Yep - I guess it’s finally settled
Witnesses are not reliable. That’s criminology 101 but these things negate all the other unreliable witnesses who saw something else.
Well, thanks for the lesson in Evidence, Starling.
The best evidence in a homicide is usually the corpse. In the case of the Towers, the best evidence is probably the pools of still-burning thermite in the basements, coupled with what can be deduced from the scrap metal before it was whisked away to a landfill. That, and the science of just how JP5 ignites and burns, the hole in the Pentagon’s rings caused by the high speed impact of an object whose wings disappeared into thin air even though the wings of the Tower 1 and Tower 2 planes being able to slice through structural steel without breaking off…etc, etc. All evidence that was scarcely considered by the commission.
Most telling of course, is the rapid sleuthing of the government that allowed them to NAME 19 hijackers and show their photos, even before the collapse.
It did remind one of other patsies such as Oswald, James Earl Ray, etc.
1 Like
All of that has been explained at length by people on site. Not accepting it doesn’t make it untrue and presenting some bullshit 15 years later in a newspaper does not make for quality science.
Sorry.
Yer newspaper is simply rehashing assertions that were made in real time in 2001, Starling.
1 Like
Your article states “15 years later physics journal concludes 3 WTC towers collapsed due to controlled demolition”.
The trouble is, it wasn’t posted in a physics journal. What does that say about your article’s credibility right off the bat?
It says NOTHING about the conclusions drawn by the architects and engineers. It only says something about that particular site, for posting a lie [actually, it wasn’t even a lie] that has nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence itself. If your husband murdered someone, and you lied and said he was with you at the time of the murder, would your lie automatically make him guilty of murder? No, I don’t think so. It would just mean you were a liar.
And, sorry, but eye witnesses in tandem with physical evidence and circumstantial evidence are the things that make up most legal cases.
You need zero education to know that it had to be imploded
No fucking knowledge of anything
For starters, it suggests that you may not attach the same meaning to “journal” as the writers of the article, or as some of its readers.
1 Like
This is where the article was published. I don’t get what you’re all het up about, Starling.
The “scientific journal” publication piece is a lie. And again, it puts into question the conclusions of the article.
There is eye witnesses and physical evidence that doesn’t support your claim but supports the “official” events. What do you do with that information if not completely ignore or deny it? And that comes from valid, verifiable sources that have nothing to gain from telling their version of the events.
Please read the link I posted because I already addressed that.
How. The people who claimed it was in a scientific journal are not the authors of the article.
What eye witness and physical evidence supports the official story? LMAO.
Oh puleeze! A peer reviewed journal is a very specific thing. It’s not some news rag. The link in the OP is bullshit so if you are celebrating scientific discovery based on it, you’re only celebrating cocked up invention.
Are you serious?
Are you?
Yes, I am serious when I say there is an entire mound of evidence that contradicts this conspiracy theory shit that was mounted by scientists, eye witnesses, people on the scene, etc. MOUNDS of it that are far more credible than some shit rag.
No, there isn’t. There is mounds of bullshit to support the official story. And it stinks today as much as it did on 2001.
You don’t like that Islamists flew planes into your buildings? No one does. That doesn’t mean your government is behind it FFS. But, if it were true, why the fuck would you still live in a country that perpetrates that kind of atrocity on it’s own citizens?
Mounds of bullshit from scientists who were on the scene? Bullshit from first reponders? Eye witnesses? Have you really stepped back to look at the mountain of evidence that contradicts these conspiracies that still crop up over a decade later? What are you saying about the men and women who were there pulling bodies out and sifting through the rubble? That they are all a bunch of liars?
Like others have pointed out, a scheme that big with that many causalities would not stay secret for long. It would have involved so many people and such a heinous act that I can’t believe no one would have pulled the plug on the official story had it been an inside job.