oh.. i thought building 7 WASN'T a controlled demolition.

that reads like a dimestore novel! lmfao

 

God... even for him, that's bad.

 

lmfao?

Really?!

Fuck man...

Really? LMFAO? That's the way you want to respond to that?

 

What's a dimesto[SIZE=-1]re novel?
[/SIZE]

 

It's just like a paperback novel... the kind that drugstores sell.

 

Again, why is the tape not released to the public? Is their sensitive information on it? If there is sensitive information, then why make a transcript for it?

 

Oh, if you could read my mind...

 

Do you not trust the families of 911 victims? You think they are lying about what they heard? Because that's the only basis for doubting the tape at this point.

Well I see nothing cracks you guys up quite like the families of 911 victims.

What exactly is your problem with this?

 

no disrespect meant to the families but that was a lame attempt at jurnalisim if that is what it was meant to be, most dime store novels are a work of ficticios drama! peace!

 

OK here's a more bland reporting of the same story.

 

So your logical argument against the tapes is essentially 'nuh-uh'.

I suppose it's easy to defend your position with mocking whatever may be damning to it.

Theres still no evidence presented in the past couple pages by the CT side. Because there is no evidence.

The government took advantage of 9/11. So are CT's trying to sell books. You all by it because it fits into your world view.

There is evidence that could convince me that the government was responsible for 9/11.

There is no evidence and nothing that could convince you people that it was an act of a dozen and a half Muslim extremists.

It's obvious to me on those grounds that your position isn't built on a strong foundation. Just a stuborn one.

 

Well, first of all, 7 of the 19 alleged hijackers are still alive and working to have their names cleared, so I think that alone refutes your statement right there.

 

Really? Which seven? Can you show any evidence that these people are alive and trying to clear their names?

I hope you aren't talking about people with similar names who were cleared up several years ago (actually within weeks of the attacks), because that would be a bit pathetic.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html
http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAliveAndWell.shtml

 

Exactly. A BBC story from September 23, 2001, when there was still confusion about people with similar sounding names.

Isn't that a bit pathetic? This was cleared up long ago.

 

Let me give an example about the strength of that argument.

True story, I have a friend named Matthew Perry. Let's say I wanted to get an autograph for and sell it on ebay. I got my friends autograph. Would that be a forgery if I put up a picture of the actor from Friends next to my friend Matt's signature?

Of course it would. It would be a false claim. So would claiming the people involved in the 9/11 hijackings were still alive.

Heres another just, logic question. If the attack was a facade... why not make up fake terrorists, instead of having real ones use real names?

 

The government's list of hijackers listed the actual identities of the people still alive, with their photos, DOB and everything. So how come the government is still showing us the faces and identities of people that have proven to still be alive? Who are the actual hijackers in this case and where are their photographs?

For instance, the man below, Waleed Al Shehri, is still alive. So why do we still see the face of a person who is still alive among the official list of hijackers? Why was his face not removed from the list, and where is the face of the actual hijacker?

 

much better! but still at this point i would still call it hearsay! witch is not addmissable in a court of law! why would i consider it just because some one said it was so? if i said the moon was flat and have the pics to prove it but i cant release the photos because of an upcoming trial of lewis armstrong would you belive me?

 

Louis Armstrong? I hear he can play a mean trumpet in zero gravity.

 

So your logical argument against the tapes is essentially 'nuh-uh'.

not at all! but i do question when they say we cant release the tapes because of......
and put out transcripts of said tapes! dosent that make you think?

I suppose it's easy to defend your position with mocking whatever may be damning to it.

what praytell is my "position" ? there are many un answerd questions and many questions that have not been answerd to a lot of pepoles satisfaction does that make pepole who ask and seek the truth conspiricy nuts?