9/11 Conspiracy buffs

Question

Got just a few questions for you conspiracy buffs

1. Why isn't there a single witness to the supposed planting of the hundreds if not thousands of pounds of explosives it would have taken to bring down the towers?

2. Why was there not a single report of the holes in the walls and floors that would have had to be there to place the explosives?

3. Why was there not a single report of the miles of wiring it would have taken to sync the explosives?

4. Why was the not a single trace of high explosives found in the rubble of the WTC ?

5. Why did NO ONE report the distinctive odor of explosives after the towers came down?

6. Why is it EVERY serious report dismisses virtually every allegation charged by you truthers ?

7. Why is it the only places you can find these lame videos to support your conspiracy claims are on you tube and Alex Jones web sites

Answer 1

1) If you look back to 1993 WTC 1 was bombed. The intent was to collapse tower 1 into tower 2. The FBI knew it was going to happen and did nothing, whose failure was it the 'terrorists' or 'ours'? Was 2001 a new and improved version by them or us? Either 7 years is a long time to plan if you really want something to succeed and go have it perceived differently than it really happens. You would think that there is no way people would be involved and not come forward, but when it comes down to it, if someone is ruthless enough to pull somehting like this off, aren't they also ruthless enough to kill those who've helped them, or at least hold them hostage by threatening their families?

2) If you want to hide something bad enough you'll find a way. In the typical office building work could be done at night and done above the hardlid or ceiling tiles so that no one would notice.

3) Have you not heard of radio waves? As well, in an office building of that size there is already miles of electrical, data and communications wire.

4) Who was looking for high explosives? As far as anyone at the time was concerned two planes did it. And, do you think the people who would have planted them would want someone to investigate and see if they were present?  

5) First I think it would depend on the type of explosive used and who would be able to recognize the smell of said explosive?  Would you recognize the smell of an explosive? What if it was urea nitrate?

6) When you say every serious report, you really mean to say "every report done by those who side with the government" don't you? They do discredit some claims with validaty, but at the same time there are things that they ignore or present what would be misleading evidence to the contrary.

7) Those aren't the only places to find "lame" videos as you would call them.

Now a few questions for you.

1) Did you know in 1945 a b 25 bomber ran into the Empire State building? http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.... Did you know this was the reason why WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand being hit by a plane?

2) How did WTC 1 in 1993 suffer the damage pictured here and not collapse? http://www.fbi.gov/page2/feb08/tradebom_...

The bomb was a 1310 lb (600 kg) bomb made of a urea nitrate main charge with aluminum, magnesium and ferric oxide distributed throughout, and several "booster" explosive components. He also used three tanks of bottled hydrogen to enhance the fireball and afterburn of the bomb.

3) Where are the WMDs we went searching for immediately after the start of the war on terrorism?  

4) Why have we not invaded North Korea who now has at least enough nuclear material for 2 warheads? They'll even tell you they have it.

5) Why did WTC 7 collapse? Fire? Where did the fire come from? What in WTC 7 burned hot enough that the sprinkler system couldn't take it out?

6) Why did all 3 building collapse at freefall speed with no resistance from the structure underneath?

7) Why did the recently new leaseholder Larry Silverstein have this clause in his lease - "The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right to rebuild the structures should they be destroyed and should he comply with the onerous financial obligations of the lease"? The buildings had been fine, even with the 1993 bomb going off at the base. He was outbid for the lease by $50 million, his competator mysteriously withdrew their bid.

8) Why has there not been a single attack in the US since 2001? Do you really think that we could stop a 'terrorist' from crossing the US-Mexico border. I work with plenty of Mexicans who can prove that we can't.

9) Why did the BBC and Fox report the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened?

Answer 2

08 08 08

Answer 3

Haha.

Answer 4

boy let it go, you wont change their mind

what did Winston Churchill say about wrestling with a pig

you both get dirty , but the pig likes it

as for alex jones it wouldn't be the first time one man has taken on powerful authorities, and in the end came out victoriously

and i don't think our government  did it

Answer 5

IDK how they did that demolition. Your argument is missing a whole lot of facts and therefore too ridiculous to argue.

Unless U are on the inside about new demolitions technology available to the military U are not qualified to determine how many pounds of explosives or wiring was required, or whether there would  been order.

Expand your mind just a tad and move beyond group-think for a short while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

It was controlled demolition of some type. Thats obvious to everyone except the sheeple and the peeps drinking too much fluoride and taking fluoride-laced prescription antidepressants. If you take these, get off them dude. They turn peeps into sheeple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple

Take the other pill.

Why no reports? Ask yourself this. How long was the atomic bomb under secret development without any leakage whatsoever. How many people do ya think were involved in that little project? Do some thinking bro.

