View Poll Results: Which Arguments Should Be Used When Talking About 9/11?

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Lack Of Air Defense Response

    4 10.81%
  • Building 7 Collapse

    13 35.14%
  • Pentagon Hole

    1 2.70%
  • Bush's Response

    1 2.70%
  • Insider Trading

    0 0%
  • FBI And CIA Coverups

    2 5.41%
  • Demolition-Like Collapse Of WTC 1 & 2

    1 2.70%
  • Gut Intuition

    0 0%
  • All Of The Above

    11 29.73%
  • Whatever Is Most Comfortable For You

    4 10.81%
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,708

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

    I grabbed the topics from the 911Truth.org poll.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  2. #2
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    I picked Pentagon hole. But building 7 & the WTC are up there as well but the Pentagon hole is the easiest to prove.

    Holla at yo boy!

  3. #3
    jetsetlemming Guest
    Pentagon hole?

  4. #4
    somebigguy Guest
    WTC7!!!! Without question. Steel framed skyscrapers do not drop like that for any reason other than explosives. Lack of Air Response is a good one too, as being an impossible situation.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    America
    Posts
    30,708
    I 9/11 Truth prefer 9/11 Truth subliminal 9/11 Truth suggestions.
    No One Knows Everything. Only Together May We Find The Truth JG


  6. #6
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jetsetlemming
    Pentagon hole?
    The whole is waaayyyyy too small for it to have been hit by an airliner. Also, there was no visible plane wreckage.

  7. #7
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by somebigguy
    WTC7!!!! Without question. Steel framed skyscrapers do not drop like that for any reason other than explosives. Lack of Air Response is a good one too, as being an impossible situation.
    Yeah WTC7 also. But the rebuttal to that is that a gas tank exploded in the lower level causing it to collapse. And the rebuttal to the lack of air respone
    is that it was too hard to coordinate multiple hijackings and that the war games confused everyone.

    There is no rebuttal to the Pentagon hole.

  8. #8
    somebigguy Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
    Yeah WTC7 also. But the rebuttal to that is that a gas tank exploded in the lower level causing it to collapse. And the rebuttal to the lack of air respone
    is that it was too hard to coordinate multiple hijackings and that the war games confused everyone.

    There is no rebuttal to the Pentagon hole.
    The existence of Diesel fuel is irrelevant. No building has ever fallen in that fashion for any reason other than controlled demo. Explosions do not cause buildings to disintegrate.

    Furthermore, WTC7 was built above a power substation (or something like that) meaning it was built even stronger than a normal building. Plus Guliani had a bunker in that building somewhere with its own air and water supply. Are they gonna build a bunker in a building that can disintegrate after a little fire?

  9. #9
    PhilosophyGenius Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by somebigguy
    The existence of Diesel fuel is irrelevant. No building has ever fallen in that fashion for any reason other than controlled demo. Explosions do not cause buildings to disintegrate.

    Furthermore, WTC7 was built above a power substation (or something like that) meaning it was built even stronger than a normal building. Plus Guliani had a bunker in that building somewhere with its own air and water supply. Are they gonna build a bunker in a building that can disintegrate after a little fire?
    Yeah, also WTC7 is a brand new steel building. And I think I read somewhere that they had incriminating evidence linking Bush to Enron (or something like that).

  10. #10
    somebigguy Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PhilosophyGenius
    Yeah, also WTC7 is a brand new steel building. And I think I read somewhere that they had incriminating evidence linking Bush to Enron (or something like that).
    Yeah, seems to me there were all kinds of things in WTC7, not just Enron.

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme Court To Hear Arguments In Case Tied To 9/11
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2008, 07:16 AM
  2. College Students' Arguments Gaining Attention
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-08-2008, 02:17 PM
  3. Court Hears Arguments In 9/11 Suit Against Saudis
    By Gold9472 in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-18-2008, 05:30 PM
  4. Getting into arguments
    By ParallaxView in forum 9/11 Justice Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-23-2006, 06:39 PM
  5. Hiroshima Arguments Rage 60 Years On
    By Gold9472 in forum The New News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-31-2005, 10:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •