That has nothing to do with controlled demolition. Not to mention we have seen footage of the planes hitting the towers. As did tons of people in NY that were there.

I don't know how people could think it was a controlled demolition. Have you seen videos of those? The point that there are tons of super loud explosions before the collapse that sounds like a fireworks finale. That is for buildings much smaller than the WTC. There would be no "people thought they heard explosions" there would be people definitely heard them and they would be on the WTC videos as you can hear the sounds of the collapse so you should have heard the explosions prior to that. Not to mention demolitions implode from the bottom. The WTC started from where the plane crashed. Conspiracy theoriests can't claim its almost impossible to even hit the tower with a plane yet think they could have set explosives in advance to implode the building at the exact spots the planes hit.

Just some food for thought.

Can I ask a question here? Was there any wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon?

This is video footage broadcast on 9-11-2001. Look closely. There are close-up shots of the rubble...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJ2oA3KSxY&feature=related

...and that looks like a piece of turbine sitting among the concrete. Why would a missile or bomb have something like that?

This is live broadcast video of from 9-11-2001. Bombs and missiles typically do not create such thick heavy smoke. Petroleum products do. It even shows a side-by-side view of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Both have the thick, heavy, black smoke. Most building fires I have seen do not create smoke like this. I once watched a furniture store burn, and it was the only building I saw in person to have such smoke in such a confined space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOflyabs0_w&feature=related

Another live broadcast video footage of the second plane hitting the WTC (including all commercials, and beginning at 8:30 am). Near the end of the clip, you can see the jet engines hanging underneath the wings as the plane approaches the towers. Unlike some Truther claims, there is no third underhang under the fuselage. And it definitely is not a missile or a smaller aircraft, and it was caught on live TV from helicopter and building cameras.

http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912

Will any of this convince you? Probably not. I've already read a number of Truther claims, and watched a number of their videos. Quiet honestly, they never give references or qualifications for their information. It is all unsubstantiated theory, testimony for non-verifiable experts, and a bunch of altered videos. How is anyone supposed to believe these people when they refuse to give people a means to verify their credibility?

You know, people made similar claims about FDR and Pearl Harbor. No matter what, the Japanese made their own decision regardless of anything FDR might do. Even if he suspected what might happen, FDR had pushed for a larger Navy for 20 years before becoming President. The reason was simple: any war brought to the U.S. would require a large scale naval effort. And look what happened? Even the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto suspected the Japanese has made a big mistake. Pearl Harbor spurred one of the largest expansions of the Navy in U.S. history, with an increasing focus on aircraft carriers. If not for that naval expansion, the war in the Pacific would have been forfeit, and a good chance the west coast would belong to Japan. If the U.S. Navy had been built up prior to Pearl Harbor, then Japan might never have attacked, preferring to let the U.S. sit out the war.

Same thing with terrorism. We've needed to precautions against it for 20 years prior to 9/11. We never did. It became a wake-up call that spurred change. Not all of it is ideal. Some of it needs to be undone, in fact. But after all the hijackings, and the bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City, and WTC, we did exactly jacksh@t to improve our internal security against terrorism. The reason? The population always became indignant about invasion of privacy, no matter how small or necessary. A big shake up was needed, one that stirred the will of the masses. As much as it that was necessary, it does not mean that anyone in our government held all the cards and played all the hands.

problem reaction solution

What's the cover up? The government dropped the ball at numerous levels. Maybe on some levels, it was secretly intentional to gain leeway to improve internal security. Not on all levels. And 9/11 was certainly not masterminded by our own government just to achieve this end or any other. Everyone was calling for the heads of those responsible. The government couldn't sit idle. They knew it would take a long time to get Bin Laden. The population needed something to distract them, to buy the necessary time to get Bin Laden....and so it was proposed to take down Saddam Hussein, as should have been done 10 years earlier. Invading Iraq had a number of advantages: a regional base for operations, oil supply, a presence might cow Iran a bit, it would eliminate a dictator from power....one known to have used chemical weapons in the past, etc. So, going into Iraq had no legitimate reason, but it was a very attractive option in the war on terror - primarily because it took the focus of the hunt for Bin Laden.

The cover up is that after the first WTC bombing, they lacked enough evidence to pursue anti-terrorist measures. The government needed more so they could be given a mandate to improve internal security. That evidence might then sway public opinion, especially if the same people were involved. So, it became a waiting game....waiting for the next strike. They never expected the form it would take. It was too incredulous. No one had done it before. Any relevant information had to be something meant to throw them off. But eventually, 9/11 led to a secondary cover up because the government did not want to admit they lacked legitimate reasons for going into Iraq....but it was a necessary evil in order to bring justice for the 9/11 attacks. The government had little choice: Americans were howling for Bin Laden's head on a spike.

Can I ask a question here? Was there any wreckage of the plane that hit the Pentagon?

This is video footage broadcast on 9-11-2001. Look closely. There are close-up shots of the rubble...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbJ2oA3KSxY&feature=related

...and that looks like a piece of turbine sitting among the concrete. Why would a missile or bomb have something like that?

This is live broadcast video of from 9-11-2001. Bombs and missiles typically do not create such thick heavy smoke. Petroleum products do. It even shows a side-by-side view of the Pentagon and the Twin Towers. Both have the thick, heavy, black smoke. Most building fires I have seen do not create smoke like this. I once watched a furniture store burn, and it was the only building I saw in person to have such smoke in such a confined space.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOflyabs0_w&feature=related

Another live broadcast video footage of the second plane hitting the WTC (including all commercials, and beginning at 8:30 am). Near the end of the clip, you can see the jet engines hanging underneath the wings as the plane approaches the towers. Unlike some Truther claims, there is no third underhang under the fuselage. And it definitely is not a missile or a smaller aircraft, and it was caught on live TV from helicopter and building cameras.

http://www.archive.org/details/cbs200109110831-0912

Will any of this convince you? Probably not. I've already read a number of Truther claims, and watched a number of their videos. Quiet honestly, they never give references or qualifications for their information. It is all unsubstantiated theory, testimony for non-verifiable experts, and a bunch of altered videos. How is anyone supposed to believe these people when they refuse to give people a means to verify their credibility?

You know, people made similar claims about FDR and Pearl Harbor. No matter what, the Japanese made their own decision regardless of anything FDR might do. Even if he suspected what might happen, FDR had pushed for a larger Navy for 20 years before becoming President. The reason was simple: any war brought to the U.S. would require a large scale naval effort. And look what happened? Even the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto suspected the Japanese has made a big mistake. Pearl Harbor spurred one of the largest expansions of the Navy in U.S. history, with an increasing focus on aircraft carriers. If not for that naval expansion, the war in the Pacific would have been forfeit, and a good chance the west coast would belong to Japan. If the U.S. Navy had been built up prior to Pearl Harbor, then Japan might never have attacked, preferring to let the U.S. sit out the war.

Same thing with terrorism. We've needed to precautions against it for 20 years prior to 9/11. We never did. It became a wake-up call that spurred change. Not all of it is ideal. Some of it needs to be undone, in fact. But after all the hijackings, and the bombings at the Olympics, Oklahoma City, and WTC, we did exactly jacksh@t to improve our internal security against terrorism. The reason? The population always became indignant about invasion of privacy, no matter how small or necessary. A big shake up was needed, one that stirred the will of the masses. As much as it that was necessary, it does not mean that anyone in our government held all the cards and played all the hands.

problem reaction solution

What's the cover up? The government dropped the ball at numerous levels. Maybe on some levels, it was secretly intentional to gain leeway to improve internal security. Not on all levels. And 9/11 was certainly not masterminded by our own government just to achieve this end or any other. Everyone was calling for the heads of those responsible. The government couldn't sit idle. They knew it would take a long time to get Bin Laden. The population needed something to distract them, to buy the necessary time to get Bin Laden....and so it was proposed to take down Saddam Hussein, as should have been done 10 years earlier. Invading Iraq had a number of advantages: a regional base for operations, oil supply, a presence might cow Iran a bit, it would eliminate a dictator from power....one known to have used chemical weapons in the past, etc. So, going into Iraq had no legitimate reason, but it was a very attractive option in the war on terror - primarily because it took the focus of the hunt for Bin Laden.

The cover up is that after the first WTC bombing, they lacked enough evidence to pursue anti-terrorist measures. The government needed more so they could be given a mandate to improve internal security. That evidence might then sway public opinion, especially if the same people were involved. So, it became a waiting game....waiting for the next strike. They never expected the form it would take. It was too incredulous. No one had done it before. Any relevant information had to be something meant to throw them off. But eventually, 9/11 led to a secondary cover up because the government did not want to admit they lacked legitimate reasons for going into Iraq....but it was a necessary evil in order to bring justice for the 9/11 attacks. The government had little choice: Americans were howling for Bin Laden's head on a spike.

Or he could have just been mistaken and thought what he saw on tv was the first plane hitting. People are not perfect and in fact mny people claim Bush isn't smart. Thus if you think he isn't intelligent it is easy to believe he was mistaken on what he thought he saw on tv.