Wasn't there a fourth building (at the World Trade Center) that also fell down (but wasn't struck)?
I've met guys involved in the moon landings who were solid godly men, passed away now, but I'd suggest you think very carefully about calling them liars. Just say'in. Shalom
Computer modelling happens to be one of my professional specialities, in a completely different discipline though, and I actually agree with the fallibility of models. The more modelling you do, the less you trust it! But models are foundational to engineering too - a mathematical model is how you decide how wide a bridge's spans can be for instance. It's useful, yet you have to be exceptionally careful with it.
There was a third building that was not struck, yet fell down hours later, called "Building 7", officially due to fire. To learn more about that, check out the only independent university engineering study ever conducted on it (the government wouldn't fund it, concerned citizens finally made it happen years later), released in 2019. This concludes the official modelling is false, and the building must have been brought down by demolition charges.
This is essentially where I'm at in this matter. In addition, it's hard to theorize about how or why the buildings pancaked since engineers don't exactly test their designs against jumbo jets, with God knows what cargo, plowing into the side of them.
Exactly. Everything else may be plausible, but that building is a giant flashing neon sign saying "Stop and think".
Good. So if we throw out all models, we're left with nothing to support the idea that building #7 came down from the planes. The official story is that it came down from fire caused by the plane crash, but practical experience shows that fire never causes such buildings to collapse, therefore the official story is almost certainly false (hence why they've relied on modelling to try and support it). Practical experience also shows that intentionally demolished buildings fall with the same pattern shown in the video footage. So if we ignore all computer models, the logical conclusion is that building #7 did not come down from fire, but was taken down with demolition charges. How someone could actually achieve that is a mystery to me, but it's the most reasonable option.
I am convinced that @Keith Martin is imagining this. It must be a false memory his subconscious has implanted. I checked the original Fox coverage yesterday to make sure I wasn't forgetting something, and sure enough that footage never showed anything like what Keith described. Given that Keith is also asserting that building 7 came down from shockwaves, which is also something I've never heard anyone claim, I think he is simply not remembering the details of that day very accurately.
Exactly. I think we may sometimes hear a description of something, picture it as an image, and then remember that image as if we saw it. I heard it all on the radio that day, so I didn't see the images immediately, but I certainly visualised what I heard about and can remember the day vividly.
Regardless of whether the conspiracy theories are true or false, pictures that supported the official narrative wouldn't have been disappeared. Only pictures that disagreed with it. So if there was a photo of a plane sticking out of the building it would have been reprinted everywhere and be easy to find. On the other hand if there was a photo of Hillary Clinton pushing the plunger on a cartoon dynamite detonator while cackling hysterically, that might have been disappeared.
That is a reasonably logical assumption.Regardless of whether the conspiracy theories are true or false, pictures that supported the official narrative wouldn't have been disappeared. Only pictures that disagreed with it. So if there was a photo of a plane sticking out of the building it would have been reprinted everywhere and be easy to find. On the other hand if there was a photo of Hillary Clinton pushing the plunger on a cartoon dynamite detonator while cackling hysterically, that might have been disappeared.