An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T's List of Demolition Signs

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:18 PM
Ok, I'm sure by now, many of you "debunkers" and "truthers" have been on the AE9/11T site and saw the list they have on the right hand side which point out their "evidence" of controlled demolitions for all three WTC buildings. After going through them all, it is plain to see that this group of "experts" are about as intelligent as a box of rocks (My apologies to the box of rocks). I have never seen so many lies and erroneous assumptions and incorrect terminology, that it boggles the mind that so many in the Truth Movement regard them as "experts" and "professionals." That is why I am going to go through each and every point they have on the right hand side. Note, I will not post the link to their site, as I do not wish to support their snakeoil sales website, or bring more traffic to their site. You wish to see for yourself? By all means, a one second Google search and you are there. Now, to the meat of the matter:

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

Here is where the errors and lies begin!

1. Rapid onset of collapse

That is false. Gage and Co. use a clipped version of the WTC7 collapse which snips off the penthouse collapse. That act alone should send up a red flag, as this is a blatant breach of honesty. Why is that?

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction

Hmm a clap of thunder and the building is collapsing, and this means sounds of explosions at the base? Or were they hearing the sound of the building beginning its collapse? Also, just one "clap" of thunder? I thought CD involved a series of detonations, not one giant explosion. Just how big was this massive bomb, where was it planted and how, without a soul noticing, oh and how did it survive the fires and impact? This is a typical twisting of the eyewitness account, and it is very common in the truth movement.

3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

Not that symmetrical as the penthouse collapsed into the building first, and we only see the shell of the building fall, how can one say it was symmetrical? Also, seismic reports nearly 18 seconds of collapse at WTC7, and none of it from anything explosive. So this is a sign that the building was turning itself inside out, with failures inside first, and then the shell. Also, it fell towards the south.

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

Not really imploded, since there were no demolition charges going off to begin with. Also in its footprint does not constitute falling across a sidewalk and four lanes of streets, AND severely damaging a building on the north side across the street, and damaging the buildings on its left and right hand side.

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

Geological note: There are no volcanoes in NYC. Also recall that a few years ago, this was written as "pyroclastic clouds," before someone with a few more neurons figured out how stupid they looked and changed it to "pyroclastic-like". In effect, they went from an F- to an F. Still a failure. Dont believe me? Check out some other 9/11 Truth sites that just copy and paste garbage like this to their site.
"Pyroclastic clouds." Yeah, right. Well done "experts.

6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

Ah yes, Danny Jowenko, who said this regarding WTC 1 and 2:

Also, What type of investigation did he really do? Or was he just shown that clipped video of the WTC 7 collapse and made his opinion on the most minimum of information?

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

My favorite one. It was known it was going to collapse because everyone there saw how WTC7 looked and all signs were pointing at imminent collapse. No explosions of demo charges, or demo teams running into WTC7 and rigging it up. Nothing like that. Firefighters and engineers on scene saw the worsening conditions of WTC7 and made the call. Media people picked up on it and began reporting it, while BBC was given WRONG info because somewhere, along the line, the report of "about to collapse" was changed to "already collapsed". However, they said the Soloman Bulilding collapsed. Did you know the actual name of WTC7? I didnt. I'm sure a good percent of New Yorkers didnt know the actual name, and I'm darn sure that BBC reporter had no idea which building was it. So no, this is a bald faced attempt at deception.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

You really need to stop going to those "damn fool conspiracy" sites.

Nist reported the damage sustained on WTC7 from the Twins falling, did no Structural damage to WTC7.

So with office fires alone, explain the admitted "freefall" , also in the NIST report.

+1 more 
posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:29 PM
Seeing you are smarter than 1.500 Engineers and international experts regarding construction techniques and material sciences, I'm sure you own a Fortune 500 enterprise yourself. I'm surprised, and feel honored at the same time, that a capacity like you does find the time posting his analysis on these very forums. I stand in awe.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

What do you want to bet that within six weeks there will be individual posts for each of those points, all claiming it like some new revelation? Seems like six weeks is about the average turn around for a "smoking gun".

