Good day all.
I was quite enjoying the last discussion we were having on the 9/11 building collapses. For older ARRSErs this subject may be long past its sell by date, but as a recently joined member this was the first opportunity for me to join the debate. For reasons unknown (to me at least) the last thread disappeared, and this was a shame because (in between the usual mud slinging) some useful points were being made.
So I've started this thread in the hope that the discussion can continue, and I've put it in the NAAFI to avoid 'Sensible Bit' Mods binning it. I realise that this makes the thread vulnerable to 'George W Bush is the spawn of the Devil' nut jobs hijacking the subject, but hopefully those with a genuine interest in reading or discussing the issues will prevail.
Sane 9/11 conspiracy theorists are welcome in order to liven up the debate. I personally don't have a problem with a 'robust exchange of views' but I guess we should mostly try to play the ball rather than the man.
So to recap:
Official investigations into the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 state that (in general terms) the buldings failed due to structural damage caused by impact (planes/debris) and fire.
Those who disagree with these investigations will usually claim that explosives were used. However, there is no evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses of these buildings.
Off we go
I was quite enjoying the last discussion we were having on the 9/11 building collapses. For older ARRSErs this subject may be long past its sell by date, but as a recently joined member this was the first opportunity for me to join the debate. For reasons unknown (to me at least) the last thread disappeared, and this was a shame because (in between the usual mud slinging) some useful points were being made.
So I've started this thread in the hope that the discussion can continue, and I've put it in the NAAFI to avoid 'Sensible Bit' Mods binning it. I realise that this makes the thread vulnerable to 'George W Bush is the spawn of the Devil' nut jobs hijacking the subject, but hopefully those with a genuine interest in reading or discussing the issues will prevail.
Sane 9/11 conspiracy theorists are welcome in order to liven up the debate. I personally don't have a problem with a 'robust exchange of views' but I guess we should mostly try to play the ball rather than the man.
So to recap:
Official investigations into the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 state that (in general terms) the buldings failed due to structural damage caused by impact (planes/debris) and fire.
Those who disagree with these investigations will usually claim that explosives were used. However, there is no evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses of these buildings.
Off we go