John Gross (of NIST fame) is again mentioned here in this link of 'hard to argue' points of contention that non believers of the official story offer up repeatedly. I challenge one to pick any THREE and to show how ANY three cannot be in dispute, and show why. http://www.collective-evolution.com...t-911-that-cannot-be-debunked/comment-page-5/ Let's discuss the particulars as referenced here, and have a discussion, minus the insults and rhetoric. Please. If nobody picks three, then I shall.
ok, I'll expand. everything stated on that page is an outright lie, extreme exaggeration, or pathetic strawman. - - - Updated - - - furthermore, if all the things on that page were actually "FACTS", there would have been a massive investigation by Congress years ago.
One would certainly think so, except that there wasn't. Common sense should take over at some point too and easily disprove the official version too but, that doesn't happen easily either. Maybe people are just too stuck to their iphones to care then. You can still pick 3 and discuss the details, or you can continue to avoid the particulars. Your choice.
Question: do you believe that Congress actually works for the rank&file worker/taxpayer ( etc.... ) or do they work for BigBux INC? what do you think?
Most of that is conjecture or fantasy and everything that isn't has been explained previously but in truther world, no reading is allowed.
Gotcha. You'll stick to the official version of events, no matter what, and despite anything counter to it. Anyone else?
You're convinced that no matter what, you'll refuse to consider anything that doesn't fit with the official version of events, and you refuse to discuss any particulars whatsoever. I think I understand your position perfectly. Thanks. Anyone else?
I will stick with logic, physics, and math. I will leave conspiracy, fantasy, and incredulity to you.
The official version of it all, regardless of where it leads or doesn't lead, yes. I got that the first time. Blind faith, so to speak. Thanks again.
I'll stick with physics, logic and math (combined with a bit of my own common sense thrown in, just for fun).
MIT computed the outer wall to dissipate only 4% of the energy, the aircraft itself about 23%, the core around 25% with the floors absorbing up to around 50%. [video=youtube_share;cddIgb1nGJ8]http://youtu.be/cddIgb1nGJ8[/video]
and YOU refuse to accept that the WTC towers were brought down by impact damage, fire, weakened steel, and gravity.
There are some of the points listed that are problematic ( for me at least ) however the list I give here is a selection of the ones that have the most substance when it comes to asserting that 9/11 was an inside job. 3) The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds). Larry Silverstein used the term Pull it. Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage. Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. Building 7′, WTC 7′. 8 ) 100′s of Firefighters and witness testimony to BOMBS/EXPLOSIONS ignored by the 9/11 Commission Report. 9/11 Commission Report bars 503 1st responder eyewitnesses. Explosions in the lobby and sub levels, Firefighter explosions, Barry Jennings, William Rodriguez. 9) 100′s of firefighters and witness testimony to MOLTEN METAL ignored by the Commission report. Like youre in a foundry, NISTs John Gross denies the existence of Molten Metal, Swiss Cheese, As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. Leslie Robertson. 13) Towers were built to withstand a Boeing jet(s). I designed it for a 707 to hit it, Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer. Could probably sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, like a pencil puncturing screen netting Frank De Martini, deceased Manager of WTC Construction & Project Management. As far as a plane knocking a building over, that would not happen. Charlie Thornton, Structural Engineer. 23) Insider trading based upon foreknowledge. Put Options. Never identified insiders made millions. United and American Airlines Raytheon.
All false. Someone made up a bunch of propaganda and placed it all on that page. 'Truthers' will blindly follow it faithfully, of course.
His blanket statement is correct especially since the detailed discussion you are asking for has been done to death on this forum and it's threads. You are asking for people to say the same things over again which is typical twoofer tactic: keep ignoring answers and pretend you have some new challenge which has never been debunked. - - - Updated - - - In the video you linked to no he was not. Whether he did in the past is irrelevant - - - Updated - - - There is no evidence to counter it as the other poster said only fantasy and conjecture
Except that WTC 7 did not collapse at free fall acceleration. The term " pull it " referred to units of fire fighters battling the fire. Other steel framed high rise buioldings have collapsed from fire and or structural damage. Not one fire fighter of eyewitness gave testimony of a bomb. Some heard explosions which is normal in any large building fire. Molten metal 21 days later is normal in a pile of rubble which has been burning the whole time. They were not designed to withstand such impacts as you say it was hoped that they would do so. Truthers need to learn what is true
Sure thing. Harrit did not find thermite in his study. He found paint chips. There is so many things wrong with Harrit's report it's ridiculous. Want to discuss?
and all these bits are presented without any support, its supposed to be self-evident or something and that is that, its as if you said this is true because I said its true.
