Quote:
|
When you use misinformation
|
Well it is substantiated what I said. He did take control of WTC, they did go into the documentation of the insurance summary and include 'being attacked by an airplane'. I just didn't take the time to go through and post actual links of what I was talking about, which I just covered in my second post.
I'm not even trying to convince people of anything, but rather to just make people skeptical. I could care less if anyone else believes what I do in the entire "9/11 scenario", but would rather summarize what I think and leave it at that. And at the same time, I'm not disagreeing with you on not liking misinformation, because it does derail legitimate, structured arguments to where they become completely opinionated.
When you add all of the pieces of the puzzle together, they don't exactly fit together. That's all. Everything else that surrounded 9/11, IMO, could be argued completely that the 'terrorist' attacks brought the buildings to pieces; However, when you look at building 7 there is something wrong with the picture. They claim the sprinkler system hadn't been working which is why, after burning for roughly 5 hours the 45+ story building collapsed perfectly onto itself at a freefall rate.