BYU professor has theory about 9/11 attacks - news video

morkinva

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 1999
3,656
0
71
seminar video added 2/12/6


All he wants is a fair shake of an investigation. It's finally getting to the mainstream media phase, I hope.

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

(KUTV) PROVO, Utah A BYU professor has developed a new theory about the terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001. He believes planes alone did not bring down the world trade center.

Both towers collapsed in place after the attacks, and later that day, 7 World Trade Center, which was never hit by a plane, fell in less than seven seconds.

BYU professor Steven E. Jones says that planes alone did not bring down the towers.

The images are seared into the minds of people across the globe. We saw the planes hit, the explosions and fire so hot, fortress towers could not stand. Jones says not so fast.

"They're sticking with this one hypothesis. Its almost like they have blinders on ? and its got to be fires and damage,? says Jones.

Jones is a 20-year physics professor at BYU, who's penned an academic paper raising another hypothesis ? explosives may have been pre-positioned in the buildings.

?Notice how it's straight down,? Jones says referring to the fall of one of the buildings.

Especially intriguing to Jones was the destruction of 7 World Trade Center, damaged and ablaze from tower debris but never hit by a plane.

"Symmetrically now, it doesn't topple over, as you might expect, from what we call the second law of thermodynamics. It comes straight down. This is the goal of prepositioned explosives in a controlled demolition,? says Jones.

If explosives detonated like this ? if they did ? it begs the question.

"Who set the explosives?? 2News reporter Brian Mullahy asked Jones.

"I try not to go there because we have to answer the first question first ? the scientific issue first,? says Jones. "We need to consider all options for the collapse of these buildings. Let the chips fall where they may.?

Jones said that models conducted in tests since 9/11 have not been able to duplicate what happened to the buildings. He is not saying this is a proven theory, but rather a hypothesis. He wants a fresh new independent investigation.


(© MMV, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
for them to fall straing down that would mean that all four sides melted at equal timing? otherwise it may have at least tilted some and fell to the sides?
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
for them to fall straing down that would mean that all four sides melted at equal timing? otherwise it may have at least tilted some and fell to the sides?

Although I'm not saying that it WAS a controlled fall, the fact that they did come STRAIGHT down was and still is very strange.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: dahunan
for them to fall straing down that would mean that all four sides melted at equal timing? otherwise it may have at least tilted some and fell to the sides?

Although I'm not saying that it WAS a controlled fall, the fact that they did come STRAIGHT down was and still is very strange.

STRAIGHT.. yes. that is what I was trying to type.. .. damn my typing sucks when laying down typing on the laptop..
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: dahunan
for them to fall straing down that would mean that all four sides melted at equal timing? otherwise it may have at least tilted some and fell to the sides?

Although I'm not saying that it WAS a controlled fall, the fact that they did come STRAIGHT down was and still is very strange.

STRAIGHT.. yes. that is what I was trying to type.. .. damn my typing sucks when laying down typing on the laptop..

Hehe.. with my big ol' hands, typing on a laptop keyboard would result in these type of results....

jherew isa whatf happensf whewn I tuype onnm a llaptop keyybord
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,345
3
71
Both towers were constructed with a "core" of support along with outter riggings. Once the floors at the crash started collapsing they just "pancaked" on lower floors. Did the buildings collapse from the bottom or near the crash floors. If you watch the videos the planes both hit different heights and both buildings started collapsing from those heights. I dont care if this guy is a physicist, he's just wrong. Structural engineers know more than this guy and they dont develop these tinfoil hat ideas.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: homercles337
Both towers were constructed with a "core" of support along with outter riggings. Once the floors at the crash started collapsing they just "pancaked" on lower floors. Did the buildings collapse from the bottom or near the crash floors. If you watch the videos the planes both hit different heights and both buildings started collapsing from those heights. I dont care if this guy is a physicist, he's just wrong. Structural engineers know more than this guy and they dont develop these tinfoil hat ideas.

He's not offering a conspiracy theory - if explosives were used, they were most likely planted by AQ, and without knowing too much about the specific structures of the buildings, it still wouldn't be surprising if the buildings 'started falling' from the heights the planes hit.

AQ, especially at the time, was well funded, and had as much time as they wanted to prepare; they would hardly be the first to use secondary explosives to make things look better for the cameras.

That being said, there's every possibility the professor is wrong altogether.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
:laugh: Yet another tinfoil conspiracy nut.

Clue

It's amazing that people give any sort of credence to these conspiracy nutjobs.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,345
3
71
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: homercles337
Both towers were constructed with a "core" of support along with outter riggings. Once the floors at the crash started collapsing they just "pancaked" on lower floors. Did the buildings collapse from the bottom or near the crash floors. If you watch the videos the planes both hit different heights and both buildings started collapsing from those heights. I dont care if this guy is a physicist, he's just wrong. Structural engineers know more than this guy and they dont develop these tinfoil hat ideas.

