What hit the Pentagon? 9/11

[The Decider]

Quote by: PatrickHenry And who would have thought that the very folks in charge of policy for the Bush Administration had called for another Pearl Harbor in the previous year, IN WRITING? A document called Rebuilding America's Defenses, by the Project for a New American Century.

Is this your interpretation of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" or does that document actually "call for another Pearl Harbor?" Please supply the quote.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Another key element that indicates 9/11 is an inside job is that the military forces were moving into position for an attack on Afghanistan, BEFORE the events of 9/11.

Source?

[ruksak]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Just curious if the plane was reconstructed. Many planecrashes are.

That is a good question. As well I tried to find information on that and was unsuccessful.

Quote by: PH I despise Dubya. I think he is Satanically evil. So evil that I no longer pray for him, even though the Bible calls for christians to pray for their leaders. But in line with Apostle Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 5:5, I have delivered him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh.

Jeepers. I don't like the guy. I won't vote for him, but gosh. Remind me to stay on your good side.

Quote by: PH Another key element that indicates 9/11 is an inside job is that the military forces were moving into position for an attack on Afghanistan, BEFORE the events of 9/11. They were only awaiting the pretext to stage the attack.

Clinton lobbed hundreds of Tomahawk missiles into Afghanistan from a battleship just a few years prior to 9/11. Our government had its scopes dialed onto Afghanistan for years leading up to 9/11. That counts both the Republican and Democratic parties as being in tune with the potential, or should I say inevitable, attacks by Al Qaeda on American soil.

Quote by: PH In my opinion, the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud on September 9 was a preface to installing Hamid Karzai as President of Afghanistan after the assault and occupation. The Lion of Panjshir was a national hero... no puppet of the US, and his presence would have stood in the way of creating a client state for Uncle Sam there. So he was assassinated by "AlQaeda", two days before "AlQaeda" attacked the US.

So lemme make sure I got this straight, I don't want to misquote you. Your theory is that the American government assassinated Massoud as a pretext to installing Karzai? So you dispute that it was Al Qaeda/Taliban operatives that assassinated Massoud as a means of installing their own regime?

Quote by: PH In sum, it is not my distaste for Bush that sends me to the alternative theory camp. It is accounting for the evidence.

Than account for the evidence. Put your fingers where your mouth is and get to typing it. Right here, right now. Explain, account for, the airplane parts seen clearly visible scattered all about the front lawn, the impact area, and throughout the inside of the Pentagon. These photos are not doctored. They were taken by many different photographers. How do you account for their presence? What is this doing here? Account for it please; 9-11 Research: Hull Piece
Do that before we go any further, please.

[jose]

Quote by: ruksak;423530 Than account for the evidence. Put your fingers where your mouth is and get to typing it. Right here, right now. Explain, account for, the airplane parts seen clearly visible scattered all about the front lawn, the impact area, and throughout the inside of the Pentagon. These photos are not doctored. They were taken by many different photographers. [B How do you account for their presence?[/b] What is this doing here? Account for it please; 9-11 Research: Hull Piece Do that before we go any further, please.

from your link:

This piece in the first photograph, which was a few feet long, was the only piece of aircraft debris of any size that reporter Mark Faram could find when he arrived at the scene about 10 minutes after the crash.

the only piece:eek:

[ruksak]

Oh noes, did Mark Furhman sneak that onto the front lawn?

Reporters are not aeronautics forensic investigators, police, rescue workers or anything of the sort. That piece had exploded off and landed far from the impact site.

....was the only piece of aircraft debris of any size that reporter Mark Faram could find when he arrived at the scene about 10 minutes after the crash.

So a reporter could only find one visible piece of an aircraft in ten minutes time, while being forced to maintain several hundred feet distance? Thats not really accounting for the piece of aircraft, sir.

