05-08-2013, 01:27 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2013, 02:18 AM by Jeffrey Orling.)
No I am not.
The term debunked was made popular by Griffin. I don't care for it though I have used it as a handy shorthand term.
I believe, as I stated that your assertions have not been demonstrated as true and have been shown to produce incorrect conclusions.
The towers did fall and there is not a shred of evidence that there was a CD. You think you can prove or have proven that the collapse was impossible without placed devices on 24 columns. You haven't succeeded.
My thinking about 9/11 collapses has evolved. I wanted explanations because we all were told how strong these towers were.... implication being they couldn't collapse. That turned out to be an myth. They came down because of the engineering design and the fact that they were assualted with fires which weakened them along with the mechanical destruction from the planes. I don't see anyone showing this was not possible... without making stuff up.
The term debunked was made popular by Griffin. I don't care for it though I have used it as a handy shorthand term.
I believe, as I stated that your assertions have not been demonstrated as true and have been shown to produce incorrect conclusions.
The towers did fall and there is not a shred of evidence that there was a CD. You think you can prove or have proven that the collapse was impossible without placed devices on 24 columns. You haven't succeeded.
My thinking about 9/11 collapses has evolved. I wanted explanations because we all were told how strong these towers were.... implication being they couldn't collapse. That turned out to be an myth. They came down because of the engineering design and the fact that they were assualted with fires which weakened them along with the mechanical destruction from the planes. I don't see anyone showing this was not possible... without making stuff up.