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:42 PM

In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

Oh boy, so now we went from high power explosives to "incendiary devices". Note for all: Incendiary Devices are not explosives. They burn. Thermite does NOT explode. FEMA discovered a eutectic mixture which corroded the steel from WTC7. However, this mixture was not thermite related, but more related to the corrosive conditions in the pile, as the combination of high temps, oxygen, sulfur, and water, along with the toxic and caustic chemical reactions that occurred in the pile over the weeks and months it was buried.

9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

And not one single photo. Or video. And was it actually tested and found to be "molten metal"? But what is not answered is how did this stuff manage to flow down and stay molten for weeks on end? Thermite on ignition creates molten metal, but once the reaction ends, the mass begins to cool and solidify. You cannot have a thermite reaction going on for weeks or months later.

10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

Wow! What is the chemical signature of thermite? Iron oxide and aluminum!
What was in the buildings, on the steel columns, etc etc etc? Iron oxide and aluminum! An epic fail on behalf of Dr. Jones.


WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

False. Chief Hayden on WTC7

Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Details of damage to WTC7

Accounts of severe damage to WTC7

There was plenty of evidence with the slow deformation. Why else would they put a surveyor transit on the building?

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

It did!

It did fall with a lean towards the south. Which is why we see the north face on the pile. Also explain why debris crossed Vesey Street.

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

It is no mystery that office fires can get extremely hot in a short amount of time. Steel begins to lose its strength at only 500C. Creep is one affect of higher temps affecting steel and this was seen in the building during the day (its leaning and bulging). These are signs of high temperatures inside WTC7.

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

Windsor Tower had a large concrete and steel core, which survived, along with large technical floors on heavy concrete. However, the steel only sections failed within two hours. Other fires were actually fought with water and firefighting attempts. Also better fire-proofing in the other buildings.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:45 PM
Regarding the snipped footage.

The original video released by NIST had removed both the penthouse collapse and edited the sound feed. It was only more recently that the original (with penthouse) and sounds feed was re released by NIST. So at the time the No penthouse version was the only available "credible" video for use.

Also, as explained by those same experts. the penthouse collapse is even more evidence that it was a controlled demo as it is the central column that is taken out first. In almost all videos of controlled demos the penthouse is the first to go.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by GenRadek

You really need to stop going to those "damn fool conspiracy" sites.

Nist reported the damage sustained on WTC7 from the Twins falling, did no Structural damage to WTC7.

So with office fires alone, explain the admitted "freefall" , also in the NIST report.

From Firehouse Magazine:
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:55 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

I thought we weren't allowed to use fire fighters video's of that day , because of the trauma and adrenaline .

Since the OP has one, this is a great one. Firefighters talking about explosions in the lobby, Far, Far , Far away from the impacts

"we came in after the fires, we were setting up in the lobby"

"the entire lobby came down on us"
edit on 26-1-2012 by Tw0Sides because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:56 PM
This never gets old.
Its plain as day really, you can see the center of WTC start collapsing in before the rest of the building.
Im sure fire does that.

Im pretty sure that there have also been many skyscraper fires in the last 50 years.
All of which burned for more than 15 hours.

What they tell you doesn't logically make sense,

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:01 PM
the penthouse collpasing IS proof of a controlled demolition because there is no reason why it would plunge first before the building symmetrically collapses at free fall acceleration. So Im not sure what you mean when you say they are trying to cover this up somehow.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by GenRadek

I thought we weren't allowed to use fire fighters video's of that day , because of the trauma and adrenaline .

Since the OP has one, this is a great one. Firefighters talking about explosions in the lobby, Far, Far , Far away from the impacts

"we came in after the fires, we were setting up in the lobby"

"the entire lobby came down on us"
edit on 26-1-2012 by Tw0Sides because: (no reason given)

I have never even seen this before.
That is very.. i dont know, it gives me shivers.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
Seeing you are smarter than 1.500 Engineers and international experts regarding construction techniques and material sciences, I'm sure you own a Fortune 500 enterprise yourself. I'm surprised, and feel honored at the same time, that a capacity like you does find the time posting his analysis on these very forums. I stand in awe.

