Does knowing about an incident happening before it actually happens count? In this case I believe the CIA did know that something was going to happen but did not act on it. So I think they are partly responsible.

Quote:


Obviously the CIA knew that something was amiss but they didn't know what. Who would have guessed that they were going to hijack planes and use them as guided missiles. This time the terrorist beat the CIA, doesn't happen very often.

Even if the CIA rounded all these people up and called them terrorists the people would have rejected it because there was no evidence to the fact.

Look what they are doing to David Hicks! People don't want to believe that he is a terrorist. David Hicks is a mercenary. If David Hicks was not arrested and later blew up Sydney Opera House the CIA would once again get the blame for not arresting him.

The CIA and Intelligence organisations can only work with the tools that we give them. Everytime we give them a tool we lose freedoms. This is why the CIA couldn't put a stop to 9/11.

Whether the rate of collapse is millisecond accurate or not surely any sentient autonomous thinking person would raise questions as to why these are the only concrete/steel buildings in the history of man that have collapsed into their own footprint without assistance - two of a similar construction and one not only different but not impacted by the original collision and only had a fire - I have been unable to find information on any other buildings collapsing in a similar way from fire alone. I'm no conspiracy theorist but the laws of physics can't be put on hold due to some awkward questions.
The sad situation is that if you raise any questions you must be a nutter or a terrorist. Unfortunately this is the position America takes with any subject that drifts from the original official press release.

Quote:

What does: "The collapse was only from the point of impact." mean exactly? 

So 9/11 is "debunked" based on the science of how the buildings collapsed?

It isn't even about *HOW* the building collapsed. The conspiracy can still exist and can still be true, it doesn't depend on how the building collapsed.

If you want to go all "scientific proof" then explain why there was very little *EVIDENCE* left behind in regard to the plane that crashed in Shanksville? How did a driver's licence, a passport and a bandana survive the crash intact but the plane exploded upon impact?
If you look at other documented plane crashes there is always a sh*t tonne of debris and human remains.

Then there is the fact that all American news media channels had their cameras ready to go before the plane even enters the frame and hits the WTC, and they sound oh-so-surprised when it happens. Days of Our Lives actors give a better performance.

Then there is also this: the Bin Laden family were allowed to leave the country that morning when every other plane was grounded. The Bin Ladens had close ties with Bush. An FBI agent spoke up and said in any other circumstance the Bin Ladens would be grounded as well, and questioned.

The Bush administration was quick to accuse Bin Laden, almost as if he had prior knowledge despite denying this.

But no, it's all about the scientific evidence. Because that is the absolution, right? Scientific evidence alone cannot prove whether the terrorist attacks were orchestrated or not. Keep that in mind.

Phemanderac wrote on Aug 27^th, 2014 at 7:18pm:


That is absolutely correct.