Suited_Up 2 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 We've already discussed this in a couple of threads and the conspiracy theorists arguments dont hold up.Considering you've done a lot of research on this and you seem primarily hung up on WTC 7... Have you read the NIST finding on the collapse of the WTC towers? Can you disprove their findings?Nobodies theories hold up.That's kinda the problem.If you don't have doubts... no matter what side you're on, you're an idiot. Link to post Share on other sites
Wingmaster05 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 why's that?LOL ok i thought i responded to someone saying the 911 stuff is bogus. Halocaust is fine by me. Link to post Share on other sites
princeof56k 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Nobodies theories hold up.That's kinda the problem.If you don't have doubts... no matter what side you're on, you're an idiot.I disagree. I think the governments theories hold up pretty well (NIST, 9/11 comission, ect).There might be doubts, but the story of a "bunch of terrorists crashing planes into the WTC bringing those buildings down" isnt one of them. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I disagree. I think the governments theories hold up pretty well (NIST, 9/11 comission, ect).There might be doubts, but the story of a "bunch of terrorists crashing planes into the WTC bringing those buildings down" isnt one of them.The evidence is pretty clear that everything they're saying isn't the truth.I'm not one to tell you what the truth really is, but it's clear to me, that there is more to the story. Link to post Share on other sites
princeof56k 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 The evidence is pretty clear that everything they're saying isn't the truth.I'm not one to tell you what the truth really is, but it's clear to me, that there is more to the story.Well what do you mean by everything? I think the evidence is pretty clear that some terrorists crashed planes into the WTC and Pentagon. And that the WTC collapse was a direct result of the planes. Do you disagree? Link to post Share on other sites
Wingmaster05 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 We've already discussed this in a couple of threads and the conspiracy theorists arguments dont hold up.Considering you've done a lot of research on this and you seem primarily hung up on WTC 7... Have you read the NIST finding on the collapse of the WTC towers? Can you disprove their findings?Ok, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. The government is responsible for 9/11. Would NIST come out and say "no way these towers should have fallen (like that)"? Reading the NIST report would be 800 pages of scientific jargon. Their conclusion was...? structure intregrity damage and fires brought it down? Since they completely ignore all the eyewitness accounts of bombs in the building, and other scientists not on the elite's payroll (example BYU physics professor Steven Jones, MIT engineer Jeff King both LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE and say 911 was executed by the government. The NIST report did not condone this "pancake theory" crap. They know it's bogus and can't back it up. I disagree. I think the governments theories hold up pretty well (NIST, 9/11 comission, ect).There might be doubts, but the story of a "bunch of terrorists crashing planes into the WTC bringing those buildings down" isnt one of them.Ok, please, for the love of God, read the 911 commission report and then read David Ray Griffin's 911 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. It's impossible to say that the Commission wasn't on an agenda to hide the truth. Link to post Share on other sites
fiftytwo52 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 the thing that stands out trhe most is the demolition- like collapse of the towers. Just doesnt make sense Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Well what do you mean by everything? I think the evidence is pretty clear that some terrorists crashed planes into the WTC and Pentagon. And that the WTC collapse was a direct result of the planes. Do you disagree? Yes. Far from clear that they collapsed from the planes, especially considering fire has never brought down those types of buildings. I don't want to get into it... it's been explained by a lot of sources and experts better than I could do it.As for terrorists. I have no reason to believe that wasn't the case. But I wouldn't exactly say it's clear, since nobody on those planes lived to tell us what happened. So I'm not saying it didn't happen like that... but there isn't really a clear way to say one way or another. I would just prefer to know the truth. Link to post Share on other sites
Wingmaster05 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 a post from page two. Nobody should disagree with this statement. It's easy to belive something when you want it to be true.And as I have stated, I did not want this to be true. I've spent my entire summer researching this event and am forced to come to the conclusion that it was an inside job. I probably appear fanatical to many of you (go ahead, i'm leaving the door open for a joke i'm sure...), but you can understand my consternation. If you believe this to be true, I feel it is your duty to invite everyone you know to the truth and let them come to a conclusion on their own. Link to post Share on other sites
rsmbox 1 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 LOL ok i thought i responded to someone saying the 911 stuff is bogus. Halocaust is fine by me. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Context I think. I hope Link to post Share on other sites
rsmbox 1 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 i was trying to figure out what contex...but i still don't get it... Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 He meant that he believes that it happened, not that he supports it.I think... Link to post Share on other sites
Wingmaster05 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 He meant that he believes that it happened, not that he supports it.I think...yeah, that's it. "fine by me" meaning i agree with what the textbooks say say on the matter. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 so if the planes were government planes and missiles...then were are all the people who were supposedly on the plane? Link to post Share on other sites
Wingmaster05 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 so if the planes were government planes and missiles...then were are all the people who were supposedly on the plane?Did you watch loose change? They cover a realistic possiblity. It is past the half way point of the movie i think, i cant remember.Sadly, if the government is capable of such an act, and expect to kill thousands...the killing of the people on the planes can be done without blinking. Link to post Share on other sites
Suited_Up 2 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Did you watch loose change? They cover a realistic possiblity. It is past the half way point of the movie i think, i cant remember.Sadly, if the government is capable of such an act, and expect to kill thousands...the killing of the people on the planes can be done without blinking.That's actually one of the few problems I did have with Loose Change. I didn't buy that part, it was completely speculation.Nice sig pic though, lol. Link to post Share on other sites
76clubs 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Though I disagree with what you say, I'll defend to the death your right to say it! Link to post Share on other sites
SAM_Hard8 50 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 this explains a lot I know of this site because my friends and I are going in two years (when we are of age)...and they are already planning it. Link to post Share on other sites
princeof56k 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Ok, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. The government is responsible for 9/11. Would NIST come out and say "no way these towers should have fallen (like that)"? Reading the NIST report would be 800 pages of scientific jargon. Their conclusion was...? structure intregrity damage and fires brought it down? Since they completely ignore all the eyewitness accounts of bombs in the building, and other scientists not on the elite's payroll (example BYU physics professor Steven Jones, MIT engineer Jeff King both LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE and say 911 was executed by the government. The NIST report did not condone this "pancake theory" crap. They know it's bogus and can't back it up. Ok, please, for the love of God, read the 911 commission report and then read David Ray Griffin's 911 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. It's impossible to say that the Commission wasn't on an agenda to hide the truth.Ok so I'm guessing you havent read it. Nice job researching this dude. Let's ignore a large detailed report thats actually using science to back up its conclusions. So basically all your comments about the report dont mean **** because you dont even know whats in there.That's what really bugs me. You dont even bother to do all the research. When you dont get all the facts, you can easily come to any conclusion you want. Did you even read the 9/11 Report? At least I watched that piece of **** called Loose Change (which is basically filled with distortions and outright lies).And in your above comment, you're basically saying the NIST was in on it (as well as a bunch of other government agencies). How many people were in on this thing? Thousands? And no one has come forward with indisputable proof considering it would be the story of the century? No way. Link to post Share on other sites
loxo 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 Nobodies theories hold up.That's kinda the problem.If you don't have doubts... no matter what side you're on, you're an idiot. Yep, how can any of us be sure? If we KNOW we went to Iraq to disarm them of their weapons of mass destruction then why aren't we in North Korea right now.........We KNOW they have these weapons.We (australians) KNOW again, that Abu Bakar Bashir was behind the 2002 Bali bombings, we KNOW he is a terrorist..... We KNOW he was released after 30 months of jail even though we KNOW he has promised to kill again. What do we do?Blind faith is the worst kind of stupidity. Every man was born with a brain, use it to question things at the very least. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 All of this is plausible. Link to post Share on other sites
Actuary 3 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 I've been thinking about getting a cable modem to replace the dial up for awhile now.with all these vids to watch, looks like I'm going to take the plunge.Wingmaster, you done flipped out. 19 yrs old and spending all summer worrying/researching this? Link to post Share on other sites
alf13 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Share Posted July 31, 2006 This one, the open farrelling thread, and the 2 pair is better than trips threads are the clear cut 3 dumbest threads on FCP.Congratulations wingmaster...you are a fukin nutcase. Link to post Share on other sites
Wingmaster05 0 Posted July 31, 2006 Author Share Posted July 31, 2006 Ok so I'm guessing you havent read it. Nice job researching this dude. Let's ignore a large detailed report thats actually using science to back up its conclusions. So basically all your comments about the report dont mean **** because you dont even know whats in there.That's what really bugs me. You dont even bother to do all the research. When you dont get all the facts, you can easily come to any conclusion you want. Did you even read the 9/11 Report? At least I watched that piece of **** called Loose Change (which is basically filled with distortions and outright lies).And in your above comment, you're basically saying the NIST was in on it (as well as a bunch of other government agencies). How many people were in on this thing? Thousands? And no one has come forward with indisputable proof considering it would be the story of the century? No way.You want me to read the entire NIST report? Let's face it, they will be speaking Urdu to me. Seriously, if you aren't a person with a solid base in specific science fields...the report will go over your head. I've read portions of it, and other scientists do not agree (notables MIT engineer Jeff King and BYU prof. Steve Jones).Question. Did the NIST report get to go into ground zero before all the rubble (evidence at the biggest crime scene in our recent history) was shipped away to a recycling plant? Yes. So they came to their conclusion and then Everything was shipped away. No peer review could've have accurately happened.EDIT: I don't actally know if NIST was allowed into ground zero. FEMA was not.The problem with the report was that they already had the conclusion laid out for them. As soon as the attacks happened, it wasn't long until we were being fed the entire story. Arabs hijacked some planes, crashed in the building, etc. These scientist probably didnt even consider trying to explain the WTC collapses differently. And what if they did come to the conclusion that the buildings shouldn't have come down (and one thing leads to another...realizing the govt did it)? A couple of threats and they would fear for their life and the lives of their family members------Just wondering? Why always the NIST report from you? I thought the FEMA one was more popular anyway.I've been thinking about getting a cable modem to replace the dial up for awhile now.with all these vids to watch, looks like I'm going to take the plunge.Wingmaster, you done flipped out. 19 yrs old and spending all summer worrying/researching this?I know, it's pretty pathetic. It's basically i work part time, having a couple of days off, but every night, till around 2/3 i read. So I do get some play now and then (lol). It's just so amazing how deep the rabbit hole goes, so to speak... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now