San Diego Housing Market News and Analysis
Off Topic - Did this really happen?
User Forum Topic
Submitted by powayseller on December 15, 2006 - 3:51pm
Warning - this could be upsetting to some people.
I'm tired of hearing all these conspiracy theories about 9/11. They make a lot of sense, but I don't want to believe that our government would and could do such a horrible thing.
The conspiracy theorists say the ultimate purpose of 9/11 was to create a pre-text for the Afghanistan and Iraq war and to reduce our constitutional rights via the Patriot Act.
I am asking for anyone to debunk this story, by former SGT Lauro Chavez, United States Central Command, who gives several items of proof, per his own eye witness accounts, that the 9/11 attacks were ordered and executed by our government.
Please tell me if this guy is lying. Please only respond to this thread only if you have read Sgt Chavez' letter, and debunk each of his points.
I'm also wondering about the small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon, and the odd collapse of the 3 World Trade Center towers, which according to some physicists and structural engineers fell by planned demolition and could not possibly fall in that manner by a plane. World Trade Center 7 was not hit by a plane or any significant debris, but yet fell in 6.5 seconds, only .5 second faster than gravity. If the towers actually pancaked as the official story goes, they could not fall at the rapid pace of free-fall, giving zero resistance, which is impossible. The intense amount of debris and steel beams thrown indicate a lot of resistance, so we have 2 conflicts: a rapid fall showing no resistance and debris showing a lot of resistance. Only demolition can reconcile this fall.
" steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
t's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.
According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.
This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.
A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes, each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers, two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn't, all collapsed in essentially the same way."
"How does a buildings concrete foundation get pulverized to dust by a plane that crashed into the upper portion of the building? Why did hundreds of firefighters come forward and say that they heard explosives going off in the twin towers before and after that planes hit?"
I hope these people are wrong, wrong, wrong, but their arguments are logical, and that's why I am asking for the input/feedback of the very smart people on this forum. I have a curious logical mind, and I am very troubled by this matter.
~Active forum topics~