Middle East

I dont support all of conspiracy theories, and even the onez I mostly do I don't agree with 100%, but read up on Phyics before you put the 9/11 conspiracies down ever again dude. The buildingz were in free fall, in which the direction of the planez crashing in would've tipped the buildingz over, and they would've fell in a slanted motion....hitting other buildingz which was the terrorists original plan.
But according to the "oroginal story", Physics professors across teh world are getting pissed, because they know the truth. Its not what isn't known thats intreging, its what can be concluded from what IS known. Real life is so much more interesting than fiction.

I agree 100%, and this is a "juicy topic". The Armageddon war's been going on for thousands of years, WE aren't gonna stop it, even if we kill all of the so called "terrorists"....

 

Yes, we agree. It won't stop until one side is A-bombed if you ask me. But, at that point, we as a country will never go to that limit again. At least I don't think so. . .

 

we wont because the Middle East does business with Russia, and if we take money away from Russia they'll A-bomb us.

 

However, Russia hates U.S.A. so if we attack them in any way, we have another enemy on our hands. Things are getting fragile.

 

they have been that way for a while. I know the government is in on it all because they're doing nothing to stop all of this!!

 

The terrorists may have planned for the buildings to tip, but that doesn't mean that the buildings would have. You'd need a set amount of force to tip those buildings the way they were built, and a commercial plane can't get that amount of force.

 

the commercial plane couldn't have taken the towers down in the first place. We've tried to do it over again with prototypes and aplied mathematics and physics, and it just doesn't work. But I know how they did......

 

It took it down because once the plane hit, the fuel started to heat up. It got hot enough to the point that it started melting the framework of the towers. That's why they fell.

 

but like I was trying to say in "code", the flames theoretically wouldn't of been hot enough to heat the steel so quickly to that melting point, or even melt it at all. You see, there were bombs already planted in the building.......

 

No there wasn't. The flames and any burning part close enough to the steel melted it. It was under enough pressure to get hot enough to melt steel. Why would you think that there were bombs?

 

Like I said, the official stories "fire" wouldn't have been hot enough. The gasoline would've burned up quickly, not this "slow" and really "damaging" thing they say occured in the building. Its false. The only explanation would be explosions going off simutaneously with the plane crashes, setting a chain reaction to destroy the building in free fall motion. Please take 5 minutes and fifty seconds of your day (from me) and watch this video on Youtube showing what I'm trying to tell you with footage.
YouTube - 9/11 CONSPIRACY: MORE PROOF OF BOMBS PLANTED IN THE TOWERS!!

 

Okay, I watched the video and it doesn't prove anything. Those explosions that appeared below could have been debris from the impact. And the fire could be hot enough if the steel took enough damage from the impact to weaken it enough.

 

lol, c'mon Desert Warrior, I hear ignorance. The "puffs" (as I like to call them) of smoke are bombs. If it was "debry" from the building collapsing, it wouldn't be a "puff", it would then start to drop from that floor, and the whole floor of teh building would've been teh "puff", but look at the sizes of the "puffs". They are to small to just be debry from teh fallen floorz....I'm sorry....

 

You never know. It could be debris. And you can't prove it's not. And even if it were explosions, there were things in that building that could explode. Even if it doesn't seem reasonable.

 

I'm sorry, it doesn't. No offense, but all your doing is pulling something out of a hat now....

 

Well my point is that there were no bombs. Just seeing puffs come out of a building doesn't prove their cause is from a bomb.

 

Well, Desert Warrior is justified in saying that there was no absolute proof of a bombing.

 

It makes the most logical sense. What else could it be? What else could've caused the twin towers to come down in free fall like a demolition? explain please...I'm all earsz. And dont pull anything out of a hat this time...lol

 

it does make logical sence that they would blow up the twin towers. the reason i say this is because if it fell properly then it would of destroyed ofther buildings and possibly caused even more loss of life. an old fasioned thing that they did in medievil times would be to knock out the side of a square shaped castle to make it fall any it would fall down in a lump causing more damage to the surounding area. but the twin towers came down horizontaly and the only explination would be that the blew the surports all at the same time. ie controled explosions

 

exactly, like a demolition. And who was in charge of the security of the building at the time? Jebb Bush. Who put a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center 7 weeks before it was destroyed? Larry Silverstein, an American billionaire real estate investor and develpoer in the NYC....and is frinedz with teh Bush family.....those sick f&%ks. 9/11 happened to make rich people richer and to cause chaos through out our world.