Comment: What evidence

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Go to 1:55:00 (see in situ)

What evidence

I am perfectly willing to accept evidence, if there was any presented. What evidence did they present? Evidence to what? What am I denying? That there may have been other motives involved in the buildings destruction, and also other parties that we don't know about? I am not denying that at all! I am denying ignorant engineers saying "in my experience, this could not have caused this"... these are like the engineers that say a bumblebee can't fly or a dolphin can't possibly swim as fast as it does!

Buildings fall down on their own with minor earthquakes... why are two jumbo jets hitting them at full speed not enough to bring them down?
I thought this 'documentary' was going to present some evidence... opinions of people with 'qualifications' is not evidence.

The thing is, people like you are in denial of physics, because you don't understand physics... heck, the engineers in the video don't understand basic physics, how could you be expected to? Steel bends when it is heated, pretty easily... extreme weight, bent steel, boom, building comes down.

What a waste of time, find some of the details of what really took place behind the scenes, funding of Osama etc, and put that in a documentary... this is just a poor quality distraction, designed to make people who believe in another motive for 9/11, look like fools.
Don't deny that there wasn't another cause, and more people pulling strings, but don't deny the physics either, of 2 jet planes hitting buildings at full speed.