I found an interesting take on Mr. Mark Roberts (the SOURCE of your link) here: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2008/070808Roberts.htm The article suggests Mr. Roberts may be a bit "dishonest". Who would have guessed?
I thought you were going with direct responses. Why are you changing the subject and trying to obfuscate the topic? Respectfully, Can you address the points brought up in the link?
When was the first debris first shipped outside of the United States? Gimme a date here, man. And how long did it take those agencies/organizations to finish their investigations and/or compile a report to conclude that there was 'no explosives used'?
This is one of the major differences between truthers and.... well, everyone else. Truthers believe the theories are the theories and if they change it is a sign of weakness. Everyone else believes that you start with a theory and change the theory as evidence presents itself that you end up at the truth, not where you started from because you are too weak to change. The fact the official story has changed as new information became available makes it MORE credible, not less even if truthers believe differently. It means that they are not trying to fit the evidence to the theory as truthers claim and are instead fitting the theory to the evidence. You should try it sometime.
Explosions do not automatically mean explosives no matter how much the truthers claim otherwise. Many witnesses, including the one who got burned, claim the "explosion" was the sound of the freight elevator letting go and slamming into the basement. Fuel from the crash came down the elevator shafts and burned people. High explosives don't burn people. They will make you go deaf or, if close enough rupture vital organs, but they won't burn you. The work is done through a high pressure wave, not heat. Please present a witness who saw a bomb, not heard an explosion.
And all of it was searched and screened and tagged and processed and photographed and logged and 'looked at underneath a microscope'? And these logs are where?
Most likely with the myriad of agencies that did the investigating. Did you take look at the link I provided?
So you think the investigation was not done properly because no evidence was found that fits with your view of what happened? If they were made available to you would you believe them? Skepticism is good but do some research and reading on your own. There are TONS of websites out there that offer information from both sides. Read ALL of it with an open mind and decide which is more credible. Another misleading thread title from RWF based on a misleading, if not downright LYING blog. It should read "The FBI Suspected Bombs Were Used on 9/11".
So planes are NOT considered bombs? Now I'm getting even more confused as this differs greatly from what someone that supports the "official" version of events says here. Can someone please clarify?
Certainly...my apologies.. Well, I suppose, like yourself, I tend to find what I consider to be "not credible" information websites that disagree with my point of view well....not credible. All I had to do was google the source of your link (the source...as you always insist on) and it came up with 'propaganda" "lies", and the like. Honestly...I didn't get any further than that. You have your response.
I don't tirade. I encourage everyone to check the link RWF has posted. It discredits his claims in the first few paragraphs. Make sure to follow the source. You really should read what you link to, sometimes.
