Staredit Network

Staredit Network -> Serious Discussion -> 4 Reasons why Bush should not be president

Report, edit, etc...Posted by kb_aumen on 2005-11-11 at 13:15:06

Yeah, S.T.A.R.S-Chris, the thing is that you only think that saddam sold his WMDs to Syria. Can You get any proof? War is useless, because people die. If you think that it was OK to invade Iraq, then why aren't you there, in the battlefield, protecting your beloved America?? Too scared of the war? Afraid to die? Terrorists not citizens of Iraq bombed WTC, Pentagon and whatever else was bombed. This war just made a lot of Jihads and stuff like that go insane. Now there are a lot more chances of being hit by another plane. Also, why do the European contries support America? Why did they have to do that? Have you S.T.A.R.S-Chris heard of happenings in London Subway? I think it's only because of happenings in Iraq. I recommend you to watch a movie called Fahrenheit 9/11. There is a lot of things about Bush handling the Bin Laden family money before 9/11. And why do you think it's not because of oil? The Persian Gulf has one of the largest oil deposits in the world. If he just attacked Iraq because of some terrorism acts in USA not political reasons like oil, then he should be living in a mental health facility not White House.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-11-11 at 14:26:22

QUOTE(kb_aumen @ Nov 11 2005, 10:15 AM)

You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO late in the game in this topic, the answer is pretty much yes to all your questions about knowledge of outher countries and their problems suchas london. Oh and I would/will join the army when Im old enough, the problem is is that Im 17, try checking people's profiles to see how old they are before making a stupid statement about being afraid etc..

I have seen Fahrenheit 9/11, its a load of bullshiz, if you look into his proofs hes got little or no proof at all, the proof that he does have is unreliable sources.

Saddam selling Syria WMDs is my personnal opinion which I never stated is fact. Why don't you guys show proof for your millions of statements? I ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS have to show proof to you guys which in the end Ive always been correct, having to proof my self time and time again is getting old, why don't you guys stop eating cheetos, get a girl friend, and show some proof of your guy's statements which 9 out of 10 times you don't show proof.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by kb_aumen on 2005-11-11 at 15:07:58

QUOTE

the proof that he does have is unreliable sources.

Why do you think that your sources are more reliable?

QUOTE

I ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS have to show proof to you guys which in the end Ive always been correct, having to proof my self time and time again is getting old

Then show some proof and stop bragging that you're the only one who's right. It sounds so stupid! Seriously

Report, edit, etc...Posted by great on 2005-11-11 at 15:17:57

QUOTE

Then show some proof and stop bragging that you're the only one who's right. It sounds so stupid! Seriously

Do you not get what he's saying?

He's saying you guys always force him to prove things, but you guys never think you have to prove things yourselves.

Yet you respond to his statement with that.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-11-11 at 16:34:02

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Nov 11 2005, 12:26 PM)

I've never seen Fahrenheit 9/11, nor do I want to. But can you prove his sources wrong is the real question.

And, you are entitled to your opionion.... But why do you bash on other people for their opinion?

" ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS have to show proof to you guys which in the end Ive always been correct, having to proof my self time and time again is getting old, why don't you guys stop eating cheetos, get a girl friend, and show some proof of your guy's statements which 9 out of 10 times you don't show proof."

You have? Where? If you think that informing us about the first WTC bombings is proof, i'm sorry but it is not. You informed us of the past, and did not prove any of your claims. All I see you doing, like most other members, including myself, is throwing out random claims here and there, random statistics, and the whole shibang. Not once have I seen you post a reliable, and creditable source for claims that you make.

Please do not lie. It is not good.

But when you actually give us a creditable site that is reliable, and is not from your polical affiliation, is when we will start to post our sources with the same intention that you have.

But how I have said many times, there is pretty much no way you can fully prove any of this, because it has been twisted by both sides beyond recognition.

Maybe we should listen to news from other countries??

QUOTE(great @ Nov 11 2005, 01:17 PM)

Do you not get what he's saying?

He's saying you guys always force him to prove things, but you guys never think you have to prove things yourselves.

Yet you respond to his statement with that.

[right][snapback]353265[/snapback][/right]

It's funny because he lied. He has not shown proof for any of his claims.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-11-11 at 22:17:03

HAHAHAHAHAHA wow, and you call me a liar hahahahahah

Wow, how did I see that coming? mmmm I don't know maybe I expected you to call me a liar but you and I both know that through our entire summmer, fall we both have been debating and I have always been the one suppling proof, this is not the first time I have complained about me being the only one.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-11-11 at 23:08:01

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Nov 11 2005, 10:17 PM)

I don't understand, Why do you have to be Bragging about it? So Far, I have to say I have not read any Concrete Proof out of you (I might be wrong), Neither from Kellimus. And I have to Add, Its very Immature, or yet a Trick to say that you (Kellimus), Represent The Other side by saying that we will not show proof if he doesn't...Urgh, I Don't remember exactly all the content in this thread, But I do not see any reason for Bragging about it Chris. Let us say, you were right, Or maybe wrong, But you were the one who Atleast supplied proof..If the Other side combatant has not, Just don't hesitate to Ignore the topic. Whats the Point really?

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-11-11 at 23:38:39

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Nov 11 2005, 08:17 PM)

Hmm... Great job at avoiding showing the proof.

And really. Where is your proof? Not once have I ever seen a website from you that states any kind of proof. Even in the summer debates.

QUOTE(Aikanaro @ Nov 11 2005, 09:08 PM)

I'm against Chris, and yes. We have both claimed things, and have not shown proof. But the Burdon Of Proof lies on him, and he still seems to ingore it.

Edit: I fixed Aikanaro's quote cause it was missing a ]

Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-11-12 at 13:33:03

Kellimus, Im not going to supply proof becuase thats my personnal opinion WHICH I never stated is fact. Don't you get it?(In writing terms) I haven't supplied a thesis in order to be proved yet. No thesis=no proof.

And it maybe seen as bragging but it is all true. I have always been the one supplying proof and NO, I WILL NOT go back through all the hundreds of threads/topics I have been in to look for the proofs I have supplied, YOU CAN DO THAT if you think Im wrong.

and Kellimus for now on ANYTHING YOU SAY Im going to ask proof for, FYI

Report, edit, etc...Posted by kb_aumen on 2005-11-12 at 17:14:12

Whatever you are saying, you won't convince me or Kellimus or anyone else who is against you as well as we are unable to convince you. This argueing has no point in it. Everyone sees it a bit different way, no one knows the truth so stop being stubborn, you can't always be right. Whatever, this topic will never end if it continues this way.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-11-12 at 19:35:45

