| o_O.Q said:
you're doing the same thing sundini was doing assuming that you know what is logical about this situation assuming that the people who did this had no reason to destroy the other buildings also why assume that whoever did this did not have a motive for taking down all of the buildings? and that's why i wasn't arguing that i knew the motive in its entirety for certain i mean we all know that part of the motive was iraq and the middle east but that may not have been the only thing
all i've been saying is that things don't add up here and that there is a variety of evidence that points to a controlled event |
Yeah I saw many videos from stress analysts and other people who said that things don't add up and I also saw many who responded to these guys with their own stuff and how "their calculations were based on calculations with computers which weren't even able to calculate this scenario properly" and so on...
Thing is, there are a lot of people who try to tell you something about "their truth" and just because you think that they make sense doesn't mean that "things don't add up". I mean, do you really try to tell us that a building couldn't collpase because you saw a few videos where youu couldn't see anything?
Even the best of the best in this area need years for this stuff and you think you can watch some videos and read some articles to know that it doesn't add up?
You could be right but if you just try hard enough you could find some things which don't add up in your opinion for pretty much everything...
