Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
The Usurper: Now on to your 911 ideas. The only area where I am even slightly interested is in the question of building 7 and how it collapsed. It indeed does look (to an untrained eye) that it was brought down by explosives (much like we've seen on TV when witnessing an expert demolition.
But just because it appears that way to me, doesn't mean that it must have been that way. Circumstantial evidence aside, what hard evidence do they have that the building was brought down by explosives? I think the answer to that is none. It's just a gathering of circumstantial evidence and speculation that fuels the theory. If there were truly a "smoking gun" then you'd have something. But now all you seem to have is a good debate.
When all is said and done, I arrive at this: even the experts can't agree on this one. And if they can't agree, then an art teacher and part time musician from small town USA isn't going to figure it out either.