Rather than alarm the students? Don't tell me you believe that. Why would leaving alarm the students? They don't need to know about what happened. A politician can find a reason to appear calm. Heck, he appeared calm enough to read a kids book. When a nation is under attack you should act.
I honestly don't care much about his insurance money and that does little to prove anything either way. Also in sorry your friend was killed. That's tragic. Now, calling me crazy? And bringing up a crazy Jews didn't die argument? Now, I haven't seen anyone go there. That sounds beyond what evidence is out there and like disinformation. So stop throwing the crazy word around. If you want, stop arguing with a crazy man. Or maybe there is a part of you that needs to feel empowered. So you keep on bringing up points that don't matter. Use your eyes and head. You don't have to be a demo exper to recognize and research what a controlled one looks like. You also dont have to be a phycisist to notice that the building was going straight down, despite 24 core columns. You also don't have to be an engineer. Oh and you don't need to be a pilot to realize an airplane couldn't have knocked over the light poles it did when it approached the pentagon. Look those up. I'm guessing you won't because you are too busy, but anyone reading this I encourage you to view the evidence before you dismiss it. Also I can't find any videos of walls falling and I haven't seen witnesses say anything about that. But please, if you are interested in witness accounts, then take into account the ones who noticed an explosion after both planes hit. Or the ones who heard explosions at wc7. It is not silly to think that powerful people are sociopaths and playing an advanced chess game. This is the way of the world. They needed support for the troops and this is how they got it friend.
Also too many things are too convenient to for the official narrative. It's insulting to anyone with intelligence. Here is more about motive. http://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw
SweetLou. Ignoring everything you were told... Doesn't it look an awful lot like a controlled demo? I mean admit that much. Can't you at least comprehend why people would be suspicious about that? And look at humans throughout history. Wars are often fought over resources. So isn't it very good for companies like Halliburton and other defense contractors? Can you admit that it was a good situation in that it made them a lot of money with no bid contracts? I am not asking for you to admit it was some crazy conspiracy about Jews. I am asking you to at least sympathize with why it looks odd from the outside. I'll admit this much. Yes, there is a possibility it all fits the official narrative. The building could have gone into free fall. Wc7 could have collapsed from fires which didn't appear to be that big. And yes all three could have gone down in a free fall, which is the mark of a controlled demolition. And maybe the visible explosions were some force I can't comprehend with my simple brain. And yes I'll concede that the video could show a warped nose of a plane hitting the pentagon. But it is still too convenient. It still launched a decade of useless war that bankrupted our pockets and lined the pockets of the defense industry which owns this country. It still doesn't explain why 10 days after we were already preparing for Iraq. It still doesn't explain a lot of things. So at least admit there are some things neither side will have answers to.
dachuda, get a grip. For every logical answer someone gives you for your bat **** crazy conspiracy theories, you flippantly ignore it like it was not important in the first place. I love a good conspiracy theory as the next person, but as others mentioned, sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. For example, if I wanted to start a war in the middle east for [circle your fantasy choice: (oil) (military complex blood money) (revenge) (muslim hatred) (other)], I would think engineering a hijacking of four planes with hopes of bringing down the trade towers, destroying the pentagon and white house would be one of the most difficult way to go about this. There are far more easier ways to concoct a war than going through all that trouble. Seriously, the story line on why we invaded Iraq was fears of WMD's, not because of 9/11. If you truly want to talk conspiracy theories on this subject, at least come up with some intelligent theories/questions. For example: How complicit was other countries and the US in the knowledge of the attacks before hand? (sorry, no grainy youtube videos and inaccurate witness accounts to concoct any conspiracy theories) Why did the US truly invade Iraq? (again, no grainy youtube videos or inaccurate witness accounts to concoct any conspiracy theories) Hang up your nonsense already.
What is insulting to anyone with intelligence is the willful ignorance you display regarding reality and facts. It is one thing to question authority and require proof. It is altogether disingenuous to ignore the facts and proof that do not support your preconceived conclusion.
There is quite literally *nothing* you can say or show to these people that will change their minds. There's been a lot of interesting study about the mindsets and world views driving the conspiracy loons, here's a couple (one by our own Will Saletan): http://www.vice.com/read/the-psychology-and-economy-of-conspiracy-theories-890 http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._who_claim_to_know_the_truth_about_jfk.2.html
Same about the side that believes the official narrative. Also I don't appreciate the name calling from some of you. I've brought plenty of evidence as to why the official story is questionable at the very least. I would like to also point out that most people in the world agree with me. Especially outside of the American bubble. Inside the U.S. A majority question the official narrative to a great degree, and you can find the polls yourself on that. Seriously, if you believe that three buildings magically imploded and didn't topple over to the side in at least one instance, you are the crazy one. You are preaching outlandish theories that fly in the face of common sense and basic physics. Steel core beams are not going to all give out equally in three buildings the exact same way. This isn't rocket science guys.
Experts for your viewing pleasure. Thermite evidence found... Controlled demo fingerprint http://youtu.be/LTa_XL_k8fY More expert testimony... On wc7 being a controlled demo http://youtu.be/0f4w8iJmn08 http://youtu.be/0f4w8iJmn08 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...ept 2013/AE911 Petition - full doc [2000].pdf
Then why did you bring it up? I am only disputing your false claims. I think you are the one buying into stories and lies - it's very weird. Yes you do. It actually didn't go straight down. Parts of the towers toppled which is why the surrounding buildings got so much damage. Had they gone straight down like you claim in an controlled demolition there wouldn't be collateral damage. That's proof it wasn't controlled. I think you do. My father was a civil engineer. I remember how he explained why it would go straight down. It's called gravity. Things of a certain weight do not topple if they have enough of a footprint. Otherwise they would never build them so high because a catastrophic storm could cause the building to sway enough to topple it. But they are designed to sway and won't topple - why? Because they are freaking so heavy their center of gravity will never be anything but over the base. And that's why they fall straight down. But if you really want your controlled demo debunked, go here: https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm You can look for the videos on YouTube where the reporters are saying for hours before it collapsed that the engineers and firefighters were predicting it would collapse. They saw the building tilting and bulging. I in fact remember hearing on the news that they were evacuating WTC7 because they feared a collapse was imminent. You give "them" way too much credit. No: see here: https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm Yes it's called ignorance and a conscious decision not to look at scientific evidence but believe people who are trying to make a quick buck on your ignorance. the towers did not free fall, this is a false statement. WTC 7 was struck by fall debris from the towers collapse, which prove that the towers were not a controlled demolition. The fires were the cause of the collapse - and they did appear pretty big I have no idea why you say they were not - the entire floor was burning across multiple floors. You do understand that a fire has never burned in a modern high rise that long in the history of modern high-rises? I am not sure what visible explosions you are talking about. Again, WTC7 was obviously going to collapse, firefighters and engineers saw the signs. You didn't need an explosion to take it down. Why should it explain that? Politicians will use any excuse to get their agenda done. Cheney wanted to invade Iraq and 9/11 was a great opportunity to do that. Perhaps, but just because not every single thing has a great perfect answer doesn't mean there is a crazy conspiracy going on. What annoys me is that you are wasting my time, you can find the counter point to every thing you have posted here. It's all this stuff created by people trying to profit off this whole thing. They make the conspiracy theories because they are taking advantage of your need to believe and understand what happened there because it is so shocking. But everything they post is using half-truths and lies. You have to vet them for yourself. There are plenty of sites that debunk every single claim you have made. it's time for you to start doing that investigating instead of asking others to burn their precious free time trying to save you from this crazy way of thinking.
Did you even click on the link? I brought no proof? Dude, you don't want to see it. I am not name calling you, you are simply unwilling to consider that you might be horribly wrong and that the truth is what everyone is telling you.
Truth... You guys don't even have proof that those planes were hijacked... Which makes all events occurring afterwards suspicious.
dachuda, quick question: aside from 9/11, how many skyscrapers (or even just large buildings) have you seen collapse that WEREN'T a result of controlled demolition? Could it be, just maybe, that the WTC falling "resembled" a controlled demolition because that's the only point of reference you have? Maybe that "resemblance" is just what it looks like when a giant ass building falls down. Also, just curious, but how much of your knowledge of how structures fail comes from outside conspiracy videos? Because my civil engineering degree tells me that the science checks out. Final question: What does it sound like when a steel completely fails?
Haven't read anything in this thread but I don't doubt what he is saying. Back when we were allies with Iran we actually had some planning in place to attack the Saudis with Iran backing us to control their oil.
Sweet Lou I am going to bet he didn't click ok your link and read it. I did and it was a pretty interesting read. Do the 9/11 conspiracy people think the first unsuccessful attack by Bin Laden was a conspiracy also?
