Added: 5 months ago
From: AlJazeeraEnglish
Views: 25,570
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (433)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Al Qaeda did commit 911, but understand who they work for even today, US intelligence. No mystery, the towers were rigged.

  • All I know for a fact, is that thousands of people died that day, and no one knows who did it....We just went to War based on rumors

  • The only thing that happened on that day is what the MSM told you what happened...

    You fools really think they would misinform the public like that?

    lol!

  • These folks don't believe it THEY KNOW IT was a LIE.....Building 7...Eat That Sheeple

  • Steel beams from the WTCs do not fly horizontally 600 feet into buildings (AmEx) without explosive force. Concrete does not collapse at near free fall speed, like air. Never has. Never will.

  • @TruthMakesPeace I'd think that an enormous skyscraper collapsing on itself would in fact exert explosive force, and gain so much momentum in its fall that it would collapse very quickly indeed.

    But you're the "expert."

  • The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is the most unbelievable.

  • @TruthMakesPeace So according to you, nineteen men hijacking planes and crashing them into enormous buildings is unbelievable.

    But you'll believe in a precision covert operation involving super-secret demolition squads, a military stand down, faked audio and video evidence of terrorist activity, and a vast cover-up involving the government, the armed forces, fire and police departments, the intelligence services, the world media, the scientific community, and high finance.

    Oh. Kay.

  • Incidentally, all I meant about "skepticism" was that truthers should expect us to look at their claims with the same skepticism that we use when we deal with the OS. It's a hallmark of conspiracy theorists that they resent having their ideas subjected to any rational criticism.

  • This very sympathetic coverage of the Truthers makes the mistake of calling them "skeptics." Where I'm from, skepticism is about critical thinking and trying to assess the validity of claims. It's not about making outlandish accusations and handwaving away any evidence that doesn't support the slew of factoids that you call a theory.

    I'm all for questioning our government. But I could think of a lot of better questions to ask than "What about Building 7?"

  • @unRompecabezas if you weren't plain dumb you'd know that the collapse of those buildings would be impossible without explosives, but you are plain dumb, and most certainly unwilling to dicuss anything reasonably

  • @fillyferz Hey there, Mr. Civil. Mind telling me how you're so sure it's "impossible" for burning buildings to collapse without explosives? And would evil conspirators really come up with an "impossible" cover story for the fiendish plot they've painstakingly planned and executed?

  • @unRompecabezas because for the uopper floors to drop the vetical columns would ahve to reach a critical temp. and if they weren't all heated equally it would pivot on these stronger columns, but this is the weight the building was designed to support, and as long as it was still carried by the support, even if hot and weak, the potential energy of the upper floors would go towards bending them out of the way and would not gain momentum,

  • @fillyferz Wow. So many folks online are experts on structural engineering and collapse mechanics. Did you run this technical analysis by a few civil engineers, or do you just accept whatever the folks at AE911Truth tell you?

    And like I already asked, does it make sense that the cover story for this series of painstakingly planned demolitions would be scientifically impossible? Come on now.

  • @unRompecabezas It's ironic that you are claiming to be the skeptic, when it is 9/11 Truth activists that are the skeptics. You are the believer.

    How would controlled demolition be scientifically impossible? That comment makes no senese, considering that that is how buildings are brought down. What is scientifically impossible is that a building that wasn't hit by a plane (WTC7) fell at free-fall acceleration due to "normal office fires".

  • @unRompecabezas You speak the typical rhetoric of what I call a "coincidence theorist". You believe that everything that happened that day is just coincidence.

    The rhetoric of labeling people as "truthers" or "conspiracy theorists" is a transparent tactic that is used to characterize the person asking the questions, and thus avoid addressing the questions being raised.

    What specific "rational criticisms" do you have? Most people think I am rational to a fault. Ask away.

  • @unRompecabezas Only three steel-framed high-rises have EVER globally collapsed due to normal office fires -- all three collapsed on the same day, in the same place, and all were leased to the same person. More coincidence?

    I suggest you look up the Madrid fire 2004. The building burned for over 24 hours, but it did not collapse. Look up the fire in WTC 1 in February 1975, which burned for several hours over 6 floors -- no structural damage.

  • @WhatsReallyGoingOnUS Who ever said that the collapses of the three WTCs were "coincidence"? Did you happen to miss the fuel-laden jets that flew into the Twin Towers? Did you not realize that WTC7 was burning out of control and gushing smoke for several hours, and that firefighters were worried about its structural integrity well before it collapsed?

    The truther's ability to ignore context never fails to impress me.

  • @unRompecabezas Where did the information come from that the building "might" collapse? The firefighters on the scene got this information from some source ... who was it?

    NIST even says the jet fuel burned off in minutes, and the towers collapsed hours later. So, it is misleading to say that the debris was fuel-laden. It wasn't.

    Even so, what possible reason could explain the 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration? NIST did not explain this, nor did they simulate collapse.

  • @WhatsReallyGoingOnUS My understanding is that the firefighters observed a bulge in the corner of WTC7 and there were other visible and audible sounds of its instability. I didn't say they "got the information" from some source.

    And evidently the jet fuel itself didn't need to burn for very long, just ignite fires in the floors around the impact point. Wasn't there plenty of material inside the buildings to burn?

  • @WhatsReallyGoingOnUS "what possible reason could explain the 2.5 seconds of free-fall acceleration?"

    Um, the falling building gained an enormous amount of momentum? Isn't that what falling objects do?

    You have to admit that plenty of people have no problem seeing this as possible. Buildings falling straight down really fast might seem suspicious to you, but there's no reason to make it sound like such collapses aren't conceivable.

  • @unRompecabezas I think you are failing to understand the relationships between force, momentum, and energy. Yes, of course the falling building had enormous momentum. But free-fall has very specific implications.

  • @WhatsReallyGoingOnUS Better than not understanding the relationship between fire and structural steel failure.

  • @WhatsReallyGoingOnUS Dont worry, WTC 7 has 100 feet of free fall, which means we dont have weakened steel, we have no steel at all and fire can only reduce the strength of structural steel to 40% not 0%. It is quite clear that unRompedabezas does not understand the relationship between fire and structural steel. The only thing that can explain 100 feet of free fall is controlled demolition which would explain the 118 reports of secondary explosions in the FDNY oral Histories.! :) Peace

  • @DeanStructural Yeah. You're absolutely right. Are you an SE? I have a math/physics/computing background and have some ideas/projects I'm working on. If you want to chat technical details sometime please feel free to contact me.

  • @DeanStructural "The only thing that can explain 100 feet of free fall is controlled demolition"

    Except the falling structure gaining momentum and accelerating to free fall speed.

    My BS meter always buzzes when I hear statements like "The only thing that can explain..." Is there a truther out there who understands what Affirming the Consequent means?

  • @unRompecabezas first of all free fall is not a speed, its an acceleration, so it cant accelerate to an acceleration, the free fall is the acceleration. Momentum cannot increase if it is travelling through a path of greater resistance, and momentum can only increase at the rate of gravity if there is zero resistance. The only thing that can explain that is controlled demoliton.

  • @DeanStructural "The only thing that can explain that is controlled demoliton."

    You're great at repeating truther dogma, but that doesn't make it so. The explanation is there, but it just doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

    Like I asked before, do you know what the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent is?

  • @unRompecabezas well its the conservation of energy laws, if you have a problem with this, take it up with every single high school teacher in the world who teaches this to 8th grade student, a building accelerating at the rate of gravity is not destroying itself buddy. its controlled demolition.

  • @DeanStructural It's still Affirming the Consequent, even if you use science words.

    I guess Building 7 has to be the truthers' Smoking Gun, since there's no real evidence of the planning and execution of the evil plot.

    So people are supposed to buy into the Inside Job because a burning skyscraper fell too fast for your liking. Good luck with that.

  • Comment removed

  • @unRompecabezas The 100 feet of free fall is at the beginning of the collapse lol. There is no momentum, it goes from motionless straight into free fall. Please read page 46, chapter 3 of the WTC 7 Nist report before commenting thankyou.

  • @DeanStructural No, according to the words printed on page 45 of NIST's report, there were three stages of collapse:

    "In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity."

    "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face."

    WTC7 didn't reach free-fall speed until 1.75 seconds after the initiation of collapse.

  • @unRompecabezas and it was page 46 dude, please re read, its the velocity vs time graph, and the free fall is 2.25 seconds.

  • @unRompecabezas By the way, I have talked to many engineers. And they understand the evidence and find it not only compelling, but very disturbing.

    Again, look up the fires I referenced above. Why did the buildings not collapse when burning for much much longer. The fires in WTC7 were isolated. NIST's computer simulation looks nothing like the actual collapse, nor is it available to the public for criticism. That is not science. Sorry, but you're wrong.  Look it up.

  • @unRompecabezas What did NIST do? They hand-waived. Their report was not science, it was a cover-up. Critical thinking is exactly what educated 9/11 activists do. Do you understand the implications of free-fall? Crack open any physics 101 text book, and start reading.

  • All things considered, a fairly even-handed look at the issue. I think the problem with such conspiracies is that the people trying to prove them overstep their knowledge. It's enough to know (and prove) that the fires at 7 WTC didn't burn hot enough to melt the metal. You don't have to dig up every 'fact' or 'coincidence' that buttresses your theory, because inevitably someone will trip you up.

  • 6. Being a firefighter I have done my research to, and I realize how unstable the WTC actually was.

    7. If you really think every single person in our government, which is every American, is evil then stop telling others they are ignorant when you are the one who acts ignorant.

    8. I don't let my patriotism blind me from the truth but I do not let others lies steer my decisions and you shouldn't either.

    9. You can comment back and give me all the BS if heard so much, but it will be useless

  • @MrPelhambay

    You dont find it suspicious nano thermite was found in the rubble?

    You dont find it suspicious that no tape showing a plane hitting the pentagon has been released?

    You dont find it suspicious that George Bush lied about when he saw the first plane hitting the tower?

  • @MrPelhambay

    You dont find it suspicious that the large jet airliners were apparently flown by complete amateurs that couldn't even control a small Cessna turboprop?

    You dont find it suspicious a passport can survive the explosion?

    You dont find it suspicious that 5 of the apparent high jackers turned up alive and innocent?

    You dont get suspicious about all these coincidences?

  • @millsathn - i find it suspicious how so many people will believe facts that some random person stated on the computer are true, but i really don't agree with every part of the original story

  • 1. we get 22.3% of our oil from the Middle East.

    2. Iraq has cost trillion's of dollars fighting and 4,000 US, UK and NATO lives not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives lost.

    3. Politicians can't fight wars, only soldiers can.

    4. If you were actually THERE on 9/11 you would know what you were talking about so think before you run on about something someone on the internet told you.

    5. WTC 7 had tremendous damage to its south side, media only shows it's north side.

  • @dmorris41 alot... They got a war in iraq whuch means oil and money, and now they are allowed to pass uncostitutional measures such as the patrior act ( dont you find it odd that as soon as the pa gets passed cell phones are mass cyndicated ) they can now take our liberties for "security", and they can set up a police grid in America to controll the population. The global elite are the people who own every cooperation bank oil and drug company, they have been trying to set up a nwo

  • what the fear theorist will never say that most fire fighters were afraid that tower seven would come down on there heads form the evidence of structural damage they saw. This evidence is so strong that debunks the fear theory that tower 7 was controlled demolition. that point on their fear theory become nonsense. That would have to say fires fighter were not inexperience or bought out. Which both can proven false.

  • @dmorris41 been looking for some good theories myself as well..

  • this is my final comment , i live here in los angeles, i have done a research on nine eleven, the truth about the vatican, the u s cole, the oklahoma building blast, the twin towers basement blast, the beirut embassy blast, the boeing that exploded in scotland and another one during the atlanta olimpic games, and i can only say, those that comited those atrocious acts, it would be better to repent and ask for mercy, sooner or later they will be questioned at the hague for crimes aga?humanity,

  • "and yet collapsed in 40 seconds"... Okay right. How about 6.5 seconds

  • hahaha... the elite don't yet have a full grip of Aljazeera. Jus shows they cant control everything. They may have the money but we are the masses.

  • we don't know what exactly happened that day, but what is proven is that america has been warned for the attacks several times by the mossad and other intelligence services, they defenitely knew what would come that day.

    michael c ruppert shows you all the prove in: from the wilderness the cia connection

  • Never forget the Gulf of Tonkin incident that started Vietnam war.

