posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 09:28 PM
I am not fully convinced either way to be honest. Exhaustive research(all the available footage online, termite explanations, testimony, etc)
still does not settle anything for me.
I can see both train of thoughts, and see both sides.
If you look at the footage, those planes slamming in is a truly forceful and violent site. When talking about WTC 1 and 2, 9/11 truth peopel should
not say 'people claim the towers fell from fire, and no highrise has ever fallen from fire'. I agree when it comes to WTC7. But no highrise has ever
had a plane filled with fuel slam into it, so just a little something to tak einto consideration. I still say its possible vehicles with explosives
were in the sublevels.
Was WTC7 structurally compromised to the point they knew it was going to fall? I've seen pictures that most of the 9/11 truth folks never show, that
shows considerable more damage, smoke and fire then the little teency fire pix show before.
WTC7 does seem odd. If we are to believe firefighters saw a massive gaping hole in the building, how the heck did it get there? If they "pulled" the
building, why not say it officially and explain how they got the explosives in there.
I can see how the quibs could be describes as part of the pancake theory upon closer analysis, but I also agree with a lot of what Professor Jones
said in his thesis. Sadly, given the US government cleared away so much evidence so quickly and never really investigated it, the truth may never be
The NASA thermal imaging of massive hot spots weeks at the bases of WTC 1 and 2, as well as molten steel at all three buildings are definately
Anyone else not convinced either way, and can see both points?