LoveIsTruth wrote: BlueMoon5 wrote:: What is required in a court of law is indisputable proof, especially in cases in which plaintiffs claim fraud. Not all professionals agree with your claim of free fall for over 8 or 9 stories; more tellingly, however--whether they accept it or not--many doubt that CD caused free fall. Some do more than doubt it; they offer science-based alternative explanations and have published them in esteemed journals.
The only professionals that deny FREE FALL of WTC7 for 8 or 9 stories are professional liars. Even NIST admits it!
NIST admits to free fall; they do not admit that professionals who deny free fall are "professional liars."
You may have provided proof of free fall, but doesn't mean that CD caused it. That is why I composed my list as I did. It would be tough, for example, to challenge security-camera footage showing a bomb planter at work in one of the buildings (with date and time superimposed on the images)...
You are challenging camera footage (from multiple angles) showing WTC7 FREE FALLING for 8 or 9 stories into its own footprint!
No I'm not. I'm challenging your never-never land notion that free fall was accomplished by CD. it would be tough to discredit the testimony of an individual who had access to NT, for example, and who, in return for judicial leniency, revealed how he made it available--in huge quantities--to the bombers. You don't have a clue about that--or related matters. If you did, you would have proclaimed it to the universe.
Really? You are trying to discredit eyewitness testimony of massive explosions in WTC1, 2 and 7, BEFORE and after airplane impact, including in subbasements!
I don't have an explanation for eyewitness accounts of explosions being heard
before the airliners hit. As for accounts of hearing explosions
after the strikes, why should that be surprising? All kinds of things were blowing up.
Evidences of the nature I listed--not wishful thinking, conjecture, and the tendentious marshaling of data--are what Truthers need to justify calling their conspiracy theory an established fact.
: We have the evidence of controlled demolition. It cannot be refuted because it is true. You have failed to refute it! The evidence is incontrovertible.
You have
no evidence--
none--proving that NT/high explosives were planted in the three WTC buildings to effect a controlled demolition. It would take months to plant those explosives, and during all that time not a single surveillance camera and not a single person detected
any thing to indicate that the buildings were being rigged for a CD.
To provide the list you gave is no more necessary to prove controlled demolition, than to provide the name of an assassin to prove that a murder took place when you have, as evidence, a dead body stabbed 100 times and witnesses that saw the victim stabbed.
Your analogy is dead on arrival. Why? Because you can't name who committed the crime (you don't have any defendants), and (again) you don't have any witnessess that saw the alleged bombers performing their mission. Think about it: No one saw a bomb-planter install all those bombs on all those columns in three very large buildings over the course of weeks and probably months. If your "case" ever went to trial, Truthers would be shredded on cross-examination. You don't know who the bombers were; you don't know how many there were; you don't know how they acquired exotic, military-grade NT in very large quantities; you don't when or how they planted the bombs in utter secrecy; you can't explain why security cameras didn't record their activities (turning them off or covering them would have quickly aroused suspicion); you don't know how they concealed the planted bombs. . . .
: Straw-man! We need to prove no such things. . . .
Of course you don't, with the priviso that you won't mind being laughed out of court.
: . . . to show that the government has lied!
You continue to abuse the meaning of
lie, either that or you have a penchant for making unsupportable claims. Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton admitted that the commission's final report was flawed ("not enough money and not enough time"). To
lie is to make false statements
with the intent to deceive. Were some people who gave testimony to the commission
liars? It appears so. At a minimum, they were covering their behinds. Does that mean "the government"
en total lied? Of course not.
: With publicly available evidence, we can prove to the court, conclusively, that the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions with pre-planted explosives/incendiaries, and that therefore the official government account of 9-11 is patently false. This will give the reason for a new investigation which will produce the names of the perpetrators.
The applicable court official would want to hear arguments that counter/challenge your supposed "proofs." After hearing both sides, he/she
might grant you a fishing license, perhaps in the form of covening a grand jury.
You cannot prove that the explosions some people reported hearing were generated by planted bombs.
Those testimonies will be simply circumstantial evidence to strengthen and collaborate already irrefutable evidence of the FREE FALL, and of controlled demolition.
The evidence you cite is not "irrefutable"; rather, it is principally circumstantial--all of it.
In truth, all you have is a theory painfully supported by carefully selected circumstantial evidence.
Lie. We have direct incontrovertible [evidence].
Show it to the judge.
: The fact that you knew an apostle makes you look even more unfavorable, because you engage in falsehoods, despite of the good example he showed you!
