9/11: Does no controlled demolition = not an inside job?

[david.watts]

No controlled demolition = Not an inside job?

Thoughts?

 

[Craig4]

No controlled demolition = Not an inside job?

Thoughts?

Proof of an inside job = proof of an inside job.

 

[david.watts]

Proof of an inside job = proof of an inside job.

I cannot disagree. But the question still stands.

 

[Dog Town]

Not an inside job! = Not an inside job!

 

[twinstead]

No controlled demolition simply means no controlled demolition, but if one is basing a belief of inside job because of controlled demolition then unless other evidence surfaces supporting inside job, no controlled demolition means no inside job.

It's the only rational way to look at it.

 

[cjnewson88]

Depends entirely which camp of twoof you fall in to.

 

[Horatius]

No controlled demolition simply means no controlled demolition, but if one is basing a belief of inside job because of controlled demolition then unless other evidence surfaces supporting inside job, no controlled demolition means no inside job.

It's the only rational way to look at it.

Yes, this, pretty much. There are lots of other possible theories of inside jobs that don't rely on CD, but for the vast majority of truthers, the fact that the building collapses "didn't look right" is the fundamental basis for their beliefs. Take away CD, and that basis goes away, and so there is nothing else that would lead them to conclude "Inside Job!"

Well, nothing more than their desire to believe, which is of course our whole point here....

 

[LSSBB]

No controlled demolition = Not an inside job?

Thoughts?

Define an inside job. Is Let it Happen on Purpose an inside job?

 

[DGM]

No controlled demolition = Not an inside job?

Thoughts?

For Gage and Co, yes. They base their whole suspicion on building 7. For them to say that it was a fire induced collapse would be the end of their group. They would have even less than nothing.

They need CD to survive.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

12 years and these are the questions being asked? How pathetic.

 

[Mark F]

No controlled demolition = Not an inside job?

Thoughts?

If it was a CD it may still not have been an "inside job".
If it was not a CD it may have been an inside job.

CD or no CD by itself proves nothing.

 

[Craig4]

I cannot disagree. But the question still stands.

Care to explain why?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

1,000 words.

 

[NoahFence]

Depends entirely which camp of twoof you fall in to.

...which depends entirely on his audience.

 

[Spanx]

Does using a different thread title = inside Job

 

[Robrob]

No controlled demolition = Not an inside job?

Thoughts?

That you even have to ask is

Unless your articles of faith require all possible permutations of an "inside job" to require demolitions, the answer is obviously no.

Truthers are religious fanatics. Their dogma requires acknowledging the existence of explosives as an article of faith.

 

[jaydeehess]

No controlled demolition = Not an inside job?

Thoughts?

Not true. It simply eliminates one of several unsupported theories.

Having said that I must wonder why you would ask. Its not as if any debunker has, AFAIK, ever proposed that no unless there was controlled demolition there could be no "inside job".

It falls into the same category as," all oranges are fruit, but all fruits are not oranges".

This question runs about as insightful as your previous one that simply restated the conditions of a free falling object.

 

[ozeco41]

1,000 words.

You certainly saved 998 words.

 

[threadworm]

They would have even less than nothing.

You've seen their financial returns though right?

 

[david.watts]

No controlled demolition simply means no controlled demolition, but if one is basing a belief of inside job because of controlled demolition then unless other evidence surfaces supporting inside job, no controlled demolition means no inside job.

It's the only rational way to look at it.

Got it. Good point.