problem is that in your responses u just offer no counterargument to factual evidence presented to u and neither are able to come forward with a coherent hypothesis that could justify it; u also seem to be unable to offer any constructive criticism... u just trow insults after insults. maybe u are missin' the fact this way u are ridiculin' yourself not the posters whom u might disagree with.
I acknowledge that in the case of conspiracy theories like this, it is difficult for me to provide 'counter-arguments', because in my mind it's kind of like providing a counter-argument to the claim that the moon is made of blue cheese. I mean, what can I say to that - 'no it isn't'? With regard to the 'factual' evidence presented to support the claims that 9/11 was an inside job, I have reviewed some of it and it just seems like it's all wild speculation based on grainy or doctored video. In any case, I will accept your comments and reiterate that I will try in the future to be less insulting (except to the ET triumvirate of idiocy). btw, you didn't specify which variation of the conspiracy you believe in - Bush/Cheney Axis of Evil or the Zionist Bankers?
u see, that's what i mean when i refer to your shallow posts; many of the questions surroundin' the events that took place on 9/11 are legitimate and moral; most of the families involved in the attack believe there was a cover-up and are demandin' answers...an analytical mind cannot accept as truthful the version of facts presented by the government because it is easily refuted by inconsistencies and a massive amount of evidence...sayin' that there's was no wreckage at the pentagon crash site and that the plane engine dont match that of a 767 ain't sayin' the moon is made of cheese. sayin' that there was no bodies at the Pennsylvania crash site ain't a conspiracy same for the massive spike on puts bought just before the attacks related to all and only the companies directly affected by the events ain't wild speculation, and about the videos of the plane hittin' the building', why the fuck do they release that crap and not somethin' that clearly shows aa77...the list goes on and on, is HUGE and has been brought forward here but u and anyone else supportin' this administration have not been able to justify it, infact, u rather take the easy way out and decide to ignore it all because u say the government couldn't possibly have been involved in committin' such atrocities could it? very naive and superficial on your part imo. another useless comment u made about who's responsible...i am just questionin' what happened that faithful day, i cannot possibly have all the answers but i believe it is obvious to a blind man that there was a massive cover up perpetuated by your government.
Building damage to the southwest corner and smoke plume along the South face of 7 WTC, looking from the World Financial Plaza. In May 2002, the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the United States (FEMA) released a report on the collapse. [3] FEMA made preliminary findings that collapse was due primarily to fires on multiple stories caused by debris from the other two towers, and not to the actual impact damage of 1 WTC and 2 WTC as they collapsed. The report noted that, prior to this collapse, there was no record of the fire-induced collapse of a large fire-protected steel building such as 7 WTC. The report did not reach final conclusions, and outlined a number of issues that needed to be explored with respect to the cause of the collapse. Specifically, FEMA made these findings: âLoss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.â (Chapter 5, pg 31.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center Opponents to the controlled demolition theory recognize testimony provided by firefighters and EMT personnel about the severity of the damage to 7 WTC. Firefighters used transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure and were surprised to discover that it was, in fact, moving. [72] A collapse zone was set up at that time, and 7 WTC collapsed about an hour and a half later at 5:20 p.m.. * New York Fire Department personnel on the scene described the damage inflicted to the south face of WTC 7. Several statements were given by firefighters and other first responders emphasizing the critical condition of Building Seven. [73] The FEMA report provides a timeline of the collapse and photographs of the major events leading up to it. Mechanical penthouses are shown to have collapsed in succession during a 30-second window before the building itself collapsed. The east mechanical penthouse is shown to collapse first. Photographs also show a visible "kink" in the east side of the roofline as the building fell. The release of NIST's final report on its investigation into the structural failures of Seven World Trade Center has been twice postponed and is scheduled for release sometime in 2006. [74] In a New York Magazine interview in March 2006[75], Dr S. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead WTC disaster investigator, said that NIST has "had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." In draft copies of the report, NIST states that it has "seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#7_World_Trade_Center Ratboy, you've probably heard before that extraordinary accusations require extraordinary proof. The burden of proof is on you, not on Nik and you have completely failed to make your case.
Ok, man... I have tried to say, for the past three posts, that I will try to be less demeaning. My question about which theory you subscribe to was dead serious. If you subscribe to one of these theories, it shouldn't bother you to be asked which one it is. There are two separate theories that I have heard about. You say you don't know and you are just asking question about elements of the attacks that aren't sufficiently explained by the prevalent theory. Fine, but at some point you have to develop a theory about what the hell happened if KSM didn't train a group of young men, that they didn't come to America and blend in, that the pilots didn't go to flights schools, and that they didn't board the aircraft in question that day, and that they didn't take over the aircraft and fly them into those buildings. You have to come up with something, don't you? With regard to the quote above, are you saying that all the footage we have seen of the planes hitting the WTC buildings, including all the amateur footage, has been faked? By the way, it has always struck me as strange that a plane the size of a jetliner could crash into the Pentagon and leave such an apparently small hole, unless it crashed way before the building and just a small chunk of it slid forward and took out that small section. Or maybe it's just that I am not familiar with the scale of the building and the chunk is actually huge, but it doesn't look like it in pictures. These questions don't make me question the fact that KSM trained a group of Arab men and that they perpetrated these attacks.
What is so hard to explain about this, if indeed it is true that such buying occurred (if you would educate me and post the links that prove this, I would appreciate it, and I would like real links, not John's Conspiracies 'R Us - this is one 'fact' that should be very easy to confirm). If I were planning an attack of this kind and I was as financially sophisticated as OBL and his buddies, I would buy puts too! (By the way, some bs artist here characterized OBL as a goatherd living in a cave on dialysis... yeah, that's accurate. The guy comes from a family worth billions.. yeah, he's just an unsophisticated goatherd.. yep. Wasn't it Sun-Tzu who said 'Know your enemy'?). And furthermore... if Bush and Cheny organized the attacks, would they buy puts?? Understanding the eventual spikes in oil price that would net them tens of billions (since the War was also part of the plan, I am assuming), and the billions they would make through KBR and HAL contracts, they would buy puts that could be traced, to make a few tens of millions?
As I said before extraordinary accusations require extraordinary proof. Watching the building come down is not extraordinary enough proof if you ask me. There was no motive, there was no explosion, there was no preparation, no witnesses came forward, no retired participants wrote books about it, no insurance companies sued no one. Your entire case is based on your claim that it looked like controlled demolition and that Larry said something weird. Sorry it just does not cut it.