I heard this from my dad it's pretty freaky how the pictures of the twin towers and the pentagon similar to they did on 9/11. Check out this website,(it only shows the back of the bill when folded but it also works for the pentagon not just the wtc.\nhttp://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml
209160
Very Interesting. I have see variations of this before and it is intriguing indeed. I am curious if other currency from around the world would depict similar tragedies. Or perhaps that was a little "Final Destination" action going on there.\n\nUnfortunately, All systems eventually fail. All great Governments Fall.\n\nSee:    Rome Empire\n\n\n\nGreat Web-site! Reminds me of "Mad Magazine!"
655543
How's this for a conspiracy theory.\n\nhttp://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/
593281
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:\nWhy the Official Account Cannot Be True\nDavid Ray Griffin\nAuthorized Version (with references & notes)\n\n \n\n \n\nIn The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.\n\n     But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.\n\n     In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005.\n\nI will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise the same question about building 7.\n\n \n\n \n\n1. The Collapse of the Twin Towers\n\n \n\nShortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government’s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.\n\nBut what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories---let’s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design---scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.\n\n     With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.\n\n \n\nNo Prior Collapse Induced by Fire\n\nThe official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high
265775
Legally speaking, it is a brilliant strategy! Obviously, any self-respecting al-Qaeda operative (is that an oxymoron?) will plan everything in graphic detail on ordinary, everyday domestic telephone lines. This is exactly how we foiled those vicious bastards on 9/11, remember? We were all over that plan... erm... no, wait. Well, if our dictator-for-life wants it, it just has to be good for us, right? I mean, that's what life under an ultra right-wing neo-fascist regime is all about, isn't it? Welcome to America! Love it or leave it!\n\n(God, did I just say that? Even in a satirical context that felt dirty... I'll go have a thorough wash, lol...)
176560
Try this link. It will reveal and answer a lot of questions you may have.\n\nhttp://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-in-plane-site.html\n\nI dont believe a plane crashed into the pentagon. Flight 93 was made up. The planes that crashed into the WTC's were not commercial airlines. There is no proof! With all the video footage... you never really see the commercial logos. It's all bogus.\n\nThink about it. Why would the government do this? To create FEAR! This is the new era. There is no more cold war. No more bad super power. So where does the government turn for war? To an invisible word called "Terrorist". The war on terrorism is only a few words. \n\nFear makes me people more controllable. They spend more. They submit to anything that will protect them. And in exchange for it all is our freedom.
101061
I think there was more to the high-jacking than we have been told. Why I do not know...There has been a lot of talk about the way the twin towers fell. \nThank you for sending this I have enjoyed.
170458
Yes  I Know The Facts\nLarry Silverstein Purchased The WTC Within A Year Of The Attacks And 6 Months B4 The Attacks(9/11), He Insured The WTC Complex For A RECORD 7 BILLION $$(With A Clause In The Policy SPECIFICALLY Covering A TERRORIST ATTACK)\n\nWell.. Mr. Silverstein Recently Purchased The Sears Tower And A Short Time Ago, Insured It For ANOTHER RECORD(UnDisclosed)Amount....\n\nThe SECURITY For WTC Was Provided By (Get This) MARVIN BUSH\nA Brother To George W And Jeb(Which May Explain How The FOLLOWING May Have Occurred)\n\nIt Is Being Investigated That The Buildings Were RIGGED For CONTROLLED FALL( Which Would Have Taken MONTHS)\nIncluding Building #7 (Which Was NOT HIT BY A PLANE And Had Minimal Fire Damage)\nIt Has Been Stated By Structural Engineers(Independant Of The Hokey Investigation By The Bush Crime Family)That It WAS NOT POSSIBLE That WTC 1 and 2 COLLAPSED From The Impact Of The Planes That Hit Them\nThe REASON BLDG 7 Was Destroyed Was To Conceal The EVIDENCE That The Buildings Were Dropped From A Control Bunker In The Basement(Where The Technicians "Ignited The Fuses" So To Speak)\nIt Is VERY Difficult To PROVE As The EVIDENCE Of These Crimes ( THE DEBRIS FROM THE COLLAPSES)Were HURRIED AWAY TO CHINA For RECYCLING After The Disaster\nThe So Called TERRORISTS That Were SUPPOSEDLY Flying Those Planes (Mohammed Atta And His 19 Friends) Well..16 Of The 19 Are In Fact Proven ALIVE With The Other 3 UnAccounted For ,But Presumed ALIVE\nIt Has Been Speculated That The 2 Planes Tht Hit The Towers Were Remotely Operated By The Military With NOONE Aboard\nFlight 93 (The One That "CRASHED" In PA) Is In Fact STILL In Service\nAnd At This Time , There Is NO EVIDENCE That A Plane Crashed Into The Pentagon, Although Something(A US Tomahawk Missile???) Did Fly Into And Destroy A Portion Of It\n\nWhat Ive Told You Is In EVIDENCE In A Theory Behind The Trade Center Attack Being An INSIDE JOB ORCHESTRATED By The BUSH Crime Family , And BLAMED On TERRORISTS So That Bush Could ILLEGALLY Go To War(Without The Approval Of Congress)\n\nFor MORE On This See: Alex Jones At Ground Zero\n\nhttp://martiallaw911.info/video.htm...