September 11th, 2001

eddiec said:

In the history of skyscrapers only 3 have fallen with cause being attributed to fire.
WTC 1,2 and 7

fire caused by commercial airplanes.

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

comatose2016 said:

I am very curious to know if anyone out in the community has done their own research surrounding this day. Please don't say 'it's 2016, time to move on'. This statement saddens me. It really is our duty to ask questions and speak out about this event. Nothing would make me happier than seeing PJ get behind the push for facts. At this time, what could possibly be more important than providing the world with real facts about the biggest crime in mankind history?

There are scientists, physicists, engineers, actors, musicians, etc all pushing for a re-investigation.
See http://www.ae911truth.org/ or http://aa911.org/

I'm not looking for a debate on this, just asking people to take a step back, forget what has been force fed to us as facts for 15 years and take a look for yourselves. You will be surprised at what you find out.

If someone can prove to me these 2 items, then I will be able to move on, but so far no one has:
1) 4 aluminum commercial airplanes can disappear into concrete/steel structures or into the ground with barely a trace (or no trace depending who you ask)
2) 3 concrete/steel structures (two 110-story, one 47-story) buildings can collapse into their own footprint at free fall speed without explosives

1) There is video footage along with thousands of witnesses to 2 planes crashing into the towers. In no way was it a hoax, illusion, etc. Thousands of rescue workers were involved, and very little remains of the planes or the thousands of people who were known to die in the event were ever recovered. What more proof do you want that a plane can crash without leaving much of a trace?

2) Probably not possible. But a jumbo jet fully loaded with jet fuel is a pretty darn big explosive. I never understand the debate that they could not have fallen without explosives. That is probably true, but we saw 2 very large explosives fly straight into the buildings. So why is this a topic?

Number 1 is likely referring to the Pentagon, where the security footage remains sealed and the details are suspect.

I know the most common theories about the planes disappearing involve the pentagon and the crash in PA. But to answer the question that it can happen, I think the twin towers pretty well proves that it is possible for a plane to be nearly completely destroyed in a crash though.

I have seen videos, watched the documentary "Spare Change," and all theories I've seen just don't come close to adding up for me. I wouldn't tell someone to "move on" because its been 15 years, but I just don't think there has been enough evidence, any really, to support the number of theories that have floated around. Not to mention they would require the involvement of hundreds of people, all willing to kill thousands of innocent American civilians for various number of reasons, and somehow all have remained silent. 4 planes did disappear, with known people on board who had families and are accounted for, that is indisputable. I have yet to hear one logical theory as to what happened to all those people if in fact the crash sites were staged. The only thing that does make sense is 2 crashed into the towers, 1 into the pentagon and 1 into some fields in PA.

why would any of the wtc buildings be blown up using explosives? how could you plant the explosives in that short amount of time in tower 1/2?

I appreciate all these comments. I too used to reject every other hypothesis I heard - until I decided to research myself. I hope that more will do the same. The recent comments are too restrictive however - correct that we don't know how many people were involved in this act do we? Maybe 100, maybe 1000. I do know that very large sums of money do wonderful things. Are we 100% positive there were planes? This is one of the questions I asked myself. I'm telling you, I just started from scratch. All I know is, having the Pentagon get hit, losing the entire world trade center complex in the capital of the world, and having a commercial jet disappear into a very small hole (after flying upside down) in PA without any military involvement from the best damn military in the world is just as hard for me to believe as the rest of them. And we have been fed info for 15 years the fact that a guy across the world with 19 buddies took over planes with box cutters. Not to mention most of those pilots were probably ex-military pilots and well trained in self defense. I do believe one of the pilots was even a boxer. There are sites from pilots as well that pretty much question every aspect of those flights (500 mph at that altitude?). Please take a little time and check some out.

I posted the popular mechanic article and it is pretty legit. Can you disprove any of those articles or is everything just speculation?

