Thread: 9/11

As for China or Russia playing a part. Find me just one page or any article or any speculation whatsoever that either is involved.

That's exactly my point -- there is no such speculation. But there ought to be such speculation, at least preliminarily, if one is arguing that SOMEONE planted bombs in the building because the "burning jet fuel alone" explanation is scientifically implausible.

Let me repeat this for you: all your arguments-from-metallurgy can (in principle) show scientifically that there were explosives placed in the buildings ahead of time. But metallurgy and other scientific arguments do not justify leaping to the conclusion that the explosives were placed by the US government -- nor do they justify ruling out the possibility that China or Russia or Belgium planted the explosives.

So, the reason that there are thousands of conspiracy pages arguing that the US planned 9/11, but zero conspiracy pages arguing that China or Russia or Belgium did it, has nothing to do with "basic scientific facts" that a high-school student could understand, and everything to do with the political biases that conspiracy-theorists bring to the table.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

That's exactly my point -- there is no such speculation. But there ought to be such speculation, at least preliminarily, if one is arguing that SOMEONE planted bombs in the building because the "burning jet fuel alone" explanation is scientifically implausible.

Let me repeat this for you: all your arguments-from-metallurgy can (in principle) show scientifically that there were explosives placed in the buildings ahead of time. But metallurgy and other scientific arguments do not justify leaping to the conclusion that the explosives were placed by the US government -- nor do they justify ruling out the possibility that China or Russia or Belgium planted the explosives.

So, the reason that there are thousands of conspiracy pages arguing that the US planned 9/11, but zero conspiracy pages arguing that China or Russia or Belgium did it, has nothing to do with "basic scientific facts" that a high-school student could understand, and everything to do with the political biases that conspiracy-theorists bring to the table.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF CHINA OR RUSSIA. I've said this already. That is why I said go ahead and find any sources implicating either. But, there is much evidence to support U.S. involvement as I have also stated.

A person who has even the slightest bit of intellect would be able to comprehend this without posting the same inquiries over and over.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

A person who has even the slightest bit of intellect would be able to comprehend this without posting the same inquiries over and over.

I'm just gonna go on my intuitive perceptions here and say that of all the people in this thread, Throbert is probably among the most intellectual, actually...

Originally Posted by Deborski

I'm just gonna go on my intuitive perceptions here and say that of all the people in this thread, Throbert is probably among the most intellectual, actually...

Throbert was asking for 'scientific facts' and the scientific evidence (of all that's out there) was NOT implicating any blame or accountability of either China or Russia. So, besides stating this umpteen times and Mr. McGee asking about it more than once, I would say your intuition sucks.

Originally Posted by 14Russian

I would say your intuition sucks.

Not as badly as your manners