Most people don't even know about a third tower demolished on 9-11

does that one bit of stairwell constitute 1% or 2% of the
entire mass of the skyscraper? how is it to be accounted
for as to how much of the skyscraper was destroyed.
if what remained was but a few % of the total skyscraper
I call that total destruction.

The fact is, that having 3 buildings destroyed on that day
and as fast as said buildings "collapsed" this is very
improbable, implausible..... ( pick your word ..... )

 

The RUBBLE is proof that the building was destroyed, are you somehow counting the rubble as bits of the building "not destroyed"?

Lets get real here, the official story is unsupported.
if it had a foundation under it, that would be one thing,
but to have asked questions about the destruction of
WTC 1, 2 & 7 and get run around in circles with endless
arguments that have no point, what? if the INFORMATION
exists, why not simply present it? however a proper explanation
of how these building fell ( and without explosives ) does not exist
because it can't be done.

 

No, I was asking a question for clarification.

Many people would call all the remains of the buildings rubble. I honestly don't understand what you mean by "total destruction".

Calm down.

 

This should not require clarification,
the term "TOTAL DESTRUCTION"
clearly meaning that the building has not one brick
upon another from its original form.
Note that if 1% of the structure were somehow intact
it would still constitute total destruction because it
had been 99% destroyed, I'm not talking about some
sort of black magic bit where the building would simply
disappear, but destruction as in the same result as would
be if a demolition team were hired to remove the building.

I again ask, what PROOF is there from the loyalist side
that the buildings even could have "collapsed" in the manner
observed without help from explosives?

 

The proof is in the evidence, math and forensics.
Do you have any of these?

 

What alleged forensics provide the support for the
story that the WTC skyscrapers simply "collapsed"
from fires & chaotic damage?

 

Read the reports from the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

 

The "report" from the NIST constitutes CRIMINAL FRAUD
published at taxpayer expense. as a taxpayer ... who reading
this forum can agree to this total waste of $?

The NIST report is a huge mass of words put together to
at least allege that the people working on it earned their pay.
but it doesn't explain how it is that the towers actually "collapsed".

Instead of saying "we can't take this job"
the NIST took on a job that the agency was ill-suited for
and then made a mess of the out-put and because a
criminally insane "president" praised them for it, many
people have been fooled into thinking that its a good thing.
AMERICA has a problem.

 

Oh geeeze....truthers LOVE alternate history

 

OK, what is YOUR take on all this? Please enlighten me.

 

You ask "again"? You've avoided answering people's reasonable questions or linking to solid evidence, imply you are talking to "loyalists"(what does that even mean?), and you want people to answer you?

You are very close to being put on ignore. People who waste my time are not worth my time.

 

May I point out the fact that in the official
report on the collapse of the tower(s)
the NIST stated
"total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation"
and then proceeds to give NO explanation at all as to
how this total collapse was inevitable, its simply stated
as an unsupported assertion. Your tax dollars at work......

 

And you have yet to prove it IS a 'fable'

 

any story that doesn't have a foundation
of facts under it is only that a story........

The mainstream media was the first
to assert that angry Arabs hijacked airliners
and ...... however, where is the PROOF?
no pictures from the airports where the alleged
hijackers boarded airliners ( or did they? )
The airliner flight data recorders for "FLT11" & "FLT175" were never recovered ( if they existed at all )
and the remains of the alleged airliners haven't been inventoried to know exactly how much of either aircraft had been recovered.

The experts can not agree upon what caused the nice round hole in the Pentagon wall ( "exit hole" ) was it the nose of the aircraft, part of the landing gear? maybe a blast of compressed air from the aircraft entering the building?

The whole hijacked airliners story lacks foundation.

+ the fact that in several instances, "eye witnesses" have been discredited as just plane wrong, because they could not possibly have been in the physical location they describe and actually seen the aircraft for more than a fraction of a second through a break in the skyline.

The fact is, that if ( and it looks like this is the case )
the case is that the conspiracy is so huge as to by way of psychological warfare, the multiple videos that show a fake "FLT175" , the various experts who have weighed in on the side of supporting the official story even when the support of the official story constitutes the least probably out-come of all the possible out-comes. This points to the fact that indeed there is truly a Monster on the loose.....
anybody remember:
"While we bullied,
stole & bought,
a Homeland ...
we began the slaughter of the Red Man"

heavy stuff!

 

You've yet to prove it's anything BUT, a fable.

 

Sorry,but the burden of proof is on YOU....We've given you everything the government agencies,universities and noted scientists and professionals have come up with,all you've given us is conspiracies based on incredulity.

Nice try though.

 

and you lean on an argument from authority
because you have abdicated your thought process
to "experts". When anybody who didn't sleep through
science 101 can get this.

The complete & total destruction of WTC1,2 & 7
is not an argument from incredulity its a fact that
this is significant evidence that there is something
very wrong with the official story.

 

Why can't you show some actual data then, if your so sure it should be easy to produce.
This why you'll never get your new investigation, if you and all your truther friends were so sure of your evidence something would have happened by now. You're looking at 13years since the event and nothings been achieved.

 

The trouble is, the heavy magic has clouded your vision,
if not clouded, you could see that the total destruction of
WTC1,2 & 7 is a very significant bit of evidence.
as is the fact that the alleged airliner bits on the Pentagon
lawn constitute less than 1% of the mass of a big Boeing.

There are things that anybody who didn't sleep through
Science 101 should consider obvious and the only reason
why so many people have been fooled by this fraud, is
heavy magic. the principalities of darkness have launched
an attack against humanity. this is not conventional warfare,
where rifles & bombs make a difference, there are other things
going on. Will humanity wake up in time to see what is happening?

 

The 'burden' as you refer to it, is on the person that reads the 'official' version of any of that garbage, and accepts is as fact. I do not. If it's 'good enough' for you then, I guess it's 'good enough' for you, and nothing I say will convince you otherwise, correct?

 

Burden of proof is on YOU

YOU need to prove it's garbage,so far,you've failed dismally.

 

The "burden of proof" argument is simply a device to
shift onto the other party the work involved in making the case.
the problem that I see is that the official report on the twin towers
sez " total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation.... "
however there is NO attempt whatsoever to explain exactly
what mechanism was at work to cause the complete &
total destruction of the tower(s). and this is from a taxpayer
funded effort, your tax dollars at work, an incomplete report.

 

Look, you believe the fairy tales and I don't. Let's just leave it at that, okay? You're 100% convinced that the government is totally on the 'up and up' here, and you buy there fables hook, line and sinker. I do not. I think we're done here. Have a fine Navy day.

 

You seem firmly stuck to the idea that I just take 'the governments word,,that's not so.

And STILL no proof that it's a 'fairy tale'...

 

Strawman argument, with added incredulity.