Quote:
Originally Posted by datawookiee
depends on what their "evidence" was.. ive read lots of that stuff, like the building being cut with something similar to demolitions explosives and the clean diagonal cuts on the beams.. or the fact that they didnt find any airplane wreckage in the pentagon etc.. turns out those are just plain BS. The plane wreckage is there.. clearly visible. and the demolitions explosive cuts were made after cleanup started. So a lot of their so called evidence is just people reaching for straws to have something to fill their imagination with.
That's really the problem when people who have no idea of how to scientifically approach something go after finding the truth. Once you find something that might seem like evidence you do everything you can to disprove it. Instead of preaching how right it is from the very beginning(which is really what conspiracy nuts usually do).
|
I agree.
I read on of their books and had to laugh. Pretty much everything they complain about can be quickly explained. There are a lot of things we'll just never know about that day.
I like the one about the other building falling - the one that wasn't hit by a plane. You've got to be kidding me, right? Hundreds of millions of tons of concrete fell that day, and you have the balls to question why one of the other buildings fell? Gee, maybe it was physically moved off of it's foundation???