Answer 6

I am on the fence about this. The official story has a lot of holes in it also. What it comes down to is propaganda from both sides. Finding the truth in any situation ever is difficult.

Here is my unbiased retort to what you say. I am not saying I believe it was a conspiracy or not. note also I am not a true buff:

1) There were witnesses to noises and things going on in the building prior to the collapse. Also there were unusual power outages that shut the survalliance off and many workers reported unusual noises and goings on.

2&3) The wtc buildings were not fully occupied. It would have been simple to go through the building mostly undetected. The building was full of asbestos and they have always had a hard time renting the space in it. The building owners had tried in the past numerous times to get permits to demolish the building but they were not allowed becuase the city said it would get in the air and cause public health concerns.

The buildings were sold just months before the attack and the owner bought an insurance policy for $7 BILLION  on them, a record amount of insurance. The insurance also included an unusual clause saying that if the buildings were a victim of a terror attack that the owner would not have to pay the deductible. Meaning that after they were attacked the insurance would pay every dime.

4) I believe I have heard that thermit was found in the rubble. Also take into consideration how quickly they moved the rubble and melted the steal. I find the fact that they destroyed all the evidence from the attack so quickly before they could analyze it somewhat curious. They were still finding bodies the first time the feds tried to move the stuff. Innocent reason for that would be rude and sloppy at best.

5) There were many smells. I am not sure what you mean.

6) Thats not true, most reports don't even address most of the concerns.

7) Because the videos are made for free distribution. I think it would be difficult to get a major media outlet to advertise these for many reasons, especially reputation. Plus, if it really was a real conspiracy and the people had the power to pull it off I am sure they would have the power to stop production and advertising of any major picture. I am not an Alex Jones fan myself.

----------

Its not like the government has never thought of this stuff before. If Northwoods was considered and spoken about so casual within the government and it has now been proven through recently unclassified documents that Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag I would not put it past them to do this. Northwoods and Tonkin are just 2 things we can prove. I am sure there are many more things than that.

Answer 7

You are wrong on a number of counts.

1- They would have done it when no one was there, just like all manner of contractors working on buildings would do. Their presecence would not have aroused suspicion. There were indeed weekend power-downs when people were told workers were working on the wiring.

2- They could have covered their holes or placed the explosives out of sight of passersby.

3- The wiring could be hidden on the columns or otherwise placed inconspicuously.

4- Tests on the steel performed by Steven Jones working with several universities did find traces of the chemicals that make up thermate. You can bet you won't find any official results one way or the other because the rubble likely was not tested at all. If so, where are the negative government tests on the rubble?

5- Who says no one detected the smell of explosives? There were all kinds of smells going on along with all the confusion, so no actual reports about the smell is not a strong point, especially since there are plenty of reports of actual explosions.

6- Misleading. What is a "serious report"? Anything that supports your view? A good case for there being something fishy about 9/11 can be made from nothing but mainstream "serious reports." Just look at Paul Thompson's terror timeline, completely taken from the mainstream media.

7- Again, not every piece of information comes from conspiracy sites. There are plenty of mainstream sources which a smart researcher can put together without the benefit of Loose Change or Alex Jones movies, which sometimes do contain inaccuracies..  

Answer 8

I believe the explosives were placed in the building as it was being built.  Nobody can say that is true for fear of being killed for speaking out.  With all the burning fuel and smoke and particles in the air, how would you pick out one smell from the other?  Who reported there were no traces of high explosives?  Who are the serious reports from?  It's because so many people trust our government blindly and can't accept that our government could have done it, or been a part of it, they dismiss everyone else who can offer other explanations as being crazy!  You have to look at who is reporting the information you are getting and then NOT trust is as truth.  Just because they seem reputable, DOES NOT mean they are!  The arms of the government reach very far and are very powerful, it doesn't mean they are truthful.  Our government has lied to us and other countries many times over the years!  Now it has come out that the Antrax wasn't from terrorists either!!!  Those who are willing to trust blindly are easily lead astray!

Answer 9

2008

Answer 10

Thus it is a conspiracy buff and not a proven crime.

I think if there was evidence of all that, the world would have been in an upheaval.  

Answer 11

I don't buy the 9/11 conspiracy theories at all, please don't get me wrong, but this is a weak argument. The rubble was pretty much indistinguishable and was not really tested, you couldn't distinguish so many holes and wires by the time the towers had collapsed to the ground, they tried to clear it out as quickly as they could, for obvious reasons.  

Answer 12

They have all since been killed by the government, and you're obviously working for the government as well (sarcasm)!

Answer 13

My dad is somewhat of a conspiracy believer, but their arguments have too many holes in them. I think the government may have covered up some things they may have overlooked and things like that, but I don't think the whole thing was a conspiracy.