No. They were bought down by extremist terrorists and a force of inhuman evil and disregard for human life.

No. What makes you think that?

No. They were crashed down by airplanes controlled by terrorists who hijacked them. It was a huge collision bringing both towers down to the ground killing thousands of people.

Of course not. This myth has been debunked time and time again.

I don't believe so. Decide for yourself: # http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm # http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=debunk+controlled+demolition+911

there is some evidence that points to it go to Google and look up loose change. either on Google video and regular search and watch the videos they have compiled. they bring up some very very good points.

Yes. In the sense that the planes that were appalingly crashed into the sides of the buildings causing a massive loss of strutural intergity and subsequent demolition were at the time controlled by terrorists.

That's been said many times. The same was asked about the attacks on Pearl Harbor. If it's true no one would ever say and if someone did people still wouldn't believe it. I don't think it's out of the question, but who knows what really happens within the inner relms of (all)governments. Provocative question though. Plus points.

maybe so- this video (at 34:23) shows a steady camera filming the tower on a tripod suddenly shake- then 9 seconds later- the tower falls. Something blow up in the basement before the tower fell? What caused the camera to shake? Also listen to eyewitness Rodriguez who heard "explosions from lower floors".(at 32:42):

The 911 Commission members that you believe had the wool pulled over their eyes; or were co-conspirators in the attack. Commission Members Thomas H. Kean (Former NJ Governor, Republican) Chair Lee H. Hamilton (Considered Mr. Integrty by both sides of the aisle in the Senate) Vice Chair Richard Ben-Veniste (leftist Democrat) Fred F. Fielding Jamie S. Gorelick Slade Gorton Bob Kerrey (Vietnam War hero, President of the New School, former Senator, Democrat) John F. Lehman Timothy J. Roemer James R. Thompson

No. The studies and analysis of all camera angles and debris (heat, where and how the metal failed) show that the protective insulation was blown off by the impact of the planes. The connections for the floor supports then gave way as they overheated. Each floor was only built to support its own weight and the weight of the contents of the floor. As each floor fell onto the one above it, it created a pancake effect all the way down. Really, one can research this. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0917_disasterbuildings.html http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I don't buy into that conspiracy theory. I saw the episode on the History Channel when they were discussing how building 7 fell and even that was properly explained as a result of being exposed to the heat from the twin towers.

I don't think so.

Nah, remember those big jets that crashed into them? I think they had something to do with it.

Magic 8-Ball says "Signs Point To Yes."

I don't be;ieve so. I think they were brought down by the heat generated by thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel which compromised the strucrural integrity of the towers.

only if you consider corparate greed a ticking timebomb

explain how explosive residues were found at ground zero? http://new-pearl-harbor.blogspot.com/2005/07/scientific-panel-investigating-nine.html The proof that the government is covering up culpability of some individuals is their refulsal to investigate. For all we know, there's another Al Qaeda cell that brought down NYC buildings, and has never been caught. But FBI attitude belies that they know what happened was committed by friends of the US Empire.

sorry seems to be in spanish america http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

9-11 LAWSUITS SUPPRESSED VICTIMS’ FAMILIES ANGERED OVER SILENCE FROM MEDIA rss202 By Christopher Bollyn While the media plays up the significance of the government show trial of the seemingly deranged “20th hijacker” Zacharias Moussaoui, not one 9-11 victim’s lawsuit has been allowed to be heard in a trial by jury. Why have the 9-11 victims’ families not been given the same right to have their cases heard in an open trial? Ellen Mariani, who lost her husband Neil on United Air Lines (UAL) Flight 175, filed the first 9-11 wrongful death lawsuit against UAL on Dec. 20, 2001. Mariani was interviewed on national television in May 2002 by Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, who repeatedly questioned her about why she had chosen to pursue litigation instead of accepting the government fund. “I want justice,” Mariani said. “I want accountability. Who is responsible? I want the truth.” Today, Mariani, like the other 9-11 plaintiffs, is under a gag order which prevents her from speaking about her ongoing lawsuit. Likewise, thousands of employees of federal agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration have received gag orders in the mail keeping them from telling what they know about the events of 9-11. After more than four years, however, Mariani’s determined pursuit for the truth about 9-11 through the court system has failed to yield any answers or discovery about who is responsible for 9-11. Today, she is no closer to obtaining what she has stated she wanted from the beginning—a trial by jury. Why have the many victims’ cases like Mariani’s, brought by relatives of loved ones lost on 9-11, not been allowed to be heard in a trial by jury—a basic American right? And why have the foreign-owned security companies involved in the shocking security lapses, which enabled the attacks of 9-11, been granted immunity by the U.S. Congress? All of the relatives’ wrongful death criminal lawsuits against the airlines and their security companies have been consolidated by the presiding judge into a negligence lawsuit, which is a civil case and much less likely to be argued or investigated in an open trial with a jury. The 9-11 wrongful death and personal injury cases against American Air Lines (AA) or UAL or any of the foreign security companies, namely Argenbright Security (British), Globe Aviation Services Corp. (Swedish) and Huntleigh USA Corp. (Israeli) are being handled by U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York. In the case of at least one of these security defendants, Huntleigh, there would seem to be a conflict of interest for the judge because the airline security company who is responsible for the shocking security lapses at both the Boston and Newark airports on 9-11 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of an Israeli company (ICTS) headed by men with clear ties to Israel’s military intelligence agency, Mossad. Hellerstein, 73, on the other hand, has deep and longstanding Zionist connections and close family ties to the state of Israel. A Zionist is a supporter of the state of Israel. Hellerstein’s wife is a former senior vice president and current treasurer of a New York-based Zionist organization called AMIT. AMIT promotes Jewish immigration to Israel and stands for Americans for Israel and Torah. AMIT’s motto is “Building Israel—One Child at a Time.” Hellerstein is a member of the Jewish Center of New York and a former president of the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York. This raises the obvious question about why, in the 9-11 terror case in which an Israeli security company is a key defendant and in which individuals from Israeli military intelligence are suspected of being involved, was Hellerstein chosen to preside over all 9-11 victim lawsuits? Huntleigh USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of an Israeli company called International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS) International N.V., a Netherlands-based aviation and transportation security firm headed by “former [Israeli] military commanding officers and veterans of government intelligence and security agencies.” Menachem Atzmon, convicted in Israel in 1996 for campaign finance fraud, and his business partner Ezra Harel, took over management of security at the Boston and Newark airports when their company ICTS bought Huntleigh USA in 1999. UAL Flight 175 and AA 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated in Boston, while UAL 93, which purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport. ICTS also operates the German port of Rostock on the Baltic Sea. Some victims’ families brought lawsuits against Huntleigh claiming the security firm had been grossly negligent on 9-11. While these relatives have a right to discovery and to know what Huntleigh did or did not do to protect their loved ones on 9-11, Huntleigh, along with the other security companies, was granted complete congressional protection in 2002 and will not be called to account for its actions on 9-11 in any U.S. court. Hellerstein, however, is not the only player overseeing the 9-11 litigation process who has close ties to Israel. In fact, all of the key players and law firms involved are either active Zionists or work for firms that do a great deal of business representing Israeli companies and/or the state of Israel. Kenneth R. Feinberg, for example, the special master of the federally funded Victims’ Compensation Fund, is also a dedicated Zionist. Feinberg single-handedly administered the $7 billion fund that paid out U.S. taxpayer money to some 97 percent of the families who could have sued to recover tort damages for monetary loss and pain and suffering. Those who accepted funds signed away their right to litigate against the government, the airlines or the security companies. The Kenneth Feinberg Group is listed as one of the top 10 supporters of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies for 2004-2005. The Jerusalem Institute is an Israel-based Zionist organization that, among other things, supports the building of the illegal separation wall across Palestine. The Feinberg Group also lists as its clients major insurance and re-insurance companies such as Lloyd’s of London. These are the companies who stood to lose billions of dollars if 9-11 victims’ lawsuits had gone forward.

No it was out of control nutters!

From what I have seen and following the laws of physics it looks like they did not fall down by themselves. If it happened as claimed the structure would be hottest on the side of building hit by the plane and the floors would topple first from that side of the building and fall sideways into the next tower,instead of straight down.Also the next building,would have collapsed much later if heat of the fuel made the structure weak,and not so close it time as the first tower.Also a third building collapsed by itself without debris hitting it.I have no concern of the conspiracy issues and that rubbish,and base my answer on the science and physics of what happens within the laws of nature.All physical laws of nature remain the same.It seems unlikely that the jet fuel could effect the total integrity of two buildings and a third one that was not hit at all.

Yes, when you watch the video carefully it shows that the way the twin towers collapsed is very similar to what happens when a building is demolished using controlled explosions. If it was caused by the airplanes hitting them, the buildings would not collapse vertically downwards as they did. not everyone is fooled.

Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? by Morgan Reynolds http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html The WTC 1 and Pentagon holes were not alone in being too small. Photos show that the hole in WTC 2 also was too small to have been caused by the crash of a Boeing 767. In fact, the South Tower hole is substantially smaller than the North Tower hole. First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC. Second, severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions was present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were suffocating," points out Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the towers, as well as police and firefighters, reported (pp. 199–200) the same thing. The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire burned for 19 hours and the fire was so extreme that flames came from dozens of windows on many floors. It did not collapse. * Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor). * By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes. * The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires. * FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order. * Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk. 1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse 2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small. 3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds. 5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it. 7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting. Professional demolition,. 1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less). 2. Each building collapsed, into its own footprint. 3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said"). 4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse. 5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air. 6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were. 8. Photos and videos show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences). 9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings, news reports, 47 Firemen tapes 10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, 11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350 o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70). Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush’s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection. There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test. More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right, "though heaven should fall." Morgan Reynolds Brigham Young Univ.

Nope - it was mice in the walls.....

yes.buildings only collapse if you weaken the bottom up,im tall buildings in this case..implosion blows the floors top to bottom.the planes crashed up top.way up top,i seen the videos over and over,certain parts of the windows of the floors blow out before the drop...God rest the unlucky ones on that fateful day.

Now that nano-thermite has been found in the dust from the towers,( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o ) the party-line may change. Nano-thermite is a super powerful explosive that was known only to the military in 2001.

People are now signing a petition to re-investigate.