The answer is that that question is irrelevant. In mainstream american media, it gets absolutely no headlines, however if you broaden your media intake you would know that other countries in different languages and cultures have been giving this story quite a bit of attention.
Sorry, but you're going to have to explain why coverage by foreign media makes it irrelevant that American media isn't covering the story. Is there some limit on the amount of attention that any given story can get and the foreign press used it all up?
The fact that you don't see why the lack of American press coverage of conspiracy theories is an anomaly that must be explained suggests that you have nothing of value to add to this conversation. My point in this thread has been that the
modus operendi of CTers is to throw dust in the air by tossing out dozens of questions without answering any. Your first post in this thread is doing nothing to disabuse me of my notion.
However, in the interest of being open minded, I'll continue.
Just recently Japan has been bringing up specific questions in their government. Canada has done documentaries. And so has sweden. There are countless examples, it just comes down to broadening your media intake to other sources besides fox, cnn, and nbc.
Wonderful. Link me the one that you find most compelling.
For purposes of this thread, it's best that it be in English. My foreign language skills are rusty to non-existent. Of course, since there are "countless" examples, I'm sure you can find one.
Physics says they fell at nearly freefall speed,...
I'm afraid that it's going to be hard for me to take your contributions here seriously when you display such a depth of ignorance. Physics says nothing about how fast the buildings fell. A simple clock tells us how fast they fell.
"[N]early freefall speed" is so vague as to be meaningless. Exactly how fast did they fall? (Hint: since more than one building fell, there are likely to be different speeds.) What would "freefall" speed be?
...even common logic can figure that a pancake theory is irrelevant.
Actually, "common logic" tells us nothing about how fast the buildings should have fallen. Knowledge of the materials the buildings were made of; the specifications of those materials, including load capacities; weight of the materials, and the building contents; the effect of high temperatures on the building material; these are things we need to know to understand if there is any anomaly in the way the buildings fell. Logic is useless without that information. In fact, in all cases, logic is useless without information to which to apply the rules of logic.
The evidence that points to a controlled demolition is staggering.
Well, let's see.
-explosives were heard in buildings even before the plane crashed.
No. Some witnesses reported hearing some explosions. Here's a hint, sometimes things explode without being an explosive.
-molten steel at bottom of the buildings
Please explain what you think the significance of "molten steel" is.
-rate at which they fell, seriously building 7 wasnt hit, and it fell in exactly the same way. buildings are made to be able to take a lot of resistance.
You have provided no evidence to support your conclusion. Do you have any, or is it nothing more than "I can't understand how it happened that way, so it must not have?"
-employees having lots of evacuation practice procedures, and even interviews of survivors saying they heard lots of weird noises the weeks before it occurred
Well, evacuation procedures in a big building. Color me unimpressed. Weird noises? Maybe it was poltergeists brought the towers down.
-a huge terrorist insurance taken out just 2 months before 911
Taken out by whom? What's your evidence?
-stock market predictions, where people put money on airlines failing at a much higher rate than usual. It shows someone knew prior to 911.
Evidence please?
The information that I have is that the put options that were made just before 9/11 were
completely normal compared to the usual traffic in such investment devices.
Please, before you trot out a laundry list of more things you don't understand but plenty of other people do, answer a few of the questions I've asked. If you don't answer some questions, there's no point in continuing this dialogue. And where you make a factual claim, provide supporting evidence.
{AbE}
Now please explain to me scientifically, how it is possible for a 100 story building to fall that fast without using explosives to get rid of the resistance at the bottom and middle of the building.
Will do. Just as soon as you provide an evidential basis for concluding that there's some reason to suppose it shouldn't have fallen as fast as it did.
Also please tell me the evidence we have that linked Osama Bin Laden to 911.
Sorry, I don't understand how this question relates to CT madness.
I've read the 911 commission report and its overall scientific bullshit. Anyone who has even taken a basic college physics class can figure this out.
Then it should be easy for you to provide evidence to refute what it says. Evidence, not argument from ignorance.
They didn't even mention building 7 until recently.
Well, obviously they figured everyone would forget about building 7.
Edited by subbie, : Missed a bit at the end
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2