Well, they didn't. But for the few that did, I'm guessing it was for the same reason that some crazy idiots beat a random Sikh man to death as "revenge" for the Twin Towers attack. Idiots being idiots over things they clearly don't understand.
9/11; Never forget.
- Thread starter qqg3
- Start date
Well, they didn't. But for the few that did, I'm guessing it was for the same reason that some crazy idiots beat a random Sikh man to death as "revenge" for the Twin Towers attack. Idiots being idiots over things they clearly don't understand.
No one is winning in this situation, except maybe those who have shares in oil.
Nothing surreal about a muslim passport falling out of a terrorists pocket and being blown to be found several blocks away or 3 solid steel towers all collapsing perfectly in the space of a few hours.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 1,380
that program was a load of nonsense, they claim that girl is ' well known ' among the uk critics. Paid actors more like. I don't see any of them explaining the rivers of molten metal that were underneath 3 of the skyscrapers rubble. Office fires or jet fuel CANNOT melt steel. Let alone melt it into liquid.
Something else melted the steel to the point it turned into what the fire fighters called ' lava ', why aren't the organizations who are in charge asking the damn questions? People just seem to ignore it and get on with their lives but we've lost so much freedom in the span of 10 years and gotten into so many wars it just cannot be ignored.
You mean like thousands of tons of collapse building and the pressure and friction.
Anyone who believes in controlled demolition, missiles or any number of other conspiracies are idiots who have looked at one side and not the other and so blinded if when shown still don't accept. Nothing different than moon landing CT.
Anyone who believes in controlled demolition, missiles or any number of other conspiracies are idiots who have looked at one side and not the other and so blinded if when shown still don't accept. Nothing different than moon landing CT.
Someone has a different opinion to me, what an idiot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
..
Last edited:
I guess the same can be said of those who assert things that they don't fully understand.
Don't get me wrong, I don't really have a whole opinion on the situation, I'm 50/50 on it, I find it interesting, but I don't preach anything to anyone about what I think. As much as you look into everything, some things just simply don't add up, and it'll probably always be that way. It's very much the god debate, both sides have an opinion on what happened, there is no 100% evidence which explains everything, so there will always be holes in the story as to what happened and as much as you argue with each other, the other side will most likely not change their opinion on what happened.
Calling people idiots for thinking something else though is pretty funny, I may just start calling religious people idiots too.
Not everything is known 100% as we simply don't know and can't say. Like exactly what damage was caused by the plane hitting.
However we do know things like it wasn't missiles or controlled demolition, with a mountain of evidence to back it up. Which is one reason why I specified certain aspects of CT.
Now if you said something like it was carried out by terrorists and happened how they said, except they deliberately ignored warnings. Then no I wouldn't call that person an idiot, although I would disagree.
There are certain CT that are absurd and nothing to back them up, with evidence backing the other side up.
However we do know things like it wasn't missiles or controlled demolition, with a mountain of evidence to back it up. Which is one reason why I specified certain aspects of CT.
Now if you said something like it was carried out by terrorists and happened how they said, except they deliberately ignored warnings. Then no I wouldn't call that person an idiot, although I would disagree.
There are certain CT that are absurd and nothing to back them up, with evidence backing the other side up.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
..
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 3,319
- Location
- Cognac, France
I'm intrigued. As someone who is quite well read on the subject, I'd be interested to hear what you think doesn't add up.
If you provide just one point about the 'official story' you don't think adds up I'd be happy to add it up for you
What happened to building 7?
Big hole in one side and a fire burning in it for ages. Why, what do you think happened?
Wasnt it proved to be damaged by falling debri and un controlled fires that casued it to collapse?
Massive structural damage by WTC 1+2 and sustained fire.
And don't forget to read up on the Windsor tower Madrid, if like so many you think steel structured buildings haven't collapsed before. The difference is part of the Windsor tower was reinforced concrete so that part did not collapse.
You can read a lot of info here.
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 3,319
- Location
- Cognac, France
I have no idea what happened, it was a genuine question from someone who hasn't 'researched' any of it.