Question to truthers

Guys, I appreciate the further explanations and reminders you are giving truthers about the simple, basic, common sensical facts. However, I want to remind you that the focus of this thread is exclusively: Terrorists and what they do. Without having to go too deep into details of there not being any evidence to support the theory that it was a controlled demolition, I want to first get one thing straighten out from the people who abide by this conspiracy theory. And that is: Why is it inconceivable for you to believe the initial premise? That terrorists committed a terrorist act.
 
Ron_Tomkins said:
Guys, I appreciate the further explanations and reminders you are giving truthers about the simple, basic, common sensical facts. However, I want to remind you that the focus of this thread is exclusively: Terrorists and what they do. Without having to go too deep into details of there not being any evidence to support the theory that it was a controlled demolition, I want to first get one thing straighten out from the people who abide by this conspiracy theory. And that is: Why is it inconceivable for you to believe the initial premise? That terrorists committed a terrorist act.
Click to expand...

It's not inconceivable. See you on the 12th.
 
So why don't you believe it? What would you take as proof? Affirmative evidence, not something vague like "evidence without anomalies".

AndrewBurley said:
How can I know that?
Click to expand...
So you are incapable of determining even a possible Motive. And without Means and Opportunity, you've got nothing.

AndrewBurley said:
Why would I need to know the motive to know that the building had been demolished?:confused:
Click to expand...
We are talking about a crime here. The OS has Motive(religious fanaticism), Means(Jumbo jets), and Opportunity(when 19 men walked onto a plane with boxcutters). All you even claim to have is Means, and you cannot or will not address the other two.
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
So why don't you believe it? What would you take as proof? Affirmative evidence, not something vague like "evidence without anomalies".

So you are incapable of determining even a possible Motive. And without Means and Opportunity, you've got nothing.

We are talking about a crime here. The OS has Motive(religious fanaticism), Means(Jumbo jets), and Opportunity(when 19 men walked onto a plane with boxcutters). All you even claim to have is Means, and you cannot or will not address the other two.
Click to expand...

You need means, motive and opportunity to convict someone. You don't need it to establish the crime occured in the first place. If I find a body with a knife in it's back, I know a murder has been committed but I don't know who, or why.
 
AndrewBurley said:
You need means, motive and opportunity to convict someone. You don't need it to establish the crime occured in the first place. If I find a body with a knife in it's back, I know a murder has been committed but I don't know who, or why.
Click to expand...

The thing is that truthers find a body with a knife in the back and claim that it was a gunshot that killed the guy and that's after discovering that there was no bullet hole, no bullet and no gun.
 
AndrewBurley said:
You need means, motive and opportunity to convict someone. You don't need it to establish the crime occured in the first place. If I find a body with a knife in it's back, I know a murder has been committed but I don't know who, or why.
Click to expand...

What is it that you hope/expect to come of the 9/11 "truth movement"? What would you like to see them achieve? Will you be doing something in order to make whatever that hope is a reality?
 
sylvan8798 said:
What is it that you hope/expect to come of the 9/11 "truth movement"? What would you like to see them achieve? Will you be doing something in order to make whatever that hope is a reality?
Click to expand...

I have no affiliation to any self-identified "truth movement." I am simply someone on a forum with an opinion.
 
bill smith said:
I read somewhere that an estimated 80% of the American people believed that Rooseveldt allowed Pearl Harbour to happen. If true,they got away with that .

It might not have gone so easily for them if the people had had the internet in those days.
Click to expand...

Great source you provided there. I've been reading Somewhere for years.
 
AndrewBurley said:
How is it badly informed?
Click to expand...

Your opinion is that "it is plain to see that it was demolished. ". There is no evidence at all that supports that opinion. There is plenty of uninformed speculation, bad science and outright lies that attempt to support that claim.

What you think that you see as a CD in that seven second video snippet is the final result of gravity overcoming a weakened structure. By itself it is absolutely inconclusive of anything other than that. It neither supports CD nor fires as the root cause. For that you need to look at what happened before that seven second interval and what the debris showed after that seven second interval. From that you can make a much better determination as to what happened to cause that collapse.

There is no evidence at all of the building being prepared for a CD in the weeks and months leading up to that collapse. There are no sounds of detonations that are always present in a CD in the seconds immediately prior to or during the collapse. There was no physical evidence of explosives in the debris after the collapse.

There is evidence of structural damages caused by the collapses of the twin towers. There is evidence of fires on multiple floors in the hours leading up to the collapses. There is historical evidence of fires weakening and causing the collapse of other steel framed structures in the past.

Yet you choose to believe that the first option is the most viable one. That's what makes people say that your opinion is badly informed.
 
Marokkaan said:
What is so difficult about believing that this woman can be split in two moving pieces?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8BAQzVB52c
Click to expand...

Because that's a magic trick. We know of magic tricks and we know enough about human anatomy to know this is just a trick. You won't find a consensus among experts saying that this woman was literally pulled into two moving pieces, only to be contradicted by a small fringe group of alleged experts saying that it was really just a trick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom