One simple question for Debunkers

[Java Man]

This question goes to begin addressing the way overdue reply I have for Grizzly.

Why is there little if any addressing the motive to rig the buildings with explosives?

In other words why would the "conspirators" want to risk rigging explosives?

[Oystein]

This question goes to begin addressing the way overdue reply I have for Grizzly.

Why is there little if any addressing the motive to rig the buildings with explosives?

In other words why would the "conspirators" want to risk rigging explosives?

Why do you post this question to debunkers? :confused: It is not us who even think that anything was rigged. Why should we think about the motives for actions that we think didn't happen?

You should ask truthers.

[alienentity]

This question goes to begin addressing the way overdue reply I have for Grizzly.

Why is there little if any addressing the motive to rig the buildings with explosives?

In other words why would the "conspirators" want to risk rigging explosives?

I actually don't see any motive, since a conspiracy was already formed to hit the towers with jets. Occam's razor kills the whole CD conspiracy for me.

[DGM]

Why do you post this question to debunkers?
The only thing I can think of is he got "stoned" and thought he already covered the motives for planting the "explosives".

Other than than, I got nothing.


:boggled:

[T.A.M.]

This question goes to begin addressing the way overdue reply I have for Grizzly.

Why is there little if any addressing the motive to rig the buildings with explosives?

In other words why would the "conspirators" want to risk rigging explosives?

They didn't, that's why they flew planes into them...

TAM:)

Edit: doh, Alien beat me to it!

[beachnut]

This question goes to begin addressing the way overdue reply I have for Grizzly.

Why is there little if any addressing the motive to rig the buildings with explosives?

In other words why would the "conspirators" want to risk rigging explosives?
The terrorists, not the smartest tools in the shed, but unlike 911 truther who spew lies and delusions, they would not risk their mission of flying planes into buildings by rigging the buildings with explosives. It would bring the logical thinking skills of terrorists down to the level of 911 truth, dirt dumb stupid.

The dumbest thing to do would be rig the buildings with explosives and ram the buildings with 66,000 pounds of jet fuel with jet engines running, at 470 to 590 mph. The resulting fires would cook off the explosives, rendering them ineffective, destroying fuses, etc. Again, kind of the bottom of the intelligence scale, this would be a dirt dumb stupid thing to do.

Why would the conspirators (in this case terrorists who 911 truth can't comprehend) rig the buildings? If they were morons they would do it; if they were advised by some of the cult members of 911 truth, they might do it. They would have been caught. I suspect 911 truthers believe the Matrix is real, so they have the capacity to entertain idiotic conspiracy theories and create delusions based on their fantasy world.

This is a question for 911 truth, but 911 truth can't answer questions or supply evidence. It must be tough being dumber than a terrorist. Why do they make up lies?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This question goes to begin addressing the way overdue reply I have for Grizzly.

Why is there little if any addressing the motive to rig the buildings with explosives?

In other words why would the "conspirators" want to risk rigging explosives?

I thought this was a 1 question thread, now it's 2? :boggled:

Because the planes & fire already did the job with WTC1 & 2. And damage from WTC1 collapsing onto WTC7 caused fuel lines to rupture & catch fire.

Now here's a question: Why do you think that every building collapse must involve explosives?

[jaydeehess]

This question goes to begin addressing the way overdue reply I have for Grizzly.

Why is there little if any addressing the motive to rig the buildings with explosives?

In other words why would the "conspirators" want to risk rigging explosives?

Simple:
If it can be shown that explosives were not used (no large explosive bangs, no evidence at all that they were present etc.) then the political motivation to do so is really a moot point.

No explosives = no rigging of said explosives whether or not anyone might have had motive to wish for complete destruction of these structures.

[leftysergeant]

Only people who exactly nothing about how explosives function would think that there was any possibility of rigging the towers in the first place.

Only a twoofer would suggest it were possible, and only the dimmest of those.

[Java Man]

They didn't, that's why they flew planes into them...


So according to you the "conspirators" flew airplanes into the towers.

I have always been under the impression that the "conspirators" were folks in the government who helped stage this. Like the JFK conspiracy or the Moon landing conspiracy.

So you're saying the "conspirators" are in it together with the "terrorists"?

[Java Man]

Why should we think about the motives for actions that we think didn't happen?


The same way you think of theories for event's that didn't happen. You go to great lengths to disprove truthers, but the bottom line is if you eliminate motive you're practically home free.

[Java Man]

Now here's a question: Why do you think that every building collapse must involve explosives?

Better question yet: Why do you think that I think that every building collapse must involve explosives?

[manxman]

Better question yet: Why do you think that I think that every building collapse must involve explosives?

INTERESTING.

why do you think, he thinks, you think that every building collapse must involve explosives?

[Oystein]

The same way you think of theories for event's that didn't happen. You go to great lengths to disprove truthers, but the bottom line is if you eliminate motive you're practically home free.

Motives are important in criminal investigations - they may point towards the criminal, or may play a role in determining the ruling of a criminal court (motive is one of the factors that separates murder from manslaughter in german penal code, for example).

However, motive is a soft kind of evidence. As long as we can't interrogate the criminal, we are always left to some degree of speculation.

If you can't prove that a crime happened at all, looking for motive really gets you nowhere.

[Java Man]

INTERESTING.

why do you think, he thinks, you think that every building collapse must involve explosives?

I think that he thinks that I think that every building collapse must involve explosives because he's stereotyping me and jumping ahead of the discussion with a preemptive attack on my position.

[manxman]

I think that he thinks that I think that every building collapse must involve explosives because he's stereotyping me and jumping ahead of the discussion with a preemptive attack on my position.

Have you got your position covered.

ps eta

Is stereotyping, when one uses both hands to type ?.

[Grizzly Bear]

This question goes to begin addressing the way overdue reply I have for Grizzly.

Why is there little if any addressing the motive to rig the buildings with explosives?

In other words why would the "conspirators" want to risk rigging explosives?

You're free to speculate on it if you want... I've seen this get discussed countless times.

I personally don't feel it's worth the effort to discuss something however which has no evidence to substantiate it in the first place. They had planes, and the fact that the 2nd one aimed lower in the South tower after the first didn't immediately collapse tells me that the original intent was for the planes to bring the towers down, if the matter of the north tower (the first one hit) being struck dead center towards the core wasn't obvious enough.

[Sabrina]

So according to you the "conspirators" flew airplanes into the towers.

I have always been under the impression that the "conspirators" were folks in the government who helped stage this. Like the JFK conspiracy or the Moon landing conspiracy.

So you're saying the "conspirators" are in it together with the "terrorists"?

No, the "conspirators" were the 19 Middle Eastern men as well as KSM, Osama, and one or two others who planned (i.e., CONSPIRED) and executed the events of that day. The government of the United States had nothing to do with it beyond assuming we were invincible and immune to attack within our own borders.

[leftysergeant]

Better question yet: Why do you think that I think that every building collapse must involve explosives?

It's hard sometimes to tell what you are saying so we have top figure it out in reverse,, like figure out what you believe based on a few clues, then figure out what you are offering nopw as proof of your arguement.

Sun Tzu would think you a hopeless case.

[Horatius]

The same way you think of theories for event's that didn't happen. You go to great lengths to disprove truthers, but the bottom line is if you eliminate motive you're practically home free.



The problem with that is, the truthers have already eliminated motive as a factor in the discussion, and they still prattle on about it being an inside job.

That is, no truthers have ever come up with a plausible answer to the question you raised:


In other words why would the "conspirators" want to risk rigging explosives?



When it's clear that, even were we to establish that all possible motives are untenable, they would continue to promote the inside job theory, why ever would we want to do their job for them?

[ElMondoHummus]

Why is there little if any addressing the motive to rig the buildings with explosives?

Because all the motive in the world matters naught when opportunity is missing, and when evidence after the event says none were used.

[ElMondoHummus]

Jesus, dude...

So according to you the "conspirators" flew airplanes into the towers.


T.A.M., I'm sorry to step in for you, but I feel compelled to. Java Man: It's not "according to T.A.M.". It's according to all established evidence.

It is not our opinion that the conspirators were behind the hijackings and rammings. It is established via the weight of the evidence.

