accept anything that is so FISHY is...dumb.
No. They didn't come straight down in the first place. In the second place, they were designed to withstand the impact of a plane. They did. Not the fuel and resulting fire but the frame withstood the impact. No, every shred of evidence--including the light poles--fully supports the findings of the 9/11 Commission report as well as the basic tenants of common sense. Parts were found. You're incorrect on every point. L We do drills all the time. Only a portion of the air defense was drilling, aircraft were scrambled but given that there were no hijackings since the 1970's, your assumption that the brave men and women of our military would be forward leaning expecting one and operate flawlessly once one did occur is, well, stupid. I'm criticizing your flawed assumption, not you personally. If that had happened, you'd be right. Please quote any major inaccuracy in the 9/11 Commission Report.
The fuel??? OK well I just do not buy that hoakie idea. IMO...its silly to think that the fuel...which burned off rather quickly...did what they said it did...at the temps it burns at. Nope...that's just not reasonable. Common sense? Show me the plane then. I didn't see it that morning. That it simply disintegrated is sort of far-fetched don't you think? Especially since that has never happened before. Planes don't simply disintegrate. See above. Where are the wings? Where's the tail section? Purses, luggage, bodies, etc... who's "we"? Are you in the Airforce? no worries...I've heard it all before. Its best not to get upset and personal about this...mostly because we will never agree. I find the air defense actions that morning, just a little too coincidental. Show me the blocks then. I see powder...but no blocks of cement. Again...I see lots of steel chunks...but 2 of the tallest building in the world collapse in on themselves...and no big blocks of cement are in the rubble? Boy...that's some interesting event. Errr...the omission of WTC7 perhaps? Look...NOBODY is a "winner" here. For me, the absence of evidence, the pure speculation involved, the MASSIVE amount of "coincidence" people are asked to swallow...its all fantasy. Something more than what we've been told, happened that morning. If that idea makes you uncomfortable...I can understand. But I want realistic answers to some of these questions. There are too many unusual happenings and coincidences for me to swallow. And in the absence of hard facts...because there never really was a full investigation of the remains...as they were all carted away ASAP...I have to believe my eyes. As Dan Rather did...
'They' also said that the black smoke coming out of the WTC meant the fires were 'almost out'.....Evidently they never say a hydrocarbon fueled fire. I'm wondering who 'they' are myself.
Again, not true; some hit the basement according to the Report. Additionally, it started a multi floor fire that totally engulfed the impact area as well as disabled the fire-proofing on the steel supports which eventually lead to the collapse. No. Especially in light of the much more robustly built plane crashing into the ground in Reno this past weekend; almost to the same result; very little pieces left. Usually the pilot is trying to save the craft and save the crew. The terrorist at the controls had no such intent. Is this fact that hard for you to understand? You do realize the same massive fireball witnessed in 3 cases on that day happend in Pennsylvania as well, do you not? This ain't chess, it's checkers. I was speaking as a citizen just now. Coincidental...I don't suppose you'd be willing to regale us with your story about what happened that day since you seem convinced it was some sort of inside job. Put up or shut up. How big a block did you want to see coming down from 800-1000 feet? Can't quote anything can you? Its okay, no twoofer has ever found a major inaccuracy in the 9/11 Commission Report. And none of you guys ever will. Check the score board. I'm way ahead. So far ahead, I don't think I'll remember you name next week. Add you to my endless rabble of opponents whom I destroyed. Since you can't find a single major inaccuracy in the 9/11 Commission report, none of it is a fantasy now is it? If you're going to say it, back it up. You can't. You won't The "idea" makes me laugh. The facts don't make me uncomfortable at all. They are all on my side of the argument. You can have all the innuendo you want. Keep on asking if there were even planes involved...after 10 years and zero progress you should realize nobody buys your BS but if you want to keep on with that tactic, feel free. Now THAT is funny. A twoofer saying he wants answers; no you want answers that fit your pre-disposition as to what happened.
You are aware that bodies from the aircraft were found in the WTC rubble? Passengers in their seats, a flight attendant with her hands bound ... all reported by first responders.
