Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

RZM

(8,556 posts)
1. I love this kind of thing
Tue Jan 10, 2012, 12:07 PM
Jan 2012

Kudos. While I'm 100 percent skeptic on 9/11, I'm often at a disadvantage in the arguments because I know nothing about architecture, how buildings collapse, steel frames, etc. I can't really say how hot fires have to be, in which direction a building is supposed to collapse, or things like that.

But I do have a decent grasp of basic logic. And basic logic dictates to me that all of the steps required to actually bring down WTC 7 and ensure the appropriate amount of secrecy and deniability get harder and harder to believe when you break them down and show exactly what had to happen to pull of that scenario. Each step expands the circle of people in on it further and further, which ends up detracting from the case for a CT since not a single person has ever come forward or been outed as a conspirator.

It's easy enough to point at the video and say: 'See, it was obviously brought down by explosives!' It's much harder to make that case when you stop and think about everything that had to happen and all that people that had to be involved.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»So let me see if I unders...»Reply #1