Bloviater wrote:
#6
Explain to me how a "terrorist", who, incidentally, learned to fly on a simulator, could aim a giant passenger jet , with impeccable accuracy, so even and low to the ground, into the side of the Pentagon. Besides there aren't just simulators out there, there are actual books and coaches, coaching people about the subject of flying. Hell, one of them might even have had training in jets that nobody knows about, that is kept secret, even though that is probably not the case.
There are many coincidences and inconsistencies with the official story.
Today's flight simulators and the flight simulators back in 2001 were pretty accurate you know. If they weren't accurate then people wouldn't dare to use them. The same with a bridge, people would not walk over it if it wasn't functioning properly.
Bloviater wrote:
Explain how several folks heard explosions near the basement of the towers after the planes hit the towers.
Don't people tend to hear things that aren't really there at times, or make a mistake because of their memory. Even more the memory of a person who has just been through an intense, hectic and life changing event be wrong? Let me take Utøya as an example: A lot of people didn't remember, or didn't "catch onto" how the predator looked after the incident. A lot of people even thought there were two persons that day, but as we know that is most likely false. People tend to make mistakes in hectic situations when they are scared s**tless and their hearts are beating just thinking about surviving and whatnot. Even with a plane crashing 200 meters away people will get scared that something might happen to them.
Bloviater wrote:
#6
Explain why the towers fell exactly like how buildings destroyed by controlled demolitions fall.
And you base this off of what? Some crazy internet site or some crazy person wanting to promote his book? Come back to me when you have hard boiled evidence supported by those who are at top of their profession which has something to do with it. There are a lot of things people tend to believe simply because they aren't smart enough or well educated enough to tell the difference between BS and facts. It's called pseudoscience. Just because someone displays a fancy diagram in front of you and makes hard things make sense doesn't mean that said person is correct. And who is to say that they can't fall the same way (if they did, which I doubt), I sure as hell can't simply because I don't know enough about the subject.
Bloviater wrote:
#6
Explain why Larry Silverstein obtained insurance policies for buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 worth 3.55 billion dollars on July 2001.
That could be cooincidential. I doubt he would be stupid enough to do that on purpose such a short time before the incident, and I am sure that has been looked into already without finding anything.
Bloviater wrote:
#6
There are many coincidences and inconsistencies with the official story.
Or maybe it just seems that way to people who are way over their head about what they are talking about having no idea what actually happened.
And just to be clear, coincidences to tend to happen at times.
I personally think it's very degrading to the people who live in USA to say things like you and others do. Sure it needs to be looked into, just as everything has to be looked into in an investigation it doesn't give people the right to be so inconsiderate. It's degrading to those who lost their lives that day, the ones in the building, the ones who went in to safe people (firemen and alike), it's just downright degrading towards everyone to make such a claim without the real evidence to back it up (and so far we have none except for circumstantial which doesn't end up in court and if it did it would just get people wrongfully convicted).
That's what I think about the case.
Last edited by proxybear on 27 Sep 2011, 9:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
25 Sep 2011, 1:20 pm