  • such crap. The only good thing about such crap is that people will question more. It's good to be open minded, but not so open minded that your head falls out. This guy at 1:08 is so full of shit, lol makes me laugh.

  • New documentary out - Youtube --> 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

  • If the American government would stop lying to it's people and the world on so many other things, they wouldn't be doubting them now.

  • illuminati did this 

  • He shouldn't have alluded to Apollo or the Kennedy assination, he should have instead alluded to the Lusitania and/or USS Maine because they exemplify, and are very similar, to the tactic to enter a war.

  • i guess they didnt watch south park

    the 9/11 conspiracy is a conspiracy

    well then who did it you ask well so piss off muslum

  • go to 911truth. org <-- no spaces go there FOR REAL PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!! IM TELLING EVERYONE HERE. THIS HOLE THING WAS SET UP!!!! PROOF IS THERE!!!!!! THE 3RD BUILDING FELL BY NOTHING!!

  • bull shit

  • Interesting video, dismissing 9/11 dissidence without ridiculing it or demonizing it. But Al Jazeera has evidently missed the 6th grade 9/11 class: 911babystep, dot, com.

    Love,

  • conspiracy theory my ass my uncle died hitting the south tower so fucking cry about and go getr a life assholes

  • @Bama1928 and hat proves????....

    exactly NOHTING so shut the fuck up your prob just a 10 year old bitchin cuz he knows SHIT

  • Okay guys so answer this for me if that was true then why wouldn't the american government clear out building #7 if it was sheudled for demolishing it do u really think that american government wanted those people to die? Keep that in mind

  • @DevoidFormula47 YES somebody had to be sacrificed to sell a lie!! IN HISTORY "They" meaning the Govt. have experiemented on people giving them all kinds of dieseases thus killing them without people knowing that's what they were doing which it came out years and years later. They have also created fabricated events to start wars for money and power thus killing people (Our Own). They go into these situations knowing that lives have to be sacrfificed. Or did the people forget about these things?

  • Why would AlJazeera an American government rune media show this ?

  • Google the crash pics of the towers and pentagon compare the holes they made in the buildings. I'm not some nutjob conspiracy theorist im just a logical guy who looks at the facts

  • Oh, if you were wondering why they demo the bottom floors 1st, when demolishing a building its simple. If you were to demolish 3/4 of the way up the building 1st, you couldn't control exactly where the above floors would fall. This is do to the floors below still being in place. So the top piece would fall towards the path of least resistance. By blowing up the bottom floors 1st, gravity brings the building down on top of its self. With the floors gone below, no obstruction impeeds gravity!

  • The air has to go somewhere as the PSI is building with each additional floor falling on top of the next. The air can't go into the bedrock at the base of the building. It also can't go up to escape, because the floors above are falling on it. So the air, naturally takes the easiest way out. Which is through the windows! Either by making it out a weak seal, or just blowing the whole window out. Watch the video of those so called "explotions" again. All they are is built up air pressure!

  • Now to the folks that believe there were extra explosives placed in the buildings, to help bring the WTC. After allowing the terrorists to hit the target, when we were aware of thier plans. Have you ever heard of air pressure? Just wondering, cause I've seen the video that points out the little blasts ahead of where the collapse is. Those little jets shooting out, are just air pressure caught in the building. The windows are intact lower down, so as the floors pancake it presses the air down.

  • @leed here is some personal research to debunk a controlled demo theory. If you know or learn anything about how they demo buildings, all the video of the WTC collapsing proves it was not a demo. When the companies that do this kind of work bring a building down, first they spend weeks placing explosives and weekening supports. 100's of people would have been seen doing this. Also, controlled demos always, always, ALWAYS, start from the bottom floors. Not from the top, witch happens at the WTC!

  • does freedom of speech apply to fists?

  • does anyone have a link to that comic book they are talking about?

  • All these "theories" have been debunked years ago. Give it up morons this was caused by a group of islamic terrorist.

  • @leedaomillz Debunked by whom? You believe it was debunked just because someone told you they have debunked it but you probably failed to do your own research for yourself. You believe "this" is caused by "that" because someone told you. Just like if you've never seen snow but someone showed you purple snow falling on tape and you believed it because you failed to do the research yourself. Someone can say on youtube that they've debunked the color of snow and you would believe it. Typical

  • @leedaomillz At least put some logic behind your comment

  • @patwil24

    Do you even know what logic is?

  • @leedaomillz LOGIC: 1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. 4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions 5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness
  • @patwil24

    1. Google

    2.Google

    3.Google

    4.Google

    5.Bing

  • @leedaomillz What I gave you was a correct definition of what logic was. I know exactly what it is which is why I correctly used it in a sentence. I seriously don't use Google or Bing either =) =) =)

  • @leedaomillz And you still forgot to answer my question about these theories being debunked. Because from my understanding of things the people who think they've debunked something have only come out with theories as to why it was not the Govt. THEORIES ARE NOT FACTS. And this is just a debate I'm making... I'm well aware of how some youtubers can't have proper debates... they always resort to name calling or just pure idiocy at it's best. I just ask for you to bare proof if you make assumptions

  • @patwil24

    I've gotten over 10 different comments, odds are I'll forget some of the questions people ask. Go ahead and ask.

  • @leedaomillz OMG

  • @AlwaysQuickScope No one denied that the towers were hit. They were saying that there are other explosives which are implanted within the building - without which, the buildings would not freefall the way it did.

  • @nessatulcakelume Thank you for that intelligent sutle answer! For some reason when people try to suggest that the tower had help falling, and address that that situation in particular wasn't explained, other people want to become defensive and completely throw out of the window the facts that are placed in front of us. Nobody ever wants to address facts, they just want to call us crazy and ignorant when truthfully their the ignorant ones.

  • @lee88ification Yeah, it's kinda frustrating when it happens - especially when the people doing the questioning are labelled as "unpatriotic" or "dumb". A certain form of impartiality should be adopted, I reckon, when looking at any situations. Still, I suppose the entire incident is still a sore point for many, and they find it easier to believe that the bad guys are "out there" without even entertaining there mere possibility that the bad guys MIGHT come from "within".

  • If you believe building 7 collapsed from fires, then you should go into the business of building demolition. Most demolition contractors use engineers and explosives. You could undercut the competition by using gas and matches. You would make millions of dollars!!!!!

  • @pimaggot you cant call people nutjobs for having their own opinion! they are not sheep that believe everything that they are told. there is so much evidence out there to support that it was an inside job and innocent people have died because they knew the truth. the government would kill innocent people so that they could have a 'war' which meant that weapon trade would go up. the government and al-quaeda were in it together this was an inside job and has New World Order written all over it

  • You stupid nutjobs if 9-11 was an inside job that means the government killed thousands of innocent people - so they would kill those who believed that it was an inside job - the fact that all of you idiots are alive is all the

    Proof I need that our government had no knowledge of this attack. Al-quaeda took responsibility for it and they were dealt with.

  • @pimaggot your govermant???????you know who is your govermant????????

    

  • @pimaggot stupid ass do remember THE GOVERNMENT killed , rape, destroy , other races & take their  land you are a dumbass . how did black people got here a magical fuck horse . people like you make sick & WELCOME THE NEW HOLY WAR AND I AM BLACK

  • America has been doing these kinds of false flag attacks since 1776. The majority of wars have been started secretly by America and its people are left blind and fed lies for years without having any real sense of the actual truth. Its disgusting and rapes what America was supposed to be. A nation of freedom, truth and justice for the PEOPLE. Not the greedy rich suits who own it today.

  • Those of you who need to believe, carry on my good friends. I don't wear a tin foil hat for nothing, and I see those black helicopters circling my house!

  • 9/11 = inside job IMO. to many things don't add up. sure all pieces can be explained away individually but when there are just too many things that iv seen that don't make sense and point towards some sort of cover-up.

  • i think they blow them up to make it fall down straight instead of them falling sideways ???

  • shameful, harmful and painful this Theories!

    Sgt.P., Germany

  • if you don't trust or like our government, then get the f*ck out of here

  • @luv2sing611 Oh shut the f*ck up!! Would you trust your Govt. if you were one of those people who were intentially given STD's, some incurable for an experiment and you did not know that's what they did to you? Would you still trust your Govt. if they fabricated an event to start a war for money and power but sacrificed the lives of your loved ones?

    Read up on your history because these things have indeed happened in our HISTORY with our GOVERNMENT and they are FACTS buddy.

  • @patwil24 i know the facts so thanks for the incredible help but i'm fine. no govt is perfect but i'm fine with mine for now. have a fabulous day =) jerk

  • @luv2sing611 So.... I'm the jerk for giving you a piece of your own medicine. All I did was state the FACTS aside from telling you to shut it just like you told everyone else but ok I will gladly take that =)

  • @luv2sing611 CORRECTION: Intentionally

  • 9/11 = 100% Inside Job and Coverup... DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES! ...Do your own research and find the truth.  ...KNOW THE TRUTH BEFORE YOU DIE.

  • @Born2Flesh "Do your own research and find the truth."

    Already done, now let's hear your claims and we will discuss them. One to two at a time so that we can have a steady flow of conversation. Let the theories flow.

  • I like how AJE allows comments here, but not on other videos like the Empty Chinese Ghost stories. Of course an anti-western news organization would do such a thing.

  • Anyone that thinks our government would not and could not do this are fucking idiots. Look back in history, DOCUMENTED proof that our government has lied, killed, and stolen from its own people.  And its not like our gov dident have a motive, oh? how about the tons upon tons of oil we just so happend to collect in the middle east over the last decade, u ppl with ur heads in the clouds need a big wake up call, your government is lying to you, what are you goign to do about it?

  • @severus1011 yeah you are right the govt has done similar thing before like to get support for vietnam war they said tha veitkong blew one of US military ships before we were supposed to be overthere. later the govt admitted that it was false. 

  • @severus1011 OMG Thank you someone who actually knows some history!! =)

  • yes we must question our government they hold the most dangerous secrets

    that one day take your life

    Thumbs up if u like

  • ~ Support Architects & Engineers For 9 11 Truth ~

  • anyone who thinks the government itself did not create this incident is a naive fool ..................

  • ~ Support Architects & Engineers For 9 11 Truth ~

  • Like if you wanna see a car hit them!

  • Anyone who thinks the government did this should go to fucking hell.

  • fucking idiots go to hell i cant believe they think that the gov would kill thousands there idiots

  • @caltouchdown in order to have a very big motive to enter the middle east

  • @caltouchdown 2 words for u retard Anti Christ

  • @757Gamer r u calling me a retard and a hater of christ

  • Fuck anyone that think 9/11 was the government!!!!! There are pitures of the terrorists attacking the pilot!!!!! You are the least patriotic bitch ever! We are one country under God!! How can you say this! The proof you little bitches have is air bacuase the smoke is air pushing out not dynamite! it was not dark smoke from the beggining and it started getting dark until the building callapsing got closer. How would they plant dynamite without people seeing? The WTP was open 24/7.

  • @ShapeSnipin The how do you explain building #7?

  • @gziegler82 #7 was demolished by demolitionists... that's what every fucking building looks like when they are demolished by demolitionists, WTC was destroyed by terrorism, they look similar because THEY ARE SIMILAR ONLY ONE THING IS DIFFERENT, GOVERNEMENT 'PULLED' #7! Did I have to capitalize that part to make you understand?

  • @ShapeSnipin thank you! i completely agree. i'm getting pissed off with these damn conspiracy theories

  • @ShapeSnipin Where are those pictures of the pilot being attacked located? I would like to visit the website that has them. That's a new one. And you ask "How would they plant "dynamite" without people seeing?" If correct I believe some of the top floors or maybe offices were vacated due to the owner having work done on the building prior to 9/11.

  • @patwil24 Yeah, seems people go through all depths and levels of elaborateness to retain their beliefs.

  • Are you people schizophrenic? The U.S. government is not this fucking corrupt! You people are full of shit!

  • @daberko120ch They are that fucking corrupt, but they still probably didn't do this. They DID do this indirectly however by arming and encouraging terrorist cells in the 80's but that's more of an 'Oops my bad' gone horribly wrong.

  • @HipHopLived They are not this corrupt, fuck no.

  • if the governament did do that then the people are in serious danger...

  • Arabs had nothing to do with 9/11, it was Jewish Parasites. They must be

    exterminated!!!

