9/11 - Controlled demolition?

[Stiff_Cookie]

I just finished watching all of the videos and it has just hardened my opinion that there was no conspiracy going on.

The guys from loose change did not have any evidence or at least very little to support their thery. The Loose Change guy on the right kept asking questions and bringing up witness reports from the day of and several days after the incident.

The Popular Mechanics guys actually talked to experts and brought up researches done on the crashes.

I also thought it was funny how the LC guys kept getting emotional during the debate calling the PM guys liars and interuppting them during the portion. I think it goes to show how immature they are.

Good debate though, wish it could have gone on for longer.

 

[Gman]

no real definitive answers there, just two sides picking at things without providing an hard evidence to prove/dissprove theories.

But visually you'd believe the Popular Mechanics guys as they look more professional. But a lot of what there saying was skimming the surface at best, i'm sure theres a lot more detail in the book.

The LC guys just look and act like a couple of kids but some of the stuff they say does warrant some further investigation as there just aren't clear answers available, yet the government do have the evidence to blow a lot of the LC stuff out the water, the question is why aren't they releasing the evidence that would disprove it ?

I think in the vid we've got an example of two extremes, on one side you got the LC guys who like to see things that arn't there and blow it out of proportion and then you've got the PM guys who put on the tinted specks and think what the gov say is 100% correct all the time.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

no real definitive answers there, just two sides picking at things without providing an hard evidence to prove/dissprove theories.

But visually you'd believe the Popular Mechanics guys as they look more professional. But a lot of what there saying was skimming the surface at best, i'm sure theres a lot more detail in the book.

The LC guys just look and act like a couple of kids but some of the stuff they say does warrant some further investigation as there just aren't clear answers available, yet the government do have the evidence to blow a lot of the LC stuff out the water, the question is why aren't they releasing the evidence that would disprove it ?

I think in the vid we've got an example of two extremes, on one side you got the LC guys who like to see things that arn't there and blow it out of proportion and then you've got the PM guys who put on the tinted specks and think what the gov say is 100% correct all the time.

Well, you also have to remember that the debate was on a live TV show which was limited in time. I am sure that given the time both sides could have produced evidence to support their theories. However, just from watch the videos I would hazard a guess that if they did have more time than the PM guys would be the ones presenting the actual experts and case studies and reports, where as the LC would present eye witnesses of the day and speculation.

Also, each side would idealy be able to research each others evidence and experts for counter points. and again I still think the PM guys would come out on top with their experts and reports conducted by reknowned schools and agencies.

 

[Glaucus]

PM guys who put on the tinted specks and think what the gov say is 100% correct all the time.

No, not true. They don't believe the government. They have researched it. They gone and spoken to experts and research papers. They given the names and studies that you can go and check out.

also i'm sure people did hear explosions, materials under loads make very funny noises. there would have been internal structures falling, stresses in the construction shifting.

 

[Stiff_Cookie]

No, not true. They don't believe the government. They have researched it. They gone and spoken to experts and research papers. They given the names and studies that you can go and check out.

Exactly! Given the time I bet the PM guys could have produced written reports and tests to support their research.

The PM guys basically looked at each myth of 9/11 and consulted experts in the relavent fields about the myth and looked at photographic and video evidence.

Common sense did not seem to mean anything to the LC guys.

 

[Glaucus]

also as the PM guys said the world trade centers are the most researched building failure ever in history which is true, why do all the reports/computer models/experts say it was caused by a plane.


Yes collapsing on them selfs is strange. But they are not normal skyscrapers, there where a unique designed and when researched. This is one of there characteristics.

i really hate conspiracy theories. They always use eye witnesses. Sorry but eye witness are crap and unreliable. You can make them believe armed guards and a crashed UFO where mere feet away from then. When infact 2 guys dressed in black clothes and a bit of police tape was all they saw. Anyone else see that program.