The real investigators found these;
9-11 Research: Engine Rotor

.....and this;
9-11 Research: Engine Parts

.....and these;
9-11 Research: Aircraft Debris

....and these;
9-11 Research: Pentagon Debris Fields

Theres more but it gets redundant.
Explain to me, even if its just your opinion, how these pieces of aircraft got there? Only minutes after the crash. In plain view of hundreds of witnesses. How? Never mind if you can prove it or not, because I already know you can't. Just give me your idea of how these photos can be accounted for. Because after all Patrick, you did say "I have accounted for all the evidence". I intend on holding you to that.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: The Decider Is this your interpretation of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" or does that document actually "call for another Pearl Harbor?" Please supply the quote.

Certainly.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
Page 51 (or 63 of the .pdf document)

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.

Try this for some commentary: America Pearl Harbored
This one's good, too. The Project for the New American Century
Neither one is explicitly saying that 9/11 is an inside job. I'M saying that.

Quote by: The Decider Source?

re: the forces moving into position prior to 9/11
BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | US 'planned attack on Taleban'
Actually not such an easy story to find, since it undermines the official account. I don't have anything on the actual disposition of US forces in the region in the summer of 2001. The war itself is a more spectacular story.But try this if you like looking for sources. US PREPARING FOR A WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 9/11, INCREASING CONTROL OF ASIA BEFORE AND SINCE
Check the summer of 2001.
Heh. You wanna see how the CIA makes its money?

Afghanistan.

And here's an interesting story. This guy, General Mahmoud Ahmad(various spellings),



was having a meeting with Porter Goss and Bob Graham, a coupla spooky US Congress officials on the morning of 9/11 in Washington. But. It turns out that he had just transferred $100,000 to Mohammad Atta through an intermediary. And then guess what? Goss and Graham chaired the joint inquiry into 9/11 that whitewashed all the major players in Washington. And let's see, what else was happening in Florida, home of the two grinning congresscritters. Atta went to flight school there. Jeb Bush was governor there. Bush managed to defeat Gore there. And it is home to some very sophisticated (CIA) drugrunning, involving the use of LearJets. And Ahmad was later fired.

On July 22nd 2004, The Guardian reported that Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist, had, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to retire by President Musharraf.

Mahmoud Ahmad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But back to the Pentagon. What strikes me as ludicrous about the official story is this. A direct dive on the flight path would have taken the airliner directly into the high brass areas, including likely Rumsfeld's office. Instead, the cute aerobatic diving turn from 7,000 ft with 270 degrees of rotation brought it into the newly constructed heavily reinforced area of the building. One that was relatively empty. It would have been smarter for a "terrorist hijacker" to fly the damn thing right up Rummy's patootie. But the plan called for something different. Hijackers that are smart enough to pick a day when NORAD was out of town, but not smart enough to whack Rumsfeld where he lives.

I wonder why nobody alerted ol' Don that there was a National Emergency underway? One involving an airliner headed straight for the Defense Secretary's office? :eek:

The Official Story is so effen lame, I can't understand how anybody with an IQ over 95 could believe it...

[ruksak]

I CALLED YOU OUT HOMEBOY!

Answer the question and do not dodge me again.

Quote by: ruksak Explain to me, even if its just your opinion, how these pieces of aircraft got there? Only minutes after the crash. In plain view of hundreds of witnesses. How? Never mind if you can prove it or not, because I already know you can't. Just give me your idea of how these photos can be accounted for. Because after all Patrick, you did say "I have accounted for all the evidence". I intend on holding you to that.

Quote by: Patrick In sum, it is not my distaste for Bush that sends me to the alternative theory camp. It is accounting for the evidence.

Account for the airplane parts. Dozens of large, clearly visible pieces in those photos I provided. If you cannot, I call foul and I suggest you are a liar for stating that you accounted for the evidence.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: ruksak So you dispute that it was Al Qaeda/Taliban operatives that assassinated Massoud as a means of installing their own regime?

AQ/T operatives could easily be spooky US assets. Either way it seems to have worked out to put Karzai, (very friendly to the US) on the dais that otherwise would be occupied by Massoud.

Quote by: ruksak Than account for the evidence. Put your fingers where your mouth is and get to typing it. Right here, right now. Explain, account for, the airplane parts seen clearly visible scattered all about the front lawn, the impact area, and throughout the inside of the Pentagon. These photos are not doctored. They were taken by many different photographers. How do you account for their presence? What is this doing here? Account for it please; 9-11 Research: Hull Piece Do that before we go any further, please.

