We are talking about a specific architect who has examined a large specimen known to come from the WTC debris pile.
He accepted as fact, and Grizzly Bear has accepted as fact, that the specimen was WTC debris.
With that in mind, there is no credible basis for posing your hypothetical question.
MM
I am fully aware, and would certainly agree that it was a debris chunk from the WTC.
I am asking you to simply answer a question and you keep dodging it like a typical truther.
Would you also take him at his word if he claimed it was a meteorite from outer space, because he was able to physically examine such debris?
The answer is, of course, no. Since no evidence supports that conclusion, and the evidence that is available supports the claim that it is compressed debris from the WTC.
But, in typical truther cowardice, you avaid answering a simple question.
And, since your logic agrees that since this architect has examined this piece, and made a conclusion, you're taking it as fact. Fine. Trains brought down the WTC. Since, dozens of people reported that it was like a train coming down, or that they heard sounds like a freight train, then obviously, a freight train plowed through the WTC. Since they were there, and you have only seen pictures, we must logically conclude (using your logic) that trains are in fact responsible for the demise of the WTC.
Do you see the problem with that line of thinking there champ? Yeah, and it was also a train that blew through Moussouri a few months back, since everyone there claimed they heard a train.
But, then again, maybe it was fire, just as the FDNY said. They were there too.
So, which one is right? Is it trains, or fire?
(I'm really just mocking your retarded logic here MM. I hope you've caught on. Please feel free to dodge a little more though. It's fun watching you jump through hoops. You're like a little puppet, and I am the puppetmaster. Dance puppet dance!!! Mwah ha ha !! )
