"Pega" <Peg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:QbyBj.309108$of3.57146@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hotblack Desiato wrote:
>> "Pega" <Peg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:KLsBj.308967$GI1.289498@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Hotblack Desiato wrote:
>>>> No answer again. You promised a lot and delivered next to nothing..
>>>> well done.. an improvement on nothing at all
>>> There you go chum, all the answers you need:
>>>
>>>
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/outgoing.cgi?u=http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
>>> http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
>>> http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
>>>
>>
>> The popular mechanics article cited, has been debated and questioned on
>> many fronts by many people... Google ....
>
> How about the NIST?
>
>>
>> Still, freefall is a little difficult to accept.
>
> First off, it was not a free fall, though close.
>
> Second, this is what I don't understand about the conspiracy theorists
> that are honest, sincere. That they have trouble "accepting" what has
> transpired in front of their eyes.
>
> Now those profiteering s*** like the "loose change" type, that actually
> are living off the 911 conspiracy theory industry, I understand, I know
> why they spew intentional bull**** and dumbdumb; they earn money off of
> it. But the honest guys, I don't understand why anybody in their right
> mind would think that the fact that wtc7 went down some hours later in
the
> way that it did go down, that it is a proof of the conspiracy.
It isn't, I haven't tried to prove anything. I have to say that the vast
majority of conspiracy theories I've heard, suffer from the same problem
as
the Osama theory.. They lack credible, tangible evidence
The only point I'd make is that because such oddities as wtc7, molten
steel
found in the rubble, lack of FAA response when clear protocols exist for
suspected hijackings.. etc etc, there's a lot more. Because these occured
on
9-11, I don't feel that questioning the accepted course of events, is an
unreasonable stance to take.
The behaviour which is unreasonable, is hanging on the word of the likes
of
Alex Jones, like he's some sort of new-age demi-God
Just
> think for a moment, if you would be concocting such an assassination to
> your own country wouldn't you be AVOIDING such suspicion arousing
actions
> as brining down buildings in a controlled demolition manner hours after
> the main event? And WHY would they need to do such a thing? They can
> restrict access to anything and everything, WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO BLOW
UP
> A BUILDING JUST TO DESTROY SOME DO***ENTS!?!?!
There's always going to be suspicious people when events like this occur.
There's no reason to be particularly concerned, as they'll be labled
idiots
anyway. So yeah, wtc7 does look very odd and a lot of people have pointed
at
it as a smoking gun, but no one's paying any attention anyhow.. In fact,
they're actively dismissing it as whacko BS without a further thought....
So
there isn't a problem. Assuming there was a conspiracy, the victims of
that
conspiracy are covering the tracks on behalf of the conspirators..
I can only think of one reason such a conspiracy would be carried out,
and
that's to create widespread panic and terror. You want to destroy
do***ents,
buy a shredder from Woolworths
as some
> moronic CT's suggest? Why would they claim that a plane went down in the
> plains of shanksville and NOT bring down a plane there?
Well again, this is people offering speculation. The events surrounding
9-11
have far too damn much of that as it is
Why would they
> explode a missile over at the pentagon in the first place? Isn't what
> happened at the WTC ENOUGH to start a war on any nation on ANY scale?
Possibly yes, possibly no. Attacking the central command of the world's
superpower, is certainly going to have a tangible effect on the psyche of
the nation at large
>
>>
>> The Popular Mechanics article really doesn't answer...
>
> Just read up on the other sites also and think with some common sense
for
> a while. Most of the CT bull**** turns in on itself when you think for a
> mere split second as to the underlying reasons.
I have no problem with the fact that a lovely little cottage industry has
grown up around 9-11 CT, and most of what's spouted is utter BS. We're in
agreement there
The thing to bare in mind is that no matter how much BS these buffoons
spout, it's never going to make the accepted explanation fit any better.
IE,
the people questioning the accepted 'common sense' on this issue, are no
more persuaded than they were before the CT lot opened their mouths.
There seem to be a lot of people on both sides, who are so persuaded that
their version of events were what transpired on 9-11 and anyone who thinks
differently needs their head examined. This with so little evidence,
especially when we get on to the 'who' and the 'why'
I think I'd have been more conviced of the accepted explanations for how
wtc7 fell, if it had actually been treated like a crime scene and the
cause
properly investigated. With all the tangible evidence cleared away, what
is
there but speculation and conjecture from highly qualified guessers?
>
> OTOH, I do agree that criminal bush and his gang are much capable of
doing
> MUCH more damage, intentional damage, to their own people, we all KNOW
> that that's a fact as it is transpriring before our own eyes, the damage
> they can do. There might be other aspects, other conspiracies yes, but
> this one was what happened as it happened.
Yes of course, but what did we actually see happen. The visuals were a
tiny
part of what was going on and the rest has been filled in courtesy of the
media, government and highly paid guessers.
You have to ask yourself, would a court of law be convinced by all this
unsubstantiated waffle? And if it wouldn't, why is it expected that WE
should be convinced?
|
