I mean, that's disingenuous. It wasn't just "a fire", a Boeing 767 hit both the fucking buildings!
The South Tower remained standing for 56 minutes after the plane hit and the North Tower for 102 minutes. Since neither tower collapsed till well after the plane impacts, it's clear that the collapses must have been the result of something other than structural damage.
A few quite significant differences.
That video debunks NOTHING.
Never in human history had a skyscraper of any kind fell due to fire - until THREE of them just happened to fall on the very same day.
The building, along with the CCTV Headquarters Building, was built using far less steel than conventional skyscrapers
As your entitled to your own opinion too. I just don't see any credible evidence to convince me 9/11 was organised by the US government. I don't mind debating it,
I foolishly watched some of that video and it's so full of holes and irrelevant content that it's difficult to know where to start commenting on it. It would also be a total waste of time as the likes of yourself and the other "truthers" just change the subject or ignore it whenever their claims are proved wrong.Its more a question of the evidence that has been presented is not credible, after thousands of people died its beyond belief that there are so many questions not answered.
The video I put up shows far to many connections between people who either made or did not lose vast amounts of money (Trillions not just billions) to be a mere coincidence, this is on top of any funny business with the physical events of that day that did or did not occur.
The Address Hotel fire has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion; it was a cladding fire and bears no similarities to WTC 7 whatsoever.Never in human history had a skyscraper of any kind fell due to fire - until THREE of them just happened to fall on the very same day.
I foolishly watched some of that video and it's so full of holes and irrelevant content that it's difficult to know where to start commenting on it. It would also be a total waste of time as the likes of yourself and the other "truthers" just change the subject or ignore it whenever their claims are proved wrong.
The event has been investigated in great detail and the account of what happened that day is not full of holes. All the legitimate and most of the stupid questions that have been raised have been answered and the reports have been updated as more information has become available. Try googling "truther" and you'll find that the definition isWhy does my being skeptical of an official story that is also full of holes make me a "truther" ?, large parts of that story simply do not stand up as fact.
you watched some of the video and claim its full of irrelevant content an to a point your right, what difference does it make that the name Bush is linked so many different ways to this one event, or that certain company's seem to recur over and over with connections that while on the face of it mean little but add up to a f*cking lot of coincidence.
My only claim is that somethings do not stand up to any kind of scrutiny without the wiff of fish.
Are you denying that?a person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist.
I love this thread, i have my own opinions on what happened that day and the more i read about it the less and less i am convinced that i can sway anyones opinion either way.
This seems to be one of them cases where people seem to sit firmly on one side of the fence or the other.
Kudos to everyone who keeps on fighting there corner, i gave up a while ago. :)