Reply #132: researchers versus "experts"

[paxamor]

>Certainly not anything even remotely what you and the rest of the conspiracy theists are!
>
>As for your video....I may have seen it on TV, can't remember.
>Why are you asking that question?
>What is your point in the context of this thread?
>
>I'm tired of all the folks here posing pregnant questions without making any concrete statements of opinioin.
>
>Do you think the building in the video was taken down as part of a government conspiracy?
>
>Do you have any information about the video that might lead you to that idea...if in fact that is your idea?

The several videos of the collapse of Building 7 indicate demolition.
It is perfectly legitimate to explore evidence apart from theories about who the perpetrators are.
Indeed any legitimate crime investigation starts by establishing the facts of the crime.

You seem to want to close off debate by saying it's not letitimate to discuss details of the crime without a complete theory of the how the crime was perpetrated.

Those pointing out the red flags in the offical theory are making concrete statements.
They are researchers in the most genuine sense, examining physics and engineering precedent, to question the official story that three skyscrapers (for the first time in history) totally collapsed (and shredded and pulverized themselves) because impacts and fires.

Others will always follow the opinion leaders and 'experts', wanting everything wrapped up in a tidy package before they can even consider it.