Wednesday, January 02, 2008

IF there was evidence of explosives

IF there was evidence of explosives, why wouldn't the investigators have assumed terrorists planted the explosives? WHY would 200 technical experts, including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia, "know" that they shouldn't say what the evidence supposedly showed? IF they saw indications of "controlled demolition," how would they "know" not to simply say it? Wouldn't they assume that terrorists did it and report it?

This is a question that no "9/11 truther" has answered. IF there really was evidence of controlled demolition, why wouldn't the 200 technical experts simply report it?
No "9/11 truther" has even attempted to give me a scenario in which experts would "know" that they should ignore or suppress the "evidence of controlled demolition."

From what I have read, many who believe in "controlled demolition" insist that NIST is "lying" or "suppressing" the supposed facts. What I am asking is why would they do that? This is one of the big logical flaws of "9/11 truth movement."

3 comments:

WAROFTHEWORDS said...

Watch the collapse of building 7 and you will see that it wasn't just one bomb that caused this structure to fall in ballet fashion. "Al Qaeda" would not have the massive access to these buildings to set up a free fall collapse. And if they did have this access you should ask yourself how. This is beyond common sense.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3353736609819958776&q=building+7&total=3971&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5

WAROFTHEWORDS said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM

WAROFTHEWORDS said...

Nice blog that won't allow URLs. Go to youtube and type in collapse of building 7