NIST releases final report on WTC7!!!!

[Oliver]

When? :D

[defaultdotxbe]

when its done

[SpitfireIX]

When? :D


:hit:

[Oliver]

when its done

But that's too early! :D

[Drudgewire]

The day after McCain wins the election, because their real job is figuring out the best ways to make twoofers even more paranoid. :p

[defaultdotxbe]

The day after McCain wins the election, because their real job is figuring out the best ways to make twoofers even more paranoid. :p
the irony is if its just going to be another whitewash like the WTC1+2 report why are they taking so long? i mean if the NCSTAR was such an obvious fabrication clearly the american public will swallow whatever the government feeds them, so why so long with the WTC7 report? just say "fire did it" slap in some pictures and publish



....unless of course they are actually doing an investigation

[CHF]

Let's hope there's a youtube version otherwise no one in the TM will ever know what it says.

[RedIbis]

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

[Drudgewire]

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics...
LOL, that explains why after seven years twoofers still haven't gotten past the "just asking questions" stage. :p

[Pardalis]

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

Got a cohesive 9/11 theory ready for us?

[Par]

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.


(Incidentally, RedIbis, there’s a question for you in another thread: In what way was Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33) This is around the fifth time that I’ve put it to you.)

[jaydeehess]

Got a cohesive 9/11 theory ready for us?

They got a million of 'em.
Wait a tic, you did use the modifier, "cohesive".
So it seems they are just as late as NIST then.

[Par]

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.


So, you’re essentially saying: Whatever the report says, it will be wrong.

[beachnut]

[quote=RedIbis;3619554]... defy the laws of physics .../quote]
lol, not a clue what the laws are in the 9/11 truth camp. that was funny

it fell faster than freefall

if the truth movement understood physics, there would be no truth movement

11.2 Gs comes to mind…

the leader "experts" of 9/11 truth say 9/11 defies the laws of physics, fail to prove it, and follower parrot the meaningless false mantra...

[Apollo20]

I think it's pretty weak that NIST appear to have carte blanche over its much promised and long delayed WTC 7 Report.

In the real world, which is apparently not where NIST resides, investigators are given a budget and a deadline to produce a report. What's so special about WTC 7?

And please I don't want to hear that old cliche, "well NIST just want to do a good job and do it right!

[Jonnyclueless]

I wouldn't imagine its a very high priority since no one was killed and it poses no future safety risks. I would like to think they are spending more of their resources on more important things than WTC 7.

[Par]

I think it's pretty weak that NIST appear to have carte blanche over its much promised and long delayed WTC 7 Report. In the real world, which is apparently not where NIST resides, investigators are give a budget and a deadline to produce a report. What's so special about WTC 7?And please I don't want to hear that old cliche, "well NIST just want to do a good job and do it right!


Well, “Objects with mass attract each other” is also, I suppose, something of a cliché, but I don’t know what you think follows from that.

[defaultdotxbe]

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.
dont truthers claim the explanation posed on the WTC1+2 report defy the laws of physics? why should NIST put extra effort into 7 when apparently its only arousing more suspicion?

[RedIbis]

(Incidentally, RedIbis, there’s a question for you in another thread: In what way was Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33) This is around the fifth time that I’ve put it to you.)

Many of my questions go unanswered, but I'm not obnoxious about it and follow people around other threads.

[PhantomWolf]

I think it's pretty weak that NIST appear to have carte blanche over its much promised and long delayed WTC 7 Report.

In the real world, which is apparently not where NIST resides, investigators are give a budget and a deadline to produce a report. What's so special about WTC 7?

And please I don't want to hear that old cliche, "well NIST just want to do a good job and do it right!

While it does have downfalls in that the investigation can go on too long and get deeper and deeper until it's pointless, having carte blanche is better than being underfunded and only given a few weeks to do it and expecting the job to be done properly. Really when you get down to it,apart from CTs and Debunkers, who esle is actually waiting for this report?

[T.A.M.]

Curious, who tasked NIST with the report on WTC7? Was it requested by the USG? Did anyone ask them to cover it? Was it an after thought?

Not sure? Don't seem to recall.

TAM:)

[Mr. Skinny]

I think it's pretty weak that NIST appear to have carte blanche over its much promised and long delayed WTC 7 Report.

In the real world, which is apparently not where NIST resides, investigators are give a budget and a deadline to produce a report. What's so special about WTC 7?

And please I don't want to hear that old cliche, "well NIST just want to do a good job and do it right!
I thought you had done work for the government before, Apollo.

Really, this one made me chuckle a bit.

[Bobert]

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

The sound of a broken record.

[pomeroo]

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.



Wow! Should I inform Arthur Scheuerman that his paper defies the laws of physics? Nah, he wouldn't believe you.

[Par]

Many of my questions go unanswered, but I'm not obnoxious about it and follow people around other threads.


You seem to have fallen foul of the “Two wrongs make a right” fallacy: Even if some of your questions do go unanswered, it doesn’t follow that you are justified in not answering those put to you. Further, it’s a perfectly straightforward and pertinent question. Going over to the aforementioned thread and answering it would only seem reasonable.

[Bobert]

I think it's pretty weak that NIST appear to have carte blanche over its much promised and long delayed WTC 7 Report.

In the real world, which is apparently not where NIST resides, investigators are give a budget and a deadline to produce a report. What's so special about WTC 7?

And please I don't want to hear that old cliche, "well NIST just want to do a good job and do it right!

Have you asked NIST all of these questions?

[Garb]

I think it's pretty weak that NIST appear to have carte blanche over its much promised and long delayed WTC 7 Report.

In the real world, which is apparently not where NIST resides, investigators are give a budget and a deadline to produce a report. What's so special about WTC 7?

And please I don't want to hear that old cliche, "well NIST just want to do a good job and do it right!

So if the investigation is not finished, they should just give up and finish the report as-is?

Would the 9/11 truth movement want their investigation to just give up if they don't make the deadline they expected?

[Apollo20]

Sure I worked for the Ontario Government through my job at OPG and back in 1983 I, and many others, were charged with the task of investigating the pressure tube rupture in Pickering Unit 2. And we were given a budget and we had a deadline. And I had to deliver whatever I could within those restraints. My annual performance appraisal was based on how well I met the milestones that were set for my assigned projects. And I had to issue a PROGRESS REPORT every 3 months. That's why I'm amazed at the BS at NIST!

[T.A.M.]

I think the original tasking of the NIST group was the collapse of the WTC1/2. I was curious if WTC7 was considered part of the initial tasking, or if it was something NIST decided to do independently afterward?

TAM:)

[LastChild]

When? :D

Oliver you are cruel.

Teasing all the pathetic Nistians waiting with bated breath for something more to worship no matter what it might claim.

Cruel. But funny!

Good Job!

[pomeroo]

Oliver you are cruel.

Teasing all the pathetic Nistians waiting with bated breath for something more to worship no matter what it might claim.

Cruel. But funny!

Good Job!


You have, of course, solved the problem by rejecting anything inconvenient to your fantasies without reading it.

[T.A.M.]

truthers do not even care about the WTC7 report, as they have rejected it on principle, regardless of what it concludes. They know it will not support their insane notions of controlled demolition, and therefore must be wrong...

TAM:)

[LashL]

Sure I worked for the Ontario Government through my job at OPG and back in 1983 I, and many others, were charged with the task of investigating the pressure tube rupture in Pickering Unit 2. And we were given a budget and we had a deadline. And I had to deliver whatever I could within those restraints. My annual performance appraisal was based on how well I met the milestones that were set for my assigned projects. And I had to issue a PROGRESS REPORT every 3 months. That's why I'm amazed at the BS at NIST!


Are you sure that those working on the WTC7 report are not issuing progress reports within the NIST? During your 20+ years working for the government, were your progress reports published to the general public?

And as for you having to "deliver what you could" within the constraints of your budget and time deadline on the Pickering project, was it really the case that everyone on the team had to put their pencils down on a pre-ordained date or when the pre-ordained budget was exhausted, whichever came first? This is a serious question, as it seems inconsistent with most government projects (which typically go over budget and take longer than initially forecast).

In any event, would you really prefer that those working on the WTC7 report simply say, "Well, it's June 30, folks, here's what we've got so far, this will have to do" ?

[LashL]

truthers do not even care about the WTC7 report, as they have rejected it on principle because they are unprincipled, regardless of what it concludes. They know it will not support their insane notions of controlled demolition, and therefore must be wrong...

TAM:)



Very true. (With that one minor change... :) )

[LastChild]

truthers do not even care about the WTC7 report, as they have rejected it on principle, regardless of what it concludes. They know it will not support their insane notions of controlled demolition, and therefore must be wrong...

