It has all the evidence to support it. All the evidence works against the official story. The damage observed at WTC simply could not have been caused by burning office furniture and gravity. YOU may actually still believe that silly story, and obviously you do, but it's rather like still believing that the earth was created just 6000 years ago or that the earth is flat. Sad, really.
You have it backwards it is twoofers acting like flat earthers. There is no evidence supporting your claim. The damage seen was caused by aircraft striking the buildings which started massive fires which in turn led the buildings to collapse. You cannot provide any evidence otherwise. Your ignorant claim to the contrary is not evidence
Not really. Until just 6 years ago I actually believed the official story, though I had questions early on about how the towers fell. Like Peter Jennings, something just looked odd about the way the towers came down. Then along came some reading material, thought-provoking material, given to me by a friend with the AE911 Truth material. It was most informative. It would not surprise me in the least if nuclear explosions were used.
Nothing unusual the way the towers fell if you know anything about physics. Provoking opinions are not fact.
Actually Hoosier, I do know enough about physics to understand that something was most unusual about the way those towers fell, and WTC7 too. My old college physics courses were refreshed, shall we say, by Richard Gage's informed discussion. They were not caused by office fires and gravity as NIST said they were, no. One must allow some measure of common sense to work in analyzing what was seen and what happened there.
You should have paid attention in class then. No need for common sense when it comes to conspiracy theory.
Actually, there is room for common sense in conspiracy theory, assuming one is honest with oneself. For example, common sense tells a person that humans can be deceptive, and humans in government can REALLY be deceptive. If you need an example of that, I'm really wasting my time here with you. Common sense tells a person that if a story says an airliner crashed in a field, and examination of the field from above and by walking through the field shows no airliner present, then clearly the story is not true. Common sense tells a person that if steel was melted, twisted, and blown hundreds of feet away, then some sort of explosive force, some source of very high heat, would have been required to do that.
Lots of common misconceptions perceived as common sense. The logical fallacy called Argument from Incredulity. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, which is where truthers are with the facts, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited.
LOL, well if your point is that one needs an unlimited imagination to believe the official story, then we are in complete agreement!
Your knowledge of the facts and evidence is pretty sad. The damage seen there could not possibly have been caused by ordinary office fires and a gravitational collapse. Besides the fact that NO modern building has ever collapsed from office fires and gravitational collapse, the damage that happened had a special quality to it, including sick humans with conditions similar to radiation events in the past.
No one ever claimed they were ordinary office fires. They were massive fires which followed massive damage . You cannot provide a speck of evidence that anything else caused the collapse
10 or less floors involved out of 110 floors cannot be described as 'massive fires', sorry. You sir, cannot prove that such minimal involvement DID cause the collapse. You can repeat the findings of NIST, but that proves nothing at all except the politics and dishonesty involved at NIST.
Yes it can be described as massive and no one reported it was limited to 10 floors. Yes it has been proven what caused the collapse. Massive damage and massive fires . The burden of proof is on you to prove your idiotic ideas and you cannot. You cannot provide any evidence
On those floors,yes it can be described as 'massive fires'...YOU don't get to change the definition And you've got nerve whining about dishonesty,,
So by your logic as only one tenth of the building was ablaze, it follows that the fires were inconsequential? How do you figure that? He doesn't have the burden of proof, you do. Anyway, it has been done. The ISF forum site has an abundance of scientific threads on the subject with information provided by members who are in the engineering community. What a crock! No-one has been able to prove dishonesty on the part of NIST. Not Chandler, not Pepper nor Gage. You are just repeating a meme without truly understanding it. Why is it that AE911T hasn't produced a peer reviewed paper citing the supposed mistakes in the NIST report with academic support? I can show you 50 academic papers that support the NIST report regarding 7WTC alone, and you cannot link to any that discredit it. That in itself is quite telling. http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/294k95/compilation_of_scientific_literature_that/
Well, the fire fighters obviously did not share your indifference to the size of the fires. If you are talking about the geological feature under 5WTC, it is merely the remnant of a glacial moraine, and Manhattan has plenty of these features. I could provide you with evidence, but you've already told me that you aren't interested in sources. Rodriguez's story changes with each interview, but if you think he is valid why would explosions in the basement trigger a collapse at the impact points?
Blues I did not say the fires were inconsequential. I did say the fires were "not massive". Different words, different meanings. Of course they were consequential, almost everything is. The larger point is that common sense tells a person that the damage observed there could not POSSIBLY have been caused ONLY by office fires, no way. Something else happened there, and it does seem that this nuclear explanation has some measure of validity.