[Java Man]

No, the "conspirators" were the 19 Middle Eastern men as well as KSM, Osama, and one or two others who planned (i.e., CONSPIRED) and executed the events of that day. The government of the United States had nothing to do with it beyond assuming we were invincible and immune to attack within our own borders.

So there is a 9/11 conspiracy! So what's the fuzz then?

[Java Man]

It is not our opinion that the conspirators were behind the hijackings and rammings. It is established via the weight of the evidence.

So what's the deal with the so called "cover up"?

[Java Man]

Is stereotyping, when one uses both hands to type ?.

No, it's when you stereotype someone. Which doesn't mean you type all over someone with both hands.

[uke2se]

So there is a 9/11 conspiracy! So what's the fuzz then?

Stop trolling.

[16.5]

So according to you the "conspirators" flew airplanes into the towers.

I have always been under the impression that the "conspirators" were folks in the government who helped stage this. Like the JFK conspiracy or the Moon landing conspiracy.

So you're saying the "conspirators" are in it together with the "terrorists"?

Hey, good for you.

Anyway, I'm just going to hit this little button called "ignore" because parody threads, particularly worthless ones like this deserve nothing more.

CLICK.

Oh yeah, great thread truther

[AJM8125]

So what's the deal with the so called "cover up"?

It's imaginary.

[Redtail]

So what's the deal with the so called "cover up"?

What cover up?

[AJM8125]

What cover up?

Says the guy who ain't covering up the porn star lookin wife...

[Travis]

I want to know why they risked using antimatter insect swarms. What antimatter insect swarms you ask? Why the ones that might have been there since no one thought to look for antimatter insect swarms because us Sheeple were all told that (holographic) planes hit the buildings.

Did I mention the pure neutrino beagle pack? Oh yeah they were big in this too. Real risky getting them involved what with their tendency to sink to the planets core. Them conspirators were just crazy with all the risk they heaped on it. I suppose at some point someone might have just suggested using the planes they already had to actually hit the buildings letting the resulting fires destroy them but such a sane person would have been immediately dropped into a pit of Fluoroantimonic acid through a trap door.

[Java Man]

What cover up?

The one that always exists in all conspiracies. It wouldn't be a conspiracy otherwise.

Isn't that what Truthers claim? That aside from terrorists there was a conspiracy to bring down the buildings or worse yet that there were no terrorists and all is a conspiracy by the government.

[Dave Rogers]

Why is there little if any addressing the motive to rig the buildings with explosives?

Because the buildings were not rigged with explosives. Any discussion of the motive for a purely hypothetical event is practically worthless.

In other words why would the "conspirators" want to risk rigging explosives?

This is a classic example of the complex question fallacy. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by members of al-Qaeda by crashing hijacked airliners into buildings. If, by "conspirators", you mean those who actually carried out the attacks, then the answer is that they wouldn't; they had already tried rigging explosives, in 1993, and failed, so they tried airliners in 2001 and succeeded. If, by "conspirators", you mean a hypothetical alternative group within the US Government, then your question is meaningless because this group does not exist.

But, yes, I agree with your point that rigging the buildings with explosives would have been an unnecessary risk, on anyone's part. This is, however, a telling argument from motive against truther conspiracy theories, and a telling argument in favour of the generally understood series of events.

Dave

[Java Man]

If, by "conspirators", you mean a hypothetical alternative group within the US Government, then your question is meaningless because this group does not exist.


On the contrary it is very meaningful because you can't convince a Truther that such group does not exist. But you can conclude that if such group did exist actions like rigging the towers with explosives would be counterproductive. Thus even in the hypothetical world of Truthers were the "group" exists, rigging is proven to NOT be an alternative.

[Horatius]

On the contrary it is very meaningful because you can't convince a Truther that such group does not exist. But you can conclude that if such group did exist actions like rigging the towers with explosives would be counterproductive. Thus even in the hypothetical world of Truthers were the "group" exists, rigging is proven to NOT be an alternative.



It's like I'm talking to myself here.....


The problem with that is, the truthers have already eliminated motive as a factor in the discussion, and they still prattle on about it being an inside job.

That is, no truthers have ever come up with a plausible answer to the question you raised:






When it's clear that, even were we to establish that all possible motives are untenable, they would continue to promote the inside job theory, why ever would we want to do their job for them?

