Yakuzaice said:
That comes back to the attack itself. Why all the theories about missiles, holograms, thermite, controlled demolitions, etc....? I mean any theory you have is going to require the terrorists to either be cooperating with the government or they were just fabrications created by the governemnt. So why bother with another layer of conspiracy on top of that? Did the FBI decide to fly planes into the WTC, but the CIA was like "that plan sucks, let's rig it for demolition too. After all, making things more complicated is a sure route to success!"? Then the EPA says "Hey, let's also hijack another plane, but instead of using that we'll shoot a missile at the Pentagon"...................and I could go on trying to translate the conspiracy theories into real life scenarios. Do you really not see how this gets ridiculous? Instead of just sticking with a simple theory that it was perpetrated by a few dozen people, all of a sudden you've got thousands of people in on the plan because it is ridiculous and bloated. I mean if the government could do all that, couldn't they just plant some WMDs in Iraq? Then we get into the false statements you've made. The WTC buildings did not collapse at free fall speed. 1 & 2 are especially easy to tell, the debris falls faster than the building itself. Cut and dry. You claimed the black box from flight 93 was vaporized. It wasn't. It was recovered and I linked you to a transcript of the contents. You claimed all of the wreckage from flight 93 was ash or microscopic. You can find plenty of pictures with wreckage that is easily identifiable as airplane parts. I mean shit, some of the conspiracy theories center around wreckage being too far (in their opinion) from the crash site. Similar thing with the Pentagon, you seem to be focused on a hole in ring C, and assume it was what? A missile? I don't know, but you again ignored all the plane parts that littered the impact area. You claimed the WTC buildings were designed to take multiple hits from 767's, then 707's. They weren't. You took the comments from someone who had no part in the design of the WTC and created a whole conspiracy around it. Then you ignore the quote from the lead structural engineer on the WTC who states it was designed for a scenario where a plane was lost in the fog, attempting to land (low on fuel), and flying at a low rate of speed. (in other words, exactly like the planes that crashed into the ESB and 40 Wall St.) You claimed a 707 was bigger than a 767. It isn't, the closest you can get is the biggest 707 is about the same size as the smallest 767. I'm guessing you just saw a 707 had 4 engines and thought it must be about the size of a 747.
You seem to be under the impression that anyone who disagrees with you is just a sheep who follows what the government or the media says. How many of the claims you have made in this thread were your own conclusions and how many were you seeing some youtube video and thinking 'yeah, that seems plausible'? I also have to ask if you have any background in engineering or physics? |
ahhhh.... logic and reasoning... it hurts!!!!
none of that is needing here... you are a sheep
(though i have to adamittly disagree with you about creationism, but that beside the point)
