Which Arguments Should Be Used When Talking About 9/11?

You don't blow up a building to get rid of evidence, you steal it or destroy it or as a last resort set a fire on that floor. You don't blow up a whole building. It's not cost effective. If they can get in to plant bombs, they can get in to steal the evidence and destroy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jetsetlemming

You don't blow up a building to get rid of evidence, you steal it or destroy it or as a last resort set a fire on that floor. You don't blow up a whole building. It's not cost effective. If they can get in to plant bombs, they can get in to steal the evidence and destroy it.

---

Sure, then they have to explain how sensitive documents were stolen from a secure government building.

However, if the building is mysteriously destroyed by terrorists, there are no questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

Sure, then they have to explain how sensitive documents were stolen from a secure government building.

However, if the building is mysteriously destroyed by terrorists, there are no questions.

---

Fo realz!

I mean how suspicious would it look when a bunch of Enron and other incriminating documents suddenly disappeared during the height of the investigation. The answer is Very!

And since they were pulling off the 9/11 attacks, why not take care of some extra buisness on the side as well. Since a plane could not hit buidling 7 and it wasn't a viable target, they used the excuse that a gas tank exploded beneth and fire destroyed it.

Kinda like when the govn't was doing the whole anthrax thing, and they took out the guy who published photos of Bush's daughters drunk. Why? Because the opportunity was there.

Holla!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius

Fo realz!

I mean how suspicious would it look when a bunch of Enron and other incriminating documents suddenly disappeared during the height of the investigation. The answer is Very!

And since they were pulling off the 9/11 attacks, why not take care of some extra buisness on the side as well. Since a plane could not hit buidling 7 and it wasn't a viable target, they used the excuse that a gas tank exploded beneth and fire destroyed it.

Kinda like when the govn't was doing the whole anthrax thing, and they took out the guy who published photos of Bush's daughters drunk. Why? Because the opportunity was there.

Holla!

---

You got it, those scumbags have been up to this nonsense for years. 9/11 might finally be their undoing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

You got it, those scumbags have been up to this nonsense for years. 9/11 might finally be their undoing.

---

That's wassup.

:RedFinger

They wouldn't have to explain the document's dissapearence. By admitting they existed they'd admit there was a connection. They'd deny the documents were ever there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jetsetlemming

They wouldn't have to explain the document's dissapearence. By admitting they existed they'd admit there was a connection. They'd deny the documents were ever there.

---

How dare you question Chuck Norris!!!!

Round house kick to the face for you...

:bruce_h4h

lol. I'm sure Chuck Norris could steal those Enron Documents without anyone knowing. He could probably blow up the buildings without needing planes, and find and kill Osama bin Laden, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jetsetlemming

They wouldn't have to explain the document's dissapearence. By admitting they existed they'd admit there was a connection. They'd deny the documents were ever there.

---

It was widely reported that sensitive documents were in that building, I don't believe it was any secret.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by somebigguy

It was widely reported that sensitive documents were in that building, I don't believe it was any secret.

---

And if it really was a secret, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. Chuck Norris sends his regards to you sbg.