[Zep]

Java Man is just arguing with himself in the mirror, folks. This is how Truthers work...

[Java Man]

How did they come about to eliminate motive?

[tsig]

So what's the deal with the so called "cover up"?

Covers are warm on cold nights.

[Java Man]

Covers are warm on cold nights.

Actually covers having no means to produce heat are just as warm as the ambient temperature. They do help keep warmth on cold nights, but are by themselves not warm.

[Java Man]

Java Man is just arguing with himself in the mirror, folks. This is how Truthers work...

See that's a reason I sometimes came to believe Truthers were right. There's this group of wakos that argue with themselves. This other group called Debunkers are aware of it like you are. The Debunkers keep on arguing with the Truthers even when aware that Truthers are just arguing with themselves. Either the Debunkers are as wako as the Truthers or there's some truth that is being covered up.

But then I heard a few of the arguments against the Truthers and realized Debunkers are just as wako, but on the other side of the fence. Thus both Ds and Ts are just nut cases arguing with themselves for the fun of it.

[Spindrift]

See that's a reason I sometimes came to believe Truthers were right. There's this group of wakos that argue with themselves. This other group called Debunkers are aware of it like you are. The Debunkers keep on arguing with the Truthers even when aware that Truthers are just arguing with themselves. Either the Debunkers are as wako as the Truthers or there's some truth that is being covered up.

But then I heard a few of the arguments against the Truthers and realized Debunkers are just as wako, but on the other side of the fence. Thus both Ds and Ts are just nut cases arguing with themselves for the fun of it.
You believe the Truthers are correct because someone is arguing with them?

[tsig]

Actually covers having no means to produce heat are just as warm as the ambient temperature. They do help keep warmth on cold nights, but are by themselves not warm.

Guess you've never laid with a lady then.

[Java Man]

Guess you've never laid with a lady then.

It's you who needs covers to keep warm at night, not me.

[Java Man]

You believe the Truthers are correct because someone is arguing with them?

To be more precise because someone who knows they're arguing with themselves is wasting is arguing with them.

[Spindrift]

To be more precise because someone who knows they're arguing with themselves is wasting is arguing with them.

And being willing to waste time is proof of being wrong?

[Java Man]

And being willing to waste time is proof of being wrong?

Nope, but it indicates interest in doing something which shouldn't warrant such attention in the first place.

If a mad man comes making some wild claim you can a) brush him off as the nut case he is or b) try to hush him up. Option b is suspicious if you're aware of his insanity and you're not brushing him off. You are by your actions giving value to his claims.

[Spindrift]

Nope, but it indicates interest in doing something which shouldn't warrant such attention in the first place.

If a mad man comes making some wild claim you can a) brush him off as the nut case he is or b) try to hush him up. Option b is suspicious if you're aware of his insanity and you're not brushing him off. You are by your actions giving value to his claims.

If said mad man was convincing other sane people with his rantings, wouldn't it be the responsible thing to do but try to argue against his rantings?

[Disbelief]

Nope, but it indicates interest in doing something which shouldn't warrant such attention in the first place.



So what does that make you if you waste time arguing with those who waste time arguing with CTists? Why does this warrant your attention?

[Java Man]

If said mad man was convincing other sane people with his rantings, wouldn't it be the responsible thing to do but try to argue against his rantings?

With the sane people yes (with the understanding that they are really sane and not more mad men)

With the said mad man, no.

[grandmastershek]

With the sane people yes (with the understanding that they are really sane and not more mad men)

With the said mad man, no.

Tell that to Sharon Tate.

[Horatius]

How did they come about to eliminate motive?



Did you read that whole post? They've eliminated motive as a factor in their beliefs by their studied disregard for the vary question you yourself have posed.

Have you taken a look at this recent thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183660), that asks the truthers to suggest any possible motives for destroying WTC 7? Notice that the only truthers who answer at all spend the vast majority of their time desperately trying to avoid answering the central question. Every other truther out there simply disregards this question entirely.

[Dave Rogers]

If a mad man comes making some wild claim you can a) brush him off as the nut case he is or b) try to hush him up.

False dichotomy. There's also (c) allow him to carry on spouting his nonsense, but point out that it is, in fact, nonsense.

So how many truthers have been prevented from speaking out so far? Hint: Being disagreed with is not the same thing as being silenced.

Dave

[TheDoLittle]

Actually covers having no means to produce heat are just as warm as the ambient temperature. They do help keep warmth on cold nights, but are by themselves not warm.

Once again truthers no nothing of the joys of Snuggie technology.

Guess you've never laid with a lady then.

No way! Truthers don't like Bush.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Better question yet: Why do you think that I think that every building collapse must involve explosives?

Because, it's in your Truther genes to say that it was done with explosives. But we all know that that's a lie & a figment of your perverted imagination.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I think that he thinks that I think that every building collapse must involve explosives because he's stereotyping me and jumping ahead of the discussion with a preemptive attack on my position.

Damn straight! And it's funny stereotyping the followers of the Idiots for 9/11 Truth.

[djlunacee]

Actually covers having no means to produce heat are just as warm as the ambient temperature. They do help keep warmth on cold nights, but are by themselves not warm.

Ever heard of an electric blanket?

[Java Man]

Because, it's in your Truther genes to say that it was done with explosives. But we all know that that's a lie & a figment of your perverted imagination.

Given that I'm older than 911, how were my genes Truther prior to the event which led to the Truther movement?

[Java Man]

Ever heard of an electric blanket?

Yes

Ever heard of woman's legs?

Saves you the electric bill and the electromagnetic field.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Given that I'm older than 911, how were my genes Truther prior to the event which led to the Truther movement?

Do you respond to every post with a question?

You're 911 yrs old? Yoda would say something like: "When 900 yrs old you reach, look good you will not."

Good question, ask yourself that same question again!

[jaydeehess]

con·spir·a·cy [ kən spírrəssee ] (plural con·spir·a·cies)


noun

Definition:

1. plan to commit illegal act together: a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act


2. making of agreement by conspirators: the making of a secret plan or agreement to commit an illegal or subversive act


3. group of conspirators: a group of people planning or agreeing in secret to commit an illegal or subversive act

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861599773/conspiracy.html

No where in there does a conspiracy require a 'cover up'.
No where in there does a conspiracy involve only a government.

19 islamic militants hijacked 4 aircraft in plans that also involved several other support persons. All of these people then conspired to carry out the plan to hijack these aircraft and fly them as suicide IED's to targets representing American wealth and power.

None of these people alos made plans to cover up their involvement after having carried out this plan. Of course they did keep their plans as secret as possible in the time leading up to the implementation of this plan but that is not normally considered a 'cover up'.

BTW blankets are NOT at ambient temperature if they are being used to keep you warm. They have a temperature gradient with the side closest to you being the warmest and the side facing ambient air being the coolest. The warm side is initially warmed by your own body heat. The blanket slows the loss of that body heat to the ambient air because it does not transmit heat very efficiently, which is the definition of an 'insulator' (in thermodynamic usage, of course it means something different in electromagnetic usage)

So are we through with the snuggly topic?

[jaydeehess]

Given that I'm older than 911, how were my genes Truther prior to the event which led to the Truther movement?

Wow, just wow.
You can't form a coherent arguement, you do not know the definition of 'conspiracy', and now you demonstrate that you cannot even properly express your relative age. Even my 7 year old granddaughter would be able to say she was born before a certain date rather than say she was 'older' than that date.

[djlunacee]

Yes

Ever heard of woman's legs?

Saves you the electric bill and the electromagnetic field.

Indeed, many times over, however what you save in electricity you spend elsewhere so that is out the window, as for the electromagnetic field, bring it on, I will keep my electric blanket, set on high.

[Java Man]

however what you save in electricity you spend elsewhere so that is out the window,

Yes, but its money well spent. Well usually it is. ;)

[jaydeehess]

Yes, but its money well spent.

I trump that notion with two words, "my ex-wife".

Truly sometimes not worth it.

[carlitos]

... as for the electromagnetic field, bring it on, I will keep my electric blanket, set on high.

Here is some useful information to assess what risk EMFs pose (or don't).

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-fields