On 2005-08-06 15:56:00, Antigen wrote:
Oh no, the passengers were real enough. Just the pilots seem to have been fictitious.
Greg, can you come up w/ any compelling evidence not authored and funded by the accused? And can you name a government from any place or time in all of history that would not pull something like this? You think our government is just too honest and reliable for something like this? Or do you invest your faith in the individual people currently running our government?
I have to say, I'm really surprised by your position on this. You're usually a pillar of logic and skepticism.
"
well, I am very skeptical and logical which has led me to take this position. And in absense of any real evidence except a lunatic fringe internet movement, The most plausible explanation is that the people who took responsiblity for the crime actually did it. That the people at the airport, the passengers, the eyewitnesses, the criminals involved, all of them aren't involved in some giant conspiracy by our governmentto kill our own people for whatever ends.
I do not doubt there are evil people in the government. But this crime against america until some real evidence rolls in (not of the 'Explain this away or Im right' genra of "evidence") to the contrary I am solidy in belief that what occured was done by a bunch of religious fanatics that hate america because we support and prop up a war machine against them, and that because their "holy book" is at odds with our "holy book". Much less has caused much greater pain and suffering thruout history.
All this "a building cannot behave this way or that way" by a bunch of laymen on a chat site is rather comical when almost every structural engineer in the world is at odds with that assertion.
A controlled demolition does not "blow up a building" like asserted in this thread and by that idiotic website by that little moron that thinks the government flew remote controlled planes into the building and a missle into the pentagon. A controlled demolition causes intentional structural damage that causes the steel to fail(not melt like also asserted in this thread is necessary to cause failure) and then the building is taken down by its own weight ie: gravity. That two airpplanes buried in the buildings and then exploded massive amounts of fuel into the buildings and caused a failure that replacates a demolition has been explained away by almost every strutural engineering firm available and their are even special running on tv that detail what occured. But we are told by all these internet "experts" that it couldn't happen. I will take my changes with the real experts until and unless some credible evidence comes along that refutes the real experts.
As far as building 7, the explanationa as outlined in Popular mechanics is the most plausable explanation I have seen yet. That the towers collapsed and damaged the building is a given and that it caused structural damage that caused a failure in the supports makes sense to me as well.
Sorry I can't climb aboard this conspiracy fun and game with you guys.
