Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

reply to post by ANOK

We don't have to show HOW it was done, to prove it was. The 'how' can come later

So you don't have to show HOW it was done, nobody can tell me WHY it was done and no truther can say WHO did it other than vague accusations against "they" and "the powers that be". Hmmm. So it seems the only hurdle you've constructed for this intellectual olympiad is some foggy requirement to prove a negative, that is to say, that the "official story" may not be true. Your limitations? Much like the old Twilight Zone you seem to be limited only by your imagination.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK

 

We don't have to show HOW it was done, to prove it was. The 'how' can come later

So you don't have to show HOW it was done, nobody can tell me WHY it was done and no truther can say WHO did it other than vague accusations against "they" and "the powers that be". Hmmm. So it seems the only hurdle you've constructed for this intellectual olympiad is some foggy requirement to prove a negative, that is to say, that the "official story" may not be true. Your limitations? Much like the old Twilight Zone you seem to be limited only by your imagination.

Oh yes, take that one comment and forget, or ignore, everything else I've said.

Why am I tasked with showing how and why it was done?

How and why can only be speculated on, but of course you like that because you can create an endless arguments about speculation. I prefer to stick to facts. The physics of the collapses is where you can not speculate, and you don't like that. The laws of motion are known, can be predicted, can be tested. We can figure out from the collapses that another energy source had to be involved, we can't really tell what that energy was, so it is open to speculation only.

An investigation doesn't end because they can't tell how it was done, or by who.

You've been here how long hooper and you still don't realise that? Of course you do, it's just another overused tactic, don't you know better than to use that on me by now? You must have some thick skin mate, I'll give you that.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


How come whatever it might had been did'nt burn paper?

I'm open to a range of possibilities but laser guided via satellites? You would never see them through human naked eyes. Is there another "weapon" that turns thick steel to dust and does that kind of destruction to cars? Where did the buildings all go? Was'nt much left considering the enormous size of the buildings and steel construction. That's right.....it was mentioned most of it was shipped off to China as scrap metal.....except there was never a shipment docket to prove that because there was very little steel left after 9/11.

All I ask is to keep an open mind because Judy Wood might be on to something even though it may not be explainable yet........

reply to post by ANOK

I prefer to stick to facts. The physics of the collapses is where you can not speculate, and you don't like that.

Actually thats the real beauty of the situation, since not all the facts are known and never will be because we are limited in our knowledge of the event you can speculate all you want! And of course all your physics speculations come unencumbred by gritty little things like mathematical proofs, but as we all know, all physicists look at the same physical event and always draw the same exact conclusion.

Sorry, the burden is on you to show at least how and why. Why was building 7 "imploded" as you insist it was? After "they" scattered the World Trade Center towers all over hell's half acre why all the fuss about dropping building 7 in its own "footprint"?