Give fire plenty of air and in this case jet fuel, things are gonna burn. It does take some science to understand this so I do not expect idiot truthers to get it.

Its not hard for me to imagine either. regardless they used those lives cheaply to buy a war in Iraq. What the truth realy is I have no idea, some say the reasone no planes intercepted was because they would see the pilots or terrorist dupes gesturing that they did not have control of the plane. (drone).

Many say the impact site in Shanksville was was the type of wreck you would find when something was shot with a missle and exploded in air and not a crash landing. I dont know what happened I wasnt there but there are many quistions that should have been asked that were not.

You and I would have asked better quistions than our corrupt corperate media. To me the media has been exposed as the propaganda arm of the corperate elites and not a free and independant entity.

Using that kind of language is




Not to mention that it is

The 9-11 commission was not an independent entity and just like the Warren commission in the John F. Kennedy assassination, they did nothing more that spin the fabricated yarn they wanted to public to swallow.

They had Oswald convicted within 30 minutes of the assassination and they had Osama Bin Laden convicted about 33 minutes after the attack on the towers.

Using the shock value of the event, they then point the finger at the alleged perpetrator (patsy). This is some kind of NLP hypnotic suggestion on the public. It won't work for everyone, but the majority of the public will accept the suggestion after the shock. It's basic hypnotism.

Osama Bin Laden and Al-qeada were not blamed they sent tapes and sent threats and took responsibility for all of it.....the terrorist group stood up and said yes we did it.....and asked for terms like they could hold the US hostage.......amd no one convicted them in 33 minutes...I don't see it......its like a serial killer confessing to their crimes of murder.....they sent them to the media not the government.....they threatened not only the US but other countries allied with the US

I'm not disputing the fact that terrorists did the "dirty work". I just believe that our government officials were in on it. I believe that Bush needed to get the American people in favor of a war. Kind of like what Pearl Harbor did for getting America into WWII.

I'm sure a lot of people believe that. Its' just part of the fabrication. (They weren't even good tapes.) I could get into all the details with you but it is just too exhausting and detailed. If you have not spent years studying the M.O. of these black ops and of the facts that come out, all you know is what they want you to think. I'm sorry, I don't buy it and a lot of other people are with me on that opinion.

There is a faction of government (if you want to call it that -- I don't.) who have placed themselves above the law. Their soul mission is to keep wars happening because wars are profitable. It is called "globalization." These people are not loyal to any country. They are only loyal to their cause.

So true.

Just stating the facts! If you have a science background you would understand what I'm saying. This is no different than hollywood or politicians talking about global warming, no science background = no valid opinion.

never mind.

Anyone (even non scientists) knows that a fire needs air to burn but it is still off topic in this thread.

People who claim to have a "science background" are always spouting about how much they think they know, and that no one else understands anything.

Its just so smug and arrogant.

This thread is about what the percentage of people now believe that there was a cover-up and disagree with the official reports about what happened. No matter what happened, there is evidence of a giant cover-up.

If a person spent just a little time, they would discover that many real scientists and engineers and Military professional know that the official 9-11 commission report is bogus... (just like the Warren commission report).. and the M.O. of the entire event reads just like a black Op and cover-up.

There are scientists on both sides. Its just that the ones who don't go along with the "official report" are ignored. silenced, bought off or ridiculed.

Popular Mechanics sold out... actually was bought out-- by the company.

Ok, you wanna talk science and physics, let's do that for a second. The airplanes that crashed into the world trade center towers, flight 175 and flight 11, were said to have been going 542 and 443 mph respectively when they hit the buildings. Bear in mind they would have had to have been going those speeds at barely 1,000 feet in the air, as the towers were only about 1,300 feet high altogether. Already this seems to be impossibility because after all, has anyone ever heard of a commercial airliner hitting basically cruising speed barely after taking off? The usual altitude for cruising is anywhere from around 25,000 to 40,000 feet, so the notion that these planes 1,000 feet off the ground could have been going that fast seems rather ridiculous on this basis alone.

BUT, let's just see if it could have been possible, by comparing it to another plane. In October of 1999, Egypt Air Flight 990 went down. In the investigation that followed its' crash, it's maximum speed was clocked to be 489 mph at 22,000 feet up. Shortly after that, the plane fell apart into pieces, there were two separate debris fields found indicating it.

