Deepbluediver
Member
- Feb 15, 2013
- 84
- 18
- 6
I just know I'm going to regret getting involved in this, but....
Could you maybe summarize sort of the science and physics arguments that seem to indicate the towers could not have collapsed from aircraft impact alone? I'm not really a conspiracy buff and usually avoid these sorts of things, but this seems like it would be the easiest to support of deny.
The real thorny problems are the ones you keep avoiding, namely the very real factual dilemma of the WTCs destruction and the avoidance of science and physics that clearly point to something else having helped their destruction in such short time.
Could you maybe summarize sort of the science and physics arguments that seem to indicate the towers could not have collapsed from aircraft impact alone? I'm not really a conspiracy buff and usually avoid these sorts of things, but this seems like it would be the easiest to support of deny.
Last edited: