BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: munky
Bull fucking shit. There were people in the basement of WTC who were injured by explosions before the planes even hit the towers. Just that fact that they didn't see some dynamite sticks with red wires duct-taped to the walls (as your simpleton assumption would suggest), does not in any way prove that there were no explosives in the building or that there were no eye witnesses. Let me remind you that in 1993 nobody saw your "explosives" either until a huge crater blew up under one of the towers.Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.
No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.
On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.
On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm
In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.
I also recall there being plenty of eye witnesses to explosions at WTC. What makes your eye witnesses more credible than the others? I can just as easily sweep aside your list of eye witnesses as irrelevant.
bullshit. There were ZERO eye witnesses of explosions at the WTC. Some people claimed to hear loud bangs which could have been oil tanks exploding. Not one person saw explosives or shaped charges or detonation wire.
You're going to "sweep aside" the accounts of dozens of people who saw the fucking plane hit the building?
Again, you can't weigh evidence.
Who put the explosives there? Why is there nearly 95% consensus among structural engineers from around the world that the planes and nothing else brought the towers down?
Who was injured prior to the towers coming down? There is no evidence, not even from seismographs, that there were ANY explosions prior to the planes hitting, but I guess those seismographs are also in on the conspiracy.
Maybe because the structural engineers never bothered investigating the incident beyond the scope of their hypothesis? Because they have a severe case of tunnel vision, and can't explain anything that wasn't in their computer simulation? Those structural engineers don't disprove the witness accounts either.
Well they did. They examined the entire case for the possibility of a demolition and quickly ruled it out. There was no "tunnel vision" or any other such nonsense you're making up. Both the NIST report and the FEMA report address the possibility that something else brought the towers down. They investigated it and modeled it and concluded it was impossible for that to have happened.
You realize that you're now just making things up and hoping that you're right, don't you?