Care to contribute anything besides sarcasm and appeals to authority?

I think GR put together a nice critique of the AE911Truth position.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:13 PM

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

Well for starters, these "experts" should really look at the construction of the Twin Towers, and how the design itself is one reason why it collapsed the way it did. Also, there was no free falling destruction. 18-30 seconds does not equal free-fall collapse. What did fall at free-fall was the debris that was released outside during the collapse. But the building stayed up and wasnt falling anywhere at free-fall.

2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

"Improbable symmetry"? Really? A building peels open like a banana and demolishes its surrounding neighbors and they cant figure out why and how that happened? Once again, these "experts" probably have zero idea of how the WTC Towers were designed. The symmetry is because the exterior columns were pushed out in four directions during the collapse, like what happens when an arrow splits another arrow. Simple to figure out.

3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction

Rapid? Well to be honest, once gravity takes over, its all downhill from there. There was nothing to stop the growing chunk of debris from falling down. The falling debris actually gained mass as each floor that was impacted by the top section was now added into the falling mass. Any resistance offered by the floor was not enough to stop it, and now its mass is helping the collapse continue.

4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

Explosions and flashes during a massive fire across 20+ acres of office space and two burning airliners inside the buildings? No way!
I do not deny people hearing explosions during a fire as massive as this. I mean, gee, any loud sound is considered an explosion. Also, many eyewitness accounts mention explosions which describe either the impact of the planes or the collapse itself. Lay people use words that they are most familiar with. The sound of the collapse also would sound like explosions. However, using accounts of people hearing "explosions" in an environment like this and claiming this is evidence of demolitions is very dishonest.

5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally

Ejected? Not really. Tall objects (like poles, trees, etc.) tend to tip over and fall. The WTC Towers were over 1000ft tall. Is it surprising that something that is 1000 feet tall and tips over may land 1000ft away? The exterior columns were stripped from the floors and left freestanding, which then tilted over in one piece and fell. Nothing was "ejected". Watch this video of the spire collapse, and see how the core columns tilt over and fall away.

That explains how the columns fell away and appeared to be "ejected". In order to ballistically eject such heavy columns of steel so far with explosives, you would require large amounts of it planted all over the structure. Blasts that big would have shattered every window in Lower Manhattan, not to mention deafened everyone in the vicinity. Demolition charges, C4, TNT, etc used in demolition do not have that kind of power. I would have thought at least these "experts" could have figured that out.

6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking

They are mistaking the dust of the tons of drywall, concrete, sheetrock and fireproofing being crushed as the "concrete and metal decking being pulverized". First off, dont they know what the cores were wrapped in? Second, dont they know what they used for partitions on each floor? I dont see any steel being "pulverized". This is also an assumption that that is what was happening. No basis on fact.

7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

Here we go again! There were NO volcanoes in NYC. No one was incinerated on the ground by any "pyroclastic flows" either. Pyroclastic is used in volcanology. Also, it is proven that earlier they actually used "pyroclastic flows", before someone wizened up and tried to correct their gross error. Here is how it was stated before:

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
as seen here:
Experts my Aunt Fannie.

Dust can be created from many things.

8. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

Incorrect. Floors were discovered below in the rubble, stacked up and squished to a fraction of their original size. Workers cutting into the pile discovered the layers and said it felt like they were going through geologic strata:

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:14 PM
If the OP bothered to do any actual research and used the links provided in the BULLET points he would find damning evidence for the "chemical signature"

You're disregard for the evidence of thermite because of your limited understanding of the chemical process is a very poor argument for your case. The process includes more than just Iron oxide and Aluminum, again if you did some actual research prior to posting you'd know this.