Heh. I don't respond very well to demands, ruksak. But I will say this. I have not ever said there was no plane at the Pentagon. So I don't need to account for the presence (or absence) of airliner debris.

[ruksak]

Quote by: PH AQ/T operatives could easily be spooky US assets. Either way it seems to have worked out to put Karzai, (very friendly to the US) on the dais that otherwise would be occupied by Massoud.

Nope, not during this time. No way. Taliban/Al Qaeda employs fighters that are far more devout than Americans are. We were their sworn enemy for years leading up to this. Your theory doesn't fit.

Quote by: PH Heh. I don't respond very well to demands, ruksak. But I will say this. I have not ever said there was no plane at the Pentagon. So I don't need to account for the presence (or absence) of airliner debris

My apologies. For a few minutes I thought we were debating "what hit the pentagon".

Now that we are on the same page, do you have a working theory as to what occurred at the Pentagon that day? Or are you just prepared to say it was George Bush without so much as an idea as to what really happened?

May I ask, What was it that started your mind in motion that their might be something afoul with the "official story"? What caused this opinion to begin to gel in your mind? Maybe if I know where you're coming from I can better debate you.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: ruksak Nope, not during this time. No way. Taliban/Al Qaeda employees fighters that are far more devout than Americans are. We were their sworn enemy for years leading up to this. Your theory doesn't fit.

Well, spooks have ways of getting their assets to do what they want. I am not saying that Massoud's assassins were loyal to America's interests. Just that they were under the control of an AlQaeda agent who directed them to do something that resulted in what the controllers of the whole 9/11 operation wanted. You remember that the US created and funded AlQaeda through the Pakistan ISI in the 80s to counter the Russian presence in Afghanistan? Were they later an enemy? I guess so, but it looks as if this "war" between Uncle Sam and AQ has been fruitful for both sides. I don't know who is a friend and who is an enemy. But seriously, my most important enemies reside in Washington. And the Massoud thing is sorta hard to confirm anyhow...just a theory that goes along with my other thoughts.

Quote by: ruksak My apologies. For a few minutes I thought we were debating "what hit the pentagon". Now that we are on the same page, do you have a working theory as to what occurred at the Pentagon that day? Or are you just prepared to say it was George Bush without so much as an idea as to what really happened? May I ask, What was it that started your mind in motion that their might be something afoul with the "official story"? What caused this opinion to begin to gel in your mind? Maybe if I know where you're coming from I can better debate you.

Great! Let's be civil...sorry about calling you a liar. I have had dozens of antiCT opponents, many of whom I have liked very much outside their opposition to my "theories." Heh.

Are you aware of the history of false-flag operations? Gulf of Tonkin? Operation Northwoods? Are you aware of the manipulation FDR pulled to get the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, so the US could get into WW2 without congressional opposition? Are you aware of the impossibly excessive damage to the Murrah Building in OKC and the coverup there? How about the government operations at Ruby Ridge and Waco? The War on Drugs, with CIA drugrunning? Operation Mockingbird? MKULTRA? Operation Paperclip? Currently, the NAU? Government assaults on the Bill of Rights, most importantly the First and Second, but including attacks and undermining of nearly every single one? Whew! What a rant...

I like reading BOOKS. Online sources can point a person in the right direction, but books will build a case. I could list the bibliography here, but.

I won't go into everything here, 'cause it'll take this thread even further afield.

However, the single biggest influence in taking my views "over the edge" was probably Alex Jones' DVD, 9/11: the Road to Tyranny


At the Pentagon, I have to admit, the wreckage looks like an airplane. I wish I could see some of the confiscated videos. It's not the plane or no_plane that is suspicious to me. It's the whole train of events.

[arielmessenger]

"The wings were "sucked" into the hole."

Frankly, I don't believe this could happen. I would need to see a demonstration that a large airplane with large wings would just "fold up" and not leave any trace of impact of those large wings against the building. I don't buy the government line.

