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

[Gold9472]

I grabbed the topics from the 911Truth.org poll.

[PhilosophyGenius]

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!

[jetsetlemming]

Pentagon hole?

[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.

[PhilosophyGenius]

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.

[somebigguy]

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?

[PhilosophyGenius]

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).

[Goatfish]

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?

WTC7 was a unique creature. It was very fortified with bulletproof glass and other such kewl stuffs. Of course it is absolutely ABSURD to even think to place an emergency bunker in probably the most likely location to suffer an emergency event like a major terrorist attack (it'd be like building a bunker atop the Eiffel Tower).
I have read in this book speculation that this bunker was actually the staging ground for the attack. That is, there might have been people in there who coordinated the explosions in the towers. They would have had the best view (they'd be staring straight at both towers and could be able to immediately see what bombs they should trigger off next).
This would also provide a good explanation for destroying WTC7: getting rid of the evidence of this staging ground.
The author of the above mentioned book also speculated that there was a homing beacon in WTC7, which the planes used to get to their targets. This could also explain why the planes hit the buildings at the angles that they did: WTC1 was directly in line with WTC7 (and so the plane hit it dead on), while the plane that hit WTC2 hit at a bent angle (because it was attempting to fly towards WTC7).
Again, this would provide a great reason for downing WTC7 (aside from stuffing Silverstein's pockets with more crooked cash). And this is not even taking into account the building's tenants, which included many intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, etc.)

[Goatfish]

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.

Even if the gas tank did explode, WTC7 fell from the very TOP and descended down. If the gas tank were responsible, the building would have fallen starting towards the bottom.
If you'll notice, at the top of WTC7 was an extra little piece of building, a kind of rectangular lip. This little piece is the first to start falling apart, meaning it was at the opposite end from where the gas tank was.
Finally, all three buildings fell UNNATURALLY, meaning perfectly into themselves which only occurrs through controlled demolition. Anything other than controlled demolition would cause the building to fall apart in pieces, and perhaps in intermittent intervals (meaning not the whole building falling in 5 or 6 seconds).
What is easiest to point out to people is that for those buildings to fall they way they did, this means that every floor symetrically crumbled simultaneously. What are the odds that one side of the building (say the side the plane actually crashed into) was just as destroyed as the other side (which did not suffer nearly as much damage)?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Even if the gas tank did explode, WTC7 fell from the very TOP and descended down. If the gas tank were responsible, the building would have fallen starting towards the bottom.
If you'll notice, at the top of WTC7 was an extra little piece of building, a kind of rectangular lip. This little piece is the first to start falling apart, meaning it was at the opposite end from where the gas tank was.
Finally, all three buildings fell UNNATURALLY, meaning perfectly into themselves which only occurrs through controlled demolition. Anything other than controlled demolition would cause the building to fall apart in pieces, and perhaps in intermittent intervals (meaning not the whole building falling in 5 or 6 seconds).
What is easiest to point out to people is that for those buildings to fall they way they did, this means that every floor symetrically crumbled simultaneously. What are the odds that one side of the building (say the side the plane actually crashed into) was just as destroyed as the other side (which did not suffer nearly as much damage)?

Of Course! I was just pointing out the fact that it could be rebuttled where as no plane wreckage in the Pentagon cannot.