Quote:
Originally Posted by dyna mo
i'm all for investigating, check it out till the end of time.
but to say the nist explanation is bunk & stating it was a nano-thermite controlled demo?
pfft.
|
Who here said nano-thermite? Certainly it makes more sense than gasoline-ignited office fires, but I didn't saiy that...
NIST lied, the first few times, eventually incorporating free fall, without ever explaining the fall of building 7.
Why is it more or less bunk than any other dubious statements?
Quote:
Originally Posted by theking
The towers were a new structural design when they were built...and my confidence level is high that the current tower being built will not be built with the same structural design...but of course the structural designs to build a high rise are not infinite...so I seriously doubt that "everything" can be revised.
|
The towers weren't new, and were in fact an improvement of past steel buildings - basically being a new standard in their class.
Post-industrial building design has been based on their same standards since the beginning, and all skyscrapers have maintained the standard - whether there were earthquakes, plane crashes, fires, etc... none have collapsed.
Suddenly for the first time, this one does... and no one has investestigated why...
Weird.
Quote:
Originally Posted by porno jew
i have done it hundreds of time but it doesn't matter.
basically anything i post wont be read. and if read not understood. usually just say it's government black-ops propaganda.
you can use google. any of the so-called conspiracy facts have been debunked on dozens of sites and articles.
you are part of an online cult. nothing i say will sway you until you decide to leave it.
|
Really...
So you like a million conspiracy freaks believe anything you google?
Nothing's been debunked. Popular Mechanics has especially been de-bunked, and with hilarity.
Instead of taking the time to post all that, why didn't you just state some facts? Post some links to what you think is "true"?
Anything you post will be read by me; if factual, certainly understood; absolutely not referred to anything "black ops" oriented... unless it verifiably is.
Everybody I know who says they've argued all this in the past, and researched all the google debunking links, have invariably been wrong or found to be unfounded - in other words, they saw the links, headlines, and believe whatever they were proclaiming without actually reading the articles or following the facts... just going on "faith" (in the media?) in other words...
Most people I know who disbelieve the 9/11 government story have at least done some actual research...
:D