[ruksak]

Quote by: arielmessenger Frankly, I don't believe this could happen. I would need to see a demonstration that a large airplane with large wings would just "fold up" and not leave any trace of impact of those large wings against the building. I don't buy the government line.

This really isn't a magic trick.

A Boeing 757 is approximately 50 meters in length. The wings begin at about 25 meters and have a sweep-back of 25 degrees. For the entirety of the wings to hit the wall, the airplane would have to puncture approximately 32.5 meters in, about three quarters of the planes total length. The key to this is to understand that the very thing that the wings are attached to is exploding with unimaginable forces.


Before the plane traveled the necessary 25 meters into the building, a cataclysmic event was unfolding upon the planes structure.

Depending on the pitch, airspeed and a long list of variables, the wings should have come completely unattached before they even hit the wall. The very thing that the wings are attached to, the airplane, is exploding and dispersing itself at the leisure of a litany of forces.

The problem people have when looking at that hole is they envision the plane punching through the wall, the wings remaining where they were on the plane as normal, than contacting the wall. Their mind tries to compare the hole in the wall, with that image of wings striking the wall.

This is the problem. The wings didn't strike the wall at all. They came unattached. One even hit the ground as the plane hit the building. Some of the wings debris was sucked into the hole by the forces of momentum. Some was dispersed and exploded god only knows in what fashion. We're talking about aluminum, not steel. Yes its strong. Not strong enough to outweigh the forces of an exploding airplane moving at such dramatic speeds.

As I said, the wings can't even start to hit the wall until 50% of the airplane has met with a catastrophic stop in momentum and the added destruction of a ferocious explosion.

Is anyone prepared to state that they would expect the wings to remain as and where they originated throughout the process of an entire half of an airplane exploding and smashing into a heavily reinforced concrete bomb bunker? They just stay where they are? Despite the thing that they are attached to has exploded into millions of pieces? They just stay where they are?


Add to all this the fact that one wing didn't even touch the wall first. It dragged on the ground. Which would, at those speeds, shear it off like nothing at all.

Eyewitness account; 9/11 Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts
Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA TODAY

"A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye.

It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke."


9-11 Research: Approach Details

David Marra -- had just turned his BMW off an I-395 exit to the highway "The plane rolled left and then rolled right. Then he caught an edge of his wing on the ground." There is a helicopter pad right in front of the side of the Pentagon. The wing touched there ..

Mary Ann Owens -- driving along by the side of the Pentagon Once it passed, I raised slightly and grimaced as the left wing dipped and scraped the helicopter area just before the nose crashed into the southwest wall of the Pentagon.

Jack Singleton -- in or near trailer in construction yard "The plane's left wing actually came in near the ground and the right wing was tilted up in the air."

Lee Walker Evey -- On its way in, the wing clipped. Our guess is an engine clipped a generator. We had an emergency temporary generator to provide life-safety emergency electrical power, should the power go off in the building. The wing actually clipped that generator, and portions of it broke off.

The left wing and the right wing both are proven to have sustained serious damage before the nose of the plane ever even touched the wall. Add this all up and I simply cannot why anyone would expect the wings to make it to the wall.....

[The Decider]

Quote by: PatrickHenry [b]Certainly. http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf Page 51 (or 63 of the .pdf document) Try this for some commentary: America Pearl Harbored This one's good, too. The Project for the New American Century Neither one is explicitly saying that 9/11 is an inside job. I'M saying that.

That quote didn't "call for" a new Pearl Harbor as you claimed. You're assuming that conclusion--big difference.

Quote by: PatrickHenry re: the forces moving into position prior to 9/11 BBC News | SOUTH ASIA | US 'planned attack on Taleban' Actually not such an easy story to find, since it undermines the official account. I don't have anything on the actual disposition of US forces in the region in the summer of 2001. The war itself is a more spectacular story.But try this if you like looking for sources. US PREPARING FOR A WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 9/11, INCREASING CONTROL OF ASIA BEFORE AND SINCE

These links show evidence of military cooperation with Central Asian nations and black ops within Afghanistan aimed at Al Qaeda before 9/11. No surprise there considering the attempts to take out bin Laden a couple of years before. The existence of invasion/plans alone suggests war gaming, not a pre-911 decision to actually invade Afghanistan. I see no evidence of troops movements prior to 911. In fact, considering the botched campaign to get Osama at Tora Bora, early planning and execution of the invasion seemed lacking. Of course, one could argue that we let Osama get away, and I suppose some conspiracy theorists make that argument, but I would like to see evidence and not just conjecture.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Okay, I got one for you PH. Let's say you ARE right. They pulled of 9/11 to invade Iraq and used the lie of WMD to make it happen.

Why could this very sneaky, smart and dangerous group pull off 911, but cannot plant WMD in Iraq to make all the lingering questions go away?

Seriously, plating WMD in Iraq would be.. cake compared to 911. But they haven't... ti would do WONDERS for their cause... but strangely... they haven't.

[Rainbow]

On July 22nd 2004, The Guardian reported that Omar Sheikh, a British-born Islamist, had, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to retire by President Musharraf.

Does it mean :
- Ahmed was part of 09-11 events ?
- head of Pakistani intelligence, Ahmed, was a moron ?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: PatrickHenry What strikes me as ludicrous about the official story is this. A direct dive on the flight path would have taken the airliner directly into the high brass areas, including likely Rumsfeld's office. Instead, the cute aerobatic diving turn from 7,000 ft with 270 degrees of rotation brought it into the newly constructed heavily reinforced area of the building. One that was relatively empty. It would have been smarter for a "terrorist hijacker" to fly the damn thing right up Rummy's patootie. But the plan called for something different. Hijackers that are smart enough to pick a day when NORAD was out of town, but not smart enough to whack Rumsfeld where he lives. I wonder why nobody alerted ol' Don that there was a National Emergency underway? One involving an airliner headed straight for the Defense Secretary's office? :eek: The Official Story is so effen lame, I can't understand how anybody with an IQ over 95 could believe it...

You think you could do better than that ?
Go ahead.
Grab a plane, and hit Rummy's office. Do not forget to send us e-mail.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Okay, I got one for you PH. Let's say you ARE right. They pulled of 9/11 to invade Iraq and used the lie of WMD to make it happen. Why could this very sneaky, smart and dangerous group pull off 911, but cannot plant WMD in Iraq to make all the lingering questions go away? Seriously, plating WMD in Iraq would be.. cake compared to 911. But they haven't... ti would do WONDERS for their cause... but strangely... they haven't.

I think this is an excellent example of using common sense to drill home a point in a debate. No, Mr. V cannot provide a link to prove his assertion. Nope, Mr. V doesn't have a source for us to follow up on. Its just good 'ol common sense.
The logistics behind 9/11 being done by the US Gov, is so unbelievably complicated, convoluted and impossible to fathom. Not to mention the extraordinary risk of being caught, as the President of the US murdering thousands of his own people just to start a war.
The logistics behind planting a makeshift WMD manufacturing/storage facility would score as minuscule in comparison. Hell, I could pull that off with the help of a few of my stoner friends. Maybe I should give 'ol Georgey boy a ring. Make a few bucks, help secure the republican parties standing in the 2008 election.

[Rainbow]

@ruksak, @Mr.Vicchio

You guys forgot yet crucial element with reference to 09-11 events' conspiracy.

Here, it is :
- since planes were remotely controlled, the guys who executed 09-11 did not die, but they are alive (?!)

You bet (especially) al-Qaeda and/or Any anti-U.S. sources would love to reach those guys and use their reports, in order to totally discredit U.S. government.

