The crime of the century is has been committed by all of the "experts" who should have resolved this in 2002. They can't even bring up something as simple as the location of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower in TWELVE YEARS. But what has AE911Truth really explained? It is more like they are a magnet for the disaffected to make sure they don't get anything done. Why aren't they demanding explanations from our engineering schools that supposedly know how to train engineers to design skyscrapers? More than 50 skyscrapers over 1,000 feet tall have been completed since 9/11. But what schools have demanded to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers to try and analyse the supposed collapses? Don't they have to get those distributions correct for all new skyscrapers? psik
That is about as true of a statement as one will see regarding the truthers. They took a handful of points that they did not understand and stomped their feet, crying 'conspiracy'. When those were debunked, they just took up a new set of information that seemed unclear. No matter what and how much is explained to them, they will never be satisfied. Correction: if somebody would uncover an secret video of George W. Bush, himself, sneaking around the towers at night planting explosives while laughing maniacally, they might be happy.
On the subject of debunked points, can YOU personally explain the "collapse" of WTC7 or do you have to cite "experts" who allegedly know how it happened, but have no explanation.
oh yea, column 79 ..... right, mystery solved! or NOT .....................................................
you do understand that in order to produce the result as observed, the support out from under the falling bit would have to be all removed at the same time.
Not if the load spread to the exterior facade. You don't know structural design do you? When the interior collapsed right before the roofline started to descend, where did that load go to? Was it applied to the facade at all?
Picture a 300 ft wide structure with supports under it and at random, you remove some of the support, note that if it just happened, that you saw your "random" removals take out every-other post from under the structure, all along that 300 ft, you may ( I say MAY ) see no discernible deformation of the structure, however, if your random removals just happens to remove a large group of posts from a single area, the structure would be seen to sag in that area. so what your "collapse" scenario is dependent upon, is the distribution of removals to be just so, such that the building would keep its shape while falling at free fall acceleration. rather much of a stretch don't you think?
It didn't keep it's shape. The building was leaning prior to collapse. There was a visible bulge in one of the walls prior to collapse. There was structural "creaking" reported throughout the day. What caused those n0spam? What caused the kink and twist in the facade as it fell? Are you ignoring these elements on purpose? What caused the east penthouse to collapse first?why did the rest of the interior start to collapse right before the facade came down?
unfortunately,9/11 is just going to be gone and done with with the real killers-the neocons in the bush administration and isreal getting off scott free.Its going to fall to the wayside like the jfk assassination with once again the real killers walking away and getting off scott free.will always stay that way till the american people get off their lazy arses and fight to take their country back from out corrupt congress we have. just like with the JFK assassination,there will never be any justice done in 9/11 as long as we have this corrupt two party system of demopublicans and reprocrats which is realy a one party system.things will never change until we get a third party presidnet in office who will serve the people instead of the bankers and israel like every president for the past 50 years has done.
Oh, now I get it 7 was abnormal ..... Really no, that sort of thing simply doesn't explain the way that 7 fell. "it was built on top of a utility sub-station" and a host of other arguments that do nothing to explain the complete destruction of 7 on 9/11/2001
I doubt you will accept any explanation that goes against the official version of events either. Correct?
I will, if someone presents evidence to the contrary. Show us your evidence to the 'no planes' theory you so robustly support.
Well, not that I doubt your sincerity but, I do seriously doubt your objectivity (no offense) because you don't seem open to anything counter.
is it an "excuse" to note that "FLT175" allegedly penetrated the south wall of the south tower, without slowing down at all? Is it an excuse to point out the fact that no inventory of aircraft bits was ever done for the alleged "FLT11", "FLT175", "FLT77" or "FLT93"? is it considered an excuse that there was so little wreckage to be seen at either the Pentagon or Shanksville? Is it too much to ask that people consider the fact that the question has never been put to rest, that is the possibility ( or NOT ) of flying any airliner so fast & so near sea level and actually controlling said aircraft? and this issue is critical to the whole story because if the airliner(s) that hit the twin towers, were not going super fast, then the story of the aircraft penetrating and disappearing inside the towers simply falls apart. ( oops! ) The "evidence" that 19 suicidal Arabs hijacked airliners .... ( etc .... ) is very poor.
Same to you, Sir. Anybody here meet your criteria though? (I don't mean to be redundant but, you people cry for answers but proclaim that everybody else is running away). Do you have any responses (aside from ridicule)? http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html