Imo, Bush is a Horrible President. He wanted to go to Iraq, Why would he, you wonder? Were in the Middle of the PEAK oil Era. Its Quite Obvious the War was intended, Although not presented to go to Iraq for the Oil. Although, Many of you will say, BUT HUSSEIN WAS A DICTATOR, THATS WHY HE WENT, PWNZORS!!! Well, I find that as true as the Earth being Flat, Why? Because it so Happens he Chose the Country with the Alot of Oil Thats almost ready for use, In which case, Is Much better than Most Oil. Also, the united states itself put Hussein in Iraq, And Above all that, Why targetting Iraq, Even if Hussein was somewhat a dictator? I'm pretty sure there Are much worse Cases Around the world. Now, Bush had to Create "An Enemy" Himself, In order to go to war. Because really, Iraq had no intention of Attacking the Us, Neither did it have the capabilities, Or Neanderthal intelligence to do so. So Basicly, He Had to find something Big enough to Convince the public that America was under attack, From there on. When the Population was all Mighty scared, He pointed the Finger at Iraq! The Big Event he used to Convince the Population was Infact 9/11 ! Notice that there were Seismic Vibrations Detecting Bombs at Both times when the Towers Fell, Notice the White House took 2!!! Weeks to send in Someone to Investigate. Also, Notice FEMA was in New york the day before 9/11, on 9/11, They were right away quick to remove all the rubble/evidence and destroy it. NOTICE The Towers Could Support Many times their Own Weight, Notice they were VERY Stable and had not Shifted. NOTICE the Fires in the Twin Towers was Very minor, Not enough to Burn or melt steel at all. Also, Take note that the Towers had 600% Redundancy. The Tower's official Report is but a Joke. There are just SO Many inconsistencies for it to be true. It Proved the Truss Theory to be a Fantasy, Invented a new way of Making a Building Tumble Straight down to the floor. Hey, We should do that In the future, If ever we have a Bad/old Plane, Instead of wasting all the time to Set the Demolition, Lets send the Plane to hit the Building on the Top, Instead of Hurting the Infrastructure, And Watch as the Building Crumbles on itself eh?

Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-11-12 at 20:24:47

Minor fires do not produce this much smoke

First world trade center bombings, a truck packed with explosives (over 100+ pounds) set off right next to all the structural supports, and it couldn't bring down the tower.

And your telling me that our government plants ALL the THOUSANDS of pounds of explosives all over ALL the hundreds of support beam/columns with out ANY ONE seeing them or reporting that they see strange devices attached to beams/columns??? Do you know how long it takes to rig up even a small building for demo?

I just see the faulty in that theory.

Also Im waiting for the oil we are taking from Iraq, Iraq is shipping oil now, wheres the oil? I'm waiting.....

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-11-12 at 21:11:35

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Nov 12 2005, 08:24 PM)

Minor fires do not produce this much smoke

[url=http://imageshack.us]

</a>

First world trade center bombings, a truck packed with explosives (over 100+ pounds) set off right next to all the structural supports, and it couldn't bring down the tower.

[url=http://imageshack.us] user posted image

</a>

And your telling me that our government plants ALL the THOUSANDS of pounds of explosives all over ALL the hundreds of support beam/columns with out ANY ONE seeing them or reporting that they see strange devices attached to beams/columns??? Do you know how long it takes to rig up even a small building for demo?

I just see the faulty in that theory.

Also Im waiting for the oil we are taking from Iraq, Iraq is shipping oil now, wheres the oil? I'm waiting.....
[right][snapback]354506[/snapback][/right]

Quite True, Alot of Smoke, Not much fire. The Impact Itself Produced Smoke, But The Fire inside the Building is in No way sufficient to Melt or Burn steel, Saying otherwise is like Being Negligent to Science. Also, I Applause the Fact you Backed up your Argument with a Picture. The Fact Is, There is No way the Plan Made the the Tower Pancake on itself, The Infrastructure of the Building was Not Weakened at all, The Building Itself Could Sustain Many times its weight as I mentioned. The Only Plausible Solution, Which is Currently the one Science Supports, is Demoliton. Also, Bombs Were Felt by SEISMIC VIBRATIONS. Also, Shown by Video Footage, Demolition Experts have Determined that there was Demolition Planted in Every floor, If Carried out by the Government, Which Many Inconsistencies can be resolved to be so, Then Only they could have had Avoidance of Detection, Extreme Security Access Etc. And yes, I know how much time it takes, It is Around 2 Weeks of Careful Preparation. In this Case, It could've taken longer.

As for the Iraqi Oil, I believe Prices would be much worse if Not for it. As I have mentioned in the past, We have reached the Peak of the Oil Age. Meaning we've reached Half of the Oil in the world. Some will say, Well Hey, Thats not bad, Were still fine. But the Problem is, Now, The Production will start Decreasing, While the demand will Augment due to Population and More Industrialized Economies.

EDIT: Also, The Demolition Was Planted Inside the Structure, Not Outside on the Columns/beams. If it were that Way, the Building would not have Fell down on itself.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-11-12 at 22:12:58

Ok so you made a claim, please supply proof, jsut to be fair you know.

Also, the question still stands is people would still see the demo workers placing/carrying explosives etc... Its a huge building, I mean people must have seem something right?

Also, the other world trade center buildings were destroyed due to the twin towers falling on top of them and damaging them, they (twin towers) didn't quite pancake onto themselves, if actual demo was used then the buildings would have perfectly pancaked onto themselfs.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-11-12 at 23:20:21

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Nov 12 2005, 11:33 AM)

Hmm... Why do you assume that because I ask for proof, i'm asking for proof about the Syria thing? I'm not an idiot, as you try to portray me. I was asking for proof of your claims, not your opinion.

And seriously. What proof Chris? What proof? Your words? Your "statistics" that you have posted? I ask for a plausible site, that is reliable, and has no affiliation with your political agenda. Why do you refuse to post such a thing? Are you scared that you cannot back up your own claims?

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Nov 12 2005, 06:24 PM)

Hmm.. You must have no knowledge of Pyrotechnics...

The first bombings, were bombs that EXplode. That is why there was the, "100's of pounds of EXplosives" that you talk about. The bombs that Aik talks about, are bombs that IMplode (Ever heard of C-4?) When they use Demolition, they don't use bombs that EXplode, because it would spray out to much debris. They use bombs that IMplode (C-4), hence, the implosion of the building.

And did you know that if they were to take in two suitcases, full of C-4, that it would probibly be more than enough C-4 to cover most of the demolition they needed done?

Since you're ignorant about this plastic explosive: Concentration C-4

Hmm... Seems to me, the prices of Gas are going down slowly.. Must be getting our Oil *Shrugs*

Oh..! If I was a president, and there was all that oil in Iraq, I would kick the dictator out, and setup a Democracy in there, too. Wanna know why?

Instead of having one person to make decisions (Iraq will not trade with you because I don't want to) there are many people to make decisions. Oh! Don't forget that it was our government that put the people in power, who are in power

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Nov 12 2005, 08:12 PM)

Hmm.. Seems to me, that before his post, in your post, you were making claims before he was. And your pictures of smoke? that is not proof.

People would still see demo workers hmm? Ever heard of being incognito?

The two main towers did not fall onto the other various buildings around the main floor. They were destroyed due to the towers collapsing in on themselves, and the debris being ejected from the implosion.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-11-12 at 23:26:46

Kell, you're over rating the american government too much. They're not THAT smart. Isn't the real life conspiracy enough? Right wing religious fanatics crash planes into buildings. We use that as an indirect excuse to go to Iraq. The End.

Also, if you were the government, wouldn't you find a better way to have an excuse to attack Iraq? Like bomb a school or football stadium? Instead of, oh say....the world trade center?

I'm sorry, but I'm with chris on this one.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-11-12 at 23:35:50

They must be smart enough, if they can fool the country into voting Bush in.

If I was the government, and I was corrupt, I wouldn't give a shiz about the people I needlessly killed by bombing the towers.

I agree with some points of his, when he makes good ones, and doesn't make CLAIMS.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-11-12 at 23:42:36

Exactly, if you're corrupt, you wouldn't care about the people you kill. So why not bomb a stadium with 30k civilians? That'll stir up the country with so much fear and patriotism, you could make people attack heaven.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-11-12 at 23:55:53

What is in the WTC? Documents (Well, there were...) So why not bomb something that has records of World Trade??

That would affect the country more than bombing a stadium with 30k people.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-11-13 at 00:01:04

It's not supposed to affect the country. It's supposed to affect the people.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2005-11-13 at 00:29:39

QUOTE(Euro @ Nov 11 2005, 12:16 PM)

"In Peace Sons bury their Fathers, In War Fathers bury their Sons."

You got that from RTW didn't you?

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-11-13 at 22:21:39

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Nov 12 2005, 10:12 PM)

Alright, I will Post Something tommorow Supplying my proof. For now, I'm kinda of tired (Going to bed in a sec) .But I'd like to say that the Buildings Actually did Infact Fall Straight down on Itself, That is Something thats already Supposed, you Propose they didn't fall Exactly on themselves, In that case, I ask for your Proof Aswell. I will Supply mine tommorow. Also, I'd Like to mention that the Building 7# Fell STRAIGHT and perfectly down by its own. At the same time the Tower did. That was Happening while the Tower fell aswell. So in No way could the Tower have affected Building Number 7, Like if you watch One of the Footages that show Building number Seven..You see it Collapse right next to the tower. Which..I'm going to supply proof for tommorow, Also, I claim Seismic Vibrations Detected a Bomb, Tommorow, I will Show my Good part of Proof, If you still deny the links. I will Drop the Subject because Such a Thing cannot be ignored. IF Seismic Vibrations Really did Feel the Bomb, I will find you very Irrational if you choose to ignore it.

ADDITION:
Finally, http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/...wtccollapse.htm

Also, If you are serious about the Debate, I suggest you read the Whole link before Answering. Also, You might learn something or change your opinion about this Debate. Someone has to win it, no? Don't worry about giving me the Links to Sites Feeding off the Official Story, I've already read them all, I knoe exactly what they think Happened. Infact, I believe that in an other convo, You made me read it already. Anyhow, I suggest you read this whole link, In order to Completely have an idea of what the Two Stories have to show and tell. From there, You can make up your desicion. Although, Maybe considering the fact that Right away, did the United States Declare war on Iraq after 9/11, A bit odd eh?

Anyhow, I'd like to outline a Part of the Link:

QUOTE

* Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor).
* By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes.
* The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires.
* FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
* Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.

Griffin (pp. 25–7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts:

1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself" (p. 44). In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.

1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said").
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse.
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).

Although, This is far From being all the Juice of the Other side of the Story, So have a seat and have a Nice read at it. Might change your mind, maybe not, But atleast you will be able to say you've read upon the two Stories and concluded a desicion upon it.

ADDITION:

QUOTE(Loser_Musician @ Nov 13 2005, 12:01 AM)

It's not supposed to affect the country. It's supposed to affect the people.
[right][snapback]354690[/snapback][/right]

Actually, Its supposed to Affect the Country in a Enough force to Convince the Populace that the Country is *under attack*. When they terrorize the populace enough, They need only to point the finger at someone, In this case, iraq and the Population will make the connection from, Having to Terminate the Terrorists in connection to the attacks they did on 9/11 supposedly.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-11-13 at 23:55:09

QUOTE(Loser_Musician @ Nov 12 2005, 10:01 PM)

It's not supposed to affect the country. It's supposed to affect the people.
[right][snapback]354690[/snapback][/right]

Then why is our country in record breaking debt? Why is inflation on the rise?

Both of these have been caused because of 9/11. Sure, inflation was slowly moving up, but after 9/11, didn't you notice most prices boosted???

QUOTE(Aikanaro)

When they terrorize the populace enough, They need only to point the finger at someone, In this case, iraq

Umm... No. We are not pointing the finger at Iraq. We are pointing it at radical Islamic Terrorist that are "part of Al Queda" that just so happen to be in Iraq. Go figure?

QUOTE(Prisonplanet.com)

I hate to join with Stars on this, but this is not very reliable.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-11-14 at 00:57:22

Im still working on finding proof, I have been playing too much Socom 3 lately haha.

Anyway I have another question. Lets say Bush did conduct 9/11. What for? I mean the country still going down hill.

Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2005-11-14 at 15:58:19

QUOTE(Kellimus @ Nov 13 2005, 11:55 PM)

I hate to join with Stars on this, but this is not very reliable.
[right][snapback]355512[/snapback][/right]

Ya? What can I do then? Try to find News of that on Yahoo? Or Cbc? No way, they don't have the information, why would they? Where do you expect the Information will come from? the Official Story is being Handed out by the Media, As well as the Government, Any Link I can give you, You might just say it is not reliable. I gave this Link, Beacause it Identified the Person saying it, But its not the only Site Hosting the same Exact information.

Or hey, Take this: http://www.americanam.com/2005/06/wtc.html

Its the Same Story, Infact, I can find it in a ton of sites. Seriously though, Stop with the Reliable Crap. Its time to Grow up and learn how to debate, This is a Debate Between the United states's Government Between Minorities who are trying to Prove that it did not happen like it said it was. What do you expect as a reliable Site? I have watched Documentaries, 40 Minute Videos, Have Read a ton of sites on this. You guys are the most unreasonable Bunch there is. Such events have already Occured in the Past, Venezuela for example. There was a Building with HUGE fires, That was Burning for a very long time, Oh let me tell you, The Beams and Columns were not near the Strength and Superiority of the Tower's Columns and Beams, Neither as Huge as theirs. But it Stood, Never collapsed. Why would it? Fire does not make a Steel Building Topple, Steel Buildings are Built with atleast a Strength for a Load of 5 times its weight. Even if the Top would Collape, There is no Reason for the whole thing to collapse in 9/11. The Infrascture was Not weak, Neither had it shifted. The Fire was so weak, Only had smoke. It was even Weakening with time.

Read the site and what it has to offer, I mean, Its so Easy to verify the info there is on the link. Google the Cases in the past, in which there were Tremendous fires, That were Much Stronger and had lasted for 20 hours and more, Yet they did not collapse. The Towers, Whom had Incredibly STRONG and BIG steel Beams, Collapsed in No time after the Crash. People, nearby, could even hear the explosion of the Tower. The towers after the explosions were dust. And There were Hotspots that lasted for over a Month. Even after every day, Pouring water on it. I've given so much Evidence for why this has been set up. Stop being Irrational, Be open minded. "Thats Not Reliable", Is your only way out? Well, you asked me for Evidence, So grow up.

ADDITION:

QUOTE(S.T.A.R.S-Chris @ Nov 14 2005, 12:57 AM)

Anyway I have another question. Lets say Bush did conduct 9/11. What for? I mean the country still going down hill.
[right][snapback]355544[/snapback][/right]

Don't change the Subject, It doesn't change a Thing if Evidence prooves that the Government had something behind it. Hmm, FEMA Was there the day before 9/11, on 9/11, Had all the Rubble Trucked and destroyed before anyone could conduct an Investigation. Strange don't you think?

QUOTE(Kellimus @ Nov 13 2005, 11:55 PM)

Umm... No. We are not pointing the finger at Iraq. We are pointing it at radical Islamic Terrorist that are "part of Al Queda" that just so happen to be in Iraq. Go figure?

Ya, maybe, but what is the end result? The war with iraq. Either way, they were able to Convince the public pretty quickly that they had to go to Iraq.

ADDITION:

Also, If you are any Serious about the Debate, you should atleast have the deceny to Read what I offered, if any doubts in place, Research about it. For example, He mentioned a Fire that occured in the past, Where it was Blazing with fire, Much more terrible than in 9/11, had lasted 19 hours. Verify if this is true, the Internet is a wide Network. I mean, All you manage to say Kellimus, Is.. It doesn't sound very Reliable. Thats just so Childish, I bet you didn't even read it. Therefore, I suggest you don't post in the debate, Because your not serious enough to read an Opposant's, or ally's Information as a whole. I mean really, If you Have doubts that all the info is Correct or partially true, Research about the specific things he said. If you don't, Don't bother replying in this Debate.

Next Page (9)