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

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

  • Lack Of Air Defense Response

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Building 7 Collapse

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Pentagon Hole

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Bush's Response

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Insider Trading

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • FBI And CIA Coverups

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Demolition-Like Collapse Of WTC 1 & 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Gut Intuition

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • All Of The Above

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Whatever Is Most Comfortable For You

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Total voters
    1
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!
 
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.
 
jetsetlemming said:
Pentagon hole?
Click to expand...

The whole is waaayyyyy too small for it to have been hit by an airliner. Also, there was no visible plane wreckage.
 
somebigguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PhilosophyGenius said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
somebigguy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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).
 
PhilosophyGenius said:
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).
Click to expand...
Yeah, seems to me there were all kinds of things in WTC7, not just Enron.
 
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.
 
jetsetlemming said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
somebigguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
PhilosophyGenius said:
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!
Click to expand...
You got it, those scumbags have been up to this nonsense for years. 9/11 might finally be their undoing.
 
somebigguy said:
You got it, those scumbags have been up to this nonsense for years. 9/11 might finally be their undoing.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jetsetlemming said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jetsetlemming said:
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.
Click to expand...
It was widely reported that sensitive documents were in that building, I don't believe it was any secret.
 
somebigguy said:
It was widely reported that sensitive documents were in that building, I don't believe it was any secret.
Click to expand...

And if it really was a secret, we wouldn't be talking about it right now. Chuck Norris sends his regards to you sbg.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top