Most people don't even know about a third tower demolished on 9-11

Something happened. There are various aspects that are easily proved different than that is 'official' version that was originally presented. Fine the proof of flight 93. Find the proof of flight 77. It DOESN'T exist. (unless you simply 'take their word for it' ). Again, I do not.

 

What kind of 'proof' do you need? whose 'word' would you take?

 

Any open and honest investigation actually. We've never had one so, I'll settle for starting with that.

 

There have been plenty from different scientific, forensic and engineering groups worldwide.

 

exactly WHO was it that accounted for the bits of "FLT93" or "FLT77"?
and how was any of the alleged airliners accounted for?

 

Yes we have

 

What type proof would you need to prove they did exist?

 

for starters, how about something in the tens of tons of aircraft
wreckage on the Pentagon lawn?

 

Bull...there have been plenty,YOU just don't like their conclusions

 

Let me put it this way, can YOU personally buy it
that is the official explanation of the Pentagon hit
given the angle that the alleged "FLT77" was to
have hit the Pentagon & the fact that there was
so little ( that is less than 1% of the mass of an airliner )
on the Pentagon lawn?

 

Would you yourself need to see this wreckage physically or would someone's photos or written description suffice?

 

That is a very good question, since the Gulf of Tonkin fraud
there is a good bit of healthy skepticism about whatever appears in
the mainstream media, if there was wreckage, and tens of tons of
wreckage is significantly difficult to fake, therefore the probability
of it being real is greater. So, ya, there are some dependencies
& what-ifs to be considered. Truly the present state of the alleged
"evidence" is in a very sad state indeed.

 

Which you didn't answer.

Would you need to see the physical evidence for yourself or would someone's photo and/or written description be enough?

 

I strongly disagree.

 

Proof solid enough to remove any reasonable doubt. Pictures would be a good start. A public examination of the 'discrepancies' for all to witness and verify. What 'should be' simple things, really.

 

I don't like the editing of the 'report'. I don't like the varying timelines of the military. I don't like the fact that 80 some odd videos were immediately confiscated and not one showed a plane anywhere close to hitting the Pentagon. I don't like the varying stories of flight 93 and whether or not it buried itself or not, and the fact that pieces of the supposed flight were found miles away (that's not exactly consistent particulars there, sorry). I don't like the fact that eyewitness testimony was excluded that didn't 'align' with the Kean version of events. I don't like that Bush's brother was heading up security for the WTC's (or whatever his involvement with the WTC security was that one cares to argue). There's lots to not like about the 9/11 fable (and it is that, a fable). The conclusions were arrived at dishonestly, and with prejudice. I want an HONEST, open investigation and not one 'painted' in some particular light. Said 'conclusions' are faulty, at best and criminal at worst.

 

Cause you never read the reports and investigations

 

Well, if it's on an 'official' report then, it must be true, correct? Saudi Arabia, the Bushes, PNAC. It's really not all that difficult to put together. You stand firmly behind the 'official' version. I do not. 6 out of 10 of the special 'commission' APPOINTED and hand selected by the administration (aka, Cheney and Rumsfeld) even say that the whole report was bs, corrupted, inaccurate (choose your word).

 

No, they didn't. You are arguing from a fallacy.

 

No and that is a dodge.

Official statements and reports can be false this one just happens to be correct.

It is correct because no evidece disputes it.

None odf them has said it was corrupted inaccurate or BS you are stating an absolute lie

 

Let me ask you a couple of questions and see if you can answer them honestly.

1. Are you positive that plane impact damage and resultant fires could NOT have initiated the collapse of both towers the way it was witnessed?
2. Are you positive that once the collapse initiated, the upper section could NOT have sheared apart the lower section as was witnessed, causing complete destruction of the towers?
3. If you are positive, what information are you using to come to those conclusions? I want to know what you basis is for completely ruling out damaged/weakened structural elements, gravity, and load redistribution as the cause for what was seen that day.

 

#1. The least likely outcome of the crash of an airliner into the WTC tower, would be first complete penetration, and second complete destruction of the tower(s).

#2. You are simply repeating the "total collapse was inevitable ...... " from the official report and again, the very least likely outcome of the events would be "total collapse" most likely the building would end up damaged, but not destroyed.

#3. look at a pile of gravel, just for example, the pile naturally forms a slope side, aprox cone shape, and in the case of the "collapsing" WTC tower(s) the deck would not have to remain intact to have a ramp form in the rubble and as such, material would naturally slide down this slope toward the outside of the building and down, taking it away from the "pile driver".

 

Based on what information?

Again, based on what information? Are you making a guess? Gut feeling?

And how does this favor CD instead of a gravity driven collapse with no explosives?

 

The thief covered his tracks well and so, no crime was committed. That analogy about sum up your 'version' of the matter?

 

1. 100% positive? No.
2. 100% positive? No.
3. n/a

Now, let me ask YOU a few questions.

1.Are you 100% positive that collapse of the towers HAD to have been initiated as 'officially' presented?
2.Are you 100% positive that once the collapse initiated, no further 'assistance' was used 'enhance' what was occurring (seemingly)?
3.If you are 100% positive that the whole thing could have happened no other way, and there is 'no doubt' in your mind that the 'official' was EXACTLY as presented in every detail, then what is your basis for forming such a conclusion?


Let's see how honest you are.