[arielmessenger]

Quote by: ruksak This really isn't a magic trick. A Boeing 757 is approximately 50 meters in length. The wings begin at about 25 meters and have a sweep-back of 25 degrees. For the entirety of the wings to hit the wall, the airplane would have to puncture approximately 32.5 meters in, about three quarters of the planes total length. The key to this is to understand that the very thing that the wings are attached to is exploding with unimaginable forces. Before the plane traveled the necessary 25 meters into the building, a cataclysmic event was unfolding upon the planes structure. Depending on the pitch, airspeed and a long list of variables, the wings should have come completely unattached before they even hit the wall. The very thing that the wings are attached to, the airplane, is exploding and dispersing itself at the leisure of a litany of forces. The problem people have when looking at that hole is they envision the plane punching through the wall, the wings remaining where they were on the plane as normal, than contacting the wall. Their mind tries to compare the hole in the wall, with that image of wings striking the wall. This is the problem. The wings didn't strike the wall at all. They came unattached. One even hit the ground as the plane hit the building. Some of the wings debris was sucked into the hole by the forces of momentum. Some was dispersed and exploded god only knows in what fashion. We're talking about aluminum, not steel. Yes its strong. Not strong enough to outweigh the forces of an exploding airplane moving at such dramatic speeds. As I said, the wings can't even start to hit the wall until 50% of the airplane has met with a catastrophic stop in momentum and the added destruction of a ferocious explosion. Is anyone prepared to state that they would expect the wings to remain as and where they originated throughout the process of an entire half of an airplane exploding and smashing into a heavily reinforced concrete bomb bunker? They just stay where they are? Despite the thing that they are attached to has exploded into millions of pieces? They just stay where they are? Add to all this the fact that one wing didn't even touch the wall first. It dragged on the ground. Which would, at those speeds, shear it off like nothing at all. Eyewitness account; 9/11 Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts Steve Anderson, Director of Communications, USA TODAY "A few moments later, as I was looking down at my desk, the plane caught my eye. It didn't register at first. I thought to myself that I couldn't believe the pilot was flying so low. Then it dawned on me what was about to happen. I watched in horror as the plane flew at treetop level, banked slightly to the left, drug it's wing along the ground and slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon exploding into a giant orange fireball. Then black smoke. Then white smoke." 9-11 Research: Approach Details The left wing and the right wing both are proven to have sustained serious damage before the nose of the plane ever even touched the wall. Add this all up and I simply cannot why anyone would expect the wings to make it to the wall.....

You're saying the fuselage exploded on impact and thus severed the connecting wings. Your scenario doesn't provide for the inertia of the wings traveling forward at the airplane or missile's ground air speed. How can an explosion in the fuselage automatically evenly fold the wings in on impact--the direction of explosion is not all directed backwards but mostly forwards. The impact of the fuselage would not change the wing configuration in time to fold them up neatly so a relatively small hole remained.

So, again, where's the impact of the wings? Your answer and Pop Mechanics doesn't make physical sense.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Rainbow @ruksak, @Mr.Vicchio You guys forgot yet crucial element with reference to 09-11 events' conspiracy. Here, it is : - since planes were remotely controlled, the guys who executed 09-11 did not die, but they are alive (?!) You bet (especially) al-Qaeda and/or Any anti-U.S. sources would love to reach those guys and use their reports, in order to totally discredit U.S. government.

??Question Mark??
What?

Remote controlled planes? Hundreds of passengers just disappeared?

The logic is inescapable, yet you CT nuts find a way to escape its grasp. There is no way the government could have pulled off 9/11. NO WAY! Why would they even want too? To start a war?
As Mr.V pointed out, there are far far easier and less convoluted ways to conspire a war with Islam.

Not even a 10 year old autistic retard would put his stamp on an idea like 9/11.

One point stands inarguable!
There is alot of real, tangible proof that 9/11 was a conspired effort by Al Quada. Thousands of documents, photos, video, eyewitness accounts and of course, good 'ol common sense.

There is no proof otherwise. NONE! Only theories, none of which can be proven. Not even a shred of evidence. Zero, zip, notta.

Every time I ask for proof, I get something like "Watch the towers fall, it looks just like a controlled demolition". First of all thats not proof. Thats an uneducated stab in the dark. Google "controlled demolition". Watch the hundreds of available videos. Every single building implosion has a common trait. I mean every single one. All. All implode from the bottom up. If the WTC towers were a controlled demolition, it would be the first time in recorded history a building was imploded from the top, down.