Comment: Hmm

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The quotes (see in situ)


That's simply not true. You can use reason, logic, and look at the actual FTIR screens to judge for yourself.

I'm actually sitting in a materials sciences lab, specifically RTI Laboratories in Livonia, MI, where I rent space for my business. Gas mixes are often analyzed by FTIR, and I have a fair amount of experience with chemical analysis (my business works with gas detectors and analysis). It's really not that hard to pick up, and the posts and summaries definitely explain it in layman's terms.

I apologize for not answering the question, let me address it.

At the end of the day, it's a simple question of which position has provided the most plausible evidence. The "19 hijackers with box cutters and a magic passport" position or "it looks like it didn't happen that way" position. Which side are you on?

But it's nowhere near a simple question. Given how easy it is to control groups of people that are fearing for their lives, yeah I don't doubt that a bunch of guys with box cutters could do it. Make an example or two and tell people they'll live if they sit still and they'll generally sit there. At basically every bank robbery, if everyone just massed charged the guy they'd be able to take him down, but no one wants to move and everyone wants to live. Once they realize they're going to die if they don't do something, then they act, but it's not always obvious at first.

I would say that a bunch of guys with box cutters is a more likely explanation than wiring the Twin Towers with explosives, ESPECIALLY given the evidence I've seen to the contrary. I have yet to see even a single logistically plausible explanation for controlled demolition of the Twin Towers. WTC7? You've got more of a chance there, because it's a much more complicated situation, and I can certainly understand the confusion there. The trade towers though? Not a chance.

But please, just go and read the threads and the summary of the tests done. Stick to the ONE point being addressed at a time. Bouncing all over ends with ad hominem. I'd much prefer to stay focused on one exact claim being made and either bust it or accept it.

Eric Hoffer