+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Is "9/11 Truth" based upon a false theory? (/thread-7032.html)
Pages:
1
2
Is "9/11 Truth" based upon a false theory? - Ed Jewett - 09-08-2011
Where is Vincent Salandria when we need him?
'Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt.'
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Kyle Burnett Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:The iron micro spheres could come from other processes aside from a thermitic reaction I suspect.Sure, perhaps the devil planted them, like dinosaur bones, eh?:
Seriously man, absent another plausible explanation, you're just wallowing in denial of the evidence.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Harrit mentioned the other day that they would have needed of there was 260 tons per WTC floor of NT.Could you please rephrase that?
Certain people on certain Forums have as their raison d'etre to keep doubt alive...by whatever rhetorical mechanisms or posting subjects, et al. The doubt is used as an attempt to divide and conquer....and just cast seeds of doubt. JO seems to have found a comfortable place from himself on this Forum as the 911 doubting-inserter elf. Any study of the trend of his posts shows they are either promoting his one in a billion spontaneous collapse nonsense or doubt - both try to deflect, IMHO, from anyone looking the truth squarely in the face.
Is "9/11 Truth" based upon a false theory? - Jeffrey Orling - 09-08-2011
Lemkin,
Wrong. I my purpose may be to case doubt in the minds of people who have been clinging to false beliefs... such as yourself. But the intent is not to fracture the movement and cause dissension, but rather to more accurately describe what happened to the towers.
I do not claim a spontaneous collapse. There had to have been energy inputs to alter the static balance of the structures to cause them to collapse. This could be properly placed explosions or some mechanism for weakening the columns which provided the axial support for not only themselves but for all the building components and mass and of course the occupants and furniture etc.
Whatever caused or initiated the collapse it became a progressive destruction which lasted about 11-14 seconds. You want to believe that it was hundreds or thousands of explosion over that interval. You would be wrong in that belief.
The imitating cause could and likely was not ONLY the plane damage and the fires which they caused. But once the first proverbial domino tipped, the others simply cannot resist. I understand that you and others can't seem to accept that a global collapse of such magnitude is possibly a progressive process. But in fact, it is and that has some rather interesting implications for who did it and how it could have been done.
I suggest you spend a few days reading the 911 Free Forums where this research can be found.
Is "9/11 Truth" based upon a false theory? - Kyle Burnett - 09-08-2011
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:You want to believe that it was hundreds or thousands of explosion over that interval. You would be wrong in that belief.So you contend, but while there are plenty of undisputed examples of lots of explosives bringing down real world buildings in comparable intervals, those of you who suggest such quantities of explosives aren't needed to bring down buildings so quickly and completely have never even managed to produce a simulation which comes anywhere close to supporting that notion.