theres a reason no one hijacked an an american (or british or austrailian) airplane for years and years before 9-11, and not once after. because you cant do it anymore
because of ERAD, when the pilot is in distress he pushes a button on the joystick, and it is taken over by remote from the ground and landed at the nearest airstrip that can handle an aircraft of it's size. this is on all american, and german, and french, and chinese, and most major airlines in the world

How many people are quoted to have seen an actual jetliner?

http://www.isgp.eu/disinformation/911/911_dump_of_Pentagon_quotes.htm

How is this any different than the bomb video you posted (which I agree with)?

And again, if it wasn't a plane...then where did flight 77 go? Where did it land? Was it destroyed? What happened to the people on board?

Occum's razor tells us that if there was a conspiracy, there would be no need to NOT smash the plane into the Pentagon. Because it creates FAR too many variables to deal with.

The following is a quote I found:

During the Jim Garrison trial of Clay Shaw in the JFK assassination, a witness showed up who linked Lee Oswald and Shaw. Despite warnings from his staff, Garrison used this witness. But once he was on the stand, the witness claimed that he fingerprinted his own daughter every night to prevent substitutions by "them". During the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the committee made a point of calling a witness who claimed that the open umbrella by the motorcade route in Dallas was actually a poison dart gun that had fired a dart at JFK to paralyze him, in order to make him an easier target. The actual umbrella was then displayed amidst jokes and laughter and great rolling of eyes, and shown to be merely an umbrella.

In all three cases the witnesses were plants by the government whose job it was to taint any real questions of what the government was up to with silliness that the media could use to make fun of the whole issue and those who dared question the official story.

"I can see the position of people thinking the government let it happen, as ridiculous as that is, but them actually orchestrating it is so far fetched it's beyond what a reasoned, socially adept person can believe."

If you can see them letting it happen, it's not a far jump to see them making it happen.

Again, look up the Reichstag Fire...I'm sure Germans believed then as you believe now.

Sorry to jump in after so many other replies on this, but I really couldn't help it:

Sic said:
"okay question 1
Steel melts at 2750 degrees. Jet fuel burns at 1400 degrees. How can jet fuel melt steel beams?"

Right you are sic, it takes something that burns MUCH hotter than that ... like ummmmm ... Wood?

hahaha - people have been melting iron (MP = 2750) and steel for about 3000 years using WOOD! Or are all of those Iron and steel tools and weapons from those time frames a big conspiracy too by the american government? Perhaps they had actually discovered thermite then too?

Maybe you should stop watching Rosie ODonell on The View reruns and do a little critical analysis on your own.

Let me say it again, Wood has been melting steel for over 3000 years! What temperature does wood burn at? 500F (Melting points were given in F, for all you C users out there)

Hell Iron

lol - The "Hell Iron" was part of something I deleted but I must have missed that - kinda looks like I'm signing my name "Hell Iron" kinda cool actually, I should have just let it stand

Do the conspiracy theorists have a reasonable explanation for the government's motivation in this? I'm guessing it wasn't just to drive up commercial real-estate prices in Manhattan, or to kill a load of financial services sector workers, so maybe it was intended to axct as justification to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? If so, why would the government not do something cheap and simple, like pretend to find a suitcase full of Iraqi chemical weapons in an Afghani suitcase in Grand Central Terminus?
The conspiracy theory is so convoluted as to make it ridiculous.

On the other hand, the terrorists have a pretty convincing reason to fly planes into the twin-towers: gaining popularity in islamic countries by carrying out impressive attacks against icons of the western world, and at the same time inviting an invasion of Islamic countries which has had the desired effect of increasing support for islamic neo-fundamentalism around the world. The terrorists even claimed responsibility.

And what about bombings in Madrid, London, Morrocco, Turkey? Is their striking resemblance to 9/11 a coincidence, or are you claiming all of these are part of the same US government conspiract? Surely more likely that a range of terrorists belonging to the same loose network and inspired by the same ideology carried out all of the above.

Thank you. Finally another voice of reason.

At somebody above, I never said that I believed that the government let it happen (I do not at all). All I said was I can see building a kooky conspiracy theory on that that might hold up to some people, but not that it was the product of some hidden, evil American cabal. That's ludicrous.

Well, it's not as ludicrous as you think, cuz similar events with similar motivations have happened throughout history.

like the assination of jfk (back and to the left)

You're right, they just blew up the pentagon.. and the twin towers. The Media and the Government doubleteamed those guys. Thats what happened. That is remotely plausible. You are not idiots.

Does anyone have a serious example? And if you mention the moon landings I'll cry.

i gave you one: jfk!

The moon landings were faked in a studio. What about the low gravity, you ask? Simple. The studio was built on Mars and they flew the astronauts there to film.

Wait, that would be stupid, huh? Oh well, the government is stupid AND evil!

"Let me say it again, Wood has been melting steel for over 3000 years! What temperature does wood burn at? 500F (Melting points were given in F, for all you C users out there)"

So why on earth would anyone design a building with so much wood in that a fire could potentially bring down the whole buiding?

