To support my original arguement: it was reported that molten steel was found beneath the wreckage, days after the towers' collapse. Jet fuel doesn't melt steel.
On a similar note, supporting the opposition: to my understanding, the steel would not have had melted for the tower to have collapsed; just heated to a certain point and lose some of it's structural capability. That makes sense and explains the collapse without the use of explosives, though it does account for the aforementioned molten steel, which leads me to believe that other explosives were present in the buildings.
I remain in thinking that the US government had some involvement in 9/11 (though it may have been just a sort of " looking the other way"), but some of the conspiracy theorists claims are compelte fabrications, as are some the governement claims.
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.
- Bertrand Russell
...And that goes both ways!
|