|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 116)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
The point i was trying to make was that no amount of amateur research is going prove the FEMA report was flawed in its analysis. There isnt any firm evidence at all to support the claims. If you want to prove gov conspiracy, prove that the gov allowed the attacks to take place, cause frankly that is far more plausible than the gov imploding the buildings. |
Aliens using an invisible beam to blast the towers to dust is more plausible than a controlled demolition of a building that was occupied.
MrS |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
The point i was trying to make was that no amount of amateur research is going prove the FEMA report was flawed in its analysis. There isnt any firm evidence at all to support the claims. If you want to prove gov conspiracy, prove that the gov allowed the attacks to take place, cause frankly that is far more plausible than the gov imploding the buildings. |
What really is the difference if they allowed it to happen or made it happen themselves, they still did not prevent 3000 of their own people from dying.
Same , same smell.
They deserve to be picked apart from every angle. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
What really is the difference if they allowed it to happen or made it happen themselves, they still did not prevent 3000 of their own people from dying.
Same , same smell. |
from an argument point of view, the difference is HUGE. if you can't show that they demolished the buildings then there's one helluva big hole in your entire belief system.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
They deserve to be picked apart from every angle. |
lol. well, instead of cutting and pasting poor research you havent even bothered to vet, how bout you provide some real argument from some real researchers? oh sorry, i forgot :stongue: |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrSquirrel
Aliens using an invisible beam to blast the towers to dust is more plausible than a controlled demolition of a building that was occupied.
MrS |
actually its a very real possiblitity.... as you can see from evidence shown in "superman returns for some 911 truth", a very real documentary found on youtube, aliens lazer beam eyes can shoot through 2 km's of seawater and turn bedrock into molten lava....!!!!
not only does this explain the pools of molten material in the rubble, but also the explosions in the basement as superman tried to fly under the structure to lift it off the ground and throw it into the sun! |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
from an argument point of view, the difference is HUGE. if you can't show that they demolished the buildings then there's one helluva big hole in your entire belief system.
lol. well, instead of cutting and pasting poor research you havent even bothered to vet, how bout you provide some real argument from some real researchers? oh sorry, i forgot :stongue: |
^^
Forget to look above at how the official story holds up in this poll moron?
Seems you and the others agreeing with the official BS story are not doing a quite so good job convincing everyone. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
actually its a very real possiblitity.... as you can see from evidence shown in "superman returns for some 911 truth", a very real documentary found on youtube, aliens lazer beam eyes can shoot through 2 km's of seawater and turn bedrock into molten lava....!!!!
not only does this explain the pools of molten material in the rubble, but also the explosions in the basement as superman tried to fly under the structure to lift it off the ground and throw it into the sun! |
:rolleyes:
And you are supposed to be taken seriously being an engineer and all? |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
The point i was trying to make was that no amount of amateur research is going prove the FEMA report was flawed in its analysis. There isnt any firm evidence at all to support the claims. If you want to prove gov conspiracy, prove that the gov allowed the attacks to take place, cause frankly that is far more plausible than the gov imploding the buildings. |
Not just 9/11-wise, but when you are trying to prove something against the government, it would never be conclusive, most of the time because the government holds all the keys, and controls/funnels the information. Key evidence and videotapes were already long destroyed, bud. And who did - government agencies like FEMA. So there you go. You can stick to the government story if you wish thats full of holes. Yes, its inconclusive to say that government did it, but the government stories have been shown to have lies. You cant trust the government, politicans are most of the time just crooks. Look at Iraq, for example. Look at all the corruption scandals. And then the aftermath of 9/11. The event of such magnitude and its consequences are no coincidence. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Forget to look above at how the official story holds up in this poll moron?
Seems you and the others agreeing with the official BS story are not doing a quite so good job convincing everyone. |
oh, i see! the fact that a bunch of ignorant internet users are as stupid as you are should somehow have some bearing on my own opinions? or all the actual research i have done? huh. here i was thinking that something called evidence should really be what is important. my mistake!
magnetonium, i know you love to view "The Government" as its own entity, devoid of individuals and speaking with one conspiratorial voice- but in reality western governments just dont work that way. you would never be able to cover up an investigation of this scope, with the hundreds of investigators (from both the private and public spheres). it simply couldn't happen (if we're talking the bombs in the towers argument). those that work for these organisations are not really that different from yourself you know, as much as you might choose to ignore that fact. |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | | oh, i see! the fact that a bunch of ignorant internet users are as stupid as you are should somehow have some bearing on my own opinions? or all the actual research i have done? huh. here i was thinking that something called evidence should really be what is important. my mistake! |
You mean more like millions of people around the globe being the majority not believing crap like your research?
I will stop feeding you now, troll. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
You mean more like millions of people around the globe being the majority not believing crap like your research?
I will stop feeding you now, troll. |
oooh, lovely fallacy you have there appeal to popularity
secondly, and this is MOST important. try and grasp it will you? one must pay special attention to the wording of such questions, and understand the underlying ambiguity.
"do you believe there is a govt coverup re 9/11" is a very very different question from "do you think the govt planted explosives in the buildings and deliberately destroyed the towers".
i guarantee you if the latter question was asked you would see very different responses. not that it matters. what random idiots think is of little consequence to me. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
:rolleyes:
And you are supposed to be taken seriously being an engineer and all? |
even my sarcasm has more credentials than you ................ N00b! |
|
|
| culorut |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
even my sarcasm has more credentials than you ................ N00b! |
Not really. |
|
|
|
|
