I find it funny that if you question a government with a long history of questionable actions and which has been shown to lie again and again to its people that makes you a "nut" Do i know what happened that day? no. but i dont believe the story they give. nor do many many others.




article.nationalreview.com... U4YWRiMjRlOTVjZGM=

I just read a cnn poll that shows 83% of people are conspiracy nuts


www.cnn.com...

I'll admit some folks take things too far,but to question the official story of 9/11 is far from nuts.

The official story just doesn't make sense,imho.So if not believing that the towers fell just from fires and a plane impact is nuts,well then I need to be put in a padded cell.

but you are forgetting how hot the fire was... it wasn't normal fire, it was fire that burned with the hatred of freedom, which I believe gets to around 1540°C, just enough to melt steel.

There have been many nuts in the past that have honestly held on to a belief only to be ridiculed and talked down to. But overtime those nuts beliefs have turned out to be proven true. I guess they weren't nuts after all.

Not to mention that it's the first time ever in recorded history that fire brought down a non-wood building.

I'm sure it will get it's pages in the history books.

In the history of steel buildings, not one fell due to fire. The only times they have fallen have been with a combination of an earthquake (i.e., Mexico City 1985), where the foundations were compromised. Don't you find it extremely peculiar the three buildings fell on the same day?

Your assertion does not hold water when the smoke coming from the two towers was black, which is known as lack of oxygen. Therefore, the fire was not enough to melt steel. In addition, the builder factored a jet crashing and said it would be the equivalent of a pencil going through a mosquito nest.

So no, I don't believe the story, and don't understand why my patriotism has to be questioned by just being inquisitive and finding a more sensible explanation. Sorry Scientist, but the Commission's explanation does not meet MY scientific method approach.



[edit on 11/20/2008 by manticore]

reply to post by manticore

---

Perhaps if you read my reply again you will pick up on the sarcasm.

That poll is hardly scientific. It was put up after charlie sheen stated he thinks the government covered up 911. If you took a sample of viewers that watched that program you would probably get 83% think 911 is a conspiracy.

Imho, no poll is ever scientific.. they are just tools used to convince somebody of one's stance, and when someone doesn't like the outcome of a poll they just make one of their own which they can then use as ammo to support their stance.

When a President uses every scrap of power he has to block an independant investigation of the biggest crime in his nation's history, something smells foul.

When said President can be 'questioned' together with another suspect, that only compounds to the stink..

I don't know what happened. As with those 'scientific polls', the people on both sides have academics who work tirelessly to 'prove' their funders' take on it.

So I don't know whàt to believe anymore, but I did work in demolition, and in my experience a structure does not fall straight down when weakened to one side.. it topples and breaks..

*edit to add: And offcourse, people who do not believe the official story are a threat to the PTB.. after all, the lies are needed to fuel a couple wars, after all..

[edit on 20-11-2008 by Phatcat]

Sooo... True... I'll join the nut house too.!!