Quote from HolyGrail:
A serious discussion? How could this possibly be a serious discussion? Anyone, and I mean anyone who would even consider that we blew up our own buildings and killed almost 4000 people so we could go to war with Iraq is simply just a complete idiot. There is no other way to explain that.
That would mean we knew long in advance that they would hit the WTC with airplanes. We would have had to place a hell of a lot of C4 well in advance of the planes hitting the buidings. There would have literally been thousands of people aware of this. Yet we have people that actually want to have a serious discussion on it? Based on what? Because the floors pancaked and looked like a demolition? When there is enough heat to weaken or melt steel THAT HOLDS UP THE FLOORS, the floors are going to pancake because nothing is holding them up. Each floor becomes heavier and heavier as the floors combine. The buildings floors were not made to withstand that kind of weight.
No one in the government can keep a secret anymore. Everything gets leaked to the press at one time or another shortly after it is discussed, yet a mission like this would involve an enormous amount of people and no one has even felt a little guilty that they knew we did this? This is not the 60's. Things get exposed before it even becomes a truth. Shit happens. Everything is not a conspiracy just because you don't like the president. And really, that is all this is really about. Those that hate George Bush use the internet to come up with all sorts of crap, some may be true, but the bulk is crap, but since it is what the Bush haters want to hear, it keeps coming.
OVER AND OUT!!!!
thnx for coming back. to explain my point of view in
advance: i try to sympathise first of all with the material
presented, since this is the only view that makes me
fully understand where arguments are coming from.
if i have two conflicting sources i look at both in this
way and afterwards come to my opinion about what
is more convincing. like with this moon hoax. sounded
quite convincing in the first place. yet the counter
arguments were overwhelming.
911. i can hardly believe that the US government
could not make up any other reason to go into a war
than exploding the very core of capitalism in the midst
of new york with the risk of hundreds of cameras
watching the whole event, maybe uncovering what
is happening. very, very risky strategy. and then,
if they do it, why in daylight with full live coverage
for hours in perfect filming conditions? very unlikely,
again very risky. so the base case is a little weak.
furthermore the whole event necessarily becomes
a mass-psychological desaster breeding hundreds
of "researchers". so one would expect that here and
there bits and pieces are found that show a different
picture than what might have really happened.
having said all that i found some conspiracy videos
quite stupid, yet there is one on google-video which
really seemed to be well done and quite researched.
and it is this kind of material which should be debated.
even if it is untrue and nonsense. i love debate,
i must admit and a good debate is a true pleasure
to me. but it requires a certain minimum kind of
respect, otherwise it's a pain.
i found the arguments on the 911myths.com a little
weak. debunking911 seems better researched, yet
i would prefer if the could keep their tone less emotional
but maybe that is demanding too much ...
thnx for the links.