\n\nSee Also: Loose Change 2nd Edition (Google It)\n\nIMPEACH BUSH NOW\n\nhttp://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html\n\nhttp://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm\n\nhttp://www.realestatejournal.com/propertyreport/newsandtrends/20040312-starkman.html\n\nhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm\n\nhttp://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/collapse%20update/index.htm\n\nhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/070805alternativemedia.htm\n\nhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm\n\nhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/160605governmentcomplicit.htm\n\nhttp://martiallaw911.info/video.htm
654424
Absolutely absurd. How could the US have helped 9/11? Why would  they? How would no one have come up with any credible evidence after all these years? What reason is there to think that it was not a well-planned attack, run by a large group of Arab terrorists? I think that is the story that fits the evidence.\n\nThey're not addressed in any plausible way. Vast conspiracies don't actually happen or work. Someone always finds out, and yet there's no evidence of this conspiracy.\n\nEdit: Jets did not intercept the planes because they are stationed hundreds of miles from where they were and were not alerted until shortly before the planes crashed. The FAA notified NORAD at 8:40 and planes were scrambled 6 minutes later, 153 miles from the World Trade Center and the first plane crashed at about that time. http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2002_06_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html#77997492\n\nThe buildings fell quickly because they were crashed into by giant airliners. It seems like a building like that should be able to withstand more, but neither you, nor I, nor Ruppert, nor even the engineers who built the towers know what it is like for a plane to crash into a building. The commission report clearly states that the plane struck main support beams and started fires that raged at intense temperatures, further weakining the already weakened supports. Once that happens it doesn't take long for a building to collapse onto itself.\n\nAs for WTC7, the report is clear enough that fires were started on several floors by debris. People say it looks too controlled, but they failr to realize that buildings that tall are made to crumble down and not out. If a main beam buckles, there's no momentum to throw debris out - the force is all down.\n\nHow long it took to form a commission is a question I have myself, but that alone does not make a conspiracy.\n\nAs for explosions, see this: http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/ExplosivesDebunked.html
335704
Did you know Babylon is the Great city which is  New York and the "whore of Babylon" is the statue of Liberty. When it state babylon "IS FALLEN, IS FALLEN" THATS THE WTC "IS FALLEN TWICE IS BECAUSE BOTH TOWERS OF BABYLON WERE COMING DOWN. Just like Babylon of old the tower of the world power fell. then it goes on to say that a angel took a stone and cast it in the sea and that Great city was seen no more.\n\nAnd no the want close the borders.
644387
It would probably be more symbolic than anything.  The Sears Tower is the tallest building in the United States, and terrorists are into symbolism and such.  That's why they attacked the WTC - it was the symbol of America's economic might.  The Pentagon was attacked because it's the symbol of America's military might.
260979
The buildings looked like they were professionally demoed. Plus, some of the people questioning the matter have been killed in accidents or murders. \n\nI don't know if Bush himself knew about it or not, but I find the whole thing suspicious. Plus, there was no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon. No wings, no footage from security cameras. But then the question is if it wasn't the plane that hit, where's the plane with all of those passengers? Also, what did explode at the Pentagon? I heard on the news at first that it was a truck bomb, then it was changed.\n\nbradsgranny, Bush has said he wasn't interested in Osama's whereabouts since the Iraq invasion.
178537
Neither destiny nor coincidence: it's a hoax.\nNone of the planes involved in the 9/11 attacks had the flight number "Q33 NY". The flight numbers of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers were in fact "11" and "175". Find more details at the link below.
