24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked

rankingelite · 25-03-2015 3:03pm #1

9/11 has been a controversial topic for 13 years. What happened? Was it really a terrorist attack? These are great questions. There are many Americans in the nation that believe that the 9/11 attack was not real. Here is a list of things that cannot be unread about 9/11.

Continue Reading

King Mob · 25-03-2015 3:23pm

3. Total collapse time for WTC 7 was in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkWCRV54lY

The collapse was at least 14 seconds.

A commonly repeated lie that is easily debunked.

weisses · 28-03-2015 10:01am

King Mob wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkWCRV54lY

The collapse was at least 14 seconds.

A commonly repeated lie that is easily debunked.

You should be more worried that a few office fires apparently can cause a building to almost symmetrically collapse reaching free fall acceleration.

It actually isn't possible.

IT-Guy · 28-03-2015 10:32am

weisses wrote: »

You should be more worried that a few office fires apparently can cause a building to almost symmetrically collapse reaching free fall acceleration.

It actually isn't possible.

A few office fires? F**k me, I'd hate to see your idea of catastrophic structural failure :rolleyes: As usual the conspiracy theorists are full of bs. WTC7 collapse explained: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

weisses · 28-03-2015 11:01am

IT-Guy wrote: »

A few office fires? F**k me, I'd hate to see your idea of catastrophic structural failure :rolleyes: As usual the conspiracy theorists are full of bs. WTC7 collapse explained: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Ohh It was a catastrophic structural failure alright

How many buildings in the world collapsed the way building 7 did due to fire alone ?

thickhead · 28-03-2015 11:25am

Get sick of you nut jobs saying it was an inside job. I was there visiting family on the day. I was 11 and I seen it. You freaks need to stop bull****ting.

weisses · 28-03-2015 11:44am

thickhead wrote: »

Get sick of you nut jobs saying it was an inside job. I was there visiting family on the day. I was 11 and I seen it. You freaks need to stop bull****ting.

So there you are as an 11 year old and you saw/knew it wasn't an inside job ? ....

thickhead · 28-03-2015 11:51am

weisses wrote:

So there you are as an 11 year old and you saw/knew it wasn't an inside job ? ....

No I just know that people died. And freaks wont let them rest in peace.

Todd Toddington III · 28-03-2015 11:54am

That is some list of crazy. Don't even read it, think chem trails ideology

Un Croissant · 28-03-2015 11:57am

weisses wrote: »

You should be more worried that a few office fires apparently can cause a building to almost symmetrically collapse reaching free fall acceleration.

It actually isn't possible.

Ahhh, ok. What we have here are facts that can't be debunked until one is debunked. Suddenly we shouldn't be worried about the fact that can(t) be debunked and look at the bigger picture.

IT-Guy · 28-03-2015 12:01pm

weisses wrote: »

Ohh It was a catastrophic structural failure alright

How many buildings in the world collapsed the way building 7 did due to fire alone ?

None. Now answer me this, how many office buildings have collapsed due to a combination of uncontrolled fires and structural damage caused by debris from a nearby collapsing skyscraper?

weisses · 28-03-2015 12:07pm

IT-Guy wrote: »

None. Now answer me this, how many office buildings have collapsed due to a combination of uncontrolled fires and structural damage caused by debris from a nearby collapsing skyscraper?

The falling debris from the twin towers had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7 (Source NIST)

Now try and answer my previous question again

weisses · 28-03-2015 12:11pm

thickhead wrote: »

No I just know that people died. And freaks wont let them rest in peace.

What is freaky is that you think the people who died on that day are somehow still upset with the fact people on internet forums are discussing what (actually) happened

Scruffy19 · 28-03-2015 12:12pm

thickhead wrote: »

No I just know that people died. And freaks wont let them rest in peace.

People did die on that day but at the hands of what?

There is some many reports to show that no commercial airline hit the towers on that day! There is footage on youtube that hasn't been broadcasted since the moment it has happened of people on the ground claiming that it wasn't an commercial airliner and there were reports of bombs sounding off around!

The 9/11 commissions report failed to address the big issues! Engineers through out the world still claim that it was impossible for a building of that structure to collapse due to the cause of fire! (still think it is the only one in history to have ever fallen due to fire damage)

All anybody wants is for a new report on this and the people responsible to be held in the court of law! (and no it wasnt Al-Qaeda)

Calibos · 28-03-2015 12:17pm

How could the impact at hundreds of miles an hour of a 400,000LB airliner loaded with jet fuel possibly cause enough damage to this to make the hundred thousand tonnes above the impact site pancake down in a catastrophic collapse?

The phrase 'Freefall speeds' is the catchphrase that makes me mentally groan inside. Its like talking to a flat earther.

Tugboats · 28-03-2015 12:18pm

http://truthseeker.tv/

:D

weisses · 28-03-2015 12:24pm

Calibos wrote: »

How could the impact at hundreds of miles an hour of a 400,000LB airliner loaded with jet fuel possibly cause enough damage to this to make the hundred thousand tonnes above the impact site pancake down in a catastrophic collapse?

The phrase 'Freefall speeds' is the catchphrase that makes me mentally groan inside. Its like talking to a flat earther.

But building 7 never got hit by a plane ..... sorry to ad more fuel to your mental groan ...

Guy:Incognito · 28-03-2015 12:34pm

11. on 10/10/2001 Rumsfeld reported 2.3 trillion dollars missing from the pentagon.

Even looking at the language used in that, its hyperbolic and trying to imply its stolen.

Didnt take much googling to find this link

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Missing_Trillions

Link wrote:

The first problem with some reports on this issue comes in how they describe the money. In extreme cases it's treated almost as though it's been "stolen", while other sites ambiguously say it's "missing". 911Research above are more accurate in saying it could not be accounted for, or tracked. Here's where Rumsfeld spoke about this on 9/10, with a little more context (our emphasis):

The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems...
In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.
Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on...
Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business...
The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.
They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill -- a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.
That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.
Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today's world demands.
Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....
The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.
We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us....
[plenty more here, please go read the whole thing]
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

It's not that the money is "missing", then, at least according to Rumsfeld, more that incompatible and aging financial systems don't allow it to be tracked throughout the system. A DoD news document from April 2002 spelled this out even more clearly:

12. More than 220 senior military. Intelligence service, law enforcement, and government officials question the real story.

Keeping it vague, nice. What counts as "senior"? If they know the people are senior, they know who they are. So name them.

16. ‘Flight 93′ debris was spread over many miles. Cheney admits to giving the order to shoot down 93. “shot down the plane over Pennsylvania”Rumsfeld, “nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there,” Chris Konicki. “Not a drop of blood” Coroner Wallace , “there was no plane.” Mayor Ernie Stull.

Did Cheney order it shot down or was there no plane? Did he order the non existent plane shot down?

20. The Patriot Act was before 9/11 and was signed into law ong 10/26/2001

October is after September, no?

weisses · 28-03-2015 12:40pm

thickhead wrote: »

You people are discussing rumour. Nothing more. Something along the lines of a stray bullet from the grassy knoll hit tupacs car which in turn hit elvis causing him to roll into the twin towers.

Ahh at least we are people now and not freaks ... sigh

If you would Familiarize yourself on the subject you would see its more then rumor

thickhead · 28-03-2015 12:47pm

weisses wrote:

Ahh at least we are people now and not freaks ... sigh

weisses wrote:

If you would Familiarize yourself on the subject you would see its more then rumor

Ive read alot of these theories, It's rumour nothing else. If it where true it would be fact not theory.

weisses · 28-03-2015 12:56pm

thickhead wrote: »

Ive read alot of these theories, It's rumour nothing else. If it where true it would be fact not theory.

You are perfectly entitled to believe that

weisses · 28-03-2015 1:01pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

12. More than 220 senior military. Intelligence service, law enforcement, and government officials question the real story.

Keeping it vague, nice. What counts as "senior"? If they know the people are senior, they know who they are. So name them.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Knock yourself out

thickhead · 28-03-2015 1:02pm

weisses wrote:

You are perfectly entitled to believe that

I know

IT-Guy · 28-03-2015 1:26pm

weisses wrote: »

The falling debris from the twin towers had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7 (Source NIST)

Now try and answer my previous question again

Sigh, more lies. Not sure which copy of the nist report you read but have a look here and read the abstract. Have a read through the pdf starting at page 37 which states that WTC7 collapsed primarily due to its fires. Note the word primarily. The report also states that similar fires in other similar buildings didn't lead to their collapse because of a fully functioning water sprinkler system which aided in controlling the spread of the fires. Now do you want to answer my question again, hopefully having read the report of the source you cited?

weisses · 28-03-2015 2:08pm

IT-Guy wrote: »

Sigh, more lies. Not sure which copy of the nist report you read but have a look here and read the abstract. Have a read through the pdf starting at page 37 which states that WTC7 collapsed primarily due to its fires. Note the word primarily. The report also states that similar fires in other similar buildings didn't lead to their collapse because of a fully functioning water sprinkler system which aided in controlling the spread of the fires. Now do you want to answer my question again, hopefully having read the report of the source you cited?

A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

Renegade Mechanic · 28-03-2015 2:25pm

Imo, there was no inside job. This was a job orchestrated by Mr Bin Laden, but it probably helped, with the amount of training and knowledge he and others would have received from the Americans in their war against the Russians.

That said, Any time a plane deviates from it's course, the fastest interceptors are scrambled and can reach it in less time than it took for the plane to make it's way to the world trade centre and far less time than it too the second plane to follow it, whatever about the others.

The Yanks knew exactly what these boys were up to but let them do it. That to me is as far as any "cconspiracy" or "inside job" goes. Nothing like a war to stave off recession for a while. Nothing like a war to demonstrate that the military, backing your currency, is up to the job.
Afghanistan had 80% of the worlds opiates.

Iraq started selling oil in Euros (bad for the $)

Libya was heading a multi African nation push to get the continent on a gold/diamond based currency that would have made African goods/services expensive enough to drag them out of the war torn **** hole they're in. Nigeria and Niger were right behind them.

And a few more.

Russia and China, the worlds second largest economy and the world's largest country, are ramping up trade between each other, and with other nations, without the reserve currency.

The world is chess board, and winning is getting more difficult for it's owners.

IT-Guy · 28-03-2015 2:41pm

weisses wrote: »

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

From the exact same page:

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

Nice red herring there saying WTC2 had nothing to do with it when it was debris from WTC1 that caused the structural damage, ruptured the water mains that fed the water sprinkler system and ignited the fires that burned uncontrolled for 7 hours that led to its collapse.

enfant terrible · 28-03-2015 2:57pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Imo, there was no inside job. This was a job orchestrated by Mr Bin Laden, but it probably helped, with the amount of training and knowledge he and others would have received from the Americans in their war against the Russians.

That said, Any time a plane deviates from it's course, the fastest interceptors are scrambled and can reach it in less time than it took for the plane to make it's way to the world trade centre and far less time than it too the second plane to follow it, whatever about the others.

The Yanks knew exactly what these boys were up to but let them do it. That to me is as far as any "cconspiracy" or "inside job" goes. Nothing like a war to stave off recession for a while. Nothing like a war to demonstrate that the military, backing your currency, is up to the job.
Afghanistan had 80% of the worlds opiates.

Iraq started selling oil in Euros (bad for the $)

Libya was heading a multi African nation push to get the continent on a gold/diamond based currency that would have made African goods/services expensive enough to drag them out of the war torn **** hole they're in. Nigeria and Niger were right behind them.

And a few more.

Russia and China, the worlds second largest economy and the world's largest country, are ramping up trade between each other, and with other nations, without the reserve currency.

The world is chess board, and winning is getting more difficult for it's owners.

Your conspiracy is as far fetched as the others.

Calibos · 28-03-2015 3:00pm

Its sad really. The desire to feel special, to feel like an insider, to feel like you are 'in the know' unlike all the 'sheeple'.

Theres a lot of fcuked up **** that goes on in the world. There are real conspiracies.

This ain't one. Just like 99% of the others that CT'ers latch onto. The real conspirators love you guys because you give all CT's a bad name

weisses · 28-03-2015 3:00pm

IT-Guy wrote: »

Nice red herring there saying WTC2 had nothing to do with it when it was debris from WTC1 that caused the structural damage,

Where did I state that part

IT-Guy wrote: »

ruptured the water mains that fed the water sprinkler system and ignited the fires that burned uncontrolled for 7 hours that led to its collapse.

even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.

