9/11 Debate

[LP]

I just said something similar.

This cannot be lumped into the rest of it.

It doesn't add up.

If the government came out and said, we had evidence that the towers were going to fall down, so we used an inbuilt 'auto-desctruct' system to ensure it came down correctly, without destroying the rest of new york in the process. I could accept that. It makes sense.

But no, shear 'dumb luck' for 3 buildings to fall into perfect little piles......and at the same time exhibiting ALL the trademarks of a controlled demolition...as said by experts in that field, eye witness reports from fire fighters and public....but still managed to find the passports of all the people involved, barely singed, among the rubble......Is it really believable? Really?

BTW, Mav said something about flying is easy.....its true. Landing is hard....its true.
So the 'plane' that crashed into pentagon.....that left basically no debris....and disappeared into a tiny hole you could barely get a car in....and left no damage on the grass leading up to it......that 'landing' is supposedly something you cannot do in a similator because the plane have to do the 360 degree dive perfectly would stall. One of my best mates has an uncle who is high up in the aviation area, so much so he one of the blokes they come to when they are trying to work out what happened to those malaysian airlines. He said there is only a handful of people in the world capable of pulling off the manouvre that went into the pentagon. So some random playing a game at home as zero chance. Together with the lack of evidence of a plane at the crash....and the lack of footage of any plane even being there......yeah.....not dodgy at all.

Occams razor....

Hilary did it, she had a big curry the night before and lit a fart in the foyer!

That bit in bold is dead set rubbish, actually most of that post is dead set rubbish, I can't be bothered reading it again to try and find something that is true!