"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote:

In news:EbWdnXVBzuGqDAPZnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@comcast.com,
Respondant <Respondant@nope.invalid> typed:

Amanda Angelika wrote:

In news:mpls92h8188a3s8h3l7b7o1kqb34etaofr@4ax.com,
Bookman <thebookman@kc.rr.comNULL> typed:

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 07:06:56 +0000 (UTC),
you@somehost.somedomain.aus (Your Name Here=Harvey) wrote:

...the WTC were demolished with thousands of pounds of
thermite, a B-25 Mitchell is the equivalent of a Boeing
767, a building crumbling from the top down looks just like
a controlled demolition, steel doesn't get weaker when
heated, Mossad obviously demolished the WTC at the
direction of GWB, posting untrue things makes other things
untrue... 

What were Al Queda's motives for the 9/11 attacks?

Since when do religious lunatics need any motive for their
actions other than religious lunacy?  More wars have been
fought, and lives lost in the name of one god or another,
than for any other reason....EVER.

The problem with that argument is religions are a means of
social control. and wielding power over others. This is
particularly so of Patriarchal religions such as Islam. So
whilst you may get fanatics at grassroots level the leaders
might not even believe in God. 

I don't think it takes a genius to realise what the
consequences of attacking a Superpower are going to be, the
result has been very predictable. So unless they wanted the
US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and kill thousands of
Arabs, and consolidate the position of Israel, which is very
unlikely since it would appear to be against everything Al
Queda actually stand for I can't honestly see a motive. 

One can have all the circumstantial and hearsay evidence in
the World. However without a clear and plausible motive it
is worth Jack Shit.

I don't know about where you live, but here in the U.S. you
don't need to prove motive to get any kind of criminal
conviction with the exception of a so-called "hate crime". 
Sure it helps your case if you can, but it's not required by
the law. 

Even in the States you have different degrees of murder. If
can't prove a motive then you can't prove Murder 1. Since

Dumb.  Fool, anything that a jury will accept as showing beyond 
reasonable doubt will do it.  

Just to dumb it way down for you, picture this:  John Kerry, in 
front of a hundred TV cameras and hundreds of on-scene witnesses, 
says to George Bush "I knew Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Abu Musab al-
Zarqawi was a friend of mine.  Mr. Presidnet, you are no Abu 
Musab al-Zarqawi," and then he hauls out an Uzi, yells "Allah go 
Bragh" and shoots 30 bullets into Bush.  It could be because of 
his humiliating defeat at the polls.  It could be because Bush 
laid that screechy old catsup woman who pays kerry's way in the 
world.  It could be that he just shot him for fun. It could be 
that The Pervert Mohammed appeared to Kerry when both were in a 
drunken stupor and promised him 72 virgins.  Kerry refuses to 
say, so you can't prove a motive, but you don't need to.   

obviously killing someone by accident is not really murder and
in that case the severity of the charge would depend whether a
defendant were found to blame through negligence and/or
recklessness. So you do have to prove a motive and evidence
and motives have to correspond in order to build a case.

Do you remember when someone told you to stop trying to think?  
Stop now. Use your time whereever you can be productive.

Generally evidence is meaningless without a motive, and since
the events of 911 involve the killing and maiming of thousands
of innocent victims it's a murder and the motive is just as
important as the evidence in finding out who was responsible.

Good grief.  This comes just days after you reported to us that 
those who said you're stupid were wrong.