NardDogNation wrote:I buy and still largely buy the government's story about how the events unfolded that day but let's not pretend that our government has never had a hand in the fabrication of tragedies to justify war. Is it in the realm of possibility that the attacks were perpetuated by them, directly or indirectly? Yeah, I think it is. Are we conveniently forgetting the "mysterious" sinking of the USS Maine to get us into the Spanish American War? The Gulf of Tonkin incident to put boots on the ground for Vietnam? The convenient breakdown of command in 1941, which failed to relay telegrams that the Japanese were intending to attack? Even declassified documents from Castro fisaco during 1950s revealed that one of the plans to justify an invasion of Cuba, was to down a commercial airliner and blame it on them.

The only thing that really makes me question the "official story" of that day is how the buildings fell. First of all, they were intentionally designed to withstand the impact of an airliner but more importantly, why is it that their base gave out when the damage was done to the top of the building? The way they fell resembled a demolition of building.

I was 20 blocks away from the towers when they fell, watching the entire thing unfold from the roof of my office building. My buddy was on the roof of WTC 1.

FYI, the WTC towers did NOT fall like a building demolition - they fell from the top down due to weakened structural integrity of the core beams from extreme heat. As for withstanding an airliner smashing the building, the engineering designed it to withstand a Beoing 707 airliner built circa 1970, not a modern 747 with its far greater fuel carrying capacity, size, etc.

We never saw buildings fall in fire like that so assume "conspiracy", but we never saw planes hit or that amount of fuel burn out in a building either. Im not saying every facet makes sense nor exclude the concept, but I mostly have read all the theories and they are physical but nobody ever goes into the macro reasons of why it happened. It just goes into "They". "They" being "The new order", or "Illuminati" or "the govt". Thats weak. Its easy to connect the dots. ITs why it was a kids game.

Your connecting the dots. There are plausible answers. If you choose to not believe them thats your thing. But you seem to be motivated/engaged with Moonangie and the guy freakin told you his view and your just gonna hammer it on and on? HE IS EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO A BELIEF DUE TO THE LOSS OF SOMEONE AND YOUR REALLY GONNA KEEP THIS UP? Are there not enough sites, videos, and discussions to not satisfy your curiosity/obsession or what ever it is?

Its not a question of "waking up", or "Who did it", its just freaking rude.

Nalod wrote:EMS, you take the path of "If the question cannot be answered, you assume CONSPIRACY".
If logic cannot be applied, you assume "Conspiracy".
If it makes not sense, you assume "conspiracy".

I'm not sure I understand your accusation. What happened that day involved the cooperation of quite a few people. I prefer not to use the word conspiracy theory (that was just the point of the video - The governments story is the most extreme of conspiracy theories.) We are talking about so much evidence here, physical (e.g. thermite residue), anecdotal, etc. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

Nalod wrote:We never saw buildings fall in fire like that so assume "conspiracy", but we never saw planes hit or that amount of fuel burn out in a building either. Im not saying every facet makes sense nor exclude the concept, but I mostly have read all the theories and they are physical but nobody ever goes into the macro reasons of why it happened. It just goes into "They". "They" being "The new order", or "Illuminati" or "the govt". Thats weak. Its easy to connect the dots. ITs why it was a kids game.

I am talking basic science here. Planes hit buildings, the buildings withstood the planes impact, no problem. But, there were bombs going off in that building, both before (e.g. See William Rodriquez' testimony, he was the Janitor in the basement when a huge explosion went off before the first plane hit.) and after the plane hit (e.g. first hand eye witness reports of being blown across rooms, many floors below the fires.) We can go on here and again, that is why there are thousands of professionals involved in this criminal case. It is because of all of the (types of) evidence.

You want macro reasons? War, oil, future plans, etc. Not sure where you are going with your logic here. Forget about the illuminati, NWO, etc. Just stick with the evidence. That is not needed for discussing the evidence of the case.

Nalod wrote:Your connecting the dots. There are plausible answers. If you choose to not believe them thats your thing. But you seem to be motivated/engaged with Moonangie and the guy freakin told you his view and your just gonna hammer it on and on? HE IS EMOTIONALLY ATTACHED TO A BELIEF DUE TO THE LOSS OF SOMEONE AND YOUR REALLY GONNA KEEP THIS UP? Are there not enough sites, videos, and discussions to not satisfy your curiosity/obsession or what ever it is?

Its not a question of "waking up", or "Who did it", its just freaking rude.

Hey, I was replying. Motivated? I guess that is why I replied. Hammering it on? One reply later? Come on, that is a bit excessive. I was trying to clear a bit up, in the sense that I didn't want him to think I was questioning things here to hurt the victims families, etc. You seem to think you have me all understood by just reading a few posts. This isn't a deep discussion. It is superficial and you are coming at me like some kind of psychologist. Before you think you know somebody through a few posts in a thread, you probably need to go a bit deeper imo.

It was the anniversary 2 days ago of the biggest terror attack in our history. I didn't feel like going to a 911 board. People post all kinds of OT topics here and on other boards. I don'T think it is unreasonable to bring up something that has changed out lives for the worse. If no one cares about the post, it will go unanswered. I'm not going to keep adding to it alone.

You "see" rude from your perspective. We are all like that, but don't project your perspective as fact. It's a thread, a small one. Perhaps don't make it into more than it is.

EMS