I won't go into PM - not worth it.

comatose2016 said:

I appreciate all these comments. I too used to reject every other hypothesis I heard - until I decided to research myself. I hope that more will do the same. The recent comments are too restrictive however - correct that we don't know how many people were involved in this act do we? Maybe 100, maybe 1000. I do know that very large sums of money do wonderful things. Are we 100% positive there were planes? This is one of the questions I asked myself. I'm telling you, I just started from scratch. All I know is, having the Pentagon get hit, losing the entire world trade center complex in the capital of the world, and having a commercial jet disappear into a very small hole (after flying upside down) in PA without any military involvement from the best damn military in the world is just as hard for me to believe as the rest of them. And we have been fed info for 15 years the fact that a guy across the world with 19 buddies took over planes with box cutters. Not to mention most of those pilots were probably ex-military pilots and well trained in self defense. I do believe one of the pilots was even a boxer. There are sites from pilots as well that pretty much question every aspect of those flights (500 mph at that altitude?). Please take a little time and check some out.

you are not 100% positive that planes at least crashed into the towers?
I would disagree if you said there wasn't enough proof for the pentagon and PA crash sites, but at least there isn't multiple sources of video and thousands of eye witnesses. You realize for those to be a fake EVERY major news organization in the nation would have to be in on it, as they all had live video of planes crashing into the second tower. And somehow convince an entire city who just lost thousands of their own to lie and make up eye witness accounts? And on top of that, not have a single eye witness come forward and say "umm...I was video taping the whole thing and nothing happened guys. Here it is."
That just doesn't sound even a little crazy to you?

To be honest mace - the whole day is crazy no matter what view you have. If I'm not mistaken, there were 5 major newscasts that day. CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX. For this to work, yes, all 5 would have to be in on it. Is that so far out of the realm of possibility? Wouldn't they all reap fantastic rewards for showing the world a 'live' crash of a plane (allegedly) smashing into the WTC? Have there been any questions at all surrounding all these newscasts over the years about making up news stories?

There are numerous examples on the web that show errors made that day (i.e. FOX channel with ABC logo on it or something like that, a 17-second delay on the 'live' feed, different contrasts on the telecast but the same view, missing shoreline from a few shots, a quick black out when the 2nd plane hit, etc). I'm not here to press any theories onto anyone - just trying to prove there is a reason to question everything about that day. There is no smoking gun - just a lot of crazy things and coincidences As for the trickery with the NY folks - sure, plenty of great questions in this area. Didn't a bunch of people believe David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear?

Another odd story from that day:
There has been much criticism over the years about how our military failed us that day. Why didn't they shoot down any of the planes everybody asked? Well, I watched a History channel special - '9/11: 15 years later'. A 'recently revealed' fact about that day was given - 2 air force pilots were tailing Flight 93. The first pilot revealed 'as soon as I saw the plane I realized I was almost out of fuel and had to quickly land, I barely made it'. Another pilot said, 'I didn't have any weapons on my jet, it was a time of peace, the cold war was over. I then realized I would have to try and take out its tail. No one told me that but that I knew I had to do'.
We were told the plane was going 500 miles per hour - that would be quite a maneuver (maybe it is possible, I'm not a jet pilot) but really? And no loaded missiles on board? So 3 planes have already hit the towers and pentagon and that is the best story they have for our military? Anybody feel safe with a story like that?

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

why would any of the wtc buildings be blown up using explosives? how could you plant the explosives in that short amount of time in tower 1/2?

You couldn't. These controlled demolition theories are fucking ridiculous. You can't do a controlled demolition without basically dismantling the entire inside of the building. There is a LOT of prep work involved with a controlled demolition or anything close to it. You can't just hide a bunch of explosives around the building and expect it to collapsed straight down. Engineers - real live engineers with absolutely no horse in the race - have confirmed over and over and over how the WTC fell the way it did because of the planes and resulting fire, and it makes perfect sense because of the way the building was built. There would literally be no way to do what the conspiracy nuts try to claim without every single employee in both buildings knowing about it weeks ahead of time.

Thank you! I like when we agree.