That's a really crafty move - insult those who *might* be inclined to support further investigation.

What you or anyone else "might" be inclined to support is not really any of my concern. I am genuinely in deep remorse for not adhering to your politically correct standards.

However, to satisfy the "might be inclined" audience, I'll make sure to be more crafty with any subsequent observations.

Originally posted by defcon5

I don't know what it did because I was not there. My point however, is that aircraft will not make ruts in the grass when they do a belly slide. Regardless of whether it did or didn't touch the grass, you wouldn't see any evidence on the grass either way.

edit on 9/19/2011 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by DIDtm
Please explain WTC7 then?
Cant wait to hear this.

Been over this so many times that I practically know it by heart now.

Debris from WTC 1 impacted and set afire to WTC 7. The debris caused a 20 story gouge in the building from the bottom up according to firefighters. Other documented picture evidence includes an 8 story chunk missing from the corner, and a piece knocked off the edge of the south side of the roof.

Firefighters also documented a 3 story bulge forming in the building over the hours that it was burning, and they determined that a collapse was likely to happen. They cleared a collapse radius, and the building collapsed, just as they predicted.

It took 7 hours, and a single column failed. The 8 story chunk missing from the corner caused a buckling in the supports which allowed approximately 8 stories of free-fall. After that, gravity took the building down naturally.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You need to know there is no such thing as "the government story". That's yet another pseudo-label the conspiracy theorists cooked up on their own to instigate abject paranoia.

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You need to know there is no such thing as "the government story". That's yet another pseudo-label the conspiracy theorists cooked up on their own to instigate abject paranoia.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the government paid for the investigation into 9/11 and then stood behind their findings...it became the 'official story'.

When I have to hear the commander in chief make references to 19 terrorist hijackers (I want to puke) and other scenarios that the government sponsored committees claimed.....then sorry Dave...it is the "OS".

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by DIDtm

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You need to know there is no such thing as "the government story". That's yet another pseudo-label the conspiracy theorists cooked up on their own to instigate abject paranoia.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When the government paid for the investigation into 9/11 and then stood behind their findings...it became the 'official story'.

When I have to hear the commander in chief make references to 19 terrorist hijackers (I want to puke) and other scenarios that the government sponsored committees claimed.....then sorry Dave...it is the "OS".

So... if you paid someone to give you an expert opinion on what happened based on tests, math, and science, you would tell them they were completely wrong afterward based on your laymen understanding?

The government paid a lot of money to have the investigations done. It is not proof of a conspiracy. It is proof that an investigation was done. It is up to the Truth Movement to find flaws in the investigation, which does not mean screaming that things are impossible. It means doing things from a scientific medium, such as challenging the investigation in a scholarly journal, where others can critique your work and see if you're not just all rhetoric.

Instead, I only see websites and forums where the "truth" is out. It is not very convincing to me.