The telescoping theory that was mentioned could also be called the 'pancake' theory which is the official story that was up until recently accepted
by the 9/11 commission, given by the 'official reports'. That theory is now being taken back because of the call for scientific evaluation of the
many different aspects of the collapse of the twin tower and WTC building 7 (which was never addressed in any of the 'offical reports'. Simply look
at buildings where the pancaking effect did occur will notice right of the bat that it in no way resembles the scene at ground zero.....where are the
pancaked floors, why are there remains of the outer structure still standing?
I recently attended a lecture by 3 different academic/scientific speakers who are for more investigation into what happened during 9/11
). There was a physicist who has been forced to retire from a university, in which he has been an professor at
for more than 20 years because of his actual research and experimentation into how the buildings fell. He represents dozens or more scientists and
researchers that are dedicating their work to showing the public that the official explanation at the least, falls short of basic scientific
knowledge, including the laws of physics. Not only that, an investigation should have been conducted in a scientific, non-biased manner and as
someone on here already stated, the same people were used in every "independent" investigation commissioned by the governement.
There are many unanswered questions - why was their molten steel falling from the twin towers when only thermite could cause such a reaction, why was
there huge quantities of unexplainable trace minerals/elements found within the dust from the collapse, why do they refuse to consider such things or
answer such questions, why did they tell the company commissioned to study the collapse of WTC7 to only look at floors 8-42 in consideration of what
caused the collapse of that building? I could go on further (if I had my notes from the lecture) regarding all the scientific and plausible questions
and points brought up by that lecture alone, not to mention the countless books, documentaries and the scientific, peer-reviewed journal that has been
dedicated to the same effort.
So in my opinion, for anyone to say that the official explanation is acceptable, it means that they haven't thoroughly looked at the evidence to the
And a point was brought up about false flag operations...this wouldn't be the first time the government has done something of this nature to cause
public sentiment to sway in favor of a government agenda.
In all honestly, I study psychology, religion and conspiracy theories. I'm not a physicist, structural engineer, chemist, or anything of the sort,
but I do know how to think scientifically and the manner in which the official investigations were conducted violates what I know about the necessity
for basic empiracal observations, plain and simple.