alright well search around. i GARUNTEE you that prior knowledge to 9/11 is 100% fact by this point. EVERY news agency is talking aout warnings and prior knowledge... so you don't believe the "conspiracy theories" sites, you don't believe MAINSTREAM news... what do u believe... only the news that says they had no prior knowledge to 9/11?? how many news agencies still say that? 1 maybe? fox news? and personally, i wouldn't get my info from a news source SOOOOOOOO right-winged that it says spongebob promotes homosexuality... :/ im sorry but if they were to take their heads out of their asses for 2 seconds they'd realize that you can't "promote" homosexuality... would any of u guys here ever screw a guy? no, because that's not how you're made. now if that sounded offensive i didnt mean it to be. i was talking with somebody one time who's met a homosexual stage performer part of like a play or a musical or somethin and he asked the guy when he knew he was gay and the guy replied by saying when'd you know you were straight? sorry to run off on a tangent but godamn that shit pisses me off.

Yea our government knew about a possible hijacking. They have known about it for years. You know why? Because your government gets thousands of threats every year. Who would have known that this time those lunatics were serious. I mean we can't just stop everything we are doing everytime some towelhead says he's planning on blowing shit up. Could some measures have been taken to prevent this, yes. But then again people can't just say "why didn't they just shoot the planes down or why didn't this or that happen." Things aren't that simple.

One thing is for sure though, those people on the airplanes could have done something. Even if the terrorist would have taken the planes to another country, I mean I wouldn' let those fucks hijack my flight especially when they are holding a couple of pussy ass box cutters.

THANK YOU SCARFACE!!!!

yea i know... box cutters and knives... i mean cmon if all the ppl on those planes banded together they'd have fucked up the hijackers... and they DID have prior knowledge of hijacked airplanes being used as weapons into the world trade center and the pentagon. they say they never THOUGHT of that. bullshit. in eric harris' diary he detailed a plot to hijack aircraft and crash it into new york city... they never thought of that? bullshit.

whooa! I'm just gonna jump in on this one here. How can any of you think that the building was blown up from the inside?

NOT POSSIBLE! First off, the claims that the builing blew outward are correct, the floors blew out, reason: When the upper part of the towers collapsed, the top started to fall down ontop of the lowwer half that was less damaged, the top falling put pressure on the lowwer half causing the inside of the building's pressure to increase greatly, if you were in that tower alive during the collapse you would have felt your ear drums pop. The pressure created needed to go somewhere so it went out, almost like and explosion, this happend on each floor as the building crashed down, floor by floor. This is the reason for the massive dust cloud that swept outward after the tower fell. If it had fallen over sidways, it would not have created such large cloud. I can assure you there were no bombs that went off in the towers after the crash. It is inconceviable. The fire created by the planes alone was enough to melt the metal structure of the tower. The melting structure caused the collapse, not a "bomb".

none of us do...xcept loopy over there

well there's 2 things you have wrong in here. first of all, we've already established that the fires weren't nearly hot enough to melt the metal structure. so clearly that is a false statement. 2nd of all, i dont know WHERE you get the idea that each floor was air tight, because it was not. if you think that somehow there was no place for the air to go then that means every person in the tower would've suffocated. clearly u must think about things like this before posting...

That is the point, the air all escaped out, that was the "explosion" that people saw. I 'm not tottaly sure about the fire thing but it seems perfectly plaussible that the fire could have weakened the structure.

Edit:
It's simple physics, take a paper bag and blow it up with air then pop it. Was there a bomb in the paper bag? No, it was an increase in pressure that released outward, same principal with the WTC.

yes but u missed my point. the bag only explodes if the only way for the air to get out is by ripping the bag open. that's why u hear the pop because of the high pressure air escaping and becoming low pressure so quickly. i understand ur concept, but my point was that there were other ways for the air to escape than just outwards thru the windows, because "explosions" shattered the windows and for your theory to be correct, that means every floor would have to be air tight meaning no air can get in or out of the floor, so it has to break the glass to get out. the floors were NOT air tight. if that were the case, then everyone would've suffocated eventually. that's why there's ventilation and shit. the air's able to escape thru a. the ventilation b. the elevators c. the central core. do u understand what im getting at?

Either way, the building falling down would have been enough to break the windows, no?

well that's a given, but the thing is u have HUGE steel beams being shot horizontally outward with enough force to punch thru buildings 100's of feet away? how?

im going out on a limb here....you stood infront a truck carrying a load of stupid sticks....didnt you...

lol, i think he did.

how about instead of JUST saying i'm stupid, offer reason why my statement is a stupid one. i asked a question and you respond by saying im stupid. im still looking for my answer to the question.

In case you havent noticed WE already disproved 99% of your crap.

Your just repeating yourself now.



Plus Napolean on here is also a little wack-o.

A little wack-o??? Try really wack-o.

I just wonder, how can you think that a massive airplane crashing into this tower couldn't knock it down? You all saw the videos, it's not like the planes were a hoax, the government isn't trying to cover up a conspiracy to blow up the WTC. It was an attack by al-queda. That's it. There were no bombs, a massive airplane was sufficent.

ok young grasshopper.....in words u will under stand....IT FELL DOWN AND WENT BOOM.... like a fat man sitting on a balloon it went POP and was all over the place....

seriously.......do your parents encourage these thoughts? or do they think the same shit? just wondering if the apple fell from the tree....should society give you a permit to breed or go for the nuder?

you haven't disproved anything. ive conceded one argument i dont know enough about at the present moment. all you did for the rest is rebute with YOUR crap.

apparently u thought the way i did at one point as well.

No, I just kept an open mind as you asked.


Read my next post INCASE YOU MISSED IT.

you never answered my question...

as for your questions silver, my parents are sheep too and they disagree with me. your other questions are irrelevent and stupid and do not deserve to be answered. as for your "balloon" thing, i already explained how that rationel is false TWICE. for the "balloon" thing to work how you said it did, the floors would have to be AIRTIGHT meaning NO AIR CAN ESCAPE IN OR OUT OF THE FLOOR. if that were the case, every person in the building would SUFFOCATE. but it's NOT. now let's look at this. think about it, if there was a being that could live inside of a balloon that breathed air, it would suffocate, correct? that's because a balloon is airtight (99.9% at least). that's why when you do something to the balloon and decrease the area it INCREASES the pressure. it's called Boyle's Law. look it up. and because the pressure inside pushing against the plastic of the balloon becomes too great, the plastic is not strong enough to contain that pressure anymore, so it breaks and you hear a *POP* because of high pressure gases becoming low-pressured. that's why you here a *BANG* when you shoot a gun (silencers also use this principal to make the bang more silent by giving a bigger area to escape in before escaping completely out). now, the towers were NOT airtight. even if they were, it would only blow out the windows and the air would have ample space to escape. there is NO EXCUSE for those steel beams being thrown hundreds of feet outward. AIR PRESSURE COULD NOT DO THAT.
now this is my THIRD time explaining this, and i hope it's my last.

it would not have to be air tight, to create a pop of air ther would have to be resistance to keep the air from leaving in other words airleaving wouold have to be equal to or more not to cause a pop. but with the gravity of the object falling air is exponentaly increased in pressurefrom the building falling moving air outwardthe rush of air would work the same as a pump bb gun building up over time (this case million's of a second) pushing air out word till it compleatly collapsed into a pocket in the ground causing a massive push of air....as i recall this would explain the dust rushing in between the buildings looking for a path of least resistance. now you can fight thoughts but cannot fight physics....where the hell is the chemist science guy for this science stuff....

i cannot believe you called ur mom a sheep.....we have guys here that like sheep....

i agree that ur theory about the whole thing would work for the bottom being pushed out. BUT NOT POPPING OUT FLOOR BY FLOOR, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AIRTIGHT EVERY FLOOR FOR IT TO POP OUT LIKE THAT. that's what im getting at, and btw, pump BB guns are air tight. i've shot them b4. that's why after like 5-6 pumps it's hard to pump it. you've explained the possibility that the air could make the big cloud at the bottom pop out, but how pop out every floor like it did?

not every floor poped. it happened as all the debris was filling in the voids and compacting into the sub basments.small steel girders would have been tossed out the building and at that height they may have went a few hundred yards. think about it a small degree of decline like say 20 degrees would put it a way away. the increase would make a few inches at the displacement fould equal a few hunderd yards at the base of the tower. if you dont understand ill draw it out....dont know if i explained it exactly as needed.

every floor that we can see popped out... those are about the first 10-15... so we ASSUME that the others after that popped out... i sort of get what ur saying, but please, draw it out here's another question...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v521/Too...ection_wtc1.jpg

that building was right under the towers... why didn't it collapse yet building 7, 200 yards away did? and u see that whole in the building in the background... what gave those steel beams that much force?

same reason why only 2200 people died there some one above was looking out...explain the face of the devil in the smoke?
explain the cross in the wreckage. explain the massive amounts of people turning out to give blood. i stood for 8 hours and was turned away. they could not accept anymore blood. explain that...

Dude, what is wrong with you? Can you explain why those beams were thrown? Can any one explain why that day occured? No, it's human nature to try to make up explainations for things that need closure. You are doing that very thing, a conspiracy theory. There was no cover up on 9/11. All of this so called conspiracy footage doesn't mean shit, you can't professionally analyze that video, it could be doctored. NO ONE CAN EXPLAIN ANY OF IT, except the kids who flew those planes into those towers, they might have something to say worth listening to.

most of this footage comes from unbiased websites, mostly CNN and the big news websites. the footage is completely undoctored. but see, your "pancake" collapse has absolutely no way of describing how the shit happened that day. why a building with tiny ass fires collapsed straight down nearly the speed of a falling object in a vacuum... why 3 steel framed buildings collapsed in one day when none had ever collapsed before (and none since, look at the madrid building ffs...) none of that "pancake" collapse bullshit can explain it. period.

i have answered you questions...answer mine.

the devil's face is interpretation. as for the cross, i've never heard of that. the ppl wanting to give blood... what's there to explain? they want to help out. i'd have done the same. these points are irrelevant to everything.

really? so is how the towers came down. they did...it's open to interpretation. tell me why all that is irrelevant? if you want justice, explain why millions of people flocked to "GOD" what ever one they believed? explian why people saw that face in the smoke? dont get me wrong in not trying to influence you to any sort of religion, thats not my purpose...the answers you seek can be found in these answers as well.

Too Exclusive I don't have a problem with you or the fact you question our goverment or what happened. A suspicious citizenry is what keeps our government in line.

My problem is the conspiracy sites which present speculation as fact, show an unfair bias for their opinion ten times worse than the media they complain about, the great length they go to as they put it "put things in perspective" and the vast amounts of misleading information they use to support their claims.

In an earlier post you finally admitted being wrong about the so called Executive Order, why not admit you where wrong in several of your other points you didn't really research but only took as Gospel as you read about them on the sites you link to?

well let's not forget that al-CIAeda was founded, funded, and trained by our government.
al-Qeada wasn't formed until 1989 which is 5 years after the USA stopped funding the Afghan Resistance

the terrorists would have to find some way to get into the country unnoticed, train to be master pilots unnoticed, and find some way to defeat NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense). See NORAD is a system of radars throughout the country whose headquarters are in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. they track EVERY plane in the sky on radar.
Already has been disproved
Prior to 9-11 NORAD only focused on incoming aircraft.
BTW this points to the common complaint about exaggerating to make your point.
"train to be master pilots unnoticed"
Where do you get this?
Why call them master pilots?
The whole reason the pilot training in OK became suspect was the fact he didn't request or do any training for landing or takeoff. Unfortunately the FBI dropped the ball when he was brought to their attention in '96 for this very reason.


jet fuel only burns at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit, yet steel has a melting point of 2800 degrees fahrenheit. the jet fuel(most of it) burned up in that giant fireball you saw. the jet fuel didnt burn much inside, and by the end there were only a few smoldering oxygen starved fires. the steel was freezing compared to what it would need to melt!
Another common point the conspiracy sites use to mislead.
When the 1st stories came out citing the fires as the cause of the collapse, every conspiracy nut jumped on the fact the fire didn't create enough heat to MELT the steel.
Melt was just a simplified term used to explain what happened, no one was trying to say the steel melted to the point of becoming molten. Steel's strength in relation to thermal breakdown is almost linear. At half the melting temperature steel has already lost half of it's strength.
Even when this point is argued to show the conspiracy nuts are wrong. The most common reply is the building was over built to start with and cite how the floor trusses where designed to handle 5 times their load so even if the steel had lost half of it's strength they where still well within their design limits.
Even this point is misleading and here is why. When the nuts talk about the load limits of the floor trusses they are talking about the live load limits. There is a very distinct and important difference between live and dead limits.
The dead limits take into account all the force placed on the trusses by the building. Keep in mind the trusses where required to transfer all the weight/force to the core support columns as the WTC had no internal load bearing walls.
Considering all the forces acting on the trusses and other support structure, the dead limits would be far higher than the active load limits.
My point is even though the trusses could of lost half of their strength and still supported their active load they surely wouldn't of also been within their design limits when you factor in the dead limits which would be much higher.
Also keep in mind the aircraft impacts removed a major part of the load bearing structure causing more weight to be applied to the remaining. This increased the dead weight limits even more.

the next event on 9/11 was the attack on the pentagon... which is a completely ridiculous claim. first of all, the official story states that the plane flew inches above the cars on I-395 to slam into the pentagon,
The claim an aircraft didn't hit the pentagon is probably the popular conspiracy from 9-11.
I've yet to see a site answer what I believe would be the most basic common sense question to back up their claim it wasn't a plane.
If it wasn't American Airlines Flight 77, then explain what happened to flight 77.
Do you think it safely landed somewhere and no one noticed?
Do you think American Airlines is part of the government cover up?
Do you think the passengers from flight 77 are alive and well and hiding out with Elvis?
If the conspiracy nuts really wanted to prove it wasn't a plane all they would have to do is prove something else happened to flight 77 or that it didn't ever exist?
Pretty damn simple if you ask me, so simple yet no one has been able to do just that?

the last event on 9/11 occured at 5:20 PM, and that was the collapse of the WTC building 7, a 47 story building about 200 yards from from the towers. question: how does a building with only a few minor scattered fires collapse at the rate of a free-falling body in a vacum?
I don't understand the mention of free falling body in a vacuum, I guess you or whoever wrote it though it made it sound better. I don't know about you but back in school I learned gravity pulled on everything the same.
There has been very little written about WTC7 because everyone naturally focuses on the twin towers. My question would be how much damage did WTC7 receive when the towers fell. I'm not talking about direct damage but damage to it's foundation and support structure caused by the 1000's of tons of rubble cashing to the ground as you mentioned only 200 yards away.

BEFORE 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. AFTER 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. STEEL BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE. again, if u say it was because of the planes, NO PLANE HIT BUILDING 7.
A key point you overlooked.
The design of the WTC is very different from most other buildings past and even present. As much as you try to show this as proof of cover up or consiracy. The common sense question would be did all 3 building share a common design flaw?
For an in depth review this is by far the best report I've read.
http://www.structuremag.org/forum/WTC-Scheuermann.pdf
Unlike most other studies this one is done by a retired fire chief only looking to improve fire and building codes.

Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole ® and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people."
Here is another name for you "Richard Clarke"
Another top goverment official from the National Security Council, who after 9-11 made all kinds of charges claiming "Bush of doing a terrible job fighting terrorism - of ignoring the al-Qaeda threat before 11 September 2001 and distorting it afterwards. "
Conspiracy nuts focusing on prior knowledge of attacks made Richard Clarke their poster boy. That is right up until he testified under oath before the 9-11 commission and senate sub-committee where he did a complete 180 as far as what the USA specifically knew and when they knew it.
So I'm not impressed by Stanley Hilton or his interview on the Alex Jones Radio Show. BTW your the one who had a 2 page post claiming we can't believe anything from the media because it's controlled by the goverment. Does this statement only apply to things that go against what you so desperately want to believe?

i can't believe u guys dont realize that there is NO WAY that kind of attack could be planned, ppl trained in flight schools here, and the CIA (with it's extra funding from the OKC bombing in 95) didn't find it out.
2 big problems with this
1) The CIA has been barred from particapating in ANY internal security functions under the provisions of the National Security Act of 1947. The CIA's only focus has been on foriegn intelligence activities which affects national security.
2) The same 1947 act allows CIA to keep their budget secret. The CIA has no public budget record as their funds are not disclosed or even directly appropriated but is concealed by indirect funding via ivarious budget line items in the Defense Department budget. This is done as a way to protect their sources and methods. So the question is, how can you claim the CIA budget went up after the 95 OKC bombing when NO ONE knows what their budget is?
If you don't belive me do a google search for "CIA budget". You will find various lawsuits filed under the freedom of information act trying to get looks at the CIA budget, all these suits have failed even ones looking for information on budgets dating back to the 50's.
I'm very curious where you get your great inside information about the CIA budget when no one else has a clue what it is.

alright. first of all, i dont take things as gospel. i look up everything. some things i havent brought up in a while so the facts have gotten twisted in my memory. that's why some things i say may be a little wrong, but that means in NO WAY that i take stuff from gospel. about flight 77, you're absolutely right. but that's ONE thing conspiracy sites can't answer compared to the tons of things the official story can't answer. now also you said i take this shit gospel from conspiracy sites. what u dont get is lots of shit i dont GET from conspiracy sites. i get from unbiased science sites that have nothing to DO with 9/11. now as for the bodies falling in a vacuum, i have timed buildign 7 numerous times. ive gotten 6.3147, and maybe a .1 spread over the rest of the tests. now i'll do this MATHEMATICALLY. as not to confuse you, giving you sources along the way. the distance formula for a falling object in a vacuum (meaning without air resistance, yes gravity pulls things all the same, but air resistance slows certain things down more than other, dont believe me go to school) is d = .5att (t squared)
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mofall.html (go down and ull see X = .5 * a * t^2)
also note i did NOT get this formula from a conspiracy site. i got this formula from a physics teacher in my school.

building 7 was 570 ft high (according to wikipedia, a NON-conspiracy site, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center ).

let's do the math (please be encouraged to check every step).
d = (1/2)att
(570) = (1/2)(32.2)tt
(i would hope u all know that 32.2 ft/ss is the acceleration of gravity)
570 = 16.1tt
570/16.1 = 16.1/16.1tt
35.40372671 = tt
sqrt(35.40372671) = sqrt(tt)
5.950103084 = t

now compare what i got to a freefalling object in a VACUUM (without air resistance)
6.3147 - 5.950103084 = .3645969162 seconds difference
hrrrmmmmmmmmm dont u think at 570 feet air resistance would slow something down a shitload more than .365 seconds? i do. there's ur mathematical proof.
more when im done eating dinner.

also dont forget that more surface area = more air resistance, and those floors had a LOT of surface area... not to mention the resistance they would've encountered on every lower floor.

also another example of how i dont take everything from conspiracy sites for gospel is this falling object thing... most conspiracy ppl say that the towers fell in 10.4 seconds and 8.9 seconds and that the falling body works for the towers. i CHECKED that out for myself and i smack the shit outta anyone who says that because the towers fell in 12.5 seconds and 14 seconds... i DO check everything out.

Too Exclusive I don't have a problem with you or the fact you question our goverment or what happened. A suspicious citizenry is what keeps our government in line.

