What I think would only be specualtion based on the evidence I have seen. Disproving a, b and c means that a proper, independant investigation should take place resulting in a trial where all people who benefited from the crime, all people who had means and motive are investigated thoroughly. But that wont be happening will it, lets just stick to, it was those ****ing pakis, bomb ra lot a them.
I'm not trying to prove any official story, I'm simply showing you how the buildings could have fallen. If I had read the official story then it would make me sway towards what is in it, whereas I would rather make my own conclusion based upon what I know now and seen then. There would be now way they would be able to leave no evidence of a controlled demolition, and I mean impossible. Until you can prove otherwise, I will believe the towers fell as a direct result of being hit by aeroplanes.
The Twin Tower was turned to dust by explosions, probably never used before in demolition as buildings that size had never been imploded. WTC7 was an implosion. You are going to have to provide evidence about this building, until then it could be anything.
building 7 collapsed because of both the damage done to it when the north tower collapsed and the fires that were unable to be put out because the water sprinkler system was knocked out when the north and south towers fell eddie is a boring simple **** end of story.
er no, you're the one coming out with outlandish bullshit..so it's your job to prove otherwise. dickhead
We used to use a pub in that building for poker nights. It collapsed due to a fire. Maybe it was the Yanks?
Well that's nice and convenient for you - bin the official story but never actually say what you think so you donlt have to defend it. You've implied that you think it was all planned by the US in the past. Tell me, do you also think that the British Government blew up tube trains in 2005?.
And will any truther believe ANY report which states that what actually happened was that 19 highjackers crashed 3 planes into buildings? Not a chance. You have already admitted that any investigation would be a whitewash so what do you want?
So you are talking about an old building that would hav been a mix between wood and steel? Hardly a steel framed high rise it. Completely irrelevant, and I doubt the buidling was turned to dust, or that it collapsed into its basement in perfect symetrical fashion.
pretty much everything word you've ever typed on not606. towers controlled demo, pentagon missile, blah blah etc etc usual ****e. the thing that conspiracy nut jobs is they're quick to say what didn't happen..but when you challenge them on their opinion on what did happen it's all "oh i dunno i dunno but ive proved the official version wrong" all noise..all ****ing nose.
So what is your theory eddie? Who was behind the attacks, how were they carried out and who is involved in the conspiracy?
You see the word independant before investigation dev Well, the hijackers could be brought into the trial aswell, most are still alive afterall. You can ask them, did you fly those planes into the buildings? You can ask him where he got the magic passport that survived the crash and was found by FBI a couple of blocks away
Wood? Wooden beams? It was 8 stories high and it collapsed due to fire, it was not turned to dust because it weighed far less than the WTC.
dunno what you've been watching, but nothing "perfect symmetrical fashion" about this vid. or are you too blinded and deluded to see it leaning massively as it's falling? [video=youtube;lTutneLXup0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTutneLXup0[/video]
The highjackers are all dead eddie, another of these myths that has arisen out of this nonsense. As for the passport are you saying that it is "impossible" that a passport survived the impact?
No problems but yes it was complete fantasy and not based on any single fact at all. I thought you were all for facts. I don't know the ins and outs of the collapse of the third tower and neither do you. But to any sane person it does seem rather odd. And that's me being serious for once.
Jordan, if you highlight the full sentance son, you will see that it say and I quote "Completely irrelevant, and I doubt the buidling was turned to dust, or that it collapsed into its basement in perfect symetrical fashion." The building you have posted is the one that turns to dust its wtc7 that collapsed into its basment in pefect symetrical fashion.
you can go by uncorroborated reports in the manic days after 9/11, or you can go by family members interviews since. "Muhammad Ali al-Shehri, the Shehri brothers' true father, was identified prior to September 17, 2001, and told Arab News that he had not heard from his sons in ten months prior to September 2001.[25] An ABC News story in March 2002 repeated this, and during a report entitled "A Saudi Apology" for Dateline NBC on Aug 25 2002, NBC reporter John Hockenberry traveled to 'Asir, where he interviewed the third brother, Salah, who agreed that his two brothers were dead and claimed they had been "brainwashed"." Furthermore another article explains that the pilot who lives in Casablanca was named Walid al-Shri (not Waleed M. al-Shehri) and that much of the BBC information regarding "alive" hijackers was incorrect according to the same sources used by BBC.[26] In September 2007, a video recording of his last testament was released to mark the 6th anniversary of the attacks.
