Question to truthers

[Sam.I.Am]

Why would I need to know the motive to know that the building had been demolished?

Well either there was a reason for it (and one has to assume that it was a good one, I mean you wouldn't exactly expect to see anyone making a call for war over an empty office building burning for hours and then collapsing with no casualties) or there wasn't a reason for it and someone did it just for ***** and giggles.

 

[beachnut]

Why would I need to know the motive to know that the building had been demolished?

You inability to figure out motive is indicative of your failure to understand 911 and not answer the OP.

(When attempting to answer this very straightforward question, try keeping it as concise and simple as possible)

What is so difficult about believing that a group of religious fanatics, who have a history of committing atrocious terrorist acts, committed an atrocious terrorist act?

Why ... ?

Yes, you don't have any clue what happened.

Not difficult to believe 19 terrorists did 911, and caused all the damage with 4 planes. 911 truth, the truthers can't comprehend the event. Drew, will you get on topic? This is a simple question, Drew, a rational person, a critical thinking, a skeptic, can answer the OP; why have you failed? Drew answer the question please.

The big clue, when you combine the evidence, you are left with 19 terrorists. I you think about it, people who sign up for a flight, are known. The 19 terrorists signed up for 4 flights; it get too simple to figure out who did 911 after that; only 911 truth can mess this stuff up, and they do it with out thinking. I have been briefed before 911 on terrorist; when the second plane hit I was thinking UBL; In fact, I thought the rick kid (UBL) took his money bought planes and loaded them with explosives! When I did the physics and learned the planes were stock airliners hijacked, the physics explained the impacts; as simple as E=1/2mv² (velocity squared was the reason for the kinetic energy being large)

Drew, are you posts short because you don't have evidence?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Why would I need to know the motive to know that the building had been demolished?

Why? Let's go on your assumption that WTC7 was demolished on purpose and you believe it was controlled demolition. That would mean someone took a lot of effort and risk to destroy WTC7. What's the motive for taking such a big risk to destroy this particular building? Why would the perpetrators want to destroy WTC7??

 

[AndrewBurley]

Why? Let's go on your assumption that WTC7 was demolished on purpose and you believe it was controlled demolition. That would mean someone took a lot of effort and risk to destroy WTC7. What's the motive for taking such a big risk to destroy this particular building? Why would the perpetrators want to destroy WTC7??

I don't know. However, it is plain to see that it was demolished.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I don't know. However, it is plain to see that it was demolished.

So you came to this conclusion just by watching the videos? Don't you care to know why, or at the very least, have a reason other than "it's what it looks like"?

 

[AndrewBurley]

So you came to this conclusion just by watching the videos? Don't you care to know why, or at the very least, have a reason other than "it's what it looks like"?

I am yet to see a reasonable explanation, other than demolition, for it's collapse.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I am yet to see a reasonable explanation, other than demolition, for it's collapse.

If you're going to keep going with that conclusion, how will you answer to people who ask why?

 

[AndrewBurley]

If you're going to keep going with that conclusion, how will you answer to people who ask why?

I am making no claims regarding why it was demolished. I am in no position to determine that. That would be for an investigation to decide on.

 

[MIKILLINI]

I am making no claims regarding why it was demolished. I am in no position to determine that. That would be for an investigation to decide on.

That also means you are in no position to claim it was demolished intentionaly.

 

[bill smith]

Fort Sumter

Pearl Harbor

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.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I am yet to see a reasonable explanation, other than demolition, for it's collapse.

Well to start off with the case for demolition has no actual evidence to support it. No audio with the distinctive sounds always associated with a demolition. No markings on the steel to indicate the use of explosives. No explosive residue found by the dogs searching for people to rescue or cadavers (and before you ask, yes, those dogs were also trained to detect explosive residues as well as bodies). No detritus associated with explosives being used (such as used det cord). None. The only "Evidence" is that a portion of the collapse had some of the same visual characteristics as a controlled demolition. Namely that gravity will destroy a building once it has started to move downwards. Unfortunately for truthers the same holds true for any collapse regardless of the cause. I haven't even gone into the logistical impossibilities that having explosives sit in a burning building for seven hours entails.

The evidence for a fire driven collapse is primarily that the building was on fire for over seven hours with no firefighting efforts at all. It simply wasn't designed for, nor should it be expected, that a typical steel structure would withstand that type of environment. The building and fires were modeled and that's how they narrowed it down to a specific column and failure mechanism. That doesn't preclude someone from looking at a structure on fire and leaning while making loud popping and creaking noises from determining that it will collapse.

Truthers intentionally lie and mislead people by excluding the events ten seconds prior to the north face starting to move (their prime evidence of a CD) showing that the structure was already failing and that a major collapse had already begun.

You've been lied to.

 

[MIKILLINI]

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.

It’s quite possible Roosevelt assumed it would be a relatively mild assault and thought it would be the final green light to get the US into the war.

 

[bill smith]

Well either there was a reason for it (and one has to assume that it was a good one, I mean you wouldn't exactly expect to see anyone making a call for war over an empty office building burning for hours and then collapsing with no casualties) or there wasn't a reason for it and someone did it just for ***** and giggles.

Not at all Sam. A person only has to see the destruction of WTC7 to know that it was a controlled demolition. That is the beautiful simplicity of it. All the talking in the world will not talk you out of that.

 

[AndrewBurley]

That also means you are in no position to claim it was demolished intentionaly.

Of course I am. It couldn't be demolished by controlled demolition accidentally.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Of course I am. It couldn't be demolished by controlled demolition accidentally.

How do you know it was controlled demolition? Has evidence been found that proves controlled demolition?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Has evidence been found made up that proves controlled demolition?

FTFY.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I read somewhere that an estimated 80% of the American people believed that Rooseveldt allowed Pearl Harbour to happen.

I read somewhere that an estimated 100% of your claims are untrue. Show me your source, and I'll show you mine.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

I read somewhere that an estimated 100% of your claims are untrue. Show me your source, and I'll show you mine.

Dave

No thanks. As an aside- Did you hear the interview where John Humphries eviscerated Tony Blair live on the 'Today' program a few minutes ago ? You better try to catch it quick because it may not last on the BBC for long. Neither may good old John unfortunately.

 

[Dash80]

I don't know. However, it is plain to see that it was demolished.

Oh really? Where are the flashes going up and down the building? The sharp bangs of the detonation? I don't see any.

What you have is a building burning for 7 hours without the fires being fought, and collapsing.

 

[The Platypus]

Not at all Sam. A person only has to see the destruction of WTC7 to know that it was a controlled demolition. That is the beautiful simplicity of it. All the talking in the world will not talk you out of that.

Weird that we've all seen the collapse and yet only a tiny lunatic fringe of kooks think it was a controlled demolition.