YA 9/11 Thread, but this time with new stuff

[murban135]

Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
But the main problem with the 9/11 debate is that there has not really been a debate. Instead, we have had a report from a political commission run by a Bush administration insider, Philip Zelikow. In place of a real independent investigation, we have a collection of Washington players reassuring the public by defending the government?s story line.

Studies, such as those referred to by the Popular Mechanics editors, are in fact not forensic studies of evidence but what the editor-in- chief of ?Fire Engineering? called ?paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.?

The explanation that the three WTC buildings collapsed as a result of damage and fire is a mere assertion. The assertion is not backed up with scientific calculation to demonstrate that the energy from the airliners, fire, and gravity were sufficient to collapse the buildings. A number of independent authorities believe that there is a very large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the buildings. Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it.

Go ahead, give us a debate, you wanted one. Your arguments have been shot full of holes. Do the same to ours, if you can.

But you can not. You have no proof, just an off the wall idea with no supporting evidence. Instead of supplying evidence yourself you refuse to believe evidence others produce that contradicts your predetermined conclusion. That is the exact opposite of an open, critical mind.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Cygnus X1
But the main problem with the 9/11 debate is that there has not really been a debate. Instead, we have had a report from a political commission run by a Bush administration insider, Philip Zelikow. In place of a real independent investigation, we have a collection of Washington players reassuring the public by defending the government?s story line.

Studies, such as those referred to by the Popular Mechanics editors, are in fact not forensic studies of evidence but what the editor-in- chief of ?Fire Engineering? called ?paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.?

The explanation that the three WTC buildings collapsed as a result of damage and fire is a mere assertion. The assertion is not backed up with scientific calculation to demonstrate that the energy from the airliners, fire, and gravity were sufficient to collapse the buildings. A number of independent authorities believe that there is a very large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the buildings. Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it.

You know what? Fine. No number of experts telling you how it happened will ever be enough. No number of studies done will ever be enough.

That's the problem with conspiracy theorists. They dismiss the overwhelming bulk of evidence and cling to what ever tiny shred supports their theory... even if they have to make it up.

NO "independent authorities" believe any such thing. A few random nutballs do, and because they claim authority, a lot of gullible people like you fall for it.

No real authority or structural engineers believe this crap. Only a list of random nutballs who, shockingly enough are experts in fields that have nothing to do with engineering. And the majority of them have one thing in common: They believe and promote almost every fruitcake conspiracy theory that is out there, from JFK, to fluoride mind control.