Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: Project86
Chill out, I typed mine at the same time you typed yours, so I didn't know there was anything to acknowledge. Quit the name calling (I'm in law enforcement so I'm a "hero" according to you anyways 😉 ).
I never said you were a hero.
Name calling? You're a hypocrite... I'm calling it as I see it. You're also a liar for saying I ignored points in your post.
Originally posted by: Project86
1: If they looked at everything, and pretty much figured out what happened, why would they have to go investigate all these other side tracked things like these "HUGE PRE COLLAPSE EXPLOSIONS!!!" like you mention? I assume they (like most other people) concluded the same thing that I did (IE: the combination of things I mentioned earlier that account for the noises, explosions, injuries, etc) and called it a day. I'm sure they could have found some crazy transients and druggies in the area who claim to have seen a UFO shoot the building with a lazer.... if they found sufficient people who claimed this, should they include that too? If not, COVERUP!
Uh, isn't that the point of the investigation? To admit numerous corroborating testimonies of huge pre collapse explosions (that injured many people) into evidence? That's what an investigation is. There is no mention in any official report of these huge pre collapse explosions because it destroys the lie they've set up :thumbsdown: To this very day, the government has not revealed (or even acknowledged) what the explosions were. Even numerous news reporters + news channels pointed out the explosions on 9/11. Cover-up.
"If they looked at everything, and pretty much figured out what happened, why would they have to go investigate all these other side tracked things like these "HUGE PRE COLLAPSE EXPLOSIONS!!!""
Rofl, because that's what an investigation is supposed to reveal? Why would they have to investigate all of these huge pre collapse explosions? Are you kidding me? How about because it challenges the official story that fires brought down the towers? Oh wait no, nevermind, can't have that! Cover-up.
Originally posted by: Project86
2: See number 1... if they already figured out what the explosions/etc were, then why go any further? They didn't investigate for the possibility of a lot of things (UFOS?) but that doesn't mean there was a cover up. You say the explosions destroy the government story... most people disagree with you. Let me ask you this: if the planes hit, caused damage, caused fire, which brought down the buildings (sans bombs/conspiracies/etc) would you expect anything to explode, or do you think it would just look normal then fall down all of a sudden?
See response to #1.
Originally posted by: Project86
Molten steel.... I just don't see it. I have followed every single one of you links, and I don't see the evidnce to back your claim that this is a huge issue that blows apart the blah blah just like everything does. I'm sorry, I just don't see it.
Then you've completely missed the significance as to why molten steel is an important issue.
Funny how you gave a 911myth link that was questioning whether or not there really was molten steel. All it took was 30 second google search to shoot it down.
Originally posted by: Project86
Reading the threads from your sig, it seems that everything has already been said to try and get you to change your opinion. I respect the fact that you still see it your way, but I just don't agree, nor do a vast majority of people. I'm not saying that to disparage you in any way, but I don't really see what else can be said here.
Yeah, there is a cover-up going on. Thanks for pointing that out?
"A vast majority of people" don't agree? According to who? In order for that statement to be true, you'll have to let all of the people know what the government hasn't been telling them... (ie, Norman Mineta, huge pre collapse explosions, etc etc) , and
then have them decide whether or not they agree. I would guess 2-5% of the current U.S. population has actually heard about what the government conviently ignored or distorted in their cover-up.
You still haven't addressed Mineta :laugh: What happened to WTC7 again?
😉
Bump, let's see if project86 responds
🙂
Look, we are obviously not going to agree on this issue. No matter how many links we both fire off, we have already both come to our own conclusion. To try get myself more familiar with both sides of the argument though, I've spent the last several days reading all kinds of websites, both for and against the conspiracy theory. This is what I've come up with, and I'm sure you'll disagree:
1: The conspiracy websites like to post outdated info that has been laid to rest years ago. For example, the BBC report about Waleed Al Shehri still being alive, which was reported in 2001, and quickly established that this was not the same person. This seems to be the case over and over again: they plaster up one thing after another, and don't ever take them down or address the fact that there is, in fact, an explanation later down the road, and that particular portion of the subject is not in contention (which would not require them to give up their larger theory mind you). Also lots of things taken out of context. But rarely (almost never) did I encounter anyone saying "well... I was wrong about that, but my theory still stands because of everything else". They just keep firing away with more.
