Did anyone predict this election fiasco?

The Loose Change people are almost just as bad as the PM people. They don't represent my views. I don't need Loose Change or Popular Mechanics to tell me what is apparent to anyone who does their own research.

 

I'm with lode on this one.

There is no evidence of explosive devices in the WTCs other than 'hearing sounds' and 'seeing flashes' by first account witnesses. That's just not substantial proof to me.

 

That's because you haven't done any research. You've elected to instead believe what the government and media tell you, without questioning for yourself. Did you watch any of the clips I provided?

 

AIA Architect Richard Gage (part 1): 9/11 Symposium 11/03/07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjJzlcdtlkU

Architect Richard Gage (part2) :9/11 Symposium 11/03/07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ4MXU_-_2Q

 

The evidence of explosions outweighs the evidence of there being none.

 

Wow even Richard Gage agrees with my Jenga theory.

i feel smart.

 

How much dynamite would that take? From the evidence you've collected.

 

Who said dynamite was used? Now you're putting words in people's mouths.

 

How much "fire" would it take, from the evidence you've collected.

More then a plane could have generated im certain.

 

I actually watched all of the videos and read all the materials that you posted, hun.

I don't understand what the point and/or bearing of debating explosions in the WTC has. So what if there was? What is that supposed to mean and prove?

If it was an inside job, that wouldn't surprise me. It wouldn't surprise me either that someone working at the airport ushered the attackers onto their planes. I'm not sure why it's important to determine if there were bombs on the inside of the WTC.

Everyone knows that the government has covered up 911, swept it under the rug, transformed it to suit its own self interest, and witheld evidence. Nobody is debating that. Nobody can really, in my opinion.

But I don't feel like I'm being duped if I think that there were no internal building bombs - and cannot support an argument otherwise with any substantial evidence.

 

What was used.

 

I'm pretty sure I watched Loose Change a couple years ago because you recommended it, Pressed_Rat. Why do you object to the film now, may I ask?

 

ya im dropping out of this pending new evidence and knowledge.

this is never ending contradictions.

 

Well, the video was all right. I just don't take the people who made the film as being any more experts than anyone else who has done the research.

Actually, the new 'Loose Change: Final Cut' is very much worth checking out because it only features the most irrefutable evidence.

 

It would have taken over thousand pounds of precisely placed (which means cutting into the support columns) carefully placed dynamite which would have left a lot of residue to destroy one of the towers.

Thats a lot not to notice hm?

 

If the building would have fell "up" I might think it strange, but the buildings were damaged on the upper floor - and judging from the fireballs obviously owing to jet fuel, they were pretty severe in and of themselves - and the tremendous weight of the upper floor would have pancaked the lower. It's was inevitable.

Ah, all of this conspiracy theory crap distracts from the victims! I wash my hands of it forever.

 

But why do you assume that conventional explosives were used? Do you know of all the technology the government possesses? What makes you think it had to have been dynamite, or even rigged exactly the way conventional demolitions are? This was not a conventional demolition. The buildings were exploded rather than impoded.

 

Well how about the families of the victims who don't buy into the official story? Are they distracting from their loved ones who died?

Distracting from the victims is buying into the bullshit story they tried to sell us about Islamic terrorists with boxcutters, which is by far the most laughable and unbelievable conspiracy theory of them all.

 

Secret government explosives eh?

Tell me more.

 

I still don't understand the point of arguing this.