RightatNYU said:
A plane, weighing 875,000 pounds, almost fully loaded with fuel, hitting an incredibly tall, incredibly thin building at 560 miles per hour. That doesnt seem like it would fall to you? At that speed, the front of the plane was most likely completely obliterated into nothingness.Granted, they had predicted before that it wouldn't, but thats purely theoretical engineering. Nothing like this ever happened before, so the fact that something unexpected happened should be a surprise. Sprinklers wouldn't do a thing..
Of course it seems like it would fall. It seems like the building should have gone down in initial impact doesn't it? Why then did it take... well however long it took (around an hour?) for it to fall? There had to be another facter other that impact and unlevel weight, those would have resutled instantaniously if not only moments later. The theory is that the fires got hot enough to burn through the steel. But if the fires got so hot their, why where they not so hot in the pentagon that they raged out of control? That is my question. I understand the theory of it going down, just not why if that is the case, more of the pentagon was not burned up surrounding the one side of it? The fact that the surrounding area of the building did not go up is what I find inconsistent.
Do you really think that theres a possibility for the hundreds of investigators in this case to all keep their mouths shut about what they found? You don't think that if someone had realized "Hey....the government killed all these people" that they would tell someone?
Completely inplausable.
I agree, it is inplausable. I am not suggesting the investigators were privee to this information and did nothing. I am suggesting that if this was in fact an eloborate scheme, don't you think the clean-up would have been equally eleborate. My contention would be that before any investigators outside the walls of those who were in on it were not allowed to investigate until this evidence was removed. Of course, the big ass explosions probably did a hell of a job of desrtroying any potential evidence too, one might argue.
But they DIDNT say "theres a chance of an attack tomorrow." They said "we have information that at some point there may be an attack." They've been saying the same thing for the past 15 years. There was very little to separate the intelligence on this issue from anything else.
In either case (whether it be Bush's ignoring the information, or intellegence's lack of having any clue that this might be happening) the fact that there was no attempt to prevent certainly (while it in itself does not point to conspiracy) does not support the argument against conspiracy.
You don't have to do any of that to avoid being "fed" news. Getting news from many sources, including some primary, provides enough information to make an educated decision. Certainly more than a flash video on a conspiracy site.
Sorry, but if you weren't there to see it yourself and investigate the evidence yourself, it is all hearsay. Nothing more and nothing less. Not that you cannot believe the news or certain investigators or whoever... but you cannot accept in just based on the fact that it is the news that is covering it. That's why I am willing to suspend judgement until I can take a closer look at all of it myself, through my own research. The fact that we are fed our information is just a part of life. The sooner you can learn to accept that, the quicker you can stop believing that you are any more able to find out the truth than the rest of us.
That's a situation in which facts are created. That doesn't (really) happen in our society, not if you know where to look. That's the reason why I don't just read American news.
It's good that you watch news outside of America. But it's kinda hard to get news about an event that happened in America from countries outside of America without them having to go through some sort of American source, right? And if you really believe that people don't make up facts in the news, I certainly suggest you re evaulate that stance.
You misunderstood what I said. That wasn't the point of the commission, the point was simply to find out what happened. What they concluded is enough to dispel all the rumors.
I didn't actually think that was the case of the 9/11 report, but I was just gonna go with it as it seemed to be what you were saying and I haven't read but pieces and parts of it in the bookstore I work out. So then, we can argue that it is perhaps true that they were not looking for conspiracy at all, therefore why would they find it? It is possible that they ignored some things not even considering to look at them more closely due to not suspecting conspiracy.
Exactly. The people who believe **** like this are the same ones who talk about the "Jew World Empire" etc. Almost all of these conspiracy theorists have some sort of anti-semitic undertones. And, stupid people are more likely to be racist.
In all my life I have yet to believe but one conspiracy theory (JFK... the "magic bullet" is simply over the top) and none of it comes to anti-Semitism. Granted, some racism comes from stupidity. And other racism simply comes from being raised told that different people are lesser over and over again. But I simply do not see how searching to find more convincing answers in a situation like this can be compared to stupidity. Doubt is sometimes a very safe stance to take in some cases. Especially in the case of a government and media who is known to work together and to lie together (again I point to FDR).