2: There seems to be a distinct lack of scientific experience on the part of the conpiracy theorists. I keep reading things that "destroy" or refute or attempt to critique many things, from rebutting Walter P. Murphy's work, to the NOVA stuff, the Popular Mechanics article, and many of the actual studies that have been done. It just seems strange to me that the people writing the original articles tend to be civil engineering people, and the conspiracy advocates tend to be, well, I don't know what qualifies them to argue with experts.
3: The major advocates that HAVE taken a lead in endorsing the conspiracy theory have been... colorful (for lack of a better word). Guys like Karl Schwarz, David Ray Griffin, Jimmy Walter, Steven E. Jones, etc etc. None have much or any expertise in any related field.
4: I still haven't heard an explanation +that makes sense+ for why (or how) the government would set up this massive conspiracy. Sure, I've heard a bunch of stuff that generally corresponds with the rest of your political ideals. Stuff about Bush wanting an excuse to go to war etc etc. This is the same administration who can't seem to do anything right in your eyes, yet set up this massive conspiracy (which would require the cooperation of HUNDREDS if not thousands of people)... only to have it blow up in their faces (unless you actually think things are going swell for them). They are either idiots or clever conspirators, you can't have it both ways.
5: Explosions at the towers, before the collapse. We have pretty much talked this to death, but I'll say it one more time: There were so many things there that I would expect to explode during an incident such as that. I don't know why you can't get past that fact.
What you would EXPECT to hear and see after a fully-loaded airliner hit a skyscraper at top speed, causing enormous damage, and the building caught fire to the point of collapse? And when a billion-pound building does start to collapse, what would you EXPECT to see and hear at the lower levels? And if you can?t come up with an answer, then please talk to the experts: structural engineers, fire safety engineers, and failure analysts. Does it bother you that none of them agree with you? Or are they all in on the conspiracy?
6: Mineta. Now I have to admit, I'm having a difficult time with this guy, but not for the reasons you think. The problem is, when I search for info about him, I'm bombarded with the SAME piece of conspiracy info, almost word for word, on about a million websites. I also find a bunch of stuff about some old unrelated things that he has done for his job. But really, I don't see how it matters much... I fail to see how his one statement, +not backed up by anyone else+, blows the doors off the whole thing. He gave his version of events, which a lot of people have. Not all of them match, as would be expected on something like this. I have been in many critical incident debriefings (with HERO firefighters!) where people don't agree on how exactly something happened, even though we all worked the same incident (which was NEVER in the same league as this massive event). So why is it that this one thing is so important? Or are we to assume that EVERY SINGLE statement goes into the report, no matter what? How do we know more investigation wasn't done into his statement? Answer: we don't. All we know is that it fits into your conspiracy theory just perfectly.
7: WTC7. I don't see why this is still an issue. It is fairly plain just from looking around, that the building had massive damage, to the point that fire crews decided it was not worth saving. I can find many pictures online that show smoke pouring from nearly every floor. How long do you expect it to have held up? There was massive damage all around it, but you expect it to remain untouched? Keep in mind that it had over 40,000 gallons of diesel fuel inside, a very large gas line, and an electrical substation. Thankfully it was obvious enough to the people on scene, that no lives were lost when it fell.
8: Conspiracy theories in general. Why are they always so similar? You got the UFO thing, with plenty of witnesses, and wackoes like Lear and Lazar. You got the philidelphia experiment, complete with mysterious deaths and wacky characters. There's many more. And the common theme? Government is out to cover up some massive (and generally evil) secret. If you believe in one, it seems to me that you have to believe in all of them. All have their fair share of "evidence", and none of them can really be CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN TO NOT be real, to within a precise degree of accuracy... All you can do is find fault after fault after fault. But it's really hard to put the final nail in the coffin, especially when people devote such a rabid following to them.
So that's pretty much how I feel. I've enjoyed reading arguments from both sides actually, and I find it to be a great study of the human character.
