• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Let's ask again: What was the MOTIVE for WTC7?

So all these other theories are more likely than damage from debris caused damage and fires which after several hours fell?

government/someone wanted to destroy documents and evidence of (insert conspiracy) is more likely than fall damage?

being considered implausible is not going to make me stop believing
Click to expand...

Well implausable is interchangable with impossable in the conspiracy threoist world...
but that statement out of context sums up any conspiracy, perpetual motion culture, young earth creayionism... and many many other fringe groups.
 
contra said:
So all these other theories are more likely than damage from debris caused damage and fires which after several hours fell?

government/someone wanted to destroy documents and evidence of (insert conspiracy) is more likely than fall damage?



Well implausable is interchangable with impossable in the conspiracy threoist world...
but that statement out of context sums up any conspiracy, perpetual motion culture, young earth creayionism... and many many other fringe groups.
Click to expand...

Nice quote mining.
 
<<<Nim butts in>>>>

Let's use your example Jharrow, the guy who killed 5 hookers. He was convicted because there was evidence against him, yet had no apparent motive to kill them. There was no need for the prosecutor to find a motive because he had sufficient evidence to convict. But, just because the motive was never revealed does not mean he didn't have one.....such as:

he enjoys random killing
he just felt like it
hates his mother
hates all women

Now, let's assume the reverse: motive and no evidence. He's a known woman hater who has been ripped off 97 times by prostitutes and has been followed for years by the cops. When 5 of the 97 turn up dead, they turn to the guy and try to prosecute him with NO evidence. Motive alone is not enough to convict.

So in your example, we can project 2 different scenarios with 2 different results.

But in the WTC 7 example you really don't have either. What we are saying is that:

1. There is no evidence of a CD
2. The "motive" if it existed is ludicrous.

If you're saying that the WTC 7 is like your example, you are implying that there is evidence to convict but a motive is not necessary.

What the OP is asking you to do is hypothesize what the motive MIGHT be in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of a CD.

If you could accurately establish a motive, then you might be able to make some evidence fit. But since you and nearly every other troofer out there has difficulty coming up with the motive AND you have no evidence of CD, you flounder about.

<<Nim butts out>>
 
Well implausable is interchangable with impossable in the conspiracy threoist world...
but that statement out of context sums up any conspiracy, perpetual motion culture, young earth creayionism... and many many other fringe groups.

I did say I was taking it out of context...
 
Garb said:
...Stundie??
Click to expand...

fact (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.
Idiom:
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact
 
Last edited:
JHarrow said:
the motive being considered implausible is not going to make me stop believing the building was demolished, because the alternative is just too ridiculous.
Click to expand...

So when NIST finishes their investigation and report, are you still going to believe - in the face of all logic, reason, proof, explanation, and the overwhelming majority of public and expert opinion to the contrary - that the building was purposely demolished? I'd love to know what your real motives are, since they obviously are not logic, fact, truth, etc. Is it Bush-hate? Republican-hate? Authority-hate? General misanthropy? Scared of things you can't comprehend? Do you lie and show lack of integrity about other issues in your life or just 9/11? Maybe you're a JFK nut or a moon nut - do you feel like you have to prop up all popular conspiracy theories to validate your personal pet CT? I'm just asking questions here; please enlighten me.

By the way, your avatar disgusts me. Is he your hero? What makes you so desperate to believe he is innocent? And desperate is the word. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.
 
JHarrow said:
Beacause all the evidence points to it being an implosion.
Click to expand...
That evidence? The sequence of explosions that occurred, wait, that didn't happen. The east penthouse collapsing into the building prior to the facade, wait, that doesn't happen in a CD. Of course, there were the huge fires that explosives tend to not survive very well in. So, the only "evidence" you have is that if fell down and an expert speculates that it was a CD based on a muted video snippet and a basic floor plan. Not exactly glaring evidence for your side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom