We have proved you and the others wrong at every point through the thread, that vid was just 25mins of all what we have given answers to in one go.

He is a ****ing idiot because he is talking about how a plane could not do that to a building, as if he or anyone knows what effect a big *** plane would have on a building if it flew into it.

Yes there could me more to it but I've not seen anything to suggest otherwise and EVERYTHING you can show me can be proven wrong.
Pick your favourite bit from that vid and l will give you a perfectly good explanation. A 25min vid is too much for me to address each concern.

 

Name calling is not very constructive and only provokes negativity.
Calling of names is adolescent at best. Lashing out with the most basic of means available.
Even if you don’t like my politically charged statements rightly or wrongly, you’ve chosen to answer, why should anyone accept “idiot” as an answer or even a “rebuttal”?
a sincere question/counter-argument, asked in good taste,(this is a debate after all) should expect a response without resorting to name calling.

 

But you have not made any "politically" charged statements

Just daft conspiracy theories/statements

 

ok so there are those that believe the official theory and those that question it,you and others on here think you have proved that your theory(the oficial theory) is correct and more surprising you think you have proved every other theory or more acuratly the details of every other theory to be incorrect .

i think the best way to move forward is to pick an individual detail and see how it can be unproven ,

i would like to start with the possability some kind of explosive might have been used to help with the collapse of the towers, can it be proven no type of explosives were used

 

The official theory is not a "theory", it is an explanation - based on evidence and facts

And we have picked on a detail - that bush was in charge of security of WTC

And proved it to be rubbish and untrue

If explosives where used why did the not find any evidence

 

can you answer the question i put to you ?

marvin bush being in charge of security is not a major element of all conspiracy theories,lthough it is a common myth , although the fact a member of the bush family was involved in the security is an interesting fact ,

it is also unhelpfull for anyone considering conspiracy theories that those myths are around because the focus of a debate gets stuck on those details instead of other more important things

 

Fine, the so we all admit the bush thing is rubbish, some progress


And the interesting fact, is actually not that interesting, as I explained

Anyway What question?

 

i believe only one person claimed that marvin was head of security , and to be fair it was an easy mistake , and unfortunate because him being on the board of the company involved in security is an interesting fact .

whether you think its interesting doesnt really matter or if i find it interesting , it is just a fact , unfortunatly it does more damage than good because of this exact situation .

now again the question is
can it be proven no explosives were used

 

Could you explain why they would even need explosives? I mean, 2 civil airliners not enough for you?

 

the point of my post is to determine if all conspiracy theories and the questions asked have been proven wrong as suggested in the post i quoted ,

so can that conspiracy theory be proven wrong , which is .
explosives were used

 

Sure a simple fact - that Marvin Bush, the son of an ex director of the CIA had a directorship in a security company

Again progress

Re explosives, well on the basis that proving conclusivly that the Easter bunny does not exist is tricky

So I will accept the statement "can it be proven no explosives where used" as tricky

What I would like to see is physical evidence, remains of detonators, wiring, documentary evidence of all these things being purchased, details of wiring plans, people witnessing the rigging, wiring of the towers etc etc

 

No aeroplanes were. Why use explosives as well. What's the logic?

 

no i cant explain why they (whoever "they" are) would need explosives. i could give a theory if you want .

and i dont understand what you are getting at with your second question . are two airliners not enough . and i find the question shows bad taste to be honest

 

i cant say for sure but if i had to guess i would say that just using planes wouldnt have resulted in the whole wtc being destroyed .

but again the point in my post is to show that not all the theories have been disproved like has been suggested

 

Why destroy the buildings completely though?

Wouldn't 2 planes hitting the WTC be enough to trigger whatever evil plan they had?

 

So the explosive where simply an insurance policy - in case two jet liner where not enough

Just to be sure, really sure

is that what you think?

 

that evidence will never be found , the only evidance i have heard of is sulpher being found and eyewitness reports . obviously if there was evidance well it wouldnt be a theory anymore it would be fact .

we are never going to know for sure what happened , (well those that consider the conspiracy theories wont, perhaps those that believe the oficial theory will think they do) so the only purpose of this is to debate the posabilities

 

i have heard that the people that designed the building said it could withstand a crash like what happened , so yes it is a posable theory

it depends what the purpose was , i think it is possable that the two towers would have remained standing and therefore wtc 3,4,5,6 and 7 would have remained completely intact , only the explosives and bringing the towers down like that could achieve the demolition of wtc 6 and 7 for sure, im not sure how long 3,4 and 5 remained standing

 

Why did the buildings have to collapse though?

 

There are very few truly irrefutable facts in the official story, and also very few in the alternative speculations. Therefore, given the information we have available to us, and our own lack of expertise, we can only have opinions. And as for calling someone who has a differing opinion a cretinous idiot….well, good luck with that attitude in real life.

Governments lie about their activities all the time, always have done. In recent history we have for example the carpet bombing of neutral Cambodia, the use of chemical weapons by the US in Vietnam, the false “intelligence” about Sadam’s WOMs, the support of Pol Pot from the Thatcher government, and lately, the use of torture by the CIA with the UK's blessing…….all vehemently and categorically denied at the time, all subsequently found out to be true. Believing the official story within 50 years of a major event is, in my opinion, extremely naive, given a quick glance at 200 years of history.
The US establishment is not telling the public the whole story of 9/11, and never will until it declassifies the missing 28 pages in the official report. There is speculation amongst some American Senators and military men, that these missing pages strongly implicate the direct involvement of the Saudi government, along with US insiders, which would make 9/11 an act of war, not terrorism. And the implications of this would change the public’s perception of recent history and current events in a very radical way.

 

'There is speculation' - ffs how can you argue against that?

I give up

 

What does the Saudi connection, that the missing 28 pages may show change - really, in reality what does it prove

That governments have thing they would rather we did not know - wow, do bears **** in the woods

We already know most of the hijackers where Saudi citizens, we know Saudis fund terrorists

Maybe on some level there was collusion in the Saudi government

This is not really "news" or evidence that 911 was an inside job - and that the towers where rigged with explosives, that no planes hit the pentagon etc etc

 

i agree with this thought , and the only reason can be that they wanted to destroy the whole wtc , perhaps wtc7 is a key point , it would be strange for a plane to target that building considering the other targets around and it has to be agreed that it looks very like any other organised demolition , and its not like the offices in that building were your typical offices , secret services, cia etc

 

so out of everything he said all you can pick up on is that ?
but to answer your question ,i guess if you could prove that the people speculating had either no reason to or that it is just not true that they even are speculating

 

Not sure what you mean by this?

 

Because it neatly sums the whole conspiracy argument up

 

can you explain how it does that exactly ?

 

i added that to my post after you replied

 

It's easy to say 'there is speculation'.

Far more difficult to say by whom, why and how.

If you just say there is speculation is that supposed to give the argument credence?

 

it is a fair point ,but sad weevil is giving a theory to why the pages are not shared with the public, the rest of his post makes valid points, to dismiss everything else he said and concentrate just on that is not helpful,it is much like conentrating on a claim marvin bush was head of security . it takes people away from the other point he is making