Highest Rated Comments


readforit195 karma

:crickets:

Hello, OP ....

readforit68 karma

to fasten it to the rails again

come on now

readforit22 karma

:crickets:

readforit16 karma

Why didnt the pentagon defense systems (assuming they exist) work?

Why would the government not show videos of the bad terrorists flying into the pentagon to convince everybody they did it and we must invade their (and other) countries?

Why would they only show a video showing NO airplane (unless you are Glen Beck who sees an airplane)?

Why does the government go to great lengths to NOT investogate all the questions and mysteries?

Why did the airplane hot such a convenient spot in the pentagon (where for Bush&pals inconvenient files were kept) and why did WTC7 that contained so inconvenient (stock fraud files) files conveniently evaporate? Ok i give you ... you gotta be lucky sometimes...

readforit8 karma

After considering your and my comments I see the problem that neither you nor me has real proof for anything.

Me: Why isnt there video footage of a plane (where you can acutally SEE a plane) hitting the pentagon, since I assume the pentagon is riddled in cameras. I watched the doubletree video and still cant see what looks to me like a PLANE)

You: There were no cameras, proof that there were.

So here is the problem. You cant proof there were no cameras and I cant proof there were cameras. The only people able proofing either way will not do it. The fact that there is no footage available does not proof such footage does not exist.

The fact that there is no such footage currently exists for the public is probably the only fact we can agree upon. What can be speculated on are the reasons for that fact and speculating is the only thing since neither of us has proof (real proof) either way.

The only thing we can do is ask: How likely is it that there are no cameras on the pentagon? I say it is not likely which then raises the question where is the footage and if it was indeed likely then it raises the question Why are people so retarded and dont put cameras on the #1 military structure of the world? Give me answers to this so I can sleep better. Either answer I come up with is very disturbing to me.

The real issue with all the proof and counterproof that was debated here is that hardly any of it is objective proof.

I.e. There are people (credible or not) that claim they found microthermite and thus its a conspiracy. There are other people claiming it was paint. The average credibility of all those people is maybe the same. So in the end we arent any smarter and the folowing causes present themselfes: - It was paint, no more comments needed - It was tested as microthermite because, the analysis was wrong, the sample was conaminated, the results were manipulated or interpreted (intensionally or unintensionally) into believing it was microhermite, it was in fact microthermite that was there from the construction of the place (maybe it was used to weld beams or make repairs (legally or not).

More examples where both parties leave proof to be desired. For example there is the theory that the building pancaked, which I find believable considering that 1/3 of the building dropped onto the rest which the momentum would continue to just rip through. The top 3rd would NOT stop on each floor and wait to fall, rather it would just rip right through and much appear like close to free fall speed.

The problem: NIST (or whoever) did a computersimulaton showing pancaking floors but then they dont model the center columns. WTF? Why not? When this is brought up the reasonable thing to do is saying:

We actually looked at that and the columns being there or not does not change the result because [insert science here] and also here is an updated cumputer animation and now STFU. Problem?

Instead people questioning their model are (supposedly, again no evidence for or against) pressured into STFUing. WTF why? Why not shut all truthers up by showing a model with beams/columns?

Another example is the Purdue (?) university simulation of the plane hitting the tower. But those people forget to model the engines on the plane. WTF? The engines have the highest density and weiht on the plane. Why not model those or update the model once this is pointed out?

In the end there is a shocking array of incompetence around many details of the events and the investigation that is so puzzling.

I.e. Good 'ol Larry states on TV that They pulled the building. WTF? is he senile? Give the truthers morte ammo? I give him that any conspirator worth their weight would have prevented that from being aired IF he truly meant they blew it up. But WTF, why say such things?

I.e. Good 'ol Larry takes out a terrorism insurance on his asbestos riddled not so occupied scrapers 3-6 month before they succumb to terrorism. Lets give him an extrordinary foresight of risk (which other people didnt have) but it adds another after taste together with the unproofable suspicion that those buildings were worth more money destroyed than standing. Did Larry just luck out while so many others didnt?

Then there is Condy Rice claiming that nobody could have predicted that bad guys fly planes in buildings if its "supposedly prooven" that there are reports claiming otherwise, besides the fact that its not that hard to anticipate for the top national security buffs. Again is that sign of incompetence, cover up of incompetence or conspiracy?

Many events (see the 2000 posts above) can be explained through incompetence or conspiracy and quiet honestly I wonder which would be worse :(

The answer might be in this fact that when the commander in chief is told that planes are flying into buildings that he decides to freeze and do less than the 5 year olds that were around him.

Another point for incompetence is the fact that someone who has dark skin, was reported as a threat, has a cash paid one way ticket and NO passport can walk onto a plane just by saying. Eyh, dude. Us in Dubai do that all the time, problem? IN 12/2009 !!!! I cant WTF that enough? This hurts.

Lastly, I am not a truther and dont want to be called one. I would however like to have hard facts for some of the questions I have. And no, what I have seen so far (from the governemnt, truthers and OP) does not answer all of my questions, which again doesnt mean its a conspiracy. Peace to you if you have all the answers.