Who faked 9/11? The Bush administration, which had been in office for less than a year and has created a debacle of every major problem it has faced since(Iraq, Hurricane KAtrina, Economey, etc)?
And why? To invade Iraq for the oil? To invade Afganistan to keep the citizens of the USA in line? Because the U.S has not seized Iraqi oil and the price of it has gone up, and dislike of the Bush administration has been steadily rising for six years.

And sorry for the double post, but this is from a GREAT link someone posted earlier:The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web
The link again:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

The point is that the fires that have been melting steel were not just open fires burning at the combustion temperature, they had learned how to make furnaces at some point where the temperature of the fire could exceed the melting point of Iron. WTC was essentially a furnace once all of the combustible materials inside started burning - ignited by the 1400 degree burning Jet fuel

The blitz of sanity. At last.

I find it interesting that the crazies say there have been all kinds of false flag operations, but the only one they point to is the JFK assassination, from the barely realistic movie JFK at that. It's been proven that he was killed by one shooter from the Depository.

So where are the real ones? I suspect some might have been done in Latin America or Asia to fight communism, but give some proof if you've going to assault the very foundations of the American psyche.

no designer of the WTC anticipated a plane to fly into it
paraphrased form fullautonick's post two above


really? no one thought of that? strange because the WTC architect said "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."

weird

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/

clearly a flawed design. I design software to be bug-proof, and yet ... every damn time a customer installs it ... BAM!!!!

The point of failure in the WTC boiled down to a bunch of 1" bolts

I'm not saying it's impossible for the jets alone to have brought down the WTC

just really really unlikely
and coupled with all the testimony of secondary explosions, and the way they collapsed...

and why did tower 7 collapse? answer that

I guess my point is, it doesn't much matter what the guy designing it thought the effects of an airplane smashing into it would or wouldn't be in the late 60's. The fact of the matter is that an airplane did smash into it! I saw the freaking video from about 100 sources? (the second one anyway - I believe only one camera captured the 1st)

So the question is how big of a 9/11 conspiracy nut are you?

Level 1) The airplanes brought them down, but the Govt knew ahead of time
Level 2) The airplanes smashed into them according to plan, then the prewired explosives were detonated actually bringing them down
Level 3) There were no airplanes, the entire thing was staged in a studio

the airplanes maybe COULD have brought the towers down by themselves.

but I really really really doubt it.
shit just watch the video it looks exactly like a demolition. that and you can see charges going off, you can SEE THEM. come on.
plus the beams in the in the rubble were cut at a 45-sih degree angle, not melted but cut straight, ala det cord. thats how beams look after a demo. plus I know someone who was outside the pentagon enjoying a ciggarette when the 'plane; hit. there was no plane. and no alex jones assholes it wasnt a tomahawk missle either. it was nothing. nothing hit the pentagon. it exploded. and just looking at pentagon photos it should be obvious nothing hit it

the only answer I can give is the one I saw while researching the counter-conspiracy arguments - have you done that?

Here's how I work - I assumed that what I saw that day was the truth. Then I started hearing all of the conspiracy theories, probably went to all of the same sites you did, I actually thought many of the arguments were convinving, because I went into it open minded. I was willing to be convinced. BUT I then took the extra step of looking into what the other side had to say about the arguments presented in favor of the conspiracy and Every one of them was satisfactorily answered in my opinion. Builing 7 is intriging - especially if you watch the video on YouTube where it colapses side by sise in a split screen with a controlled demolition - but then look at it on one of the non-conspiracy sites and just see what they have to say about it. And keep in mind, that the people answering the questions are not working for the government - they are people who are just pointing out that it could have collapsed on it own.

There was a HUGE chunck dug out of the underside of it by the collapse of one of the Towers. I'll find the videos and link them. But you have to watch them with as open mind as you did when you wanted to see a conspiracy. Then jusdge RATIONALLY - not with your pre-disposition to the American government being evil

I dont go to conspiracy sites. If I need information i find facts, not shadowed by either side. well, ok I dont usually, but as far as 9-11 stuff goes it's 100%
I've heard the other side too (aka it was just terrorists no gov involvement) and they bring up some good points, but I think that the truth is overwhelmingly on the 'conspiracy' side.
alex jones is kind of a crazy asshole though. I actually suspect he may be a CIA plant. but thats not relevant.

I think the buildings were demolished.
I mean if they would have collapsed because of structural fatigue, the bolts in the I-beams wouldnt still all be fine. which they are as you can see in pictures. also you can see in pictures how the beams are sliced, thats the best word for it, along a perfect straight line, at a 45 degree angle. idk if you've ever seen buildiong demolished but thats how they do it

http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911Demolition1_files/Groundposts2.jpg

I think it says something just the fact that there is so much debate.
if it wasnt so suspicious you wouldnt hear all this.

I mean were there hundreds of conspiracy sites made, whole movements formed, and sitting legislators calling for a reinvestigation when say.. the USS cole was bombed?
or our embassies in kenya or tanzania?
where were all the conspiracy theories when the pklahoma city bombings happened?
not saying there wasnt, but look at the scale of the 9-11 truth movement. I mean, its actually a movement