This Won't Satisfy the Deniers
But there is a new NIST status report (PDF) on the evaluation of WTC 7. Among the items to be studied are the following:
Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios
Evaluation of thermite as a possible blast substance
Awarded contract for evaluation of hypothetical blast scenarios
You know how it goes, NIST will get zero credit for evaluating the Denier's theories.
posted by Pat @ 8:34 PM
29 comments
29 Comments:
"Conduct thermal analysis for fires and fireproofing condition for ANSYS structural model.
Conduct analysis of structural response of floors 5 to 13 to debris impact damage and fires using ANSYS."
I would not want to have that job, running FEA (finite element analysis) with ANSYS is extraordinarily time consuming.
On the plus side, it will probably be more accurate than making chicken wire model.
the fact that nist are studying explosive scenarios proves 2 things:
1) they havent a clue what happened to 7
I thought you said you read the relevant Engineering documents. I guess you lied. Oh well, what else is new.
2) Blast scenarios are viable
You are going to find out that they most certainly are not, but we're pretty sure of that already
nist and fema arent independent, simple as that.
But the qualified folks who review their work are. These folks are in nations besides the US.
No one has yet answered my question as to why the 911 commision pretended the 47 huge core columns didnt exist
Because they didn't say that.
the fact that nist are studying explosive scenarios proves 2 things:
You left out number 3, that they hope to stop the incessant whining of terrorist supporters such as yourself.
They will, for the record, fail in that endeavor. Nothing will stop your whining.
calling us terrorist suppoters isdisgraceful.
Stop supporting the terrorists and you won't get accused of it. Let me guess, you're a holocaust revisionist too, right?
Don't you know the IRA is just a creation of the British secret services and doesn't really exist. I read it on a 9/11 conspiracy website.
manny how am i a terrorist supporter?
(snip)
calling us terrorist suppoters isdisgraceful.(sic)
This from a guy accusing senior members of FDNY of the mass murder of the firefighters under their charge? It would be amusing if you weren't so disgusting.
i can feel a blog entry coming on
And then, the comfy chair!
Does anyone know if the NIST have the material remains to test for explosive residue?
Stop supporting the terrorists and you won't get accused of it. Let me guess, you're a holocaust revisionist too, right?
Once again Alex your contribution is meaningless. So to raise questions is to support terrorists? Great logic Alex, just great!
So to raise questions is to support terrorists?
By shifting the blame from the terrorists (who committed these acts) to the government (who didn't commit these acts), you are supporting the terrorists - whether you mean to or not.
So to raise questions is to support terrorists?
The problem is you're not asking questions, you're making statements. If I were to say "Swing Dangler is a moron! I want a fair investigation of whether or not he's a moron!", you would rightly say that I've already made up my mind and am simply libeling you. Similarily, it's obvious that you and your ilk have already made up your minds about who was behid 9/11, and you're convinced it wasn't the terrorists. So yeah, you certainly are supporting them.
So yeah, once again your contribution is meaningless.
Blast Scenarios
"You are going to find out that they most certainly are not, but we're pretty sure of that already."
Really? Why is that so? It seems like a CD scenario is the only that explains the symetrical collapse of the building and the pre-explosion sound prior to the collapse.
It only seems that way if you're blind. How else would you expect the WTC buildings to collapse? Can you assume for a second no bombs were used, and then show me a simple model of how they SHOULD have collapsed? If not, then how do you know symmetrical collapse was impossible?
And what exactly is a "pre-explosion" sound? You could have any type of sound at all before an explosion. Are you talking about birds singing? People screaming? And which explosion are you talking about exactly? There were several, be more precise in the future.
Really? Why is that so? It seems like a CD scenario is the only that explains the symetrical collapse of the building and the pre-explosion sound prior to the collapse.
Another mouthbreather who didn't read the preliminary NIST report on WTC7.
BTW, what pre-explosion sound? What is a 'pre-explosion' sound? Heck, was there even an explosion sound? Nope, not from what I can tell.
Actually linking those who raise questions about the events of 9/11 to supporters of terrorists is a false analogy fallacy. The statement can really be disregarded by the readers of this blog as meaningless, pointless banter. The two are so completely different that they shouldn't be compared at all. And if you have read my posts, I have never pointed fingers at who was responsible, I've simply raised questions. If the answers to those questions point in a particular direction so be it.
