HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:rook i know that i will never convince you on this issue. I'm not 100% sure of what i think about every aspect of what happened on that day so why should I anyway.
I understand that, and I respect your stance.
But do you see the point I was making with my post?
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:However what is crystal clear to me is how much bullshit (lies) have been spread by the so called truth movement. It's a farce in terms of trying to get to the truth. Horrible science and the spread of undocumented 'evidence'.
I readily agree with this. It really is a shame how many people can and will publish barely-researched claims on both sides of the fence. The claim that all the steel from the towers was immediately shipped off to China after the attacks is a perfect case in point. I believed this myself until a report you posted a while back which made clear that several experts had access to examine the steel after the towers fell - I believed it because until then, no one had publicly countered the statement with any degree of authority.
But again, it raises more questions... Why did they not speak up sooner, to quiet all the crazy speculation? And, more importantly, why did Steven Jones - a certified expert in the field of analyzing metals involved in chemical reactions/explosions, come to a completely different conclusion when he was able to look at the steel himself? Does he have an agenda? Did the other experts?
These questions probably won't be answered in any meaningful way - and I don't think they should be dwelled on at any rate.
But there does exist a wealth of evidence that the US military command could have prevented these hijackings, if it weren't for the unique circumstances that were created that day (practice terrorism drills and false blips inserted into FAA radar screens, etc). It's a fact that every year we divert dozens of planes for the kind of behavior that the hijacked planes exhibited.
Frankly, I believe that on the one day a terrorist hijacking attack could have any chance of success on the east coast - within the vicinity of 2 air force bases - it just so happened that the biggest hijacking plot in history was planned -- and some people who could have been instrumental in preventing these attacks either would have benefited from the attacks being successful, or reported to someone who would have benefited. I don't believe in coincidences like that -- I believe the onus is on someone to prove that it was a coincidence.[/quote]
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:All I can suggest is you be very very thorough in your research which I'm sure you feel you have been.
the NIST website, Implosion3world.com's report on the towers, the transcripts from air defence on that day, these are things I would suggest going over again. the falling of the towers 1,2 and 7 make much more sense after the noise from alex jones and co is turned down.
I do try to be thorough in my research. I don't have any agenda or reason to be irresponsible in my conclusions.
But I still don't understand how that can explain building 7's sudden and rapid fall.
It is hard enough for my common sense to accept that a 110 story building can come down at free-fall speed via the pancake method (successive floors offer zero resistance) - and come down mostly in its own footprint to boot.
But the idea that building 7 did the same thing while not being hit by anything except some debris is pretty hard for me to accept. How can someone posit that the planes' impact and the load of jet fuel are what caused the unprecedented fall of the twin towers, but then say that a few isolated interior fires were enough to do the same thing to a similarly-constructed but smaller building?
But here I'm veering off into debates on physical/material properties again. These debates can never be satisfactorily concluded, because all you have is experts (as well as laymen) on both sides, arguing some behavior or another occurred after the fact, with no way to verify them.
The crux of the matter in my opinion, is a coincidence of nearly astronomical proportions occurring to the benefit of several people who could have been instrumental in preventing them, and afterward those people attempting to block any meaningful investigation into what really happened.
Has there ever been a better reason for an investigation - even more so when tens of thousands of lives have been taken as a result of the event?
As I've said time and time again: that is my central contention in this debate, regardless of any arguments or debates on what "really did happen." Any statements I make about what may have "really happened," are just symptoms of my dissatisfaction with the official answers we've been given. I only postulate on theories because that's all we have. Even the official story is nothing more than a theory after the fact, and it stands in contradiction to some evidence leading to the event, where others don't.
