Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes. Planes hit a building, but its far more complex than that. You have the questions of how and by what mechanism the buildings collapsed and why they collapsed in that particular manner. These questions are important because they present a number of structural engineering issues and need to be considered when constructing other buildings.
Ask yourself this. If the United States government, with its Pentagon and official agencies, and billions of dollars of global military and intelligence resources was "to stupid to pull of a heist that big", then what could be said of al Qaeda whose base of operations is within a cave?
No they do not. They may back each other up but just because MULTIPLE people screwed up does not mean they are right. Their stories are not backed up by ANY conclusive physical evidence.
If they are, then you should be able to present it. The fact that you havent makes me think that you cant
Those issues have been studied.
Don't be ridiculous, when people talk of conspiracy theories in terms of 09/11, they are talking about conspiracies other than those involving Al Qaeda. There is absolutely no evidence of government involvement.
And what changes have been made to building designs as a result? What mechanism caused the Towers to collapse so rapidly? Sure. There is the pancake theory, but that too, is disputed by many prominent architects and engineers. So far as those issues have been studied, further studies are still required if questions still linger. What harm could result from further study save for the accumulation of knowledge?
[/QUOTE]And yet people claim that there was no conspiracy. Evidently, if they believe that a band of conspirators from al Qaeda orchestrated the attack, then that is a conspiracy theory, by definition.
Apparently, there is also a lack of "hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks, according to Rex Tomb, the Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11. Tomb offered that in response to a question as to why the 9/11 attacks were not mentioned on bin Laden's Most Wanted page.
As for there being "no evidence of government involvement" or foreknowledge, how would we know until we had an inquiry that investigated deeper than the 9/11 Commission did?
Numerous architects and structural engineers have expresses their doubts and scrutiny over the official "pancake" theory. (See here: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/prominent-structural-engineers-say.html)Every single study done from the American Society of Civil Engineers to those done at UC Berkley and to those done in foreign lands have confirmed the OV is correct. There is not one academic journal that has said otherwise.
Numerous architects and structural engineers have expresses their doubts and scrutiny over the official "pancake" theory. (See here: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/prominent-structural-engineers-say.html)
Numerous technical articles expressing this doubt have been well-published and accessible for public scrutiny, over the Internet, for many years now. And a peer-reviewed article on the matter has been published in the Open Civil Engineering Journal. (See here: http://www.bentham.org/open/tociej/openaccess2.htm) Again, what harm could result from further study? What harm could result from an independent inquiry?
Agreed. Closets full of cleaners can combine under heat and pressure to form an impromptu chemical bomb, batteries for larger devices such as laptops can explode when heated.Not to mention that they could have indeed heard explosions. That, however does not mean that they heard demolition explosives or any sort of planted explosive. Considering a huge building just got hit by an airplane and is about to collapse, it wouldn't surprise me that there were things blowing up inside (i.e. electrical transformers) or that there were other very loud noises that people may describe as an explosion.
Agreed, completely. This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence against the demolition ideaWhat it comes down to is that planted explosives strong enough to bring down a building would not have been heard by a handful a people. It would have been heard by everyone within the area and recorded on the multiple video cameras that were filming at the time, which did not happen.
Im gonna ask you once more
Either back up what you're saying or clear the field for someone with the stones to do so
You really arent getting this. Eyewitness testimonies carry very little weight unless there is physical evidence to support them. In this case there is none, therefore the witness testimonies must be considered erroneous or mistaken.I did. I supplied video of eyewitness testimony.
When their findings are backed up by physical evidence, I agree.I tend to think the eyewitness' are some of the best evidence.
Videos that have no confirmed sources and are completely un-verifiableAnd on the first page of this thread I supplied video of a loud explosion caught on video.
I want to know what his qualifications for discerning the explosion of demolition munitions versus anything else and how he's able to tell the difference.And here is William Rodriguez who worked for the New York Port Authority for about twenty years. He was in charge of the three stairwells - A, B and C. They were narrow and without windows. There were also 150 elevators in the building. He knew the building well. His job included the maintenance of the three narrow stairwells in the class "A" building - WTC1, the north tower. On a typical morning, he would have breakfast then begin at the top of the building and methodically work his way down. Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at this time. As he was talking with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.
I have to ask the same question about Miss CruzAnd then there is another video testimony of Marlene Cruz who witnessed the basement explosions she made from the hospital.
You really arent getting this. Eyewitness testimonies carry very little weight unless there is physical evidence to support them. In this case there is none, therefore the witness testimonies must be considered erroneous or mistaken.
When their findings are backed up by physical evidence, I agree.
Videos that have no confirmed sources and are completely un-verifiable
I want to know what his qualifications for discerning the explosion of demolition munitions versus anything else and how he's able to tell the difference.
I have to ask the same question about Miss Cruz
Which demonstrates how easy it is to persuade you.And you can deny it, so what, I wouldn't expect any less from you. Your opinion doesn't matter to me in the slightest though.
It is persuasive to me. And I have supplied some of the witness testimony and loud explosions caught on video that I have found persuasive.
Bull, if that were true, you wouldnt have posted hereI am not trying to persuade you, you mean nothing to me.
You sure are funny.Which demonstrates how easy it is to persuade you.
Bull, if that were true, you wouldnt have posted here
Its pointless to debate with these people. No matter how much logic and evidence you present they will still believe their insane and ludicrious theories
This is quite amusing coming from you. Very ironic indeed.
You really arent getting this. Eyewitness testimonies carry very little weight unless there is physical evidence to support them.
LOL go put on your tin foil hat and look for bigfoot and UFO's
Crazy people
You should watch the videos that joebudda posted. You'll get a laugh at what constitutes "convincing evidence" for him.
Do you always cram people into these little boxes? You do realize it is nothing more then a collectivist illusion? Another means of rationalizing some "us vs them" mentality that only exists in the mind.
I would be interested what you believe caused the damage and explosions in the basement levels?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?