Motive? I'll stay on motive, and I have to say (again) that the idea that someone would risk additional and unnecessary exposure of their nefarious insider plot - rigging a 47-story building for demolition (without anybody noticing, natch!) with their motive to destroy some documents has to be one of the stupidest things anybody has ever said. Ever.
[quote="New York Times] AS they watched news accounts of the World Trade Center disaster, a detail caught the attention of Davia Nelson and Nikki Silva, two independent radio producers in California.
''There were sheets of paper strewn all over,'' Ms. Nelson recalled. The scraps of paper that blanketed Lower Manhattan -- photographs, letters, depositions, résumés -- were like scattered pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that formed a picture of daily life in the trade center towers before the attacks. [/quote]
What a brilliant method to be sure you destroyed all the papers - except for the ones distributed over lower Manhattan. Never mind that there was heavy fire all over the place in the building - the Einsteins who ran this plot couldn't destroy the documents with an ordinary fire. Certainly not with a paper shredder (which conveniently can also shred disks). No, they had to destroy a skyscraper and do it in such an obvious way that the uberinvestigators of the troof movement would be sure to figure it out!
Belief in such a notion, IMHO, is a sign that the believer needs professional help. Not from engineers, architects, or firefighters - all of which has been offered at length here - but from psychologists. I'm not one, but perhaps there is some therapy that will help these people get past their inability to acknowledge even the simplest aspects of observed reality, their willingness to endlessly repeat outright fabrications as acknowledged fact, and, not to put to fine a point upon it, their sheer ineducability. I'm not a psychologist. I can't do it. I've pointed out a few of their self-contradictions and misrepresentations and misunderstandings, repeatedly, but such types are utterly and dedicatedly clueproof. I leave them to their paranoid and ignorant fantasies, and to the obscurity they so richly deserve. (I'm obscure, too, but I don't fancy myself as the Vanguard of the Coming Wave of Righteous Truth when I'm wasting time arguing on the Internet.)
Sorry, I went OT again; it's the corrosive effect of exposure to such stubborn and pernicious foolishness. So much for the shrieking idiocy of the alleged motives for blowing up WTC 7. Yet even this miscarriage of neural activity pales in comparison to the achingly vapid claim that the Powers That Be actually felt the need to tell the media that the tower would fall, either by design or mistake, before it fell. What exactly is the motive for that one - anxiety that no one would notice the collapse of a 47-story building in Manhattan?
It's astonishing that anyone could top the first claim of motive for WTC 7 - which is itself a sort of anti-thought, like anti-matter. But there is no height of absurdity which the 9/11 conspiracy loons cannot scale. I leave by way of closing the observation of the noted philosopher whose portrait I attach:
"Just when I thought you said the stupidest thing ever, you keep on talking!"
