Once and for all, 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not a conspiracy

I seriously doubt that that the amount of put options multiplied by nearly 2000 because a labor contract negotiation collapsed. Even so, remember that the exact same thing happened with American Airlines, Morgan Stanley, and Marsh & McLennan, all whom suffered from 9/11. So the cause of the massive put options was clearly not due to a labor contract negotiation. Are you seriously citing Wikipedia as a source? Because I would like to say when I checked, the Pentagon was vacated due to an infestation of mutant frogs with laser beams that were threatening to pull the entire building down with intergalactic time-space compressors which threatened to destroy the fabric of the universe. All joking aside, the crash was 65 ft across. A Boing 757-200, the plane that allegedly crashed, is a 124 ft across. Do the math. Furthermore, how does a crash that brought the WTC to its knees, and cause huge explosions of fire, manage to leave many highly flammable objects unharmed? The Pentagon crash does not make any sense at all.Just because he has committed other crimes does not mean that he carried out 9/11. In fact, the fact that he carried out other crimes makes him perfect to blame to 9/11, rather than make it less likely that they simply blamed him. This coincides with a commonly used propaganda tactic, scapegoating. Find a person that they can blame, and pin the whole event on them. Furthermore, the FBI even admitted that they had no hard evidence linking Osama to 9/11. And you cannot refute that the tape of Bin Laden admitting to 9/11 looks nothing like him.http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...So, the U.S is under attack, and his priority is to make sure that the children didn't freak out. The attacks were not centered in New York, they allegedly also happened in Washington D.C. "theyll come out in time dont you worry :)" I don't know if you haven't looked at a calender for the past 10 years, but that is exactly how long it's been since 9/11. That is a completely ridiculous argument. Furthermore, there is the fact that the 9/11 crashes break pretty much every single law of science and logic. You mentioned the luggage and passports. Now, how does a crash that vaporizes a plane, leave that all intact. Specifically, a passport? And if they got onto the plane with fake passports, why on earth would they bring their real passports?And then the science of the explosion. Jet fuel which is basically kerosine, and it burns at a maximum temperature of around 800°C, and now has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vaporizing 65 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of kerosine — let alone the boiling point — which is what would be required to vaporize a plane. And then there's about 50 tons of aluminum to be accounted for. In excess of 15 lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosine. And if somehow the plane did vaporize, which I have already proved is ludicrous, how did passports and luggage survive? It is absolutely ridiculous. And then, the stance is taken that the buildings collapsed due to fires caused by the burning kerosine. For this, it's necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosine which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, the kerosine not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball, vaporizing a 65 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000°C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building. The entropy law suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world. But apparently, a few thousand gallons of kerosine is enough to completely vaporize a 65 ton aircraft, have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the impact point to melt steel (melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel) and, still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building. Which is ridiculous. So lets say that the steel frames softened, and then came straight down, instead of bucking and twisting sideways. Since we've already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-defined the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way? The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free-falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that it's physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the reports, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. Apparently, the plane was enough to force down the tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.Basically, the two accepted reasons of the 9/11 twin towers collapse are both completely ludicrous.Finally, for the rest of your arguments that I have not addressed, they are technically invalid, as you haven't sourced them. http://911review.org...