unanswered 9:11 questions, page-201

  1. 6,020 Posts.
    lightbulb Created with Sketch. 245
    Marzipan I've covered the science. But these guys keep regurgitating old ground or simply don't understand the mechanics so its clearly a waste of time. Besides I haven't moved from science to logistics. I've incorporated them all along.

    "No arrogance on my part because I haven't seen any movement on your part to it being anything but a plane and jet fuel reason for the collapse (that I have read anyway, and if I'm wrong I apologise)."

    Because what else could have possible have happened? Everything these guys come up with is logistically impossible. The physical evidence supports this. The video evidence supports this. To implode a building you need to strategically place them onto the superstructure. You either need to place tons upon tons of explosive material to do the job or you cut out a substantial proportion of the superstructure at least every 2-3 floors. Walls would be needed to be removed, would have to get around all sorts of service lines including high voltage cables in either scenario. Could this be done with 50000 workers floating around? Come on??

    "I'm sorry if you have an emotional attachment to this"

    Not really emotionally attached. Don't mind a good debate but its got to be fair and sane. These guys expecting me to address the tripe posted but won't attempt to answer my questions isn't just arrogant. Its weak character!
 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.