Answers About 9/11 That Conspiracy Theorists Don't Want to Hear

[QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]Why the government ignores the fact that a fire truck was rushing to WTC minutes before a plane hit because there were reports of a loud explosion coming from the basement and with many eye witnesses? Tjeremiah1988

EDIT: you have to be very careful when talking about this, as people tend to assume you're a conspiracy nutjob; i'm not. I dont think the government were behind it. I just find some aspects of what happened that day very interesting/strange. :)

[QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]Why the government ignores the fact that a fire truck was rushing to WTC minutes before a plane hit because there were reports of a loud explosion coming from the basement and with many eye witnesses? ThePlothole

And what are the names of these witnesses?

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]Why the government ignores the fact that a fire truck was rushing to WTC minutes before a plane hit because there were reports of a loud explosion coming from the basement and with many eye witnesses? Tjeremiah1988

And what are the names of these witnesses?

Link? Oh, and names are quite important when you realize that most conspiracies are built up on exaggerations and misinformation.

And what are the names of these witnesses?

Link? Oh, and names are quite important when you realize that most conspiracies are built up on exaggerations and misinformation.

as are most rejections of conspiracies. 3picuri3

A "rejection" is more likely to be built on actual facts.

I still think it's weird that WTC7 just randomly went down.michael582

Did you read the OP?

And what are the names of these witnesses?

Link? Oh, and names are quite important when you realize that most conspiracies are built up on exaggerations and misinformation.

I still think it's weird that WTC7 just randomly went down.michael582

I don't find it to be weird, considering it was on fire and there were two enormous buildings collapsing right next to it. It wasn't just the fire that made the building collapse, it was also the structural damage caused by the debris from the collapsing twin towers. -Sun_Tzu-

I don't recall ever hearing about a fire ever destroying a steel skyscraper before and after 9/11. Debris from the twin towers along with fires being resposible for a symmetrical collapse of a steel-framed, 47-story building seems very unlikely. To me anyways.

Good argument, however you failed to mention something, your last answer is true, al qaeda is heavily funded, you also know that they were funded with BILLIONS in the 80's by the US government?

Well, that alone, and i don't care what anyone thinks, that alone gives me enough reason to not trust these so called facts. The fact is, conspiracy therorists don't know the facts, the government does, so, if they can lie about things like the fake Iraq war, then why the hell would i place 100% trust in them? i'm not a fool., and i don't think that those who doubt are fools either, instead quite the opposite.

[QUOTE="michael582"]I still think it's weird that WTC7 just randomly went down.-Sun_Tzu-

Mandarin Oriental Hotel

World Trade Center 7 -

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I don't find it to be weird, considering it was on fire and there were two enormous buildings collapsing right next to it. It wasn't just the fire that made the building collapse, it was also the structural damage caused by the debris from the collapsing twin towers. LikeHaterade

I don't recall ever hearing about a fire ever destroying a steel skyscraper before and after 9/11. Debris from the twin towers along with fires being resposible for a symmetrical collapse of a steel-framed, 47-story building seems very unlikely. To me anyways.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="michael582"]I still think it's weird that WTC7 just randomly went down.AHUGECAT

Mandarin Oriental Hotel

World Trade Center 7 -

Crazy conspirators and their shenanigans...

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I don't find it to be weird, considering it was on fire and there were two enormous buildings collapsing right next to it. It wasn't just the fire that made the building collapse, it was also the structural damage caused by the debris from the collapsing twin towers. LikeHaterade

I don't recall ever hearing about a fire ever destroying a steel skyscraper before and after 9/11. Debris from the twin towers along with fires being resposible for a symmetrical collapse of a steel-framed, 47-story building seems very unlikely. To me anyways.

I don't recall a building ever being hit by a jetliner before. Or debris from such an incident raining down on nearby buildings.

3.Question: Why was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon?

Answer: There was plenty of wreckage found at the Pentagon. In addition to the wreckage, there are dozens of eyewitness accounts from people working in the Pentagon that day of a large airplane hitting the building.Theokhoth

There was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.

The pictures you show are not wreckage in the Pentagon. For example:

There is no proof that this image even came from the Pentagon. No source has ever been given.

[QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]Why the government ignores the fact that a fire truck was rushing to WTC minutes before a plane hit because there were reports of a loud explosion coming from the basement and with many eye witnesses? Tjeremiah1988

Crazy conspirators and their shenanigans...

phillo99

I know! I can't believe people actually think that a few men with BOX CUTTERS were able to hijack 4 planes with well over 60 people (and many military people) and crash them into 3 major US buildings.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="michael582"]I still think it's weird that WTC7 just randomly went down.AHUGECAT

Mandarin Oriental Hotel

World Trade Center 7 -

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I don't find it to be weird, considering it was on fire and there were two enormous buildings collapsing right next to it. It wasn't just the fire that made the building collapse, it was also the structural damage caused by the debris from the collapsing twin towers. -Sun_Tzu-

I don't recall ever hearing about a fire ever destroying a steel skyscraper before and after 9/11. Debris from the twin towers along with fires being resposible for a symmetrical collapse of a steel-framed, 47-story building seems very unlikely. To me anyways.

Sounds like they're really scratching their heads. I don't blame them considering the chances of their hypothesis being correct isn't very high. However, there was no physical evidence found on the scene to suggest a controlled demolition. Weird. I'm not trying to prove anything I'm just speculating. Thanks for the link.

Also, why would the "government" choose to just make that random building collapse?

[QUOTE="phillo99"]

Crazy conspirators and their shenanigans...

AHUGECAT

I know! I can't believe people actually think that a few men with BOX CUTTERS were able to hijack 4 planes with well over 60 people (and many military people) and crash them into 3 major US buildings.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I don't find it to be weird, considering it was on fire and there were two enormous buildings collapsing right next to it. It wasn't just the fire that made the building collapse, it was also the structural damage caused by the debris from the collapsing twin towers. -Sun_Tzu-

The WTC7 was barely on fire. Definitely not enough to make it collapse.

WTC7 was demolished and Larry Silverstein admitted it with this "Pull it" comment.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pull

# To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html?ex=1154664000&en=b0974200c508f822&ei=5070

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says.

Not to mention Larry made it clear he meant "demolish" - "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." (PBS video)

So why did he?
"99-year lease for the twin towers just six weeks before the attack. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2003/09/03/september11/whoswho571456_0_6_person.shtml

In April, the Port Authority granted a 99-year lease of the twin towers and four other buildings to Silverstein for an estimated $3.2 billion.
The deal -- which allowed Silverstein to manage the complex and collect rent -- was said by the Port Authority to be the most expensive real estate transaction in New York history.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/victim.wtc.security/

Upon its completion, Silverstein Properties will have fulfilled its obligation to restore 10 million square feet of prime office space lost as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
http://www.silversteinproperties.com/worldtrade.htm

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"] i dont know the names, does it matter? I remember that day and the LIVE coverage here in NYC with ch.7 interviewing people on the ground and remember many witnesses that were in the basement or near the area said there was a loud explosion in the basement minutes before the first plane hit. Also it was confirmed a firetruck was heading there before a plane hit. The subway right under was shockingly damaged (lots of damage)before the WTC fell. Not because a plane hit many floors up but because witnesses say there was a explosion. Tjeremiah1988

Link? Oh, and names are quite important when you realize that most conspiracies are built up on exaggerations and misinformation.

Here's a link for you.

From the link:

William Rodriguez –WTC survivor. An American Building Maintenance employee for twenty years, responsible for inspection and maintenance at the World Trade Center, who held the master key for the stairs. He was the last person to leave the building on September 11 and has been credited with saving many lives. For his efforts, he received the National Hero Award from the Senate of Puerto Rico. Founder, Hispanic Victims Group.

• Article 6/24/05: Regarding an explosion in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center North Tower on 9/11, prior to any airplane impact. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Rodriguez was in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98.]
  
  "Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."
  
  But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"
  
  David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
  
  "He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn't have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don't care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.
  
  "I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up. ...
  
  "I disagree 100%with the government story," said Rodriguez. "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
  
  "And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn't have any answers."

