You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 9/11
The government theory is far from sound. If it were there wouldn't be millions of Americans believing otherwise. Even you must accept that.
It's hard to accept because it shouldn't be possible. In almost all the scenarios presented the government has changed the story, used far fetching arguments and incredible coincidences. Spending years and millions explaining something is not evident of something sound and reasonable. I'd accept a fair share of these, but when it's a story composed of multiple near-impossibilities I just have to step back and say; "Wait a minute."
A passport flying out of the pocket, through the flames and down on the street unscathed?
A plane totally disintegrating, but yet able to ID bodies (which we've never seen)?
80 cameras, but none showing a plane? And the one which supposedly did took 3 years to reach the public?
None of the hijackers names appearing on flight lists, some still alive.
Bombs in the basement?
Bin Laden not wanted for the attacks on fbi.gov?
Anthrax from U.S. military labs?
Flight 93 scattered over 15 miles?
WTC1,2&7 being the first buildings in history to collapse due to fire? On the same day?
White House attendee and ISI chief wiring Atta a 100k, but no subsequent investigation?
Impossible flight maneuvers by amateurs?
Cheney refusing to act, testified in court?
War games depicting similar scenarios on the same morning, effectively drawing fighter defense away from Washington? If the hijackers knew about it and exploited it, where's the investigation into that?
Pre-written legislation introduced days after?
Mossad agents filming and celebrating the attacks wearing Arab clothing? Apprehended, but later released quietly?
The Taliban willing to extradite Bin Laden if evidence was presented?
Where is that evidence by the way? Going on 7 years now.
Please.
These are not the markings of a sound explanation, they are those of a smoking gun.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
so I say again, provide me with a linear theory of what happened. No one has been able to do so. Some of your examples aren't facts, such as bombs in the basement. The official story is the most realistic and has the most documentation to support it. It doesn't rely on youtube videos with no source or interviews with people who weren't there or have no experience in the field related to the collaps of the tower. The few witnesses that claim to have seen these alternate events are few and far between when counted among the thousands who say otherwise. The biggest reason I support the government version is because eveything they say can happen and is grounded in reality. Holograms and drones aren't.
Re: 9/11
Compare what was said the first day with everything that came after. There's the reason most claim otherwise. Television is a powerful tool. It's a psychological phenomenon.
Other than that, I obviously can't help you. Not that that was ever your intention anyway.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: 9/11
It was certainly interesting that such high profile buildings were able to collapse due to fire. You'd think they would be much safer than that. And now what are we doing? We're building another tower there that will be 1776 feet tall. Perhaps this time around they'll make damn sure that it's the safest building ever created.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
I don't know if you can make a building completely safe from a 747 completely filled with fuel.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
It also seems counter productive to oppose legislation that allows us to maintain eyes on people inside the US that would plan such events as well as extract information from them.
- Communist China
- Rep: 130
Re: 9/11
The government theory is far from sound. If it were there wouldn't be millions of Americans believing otherwise. Even you must accept that.
It's hard to accept because it shouldn't be possible. In almost all the scenarios presented the government has changed the story, used far fetching arguments and incredible coincidences. Spending years and millions explaining something is not evident of something sound and reasonable. I'd accept a fair share of these, but when it's a story composed of multiple near-impossibilities I just have to step back and say; "Wait a minute."
A passport flying out of the pocket, through the flames and down on the street unscathed?
A plane totally disintegrating, but yet able to ID bodies (which we've never seen)?
80 cameras, but none showing a plane? And the one which supposedly did took 3 years to reach the public?
None of the hijackers names appearing on flight lists, some still alive.
Bombs in the basement?
Bin Laden not wanted for the attacks on fbi.gov?
Anthrax from U.S. military labs?
Flight 93 scattered over 15 miles?
WTC1,2&7 being the first buildings in history to collapse due to fire? On the same day?
White House attendee and ISI chief wiring Atta a 100k, but no subsequent investigation?
Impossible flight maneuvers by amateurs?
Cheney refusing to act, testified in court?
War games depicting similar scenarios on the same morning, effectively drawing fighter defense away from Washington? If the hijackers knew about it and exploited it, where's the investigation into that?
Pre-written legislation introduced days after?
Mossad agents filming and celebrating the attacks wearing Arab clothing? Apprehended, but later released quietly?
The Taliban willing to extradite Bin Laden if evidence was presented?
Where is that evidence by the way? Going on 7 years now.
Please.
These are not the markings of a sound explanation, they are those of a smoking gun.
See, if the government did it, there would've been fewer holes in the story. Seriously, they could've faked it way better than that.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: 9/11
It also seems counter productive to oppose legislation that allows us to maintain eyes on people inside the US that would plan such events as well as extract information from them.
People die every day. That doesn't mean you throw the constitution out the window first chance you get.
See, if the government did it, there would've been fewer holes in the story. Seriously, they could've faked it way better than that.
Why? I don't see anybody in jail.
- tejastech08
- Rep: 194
Re: 9/11
You see Randall, my opposition to such legislation is that such practices are used against normal, good Americans. That's my problem with it. Otherwise I'm all for keeping an eye on them (potential terrorists). We obviously didn't do it before 9/11 so it's certainly something that should be addressed...and it actually has to a large degree.
