Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KingOtter67
Your 'facts' are merely questions, not facts. All you really have is a series of questions. They are very interesting questions, but I think the majority of them can be answered through reasonable means without resorting to a government coverup (which we have seen by past events, generally don't turn out that well).
|
There is an old expression: pictures don't lie. Some of the facts I speak of come from those pictures born of the September 11 massacres. Look at those pictures. They are scattered all over this and the other three 9/11 threads. The computer screen that survived the crash into the Pentagon speaks in volumes. That is just one such fact.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KingOtter67
No, Occam's wouldn't suggest a missile here. The simplest explanation is that when you have a 155' tube striking a building at 350 mph, generally the kinetic force is going to propel debris forward in a circular pattern. It doesn't need to actually punch the hole itself. The debris that it imparts its energy upon can do that.
|
Are you sure? Can you say that with certianty? Or are you guessing?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KingOtter67
I don't know what kind of glass it was. Some glass, yes. There are a lot of these little details that the very interesting questions leave out. You describe 'glass' and think household window glass. This wasn't necessarily household window glass, and could very well have been bullet-proof glass.
|
You give bullet-proof glass a lot of credit. Call a local glass company and ask them if a bullet proof glass could possibly survive an airplane crash at plus or minus 350 mph.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KingOtter67
The questions also leave out the question of the angle of energy of the plane itself. If it was at a downward angle, and it was hardened glass, it could have been hit with very little of the kinetic energy from the plane itself.
|
We had the official released video. We know the downward angle. Those four little frames show the official government story.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KingOtter67
Again, there are too many details in the event that merely asking questions doesn't really lead to answers. "Why didn't the glass break?" may seem like a very simple question and lead to some very speculative answers, but there are many details in the answer that a casual speculator wouldn't even consider. There are a lot of assumptions in the question, in other words.
|
Of course. At the end of the day many questions will never have answers. It's only the important ones that need answers. How did the WTC North and South collapse? Where was the debris at the Pentagon? Why was the investigation of the WTC impeeded when the metals were shipped off before the FEMA team was finished and before any formal investigation could happen? Why are those who were blamed for the 9/11 attacks still being found alive? Where is the proof we were
promised (see Condaleeza Rice's speech after 9/11) that implicates OBL, the al Qaeda, and those heald responsible? Why did so many claim to hear bombs going off in the WTC immediatally before it's collapse? Why did the collapse produce puff lines normally associated with controled demolition? Why would anyone leave Jennifer Aniston (because this thread is often way too serious)?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KingOtter67
You may believe so, but I don't. The size and scope of the cover-up in this case (something that happened in front of many many witnesses) is too large , really. Nixon couldn't cover up something that happened in his office in front of 3 people, Reagan couldn't cover up his dabblings in Central America, and Clinton couldn't cover up what happened in his office between him and Monica, even though the door was mostly closed.
|
More people were directly effected. Let me put it this way. How many people KNEW there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I'm not talking about government officials, I mean normal people. How many normal, average Americans knew there were WMDs in Iraq? I'd guess at it's peak it was over three quarters of the populous. How easy was it to simply plant the idea back in 2001, then nurture tthe idea and watch it take root and very soon it is considered to be fact? Turns out that either the government was lying, or the government was incompetent. One way or the other, they and we were wrong. How did we find out that we were wrong? It came out long after the war that it caused. It came out after it served it's purpous. Then it came out relatively quietly, and very few peope seemed to care. Bush won the election, despite leading America into war that killed thousands of innocent civilians and our own soldiers based on either faulty information or lies.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KingOtter67
Ahh, but I'm not the one that accused someone else of not having an open mind simply because someone disagreed with me. It's possible for me to hear the argument, consider it, and then dismiss it and still retain an open mind. The previous accuser considered that simply because somebody dismissed their claims they must not have an open mind. Therefore, they do not have an open mind enough to consider the possibility that the accusee actually DOES have an open mind, and yet still rejected their claims.
Do ya follow? ...  |
I follow. How can you be 100% sure of someone's intent without telepathy? I usually have an open mind, save for entertainment gossip. All I did was ask people to have an open mind, because it clearly takes an open mind to consider this thread seriously. There are those who will simply post every once in a while and say something like "You're all nuts. It was a plane" without any argument or proof of consideration. It is towards those who I direct my request to keep an open mind. At least consider it seriously, as those who are involved in this conversation are pretty serious about what we're talking about. It is a matter of showing respect to the conversation, and thus to those conversing.