Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by ANOK
We don't have to show HOW it was done, to prove it was. The 'how' can come later
So you don't have to show HOW it was done, nobody can tell me WHY it was done and no truther can say WHO did it other than vague accusations against
"they" and "the powers that be". Hmmm. So it seems the only hurdle you've constructed for this intellectual olympiad is some foggy requirement
to prove a negative, that is to say, that the "official story" may not be true. Your limitations? Much like the old Twilight Zone you seem to be
limited only by your imagination.
Oh yes, take that one comment and forget, or ignore, everything else I've said.
Why am I tasked with showing how and why it was done?
How and why can only be speculated on, but of course you like that because you can create an endless arguments about speculation. I prefer to stick
to facts. The physics of the collapses is where you can not speculate, and you don't like that. The laws of motion are known, can be predicted, can
be tested. We can figure out from the collapses that another energy source had to be involved, we can't really tell what that energy was, so it is
open to speculation only.
An investigation doesn't end because they can't tell how it was done, or by who.
You've been here how long hooper and you still don't realise that? Of course you do, it's just another overused tactic, don't you know better
than to use that on me by now? You must have some thick skin mate, I'll give you that.