149764
I don't believe the official version of the 9/11.\nIf it was true why the government don't show us the videos of the plane crash at the Pentagon, Why the remains of the WTC were quickly destroyed, how can WTC 7 collapse with a small fire? Why the government and the EPA lied about the air quality surrounding the WTC after the collapse and putting the lives of hundreds if not thousands of men and women who were helping the recoveries in danger (most of them have health illness related to poor air quality these days)? Why the government can't give us the proper answers to these question. \nWhy can't we believe the government ? They lied for the war in Iraq, where's the WMD ? but at least we have remove the dictator.\n\nHere is one evidence of the collapse of the buildings were "pulled intentionally"\nA presentation made by professor Steven E. Jones.\nhttp://www.cerebellum.tv/fvideo/byu.php...\nThe power point slides\nhttp://www.checktheevidence.com/911/byus...\n\nEven in the 1960s the government were willing to create "terrorism" in order to attack cuba\nhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
292636
It is the same footage because before it was leaked, now it has been officially released. This is what I heard here but I havn't been in the US since last november. Your link was the first i saw this footage leaked or released.\n\nCan't tell that it's a plane. My computers not great and it's a small viewing box but I guess enough have said it's not great where I believe that a larger view wouldn't help much. It also appears to come in horizontally only fueling my suspicion. I imagine a plane would come in at an angle, especially since the pentagon is not that high. Never flew a plane but flew enough simulators to know skimming across the ground that low ain't easy, especially for someone with little flight experience and probably never flew an actual jumbo jet before. Looks like a rocket fired sideways like in an explosion test. I can't tell it's even the pentagon. If they hoped to clear up rumors that doesn't help. They really did it anyway to remind us why we fight.
335008
what a load of poo!!\n\nThe hoaxster is apparently quite willing to bend the truth to fit the story. Flight 77 was carrying 64 people not 65 as claimed in the email. The message also claims that Flight 77 hit the Twin Towers. However, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, not the World Trade Center. \n\nIn addition, the email states that the "total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254". However, this is untrue. Various reliable sources concur that the total number of people on the hijacked planes was 265 (see Data Table below). If you subtract the 19 hijackers, the total number of victims on the planes (passengers and crew) was 246 not 254. Neither 265 nor 246 add up to eleven.\n\n\nThe second part of the message claims that Chapter 9 Verse 11 (9.11) of the Islamic holy book the Quran contains a startling prophecy presumably related to the US invasion of Iraq. However, research indicates that the quoted verse does not appear in the Quran at all. Chapter 9 Verse 11 of the Quran is concerned with repentance and charity. Other translations may differ slightly in wording but carry essentially the same message. None make mention of the "wrath of the Eagle" or any other elements contained in the "verse" quoted in the message.\n\nCertainly, this combination of symbols is likely to make even the most cynical readers do a double take when they first observe it. However, a minimal amount of research reveals that the Wingdings claim is based on an outrageous lie and therefore has no validity what so ever. None of the planes involved in the 9/11 attacks had the flight number "Q33 NY". The flight numbers of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers were in fact "11" and "175". Clearly, someone has simply made up this supposed flight number in an attempt to make the spurious claim seem valid. \n\nThere is more at the link\nhttp://www.hoax-slayer.com/wingdings-911.html
522569
What are you talking about the official story you mean as reported by the media, they are only reporting what they see and told to report.   If you don't know that already then this is why you have doubts about everything. \n\nWe don't and cannot know everything, proven by further investigations days months years later.  You see people come forward and offer their own thoughts or recollections on the matter, some choose to further the thought or idea and controversy is born.  \n\nAll I know is that it was devastating not only for the US but for the world, this was the World Trade Centre, it was a blow not only to the US but to all the world and it was terrorism, and I refuse to believe any government in the free world would have any part in it and still be re-elected by its people.  If this is the case than we have already lost all that our forefathers faught for, liberty, freedom of speech, prosperity, everything is fake and we might as well be living as in the movie the Matrix.
65562
Claim: First is that there was NO plane found at or near the pentagon. \n\nFact: A disintegrated American Airlines Boeing 757-223 (N644AA) was found on the lawn and inside of the Pentagon.\n\nClaim: a janitor in the first tower who heard an explosion in the basement minutes before the plane hit.\n\nFact: Thousands of other people heard and saw the explosion come from over their heads. Video images show Boeing 767’s hitting both of the towers.\n\nClaim: Also, research was done on the flights, and most cross country flights are booked to capacity but those 4 that day (towers, pentagon, flight 93) were all booked to LESS than half capacity, as if they knew what was going to happen.\n\nFact: Load factors for American and United Airlines had been very low on all flights. They were already hemorrhaging money and United eventually went into bankruptcy. American is still losing their shirt. This was competition in action…not predestination.\n\nClaim: The pilots apparently weren't good and I think he said 1 or 2 didn't even have the pilot’s license.\n\nFact: The pilots (I assume you mean the terrorist pilots) had enough training to steer an airliner into a building. You don’t need to be much beyond a private pilot with some internet information available to be able to fly an airliner in a reckless manner into a large target. But you probably couldn’t do it twice.\n\nClaim: The article alluded that the government had a lot to do with (or planned attacks)... ran out of characters :-(\n\nFact: The government’s too big to keep a secret this big. Too many people have big mouths…and coordinating a mass suicide would not be something many people would agree to get involved with.