This is just one of the many witnesses from the link describing what you are referring to.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"] i dont know the names, does it matter? I remember that day and the LIVE coverage here in NYC with ch.7 interviewing people on the ground and remember many witnesses that were in the basement or near the area said there was a loud explosion in the basement minutes before the first plane hit. Also it was confirmed a firetruck was heading there before a plane hit. The subway right under was shockingly damaged (lots of damage)before the WTC fell. Not because a plane hit many floors up but because witnesses say there was a explosion. Tjeremiah1988

Link? Oh, and names are quite important when you realize that most conspiracies are built up on exaggerations and misinformation.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

AHUGECAT

The WTC7 was barely on fire. Definitely not enough to make it collapse.

WTC7 was demolished and Larry Silverstein admitted it with this "Pull it" comment.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pull

# To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html?ex=1154664000&en=b0974200c508f822&ei=5070

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says.

Not to mention Larry made it clear he meant "demolish" - "And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." (PBS video)

So why did he?
"99-year lease for the twin towers just six weeks before the attack. "
http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2003/09/03/september11/whoswho571456_0_6_person.shtml

In April, the Port Authority granted a 99-year lease of the twin towers and four other buildings to Silverstein for an estimated $3.2 billion.
The deal -- which allowed Silverstein to manage the complex and collect rent -- was said by the Port Authority to be the most expensive real estate transaction in New York history.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/victim.wtc.security/

Upon its completion, Silverstein Properties will have fulfilled its obligation to restore 10 million square feet of prime office space lost as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
http://www.silversteinproperties.com/worldtrade.htm

And I don't see evidence that it wasn't. In fact, everything of the WTC7 reeks of controlled demolition.

And you have the fact that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.htmlownage_denied

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"]http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.htmlThePlothole

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

And what's your idea of credible sir?

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.htmlAHUGECAT

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

And what's your idea of credible sir?

For starters, a site that doesn't have such an an obvious bias in their very name!

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.htmlAHUGECAT

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

And what's your idea of credible sir?

I'm not at all surprised that you believe the conspiracies, AHUGECAT.

Oh, and a credible source should not be blatantly and clearly biased.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

ThePlothole

And what's your idea of credible sir?

For starters, a site that doesn't have such an an obvious bias in their very name!

Mainstream media is more biased than that website.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"]http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.htmlThePlothole

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

What does the credibility of the website have to do with anything? Are you saying a website has to be credible in order to show REAL eye witness accounts? Are you saying these stories are fabricated?

Also, even though I'm not sure if the website is credible or not, do you have any proof to back up your claim that it isn't?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

3.Question: Why was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon?

Answer: There was plenty of wreckage found at the Pentagon. In addition to the wreckage, there are dozens of eyewitness accounts from people working in the Pentagon that day of a large airplane hitting the building.AHUGECAT

There was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.

The pictures you show are not wreckage in the Pentagon. For example:

There is no proof that this image even came from the Pentagon. No source has ever been given.

Can you prove that it did not?

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.htmlownage_denied

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

What does the credibility of the website have to do with anything? Are you saying a website has to be credible in order to show REAL eye witness accounts? Are you saying these stories are fabricated?

Also, even though I'm not sure if the website is credible or not, do you have any proof to back up your claim that it isn't?

Well, the fact that it is clearly biased calls its credibility into question.

In general, it's a good idea not to trust information presented by such a biased source.

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.htmlownage_denied

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

What does the credibility of the website have to do with anything? Are you saying a website has to be credible in order to show REAL eye witness accounts? Are you saying these stories are fabricated?

Also, even though I'm not sure if the website is credible or not, do you have any proof to back up your claim that it isn't?

Have you heard the story about the lady who pretended to be a tower survivor? For several years she had everyone convinced. Even politicians. Until the mainstream media did some digging, and discovered that she wasn't even in New York that day!

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

3.Question: Why was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon?

Answer: There was plenty of wreckage found at the Pentagon. In addition to the wreckage, there are dozens of eyewitness accounts from people working in the Pentagon that day of a large airplane hitting the building.chessmaster1989

There was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.