None of us and I repeat none of us can prove 'who' did it. The government can't, won't, or hasn't proven it to the public and CT can't prove it to the public. There isn't enough ample evidence provided to the public to support either side. The evidence released so far...contradictory eyewitness accounts, theories untested, grainy photos, passports that survive fiery crashes of jets into buildings, the list goes on! All which raise serious questions.
If it were an open and shut case, you wouldn't have CT and their questions would you? Simple fact!
But it isn't a open and shut case, far from it!
The difference is supporters of this web site trust the government and those who question do not. Now ask yourself, why is the Federal Government in a postion not to be trusted by all? Ask yourself does the Federal Government have a history of lying to its citizens for whatever reason? And if so, why then is the government expected to be taken by faith alone of what it says is true?
Alex-"Swing Dangler is a moron! I want a fair investigation of whether or not he's a moron!"
That sir is a biased opening statement unsupported by anything. In regards to 9/11, my questions have been raised because of unanswered questions, photographs, the 9/11 Commission report, the Bush Administrations statements and prior track record, our allies press accounts, current independent investigations, and mainstream news reports, as well as historical record.
If a fair, impartial, open, factual investigation to support the moron statement PROVES it to be true, then fine, I will accept the comment as fact.
Besides why are you detracting from my original question regarding the testing of materials by the NIST for explosive residue with this absurb point. Swing Dangler doesn't agree with me or the government so he is a moron! Or Swing brings up some questions I'm uncomfortable with, he is a moron! Alex your awesome!
Ever notice Alex I have yet to trash any of the names of folks or your character? Why is that old Swing does that? Because it displays an overwhelming lack of intellectual capacity.
I've only attacked the information or the opinions you have posted with clear and simple logic, facts, and statements.
I've simply raised questions. If the answers to those questions point in a particular direction so be it.
Well that's a load of nonsense. Let me say it again:
YOU DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS!
YOU MAKE STATEMENTS!
Was it any clearer that time?
Here, I'll even quote you:
"It seems like a CD scenario is the only that explains the symetrical collapse of the building and the pre-explosion sound prior to the collapse."
See?!?! THAT'S NOT A GODDAMN QUESTION!
None of us and I repeat none of us can prove 'who' did it.
Only in the metaphysical sense that nobody can ever truly know anything. If you're going to start talking about that shit, I suggest you do it with the Dalai Llama instead. In the meantime, the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have been documented and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
If it were an open and shut case, you wouldn't have CT and their questions would you? Simple fact!
I thought I'd hear you say some stupid things before, but this one takes the cake. You do, ofcourse, realize that there are CT's about Elvis still being alive? About the moon landing being faked? Hell, there's still people who BELIEVE THE EARTH IS FLAT. So no, "an open and shut case" does not preclude Conspiracy Theories. No matter how well documented the events of 9/11 become, there will always be ignorant conspiratoids willing to believe your nonsense.
But it isn't a open and shut case, far from it!
That's your opinion, and it happens to be wrong.
That sir is a biased opening statement unsupported by anything.
Well, no, actually, it's supported by the fact that you make moronic statements all the time. So I do have SOME evidence. On the other hand, if I were a twoofer like you, I could simply say something like "It seems like you being a moron is the only thing that explains the symmetrical collapse of the building and the pre-explosion sound prior to the collapse".
If a fair, impartial, open, factual investigation to support the moron statement PROVES it to be true, then fine, I will accept the comment as fact.
Except that you would immediately dismiss any investigation which didn't agree with you, stating that it "obviously" wasn't "fair and balanced", or "didn't answer all the questions".
Swing Dangler doesn't agree with me or the government so he is a moron! Or Swing brings up some questions I'm uncomfortable with, he is a moron!
Uncomfortable? Maybe if you started asking me what I was wearing. Otherwise, I doubt you could say anything to make me feel uncomfortable.
You're not a moron because you disagree with me; you're a moron because of what you believe. If I say the sky is blue and you say it's green, then you're a moron. Period. I don't care if you come back and say "you're only calling me a moron because I disagree with you". Whine all you like, it won't change the fact that you're a moron because you think the sky is green. On the other hand if you want to disagree with me about whether a rare steak is better than a well done steak, or over which region the best Merlot comes from, well then that's fine. Opinions you can disagree over no problem, but you CAN NOT disagree over facts. Not without looking like an idiot.
Alex your awesome!
That I know. Wish I could say the same about you. At best you're amusing. In the way that a retarded second cousin chasing your cat around the house might seem amusing.
Ever notice Alex I have yet to trash any of the names of folks or your character? Why is that old Swing does that? Because it displays an overwhelming lack of intellectual capacity.
If your lack of insults is the only thing you can point to in order to make yourself feel smart, that's pretty sad. Also, if you're willing to judge the merits of an argument based on the vulgarity of the person making the argument, that also is rather sad. It's only a little better than making fun of an accent.
I've only attacked the information or the opinions you have posted with clear and simple logic, facts, and statements.
There's been no logic and zero facts, but plenty of statements. So much for your "I'm only asking questions" excuse.
Alex you are being terribly emotional don't you think? Cursing and swearing and ranting like that! Am I getting under your skin? ;)
Ok, Alex you got me on one point you wascally wabbit! I do make statements, but the statment you mentioned does state the word, seem, which leaves open the door for other possiblities, not a blanket fact.
"You're willing to judge the merits of an argument based on the vulgarity of the person making the argument"
Well you don't seem to make a good arguement in most cases my good friend. You spout arguement fallacies over and over and over again.
Stop lumping holocaust deniers, Elvis is alive folks, anti-semities (in the racial sense), UFO people (although that one is certainly debatable) with American people who raise questions regarding the events surrounding 9/11. When you do that it is yet another fallacy and sounds like something Fox News would do. Geez do I have to point out every fallacy you committ or are you learning anything from my counter-points?
"In the meantime, the circumstances surrounding 9/11 have been documented and proven beyond any reasonable doubt."
Reasonable doubt?!?! LOL, now that is funny because if that were the case you would be posting on steak lovers.com and not on this site. Heck, this site wouldn't even exist, would it? There would be no Scholars organization, no Loosechange or the various videos, no information withheld from the public, no President lying about Sadaam and 9/11 and then changing his mind, no Stephen Jones, etc, etc.
Ok, here are some questions:
Why investigate WTC 7 for CD as the NIST will be doing?
Why the reports of hijackers still alive?
What did all the eyewitness see and hear prior to collapse of all the WTC buildings 1 and 2?
What was the massive explosion heard before the 'gon collapsed?
Where the heck is that large jet in the Pentagon photos?
What did happen to the air defense systems on that day?
Why not release the computer models that were used to 'prove'a pancake collapse?
Why not release all of the video footage of that day?
Why lie about prior knowledge of the attacks?
How does a jet make small holes in buildings?
Why censor FBI investigators?
Why are they labeled as Islamic terrorists when they party like gigolos?
Why lie about air quality in NYC?
Why did the 9/11 Commission criticise the President and Pentagon regarding their uncooperation?
Others from http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html
Which hijackers have been positively identified by DNA?
Is the FBI in possession of DNA samples for all of the hijackers?
How did the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.
Who found the passports and what time where they found?
Can the FBI describe the condition of each passport?
Can the FBI explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno?
Why did the Family Steering Committee see fit to publish this statement: When the (9/11)Commission concluded its investigation, it issued a report containing 41 recommendations for improving our nation's security. The report did not answer all of our questions, but its in-depth analysis of intelligence, foreign policy, security and other failures and subsequent recommendations for improvement were reforms we could endorse.
Now Alex and others, why isn't the American public and the world allowed to have answers to these questions?
Pre-explosion sound you hear...I think that was Larry saying, "Pull-It". ;)
I have read the Pre-lim report. And straight from the report...
"NIST has seen no evidence that the collapse of WTC 7
was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition."
I guess the new status report contradicts that doesn't it? So why test for it?
They didn't 'see' anything? How about testing the material remains for evidence. Video alone..place WTC 7 video footage next to a CD video and I guess there is no resemblance at all.
Lets see how they will determine said blast scenarios:
"Phase II dentify hypothetical blast scenarios and materials, based on analysis and/or experience, for failing specified columns by direct attachment methods."
Hmm I see no testing for chemical residues of said building materials. Which goes back to my original question:
Does anyone know if they have material to test for explosive chemical residue? Does anyone else feel they should analyse the evidence to prove or disprove the theory? Just curious.
Maybe Dr. Jones is getting somewhere with all of his crazy conspiracy theories!
Stop lumping holocaust deniers, Elvis is alive folks, anti-semities (in the racial sense), UFO people (although that one is certainly debatable) with American people who raise questions regarding the events surrounding 9/11.
*sigh*
I stopped reading at that point. Now, I'm going to explain this to you logically, and if you prove capable of understanding then I may go back and address some of your other points. But if you can't understand even something this simple, then you're an utter waste of my time. So here goes:
You stated that if 9/11 were an "open and shut case", there would be no conspiracies.
