by kokoda » Fri 01 Dec 2006, 07:18:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('greenworm', 'I') think armageddon summed it up nicely.
Refute wtc7, I double dare you.
Armageddon summed up nothing ... there are many perfectly rational explanations as to why WTC 7 fell down.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... tml?page=5
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
The fact that the only reason you could come up with for this conspiracy was not to get oil ... but to merely build a pipeline to gain access to Caspian Sea Oil ... shows how fundamentally flawed your whole argument really is.
In the end they simply chose to build a pipeline to take the oil to Turkey instead. To this day no company has shown any real interest in taking on a trans- Afghan pipeline ... and why should they ... it would be economic madness.
You would have to be nuts to build an oil pipeline through one of the most hostile and unstable regions on the planet.
I challenged you earlier on to explain to me why Iraq was not blamed for 9/11. If it was all about the oil then why not just blame Saddam and use that to trigger an invasion?
Or how come the terror threat wasn't even used as an excuse for attacking Iraq?
And how come the "geniuses" who managed to pull off the 911 scam weren't competent enough to plant some evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
The simple fact is that most conspiracy theorists don't really want to know the facts (I doubt you will really read the fema report). Instead they prefer to contrive complex theories which would require a ridiculous amount of planning, luck and complicity to ever be pulled off.
And just think of the complicity angle. How many people would have had to be involved in something like this? What are the odds of not even one of these people spilling the beans?