Do you believe the WTC's were brought down by demolitions??

The buildings were brought down by the planes crashing into them.

9/11 Controlled Demolition Theory Debunked

They sure were..

Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, and Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer at Clemson University, say that without the use of explosives to destroy the buildings' internal support structure, the fall of the towers violates conservation of momentum

9/11 conspiracy theories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Unless the universe's fundamental laws changed for the day of 9/11 there is no way the planes took down two highly reinforced steel buildings. You could see thermite pouring out of the towers for goodness sake!

That is their opinion and they are entitled to it. Photographic evidence provided in my link above disputes their theory and shows the buildings bowing.

Wikipedia can be accessed by anyone and everyone to edit. It is personal opinion, nothing more. My link has the photos that prove the building was bowing.

Credible Source? Not Wikipedia
Posted by Pete Bekisz, 2/7/06 at 9:52:01 AM.

By: Jacob Hall, Associate Writer

Has this ever happened to you? Having put off your final research paper until the week before it’s due, you find yourself frantically searching the Internet for sources that match what you want to write about. The pressure is on, and you’ll cite just about anything as long as it backs up your point of view.

It’s this situation that produces works cited pages with sources like wikipedia.com, time.com, salon.com, and even glamour.com. While these sources are fine for recreational reading, they don’t merit inclusion in a research paper for several reasons. A magazine’s articles are short and include many illustrations, as well as advertisements. They’re reviewed by staff editors who are likely not experts in the field that is the article’s topic. They have no bibliographies. In the case of wikipedia, there is no review process. Anyone in the world can publish a page for students to find. These sources are read for entertainment as much as for information, which is why they’re so popular. However, their purpose is commercial success, not academic accuracy.......

More at this link:
Welcome to the Monroe Doctrine : Credible Source? Not Wikipedia

geocities link?? interesting.


You don't need the wikipedia site.
All the same info can be found on the physcists own website:
In this paper I question the “official” story that the collapses of the high-rise World Trade Center buildings on 9-11-01 were

The photos in my link don't lie. They clearly show the building bending inwards. All kinds of conspiracy theories, but never an explanation of who planted the explosives. Who planted the explosives?

I guess no one was paying attention to the people drilling holes in the structures of the buildings. Oh yes, they must of also ignored all the wiring that was needed to setup this controlled demolition. Wait...they this must have happened with the WTC's were closed. They must of tore down all the walls, did what they needed to do, then put all new walls up so no one can see the wires?? Does this make any sense??

How in the world can controlled demolitions be installed in the WTC, behind everyone's back.

Oh and the best point would be, how the hell could the US government hold a secret! Something like this would have been leaked a very long time ago.

Nothing adds up.

Smoking gun:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem1....down.soon.wmv

This is a photo of the shell of the building. It has nothing to do with the stability of the building and its core.