ANZACs and war and stuff

[Laava]

That could just as easily fit those who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any evidence that suggests anything contrary to the official story.

The "unofficial story" is that two plane loads of people were flown into the towers at speed and as a consequence the towers burnt and finally collapsed.
The whole world saw it on tv, live in the case of the second plane, and witnessed by thousands.
Even you must admit that this happened.
There is zero evidence of any "explosives" on any of the footage that I have seen.
I haven't heard a viable alternative to explain what happened.
Can you give us a synopsis of what you think happened and why? Your thoughts, not another link.
So far you seem to be just questioning everything? That is fair enough but then you must have an idea of what you think happened.

[Mom]

That is fair enough but then you must have an idea of what you think happened.

I reckon he should start the thread all about just that. It could be called the Conspiracy Theory or some such.

[Katman]

Can you give us a synopsis of what you think happened and why? Your thoughts, not another link.

Seriously man, if you need everything spelled out to you, the topic's probably beyond you.

There are serious questions of the official story that deserve an independent investigation.

Work the rest out for yourself.

[Trade_nancy]

For goodness sake...how can "conspirators" secretly install the huge quantity of explosives needed to bring these buildings down. Companies that do this professionally spend many months preparing and installing large charges all over the structure..a truckload and some more would be needed.
You think they just crept in one night and dropped a couple of sticks of jelly down back of a dumpster? You think nobody saw them - on any floor - ever? Get real. It didn't happen that way - except in the minds of the gullible influenced by academics with more brains than common-sense - looking for public kudos.

[Katman]

For goodness sake...how can "conspirators" secretly install the huge quantity of explosives needed to bring these buildings down. Companies that do this professionally spend many months preparing and installing large charges all over the structure..a truckload and some more would be needed.
You think they just crept in one night and dropped a couple of sticks of jelly down back of a dumpster? You think nobody saw them - on any floor - ever? Get real. It didn't happen that way - except in the minds of the gullible influenced by academics with more brains than common-sense - looking for public kudos.

You should probably read over the previous 1000 (or so) posts to get a few answers.

Saves us having to do the work for you.

[Drew]

Round we go again, on the circle that is this topic.

Steve, I certainly hope you don't think you are winning this "argument", simply on post count!

[Katman]

Steve, I certainly hope you don't think you are winning this "argument", simply on post count!

Nah, not simply on that.

[Laava]

Seriously man, if you need everything spelled out to you, the topic's probably beyond you.

There are serious questions of the official story that deserve an independent investigation.

Work the rest out for yourself.

No, you misunderstood.
I was asking what YOU think. A topic too difficult for you to answer?

[Katman]

I was asking what YOU think. A topic too difficult for you to answer?

As I've said, an indication of what I think has been covered over the previous 1000 posts.

Stop being fucking lazy and look it up for yourself.

[Ocean1]

There are theories from some very highly qualified people that contradict the official story.

I know. But the number of highly qualified people who have an opinion about what happened is in the hundreds of thousands, at least. Unless you want to carry out that survey I mentioned the fact that some highly qualified people contradict the official story is of little value in supporting anything.

And I'd suggest that those people responsible for providing opinion for an official investigation probably wouldn't keep their positions long if their opinion deviated much from that required by TPTB.

TPTB? That term alone is almost enough to identify someone predisposed to distrust anyone in authority, rationally or otherwise.

As for the theory that expert witnesses had been coached to produce some closed agenda: it's garbage. Such people are selected for their experience and professional integrity, if they were in the habit of saying whatever the client wanted they wouldn't be in business very long. And if you figure "TPTB" had a hidden agenda surely the first place you'd look would be the expert's official brief. Or do you think the details of which all those experts were supposed to have been coached would have been given verbally? What's the chances of any sort of success in orchestrating a conspiracy of such magnitude by word of mouth without huge and obvious internal conflict in the report?

Zero.

[scumdog]

Your thoughts, not another link.

Well he thinks I'm corupt if that's any help.

[Laava]

As I've said, an indication of what I think has been covered over the previous 1000 posts.

Stop being fucking lazy and look it up for yourself.

Thing is tho, you have said so much about so many things You couldn't possibly believe it all or even cobble it together to make a coherent story. So I was interested in what you currently think happened. But don't bother, I've lost interest.

[Laava]

Well he thinks I'm corupt if that's any help.

Oh, cool! I have some indiscretions I need swept under the carpet shall we say. You take donations to the "officers fund"?

[Hinny]

Go the ground effects
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cy/q0274.shtml

Interesting what the pilots who tried the simulator said but I guess they'll have to try a real plane just to see that it really is impossible to do

Lots of posts from Pilots saying the aircraft wouldn't allow it to fly that low without landing procedure being activated ie flaps, landing gear, speed etc. The computrs would have taken over.
The height to the engine is reported as ten feet. The fence it flew over was eight feet, Therefore 10 + 8 = 18 feet. The plane should have hit at least 18 feet off the ground. The damage / hole was less than this.
Can this be explained by the plane doing a quick dive once it cleared the fence, cable spools etc so it could hit where it did?
One eyewitness, in one of your links, said the plane hit the ground before the building. Must have been tough grass. Didn't make a ,ark. Oh wait, it can't ne that tough as you can see the tyre marks from the fire engine - all the way to the engineas well. So that would rule out another guys theory about the apparent lack of debris being due to the compressing effects of field of view. Another theory debunked
Also in your links:
One guy said he was a construction worker, standing in one of the trailers and saw the plane crash. How come two of the trailers burnt down, much later, with the fire brigade on site?
How did the fire spread to offices behind the heliport control tower with the fire service on site.
Why were the Pentagon guys running around inside there saving people and finding wreckage etc and the fire service guys were standing around outside?

Maybe their fire service is useless.
Maybe they rescue people as you see them do on that 911 rescue TV show. Generally, I think you would not want them to try....

[Kickaha]

How come two of the trailers burnt down, much later, with the fire brigade on site?

Duh, obviously there was evidence critical to proving it was a conspiracy in the trailer so the Feds torched it