- jim1029
- Jul 5 2008, 04:39 PM
Referring to the towers, many people have said that fire has never caused steel-frame buildings to collapse. This is shown as "proof" that the government explanation must not be true.
no, it is given as "evidence for", it is not given as "proof", there is a big difference between the two, pseudo-skeptics often interchange the two terms in order to unfairly make the other side look ridiculous.
- Quote:
-
(I cannot back up or refute that claim, as I am not at all qualified to do so).
you don't need to be qualified to research examples of building collapses.
- Quote:
-
The claim is that explosives were used instead. However, there has never been a demolition large enough to take down even one of the towers, let alone both of them. So how am I supposed to believe your explanation, if there is no precedent for either of them?
It is not double standards. explosives WILL break steel columns, building fires WILL NOT.
- Quote:
-
Not to mention, the impact of the plane would have without a doubt severly damaged the building by itself.
wtc7 was NOT hit by a plane.
- Quote:
-
Also, other people have said things along the lines of "If the government is telling the truth, then why are they afraid to release x video proving it?" Well, think about this. The government has many classified files. Possibly none of them are as important or as major as what happened on 9/11. So why would they release the classified files for 9/11, and not declassify several other, not very important files?
yes, why don't they release files, photos, tapes evidence etc, why the secrecy? what is the purpose of secrecy, except to hide something? what do they have to hide? I do not follow your logic. you seem to be saying that things are kept sceret according to their importance, this is an absurdity.
- Quote:
-
Plus, you could argue that they already have with the 9/11 Report.
Kean and Hamilton state their own 911 commission report failed, do you disagree with them?
| 
2:49 AM Dec 3
