Hmm.... so where were the WMDs? *cough*huge unnaccountable truck convoys going into syria days beofre US invades*cough*

Anyway, Building 7 collapsed because of TONS OF MOTHERFUCKIN DEBRIS HITTING IT!! ninty, I thought you were smarter than that. And 40% is not a staggeringly low approval rating for any president. Its average.

Short, can you say "400 tips a day after USS cole attack"?

There wasn't tons of debris hitting it. How can you justify a building collapsing from debris from another building? The debris does not have nearly enough force to bring down a building. It's simple physics.

Hell, the official story is that the fires caused all three WTC buildings to collapse. So your BS about debris hitting it is wrong to the US government.

I can tell you this for a fact: Three steel buildings in the entire world have collapsed from fire. WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 (which was not hit by a plane).

Remember the fire in Madrid a couple years ago? Burned for 24 hours. Didn't collapse. Draw your own conclusions.

[img]http://www.lmc.ep.usp.br/People/Valdir/imagens/fire/Madrid_Windsor.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.reopen911.org/images/02.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.despardes.com/oscartango/madrid-bldg-0215_2.jpg[/img]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ndsor1.JPG

In addition to this we have Larry Silverstein fucking up saying that he gave the authroization to "pull it", which means, the controlled demolition of the building.

Here's a clip of him saying it:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pullIt.wmv

If I am expected to believe that setup and execution of the controlled demolition of WTC7 took place in a matter of hours, then I may as well end my life now. Demolitions take weeks of careful planning to place charges in the right spots so the building collapses inwards instead of outwards.

I'm no expert, but the collapse of WTC7 looked pretty good to me, leading me to believe the charges were there before hand.

[img]http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif[/img]

As for approval ratings, perhaps you should do some more research, Coma:

[quote:95b44]The Gallup organization reported today that President George Bush has the lowest approval ratings of any 2nd Term president since World War II. 45% of the American population approve of President Bush at this moment with Regan in a distant second in 1985 with a 56% approval rating.[/quote:95b44]
http://www.atsnn.com/story/132050.html

Doesn't seem average to me. And by the way, that was from april when his approval rating was a whopping 45%. Now that it's at 40%, I think you can fill in the rest for yourself.

Bwahahah way to go shitkicker, that video totally confirmed what I said.

"Pelted by debris, 7 burned until late afternoon"
Then Silverstein comes on
"The firemen said they couldnt contain the fire because of a risk of massive loss of life. So he said pull out and we did, and we watched it fall."

Figure it out for yourself. If you really wanted to know, you'd do the research. I know you don't care, and thus i'm not going to spend my time digging up articles and facts that you'll just skim over.

Edit:

What i'll do instead is post some links:

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.infowars.com

http://www.letsroll911.org

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/index.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm (Interesting)

http://www.incunabula.org/hive/index.php

http://thewebfairy.com/911/

http://www.questionsquestions.net/

I actually watched the video twice, and listened carefully. Whereas the video you posted totally contradicted what you were trying to say. Talk about skimming the facts, ninty.

Give me one good reason that the Government would have destroyed the WTC

How did the video contradict anything?

Another thing I forgot to add was PNAC's article found here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf

Outlines everything pretty clearly. They called for "a new pearl harbour" back in 99 I believe. Their members can be found in the current administration.

Here's an article as to why it happened:

http://www.oilempire.us/911why.html

Could you please edit out your derogatory comments? I do not appreciate that in this forum, and if you do not, I will.

As for the video, I suppose it was not the one I was looking for. I have no speakers on this computer, but allow me to find the correct video and I will post it. My apologies.

YAWWWWN. Look dudette, I live in germany. your paranoid ass conspiracy theories about Bush are nothing new to me. Youre not gonna change my mind, so dont bother trying.

With the US being so dependent on oil, it makes since to go to war with a country that has a lot of oil. Just look at this hurrican stuff going on, gas prices jumped big time because of it, imagine if only the Saudi and Iraqi were the only source left. they could bring down the US like nothing.

we live in such a crazy world today, i dont know what to belive

Hey chubs, we try to keep the "offtopic bullshit" out of this forum if you haven't noticed. Be civil and argue like a decent person or gtfo.

Can somebody calculate the probability of three buildings suffering catastrophic failures and falling within their own footprints. You don't need to consider on the same day or that the buildings are close together.

The point of posting is not to try and change ones mind. It is called a civil discussion and debate. If you cannot participate in one, I suggest you leave now.

=================

Now that I ahd a chance to actually refresh my mind and listen to the video I posted, that is infact the correct one I was referring to. Perhaps you should go back and listen again to what Silverstein says.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/PULLIT.swf

Silverstein is saying "Pull IT" not "pull out", meaning demolish the building.

He's the one who said it.

I suppose we could debate till the cows come home what he meant, but that's not going to get us anywhere. All we can do is analyze what he said, which is "pull it". Draw your own conclusions.