WTC Controlled Demo Flash Animation, page 2

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So we shouldn't question how the bombs got there?

What makes it a stupid question, because you deem it irrelevant?

It's already been questioned, but it's a stupid question because WE DON'T KNOW. There's nothing showing objectively that bombs were placed, and nothing showing that they weren't. There were opportunities, especially in the cable and/or fireproofing upgrades, and not to mention that they have technology at their disposal that isn't necessarily publically acknowledged! This is U.S. military complex Leftbehind, not the freaking demo company down the street.

Just stop posting the same answer and actually adress the issue of how bombs were placed in the building.

I don't freaking know! How in the hell do you think I would know?

Oh, wait - I see an immature response coming on... something to the ends of... "oh but I thought you were supposed to know everything." . . .

It's also a disinfo tactic:

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely…

Source: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation.

It is, IMHO the biggest flaw with any demlition theory, but go ahead continue with the double standard of evidence, I won't lose any sleep over it.

It isn't evidence. It's so freaking sad that the biggest problem you can find with the demolition theory isn't an objective problem but just what you personally feel.

When you can show that there were absolutely no opportunities for unconventional explosives to be placed, I'll accept this as a "flaw."

So you'll have to prove the following:

The existence of all of the weapons our military has at their disposal, both publically acknowledged and not.
That of all the time the towers have been up since the early 1970s, there have been absolutely no possibilities for any factions or other groups to place any of those explosives into the buildings.

Then it'll be a "flaw."

As of right now, it's beyond laughable into the realm of completely stupid. No one is arguing demolition on the basis of "there were plenty of opportunities!" The arguments are those based mostly upon the physics of the collapses. But you focus on something totally unsupported - that's unsupported for either side.

This is the grounds you continually run to rather than face any objective issues. It's shameful and it's getting on my nerves, and a total disinfo tactic.