So now looking at that, what does that tell us? It tells us that there is a certain altitude where a plane simply cannot go beyond a particular speed for very long, without it falling apart. The air pressure prevents it from doing it. They simply aren't designed to be able to handle that.

Now, with all that information in mind, let's go back to flight's 11 and 175.. If flight 990 fell apart going 489 mph 22,000 feet in the air, 21,000 feet HIGHER in altitude than they were flying at, logic and common sense would tell you that they would have done the exact same thing, going pretty close to the speed 990 was going, and in the case of flight 175, exceeding it.

In short, in order for those 2 planes to have been traveling at near cruising speed as low to the ground as they were, they would have had to have defied the laws of aerodynamics. Whatever did hit those buildings flat could not have been a normal commercial plane because as I have shown, it would have been physically impossible for them to do what we are told they did.

So you wanna talk science? Well science pretty much disproves the official story right here.

This. You can also add pilots to this list as well, there are quite a few pilots out there who have been in agreement with what I posted above, in that a plane could not go 600 mph basically 1,000 feet high. I think they'd know what they were talking about don't you?

Actually it wouldn't defy physics because the air pressure is different at different comparable altitudes......the pressure and speeds at different altitudes would create different circumstances.....

ouch.....another truther theory about what they WRONGLY assume happened bites the dust!

Well I'm no scientist, but is it possible that flight 990 could have had something structurally wrong with it? Or maybe it hit something?

767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 854km/h (461kt).
914km/h = 561 mph. 854km/h = 530mph

Goggle is our friend

For one I found nothing to suggest it could not handle the pressure or speeds during the crash. I am sure if they couldn't someone would have claimed this and given specs of the pressures it can handle.

As for flight 990 if the plane was diving as they think it did it could easily increase its speed. For every second its diving gravity alone increases its speed 22 mph. The engines now not having to fight gravity would also produce extra force and allow for greater speed increases.

You know the planes that hit the the WTC didn't take off in NY right? Both flights left from Boston. Plenty of time to reach full cruising altitude and speed.

How would they defy the laws of aerodynamics? I see no science anywhere in your post. Saying you think some unknown speed at some unknown altitude caused a singular plane is not science. Also with the planes crashes being 11 years apart and not knowing the age of each aircraft we can't assume the same specifications and tolerances either. Assumptions are not science.

Regardless of any alternate theories, there are discrepancies in the first official report as compared to the second official report put out by the 9-11 commission that proves that someone (one of those "official" reports) was a fabrication. Someone lied.

Yet whatever the official report comes up with and whatever they change it to, there are always a bunch of gullible people who will believe and defend it no matter what it is and how much they change it.

And people on the street who were there are not believed when they say they heard other explosions and some people on the ground floor were even injured by other explosions.

Apparently a hypnotized person will believe anything they are told.

To hypnotize the general public, first the horrible shock then the power of suggestion of what happened is broadcast on the news. For that they even interviewed a man on the street who explained how the towers must have fallen (according to the official story's plan) and they don't even identify who he is. (He was a plant.) Then within 33 minutes they accuse Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and exclaim it was them "beyond any reasonable doubt" which is a legal term in trials.

Interviews of people hearing explosions are taken off the major media air, and not repeated. But there are many of these that can be found on youtube.

Then they try to sell the story that their poor response and failure to prevent the attack is because they are so incompetent. This is not true. Our military and Police and FBI and our black ops teams are extremely trained and competent. Don't insult them by believing they are incompetent boobs.

If they are so incompetent, then how did they instantly try to sell the idea that 33 minutes after the attack they knew who was responsible and how the towers must have fallen, giving the impression that they were right on top of things.

You can't have it both ways. Either you are competent or you're ignorant boobs who are so slow and incompetent you could not manage to detect and intercept those planes before they reached their targets. (This is simply NOT true.)

So people are asked to believe that their government, the FBI, Homeland Security, the CIA and the military are all ignorant incompetent boobs -- and yet so quick and sharp that they knew within 33 minutes who did the deed and how the buildings must have collapsed under their own weight from the stress.

Use common sense people. Come out of your trance.