The Truth Behind The Fall Of The WTC?

im just curious if anyone can debunk this guy.

Im no demo expert but this guy is. i read through it and it all sounds believable . it seems like he kinda dodges the question of building 7 though . someone please prove this isnt true.


www.implosionworld.com...

enough people post about the terrorist attacks on 9/11 , so im guessing you guys have the time to read through it, its a simple 10 min read.

can ANYONE prove this guy wrong? anyone????

It's certainly made me reconsider some of my thoughts on the collapse of the buildings. I shall wait for sharper, better informed minds of my own to post on this, however. There were one or two things that did make me think, hmm... are they ignoring or leaving out some things here? But overall he raises some very good points, and this is coming from someone who's been convinced from day one that the towers were deliberately brought down.

This is like the fourth thread on this guy's .pdf.

I started a thread in response to it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

im sorry i posted this considering its the fourth thread about it.

it must be easy to point out where the major flaws are , or to disprove it instantly then.

can you help me there bsbray? i just want a simple answer where to look for his flaws.

I outlined some issues I personally took with the paper in the thread I linked to above.

I don't disagree with everything he says, it's just the conclusions he reaches based on that info. For example, most of the debris fell way outside of the footprints when the Towers fell. He says in a demolition, this wouldn't be the case, but that's only true for a conventional demolition in which the building simply drops like WTC7 did, and I agree: these (WTC1 and 2) were far from conventional. And in fact, from the "other side" of the issue, the massive lack of debris falling straight down is just one more problem with official theory, that the falling mass was just too unbearable for the remaining building. As Blanchard himself suggests, 95% of the mass fell off the sides. That's his figure, not mine.

He puts a lot of stock into NIST, too, suggesting the NIST report is conclusive and provides actual substance, whereas I do not believe it does, and neither do most others here. For example, they don't show enough buckling prior to collapse to justify the initiation of either collapse. They also failed to reproduce their theoretical collapse mechanisms, in two different tests they conducted. They never established their case with anything solid, but published their report anyway. And Mr. Blanchard references that report quite a bit as he suggests demolition theory has absolutely nothing going for it.

Things like that. Like I said, I posted on it in the thread I linked to above. I responded to each assertion he made in the paper if you want to read any more of it.

[edit on 4-9-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
This is like the fourth thread on this guy's .pdf.

I started a thread in response to it here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thank you.
Thread closed.