Question to truthers

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...

Really? So it couldn't have been self-defense at all?

Your logical thinking skills suck.
 
AndrewBurley said:
I don't know. However, it is plain to see that it was demolished.
Click to expand...

It was also plain for uneducated folk back in the day to believe maggots spontaneously generated from decaying meat.

Is the first thing you think when you see the collapse "Oh my, it must have been a bomb"??? If not, how do you justify your belief? because there is conflicting evidence.
 
IIIClovisIII said:
It was also plain for uneducated folk back in the day to believe maggots spontaneously generated from decaying meat.

Is the first thing you think when you see the collapse "Oh my, it must have been a bomb"??? If not, how do you justify your belief? because there is conflicting evidence.
Click to expand...

Are you saying it doesn't look like a controlled demolition??? Where is the conflicting evidence?
 
AndrewBurley said:
Are you saying it doesn't look like a controlled demolition??? Where is the conflicting evidence?
Click to expand...

You are asking for proof of a negative "You say that (X) didn't happen. Prove it." The simple lack of any supporting evidence for (X) is the evidence against (X) ever happening. Meanwhile there is plenty of extra evidence for (Y) that includes the (ambiguous at best) evidence for (X).

What you have to show (X): It looks like a CD to me. What you don't have to show (X): Audio or video proof consistent with a CD. Physical evidence of a CD. Witnesses saying that they saw a CD being prepared in the weeks and months prior to the event.

I've already explained to you why fires are a much more likely cause and, if you'd like I can also cover why the fires also preclude the use of explosives (the short answer is that fire and explosives don't mix well at all) but I really shouldn't have to.

Fire weakens steel if given enough time. WTC 7 had spent enough time on fire to expect nothing else but an eventual collapse.
 
Speaking of steel losing it's integrity, i've got some new pictures curtesy of my wife.

There recently was a fire in an abandoned paint manufacturing plant here in Florida. Not a major fire, but lasted about 30 minutes or less.

She took some pictures for me, since this weekend they took off the skin of the building.

You can see the steel beams that held the arches laterally, have sagged about 1-2 feet.
Saggingsteel2.jpg


Saggingsteel1.jpg


Cheers!
 
Clearly that was the factory that made the ther*te paint for the CIA/Mossad/Illuminati/Lizard men. The sheeple just can't see it yet.

:D
 
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...

That would be the 80% that wholeheartedly approved of going to war with Japan?
 
AndrewBurley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...

Why it was demolished is called motive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom