I don't know why you'd interpret my post as disingenuous. The conversation has shifted to that of Occam's Razor and which hypothesis has what assumption. We're supposed to be looking at this objectively, right? I mean, to just say that the al-Qaeda paradigm has only one assumption is pretty gutsy in my opinion. I don't think objective analysis has been performed to arrive at that conclusion. All I ask is that you take a few moments and give it the kind of thoroughness that you use to counter claims found within these forums. Furthermore, and as I mentioned, there are truther theories that can be easily sliced off. Cast aside without second thought. But. There are theories that are just as plausible as the scenario, I presume, we all saw on television. Like LIHOP. We know that the government and Intelligence Community had a warning in May/June of 1998 that indicated that al-Qaeda planned to hijack a plane and fill it full of explosives and then fly it into the WTC. We know our government and Intelligence Community received a plethora of warnings over an extended period of time, years, before 9/11. We know that OBL was saved from being permanently excommunicated by President Clinton. We know that the FBI knew that al-Qaeda had infiltrated our country and trained at civilian air schools. It paints a picture. Especially when a person knows some of the job details of the government workers, like a CIA analyst for example. They, as part of their jobs, do threat assessments. It is only logical to conclude that CIA analysts analyzed the threats they received. The sheer amount of threats the IC received tells me that there would be some extensive paperwork in the regard of analysis conducted by CIA analysts. You have to ask yourself some fundamental questions here.
OK ask yourself one fundamental question. Answer it honestly and you will have your answer. Of all the threat information like the 1998 information, was ANY of the information actionable?
Okay, back to mocking Let's Roll . . . I know deep down I should not laugh at someone else's misfortune but since Jayhan has slandered and maligned the memories of thousands of 9/11 victims and the NYFD members who perished trying to save others, I couldn't help but chortle a bit at the karma being played out here. In true Jayhan fashion he jumps to a conclusion based on I don't know what and is certain he is correct. What a loser!!
no looking back its easy to see the commission of criminal malfeasance, negligence and breach. but then troughers have no comprehension of that sort of thing.
its good to see the level if intelligence in these arguments havent changed. 7 was not a demolition either. maybe patriot can get his micrometer out and put a gubafia spin on the salient differences in speed for us. hilarious.
You don't need a micrometer. The buildings in your gif are all different heights. Perhaps you can tell me how 3 different objects can fall through 3 different distances in the same amount of time? The answer's pretty simple. Do you know it?
What does my question for Koko have to do with "raging infernos?" Rather than attempt to change the subject, could you possibly answer my question for him? Koko suggested you needed a micrometer to discuss the difference in speed between the WTC7 and his comparison videos. I pointed out that the buildings in his videos are different heights. If the buildings in his videos fall through their height in the same amount of time as the WTC7, what does that say about the speeds at which they fell?
different structures, different camera distance how do we know the record speed was accurate? or the playback speed?.. still waiting for hannibals links to the FDNY saying omg check out those RAGING INFERNOS! in wtc7.
Could you please reply with complete sentences? I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to agree that Koko's gif is misleading? Is it disinfo?
Well, most buildings have four sides although some more interesting shapes can be used I guess. Just because you are looking at photo or video of one side of a building where no fire is visible doesn't mean that there isn't fire on one of the other sides. Get it now? Except I know in truther land if there is no video or photo evidence of something, it didn't happen or doesn't exist. So I'm guessing nothing really happened prior to 1850. http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf Page 40
Well, I don't know. If there isn't is that proof that it never happened and the firemen are lying? Are there photos of you being born? God, I hope not. But using truther logic, I guess that would be evidence that you were never born.
WTC 7 collapsing, without being hit by a plane, makes sense to you? What, was it just poor American building or poor American fireproofing... How many things are you going to swallow?
So a 47 story building was hit by a 110 story building...must have collapsed from the hit a few minutes later.