TAM:)

debunkers can't wait for the WTC7 report and whatever it says, as they have accepted it before even seeing it. They know it will somehow support their insane notions of global collapse of a steel constructed high-rise for the first time in history from something that has never caused it before, and therefore somehow in their mind proves there was nothing more to 9/11 then what the powers that be tell them. Their faith in authority confirmed.

debunkers love to bow.

[pomeroo]

debunkers can't wait for the WTC7 report and whatever it says, as they have accepted it before even seeing it. They know it will somehow support their insane notions of global collapse of a steel constructed high-rise for the first time in history from something that has never caused it before, and therefore somehow in their mind proves there was nothing more to 9/11 then what the powers that be tell them. Their faith in authority confirmed.

debunkers love to bow.


Conspiracy liars love to, well, lie. I can't quite recall how you connected the collapse of WTC 7 to your imaginary conspiracy's scheme to conquer the world. Could you refresh my memory?

Oh, while you're exercising your creativity, you might want to tell us about the other buildings that have been hit by tons of debris from a collapsing skyscraper. You can do that, right? You wouldn't want to give the impression that you're nothing more than an empty-headed weasel, would you?

[Bobert]

Oliver you are cruel.

Teasing all the pathetic Nistians waiting with bated breath for something more to worship no matter what it might claim.

Cruel. But funny!

Good Job!

BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
WRONG!
Nice try there LC!
You can have your bait back.

You are aware that there are PLENTY of people on this board who are not happy with the US government, right?
BUT that does not translate to mean that I/we think that 9-11 was an inside job.
I have a feeling that for example Ron and I have different political views but guess what!!!!
TRUTHERS ARE INSANE!
So..........
I VERY MUCH supported the Green Party UP UNTIL they began to associate with truthers.
Its funny to see truthers try and "infiltrate" groups like anti-war activists and the anti-war crowd turns and tells the truthers to F-off.
Nice try with the bait though LC.

[T.A.M.]

Bobert:

It is only natural for a small group of failed activists, such as the truthers, to try to infest groups that are better at it (activism that is). There are leeches in the activist world as well you know.

TAM;)

[applecorped]

debunkers can't wait for the WTC7 report and whatever it says, as they have accepted it before even seeing it. They know it will somehow support their insane notions of global collapse of a steel constructed high-rise for the first time in history from something that has never caused it before, and therefore somehow in their mind proves there was nothing more to 9/11 then what the powers that be tell them. Their faith in authority confirmed.

debunkers love to bow.

Quote restored. Do not change other member' quotes.

Your turn!

[CHF]

debunkers can't wait for the WTC7 report and whatever it says, as they have accepted it before even seeing it. They know it will somehow support their insane notions of global collapse of a steel constructed high-rise for the first time in history from something that has never caused it before, and therefore somehow in their mind proves there was nothing more to 9/11 then what the powers that be tell them. Their faith in authority confirmed.

Or maybe it'll support the notion that WTC7 was the first ever silent demolition, or the first ever demolition using thermite.

Hell, maybe the report will come right out and proclaim what twoofers like you think but are too chicken to say: "the FDNY was lying about the damage WTC7 sustained!"

But I doubt it.

[defaultdotxbe]

debunkers can't wait for the WTC7 report and whatever it says, as they have accepted it before even seeing it. They know it will somehow support their insane notions of global collapse of a steel constructed high-rise for the first time in history from something that has never caused it before, and therefore somehow in their mind proves there was nothing more to 9/11 then what the powers that be tell them. Their faith in authority confirmed.

debunkers love to bow.
actually im sure i will end up accepting it because im sure that, regardless of the cause, NIST will figure it out

[Jonnyclueless]

Can you guys try not to quote LastCHild. It's really annoying. It's not like he is going to make a contribution to a discussion. He is just upset that all his cute little conspiracy theories have all been proven wrong and so the best he can do it make an issue out of the time of the WTC 7 report to compensate for his complete lack of any report what so ever form his conspiracy tabloids.

So what's taking the conspiracy tabloids and the cons at ae911truth.org so long to come up with a report that supports their claims? It's been 7 years right? How much longer do we have to wait for them to prove a controlled demolition? NIST already released their report on WTC 1&2, yet Gage and Jones an them are still empty handed.

But of course a little kid who doesn't even understand the basics of a microphone probably wouldn't be smart enough to notice that.

[Blender Head]

Can you guys try not to quote LastCHild. It's really annoying. It's not like he is going to make a contribution to a discussion. He is just upset that all his cute little conspiracy theories have all been proven wrong and so the best he can do it make an issue out of the time of the WTC 7 report to compensate for his complete lack of any report what so ever form his conspiracy tabloids.

