World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

Rroff said:
Thats the problem with many of the people in this and other threads, you don't seem to have the either the experience or the imagination of what alternatives there are out there.

For obvious reasons I can't go into detail but as someone who formely worked in R&D for companies like SCRDE, etc. I'm aware of plenty of technology and techniques that are years ahead of public domain, leading me to believe that many things potentially could have happened that day that would be outside of the experience of the general public to imagine.

And I'll say it again... I'm not saying events that day were anything other than what they appeared to be on the face of it, just that its entirely possible that events that day were purposefully engineered by a different party.
Click to expand...

1 - The old chestnut, we're not clever enough because we can't see alternatives

2 - Are you Sequoia or Harley?

3 - Anyway, if it was man and a load of robots then I might agree with you but since this conspiracy would involve human beings (lots of them) then it would be impossible.
 
Rroff said:
I have to lol, you can't distinguish between a CT and someone sitting on the fence.

If you really think that events of that day were impossible to cover up... well I suggest you open your eyes...

Thats the problem with many of the people in this and other threads, you don't seem to have the either the experience or the imagination of what alternatives there are out there.

For obvious reasons I can't go into detail but as someone who formely worked in R&D for companies like SCRDE, etc. I'm aware of plenty of technology and techniques that are years ahead of public domain, leading me to believe that many things potentially could have happened that day that would be outside of the experience of the general public to imagine.

And I'll say it again... I'm not saying events that day were anything other than what they appeared to be on the face of it, just that its entirely possible that events that day were purposefully engineered by a different party.

I have plenty of respect for anyone that died that day, but I believe that they would want the truth to be known whatever shape or form it takes.

Strangely enough I don't know anyone or know anyone that knows someone that died that day, despite a number of aquaintenances that should or could have been. Somehow they all had miraculous escapes which is another thing that leaves me skeptical.
Click to expand...
You can't go into detail, says it all really
 
dmpoole said:
1 - The old chestnut, we're not clever enough because we can't see alternatives

2 - Are you Sequoia or Harley?

3 - Anyway, if it was man and a load of robots then I might agree with you but since this conspiracy would involve human beings (lots of them) then it would be impossible.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anyone isn't clever enough, I do see a lot of closed minded people or people so conditioned by society that they appear to be incapable of believing anything could happen in any other way except exactly how the authorities tell them things are possible.
 
Mulder said:
Bad taste? I don't agree with many of the comments in this thread, on both sides of the argument, but to suggest those who press for the truth are in bad taste is pretty low. Let's hear what some of the survivors have to say about the "static" produced by those who don't blindly swallow the official version.
Click to expand...

To suggest that we need to press "for the truth" suggests that the current version of events is a lie. Without backing up such claims with anything other than conjecture, then it is really in bad taste isn't it.

Mulder said:
Couldn't have said it better myself. These are just 3 examples of people who were actually there, people who are a million times for qualified than us to say what they think.

You can read testimony from many other survivors here...
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
Click to expand...

How are they any more qualified in any way whatsoever? They talk about all this evidence they have, yet they fail to offer anything remotely solid. It is nothing more than fantasy.

And I see now people are using the whole "open your mind", "use your imagination" debate - suggesting those of us who do not believe in some people's theories are short sighted, when we are simply accepting the version of events that has the most solid evidence behind it. It's called common sense.
 
Rroff said:
I'm not saying anyone isn't clever enough, I do see a lot of closed minded people or people so conditioned by society that they appear to be incapable of believing anything could happen in any other way except exactly how the authorities tell them things are possible.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Me & plenty of others on here, will watch and read the stuff that is posted, we will then look at the evidence and then make our minds up.
It is people like you who have no evidence and your theories get wilder & wilder.
 
dmpoole said:
Wrong.
Me & plenty of others on here, will watch and read the stuff that is posted, we will then look at the evidence and then make our minds up.
It is people like you who have no evidence and your theories get wilder & wilder.
Click to expand...

no evidence of what? I have not presented anything in any manner other than hypothetical.

I just know from experience that you can never rely too much on conventional wisdom... even things that appear to be hard fact and backed up by reputable sources can suddenly be seen one day in another light and you realise it was all false all along.
 
Mulder said:
Snip]
Click to expand...

And how many of the public can tell an explosion from a 10 ton piece on concrete impacting the floor at a 100mph?

Also explosion below the impact, don't be so silly. the towers full from the impact point down, not in any other way. that rules that out.
 
If you think about it... you don't even really need explosives...

Assuming there was a conspiracy to bring the towers down... which I think is unlikely but still within the realm of possible...

Renting office space and doctoring the supports in the weeks or months leading upto the attack so they only needed minimal force to break the final straw during the attacks is quite easily within the realm of possible.
 
Did your history books never teach you anything?

I'm pretty sure there was a time when the idea of microscopic organisms was considered outlandish, people were even persecuted for putting forward the idea, even "hard fact" put forward that logically would have disproved the existance...

Then there was the whole flat earth thing, much more recently gravity theories, etc.
 
Last edited:
Its all semantics and arbitary to my point, I'm pretty sure theres things we believe in today and seem to be backed up by hard science and logic that in say 100 years time (or less) will be found to be false.

My point was we become conditioned to accept conventional wisdom, current science, logic and so on and consider things impossible that in actual fact aren't the case.
 
deuse said:
Well dont come in here and post ok.

That keeps you happy.
Click to expand...

I am going to stop posting in 911 threads after this, and accept that people wont change their minds. Heres a brief summary of what i think:

1) CT's - Clearly wrong, lets look at all of the evidence, most of these fantasies are just entirely made up. Go check 911 debunked and some real reports for evidence.

2) People on the fence - Saying 'oh but im not a CT, im just not ruling out alternatives'. Well im not ruling out that (as someone else put it) aliens are coming and zapping away the main supports, but still im not barking on about how other people are close minded and should accept that there is a real possibility of this alternate sequence of events happening. Get real.

3) Me, and a few other sane people on here - common sense, any normal person can weigh up the body of evidence, and i think we can safely assume terrorists few two planes into the towers which caused them to collapse.
 
Rroff said:
I have to lol, you can't distinguish between a CT and someone sitting on the fence.
Click to expand...

But to sit on the fence you need to lend equal credence to the fact that 9/11 was possibly a conspiracy to the fact that 9/11 was in fact what it looked to be. Which means dismissing masses of evidence from one side and inventing masses of evidence from the other side. You aren't sitting on the fence by doing that.
 
Rroff said:
Did your history books never teach you anything?

I'm pretty sure there was a time when the idea of microscopic organisms was considered outlandish, people were even persecuted for putting forward the idea, even "hard fact" put forward that logically would have disproved the existance...

Then there was the whole flat earth thing, much more recently gravity theories, etc.
Click to expand...

So, what you are saying is, we should ignore the best evidence we have right now for a situation and give theories with no basis in fact or reason a chance by dismissing the evidence we have in front of us that contradicts it?

I'd suggest brushing up on your science books and brushing up on the history around "flat earthers".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom