They really think we are that stupid

There show on the 9/11 conspiracy made more sense than the government blowing up the buildings.
Hell, I don't give the government that much credit.
They can't do anything right, what makes you think they could sneak in a bunch of people and blow it up undetected?
It is more believable that terrorists or illegals blew up the buildings, not actual Americans or the government.

Anyway they interviewed Architects and engineers that say the towers went straight down because the steel heated up where the planes hit, those floors couldn't support the floors above it.
Once they started to fall there was nothing going to stop the whole thing from falling.
They did tests and showed examples on this show, it wasn't all talk and no action.

I don't know about the UN and the AGW thing on National Geographic, I didn't see it.
It seems to me just because some of their programming is questionable doesn't mean all of it is.

What do you mean by they, what are you talking about?
Well if you believe the conspiracies out there, more of "them" have to keep the secrets than "they" can't pull a few strings.

Are you trying to link these all together, these are separate issues.
I don't believe anything any politician does especially when it comes to commissions.
They are all a joke including the 9/11 commission, some of those responsible for the problem from the Clinton Administration were on the panel for starters.

I would rather fire every politician and media person in DC and start over.

 

Never said "who" did it....just that the building came down by design, not because of some outside force, like fire.

No high rise building has ever come down because of a fire. None. Zero. Nada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flabengal
Come on Sourdoughman....do you believe the Warren Commission, too?

I'm not trying to link them together regarding who was responsible. What I am saying is that THE OFFICIAL STORY DOES NOT FIT THE FACTS.

Do you disagree? Which facts are those that you don't think fit with what I am saying?

 

Let's suppose for a moment that this was an elaborate conspiracy aimed at giving Bush a chance to strike at Bin Ladin or whatever.

Would not flying planes into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol be sufficient to enrage the American people? Why would the demolition of Building 7 be so critical as to jeopardize the entire plan by attempting to secretly prepare the charges at great risk of being discovered. Even so, once the 1st part of the "plan" went off so smoothly, why was it necessary to give the "pull" command AFTER the towers had already collapsed? Why risk it all just so Building 7 could be destroyed? It makes no sense. It doesn't pass the smell test. You are cherry picking seeming inconsistencies and surmising that it points to a conspiracy when, in fact, there is overwhelming evidence to show that this was indisputedly an attack on America by Islamic radical terrorists.

 

The building came down because terrorists hijacked airplanes and used them as missiles, end of story in this case.
There never has been any evidence to point in any other direction through all the pictures, volunteers, fireman, police, news media, witnesses present.
That is a lot of people to pay off if the building was brought down by design.
Thousands of people would have to be paid off.

Yes and neither did the WTC.
2 really big missiles called planes took out the support beams followed by jet fuel and fire that weakened what was left.
The middle floors could no longer support the upper floors and once the upper ones fell nothing could stop the force to bring down the towers.
It was terrible.

I think you have your facts wrong.
I have stated above why I think your facts are wrong.
Too many people would be involved and payed off from government officials, demolition crews, security guards, newsmedia, etc.
Thousands of people would be involved one way or the other.

Btw, Martin wasn't there that day, maybe he was involved?:insane:
Hey Martin, you have some extra dough laying around?opcorn:

 

"Romm explains that cold weather doesn't cause snow. What brings the flakes down is a combination of cold and precipitation. And since warmer air holds more moisture, global warming and heavy snowfall can coexist, so long as temperatures keeping dipping below 32 degrees."

FOXNews.com - Global Warming Debate Heats Up in Wake of Record Snowstorms

this simplistic explanation makes sense to a layman.

 

i was just logging on to post there is a first time for everything. and holy sh*t there really is. now flabengal has gone and made me agree with sdm. never thought that'd happen! now i need to get back in the shower.

anyway, as i said there is a first time for everything. like first time for a building that has been sprayed by jet fuel, burning hotter, to burn all day. while at the same time being shook at the foundation by the ground impact (or whatever you want to call it) of the first two towers falling. that had to have been like a small earthquake rocking the foundation of a building already under stress. when has that happened before? zip, nada, none. given what all that building was subjected to that day, it easily could have made it "a first".

by fla's logic, if something hasnt happened before, then it just flat out cant happen. period. that just boggles my mind.

fla, arent you the one (if i remember correctly from a previous thread) a practicing catholic? if so, why? i mean, by your logic, there is no way that the birth of jesus was a virgin birth. it had never before happened in history, so no way did it happen that way. there goes pretty much the basis of the religion as the immaculate conception and resulting birth of christ never happened. i expect a full renunciation of your religion here, since i know you will want to follow your own rule of "it never happened before so it cant be valid".

me, i'll just go on believing my religion which contains that "first". along with the fact that building 7 fell because of the stresses of fire, jet fuel, etc, and other things that happened because f'ing terrorists flew planes in to two other buildings.

 

wtf you think you're doing, bring this thread back to the original topic. :huh::hihi:

 

Well there is no dispute that those closest that are for man made global warming are there on worst enemy through climate gate and lies.
As long as you have people claiming global warming is responsible for everything including earthquakes smart people won't take you seriously.
Global warming can't cause everything.
How do you explain strange weather hundreds or thousands of years ago, snow storms with huge amounts of snow, ice age, earthquakes, fires, floods?

I have learned nothing new from this article.
It is basically one side saying one thing and the other side countering.
Also a lot of unanswered questions.
Follow the money, imagine the unemployment rate for all the scientists who support man made global warming theory if they lost their jobs because its garbage science.

 

But a 50 story high rise with a relatively small fire collapsing ontop of itself neatly does pass the smell test?

Your argument is based on a supposition that the conspiracy would be too difficult to organize. I am basing my argument on the FACT that high rise buildings do not collapse because of fires. The steel skeleton structure inside the building can burn for hours and would still remain more or less intact, damaged yes but still standing to some degree or another.

 

You make my point for me. Is that what the 9/11 report says....Bldg 7 coming down was miracle?

I do believe in the virgin birth. It was God suspending the laws of nature. And the immaculate conception is in reference to Mary, not Jesus.