The ANSWER is that these things demand speculation and at this point in the discussion, begging for speculation is not productive of anything, therefore we stick to things that can be proven.
So you take the position that because the opposition doesn't have evidence ( so you say.... ) that it PROVES the official story to be absolutely true without question. is that what you think? May I submit to the readers of this forum that there are some hugely biased standards for evidence. I need only point to the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 as all the evidence you need to see that the official story is FRAUD.
No I take no such position at all. Stop trying to twist peoples words and meanings. The destruction is not evidence of fraud sorry. Your position is that a dead body is not evidence of murder. This is why you present no evidence and no direct answers to direct questions and you only obfuscate. Of course there is a bias in standard of evidence. You have presented nothing more then opinion. Opinion is not evidence.
You see, and its a function of refusing to come to any agreement on anything .... oh well ... the fact remains that for all practical purposes, the towers & 7 were totally destroyed, if somebody wants to pick nits and produce pictures of bits that constitute less than 1% of the total mass of the tower, well that is your business, the fact is that total destruction is a factor in forensic investigation of any crime scene, and the fact that 3 steel framed skyscrapers should set off alarms big-time, but people simply are not paying attention to what the standards are. You do not consider it significant that the same result as would be expected of weeks of careful engineering & prep. would then also be the result from chaotic damage & fires. This is not an argument from incredulity it is an argument from common sense. Note that in the case of Controlled Demolitions that have gone wrong, the most likely outcome is incomplete demolition, so in the case of chaotic damage & fire causing the same result as a controlled demolition gone right, what are the odds of this happening and indeed 3X on the same day?
You are only naming your own standards you are not defining standards for anyone else leastof all forensic science. Over 99% is not the definition of total. They pay very good attention to what the standards are the problem is you make up your own standards as you go because you have no evidence of any kind whatsoever. The incident did set off alarm bells and was thouroughly investigated. It is not an argument from common sense you are making it is an argument from your own very lame and uninformed opinion. Find another example like 911 and then you can properly calculate the odds until then it is irrelevant.
Note for the random lurker(s) on this forum, feel free to read, and make up your own mind, its a free country ( sorta.... ) enjoy..... Happy Friday
see they always have to lie when they cant refute the facts that again is why i dont understand why you guys bother with them.
you got to remember,he lives in a fairy tale land where he believes in magic bullets,where witness testimonys dont count even if they are EXPERTS in their field,the laws of physics dont count,and evidence that goes against to governments version doesnt count. if people even if they are highly qualified experts in their field dont accept the governments version of events,he has this warped logic of them that they are wacky conspiracy theorists since they wont worship the government and the lamestream medias version. you got to love it. where do the OCTA'S get this stuff here?
Opinion is not evidence. oh the irony.hee hee. the OCTA'S logic they have is if the government and media say its evidence,than its automatically true.witness testimonys and facts of government complicity are not evidence. all the governments version has is just warped OPINIONS that dont measure up to the facts.
can anyone demonstrate relevance of the "9 things....... " to answer or not answer these questions makes so little difference at this stage of the process, we are attempting to get traction with the INFORMATION we presently have and once having gained traction, we can then proceed to getting the case into court and start the process of truly seeking JUSTICE in this matter.
The real Achilles heel in the demo theory is that the floors were occupied by workers. In order for the building to be properly wired, they would have had to bust through finished office spaces to get direct access to the structural members (painted drywall at the minimum, but also a whole range of finishes depending on how the office with perimeter access was decorated). These special operators would not only have had to sneak in the explosives, they would have had to bring along a construction team to clean up their handiwork afterwards. Of course, none of the thousands of building occupants would never have noticed anything amiss in the space they work in everyday. New dust, smell of fresh paint, wrong color wood panelling, even a picture put back in the wrong place? I spend more time in my office than I do my house, so any slight variation would be instantly noticed by an occupant. It's always been a stupid non-starter theory based on logistics alone, not to mention there is no actual evidence of any demolitions being used anyway.
Given that in the area of controlled demolitions the fact is that it takes a great deal of precision to properly demolish a building, and controlled demolition operations that do not go as planned ( or were poorly planned ) result in incomplete demolition of the building. Considering the fact that WTC 1,2 & 7 were completely demolished in a manner that would do any Controlled Demolition company proud, and the official explanation is that chaotic damage & fires caused the "collapse" of 3 steel framed skyscrapers all on the same day. and people say "no evidence for CD" ..... sure ... & I'm the Easter Bunny!
No it was an accurate statement of fact. You never provide any facts or evidence but others do defeating you
There is this little fact, about how WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration, and you don't want to hear about this because it runs counter to your interpretation of events. sorry about that..... there are lots of well documented facts that not only do not support the "hijacked airliners used as weapons" story, but point in an entirely different direction.
