Seeing as ShadowMarth actually made an intelligent response, I'll just argue it out with him and ignore everyone else (unless they magically become intelligent).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMarth
First, the fire comment. Of course they don't use fires to take down buildings, they can cause far too much collateral damage, and explosives are much easier to control.
|
Yeah I'll give you that, but it doesn't answer how an entire modern building can collapse all the way to the ground with such minimal fires fueled mostly by paper and furniture (with no jet fuel). My fire comment was more of a sarcastic nature anyway. Fact is, AFAIK, it's probably something like 3 out of hundreds of large buildings that completely collapsed due to fire, which is a very low success rate to even consider replacing explosives with fire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMarth
Second, why would the government blow up the WtC7 building? It would only make sense if they were trying to do damage. The whole conspiracy theory is that the government did this to cause enough public sentiment for the War on Terror, yes? Well if they had done that to cause damage, why would they try to cover it up, since publicity was the whole idea?
|
It's about money and promoting war. All 3 buildings were owned by the same person, who, correct me if I'm wrong, bought the buildings shortly before, and 9/11 was shortly before the insurance on them expired. In turn, insurance paid him crap tons of cash due to the total loss. Covering it up only involved blaming it on an enemy of the country, a known terrorist who people would expect could do something so horrible. I'm not saying I'm against the war, that's a whole different topic for another day, but the government doesn't need to think twice about sending thousands of troops to their imminent death and the government doesn't get very sympathetic about those who do die in action; so why do you think they would be much different about killing a few thousand citizens they've never heard of for the cause of the war? There's stories all over the place indicating foreknowledge of the incident, such as military personnel telling their family not to go to work that day, and the Islamic intelligence (who invented the current wire-tapping technology for the US). If there was
any government foreknowledge of an attack on that day on the WTC, they would've had the towers evacuated the whole day and probably until they had the security for the buildings and airports improved, but instead they pretended to have absolutely no idea of it to improve the sense that the government really wasn't behind it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMarth
|
You're right, there are no facts in that, but then again none of this is really fact until proven fact; most of it is stupid arguments about how folding a bill just right will make strange messages indicating that it was indeed planned (which is of course false, only the extreme[ly stupid] conspiracy theorists would see that as evidence). I've already said a lot and the anti-conspiracy evidence on that page appears to be weak, so I don't want to get into details on that page right now; ask me later if you really want to.
BTW, I'm moving this to the Debate forum. Even the original topic, Macs vs. PCs, is a debate, but one which everyone agrees to disagree, so nobody debates it anymore.