SnoopySuited (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Maelman, how do you know its biased analysis? Because you don't agree with them? Kind of arrogant of you. And do you have evidence that certain people were not allowed to analyze the materials?No one is covering for a mass murder, because we know the hijackers are the ones who did it.Finally, you don't beleive my sources because they disagree with you and I don't believe your sources because they are not relevant to the subject. Would you go to a pediatrist for heart problems?

MaelMan82 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

sorry biased analysis of evidence only certian ppl were allowed to see before it was shipped as far away as possible for anyone else to verify isnt exactly what I would call trust worth analysis by anyone let alone an expert.its just as offensive for me to hear ppl covering for a mass murder as it is to you im sure for what im all about.pointless argument.. I dont believe your sources and you dont believe mine, guess time will tell.

SnoopySuited (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

MaelMan, you're wrong again. You have to cite evidence to your claims and not just parrot what other CTs say.The materials at the site were not carted away fast. It took months to clear the area. Check out the date of this article, when the last girder was taken away:usatoday*com/news/nation/2002/05/28/wtc-girder*htmAnd plenty of people investigated the materials: usatoday*com/news/sept11/2001/12/26/usat-memorials*htmchronicle*augusta*com/stories/103001/tec_124-1331*shtml

MaelMan82 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

LOL whatever man its convenient that nobody can actually investigate the site of the collapse because it was carted away so fast... and against several peoples and organizations wishes.. not that it matters like they listen to the peoples or go through congress anyway..

NoMasPivo (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

Why would you fly two planes into the buildings...then just shoot a missle at the Pentagon? Why not use one more plane in your plan?

SnoopySuited (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

cont.Controlled demolitiion expert say controlled demolition is not possible: jod911*com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06*pdfBachmann also is not qualified. He did not review the site and the building and is not an expert in controlled demolition. I don't want to hear opinions, I want to hear scientific evidence and expert analysis.

SnoopySuited (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

MaelMan,Richard Gage is a kook...this is his idea of science. watch?v=DFVoencqfZw&feature=relatedHe holds no relevant degrees and has no relevant experience. He is not an expert.The 9/11 commision was investigating a security lapse, not an inside job. So Cleland's statement is not insinuating a conspiracy.Jowenko only saw a video of the collapse. He admits on the youtube video that he does not know anything about WTC7. Other CD experts say that a CD is impossible.cont.

MaelMan82 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

its kinda funny that they were told not to and didnt "investigate" floors 1-7 or 47... hmm would be where the evidence of controlled demolition would be wouldnt it?9/11 commission Max Cleiland resigned stating "its a national scandal and this investigation is now compromised" is he nuts?I think these are some more experts you would likely have a problem with.. - Danny Juango - Hugo Bachmann

MaelMan82 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

no basis whatsoever? thats your opinion...Richard Gage, architect/engineer for 20 years seems to think there's some basis for it.. he challenges the NIST's "explanation"the money put into the "investigation" is a joke by comparison to lesser famous events in historyim not claiming to have 100% evidence im just saying it doesnt make sense and theres way too much that looks suspiciousyou can have a problem all you wantunfortunately it doesnt really have that big an impact on my day lol

johnhatkinson (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)

What does he mean when he says he's happy that the plane hit the world trade centre building? -because it didn't hit something else?