David Ray Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking

Uncle Leo

NMyTree wrote:

I want to debunk the debunkers who are debunking the debunkers.

If you do that, I shall debunk you.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

soulsinging wrote:

i believe the us shot down flight 93 and the rebellion was a feel good hero story that was fabricated. i believe there were egregious lapses in our defense agencies. but i do not believe that the government could have pulled off a huge inside job and blown up the buildings themselves with no one being the wiser as a means to get oil. it's a plot so thin as to stretch the credibility of anything but an m night shalayn movie.

thank you. Rare to see so much common sense about this issue on this board.

BetterThanYou

soulsinging wrote:

they could have 6 different independent investigations and every single one would come up with different theories and interpretations and analyses of the evidence. and people would find flaws with all of them. it would accomplish nothing except an extravagant waste of money. the investigation was shoddily done becos people were trying to cover their asses for gross negligence in their duties. but the gist of the story seems eminently credible to me. those who fucked up know what they did and will respond. the rest of us just want a more satisfying and dramatic conclusion in keeping with out addiction to such stories in our pop culture... james bond, jason bourne, aliens, area 51, big foot, etc.

i believe the us shot down flight 93 and the rebellion was a feel good hero story that was fabricated. i believe there were egregious lapses in our defense agencies. but i do not believe that the government could have pulled off a huge inside job and blown up the buildings themselves with no one being the wiser as a means to get oil. it's a plot so thin as to stretch the credibility of anything but an m night shalayn movie.

one thing that bugs me about the whole "the gov't blew up the towers" statement: why have planes fly into the buildings, just to blow them up later in the morning? why not just blow up the buildings and tell the public "someone must have planted bombs to destroy the buildings." it's not like that hasn't happened before, in '93. crashing planes into buildings you're going to blow up just doesn't make any sense to me.

spiral out

BetterThanYou wrote:

one thing that bugs me about the whole "the gov't blew up the towers" statement: why have planes fly into the buildings, just to blow them up later in the morning? why not just blow up the buildings and tell the public "someone must have planted bombs to destroy the buildings." it's not like that hasn't happened before, in '93. crashing planes into buildings you're going to blow up just doesn't make any sense to me.

Yes but that way no one will believe they were blown up.

Because that would beg the question of how could a bunch of terists get in to wire them all up unoticed.

even flow?

spiral out wrote:

Yes but that way no one will believe they were blown up.

Because that would beg the question of how could a bunch of terists get in to wire them all up unoticed.

Well if they could get tailed all the way around the world and then suddenly get lost in the USA. With an inept security department, anything is possible.

Planes add to the visual needed to sell the package.

jlew24asu

spiral out wrote:

Yes but that way no one will believe they were blown up.

Because that would beg the question of how could a bunch of terists get in to wire them all up unoticed.

but you already believe someone planted bombs throughout both buildings. apparently that went unnoticed????

spiral out

jlew24asu wrote:

but you already believe someone planted bombs throughout both buildings. apparently that went unnoticed????

I didn't say i believe that jlew so not sure what your point it.