Do you believe in the 9-11 Conspiracy theory..??

I think all of us, if not most, agree something abnormal happened; even if none of us can agree on a specific reason. The lie states, the fire was burning hot enough to cause a collapse, though I highly doubt it would have been enough to cause an entire structural collapse. I could understand a weakening at the point of impact, and possible a few floors up and down, but the entire building to collapse is a joke. They try to claim that its was the weight of the above structure falling that caused the resulting damage, but I find this unbelievable. WTC7 was beyond a joke. I really don't even want to comment on it, being I believe its just another fair example of how or government is getting lazy on covering things up. They know the American people have reached the point of ultimate trust. Most American's wake up everyday, and are ready to soak in what ever they hear on CNN while they drink their morning coffee, 9 times out of 10 believing everything they hear. Is this the smart thing to do? Or are we just being ignorant to a degree that's literally harmful to ourselves? I am a very patriotic American, but at the same time, I hate my government with a passion. It takes us loyal American's, like the ones fighting the IRS for attacking people in the Tea party movement, to one day stand up, and take our country back. People need to realize that our government, may just not be working in our favor anymore...(or for a long time now). Another note about WTC7, wasn't there proof to show that the building needed to be renovated due to asbestos? But taking out a insurance policy was the next best thing? Fishy fishy fishy Oh...

"This NWO puppet [Silverstein] took out insurance policies six months before the magic trick with specific stipulations about terrorists attacks."
..This could not possibly have happened as Silverstein has no standing to purchase ANY insurance in March of 2001. "Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial winner and the Port Authority fell through, and he signed the lease on July 24, 2001."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As for the "terrorist clause", well since the WTC was attacked by terrorists in 1993 he would not be a very good businessman if he ignored that.

"Not to mention he was losing money having a hard time finding tenants to lease to."
..Really!? The evidence does not support this either. Two people were bidding on acquiring these properties. This would not be the case if there was a dearth of tenants. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2... This will show you that the WTC was not a nearly empty building. Moreover you are suggesting that Silverstein acquired the rights to these buildings in July 2001 and was able to determine that he was lacking tenants, able to come up with a plan, hire & train foreign nationals to take down the towers, not to mention the Pentagon & the White House in three months. And that this was a better idea than a marketing campaign to get more tenants. And he doesn't even get to pocket the insurance as his lease REQUIRES he rebuild the WTC. This a really great plan lease four office buildings, that create an income. Destroy them & rebuild them, during which time there is zero income. Really good business plan.

"NORAD has everything to do with "run away planes" North American Aerospace Defense"
..First it is North American Aerospace Defense Command. Second the mission of NORAD is "NORAD Mission --The North American Aerospace Defense Command conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defense of North America." http://www.norad.mil/about/in... This has nothing to do with 'run away planes' that is the responsibility of the FAA through the Air Traffic Control System.

People are placing "put" orders every day. Are all of them "proof" of terrorist activity, or any of them for that matter.

"PULL IT is the familar jargon used in controlled demolition." It is also "familar jargon" [sic] used by fire departments to extract all crews from any operation. WTC 7 did not come down in any such "manner of controlled demolition"

Since I have just easily debunked all of your arguments it appears that you have the "weak ass arguments". All you have are "talking points".

NORAD is a portion of the Air Force, part of what used to be the Air Defense Command. Their job is to keep external enemy assets from getting through to harm the country. Air Force assets are sometimes used to assist civilian agencies in their area of responsibility UPON REQUEST. As I said before it is the Air Traffic Control System that has the responsibility to track internal aircraft not that of NORAD.

There was an exercise involving NORAD on 9/11, but not what you claim. "Operation Northern Vigilance, was a NORAD operation which involved deploying fighter aircraft to locations in Alaska and Northern Canada.[1] The operation was a response to a Russian exercise, in which long-range bombers were dispatched to Russia's high north. The operation was one part simulation, one part real world. It was immediately called off after NORAD received word from NEADS that the Federal Aviation Administration had evidence of a hijacking. All simulated information (so called "injects") were purged from computer screens at NORAD headquarters in Colorado. On receiving news of the attacks, the Russians promptly canceled their exercise as well.[2]"
1. "NORAD Maintains Northern Vigilance". NORAD Newsroom. September 9, 2001.
2. Simmie, Scott (December 9, 2001). "The scene at NORAD on Sept. 11 ; Playing Russian war games ... and then someone shouted to look at the monitor;". Toronto Star.

"You must be one of the weak Americans that would 'cooperate to avoid injury'"
..If this is what you understood then you did not read the posting very closely. Its like what they tell clerks & bank tellers, "give up the money". It's an attempt to resolve the incident with the least harm. Surely this is being reconsidered.

At least I have reasoned discourse for the things I say. A troll does not.