Quote:
Originally Posted by MediaGuy
Are you referring to those who think the American government was in on it or those who think the guys trained by the American government as the Mujahideen did it?
They've installed permanent military bases to protect the pipelines crossing the country, they've boosted the profits of Bush sr.'s Carlysle Group among many others, they've mega-boosted the production of heroin which had been quashed by the Taliban. Many other good reasons.
The CIA has been proven to use the profits of heroin trafficking to finance their secret operations, so that it doesn't even touch government budgets. Remember Iran/Contra.
It would be the first ever, and it didn't burn that long compared to others. The reason steel structured buildings predominate post industrial city building is their imperviousness to collapse due to fire, among other things.
Seems like they thought everyone would take their word for WMD's. But their reasons for invading changed over and over as the years and the proof, or lack thereof, came out.
Do concrete buildings stand up to fire?
Anyhow skyscrapers do, I didn't check that other link, but the Windsor in Madrid burned for 24 hours, throughout, and didn't collapse. Parts of it did collapse or fall off, but that was after about 17 hours. it took them almost a year to tear down the remains, much like the other damaged buildings of the WTC: 3, 4, 5 and 6.
How come people don't just set buildings on fire to demolish them instead of spending millions and even billions with demolition contractors? I mean, 9/11 proved three times that all it takes is a fire...
This is assuming that the Bushies themselves were involved, for which there's nothing but circumstantial proof. And saying they were is about as realistic as saying a bunch of Saudis co-ordinated by a sick dialysis patient in a desert was responsible. There were as many (documented in passenger manifests) government people and government contractors on those planes as there were (undocumented, unlisted) Saudis on those planes.
The main thing seems to be the way the buildings fell, and what was done with any investigation afterwards - well, there weren't investigations, but whatever.
:D
|
All of your points are quickly and easily explained away... I'll reply to the comments about WTC 7, because that's my favorite.
You questioned WTC 7 falling, saying that it was "only on fire". You also said "Windsor in Madrid burned for 24 hours" but didn't fall. Both of these comments are full of holes. Part of the Windsor did collapse. And the Windsor didn't have two large skyscrapers fall nearly on top of it, removing one quarter of it's base. Your claiming WTC 7 fell because it was on fire, but it's more like it suffered two huge earthquakes, two huge towers falling nearly on top of, the building being removed off of it's foundation, a huge amount of it's support base being physically removed, AND it being on fire.