Second plane on 9/11 starts to explode Before impact with tower!

barehandkiller said:
Perhaps the explosion from the fuel alone wouldnt look destructive enough(the towers were supposedly to fall from impact and the fire alone) in the official story anyway. So they added explosives for a bigger visual effects to make it more believable. Could be another or other reasons as well, im guessing but from the looks of it the plane exploded before impact.
Click to expand...

It seems to me plausible that the towers were poorly designed and built like many modern buildings, and a full-size plane hitting them at 500 mph was enough to do them in. Even more, I don't see the reason for the conspiracy: a terrorist attack was inevitable, so just wait and take advantage of it.
 
Quite right, infoterror, all the Bush Cartel had to do was sit back and do nothing... maybe read a book... about goats.
 
You guys have some good arguments on some of these points. What about building 7 and the owner getting terrorist insurance months before the attack, and admiting to giving the go ahead to demolish it? It was just coincidense that it had been rigged to fall before a terrorist attack?
Then there was those false flag plane hijacking drills being done by the planes that otherwise mind have been able to shoot the planes down. Its all just a bit to fishy for me.
Peace
 
barehandkiller said:
1... 19 arabs crashed the planes(9 of which have showed up in various countries)
Click to expand...

Have you heard of stolen Identity? they loose passports, or get their passports stolen.

The only thing making me disbeleive the opfficial story, is why the pentagon security tapes have'nt been released, and why a passport of one of the terrorists was found un-harmed on the streets of newyork, although the last one needs proof from good sources.)

Other then thet you guys are going over the top with weird expensive theories..which for a country hell bent on making money as you say, don't make sence.
 
barehandkiller said:
You guys have some good arguments on some of these points. What about building 7 and the owner getting terrorist insurance months before the attack, and admiting to giving the go ahead to demolish it? It was just coincidense that it had been rigged to fall before a terrorist attack?
Then there was those false flag plane hijacking drills being done by the planes that otherwise mind have been able to shoot the planes down. Its all just a bit to fishy for me.
Peace
Click to expand...

Quite simple, there were security warnings from 1995 onwards of an upcoming attack, primarily with the twin towers as a basis. Not only this but the towers had been bombed from the basement before 9/11 ever happened, and the owner got insurance because he beleived the warnings. Why did he claim for double insurance? because he is a jew.
 
why do regularly demolished buildings not have molten steel in or under the rubble pile? I have never heard of a building where this has happened.
Click to expand...

Nor did it happen with the World Trade Center.

Supposed "molten metal" in the rubble pile was most like aluminium, not steel.

You guys have some good arguments on some of these points. What about building 7 and the owner getting terrorist insurance months before the attack, and admiting to giving the go ahead to demolish it?
Click to expand...

Nobody gave the "go ahead" to demolish it. You are probably referring to an often-cited command from the building supervisor (or somebody in a similar position) to "pull it", which conspiracy theorists interpret as a command to demolish the building. In fact, the evidence shows that the statement referred to pulling emergence crews out of the building, since it was getting too dangerous.

It was just coincidense that it had been rigged to fall before a terrorist attack?
Click to expand...

It wasn't rigged to fall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top