He's not offering a conspiracy theory - if explosives were used, they were most likely planted by AQ, and without knowing too much about the specific structures of the buildings, it still wouldn't be surprising if the buildings 'started falling' from the heights the planes hit.

AQ, especially at the time, was well funded, and had as much time as they wanted to prepare; they would hardly be the first to use secondary explosives to make things look better for the cameras.

That being said, there's every possibility the professor is wrong altogether.

Not to self: watch videos before commenting.

I read most of the transcript and all the comments about the buildings falling straight down--not unlike a demolition company would do. They plant explosives around the base of structures to implode them, dont they?
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: homercles337
Both towers were constructed with a "core" of support along with outter riggings. Once the floors at the crash started collapsing they just "pancaked" on lower floors. Did the buildings collapse from the bottom or near the crash floors. If you watch the videos the planes both hit different heights and both buildings started collapsing from those heights. I dont care if this guy is a physicist, he's just wrong. Structural engineers know more than this guy and they dont develop these tinfoil hat ideas.

He's not offering a conspiracy theory - if explosives were used, they were most likely planted by AQ, and without knowing too much about the specific structures of the buildings, it still wouldn't be surprising if the buildings 'started falling' from the heights the planes hit.

AQ, especially at the time, was well funded, and had as much time as they wanted to prepare; they would hardly be the first to use secondary explosives to make things look better for the cameras.

That being said, there's every possibility the professor is wrong altogether.

Not to self: watch videos before commenting.

I read most of the transcript and all the comments about the buildings falling straight down--not unlike a demolition company would do. They plant explosives around the base of structures to implode them, dont they?

I think so, I'm not an expert, but the idea is definitely to implode them, so they pretty much fall in their own footprint. A lot of work and planning goes into building demolition, and it's rather surprising that something like 9/11 could have been such a perfect demolition, when it was caused by airplanes flown into the buildings at arbitrary heights.

Not impossible, mind you, just 'peculiar'.
 

morkinva

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 1999
3,656
0
71
Hey I have an idea!

Now that you can apparently fell any steel office building by lighting a few fires, we no longer need controlled demolition! The expense would be much less, and the rubble will land in the building's footprint every time. It'll only take about an hour of fire burning to achieve this task.

Before 911, this would not have applied since no steel-framed office building ever collapsed because of fires. But on this date and forever hereafter, the laws of physics have changed. Since three (3) buildings fell from this method on the very same day, it's pretty safe to assume that it will work from now on.

Let us also ignore the email written by UL executive Kevin Ryan, which later got him fired:

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov
Date: 11/11/2004

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend
 

Helenihi

Senior member
Dec 25, 2001
379
0
0
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: dahunan
for them to fall straing down that would mean that all four sides melted at equal timing? otherwise it may have at least tilted some and fell to the sides?

Although I'm not saying that it WAS a controlled fall, the fact that they did come STRAIGHT down was and still is very strange.

Yeah thats weird that something would fall down, I would think they'd fall perpendicular to gravity.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
Originally posted by: morkinva
Hey I have an idea!

Now that you can apparently fell any steel office building by lighting a few fires, we no longer need controlled demolition! The expense would be much less, and the rubble will land in the building's footprint every time. It'll only take about an hour of fire burning to achieve this task.

Before 911, this would not have applied since no steel-framed office building ever collapsed because of fires. But on this date and forever hereafter, the laws of physics have changed. Since three (3) buildings fell from this method on the very same day, it's pretty safe to assume that it will work from now on.

Let us also ignore the email written by UL executive Kevin Ryan, which later got him fired:

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov
Date: 11/11/2004

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

South Bend

The CLUE once again.
 

morkinva

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 1999
3,656
0
71
The PM hit piece is a clear conflict of interest with the cousin of Chertoff as chief editor.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/">Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man</a>
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Interesting thing is that every model has not been able to duplicate the implosions.

What's the deal with that???

Thats because the models didn't use demolition explosives.
 

Helenihi

Senior member
Dec 25, 2001
379
0
0
Originally posted by: morkinva
The PM hit piece is a clear conflict of interest with the cousin of Chertoff as chief editor.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/">Popular Mechanics Attacks Its
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man</a>

The cousin of Chertoff means its all lies? You people are hilarious.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
I'm sorry but if explosives were planted why even hit the buildings with planes? Seriously, if Al-Queda planted them then why didn't they just detonate them and be done with it instead of hijacking planes from ANOTHER CITY and flying them into the WTC and then detonating the explosives. If the gov planted the explosives why not just detonate them and claim it was AQ instead of hijacking planes from another city, etc etc...

it doesn't add up.
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,558
736
136
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'm sorry but if explosives were planted why even hit the buildings with planes? Seriously, if Al-Queda planted them then why didn't they just detonate them and be done with it instead of hijacking planes from ANOTHER CITY and flying them into the WTC and then detonating the explosives. If the gov planted the explosives why not just detonate them and claim it was AQ instead of hijacking planes from another city, etc etc...

it doesn't add up.

