(1) If all 47 inner core support columns and the (over 200) outer support columns of both WTC 1 and 2 were strapped with explosives (or Thermate, as some conspiracy theorists have speculated), then why did the towers not begin to collapse when the airplanes struck them? Wouldn’t the impact of the plane be enough to set off those explosives (unless the planes hit specific areas of the towers that were NOT ‘prepped’, thus introducing the theory of remote-controlled aircraft)? I have doubts that the towers fell simply because the planes hit them. According to the architect of the towers, they were built to withstand multiple plane impacts. There’s only one-way to test that statement: fly planes into the towers once they’ve been built. But, as some have said, those buildings were over 20 years old and weren’t in the best of shape. A lot of people in those buildings had been evacuated (thus subtracting some of the weight that the buildings were holding) and the towers were not crammed full with tenants. (As a side note, it’s interesting that Zim–American Israeli Shipping Co. Inc. broke their lease and moved out of the WTC approximately 2 weeks before 9/11.) Now, a 767 has a lot of weight to it, that’s true. So, would the weight of a 767 make up for an absence in tenancy and the evacuation of people? When fire burns some things, it tends to lighten the weight of those things. Example: a heavy oak desk, when set on fire, will lose some of its weight due to the fact that the oak desk is made of wood and wood burns when fire is applied to it. Another example: let’s say you have 100 pounds of paper in boxes. They catch on fire. They will burn up into ashes. 100 pounds of paper + fire = approximately 1/4 pound of ash (not personally tested, of course). I fully believe that fire can melt steel columns, but the heat of the fire and the duration that the fire burns are important factors to consider. Also, if the speed of the planes were one of the major reasons for the collapse of the towers, then wouldn’t the columns of the buildings fail directly at the impact site (in the case of the south tower the impact site would be the southeast corner, meaning that the upper half of the building would topple over towards the southeast due to the failing of most of the building’s columns on that corner)? What about wind? As tall as the buildings were, could wind have had an impact on the fires in the twin towers? I have seen pictures of people at the edges of the buildings where the planes had struck. So the jet fuel fires in WTC 1 and 2 melted steel columns but weren’t hot enough to burn alive some people who were able to walk to the edge of the crash sites and look out over New York City? What were these people made of, the terrorist’s passports?
(2) Why did NORAD not respond that day? The point has been made that NORAD spends millions of dollars on defense and defense strategies, and yet they couldn’t stop 4 hijacked airliners that day, the same day that they were doing “war games” involving hijacked commercial airliners…which might explain why NORAD stood down (confusion between drills and the real thing). And guess what? On the day of the 7/7 bombings in London, England, a crisis management firm called Visor Consultants was running a drill about simultaneous bombings at the exact same time that the real bombings occurred. The story remains the same in the case of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; the B.A.T.F. was doing practice drills not far away from the Alfred P. Murrah federal building that morning. So in all three cases, drills were being conducted at the same time that the attacks occurred…which means someone (in all three cases) was on the inside. The same person? The same group? Who’s to say, but these ‘coincidences’ are too fantastic to be chance alone.
(3) World trade center 7 collapsed to the ground in less than 10 seconds. Some say it was because of the falling debris from the collapse of one of the twin towers and that started the fires in the building that weakened the support columns. Others have said that barrels of fuel (type not specified) that were too close to the columns were ignited by the fires and destroyed the support pillars (which begs the question of building code restrictions concerning barrels of fuel placed near building support columns). Also, if WTC 7 collapsed from fire alone (and it did collapse straight down, instead of falling over to either side or its front or back, implying that all of the major support trusses of the building failed at the same time), then it raises a good point brought up by one John Pontrello: “[I]f the official conspiracy theory is true, we had better vacate every building in the United States immediately in case a fire breaks out and the building collapses killing thousands of people. Also, being that a building collapse is far riskier on all fronts than damage and casualty from fire, every building owner in America should be forced to insure specifically against pancake collapse. All high-rise buildings should be temporarily evacuated until such a time when they are properly studied to ensure that they will not spontaneously collapse killing thousands of people. 9/11 has really opened up the possibility that buildings spontaneously collapse, so I argue that they should not be used anymore until they are proven safe. If three people were tossed and killed from a roller coaster on one day, would you put your children on it? Furthermore, every building in America should abandon evacuation drills for fire and replace those mandatory drills with Pancake evacuation drills where something like window ejection with parachutes are provided, since stairwell evacuations will not protect one from the upper floors falling on them.”
(4) Why were there pools of molten metal underneath the debris of both twin towers and WTC 7? These were over 1200 degrees Fahrenheit and were smoldering for WEEKS after the collapse. Does jet fuel (kerosene) burn that long AND that hot? How could those fires survive the collapse? With all that weight crashing down, one would think that the upper floors coming down would stamp out the fire, what with the expansion of air from the collapse. If the pancake theory were put into practice, it would have taken a lot longer than 10 seconds for the towers to collapse. As one floor collapses onto another, the collapse gains momentum until it’s crushing each floor underneath at a rapid pace. BUT, in the beginning of the pancake theory collapse, it would have taken some time to build up that momentum. Finally, in a pancake collapse, is it possible for the momentum to build so high that a lot of the concrete is crushed into dust (that covered cars and floated out over the harbour)? Maybe for the lower floors (since the upper floors collapsed onto them), but the upper floors as well?
(5) I’ve never seen continuous video footage of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. The 5 single frames released by the Pentagon do NOT show a plane. I watched the clips in sequence many times and saw the TIP of something on the right hand side in one picture and then the explosion in the next, but no plane. There were many security cameras at various points around the Pentagon that captured the hit (satellite photos as well), but none have been released. Don’t the people in the Pentagon know that in order to shut all these conspiracy theorists up, they should release one of the security tapes that SHOWS THE PLANE TRAVELING ACROSS THE HIGHWAY AND HITTING THE PENTAGON? We’ve seen the second plane hit the south tower many times on TV, so using the old ‘footage would be too traumatic/graphic for the public to handle’ excuse would be pointless. How many times have you seen the rear right part of JFK’s skull get blown out on the Zapruder film? I think most of us have become accustomed to seeing acts of violence through movies, TV shows, the news, or at least reading about them in either social studies or history class. Go to YouTube and find out for yourself how many videos containing human nudity can only be viewed by ‘logging in or signing up’ as compared with the number of videos containing violence can be viewed by anyone who visits the site. I had read that the front of a woman’s car was totaled when one of the wheels from the plane hit a light pole, fell off, and landed on her car. I’ve also read of police cars chasing the plane down the highway beside the Pentagon. These explanations were offered as proof (in some cases) that a plane hit the Pentagon, but I’ve never seen them reported in the mainstream news. Consider satellites: they can take photographs of any part of the Earth at any time. With that in mind, couldn’t photos of the plane traveling towards the Pentagon be released to ensure that it WAS in fact a plane that hit the Pentagon? Although, even if such photos are released, speculation will be almost immediately raised about those photographs being doctored…
(6) When Charlie Sheen started asking questions about 9/11 on Alex Jones’ radio show, hundreds of hit pieces were written about Sheen, calling him names, denouncing him, and making it sound as if he were shaming the memories of the 9/11 victims by asking questions. Let me get this straight: we, the public, are allowed to read all about the private lives of celebrities through tabloid magazines, but when a celebrity starts asking questions about a terrorist attack, they are attacked for their point of view and told to shut up? I don’t get it. Just because a celebrity voices their opinion doesn’t mean that a celebrity is better than any member of the general public. Even though people can tune in and listen to that particular conversation (the one between Sheen and Jones on Jones’ radio show, for example), it does not mean the celebrity is “commanding an audience” or “doing it for the ratings”. Sheen had nothing to gain from asking questions about 9/11, and you can tell that by the amount of negative press given to him in the aftermath of the show. The establishment’s view is that if you ask questions about 9/11, you will be publicly humiliated (Sheen was made an example of so that the masses would subconsciously comply). A distant relation to that is the backlash the Dixie Chicks received in 2003 when the lead singer made her infamous statement about being ashamed that President Bush was from Texas (watch the documentary called “Shut up and sing” to get the whole story).
(7) There had been talk of more insider trading going on in the stock market and worries about an attack in the San Francisco Bay area in 2006 (on a 9/11 scale, I believe it was said). You know what wouldn’t be surprising: if the government insiders who helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks somehow weaved involvement from an unsuspecting 9/11 Truth Movement member so that the Government could lay blame for the attack on everyone involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement and have legal justification for forcefully disbanding the group (after labeling them as a “terrorist group”, of course). The mainstream media refuses to give much on-air time to the movement so as to prevent others from knowing about it…and when they do (and it’s not often), the TV hosts attack the members of the movement and make them out to be ‘terrorists’, ‘anti-Americans’, ‘kooks’, ‘conspiracy nuts’, or ‘evil-doers intentionally disgracing the memories of the victims and the victims’ families.’ I know Internet has been instrumental in spreading attention about the group, but the word could spread quicker if they were mentioned on TV (in a positive, or even neutral, way, but reporters these days are pushing an agenda in almost every story they ‘report’ on; listen closely and you’ll realize it…ESPECIALLY the stories concerning the presidential race).
(8) I’ve watched some videos of controlled demolitions, and in many of them I’ve seen flashes in the buildings, and heard loud pops or bangs (indicating that the charges were being blown). I’ve seen waves of dust and particles fly outwards from the buildings as the charges blew. In the videos I’ve seen of the Twin tower collapses, I’ve not heard the loud bangs or seen the flashes. Yes, I’ve seen “Loose change” and have noticed the puffs of smoke in the towers many floors below the collapse. This could be dismissed as powerful gusts of wind going down the elevator shafts and blasting out a window or two many floors below, but if that’s the case, wouldn’t many more windows have been blown out? Also, the building was ‘hermetically sealed’ (the term used to discredit the ‘fire going down the elevator shaft to the lobby’ comments). So, IF the Twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, then it was a very smooth controlled demolition using silent (or almost silent) charges (many people on site on 9/11/01 reported hearing explosions) and doing a great job of making it look like a collapse instead of a controlled demolition (no waves of dust floating outward from the building as the charges go off). Either all videoed controlled demolitions in the past were sloppy, or the people who used charges to bring down the Twin towers knew exactly where to place them to make it look like anything other than a controlled demolition. And how would those charges be placed without anyone noticing? It would take quite the manpower and a large amount of time to place those charges on the support columns, no?