Quote Originally Posted by type_r
Lol.......as if I ever mentioned Bush's name. Bush is too big of an idiot to be responsible, but only an idiot would accept the facts given by the government. Do you have any idea what the 9/11 commision left out? I dare you to logically explain the way those buildings collapsed(including WTC 7, which the 9/11 commission failed to even mention), the confiscation of Pentagon tapes by the FBI, the lack of any action taken when it was realized the planes were hijacked, and also the complete absence of any bodies or actual parts from a plane from the crash that missed their supposed targets. But then again, I have a small penis so your means of reasoning must be more intelligent People like you put nazis like Bush in office. And "American with a good head on their shoulders" might as well be an oxymoron because that count is running drastically low. Truth is authority, the authority is not the truth.
Gear down big shifter. Don't be so soft. Nothing was personally directed towards you, sister.

My point was (as if it wasn't obvious by my initial post) that there are two sides to this "debate." Neither side will convince the other of what THEY believe. This topic has been beat to hell, worldwide, for years. Nothing new will come of it.

You believe your "facts" to be true based on "evidence" that has been put together by the common folk and conspiracy theorists, published on the internet. The next guy believes his "facts" to be true based on "evidence" provided by the common folk and govt officials, etc etc.

Google is your friend. Your answers are out there.

"It has been suggested that the buildings should have tipped over (like what happens when a building falls over in an earthquake) onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made.

First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself.

Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure.

Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity.

To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."




That was copy/paste from Google. See, now aht YOu would do is go to google and find something to counteract that and then copy/paste it. Bla bla bla bla****ing bla.

I wish I could reps myself sometimes.