(May 1, 2012 at 11:55 pm)Bgood Wrote: Many think it is outlandish to believe in a 911 conspiracy. Yet isn't the belief in the official NIST story the more naive and gullible response? All the debunking videos that I have watched on here are crap! They just make up shit and twist the facts like any good corporate lawyer would do to defend his client's position. (that being U.S. gov and C.I.A).
What about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that started U.S. involvement in Vietnam. That was confessed to being a hoax about 15 years ago. It is not just the U.S government that pulls stunts like these. These cover-ups have been going on for a long time in many countries. To not see or accept that fact is like believing God loves you and is looking out for you along with your government.
911 was an inside job all the way, you can bank on it! The debunking "evidence" are all lies to patch up the holes in retrospect. And I'm sure the "experts" got paid very well by the Gov. to do so, and dissenters who spoke out got imprisoned or silenced.
So somehow, numerous demolitions were planted in the buildings without anyone noticing, they were set off without anyone hearing the sound, seeing any sort of demolition blast (the whole building fell exactly as you'd expect it to if it was simple structural failure due to the steel being weakened by fire.) You also have to believe that, somehow, the government managed to silence hundreds if not thousands of individuals who would have had to be in on this.
We're not relying on the official story, we're using common sense. Two airliners, fully loaded with jet fuel, crashed into two tall buildings, causing fires (as well as the fires that would be caused due to combustible materials in the building) caused additional damage to the steel, causing it to lose its integrity. All it would take would be enough damage to collapse ONE floor, to bring the whole building down.
Which one of those two scenarios seems more plausible?
