They really think we are that stupid

Red:

You're mistaken if you think I think the federal government did this on purpose. I think the federal government is covering up its incompetence.

There were losts of rumblings about possible terrorist attacks pre-9/11. Hell, John Ashcroft stopped flying because of known threat, if I'm not mistaken.

Red:

Depends on what you mean when you use the word "government". Again, I don't think federal government employees were "on the clock" so to speak and did this. But you are getting way ahead of the crucial point. It's too big a subject to tackle all at once.

The key point is:

Does the official government explanation jive with the laws of physics?

martin:

.

I could be an atheist, buddhist, a witch or whatever.....how does that effect the laws of physics and Bldg 7?

And why do you insist on injecting all these other issues into the debate? What is the point? It doesn't matter who says something. The statement is true or not true independent of the person. Truth is not dependent on the speaker, do you understand that?

tirk:

I'll have to tackle this later but I have come to the understanding that in actual fact there were no firefighters in that building. The building was fully evacuated by the time the firechief called Silverstein to find out if the boss man thought it was ok to pull the firefighters out.....what the hell would Silverstein know about when to pull firefighters out? The firefighters were already out anyway.

(will double check that...)

then comes the words "pull it" and the words "we watched the building collapse". The only words missing were, "into its own footprint, incredibly neat, don't you think?"

 

not true.

i absolutely do not concede that. i only remind you that there was another element involved. it wasnt necessarily required.

you cant because your argument would fall apart. you cant just claim it was demolished and then pretend it was done by magic. you cant discuss the conspiracy because it is clearly so obviously absurd relative to the simple and true explanation.

also, the websites you are linking are almost without exception claiming that all 3 were demolished with explosives, using the same "buildings dont come dont just from fire" logic you are using.

again, if you concede that wtc 1 and 2 came down without demolition, then your argument is contradictory, and it is no longer unprecedented that fire and damage has collapsed a skyscraper, according to you.

lie. they were ****ing massive. your stupid websites all compare the fires to pictures of other buildings at night, when they look like torches in the blackness. fires are not as impressive in the daytime. also the buildings in your comparisons were either not totally ignored by firefighters, not subject to a severe sprinkler issue, due to massive terrorist activity in the area destroying infrastructure, or do not have structural damage from debris, or be designed like wtc7.

 

martin:

.

The one about Pearl Harbor is pretty damn interesting, I agree. Anytime you want to drop this and discuss that I'd be happy to.....makes the same point, really.

Every government makes use of proganda and cover ups. I don't even really object to their using it. If I was running a government I would use it too. It's like marketing for business or recruiting trips for football teams. We are the good guys.....it's good for unity and success. I am a fan of unity and success, especially for the USA. A few people have tried to pin me down as liberal or conservative or "home-schooled"......if i had to categorize myself I would say I'm a nationalist. I hope the USA comes out on top everytime.

Again, I don't object to the government doing it and I am not one of those that think I am entitled to knowing everything the government knows. That's insane. I'm not qualified to make the decisions so what business is it of mine regarding national security, etc.

But, when they do say something that is bs, I am not obligated to believe it.

"Read my lips, no new taxes....."

 

who did it then? sasquatch?

there are rumblings all the time, including right now.

again, i will assume you think it was an army of sasquatch until you correct me. who else has this sort of technology? nobody.

the word is "jibe" and the answer is a very simple and obvious yes.

because the 9/11 story is well understood. what is less understood is exactly why truthers are such pathetic louts.

maybe the army of sasquatch that rigged the building to explode had notified the fireman, probably with a series of clicks and growls. that is how sasquatch communicate. they made their deals with the arabs by exchanging canadian maple syrup in a trade that convinced the muslims to fly the planes into new york the same day they set off the charges.

most people do not know this but sasquatch can put on demo man outifits and pass pretty easily for human elevator repairmen.. this is how they got the charges into the building.

in the extended interview he says "muahaha, yes, return to nature, brinks and cement, let nature return! bring back the wilderness so my sasquatch can run free!"...and then he paused and said "um scratch that last part from the record i wasnt supposed to admit i was in on it...this wont be televised will it?".

 

it is not the same at all. it almost surely isnt true anyways.

 

martin:

Did what? Demolition Bldg 7?

yeah, an if another 9/11 happened anytime soon this country would go absolutely ape-chit against the government and their inability to defend the border and insure safe travel. And rightly so.

what technology? Demolition technology? Look man, that stuff is well within the reach of many, many actors on the international stage.

will check in later.
opcorn:

 

yes. was it sasquatch? of course it was. i am just asking questions man.

yes, including canadians. big hairy canadians. they even have a militia:



why do they need a militia? how can you explain that poster? you cant. dont you people question anything?

 

flabengal,
forgive me if you already answered this question. I skipped ahead thinking you were just phucking with martin, but apparently you actually believe this stuff.

how were the demolitions installed?

were they done the right way (drilling them into to steel columns and support on multiple floors from the ground up)?

if so, how did they go about doing all this drilling/wiring without anyone
A - seeing them do all this sh!t
B - not trip over wires that surely would have criss crossed some of that office space up there.

gonna guess you'll say "did it after hours, under the cover of darkness.
to which i'll ask:
where did they buy the drywall mud that dried fast enough to completely patch all of those holes fast enough to repaint the walls with odorless super fast dry paint so no one would notice the "work" they did?

or maybe you'll say "who says the demolitions had to be drilled into the supports?"

to which I'll ask:
How did no one see these charges duct taped to the walls?
How did no one n the building notice a sh!tpile of wires running all over the building?


if by some chance, you come up with sensible answers to these questions, let me ask you these.

Why demolish that building?
Anyone with a 3rd grade education would know that the entire area would be evacuated after the planes hit the twin towers, so the building was pretty much guaranteed to be empty.

Anyone with better than a 6th grade education would also know that a building that close to the point of attack would sustain heavy damages from the attack.

So in essence, you are of the belief, that somebody thought it would be a good idea to set off demolition charges in a completely empty already damaged building?

For attention?

Prolly would have gotten much more attention if planes hadn't flown into both twin towers, plus the pentagon that day.

Oh wait, you prolly also believe that the pentagon was hit by a missile, not a plane.
Even though most people on the streets of DC that day report seeing a plane, not a missile/rocket/whatever the conspiracy theorist think it was.

 

this stuff isnt relevant and not the issue. pretend you are convincing a jury your client isn't guilty and you cannot really ask them questions or even offer hypotheticals.

you simply have to disprove the building fell due to demolition.

surprisingly, the current criteria is not yet sufficient.

 

I am the jury.
I wanna hear this guys answers to these questions before I decide to join him in the kingdom of wackos