From the report .. I bolded the important part

sooo How many buildings in the world collapsed the way building 7 did due to fire alone ?

Renegade Mechanic · 28-03-2015 3:02pm

enfant terrible wrote: »

Your conspiracy is as far fetched as the others.

It needs a space suit, so I'm told. But then, nnewspaper headlines/articles are readily searchable.

IT-Guy · 28-03-2015 3:14pm

weisses wrote: »

Where did I state that part

Read your post again, no.27. The nist quote there mentions no debris impact from wtc2, it was debris from wtc1 that caused the damage

weisses wrote: »

From the report .. I bolded the important part

sooo How many buildings in the world collapsed the way building 7 did due to fire alone ?

You still think the circumstances surrounding wtc7's collapse should mean the collapse of every tall building with a fully functional water sprinkler system and beams - with fire retardant material still intact- exposed to fire for 7 hours. Show me any other structural fire in those circumstances built to the 1968 fire code and I'll show you a collapsed building. Again the mention of free fall speed, do you think the building was deliberately demolished using explosives?

weisses · 28-03-2015 3:16pm

Calibos wrote: »

Its sad really. The desire to feel special, to feel like an insider, to feel like you are 'in the know' unlike all the 'sheeple'.

Theres a lot of fcuked up **** that goes on in the world. There are real conspiracies.

This ain't one. Just like 99% of the others that CT'ers latch onto. The real conspirators love you guys because you give all CT's a bad name

Thank you so much for these caring and warm words ... Only issue is that regarding 9/11 there are facts not adding up with the official story and that makes it an interesting debate ...

weisses · 28-03-2015 3:27pm

IT-Guy wrote: »

Read your post again, no.27. The nist quote there mentions no debris impact from wtc2, it was debris from wtc1 that caused the damage

Either way it had no impact on the collapse

IT-Guy wrote: »

You still think the circumstances surrounding wtc7's collapse should mean the collapse of every tall building with a fully functional water sprinkler system and beams - with fire retardant material removed due to damage - exposed to fire for 7 hours. Show me any other structural fire in those circumstances built to the 1968 fire code and I'll show you a collapsed building. Again the mention of free fall speed, do you think the building was deliberately demolished using explosives?

Problem is that the fires got extinguished by themselves (north side) so not the whole building was exposed to fire for 7 hours

If you see what is needed for a building to reach a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration then you must laugh at the official office fire story. I don't know what brought it down, If i knew I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. There are plenty of examples of high rises fully engulfed in flames for a much longer period and these buildings are still there today ... Only 3 examples of a collapse as described above and all three happened on 9/11

IT-Guy · 28-03-2015 3:33pm

weisses wrote: »

Either way it had no impact on the collapse

Problem is that the fires got extinguished by themselves (north side) so not the whole building was exposed to fire for 7 hours

If you see what is needed for a building to reach a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration then you must laugh at the official office fire story. I don't know what brought it down, If i knew I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. There are plenty of examples of high rises fully engulfed in flames for a much longer period and these buildings are still there today ... Only 3 examples of a collapse as described above and all three happened on 9/11

So the only thing that can be gleaned from our little exchange is that 1968 fire code requirements aren't as stringent as today's. I still don't know what you're arguing for here, you don't believe fire was capable of taking the building down and you don't think it was demolished using explosives? So what happened? Did it just get tired and decide to have a rest? :P

enfant terrible · 28-03-2015 3:39pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

It needs a space suit, so I'm told. But then, nnewspaper headlines/articles are readily searchable.

Did you figure it all out yourself?

enfant terrible · 28-03-2015 3:41pm

weisses wrote: »

Either way it had no impact on the collapse

Problem is that the fires got extinguished by themselves (north side) so not the whole building was exposed to fire for 7 hours

If you see what is needed for a building to reach a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration then you must laugh at the official office fire story. I don't know what brought it down, If i knew I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. There are plenty of examples of high rises fully engulfed in flames for a much longer period and these buildings are still there today ... Only 3 examples of a collapse as described above and all three happened on 9/11

It probably was explosives and the planes were just a distraction.

Makes sense to me.

weisses · 28-03-2015 3:42pm

IT-Guy wrote: »

So the only thing that can be gleaned from our little exchange is that 1968 fire code requirements aren't as stringent as today's. I still don't know what you're arguing for here, you don't believe fire was capable of taking the building down and you don't it was demolished using explosives? So what happened? Did it just get tired and decide to have a rest? :P

I don't think that the fire in building 7 was severe enough to bring down the building

And I don't know how they brought it down

I get tired as well and have a rest only thing is it doesn't happen at free fall acceleration

Renegade Mechanic · 28-03-2015 4:01pm

enfant terrible wrote: »

The US government is no match for you and your mammy.

Indeed. She's not a woman you piss off without a solid exit strategy... Anyway:

Iraq.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

Lybia.
http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/

Granted, the media outlets arent to most people's taste but they were the results that arrived first. Many many more outlets ran articles, pretty much word for word. Only difference being, some included the diamond aspect, some didn't.

enfant terrible · 28-03-2015 4:06pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

Indeed. She's not a woman you piss off without a solid exit strategy... Anyway:

Iraq.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

Lybia.
http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/

Granted, the media outlets arent to most people's taste but they were the results that arrived first. Many many more outlets ran articles, pretty much word for word. Only difference being, some included the diamond aspect, some didn't.

So to over throw Saddam they decided to fly some planes into skyscrapers.

They should of made the hijackers Iraqi too not Saudi's, they prob got confused.

They should of just planted some WOMD for the inspectors to find would of been a little bit easier.

They also should of planted some WOMD after invading Iraq to justify the invasion, they prob forgot.

Renegade Mechanic · 28-03-2015 4:14pm

enfant terrible wrote: »

So to over throw Saddam they decided to fly some planes into skyscrapers.

They should of just planted some WOMD for the inspectors to find would of been a little bit easier.

They also should of planted some WOMD after invading Iraq to justify the invasion, they prob forgot.

They didn't fly the planes ito buildings.
It was a legitimate enemy operation. They simply let it happen. Afghanistan was a sensible starting point for them. A country destroyed by its now ruling taliban would be easy to set up shop in and branch out from.

Iraq was easy because of that. Emotions were high and claiming another country was supporting Al Quaida/Holding WMDs, after the events of 9/11 wasn't going to arouse much scrutiny. In fact, it got all the support they needed.
Europe didnt assist the US fully for that reason. France in particular didn't assist at all. Likely still bitter over Nixon withholding their gold in the 70s. Please stand by while I find an interesting video of a generals interview.

Renegade Mechanic · 28-03-2015 4:19pm

U.S General Wesley Clark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXS3vW47mOE

It's been a lot more than five years, granted. Good plans rarely survive contact.

enfant terrible · 28-03-2015 4:26pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

They didn't fly the planes ito buildings.
It was a legitimate enemy operation. They simply let it happen. Afghanistan was a sensible starting point for them. A country destroyed by its now ruling taliban would be easy to set up shop in and branch out from.

Iraq was easy because of that. Emotions were high and claiming another country was supporting Al Quaida/Holding WMDs, after the events of 9/11 wasn't going to arouse much scrutiny. In fact, it got all the support they needed.
Europe didnt assist the US fully for that reason. France in particular didn't assist at all. Please stand by while I find an interesting video of a generals interview.

and after all that effort they forgot to plant the WOMD.

School boy mistake.

Renegade Mechanic · 28-03-2015 4:30pm

enfant terrible wrote: »

and after all that effort they forgot to plant the WOMD.

School boy mistake.

One they could afford to "make". After all, who was going to question them? It had nothing to do with WMDs, nothing to do with oil (they'll never recoup the cost of their invasion on Iraqs oil alone) and everything to preventing a chain reaction of countries with high resources/trade taking note and dumping their dollar stashes.

enfant terrible · 28-03-2015 4:33pm

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

One they could afford to "make". After all, who was going to question them? It had nothing to do with WMDs, nothing to do with oil (they'll never recoup the cost of their invasion on Iraqs oil alone) and everything to preventing a chain reaction of countries with high resources/trade taking note and dumping their dollar stashes.

