ae911truth.org

There are dozens of instances pre-9/11 that were pointing to a massive terrorist attack on the U.S. including al queda operatives caught talking about it -- I guess Bush must've orchestrated those as well.

JamMastaE wrote:

there you go posting facts and evidence again!! when will you learn?

it's not an inside job unless the mass media or popular mechanics says it is.

so shut up and go back to sleep like the rest of the sheep around here.

Perfect example of the incredible arrogance of some of the posters on here. Who's to say you arent a sheep for believing what you believe?!!!

Once again, i dont profess to know everything that happened and i never will know, but people like you are wrong for dismissing everyone else's opinions or views because they arent like yours. Its not entirely to do with intelligence like you imply in another post. I keep an open mind about the events of 9/11, but dont act like you know more about it because you choose to believe different theories from other people.

Jooooosh wrote:

So believing the official 9/11 story makes you a sheep, but blindly accepting anything the internet tells you makes you an intellectual? Interesting.


Based on cell phone calls and the FDR/CVR information that was recovered, it's widely agreed upon that the terrorists who hijacked the planes explicitly stated they had a bomb -- that's why the fucking towers collapsed.
I believe there was actually a flight attendant who managed to make contact and state she'd seen the bomb (flight 11 I think that was).


Spend enough time and you can make a conspiracy theory about anything.

But in that case surely the towers would have fallen a lot sooner, since they would have detonated on impact. Plus, and more to the point, how on earth would they have got a bomb on board?!

And I don't think people are "blindly accepting" anything online, they are responding to highly detailed arguments by experts. The official line expects the public to essentially believe that all elements of the attacks happened in a highly irregular manner. For example, a lot of pictures of high impact plane crashes have been shown, which quite clearly show the various parts of plane wreck - yet we are expected to believe that when the plane went down over Shanksville that it vaporized on impact, leaving barely any wreckage and just a relatively small smouldering hole. That's not me trying to come up with a conspiracy theory, that's me saying I don't believe the official explanation.

If it was only one strange incident, you could put it down to a freak occurance. But it's not just one, there are countless strange and unexplainable things that happened that day, and until those things are explained properly with evidence to back them up, people will always be questioning it.

facepollution wrote:

But in that case surely the towers would have fallen a lot sooner, since they would have detonated on impact. Plus, and more to the point, how on earth would they have got a bomb on board?!

Probably the same way they got the knives on board. It's damn near impossible to tell how they snuck a bomb on without knowing the type or composition of the bomb.

And I don't think people are "blindly accepting" anything online, they are responding to highly detailed arguments by experts.

While ignoring experts on the other side of the spectrum.

The official line expects the public to essentially believe that all elements of the attacks happened in a highly irregular manner. For example, a lot of pictures of high impact plane crashes have been shown, which quite clearly show the various parts of plane wreck - yet we are expected to believe that when the plane went down over Shanksville that it vaporized on impact, leaving barely any wreckage and just a relatively small smouldering hole. That's not me trying to come up with a conspiracy theory, that's me saying I don't believe the official explanation.

If it was only one strange incident, you could put it down to a freak occurance. But it's not just one, there are countless strange and unexplainable things that happened that day, and until those things are explained properly with evidence to back them up, people will always be questioning it.

The entire day was chaos. Whenever an event like that happens, there will always be thousands of questions surrounding it. These conspiracy websites use these questions to instill paranoia and fear into their readers. There's a reason these conspiracy theories are ignored by virtually everyone in the mainstream media -- and no, it's not because Bush has them in his pocket -- it's because, as much as I'd hate to admit it, the rest of the country isn't that stupid.

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

There are some big facts you;re glossing over. Mainly thermite and melted steel.

These two things are not possible with open kerosene based fire.

The video evidence as well is quite alarming.

let's see for thermite to form you must have rust and aluminum. Now lets suppose that there is some steel in the skyscraper. Let's suppose that there is over 3000 cubic feet of steel per floor is it possible that over time some of the steel or iron had rusted (it was constructed for many years, the steel was exposed to the elements and there were prob holes drilled and some protectant chipped off). I mean what are the odds that none of the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel didn't have rust, that nothing else in the building had rust. My guess is there was a lot of rust througout the building. Not nec all at one spot but throughout the building supports, cabinets, wiring tubes, computer rooms etc... Now if only there was something that was aluminum that was flammable that was introduced to the building. Oh there is alarming video evidence of an aluminum airplane with jet fuel on board that crashed into the building. So is it more possible that people planted tons of thermite explosive all over the building or is it more possible that a building that had been under construction since the 60's and was old had rust throughout the building (both in structure and in objects inside it) and an airplane (aluminum with jet fuel to spark reaction) flew into it and that's where the thermite rxn occurred? But i'm sure the 2nd scenario isn't a possible explanation at all.