My problem is the conspiracy sites which present speculation as fact, show an unfair bias for their opinion ten times worse than the media they complain about, the great length they go to as they put it " put things in perspective and the vast amounts of misleading information they use to support their claims.

In an earlier post you finally admitted being wrong about the so called Executive Order, why not admit you where wrong in several of your other points you didn't really research but only took as Gospel as you read about them on the sites you link to?

well let's not forget that al-CIAeda was founded, funded, and trained by our government.
al-Qeada wasn't formed until 1989 which is 5 years after the USA stopped funding the Afghan Resistance

the terrorists would have to find some way to get into the country unnoticed, train to be master pilots unnoticed, and find some way to defeat NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense). See NORAD is a system of radars throughout the country whose headquarters are in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. they track EVERY plane in the sky on radar.
Already has been disproved
Prior to 9-11 NORAD only focused on incoming aircraft.

jet fuel only burns at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit, yet steel has a melting point of 2800 degrees fahrenheit. the jet fuel(most of it) burned up in that giant fireball you saw. the jet fuel didnt burn much inside, and by the end there were only a few smoldering oxygen starved fires. the steel was freezing compared to what it would need to melt!
Another common point the conspiracy sites use to mislead.
When the 1st stories came out citing the fires as the cause of the collapse, every conspiracy nut jumped on the fact the fire didn't create enough heat to MELT the steel.
Melt was just a simplified term used to explain what happened, no one was trying to say the steel melted to the point of becoming molten. Steel's strength in relation to thermal breakdown is almost linear. At half the melting temperature steel has already lost half of it's strength.
Even when this point is argued to show the conspiracy nuts are wrong. The most common reply is the building was over built to start with and cite how the floor trusses where designed to handle 5 times their load so even if the steel had lost half of it's strength they where still well within their design limits.
Even this point is misleading and here is why. When the nuts talk about the load limits of the floor trusses they are talking about the live load limits. There is a very distinct and important difference between live and dead limits.
The dead limits take into account all the force placed on the trusses by the building. Keep in mind the trusses where required to transfer all the weight/force to the core support columns as the WTC had no internal load bearing walls.
Considering all the forces acting on the trusses and other support structure, the dead limits would be far higher than the active load limits.
My point is even though the trusses could of lost half of their strength and still supported their active load they surely wouldn't of also been within their design limits when you factor in the dead limits which would be much higher.
Also keep in mind the aircraft impacts removed a major part of the load bearing structure causing more weight to be applied to the remaining. This increased the dead weight limits even more.

the next event on 9/11 was the attack on the pentagon... which is a completely ridiculous claim. first of all, the official story states that the plane flew inches above the cars on I-395 to slam into the pentagon,
The claim an aircraft didn't hit the pentagon is probably the popular conspiracy from 9-11.
I've yet to see a site answer what I believe would be the most basic common sense question to back up their claim it wasn't a plane.
If it wasn't American Airlines Flight 77, then explain what happened to flight 77.
Do you think it safely landed somewhere and no one noticed?
Do you think American Airlines is part of the government cover up?
Do you think the passengers from flight 77 are alive and well and hiding out with Elvis?
If the conspiracy nuts really wanted to prove it wasn't a plane all they would have to do is prove something else happened to flight 77 or that it didn't ever exist?
Pretty damn simple if you ask me, so simple yet no one has been able to do just that?

the last event on 9/11 occured at 5:20 PM, and that was the collapse of the WTC building 7, a 47 story building about 200 yards from from the towers. question: how does a building with only a few minor scattered fires collapse at the rate of a free-falling body in a vacum?
I don't understand the mention of free falling body in a vacuum, I guess you or whoever wrote it though it made it sound better. I don't know about you but back in school I learned gravity pulled on everything the same.
There has been very little written about WTC7 because everyone naturally focuses on the twin towers. My question would be how much damage did WTC7 receive when the towers fell. I'm not talking about direct damage but damage to it's foundation and support structure caused by the 1000's of tons of rubble cashing to the ground as you mentioned only 200 yards away.

