We Have Been Reduced To A Theory

[Gold9472]

That's the thing... we have different opinions as to what happened and how, but we ALL agree that we have been lied to, and the ones who lied to us have benefitted the most from those lies. Why can't we focus on that? Some have said that I come across as sincere (which I am).

[Gold9472]

Don't you think it's strange that the only people getting on the mainstream are those people who focus on the Pentagon and Controlled Demolition?

[ParallaxView]

I think that those theories (The controlled demolition and Pentagon) are the theories that the average joe when presented with it is most likely to open their eyes to. Both theories have a quite heavy dependency on visual evidence.

Other theories such as phonecalls,the ISI connection etc require a more detailed knowledge. I see the controlled demolition and pentagon theories as gateways to the other theories.

[Gold9472]

I don't. I see Controlled Demolition, by itself, as one of those things that people think is crazy... "The buildings were brought down by Controlled Demolition... Response: You're crazy..." To say that something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon gets the same result.

I say to stick with the basics, and let them come to their own conclusions.

[Bull]

I don't. I see Controlled Demolition, by itself, as one of those things that people think is crazy... "The buildings were brought down by Controlled Demolition... Response: You're crazy..." To say that something other than Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon gets the same result.

I say to stick with the basics, and let them come to their own conclusions.

People only think that when they don't know the Physics and History of it all. The prevalent theory right now is the "Total Progressive Collapse..."

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...ogressive.html

Now, in order for Progressive collapse to work properly, the building needs to be built in layer form...else, it probably wouldn't collapse this way. None of the WTC buildings were built in layer form. Not to mention, there are scant, rare instances of a Total Progressive Collapse ever even taking place.

Not to mention that, again, we have Building 7. The only explanation to what happened there comes from the NIST Report. They say it was a combination of debris and fire (fire that set off fuel tanks) that brought down the building. Now first, I'll ask you...do you actually think these contractors would be paid multi-million dollars to build a structure that could be brought down by mere debris? If that's the case, give me the million dollars and I can build it. Building 7 was housing offices for the Secret Service, FBI (and some other government groups). Then you have the fire...now all we know is that there was fire in the building...but they were pocket fires. There is no evidence of any widespread fire in Building 7. Pocket fires don't bring down buildings either, not to mention you have the Madrid building that burned for a whole day...and it didn't fall (and that building was lit up like a Christmas tree). Then people don't realize that NIST even took a huge leap of faith to come to their conclusion about the fuel tanks. Again, we have no evidence that fire even made it way there...and neither does NIST. Which makes their opinion nothing more than a theory.

Now, let's say hypothetically that the tanks did blow. Would that have brought down Building 7? No. Why? Because in order for a building to fall in a uniform fashion (all at one time) you need the structural "pressure points (I like to call them that)" to go offline at the same time! This is how buildings are demolished. If that doesn't happen, then the building would just fall in sections (which, by the way, is how most buildings fall). Building 7 is the biggest lightening rod because there was nothing substancial to bring it down the way it did. I'm not saying debris didn't hit the building...it did...but debris hit other buildings around the Twin Towers as well. There was even a building closer to one of the Towers than Building 7 was...and it still stands to this day! Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing. There was a big gash in the front of that building where the bomb went off...did that building fall? No.

Which is why people claim controlled demolition (not even mentioning Larry Silverstein).

[Gold9472]

Or, just ask a VERY simple question. Why didn't Bush want to investigate 9/11?

[ParallaxView]

Oh I agree with the asking of one simple question can be effective too.Definitely.

[Chana3812]

Controlled Demolition and WTC7 - those are the two best issues for 9/11 Truth

[Gold9472]

Controlled Demolition and WTC7 - those are the two best issues for 9/11 Truth

Thanks for proving my point.

[casseia]

Terrence over at 911blogger actually blew my mind this morning by posting a link to a pdf article at his otherwise repugnant site that argues carefully and substantively against controlled demolition in any of the 3 WTC buildings -- it's by a guy associated with Implosionworld (or something.) I'm not saying he convinced me, and the article does veer into strawman territory, but he raises issues that need to be addressed, or people really can look at you and say "You're crazy" when you mention CD.

Therefore, I find myself tending more and more toward the testimony-based evidence (which would include things like the NORAD failure.) I also think it would be good to really promote the Jersey Girls and other family members. I don't give a fuck if they're "just LIHOP."