The metallic element ingredients along with sulfur can be determined with considerable certainty. Of course, owing to the nature of the thermite reaction and the high-temperatures during spherule formation, the content of the various metals varies somewhat from sphere to sphere and even from one spot to another on a single sphere. Done carefully, the presence of the aluminothermic reaction signature is quite unambiguous; as stated by Materials Engineering, Inc. (MEi):

• “When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue…

• MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes."47

Note that the NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations clearly states: “Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”48

This is the standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations – looking for thermite residues. Was it applied to the WTC “crime scene”? NIST was asked:
• Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." • Answer; “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” 49 NIST is remiss in not testing for thermite residues as required by the NFPA 921 code.

Because of the FAILED investigation you have numerous professionals (not armchair experts) calling for a new one. If NIST was due diligent in the initial investigation and didn't withhold information for "insert blanket reason here" maybe we wouldn't need to question so much. As it is the NIST report should not be taken as fact, should be thrown out, and a new investigation opened.

edit on 26-1-2012 by Vardoger because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

The use of emoticons shows a lack of arguement sir.
If you want a dialect , how about we show each other some respect, and stick to the issues, like grown ups.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:18 PM
So when are you going to explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns they are attached to?

When steel heats up it expands. That expansion would push outwards against the columns, if the columns could move they would have been pushed outwards, but they couldn't so the trusses would sag. If they couldn't push columns out they couldn't pull them in. If they could pull them in the trusses would not have sagged.

You always go on about how the trusses were 'lightweight' and not as strong as beams, yet you think they had the strength after being heated to pull in massive box columns that were all attached together with cross-bracing.

Can't see the absurdity in that hypothesis? Let alone the fact that one hour of fire would not be enough to cause the trusses to heat up that much. Even IF they did there is no evidence it would lead to complete failure of the whole building.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

You are entitled to your opinion, so far the OP doesn't seem to be doing too well with his though. Sarcasm is a tool on ATS, you'll get used to it.

Personal disclosure: I am an adherent of the No Plane Theory. No really!
edit on 26/1/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:36 PM

Pancaked floor evidence:

Even old "Dr." Steven Jones shows us a picture of floors compressed together in his slide show.

Two weeks after 9/11, engineers Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo are walking in the B2 basement level at the ruins of the World Trade Center, towards where the North Tower stood. They discover a “solid, rocklike mass where the basement levels of the tower had been,” and see “the recognizable traces of twenty floors, very much like geologic strata revealed by a road cut, compressed into a ten-foot vertical span. In one place, the steel decks of half a dozen floors protruded like tattered wallpaper, so close together that they were almost touching where they were bent downward at the edge. Nothing between the decks was recognizable except as a rocky, rusty mishmash. In a few places what might have been carbonized, compressed stacks of paper stuck out edgewise like graphite deposits.” As New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton describe, Lopez and Pontecorvo have found “where the vanished floors [of the tower] had gone. They had not just fallen straight down. The forces had been so great and the floors so light that they had simply folded up like deflated balloons.”

At some later time, ironworker Danny Doyle, who is also working at Ground Zero, finds that floors of the South Tower have been compressed into a formation like what happened with the North Tower’s. He discovers “a distinct mound of debris set into the pile, about six feet high, with strands of wire and pieces of rebar sticking out. It looked like layers of sediment that had turned into rock and been lifted up on some mountainside.… Here were ten stories of the South Tower, compacted into an area of about six feet.”

But most of the heavy lifting is still ahead, with the cleanup and recovery operation expected to last a year. Mountains of debris from the towers remain, as do the burned-out or smashed-in shells of the United States Customs House at the complex's northwest corner and 5 World Trade Center at the northeast corner. There are also six underground levels in the complex, caverns where most of the super-compressed debris from the towers has settled.

NY Times Comrpessed Floors

So we can safely say that AE9/11T is totally wrong. There was plenty of proof of "pancaked floors" in the pile. I would blame this on the ineptitude and laziness of these "experts" for the creation of such tripe.

9. Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front

Explosive ejections? I think they mean the compressed air being forced out through the elevator shafts and ductwork throughout the WTC. Also some these jets actually increase in speed and amount of debris being spewed out. Explosives do not work this way. They do not explode and then increase in speed. Once again, these "experts" just dont seem to know how to think critically or logically.

10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

What did they expect if it wasnt "blown up"? Also, what steel frame? Are they thinking the WTC towers were built like the Empire State Building with an actual steel frame and skeleton? Seems to me they again, have zero clue as to the construction of the WTC. The exterior columns was a lattice work of connected column trees bolted together. Doesnt take much to sheer bolts in a collapse like this. Also what held up each floor's truss at both ends? A truss seat and two bolts. Go look into NIST's report for more info on how this could have happened (and did.) without explosives.

11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

Refer to earlier post regarding this.

12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

No, once again, refer to earlier post. Iron oxide and aluminum in a massive steel structure which used aluminum paneling as exterior covers does not constitute thermite.

13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

First I ever heard of it. What "explosives" were found in the dust? C4? TNT? PETN? No! They claim its super engineered thermite! But wait! Thermite is not an explosive! Nano-thermite is used in explosives, but itself, is not an explosive. This is more evidence of dishonesty from truthers. Why would they lie and say explosives were found, if thermite is NOT an explosive? Once again, these "experts" either really suck or are just lazy. Pathetic.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:41 PM
Look at some of the above posts dude.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:58 PM

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

False. Inward bowing of the exterior columns prior to collapse was observed and noted many times, and also caught on video. Sagging trusses were also observed and from police helicopter pilots, there were reports that some floors were seen to have partially collapsed inside the burning Tower, prior to collapse. Also, large pieces were reported to have been falling off as well. They also warned that the Towers may fall. How would they know? They had an excellent view looking right into the building as it burned. Also, that is where the collapses began, in the area of impact and heaviest fires.
WTC accounts of damage and imminent collapse

How did these "experts" miss all of this information? Or did they purposely leave it out? I wonder why!

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

Well this makes no sense because the South Tower collapsed with the top block tilting over first. That is asymmetrical. Plus both towers fell down. Again, the design is what caused the collapse to go the way it did. It was not going to just fall over like a tree. The only thing that was symmetrical was the way the exterior columns were pushed out (just like the example with the split arrow.)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Actually there was plenty of fuel and oxygen for fires to reach the temps required to negatively and rapidly affect the exposed steel. Temperatures observed were 500°C to 650°C (932°F-1202°F). Steel loses half of its strength at 538C. Who the hell are these "experts" and what kind of "investigation" did they do, to miss so much?

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.

Refer to earlier comment regarding this repeat.

Ok, that about covers it.

To be honest, I do not understand how so many acclaimed "professionals" and "experts" could have so many erroneous, false, mistaken claims, and even outright lies in their list. It looks to me like a 5th Grader was asked to write it up for them.

A good majority of the claims by AE9/11T can be debunked within a half hour of googling and searching ATS archives. Also, for such an "esteemed" group" you'd think they would fix certain quotes after all this time. The only "fix" I saw was regarding the "pyroclastic flows", which wasnt much of a fix. It was more like swapping one flat tire for another slightly less flat tire. Its still bad.

I would appreciate if such an "experienced" group of engineers, architects, experts, etc etc etc, wanted to be taken seriously, they would come out and FIX all of these claims. This is why the Truth Movement is going nowhere. Sure there will always be some gullible ones that may get suckered in by this tripe, but most of us can see through the smoke and mirrors. I mean come on, it only took me a few minutes of looking to find all their falsehoods. They couldnt do it after all these years?

Oh yes and one parting point. This whole "9/11 truth" movement started with a certain Dr. David Ray Griffin. his "PhD" is in theology. Can I ask you all, what does theology have to do with anything regarding the events on 9/11? (aside from the religious fanatical side on behalf of the terrorists). What right does a theologian have to comment on engineering, controlled demolitions, metallurgy, physics, fire safety, etc? What expertise does he have to make any valid comments on this topic? Answer: NONE.

What has he created? A whole new religion, with himself at the head. Who would have guessed, a theologian created a new "religion"?

new topics
top topics
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in