|
You guys are losing me. I have been on the fence with so many of the issues surrounding 9/11 but the truther movement has become more of a joke than a serious action group seeking truth. I've crux of my problem is the "accepted as truth" theory of controlled demolition. It seems the entire basis of this theory is the manner in which the building fell. I asked, months ago, for some sign of an explosion, an explosion which would have to be fairly monstrous in size, and none has been forthcoming. I have asked for any comparative studies of buildings that have been struck by jet airliners of comparable size, and none has been forthcoming. So what I am left with is controlled demolition with no visible explosion, and no data showing that the collapse of the buildings was anything other than what would happen to a building the size of the WTC, struck by a vehicle(s) travelling at the rate of speed of the hijacked planes, spilling the amount of fuel that the jets were carrying. Lastly, and most important to me, I asked this months ago. If the buildings were rigged with explosives, what was the need to fly planes into them? The more people involved in a "conspiracy" the more the chances of discovery, either prior to or after the event. If controlled demolition took the buildings down the hijacking and crashing of the planes was a dangerous, unecessary part of the plot. You cannot build a case on theory alone. Along with facts there must be logic involved. I would like these basic questions to be answered.
|