Look.
I love science. It is a great discipline and tool. It does so much for our lives now. In short, science is the, well, ya know.
So, I guess it's natural that people use science to attempt to prove/disprove the official story on 9/11. The problem here is that the debate can
and does go on all day. Of course, this is due to the nature of science; scientists routinely disagree with and argue against each other's
points.
That's why I focus on the stuff that is not so debatable; the stuff that is not so scientific, but still as relevant. I'm talking stuff like
this...
Govt people like Mayor Willie Brown were warned not to fly to New York on 9/11.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff cancelled a meeting scheduled for 9/11 on 9/10.
Members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country that day when no one else was able to fly.
War games mirroring the attacks took place before and during 9/11.
NORAD stood down and did not pursue the planes.
The identities of all the hijackers were easily produced the next day, yet these guys could not be IDed, found, and stopped before 9/11.
Prominent govt people have gone public saying the official story is a fraud.
Bin Laden is a known CIA asset.
The PNAC documents authored by people such as Dick Cheney outlined a list of countries to be invaded after a helpful Pearl Harbor type event occurred.
Magically, the first 2 countries on this list have been invaded after 9/11. Iran, 3rd on the list, appears to be next.
Operation Northwoods shows that criminal elements in the govt have planned to carry out terror attacks to get the public behind war.
Criminals in the govt have committed numerous terror attacks in the past.
It goes on and on, but you get the idea. And, I know that this seems like the same old same old, but I wanted to give this angle because the current
discussion in this thread focuses on the science of the whole thing. Besides, those who support the official story prefer to use science as their
evidence and tend not to respond to the non-science evidence.
If you ask me, it's because it's a lot easier to argue the temperature at which steel fails or the pancake idea than it is to refute the Bin Laden
family exodus or the PNAC documents. And to those who agree with me that the official story is taurus feces, I suggest that you stay with the smoking
guns like these. Sure, the science is great, but they have a lot harder time refuting the stuff that doesn't involve science.
Just something to think about.