Craig asserts that seventeen years after 9\/11, it is not necessary to have a consistent explanation of the damage \u2013 or even an explanation of how it could have been done.<\/p>\n
I think, unnecessary for us to debate whether one theory or another theory is correct<\/strong><\/p>\n This approach stands in stark contrast to the 9\/11 Truth Movement’s assertion, as enunciated by the leading investigative organization, Architects and Engineers for 9\/11 Truth<\/a>. Architects & Engineers for 9\/11 Truth states:<\/p>\n While Architects and Engineers for 9\/11 Truth<\/a> doesn’t propose a theory for how the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed, they evaluate the evidence and explain it using science and physics. They don’t assert, for example, that the physical damage captured in videos of the building collapses were altered or “faked” and its therefore irrelevant.<\/p>\n Craig consistently asserts that the physical damage at the Pentagon was staged \u2013 without any explanation as to how it could have been done.<\/p>\n \u2013<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Craig’s Core Assertion: Craig asserts that seventeen years after 9\/11, it is not necessary to have a consistent explanation of the damage \u2013 or even an explanation of how it could have been done. I think, unnecessary for us to … Continue reading \n