Probably because if they found WOMD,the conspiracy theorist would say they planted the WOMD :pac:

Renegade Mechanic · 28-03-2015 4:39pm

enfant terrible wrote: »

Probably because if they found WOMD,the conspiracy theorist would say they planted the WOMD :pac:

If they had them, it's because they were sold 'em.
Iraq have gone from enemy to freind to enemy to freind and back again, as has been seen fit by various administrations.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

Scruffy19 · 28-03-2015 5:43pm

Watched this Documentary a few times and got others to watch it and they changed there views on what happened that day!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=structural+WTC7&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=617&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ptgWVc7dDMbzat3EgegI&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgdii=_&imgrc=elZGEWiLDgVbyM%253A%3B9iIh07_OqLnBhM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fmore911.files.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F10%252Fwtc-7-typical-floor-plan.jpg%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fmore911.wordpress.com%252Fplans%252F%3B1078%3B596

Look at this photograph above! In order for that building to fall you are saying more than half of the beams would have to give way due to fire damage? If you think that then maybe your in the wrong job :rolleyes:

degrassinoel · 29-03-2015 1:32pm

Multiple infractions and bans in this thread already - new posters to the CT's forum need to read the CT's charter before posting here.

Also, if you believe someone else has broken the charter, don't respond - report the post and we'll deal with it accordingly. Otherwise the topic gets derailed.

AFreeIrishman · 30-03-2015 11:30am

9/11 was a government created 'Pearl Harbour'. They wanted to rile the US people up and put them in the right mindset for a war. A few facts that negate the government's crap;
The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand a plane strike, that BS story about burning fuel is ridiculous because; Physics..
Two towers struck by planes do not drop in an obviously controlled fall. The drop could not have been tidier, relatively speaking.
You can SEE the damn demo charges going off just before the drop...!!!
The sloppy PR job of letting the whole world know it was coming, having over a dozen countries contacting them to tell them it was coming, but then acting completely dumbfounded when it came..
Telling the people that a bunch of terrorists in a cave set all this up, so let's attack a nation that, while run by a sadist scumbag dictator, has NOTHING to do with said terrorists. (Saddam Hussein had no known ties to Islamic militant groups, as he mistrusted them)
The invasion orders for Afghanistan were on the presidents desk two days before 9/11...

Feel free to look the facts up, but do it without bias.. See the logical truth for what it it.

AFreeIrishman · 30-03-2015 11:33am

9/11 was a government created 'Pearl Harbour'. They wanted to rile the US people up and put them in the right mindset for a war. A few facts that negate the government's crap;
The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand a plane strike, that BS story about burning fuel is ridiculous because; Physics..
Two towers struck by planes do not drop in an obviously controlled fall. The drop could not have been tidier, relatively speaking.
You can SEE the damn demo charges going off just before the drop...!!!
The sloppy PR job of letting the whole world know it was coming, having over a dozen countries contacting them to tell them it was coming, but then acting completely dumbfounded when it came..
Telling the people that a bunch of terrorists in a cave set all this up, so let's attack a nation that, while run by a sadistic scumbag dictator, has NOTHING to do with said terrorists. (Saddam Hussein had no known ties to Islamic militant groups, as he mistrusted them)
The invasion orders for Afghanistan were on the presidents desk two days before 9/11...

Feel free to look the facts up, but do it without bias.. See the logical truth for what it it.

DamagedTrax · 06-04-2015 11:31pm

AFreeIrishman wrote: »

9/11 was a government created 'Pearl Harbour'. They wanted to rile the US people up and put them in the right mindset for a war. A few facts that negate the government's crap;
The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand a plane strike, that BS story about burning fuel is ridiculous because; Physics..
Two towers struck by planes do not drop in an obviously controlled fall. The drop could not have been tidier, relatively speaking.
You can SEE the damn demo charges going off just before the drop...!!!
The sloppy PR job of letting the whole world know it was coming, having over a dozen countries contacting them to tell them it was coming, but then acting completely dumbfounded when it came..
Telling the people that a bunch of terrorists in a cave set all this up, so let's attack a nation that, while run by a sadistic scumbag dictator, has NOTHING to do with said terrorists. (Saddam Hussein had no known ties to Islamic militant groups, as he mistrusted them)
The invasion orders for Afghanistan were on the presidents desk two days before 9/11...

Feel free to look the facts up, but do it without bias.. See the logical truth for what it it.

yeah but the official report says different. the ink is dry, nothing more to see. move along now

24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked

Comments