Exactly the point I was going to make! :thumbsup:

 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,987
1
0
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'm sorry but if explosives were planted why even hit the buildings with planes? Seriously, if Al-Queda planted them then why didn't they just detonate them and be done with it instead of hijacking planes from ANOTHER CITY and flying them into the WTC and then detonating the explosives. If the gov planted the explosives why not just detonate them and claim it was AQ instead of hijacking planes from another city, etc etc...

it doesn't add up.

It does if you're a partisan hack grasping at straws...
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
Originally posted by: morkinva
All he wants is a fair shake of an investigation. It's finally getting to the mainstream media phase, I hope.

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_314234334.html

(KUTV) PROVO, Utah A BYU professor has developed a new theory about the terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001. He believes planes alone did not bring down the world trade center.

Both towers collapsed in place after the attacks, and later that day, 7 World Trade Center, which was never hit by a plane, fell in less than seven seconds.

BYU professor Steven E. Jones says that planes alone did not bring down the towers.

The images are seared into the minds of people across the globe. We saw the planes hit, the explosions and fire so hot, fortress towers could not stand. Jones says not so fast.

"They're sticking with this one hypothesis. Its almost like they have blinders on ? and its got to be fires and damage,? says Jones.

Jones is a 20-year physics professor at BYU, who's penned an academic paper raising another hypothesis ? explosives may have been pre-positioned in the buildings.

?Notice how it's straight down,? Jones says referring to the fall of one of the buildings.

Especially intriguing to Jones was the destruction of 7 World Trade Center, damaged and ablaze from tower debris but never hit by a plane.

"Symmetrically now, it doesn't topple over, as you might expect, from what we call the second law of thermodynamics. It comes straight down. This is the goal of prepositioned explosives in a controlled demolition,? says Jones.

If explosives detonated like this ? if they did ? it begs the question.

"Who set the explosives?? 2News reporter Brian Mullahy asked Jones.

"I try not to go there because we have to answer the first question first ? the scientific issue first,? says Jones. "We need to consider all options for the collapse of these buildings. Let the chips fall where they may.?

Jones said that models conducted in tests since 9/11 have not been able to duplicate what happened to the buildings. He is not saying this is a proven theory, but rather a hypothesis. He wants a fresh new independent investigation.


(© MMV, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)


I always found it strange. My explanation was that buildings like these ones are actually made to collapse in that way no matter what, both to minimaze damage arond them in case of collapse and to provide an easy way to have them collapse in a controlled way when you want to destroy them to make space for something else. WTC 7 is pretty strange to explain. But I have no specific knowledge in this field...
 

cstegger

Junior Member
Nov 2, 2005
6
0
0
Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'm sorry but if explosives were planted why even hit the buildings with planes? Seriously, if Al-Queda planted them then why didn't they just detonate them and be done with it instead of hijacking planes from ANOTHER CITY and flying them into the WTC and then detonating the explosives. If the gov planted the explosives why not just detonate them and claim it was AQ instead of hijacking planes from another city, etc etc...

it doesn't add up.

Exactly the point I was going to make! :thumbsup:



Well not to add fuel to the conspiracy theory fire.... One reason to use planes is the idea of using commercial planes with people is to add to the insecurity of flying and traveling. This combined with the destruction of your work place would be a bit more disruptive.... This is not to say that I subscribe to the conspiracy theory.... I am just applying a little logic to BlinderBombers and PowerEngineers question.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
It's a big mess. It was unexpected because of denial. Then, PM's deal with it became a mess. Still, every conspiracy theorist comes out with the missle or charges.


One route assumes people high up in bureaucracies have good relationships, can keep secrets, can dupe entire enemy nations, and above all, are really competent.

The other assumes we're being fed the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, from the MSM. I don't buy that for a second either.

So, the simplest solution, IMO:
Foreigners are pissed off at us and our wastefulness and egotistic moral authority. They got together, trained quite a lot, and used some of our bad policies against us, to take down a symbol of our wealth. They knew they needed something more than a van.

Added explosives? Pointless.
Government cover-up? Pointless. After a thing like that, keeping order is hard enough. You think they could track all the pieces? I think it was stupid to sell the scrap, but that can easily be chalked up to stupidity.
Misinformation through the MSM: sensationalism sells ads, not truth. Reporting accurately is not as important as reporting in a way to strike fear into readers.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I'm sorry but if explosives were planted why even hit the buildings with planes? Seriously, if Al-Queda planted them then why didn't they just detonate them and be done with it instead of hijacking planes from ANOTHER CITY and flying them into the WTC and then detonating the explosives. If the gov planted the explosives why not just detonate them and claim it was AQ instead of hijacking planes from another city, etc etc...

it doesn't add up.

Because it's more dramatic.

<--- not convinced of any conspiracy
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |