Pete Carroll is apparently a 9/11 truther

abandon hope wrote:

And here is a veteran commercial pilot who explains the pentagon crash.

Have you counted the number of times he says "probably"?

And why is his word of more value than other people's? And who is he? All I see is a PDF file that could have been written by anyone.

Great evidence... Try again.

The Madrid Windsor fire is sometimes cited as being relevant to the WTC collapse, but in reality there are major differences between the two situations.

No plane flew into the Madrid Windsor Tower, for instance. It didn't sustain any structural damage prior to the fire beginning. (And for those who keep emailing us to say that neither did WTC7, reports of the damage there are covered here.)

The Madrid Windsor Tower was much smaller than the WTC, too, at 32 storeys.

More significantly, the design of the Madrid Windsor Tower was entirely different to that of the WTC.

ok, troofer?

http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html

See you later...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc

Thanks Obama!

Many of the surrounding buildings magically escaped with relatively minor damages...

http://www.creationoutreach.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc7wtc61.jpg

Was catching up on my tv watching the other day and noticed a new "documentary" on the TWA flight that went down... one takeaway from an interviewee - every time there is a major disaster there will always be gaps allowing people with too much time in their hands to come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories. Even if every single plane part was found except one screw or bolt someone would cry foul. If you were in Manhattan at the time like I was and walked by ground zero your perspective would change... people out there that actually believe it was perpetrated by our govt or was all a hoax are an embarrassment to human kind.

I don't completely buy the 9/11 conspiracy theories but there does appear to be a lot of unanswered coincidences that are improbable enough to warrant further investigation. Some level of cover-up was undoubtedly at-play.

With even the slightest seed of doubt considering Sept.11, and taking into consideration governments historic propensity to obfuscate issues/truth/reality to the citizenry, it boggles my mind that we continue to cede liberty and privacy to the state in any and all forms.

A successful guy wrote:

Was catching up on my tv watching the other day and noticed a new "documentary" on the TWA flight that went down... one takeaway from an interviewee - every time there is a major disaster there will always be gaps allowing people with too much time in their hands to come up with all sorts of conspiracy theories. Even if every single plane part was found except one screw or bolt someone would cry foul. If you were in Manhattan at the time like I was and walked by ground zero your perspective would change... people out there that actually believe it was perpetrated by our govt or was all a hoax are an embarrassment to human kind.

Bolded text is very clearly a false statement.

Further, being in Manhattan at the time does not in any way convey knowledge of who was behind the events of that day or what type of coverup may or may not be in place.

With your post you have proven yourself to have no respect for truth. As such you are an embarrassment to human kind.

krispy kremlin wrote:

Some level of cover-up was undoubtedly at-play.

JFC

undoubtedly? Really? Like the law of gravity? that undoubtedly?

without a shred of proof, you are willing to say 'undoubtedly'

this just kills me

undoubtedly

abandon hope wrote:

krispy kremlin wrote:

Some level of cover-up was undoubtedly at-play.

JFC

undoubtedly? Really? Like the law of gravity? that undoubtedly?

without a shred of proof, you are willing to say 'undoubtedly'

this just kills me

undoubtedly

That's interesting that you bring this sentence up; I was considering clarifying what I meant by "cover-up" but ultimately didn't.

I meant "cover-up" in a general, transparency sense. For whatever reasons, well-intended or malicious or otherwise, you can't tell me that every thing that is known about that day is in the public domain. Certainly it was a fragile time in our country and it is difficult to believe that everything that is known is on the table. In sum: I did not mean for "cover-up" to equal "conspiracy."

0.5/10 ~ this doesn't even merit further comment but I must say you are an awful troller... maybe I shouldn't say awful, I see people falling for poor quality trolling all the time.[

A successful guy wrote:

A Truthful guy wrote:

Bolded text is very clearly a false statement.

Further, being in Manhattan at the time does not in any way convey knowledge of who was behind the events of that day or what type of coverup may or may not be in place.

With your post you have proven yourself to have no respect for truth. As such you are an embarrassment to human kind.

0.5/10 ~ this doesn't even merit further comment but I must say you are an awful troller... maybe I shouldn't say awful, I see people falling for poor quality trolling all the time.[

I'm seeing more-and-more of these "troll-calling-the-troll-a-troll" tactics lately.

A successful guy wrote:

You just needed an opportunity to mention that you were there, didn't you?

How sad...

krispy kremlin wrote:

abandon hope wrote:

JFC

undoubtedly? Really? Like the law of gravity? that undoubtedly?

without a shred of proof, you are willing to say 'undoubtedly'

this just kills me

undoubtedly

That's interesting that you bring this sentence up; I was considering clarifying what I meant by "cover-up" but ultimately didn't.

I meant "cover-up" in a general, transparency sense. For whatever reasons, well-intended or malicious or otherwise, you can't tell me that every thing that is known about that day is in the public domain. Certainly it was a fragile time in our country and it is difficult to believe that everything that is known is on the table. In sum: I did not mean for "cover-up" to equal "conspiracy."

ok. I withdraw. agreed that not everything is known.

krispy kremlin wrote:

A successful guy wrote:

0.5/10 ~ this doesn't even merit further comment but I must say you are an awful troller... maybe I shouldn't say awful, I see people falling for poor quality trolling all the time.[

I'm seeing more-and-more of these "troll-calling-the-troll-a-troll" tactics lately.

What were you expecting? Did you go on LR by accident?

I work for a media corporation. We could see the WTC from our building. There were all sorts of rumors flying around and a lot of misinformation. Anyone who believes this was conspiracy did not witness it in person.

Buildings do not fall on themselves when they catch fire. 3 did that day. Name another that fell like a controlled demolition, that was, in fact, a fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HetCLca2fbw

Randy Oldman wrote:

I work for a media corporation. We could see the WTC from our building. There were all sorts of rumors flying around and a lot of misinformation. Anyone who believes this was conspiracy did not witness it in person.

how is being close to the scene illuminating? people at hiroshima never saw the enola gay and had no idea they had just been attacked by a new kind of weapon.

only the cool light of distant analysis means anything. Not the immediacy of the terror.

abandon hope wrote:

ok, so we've already blamed a jew - now I'm waiting for someone to call us 'sheeple'

anyone care to chip in so we can run the table early?

Silverstein isn't suspect because he's Jewish, you foolish person. He's the property owner of the building and he inquired about demolition that day and he took out an insurance policy to protect against terrorist attacks just a few weeks before 9/11 -- an insurance policy that netted him billions. And he and his children happened to be absent from work in the building that day. Even though he had been there EVERY OTHER MORNING FOR MONTHS. The fact that he's Jewish has nothing to do with the questions that arise from this combination of information. Yes, some idio*s take that into account, but it's irrelevant to the facts. Stop obsessing about Jewish stuff and and screaming anti-semitism immediately and just see what the man says. Does he seem to be telling the truth about that morning? Not to me, the hesitation, the strange way he tells the story. And he's changed his story multiple times now. He made billions from the insurance policy. Disregard his ethnicity, look at facts.