[QUOTE=biayyatch]Also remember that the Madrid Tower didn't have a plane flying into it.
[IMG]http://911myths.com/assets/images/madrid_remains.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
And WTC 7 had an aircraft fly into it? News to me.
Printable View
[QUOTE=biayyatch]Also remember that the Madrid Tower didn't have a plane flying into it.
[IMG]http://911myths.com/assets/images/madrid_remains.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
And WTC 7 had an aircraft fly into it? News to me.
No, but it did suffer damage from falling debris. My point was that the top half of the Windsor building, the half that used steel columns collapsed due to fire, even though it wasn't hit by anything.
[QUOTE=ImmortalD24]And WTC 7 had an aircraft fly into it? News to me.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=biayyatch]No, but it did suffer damage from falling debris. My point was that the top half of the Windsor building, the half that used steel columns collapsed due to fire, even though it wasn't hit by anything.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.fiercefightingfemales.com/catalog/images/SlapGif1.gif[/IMG]
[quote=GOBB]Controlled demolition yet not one dropped a dime on anything huh? [/quote]
This is my take on it.
I don't buy it.
I don't believe that some of the biggest buildings in the world would be wired up in the manner the made-up conspiracies say, and not one person who wasn't evil heard about it or was involved in it and didn't talk about it or report it.
As for personal stuff, I saw both buildings fall with my own eyes while on the street. Not up close or anything, but maybe a 10-12 minute walk away. And I don't pretend to know what a giant "controlled demolition" would actually look like, but the last thing I was thinking as it was happening was "gee, that doesn't look right." (But again, I realize that this particular point is not worth much.)
But, yeah, until there's actual concrete proof of something different, I stick with the original mainstream version of the story
Jeff
I don't like debating the whole staged demolition theory. All the evidence is pretty much gone or destroyed. For every engineer that proves the official story, there's another that can debunk it. I'm not an expert in this type of science, so I can't really comment other than IMO it could have happened either way.
I sometimes believe that the staged demolition theory might be a false theory used to throw people off, and have the masses believe that any sort of conspiracy is too far fetched. The things that people need to focus more on are the holes in the intelligence and radar, whether the perpetrators could actually fly the planes at a high enough level to accomplish the attacks, the world history of state sponsored false flag terrorism (yes the U.S. has done this, Gulf of Tonkin anybody?), compartmentalization, also the policies and wars that have emerged out of and following this event.
You look into these areas, and you should be able to find more than enough documented evidence that in the very least will make you somewhat question the official story.
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt][B]I don't like debating the whole staged demolition theory. All the evidence is pretty much gone or destroyed. For every engineer that proves the official story, there's another that can debunk it. I'm not an expert in this type of science, so I can't really comment other than IMO it could have happened either way.[/B]
I sometimes believe that the staged demolition theory might be a false theory used to throw people off, and have the masses believe that any sort of conspiracy is too far fetched. The things that people need to focus more on are the holes in the intelligence and radar, whether the perpetrators could actually fly the planes at a high enough level to accomplish the attacks, the world history of state sponsored false flag terrorism (yes the U.S. has done this, Gulf of Tonkin anybody?), compartmentalization, also the policies and wars that have emerged out of and following this event.
[B]You look into these areas, and you should be able to find more than enough documented evidence that in the very least will make you somewhat question the official story.[/B][/QUOTE]
How can you debunk a story when all the evidence is gone?:facepalm Your post is a mess.
[QUOTE=insidehoops]This is my take on it.
I don't buy it.
I don't believe that some of the biggest buildings in the world would be wired up in the manner the made-up conspiracies say, and not one person who wasn't evil heard about it or was involved in it and didn't talk about it or report it.
As for personal stuff, I saw both buildings fall with my own eyes while on the street. Not up close or anything, but maybe a 10-12 minute walk away. And I don't pretend to know what a giant "controlled demolition" would actually look like, but the last thing I was thinking as it was happening was "gee, that doesn't look right." (But again, I realize that this particular point is not worth much.)
But, yeah, until there's actual concrete proof of something different, I stick with the original mainstream version of the story
Jeff[/QUOTE]
Plus if you were like me, this is ALL anyone talked about for weeks. I knew way way too much about what happened, when they fell, who was inside, what it was like for the fireman nearby, etc. Then once the conspiracy talk got hot, everything got totally rewritten. All these "facts" were information first reported long after everything was done. (Note: i did not see them fall, but i was within earshot quite a long distance away. The fact other buildings fell strikes me as less than schocking.)
And again everyone, the fact you think WTC 7 was part of some grand conspiracy is amazing. It's WTC 7! Who the **** would pick that building?
i used to buy into the conspiracy theory about this but not really now.
[QUOTE=jbot]i used to buy into the conspiracy theory about this but not really now.[/QUOTE]
i just don't get why it's such a ridiculous convuluted conspiracy. If it was Bush knew attack was coming, allowed it to further his middle east agenda, it makes sense. Debateable, but makes sense. But there are missles firing, buildings wired to blow up, etc.
[QUOTE=Jello]How can you debunk a story when all the evidence is gone?:facepalm Your post is a mess.[/QUOTE]
How can you prove a story either? :cheers:
My point is most of the "physical" evidence from the World Trade Center sites are gone by now, so IMO it is a dead end debate. Unless you are an expert in plane wrecks, engineering, physics, or demolition. Then you can speculate based on your expertise, for which there are thousands doing so on each side of the debate.
As for the circumstantial or documented evidence in regard to intelligence agency blunders, military ops, an understanding of compartmentalization, the method of false flag terror, and current political policies driven from the event, then IMO there is plenty of evidence for anyone to be skeptical of the official version.
But to each his own.
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt]How can you prove a story either? :cheers:
My point is most of the "physical" evidence from the World Trade Center sites are gone by now, so IMO it is a dead end debate. Unless you are an expert in plane wrecks, engineering, physics, or demolition. Then you can speculate based on your expertise, for which there are thousands doing so on each side of the debate.
As for the circumstantial or documented evidence in regard to intelligence agency blunders, military ops, an understanding of compartmentalization, the method of false flag terror, and current political policies driven from the event, then IMO there is plenty of evidence for anyone to be skeptical of the official version.
But to each his own.[/QUOTE]
So did Dog the Bunty hunter help find the demo crew that rigged those buildings?
[QUOTE=GOBB]So did Dog the Bunty hunter help find the demo crew that rigged those buildings?[/QUOTE]
:roll: F if I know and no one will ever know that's the point. Lol.