BEFORE 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. AFTER 9/11, NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE. STEEL BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE. again, if u say it was because of the planes, NO PLANE HIT BUILDING 7.
A key point you overlooked.
The design of the WTC is very different from most other buildings past and even present. As much as you try to show this as proof of cover up or consiracy. The common sense question would be did all 3 building share a common design flaw?
For an in depth review this is by far the best report I've read.
http://www.structuremag.org/forum/WTC-Scheuermann.pdf
Unlike most other studies this one is done by a retired fire chief only looking to improve fire and building codes.

Or how about this nugget
i can't believe u guys dont realize that there is NO WAY that kind of attack could be planned, ppl trained in flight schools here, and the CIA (with it's extra funding from the OKC bombing in 95) didn't find it out.
2 big problems with this.
1) The CIA has been prohibited by the 1947 National Security Act of any involvement in internal security, their only focus has been foreign intelligence activities relating to national security. Which means they wouldn't of had anything to do with the OKC case
2) The CIA budget has been a closely guarded secret from the very beginning as a way to protect their intelligence sources and methods from disclosure.
The CIA has no direct budget, the CIA gets it's funds from several undisclosed items in the DOD budget.

So I'm very curious how you can claim the CIA budget went up after the OKC bombing in 95 when no one knows what the CIA budget has been for the last 50 years.



and about all your misleading points.
If one part fails under common sense doesn't that mean the rest is likely flawed as well?
Ok WTC7 according to you was brought down by demolition charges.
As you have already claimed it would takes days/weeks of prep work.
Are you saying no one going in/out of the building noticed tripping over the circuitry involved?

You try and make some point over WTC7 falling in it's footprint.
Why is this surprising? For the most part WTC 1 and 2 did the exact same thing.
Why? Simple gravity pulls things straight down.
Gravity doesn't pull sideways. There's not even a logical reason for it to fall anyway but straight down.

Are you really going to claim some secret group rigged the building like this


And no one happen to notice in the days leading up to 9-11???
Get real. [/COLOR]

What is your point? Are you out to disprove all physics?? So what? What are you trying to say?

you have no clue what's going on...
correct grav pulls things straight down, but think about it. for gravity to pull a building down like it did building 7, the stresses would have to be evenly spaced out or it would hit a kink along the way that would make it tilt a noticable amount.

assuming trusses are trusses if one truss fails they all fail steel or not.

Here is an idea, stop with the 101 points of speculation, how about you give me a detailed description of what you think happened on 9-11 and the days leading up to it.

i already did give a detailed description of what i think happened on 9/11... it's on the first page of this thread... not the days leading up to it tho. and silver, im not talking about trusses... im talking about all the supportrs... if a few scattered supports fell the building wouldn't even collapse, and even if it did it would hit something and tilt, just like the south tower did... but there is NO tilt in building 7 it's completely symmetrical...

And so you automatically assume it was a bomb? It had to be the U.S. gov't blowing up the building becuase there were people who knew too much. Right. What else could have caused this, because i'm telling you dude, no bomb blew that place up.

I agree, the government would go far enough as to blow up a building with thousands of people in it just to pull off a greedy act? I wouldn't count on it.

As long is there are suspicous citizens as druid pointed out i don't think the government would pull off something that major.

BOINK?

what am i if im not a suspicious citizen? but im just labeled a conspiracy nut for being suspicous. THAT'S how they got away with it. and napoleon, i do assume it was a bomb... YOU're the one who's supposed to tell me how it can collapse str8 down without a bomb... and you haven't yet...

we have answers you dont accept. its common belief, ur burden of proof.

it's not that i dont accept most of ur answers, it's that im good with physics and i know better. how about this, ill take my case straight to the physics guru in my school and see what he has to say about the matter. he is not biased either way. one of these days ill bring the case to him after school or something. he'll be able to tell me that there's definitely something wrong with building 7's collapse.