09-14-2010, 04:55 PM | #29 | |
put it THIS way
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,185
|
I have heard the rebuttals before.
The thing is, every two minutes someone gets on a media outlet or an internet forum and spouts on about how they know, or heard from some expert, about melting points of the steel they used, or how there is some sort of difference between a jumbo jet crash landing and one being aimed at the ground. Opinions keep popping up and they contradict the one prior. My point is that there are inconsistencies with what we are given as fact, and what we are supposed to take as truth. If the plane's force, and fuel is responsible for the weakening of the steel. Why did the buildings collapse from the top down? how does that account for the other (what 3?) steel structured buildings in the area such as WTC7 that "burned" down? interesting that WTC7, contained a new suppository for many of the documents that would have been key to post 9/11 investigations, and that the building was totally evacuated that morning before the events unfolded, save for a handful of people that missed the memo.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|