Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AzCivic
you know what's funny? if the gov't would've said not only did terrorists crash into the towers with planes they also planted explosives and thermite devices, Steve would be arguing some other crack pot point of view, like the gov't used a ground shaking device to bring the buildings down. "you know how much explosives and thermite it'd take to take down a couple of buildings like that!?" he'd ask, and then explain how it'd be impossible to follow through with such a plan w/ out being found out. Its not the evidence to the contrary that made up his mind, its the fact that the gov't told him it happened a certain way so he just can't accept it.
|
Actually, what's really funny is that you've really begun talking way out of your ass in a (once again) complete lack of a cohesive thought process. If the government could take a serious and unbiased look at everything that happened, I'd shut my mouth. They had that dog and pony show that they called the 9/11 Commission, but there are no less than 115 pieces of evidence either omitted or ignored. Most of this evidence is well documented and not anywhere close to the conspiracy fringe (although some of it is admittedly suspect). Much like the joke that was the Warren Commission (you know people run out of ideas when they turn to magic), the government pretended to search for the truth but ended up feeding the public the most feeble explanation they could come up with. Every time I see a "commission" being formed, I just have this sneaking suspicion I'm about to be fed a load of bullshit. Now that I think about it, all the government would've had to do to shut people up is say "yeah, they put those explosives there before hand". Since they haven't and it would have significantly bolstered their case, I'm guessing they don't have any answer for it.
And to quickly touch on your reply to Gone, if the top of the tower (all floors above the effected area) toppled over sideways, where's the impetus for the rest of the building to fall straight down? I mean...the effected area should either pull the whole building over with it or it would relieve structural pressure on the lower floors leaving them intact. What you're talking about is a building essentially falling vertically in an almost upside down "L" shape. I'm no structural engineer, but I really don't see that happening.
As I said back on the first page of this thread, this is exactly why it's so hard to have any reasonable discussion on this topic or any subject like it. I could provide you with independently verified video of Bush with his finger on the button and you'd still call me a "crack pot" or whatever colorful yet useless euphamism about me being crazy simply because I question what I've been told. If you can live with what you've been told, plot holes and spelling errors included, that's cool. I can't. It doesn't make me or anyone else crazy. It makes me curious and inquisitive. And really, for every "weak" piece of evidence I've presented, you've come back with something equally as inconclusive...so why the hell am I still getting this "weak argument" bullshit? Face it...you can't prove your end of it any more than I can prove mine.