I then listed other "open and shut cases", such as the world being round for instance, and pointed out that conspiracy theories exist about THOSE cases.
Now, here comes the bit where you turned your brain off: I wasn't lumping in the 9/11 movement with those conspiracies in order to say that they are all exactly the same. Instead, I was showing you that no matter how much evidence is present in a given situation, people will ALWAYS come up with their own interpretations, and will thus develop a Conspiracy Theory. This goes for aliens, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, the moon landing, global cooling, global warming, nuclear winter, the flat world society, the CIA-caused-Katrina crowd, etc. Through these examples I categorically disproved your ludicrous assertion that no CT's would exits about 9/11 if only enough evidence were available.
Now, do you understand? And are you willing to admit being wrong for a change?
It's incredible how the truthers ignore the whole flocks of scientists and engineers who support the Official Story, and then, when one single person comes their way with a dissenting view, shout, "AHA! PROOF!", regardless of the person's credentials.
As Screw Loose Change (the movie) so ingeniously said: "You doubt the words of all our structural engineers, but you take the words of Osama bin Laden as gospel?"
But it isn't a open and shut case, far from it!
No, it isn't. However, your mistake is to use this as proof it's not a fact. There are tonnes of proven facts in the world that are being debated even though there's a mountain of evidence opposing it. Let me give you some examples:
Evolution is a proven fact, but debated heavily in the United States.
AIDS has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to be transmutable through sexual intercourse. Yet, in some countries, it's not only believe that AIDS can only be caught through blood, but that raping a virgin without AIDS will cure you.
Condoms are proven to work very effectively (though not perfectly), but their effectiveness is heavily debated in many countries (I think Jack Chick, too, made a comic on them once).
Stop lumping holocaust deniers, Elvis is alive folks, anti-semities (in the racial sense), UFO people (although that one is certainly debatable) with American people who raise questions regarding the events surrounding 9/11.
OK, so I, too, hate it when people presenting facts are conveniently branded "conspiracy theorists".
This is not the case here, though. There is far more "evidence" for UFOs and a non-existant Holocaust than there is "evidence" for 9/11 being caused by Bush. Far more.
How many movie clips of "extraterrestrial vessels" are there in the world? A million? More? How many web sites dedicated to refuting the horrific acts of the Nazi party in the death camps? Quite a few more than there are blogs "asking questions" about 9/11. Most of these sites present tonnes and tonnes of "evidence" that's just as convincing as Loose Change's evidence. That is, if you're sufficiently ignorant.
Why investigate WTC 7 for CD as the NIST will be doing?
Non-sequitir. It does not follow that just because they’re investigating something, that something is what happened.
Why the reports of hijackers still alive?
Why the old science textbooks claiming that insects coem from rotting meat?
Because people make mistakes. No one’s perfect.
What did all the eyewitness see and hear prior to collapse of all the WTC buildings 1 and 2?
Nothing of which has not been explained rationally.
What was the massive explosion heard before the 'gon collapsed?
I have no idea of what you’re talking about. Enlighten me.
Where the heck is that large jet in the Pentagon photos?
You mean the footage?
Look closely at the whole series. It’s there.
What did happen to the air defense systems on that day?
Dear you, nothing ”did happen to” the air defence systems that day. Readiness was low. If you looked further into it, you’d see
Why not release the computer models that were used to 'prove'a pancake collapse?
Elaborate.
Why not release all of the video footage of that day?
Why not release all of the footage of that brutal rape down in city x the other day?
Because it’s none of your freaking business.
Why lie about prior knowledge of the attacks?
Because it doesn’t reflect good on you that you knew it was going to happen and did nothing?
Maybe?
How does a jet make small holes in buildings?
Or better yet: When did the hole in the Pentagon become ”little”? It’s more than a floor high.
To answer your question, though, it’s because only the lower portion of the fuselage went through the building walls.
Why censor FBI investigators?
Probably because the US government didn’t want people to know how incompetent they were when it came to preventing an attack that killed 3000.
Why are they labeled as Islamic terrorists when they party like gigolos?
I love this one.
OK, so killing people is what Islamic fundamentalists do. Partying isn’t. So in conclusion, based on these two statements, killing people is more ”Islamic” than partying?
”Those murderers weren’t Muslims! They… They… Party! Muslims don’t do that!”
…The racism of some people…
PS: ”True Scotsman” fallacy”.
Why lie about air quality in NYC?
Because they’re assholes. They wanted people back in there to prove it was ”business as usual”. As a result, a good lot of people got serious respiratory problems from the asbestos they inhaled.
How this is related to Bush being behind 9/11, however, I have no idea.
Why did the 9/11 Commission criticise the President and Pentagon regarding their uncooperation?
Because the President and the Pentagon were being uncooperative?
Seriously, what’s the question here? If you were investigating something and someone was obstructing you, wouldn’t you raise objections?
What’s your point here?
Others from http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html
It’s been there all the time and you’ve still not bothered to look up the answers that are all over the Web. Neither have the Web site creators.
I suppose that’s what separates bad sceptics from good sceptics. I correct mistakes I make in my blog, and I’m truly embarrassed about them when they happen. Others, on the other hand…
How did the passports of Mohammed Atta and Satam al-Sugam, both on Flight 11, survived the inferno to be found on the street near the World Trade Center.
Because they got lucky. Plain and simple. A friend of mine has a friend who survived falling off of a 20-30 metres high cliff. She ”only” broke her back in three places, as well as her neck.
Who found the passports and what time where they found?
Can the FBI describe the condition of each passport?
Fair questions. If you look around the Web long enough, though, you’ll probably find the answers.
Can the FBI explain how the passports of two hijackers survived the explosion and inferno?
Can you explain why your beloved site is asking the same question twice?
Why did the Family Steering Committee see fit to publish this statement: When the (9/11)Commission concluded its investigation, it issued a report containing 41 recommendations for improving our nation's security. The report did not answer all of our questions, but its in-depth analysis of intelligence, foreign policy, security and other failures and subsequent recommendations for improvement were reforms we could endorse.
Huh?
Safe keeper
These alr all the same old questions that have been answered many many times and agin by you.
All these clowns have to do is a little research and it is all there but they simply ignore the truth and come back with the same dumb questions. I think he expected to see piks of an intact plane like in the road runner cartoons
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
Here is a great animation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl
the fact that nist are studying explosive scenarios proves 2 things:
1) they havent a clue what happened to 7
2) Blast scenarios are viable
I love how the initial reports were dismissed out of hand solely because they failed to address controlled demolition directly as a possibility so those nerd mercenaries (nerc's?) over at the NIST are actually going to try and use real science to shut up the doubters in their final report and now it's somehow evidence that they don't know what happened and that the CD theory must be at least somewhat viable.
And they wonder why we call them retarded.....
The passport thing was just a weird fluke. Two guys in the front of a plane the hit a building at 500 mph before the jet fuel actually ignites....with that kindof momentum it's more than possible for the passports to be thrown through the building and survive.
Look at what happened last week in NYC. Corey Lidle was being barbecued on 72nd street after hitting the apt. building and they were able to confirm his identity early because they happened to find his passport on the street near the wreckage.
Regarding the condition of the passport? Singed a little.
Pictures are available online. It was evidence in the Moussaoui trial (along with a few hundred other photos and documents which stand to refute the CTists of the world)
Ok gents this is going to take awhile to type up, so I applogise to those who think I'm a retarded mouthbreather. BTW, wtf does that have to do with anything because aren't we all mouth breathers? Oh but I digress or digest depending on the breathing.
Being labeled as such, it takes me longer than the average jackaboot to type my thoughts up. Sorry for my retard-ness. I think it stems from my mouthbreathing as a child.
Alex-my open and shut case comment was meant to explain no conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. My concern with your comment was to link holocaust deniers to those who question 9/11. No need to do that my good man. By doing that I can claim that all of you who support the Fed's conspiracy theory also support facists and if you support facists then you also support the holocaust. It works both ways.
Sure there will be Elvis folks, and alien folks, (I think the flat earth folks no longer exist, but being retarded, I maybe wrong) and conspiracies theories in general. I think we can agree on that. Anything unexplained will have a theory behind it. Wether or not 2 or more folks planned the event for nefarious purposes is left to the theory. I will try to claify my thoughts for you next time, but brother man I can't admit I'm wrong on this one lone issue. Retarded, maybe, but not wrong. ;)
Safe-Keeper- You consistently use complex questions to try support your answer to the questions, which indeed a huge fallacy. As pointed out before when you committ these fallacies the readers of this blog should ignore your statements and your logic.
Why the old science textbooks claiming that insects coem from rotting meat? Huh? What the heck does that prove? Why that explanation to explain a 'mistake'? How the f#%# do you make a mistake of this portion? Why does the FBI still have the pictures of those folks that are still alive on its website? What other evidence is provided to prove it was those 19 hijackers? Does the possiblity exist that those were stolen identities? If so who stole them?
What other evidence is there that those operatives were on those planes?
Why not release all of the footage of that brutal rape down in city x the other day?
Because it’s none of your freaking business. Again another fallacy regarding the rape comment. I dont think the rape comment belongs in this discussion because truly look at what the Administration has used 9/11 for and then you can delete that false comparison.
It's not my business? Why not? I'm an American citizens that has every right to see the footage of that day. I pay the taxes used to investigate that day. None of my business! It is everyone's business. How can you make that statement and still support this quote, "Government for the people, by the people." Your comment sounds like something a dictatorship would say to it's people. Now where do I get my Brown Shirt? Your going to have to do better than that. Now how should a representative democracy answered that question? Nevermind, it is none of our freaking business.
What did happen to the air defense systems on that day? Readiness was high, Chief! How cold it not be high when our fine Airforce pilots were practicing against live-fly hijackings! I'm sure you have studied the whole wargames scenarios taking place that day, as well as the ATC false blips, ATC tapes, etc. Do the research. I have. And guess what, it all brings up questions unanswered.
Because it doesn’t reflect good on you that you knew it was going to happen and did nothing?
Maybe? Are you slipping to the dark side? So if your willing to admit the possibility of they let it happen, why aren't you inclined to think they also participated? Or is that one step too many to the evil side?
Probably because the US government didn’t want people to know how incompetent they were when it came to preventing an attack that killed 3000. So now it's not that they may have let it happen, now its they are too incompetent to stop it? You keep changing your thoughts!
Check out the Sibel Edmonds story throughly and see how incompetent the FBI was prior to 9/11.
Nothing of which has not been explained rationally. Please provide evidence of the explanations.
At what point does the explanation for CD become irrational? So entertaining the idea that terrorists, whoever they maybe, planted explosives in the buildings is irrational? Why they did it once before but not this time is too irrational to consider? That one doesn't float.
Why are they labeled as Islamic terrorists when they party like gigolos? OK, so killing people is what Islamic fundamentalists do...
Why are you inserting information into the question that isn't there in order to point out a fallacy that isn't there?
Your answer of the true scotsman is a nice attempt to point out a fallacy but it doens't answer the question. I questioned the label in my question. There is motive behind the label and I'm sure you can figure that out. The Feds should have used an accurate label perhaps Middle-Eastern terrorists, or Intel Operatives (from whatever country), etc, etc. But to label them with a religious term is to invite a 'Clash of Civilizations'. Now they are Islamofacists! Lets call it what it is: propaganda!
Why would the President and the Pentagon be so uncooperative in regards to the mass murder investigation of 1000's of people? There is my new and improved question for you. But what does it matter how you answere, because the question is posed to the Federal Government.
Passports survive fiery infernos because of luck and flukes? Some of you use the most recent plane crash in comparison to the jumbo jets that fly over 500 mph into buildings and explode whose fuel shortly thereafter causes the buildings to collapse to justify passport survival? Is there any video evidence of plane debris exiting the buidling before the explosion?
That is the only explanation you can come up with?
Does the possiblity exist the passports were planted to form a paper trail? Yes.
I mean come on guys, you really buy that story of passport survival? I'm begining to think you folks are so trusting that you will believe anything the Federal government tells you. Why is that???
Passports crash survival is about as bad as a bullet that changes direction in midair to cause multiple wounds and come out pristine. ;) It is our duty as citizens of this fine country to raise questions and demand answers.
Air quality and Bush? I never pointed the finger at Bush behind 9/11 so stop putting words into my post and changing the direction. Personally I think that would give too much credit to the guy and it is way too simplistic of an answer.
I've only entertained the idea that individuals within the Federal government may have been responsible. I don't know who was responsible, but you are willing to accept without question what the Feds tell you no matter how ridiculous, improbable, and illogical it may be.
There's something very wrong with a people who have so little trust in their own democraticaly elected government.
Alex! What is up bro!
There's something very wrong with a people who have so little trust in their own democraticaly elected government.
Actually there is nothing wrong with it, in fact it is expected in a democratic republic. I would encourage you to study our Founding Fathers. They distrusted government so much that they put in place all sorts of checks and balances ! They even expected the populace to rise up and overthrow the government if it became too corrupt and powerful! Imagine that. Today, our Founding Fathers would be Troofers!
You're an idiot, and you're totally mis-representing the stance that the founding fathers took on government. And I'm pretty sure they'd kick the shit out of you if they were still alive for suggesting that they could ever be that stupid.
Post a Comment
<< Home