BTW according to the first Zeitgeist movie:
And “if a single commissioner had any objection about anything, that fact would be dropped from the report.”
Are those things true? Those things were a major reason I became skeptical about the official 9/11 story.
Well like I said I thought the official story for Building 7 didn’t make sense because it seemed that some fires couldn’t explain how cleanly it fell.
But I have questions…! If I created another thread to ask the questions I might get topic banned again…
It has been brought up several times that we have covered all this in many previous threads. Do you have any plans to peruse those threads to get your answers?
Many conspiracy theorists (such as a particular family member of mine) share one characteristic in common: They hold the “official story” to the strictest of standards, claiming that even one flaw or discrepancy discredits it all, while holding their own narrative to the loosest of standards.
Why doesn’t it make sense? What do you know about building fires that would make you think it doesn’t make sense?
This is a board full of skeptics, contrarians, and radical thinkers. If there was something more to the WTC building collapses you’d get the straight dope on it here. It doesn’t mean it’s the final word on the subject, you’ll find out what the known evidence is and what reasonable conclusion can be drawn from it. You won’t find that on any CT board.
I have never been provided with any links to previous threads so it would be up to me to find the appropriate threads. I did find a thread specifically about Building 7 though which didn’t address all of the issues so I’d still have questions/concerns. Though now I know of good links such as this one
Well if the fires cause some of the structure to collapse I’d expect just the parts near the fire to collapse then gradually the collapsing would spread to nearby areas, not relatively evenly across the whole floors of the building at once. But that was my former opinion.
Some people do have questions concerning warnings of terrorist activity received before 9/11. And about the immediate response (And, of course the later response: “Let’s invade Iraq!”)
Yes, the conditions in which Bush/Cheney agreed to answer questions seem peculiar to some. Has the investigation of “Benghazi” been more intense?
None of these concerns question the fact that three jets crashed into buildings on 9/11. And one crashed in the countryside…
Actually I became intrigued by this due to it seeming that there were dozens of problems with the official story. BlakeTyner talked about people moving the goalposts - that is because even if one problem is explained away, many more seem to remain.
BTW insisting that they be there together would mean that it would be easier for them to make sure their stories don’t conflict with each others. Are there good reasons that the following had to have been done?
"- They were not under oath
Remember that this is about 3000 Americans being killed and “49.3% of New Yorkers believe that our leaders knew that the 9/11 attacks were planned and they intentionally failed to act”. If they wanted to help change the results of that poll they shouldn’t have been so suspicious about the conditions.
See that’s a great answer. More convincing then just saying that it has already been “refuted” many times without giving any links.
good point
Those were examples of Bush and Cheney being assholes, 
but the main reason mentioned then for that was that secret stuff was going to be discussed, but the general information obtained was mentioned in the final report with the secret stuff removed; AFAIK not much than what was already known. If there was I do think that the Democrats in the comission would had by hook or by crook revealed any big whoppers that Bush and Cheney would had commited in that meeting.
As the debunking9/11 site did tell you it is ok to distrust Bush for using the terror attack as a way to invade Iraq and make the mess we have now. But it is not reasonable to think Bush did cause 9/11.
As for the Zeitgeist movie. You really do lose many points for relying on pure trash:
9/11 wreckage
9/11 was an inside job
9/11
9/11 - Pentagon hit - Where are the plane parts?
Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking
What’s Bush hiding about 9/11?
The WTC Twin Towers Were Pulverized on 9/11
Plane or no Plane? [Pentagon 9/11 (ed. title)]
9/11 Conspiracy Theories!
Loose Change video: 9/11 conspiracy
Is there video footage of the 9/11 plane into the Pentagon?
Note. This was just the threads with 9/11 in the title in Great Debates.
So are you saying it is true that “our leaders knew that the 9/11 attacks were planned and they intentionally failed to act”? (or might have been planned) In Penn and Teller’s Bullshit, it says “are 49.3% of us just f***ing crazy?”
I hear ya man. Tell it to these guys. Wish they would just wise up.
Is it impossible to plan a controlled demolition that starts near the top and is timed to blow out the floors below?
(I’m trying to suggest that such a demolition is not impossible or ludicrous, just much harder to successfully pull off.)
None of which has anything to do with whether the towers fell because they were hit by jets–which you are questioning.
Might the Cheney/Bush Administration have been a *bit *more careful after receiving warnings of terrorist activity? Perhaps. Is Cheney an evil creep & was Bush his puppet? Of course–that’s common knowledge.
(And, really. This has all been discussed in detail. Are you usually this slow?)
I don’t think that explains:
Ok.
Well the first section about Christianity is pure trash. But in the 9/11 section it brought up issues like what I am discussing in this post and that specific part seems to be accurate. (no one has been disputing it)
Finally some links but none of them seem to be focused on the specific issues I raised like Building 7. I did find a thread about Building 7 myself though, which I mentioned. Like I said it didn’t address all of my concerns but links to other sites seem to cover it but I haven’t read the contents of those sites fully yet.
Posts, such as post 53 are much more helpful. Or giving one link to a relevant thread rather than heaps where many might not even address my specific concerns at all.
There’s going to be inconsistencies in any theory trying to describe what happened on 9/11/2001. However, to spin up a proper crackpot theory, we have to have at least 5% inconsistency. Believe me, if it was there, I’d have long ago exploited it.
JohnClay … if you please … can I have the the basic premise of how these buildings were brought down if it wasn’t a commercial jet full of av-gas?