The pictures you show are not wreckage in the Pentagon. For example:

There is no proof that this image even came from the Pentagon. No source has ever been given.

Can you prove that it did not?

How can I prove it's not? Simple fact is no one has given a source to the picture.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

chessmaster1989

What does the credibility of the website have to do with anything? Are you saying a website has to be credible in order to show REAL eye witness accounts? Are you saying these stories are fabricated?

Also, even though I'm not sure if the website is credible or not, do you have any proof to back up your claim that it isn't?

Well, the fact that it is clearly biased calls its credibility into question. Link?

In general, it's a good idea not to trust information presented by such a biased source.

So you're saying even if a biased site has factual information that hasn't been disproved, we should just close our eyes and act like we didn't see it :roll:.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

ThePlothole

What does the credibility of the website have to do with anything? Are you saying a website has to be credible in order to show REAL eye witness accounts? Are you saying these stories are fabricated?

Also, even though I'm not sure if the website is credible or not, do you have any proof to back up your claim that it isn't?

Have you heard the story about the lady who pretended to be a tower survivor? For several years she had everyone convinced. Even politicians. Until the mainstream media did some digging, and discovered that she wasn't even in New York that day!

This automatically means every eyewitness is a liar, right?

Did you hear about the Holocaust survivor that lied about his story? He even had a book deal with Oprah and movie deals. See what I am saying?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="ownage_denied"]

What does the credibility of the website have to do with anything? Are you saying a website has to be credible in order to show REAL eye witness accounts? Are you saying these stories are fabricated?

Also, even though I'm not sure if the website is credible or not, do you have any proof to back up your claim that it isn't?

ownage_denied

Well, the fact that it is clearly biased calls its credibility into question. Link?

In general, it's a good idea not to trust information presented by such a biased source.

So you're saying even if a biased site has factual information that hasn't been disproved, we should just close our eyes and act like we didn't see it :roll:.

No, I'm saying find me a reliable source with that information, and I will be more inclined to believe it.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="ThePlothole"]

I meant a link to a creditable news source.

ThePlothole

What does the credibility of the website have to do with anything? Are you saying a website has to be credible in order to show REAL eye witness accounts? Are you saying these stories are fabricated?

Also, even though I'm not sure if the website is credible or not, do you have any proof to back up your claim that it isn't?

Have you heard the story about the lady who pretended to be a tower survivor? For several years she had everyone convinced. Even politicians. Until the mainstream media did some digging, and discovered that she wasn't even in New York that day!

Okay :?. These eye witness accounts haven't been disproved... have they?

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Well, the fact that it is clearly biased calls its credibility into question. Link?

In general, it's a good idea not to trust information presented by such a biased source.

chessmaster1989

So you're saying even if a biased site has factual information that hasn't been disproved, we should just close our eyes and act like we didn't see it :roll:.

No, I'm saying find me a reliable source with that information, and I will be more inclined to believe it.

You have yet to define what a credible source is.

Basically you want to pick and choose what suits you best. If it agrees with you, it's credible. If it does not, it is not credible.

[QUOTE="ownage_denied"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Well, the fact that it is clearly biased calls its credibility into question. Link?

In general, it's a good idea not to trust information presented by such a biased source.

chessmaster1989

So you're saying even if a biased site has factual information that hasn't been disproved, we should just close our eyes and act like we didn't see it :roll:.

No, I'm saying find me a reliable source with that information, and I will be more inclined to believe it.

And I'm saying why should I have to find another source when the information from the source I've all ready provided can't be disproved.

This automatically means every eyewitness is a liar, right?

Did you hear about the Holocaust survivor that lied about his story? He even had a book deal with Oprah and movie deals. See what I am saying?

AHUGECAT

No. But what it means is that people can lie. And not only that, but they often exaggerate the situation to make their stories seem even more incredible. However the one problem is that ultimately their stories don't hold up. And that is why the mainstream media, who despite their own biases, at least tries to verify the stories. Sites like this don't. Conspiracy theorist don't care about facts. They only want to hear things that fit into what they believe. They're not all that different from say a "Biblical Scientists".