Where do you want to start?
The most compelling argument you have, direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used would be good.
Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?
Is this your way of saying you don't want to play anymore?
This is normal, no biggie...He is thinking he is leading me into a corner, but only cornering himself. I was dealing with this in college, he is about 600 debates behind lol. This rodeo is an old boring one.
Though I would say rayzor, please try to be a little more unique in your debate.
Anyways...As I have told many people before you, and I will tell many after you...I am only stating as a fact the buildings did not fall as stated.
I then suggest alternative theories based off available evidence for what brought them down, motivation, the who, ect.
So to confirm...If this were a court, I would present a purely factual case against the official report...Then a circumstantial case against the actual causation and aggressors.
As to you comment of "I saw the plane"....Reality doesn't work the way we saw it.
This is not reality.... rigid and brittle aluminum does not pass through concrete, steel vertical exoskeleton, steel horizontal exoskeleton reinforced with concrete, then we get into the real tough stuff that can flex and absorb impacts the central core inches of reinforced I beams...Pass through all of that
times 2 all the way to the other side.
This is not trick photography, I have seen multiple angles of plane number 2 on professional reply equipment and watched it frame by frame more times I could stomach. There is always about 5-14 frame delay of where the plane literally goes inside the building..No mark, no debris.... Nothing....Sunny skies in new York...Then BOOM!! An explosion on the front and back.
What is left? A Wylie Coyote like imprint straight out of the cartoons...The EXACT width of the plane end to end.....
A third rate magic show is more convincing.
I am sure you will say something as "well they were going fast so that makes it possible" which is what NIST said to idiots they knew were just smart enough to know nothing at all, as well as the general uneducated public.
However, as people who work in the field know, you reach a point of diminished return on energy with any material, especially brittle rigid aluminum.
Once you get to a certain speed, you actually lose energy through atmospheric friction, heat, and many other factors at the point of impact per square inch. It spreads, not focuses. You can either look at aviation manuals, or see some cool experiments we did shooting aircraft aluminum at reinforced concrete and steel at over 1200 mph (more than double the speed reported, which was impossible in itself for a craft that size that low. Not only that, but controlled by idiots that couldn't even control a 100 mile-an-hour Cessna...But thank goodness their paper passport survived right on top of the wreckage so we knew who they were... titanium/reinforced steel and concrete/aluminum was the only thing that could be "vaporized"...The paper was too strong)
The planes would have been like porcelain to those buildings, not a magic knife that can literally cut through the building without even a mark. Then suddenly explode cartoon style.. Not to mention, that type of maneuverability is all but impossible at the proposed speeds and altitude, especially with am idiot navigating it.
I lost where I was....
Damn it...You see what I mean...I have too much info in my head, I get off on tangents.
Poll