Skeptics of Tucson Message Board › 9/11 Was Controlled Demolition

9/11 Was Controlled Demolition

A former member
Post #: 20
Don L.
AZAtheist
Group Organizer
Tucson, AZ
Post #: 103
Let the 911 deluge begin.

At the heart of this video is a small piece of metal found at the base of a catastrophe. It has the same chemical properties as the slag left after Thermite burns. OK. Is it the only way that this collection of metal can occur? Once again, we may have a mystery but does that necessarily mean conspiracy?

On two occasions, I've been at the scene of plane crashes. When I was at Dyess AFB, I was involved with the investigation of another two plane crashes, one was a B-1B bomber, the other a KC-135. I can tell you that I've seen molten metal at the crash sites.

As far as building 7, it was not hit by an airplane but it burned for hours after the towers were collapsed. No one put the fires out, most firefighters were busy working other locations and taking care of the injured. After hours of smoldering, uncontrolled burning emergency workers were pulled from the area and they watched as the building collapsed. The construction of the building and the most probable cause of the structural failure is available in a report from the National Institute of Science and Technology.

Here is a web site which includes some recent technical briefings from the investigators.

http://wtc.nist.gov/­

The first entry is a briefing that goes 2.5 hours complete with charts and questions.

Skepticism is hard work. While it's easy to listen to rumors and draw unsupported conclusions, a skeptic must check deeper before taking a side.

In addition, tragedies such as 911 will always have unexplained mysteries, just as tornadoes do things that seem impossible. We never claim conspiracy when a vase of flowers ends up in the refrigerator after a tornado, why are people so quick to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon when humans are involved?

Apparently we need answers to every mystery and when no answers are readily available, we make them up.
A former member
Post #: 9
Some definitions agreed upon (but never stated by) those using the Conspiratorial Method:

Evidence: That which supports your conclusion.
Irrelevant: That which does not.

In the minds of Conspiracists, Conventional Science is doing exactly what they are doing. This is why they are always claiming that such and such a conclusion ignores some key piece of evidence. That guy on the panel thinks he is holding proof that 50,000 military personnel participated in the attack. Bin Laden had trouble finding 19 people to do this.

Contrary evidence is evidence of a deeper conspiracy.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy