left wrote:leadshoes wrote:left wrote:That site just states that what happened should not have happened like it happened because it never happened before. A tower collapsing because of fire (and a plane, one might add) ? Never happened before -> must be wrong. A building collapsing like an implosion but without explosive? Never happened before -> definitely wrong...
You can believe whatever you want, personally I believe that whoever comes to a black/white conclusion is wrong.
These are impartial European physicists who have a better understanding of how these things happen than you or I, and like I mentioned before, the planes are made of aluminum that gets dented by birds in their path, so it's not possible that they would have made a dent in steel frame structures or caused a fire that was hot enough to melt them. Now I can repeat what you just said from my point of view. Believe whatever you want, personally I believe whoever comes to a black/white conclusion is wrong. I don't think you quite understand that what you said right there can just as easily apply to the opposing point of view.
Nope. I accept that not everything that happened on that day has found a definitive explanation. Surely there was in some way some kind of twisted interests that wanted something like that to happen. What happened in the past rarely gets totally clarified.
But I think that being, like you are, completely convinced beyond any doubt that all this was a perfectly staged thing because of a need for war, that’s just trying to find the easy answer. That’s drawing a black/white conclusion. You just choose a line and stick with that, it’s clearly like a religious extremism to you, so any attempt at reasoning fails. Always repeating the same mantras is part of that.
For the record, I drive aluminium trains and, guess what? At 120mph they can easily smash whatever steel veichle is in front of them. Let alone birds. Food for thought?

I'm going to disagree again. I think the easy answer will always be to believe the "official story" wholesale as told by the establishment media, which in this case is the "fact" that 9/11 was the result of Islamic terrorism and that it was the planes crashing into the buildings that caused them to come down in the way they did, etc... So to me, that's seeing things in black and white in this case. And I can't begin to know the details, but no, I don't believe that official story, and I know that there's more than enough evidence to doubt it and believe there were strong incentives to stage it in order to create a new version of the Cold War scenario, with a new monolithic enemy where none exists. And I wholeheartedly believe some advice I'd read, that in this world, if you want to get to the truth of things, you need to "follow the money." But it seems that would be difficult because the government has destroyed pre-9/11 stock trading evidence:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/unusual-t ... ions/19750Btw do you think your aluminum trains could take down a steel-frame high rise in the way that those planes did? I believe you that trains can and will smash birds in many cases, since even a tin can could knock one cold with the right force, but I just read right now that they've started to use an improved aluminum foam for trains because of things like this: "Collisions with our feathered friends are relatively frequent and can pose real dangers to passengers. In 2013, a high-speed train en route to Beijing was forced to stop after a bird strike cracked the train’s exterior."
https://www.wired.com/2014/12/aluminum-foam-trains/Anyway, I think this article about how the FBI often "heroically" disrupts "terror plots" is a good reminder of the lengths the government will go to:
https://theintercept.com/2015/01/16/lat ... kepticism/And even though this episode of "The Power of Nightmares" skates around the issue of the actual 9/11 event itself, it does argue well for the reasons why these events would be manufactured or orchestrated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD1BRE-DBsA