I agree that a complete idiot would think it was obvious this was a false flag operation.

If you only knew.

Well I think it is brave of you to come out like this. Of spank, you, and PaulD, until now only spank has had the courage to own up to some difficulties regarding comprehension. I will try not to criticize you about that from now on and instead opt for patience and understanding.

And you wonder why people think you're a cock

That's what the Cable News Network said on the news?

Care to provide your understanding of the events?

So the planes were real and there were no explosives, but the us government not only knew about what happened but actively planned it? Did Al quaeda participate at all? If so, why? If not, who flew the planes?

Oh this is good stuff.

How much explosives do you believe were planted? Who planted the explosives? Where were they planted? Was it only building 7 that was wired, and if so, why not the other two? If not, why not hit building 7 with a plane as well? Why wait so long after the initial collapses before setting off the explosives in building seven? Was this an oversight, or was the plan always to wait hours after the twin towers collapsed before imploding 7?

Oh Deuces if you only knew too. The little remaining faith you have in humanity would disappear.

Lol, so my logical questions mean nothing, but your logical questions about how it's seemingly impossible (any evidence at all to back this up?) That a building has fire as the root cause of its collapse is some sort of super logic?

Come on man, take a stab at it. Answer any of the questions I asked above.

Fwiw, the how and why of building seven has already been explained in this thread in meticulous detail by people much more qualified than myself to explain it.

In my world, in order for the idea of this as a false flag to be logical, a few key components are needed. Motive, and ability are two of the biggest. Until you can answer for those two components, you cannot even begin to call your moronic idiocy logical.

To an engineer, the failure of that building makes perfect sense.

I'm an engineer and it does!

It's been covered. You've got 2400 signatures out of a population easily over a million. And if you look at half the comments on there they disagree with each other and spout random nut bag comments with no basis in fact.

Not to mention that it includes engineers that have nothing to do with structural engineering.

Got any answer for these, chum...











P

I am an engineer also and it makes sense to me.

It is kind of interesting but I would not call it evidence. It really is not that many signatures our of the total population of engineers.

Also, I started pulling names at random to see if I could find supporting evidence in places like LinkedIn. Active competent engineers can usually be found due to papers published, conferences attended, etc. I had to run through 8 or 9 before I could find one who checked out. Also not evidence I concede, but it does make me wonder how many people overstated their credentials when they posted their signature.

Finally, it might be my engineer prejudice, but I would discount the architects heavily. They are not that strongly trained in the technical issues involved in a building collapse, especially given the complicating factor of a very intense fire.

Or, maybe you are mistaken? Is that a possibility?

So that's a no then?

Time for my favorite game! Quote comments from a random page of the AE911 Truth Petition.

Ignoring the fact that none of the buildings fell "at the rate of gravity w/o resistance" - I'll just point out that nobody claims the planes were responsible for WTC7 falling. Clearly this guy's well informed.

This guy seems really with it!

Several - meaning like 2 or 3. This guys quite the engineer. Get a sample size of 2 or 3 and extrapolate for all future events.


Maybe he should have been spending those years learning basic probability and what dependent events means?

LOL.... fail.

That'll work.

I'm an engineer too!

Soon, the engineers who loled at that dumb petition in this thread will outnumber those who signed it.

btw, I wonder how Deuces rationalizes the fact that anyone with a technical background who shows up in this thread inevitably disagrees with him.

Part of it is that I've been honest that as a software engineer I have only a couple of university level physics courses under my belt which isn't enough to truly evaluate all of the factors involved in the collapse of the towers.

So Deuces just uses his typical double think and discredits me but has no problem still believing all of the people who signed the petition with equal or lessor education.

I don't recall you being honest. At one point you claimed to be an engineer. I assumed you were lying but I didn't want to embarrass you like that by bringing it up so I just let it go. This is the first I have heard of the software qualification. That makes more sense.

You have discredited yourself with a lot of over ambitious, nonsensical 'technical' statements you make in between pretending (or not?) that you can barely read.