Do you? If I say I do then, what's your point? Certainly there was molten metal months afterwards, and surely that should be pretty easy for to verify in about 2 minutes using your google. You'd easily even find some pretty pictures of it, if you bothered to look. - - - Updated - - - Does it stay liquified for months at a time?
Yes. Exactly how much damage will the car incur if traveling at 20mph vs 60mph? Hmmm ... Perhaps math would help this question. - - - Updated - - - Does thermite stay hot for months at a time? How about natural underground fires?
Really? If you drive your car into a Birch tree, the tree will suffer almost the same amount of damage. If you drive you car into Alberta Spruce, you will clean it right off the ground. Are you being obtuse on purpose? Again, the building, the side of the building did not have the same properties as a solid concrete wall as you would like everyone to believe. It was mostly glass and it didnt offer the same resistance. Why is it you ignore this?
The structure of the WTC tower(s) is well documented as having steel box columns to support the outside ends of the decks and to support 40% of the weight of the tower, so with that said, "mostly glass" tends to invoke an image of a weak wall however the windows in skyscrapers are very strong, they have to be. also as resistance to an airliner penetrating the wall, there are the steel reinforced concrete decks that the aircraft would have to encounter at least 4 possibly 5 of these decks to penetrate the wall, so yes the resistance to penetration by an airliner would be significant and yes in all probability the wing tips would not penetrate.
Exactly. "Liquified for months" is a total falsehood. Some truther salesman invented it and the minions lapped it up.
It needn't be fear. Possibly disinterest, boredom or maybe the worry that it will be a generally uncivil, unpleasant experience around a bunch of loonies who won't listen anyway. You can poo poo kooks only you can't shut them up long enough to let you finish your explanation. Its not going to go well,
I submit that the mainstream media acting as a propaganda machine, has had more than a decade to 'set the hook' as it were, the population in general, the ones who have become addicted to the mainstream media, are totally controlled, even if deep inside, they know that something is very wrong here, its so much better simply not rock-the-boat. and so there we have it, mass numbers of people who have been convinced to abdicate their position as sentient beings in favor of being told what to think.
If you really wanted proof, there are many scientists and engineers, firefighters and policeman on record who either/or gave testimony to events happening in a way other than what the official story suggests, and those who have brought up significant problems regarding the science/physics of the official testimony. These submissions have never been answered or entertained (kind of like climate change, they just say the science is "settled" and roll over all criticisms) In short, the official story doesn't make sense, there are very good questions left unaswered regarding it, and in the void between the two, som conspiracy theorists have come up with a variety of self-validated explanations as to what the reality is behind this. While a number of these have been disproven by thee same scientists and engineers who criticize the official 9/11 story, the fact that the official story doesn't add up and that no further investigation into the events is entertained by the government reeks quite a bit. After all, it was one of the greatest events of mass murder in the US and the official facts, if anyone remembers, had been changing from day one. If you want the math and reasoning, you'll have to read, for yourself, the testimony of these scientists and engineers. They are little books, so no one can post them for you. Even so, regardless of people braying about for proof of this or that, not many people here is qualified to know whether the science they will be shown by one side or the other is true or false. They just have the preconception that the side they've already chosen is speaking the truth and what they call science is science.
I have an idea, the original debate concept was with the stipulation that the debater would be an academic with certain qualifications, how about your mundane street level folk organizing a debate where you don't need no stinking PHD to get into it, how about people who are basically working class sentient beings who choose to set up a meeting at a venue, ( would Central Park allow a gathering of people for this purpose? ) I'm sure a venue could be found for the event. There are lots of people who are VERY well informed on the subject matter and do not have a PHD, but none the less are smart & articulate. What would be the harm in that? and in fact I think it would be very beneficial in awareness raising. I think of the videos produced by David Chandler or Johnathan Cole to demonstrate the fundamental physics, there may be other attempts at explaining the events that involve having to digest several pages of advanced mathematics. Come on people, this is not rocket science! How about a debate that is more at the Archie Bunker level? can we do this?
You want a debate in the style of a stereotypical bigot? - - - Updated - - - Then stop running interference, boss. Stick to facts instead of your random, ad hom posts.
What I would like to see, is a debate that is more for the working class, rather than some PHD elite. what about that?
Where is the proof that tall buildings simply pulverize themselves as did WTC 1 & 2? How is it that the result ( that is complete destruction) is the same as achieved with CD and yet the debunker crew alleges that the "collapse" events are nothing at all like CD? BTW: is anybody still selling that ROOSD excuse for what happened?
