Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are correct. There is no convincing some people no matter what. I have witnessed 9/11 truthers screaming at an old woman at the WTC anniversary observation and calling her a shill for Cheney. She was wearing the badge with the photo of her dead son. Little old, bent white-haired woman--and when they called her those names she turned around and said, "You are a bunch of idiots" and then just kept walking.
Sure, they were a bunch of idiots. Nobody would deny that. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater because of that fact. The many questions surrounding the event either cannot be, will not be or have not been satisfactorily answered for for reasons wide and far. But much of the questions and talking points surrounding 9/11 in general, and in here, are not far reaching skepticism. Not by a long stretch.
in order to terrorize its not the occasion of terror, its the deep seated psychological suggestion that it will happen again. Obviously a repeat would be next to impossible, thats why yuh all got the gut feeling, even a nitwit planning all this with the do rae mi wouldn't be so dense, its not a viable terror effort to begin with. Threats work from the front, not behind. Past , present future, you know.
verb: swagger; 3rd person present: swaggers; past tense: swaggered; past participle: swaggered; gerund or present participle: swaggering[list=1][*]1.
walk or behave in a very confident and typically arrogant or aggressive way.
I didn't choose my handle based on the definition of the word. I actually chose it because it was printed on something sitting on my desk when I was signing up for some service a very long time ago, and I've been using it since.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niedo
i truly find it difficult to understand how anyone feels they know everything about what occurred on 9-11!
To whom are you referring? It's certainly not me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by niedo
of course i don't agree with all the theories, be they conspiratorial or not, but i certainly have questions and always will!
Valid questions are fine. What isn't fine is coming up with a truckload of absolutely crazy and flat-out impossible to execute theories that disagree with the facts on every single level.
What isn't fine is coming up with a truckload of absolutely crazy and flat-out impossible to execute theories that disagree with the facts on every single level.
But these conspiracy nuts have nothing else. Give them a break!
Because of the uniformity of the byproduct dust particles in the red layer found on steel remnants. Regular rust would have a wide disparity in particle size. In manufacturing paint, how much QC would a manufacturer go through for this application?
I have no idea. If you want to make a point of the iron oxide used as a pigment being - what was it - "too uniform", then I suggest you provide the supporting evidence. It's your pet theory, not mine.
And don't think I haven't noticed that we've moved from " how come there were traces of thermite?" to "OK, so iron oxide particles were to be expected, but their size distribution doesn't match what I imagine!"
FWIW, I'd suspect people are more into making sure the pigment in their paint is uniformly processed than for the oxidizer in their thermite - thermite being a slow and sloppy incendiary, anyway.
Tell us, what, EXACTLY, happened that day? If "the official story" isn't true, what is "the truth"?
Waiting to be enlightened...
S-
Sorry, I thought you were ignoring me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.