  • you don't need to be an expert in engineering to understand that BOMBS WERE PLACED IN THE BUILDINGS PRIOR TO THE ATTACKS !

    go watch the video:

    9/11 CONSPIRACY: MORE PROOF OF BOMBS PLANTED IN THE TOWERS

  • The government couldn't have planned it. They would not kill thousands of people just to demolish a building. That's heinous.

  • OF COURSE that 9 11attacks were orchestrated by Bush administration to justify his war on Iraq and the possession of its oil. THIS IS SO EVIDENT AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT.

  • @Bucsfan3411 I agree, this shit is just disgraceful

  • anybody who believes this is a conspiracy should go to hell

  • Illuminati owned big corporations :

    ssssttttt.....

    We need to attack Syria.

    what the pretext must we use ?

  • @mayaforpeaceful

    what is illuminati

  • Comment removed

  • Good points...

  • on the 11th day every month, they demonstrate in Hollywood streets.

    wowwww they are 911 truthers

    thumbs up for them !!!

  • LARRY SILVERSTEIN :

    I MADE 7 BILLION DOLLARS FROM 911.

    HAAAAAA....HAAAAA..HAAAAAA

  • FEMA SAID : BUILDING 7 COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE.

    911 COMMISSION REPORT : DUE TO FIRE

    LARRY ?

    LARRY : OH WELL......OH WELLL.......

    HEEEE...HEEEE

    SORRY BOYS

  • LARRY SILVERSTEIN : I SAID WE PULLED BUILDING 7.

    WATCH MY VIDEO ASS HOLE !!!

    IS IT WRONG ?

  • @mayaforpeaceful Stop fucking spamming the comment section you moron. Silverstein released a statement in 2005 saying that his comments were misinterpreted. He was referring to his desire to pull firefighters from the building. For firefighters (including those on 9/11), "pull" is a common firefighting term for removing personnel from a dangerous structure.

  • @BcmAVMHRVq you are so naive to believe steels in building 7 collapse due to fire. they pulled it.

    look at wtc 3,4,5 and 6. those are real result due to debris and fire . yet they weren't totally collapse as neat as wtc 7.

  • @mayaforpeaceful Oh the irony. The naivete here comes from you with your lack of understanding of what actually happened. Go watch this for an explanation: /watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

  • @BcmAVMHRVq No "pull" is a commen term for demolishing a building. The government have yet succeeded in feeding you that lie.

  • @joshhuntman Not for firefighters you deluded conspiracy theorist. Ever thought about the specifics of the event?

  • @BcmAVMHRVq Deluded conspiracy theorist? Physics tells us it is impossible for a building to fall that near to the rate of gravity. And how did it all just crumble beneath it? I don't know the full story of what happened. I don't know if it was an inside job. What i am certain on is they haven't told the full truth because there are so many holes in the story. Its just to hard for me to believe

  • @joshhuntman Ugh. I'm legitimately becoming tired of having to repeat this. The entire building did NOT fall at near free fall speed. The internals of the building collapsed, leaving the largely hollow shell of the building which came after it, making it look as if it was the entire building which collapsed. For a full explanation: /watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

    Please go see it.

  • Comment removed

  • @BcmAVMHRVq A very good explanation. But im still confused to why in the official documents there was never anything mentioned about it. And people are using an example to a skyscraper in spain which burned fo 20 hours and didnt collapse. If the government release the camera footage of the "plane" crashing into the pentagon then i would drop all other concerns i had with the official story. Its that what makes me question the others

  • @joshhuntman Uhm, yes there is. It is explained in the 10,000-page report by NIST. They created the simulation as well, which is consistent with the images of the building collapsing. You can see the windows on the side that aren't too far from the collapsing interior start to break, the side that the simulation and explanation specifically talk about. You're talking about the Windsor Tower, in which the first collapse happened only 2.5 hours after the fire. Continuing in next comment...

  • @joshhuntman The reason that it didn't fall completely is simply because it was constructed entirely different than WTC, they used reinforced concrete for floors 16 and under, and in the core as well. That central concrete core played perhaps the biggest role in the building standing throughout the time of the fire. These were the findings of Arup, which is the engineering firm that designed and built the Beijing building which also did not fall, using their findings from extensive study of WTC.

  • LARRY SILVERSTEIN : WE PULLED BUILDING 7.

    SO WHAT ?

  • RE OPEN 911 !!!