So what's taking the conspiracy tabloids and the cons at ae911truth.org so long to come up with a report that supports their claims? It's been 7 years right? How much longer do we have to wait for them to prove a controlled demolition? NIST already released their report on WTC 1&2, yet Gage and Jones an them are still empty handed.

But of course a little kid who doesn't even understand the basics of a microphone probably wouldn't be smart enough to notice that.

As Griffin pointed out, Truthers don't need a coherent counter-theory.

[jaydeehess]

Sure I worked for the Ontario Government through my job at OPG and back in 1983 I, and many others, were charged with the task of investigating the pressure tube rupture in Pickering Unit 2. And we were given a budget and we had a deadline. And I had to deliver whatever I could within those restraints. My annual performance appraisal was based on how well I met the milestones that were set for my assigned projects. And I had to issue a PROGRESS REPORT every 3 months. That's why I'm amazed at the BS at NIST!

Apollo20, did the report time and budget get increased when extras were added onto tasks? NIST was pressured into analyzing 'blast events'. That is one add-on that I am aware of. I don't know if would fully justify the increased time but it is one cause.

[DC]

i really wonder why it takes so long. most JREFers have figured that out since years now, but NIST still not done yet?
why dont NIST asks the real experts on JREF?
like beachnut^^

[Jonnyclueless]

You do realize that NIST has already ruled out any kind of explosive devices right?

And kind of funny comment considering that the truthers 7 years later don't even have a paper on WTC 1&2 let alone 7, where the only argument is "It looks like a CD".

Yes, forgive us for not needing NIST to debunk "It looks to me like a CD". The laughter you hear when that claim is made can be considered NISTs response as well.

[BenBurch]

The day after McCain wins the election, because their real job is figuring out the best ways to make twoofers even more paranoid. :p

So... Never, then?

[Corsair 115]

In the real world, which is apparently not where NIST resides, investigators are given a budget and a deadline to produce a report.Do NTSB investigations into an civilian passenger jet crash have a fixed deadline? Or do they go on as long as there are avenues of investigation to pursue?

[DC]

You do realize that NIST has already ruled out any kind of explosive devices right?

And kind of funny comment considering that the truthers 7 years later don't even have a paper on WTC 1&2 let alone 7, where the only argument is "It looks like a CD".

Yes, forgive us for not needing NIST to debunk "It looks to me like a CD". The laughter you hear when that claim is made can be considered NISTs response as well.

And how exactly did they rule that out?

and oc you dont need NIST to make your counter theorys.

but i can only hardly imagen the new NIST FAQ.
16) Why is the collapse of WTC7 looking like a Controlled Demolition?

ROFLMAO

[gc051360]

And how exactly did they rule that out?
The whole "no evidence" thing.

eta: I think they answer this question on their FAQ, not sure though.

[DC]

The whole "no evidence" thing.

eta: I think they answer this question on their FAQ, not sure though.

they ruled it out without any evidence?

[gc051360]

they ruled it out without any evidence?

They have found no evidence of controlled demolition.

Question for you. How did they rule out high energy weapons? How did they rule out Bigfoot tearing down the towers?

eta: Do you happen to have some evidence of controlled demolition?

[gtc]

they ruled it out without any evidence?

I suspect you are not serious or you are not a native English speaker.

They ruled it out because there was no evidence.

They looked, they found no evidence, they ruled it out.

Does a unicorn live in your bathroom cabinet? You can either rule it out because it is a ludicrous idea or you can look to see if there is evidence. Is there a unicor in your cabinet now? Are there unicorn droppings on your bathroom floor? Are there hoof-marks around the toilet bowl indicating a unicorn has recently been drinking from it?

If there is no evidence, you can rule it out.

See?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

When? :D
When Red, Swingie and lastchild kiss up and make peace with one another.

[DC]

They have found no evidence of controlled demolition.

Question for you. How did they rule out high energy weapons? How did they rule out Bigfoot tearing down the towers?

eta: Do you happen to have some evidence of controlled demolition?

i have no evidence oc for a CD. Just a bunch of indications.

btw, when KingKong was not able to bring down ESB i doubt that bigfoot is able to bring down WTC7

[DC]

I suspect you are not serious or you are not a native English speaker.

They ruled it out because there was no evidence.

They looked, they found no evidence, they ruled it out.

Does a unicorn live in your bathroom cabinet? You can either rule it out because it is a ludicrous idea or you can look to see if there is evidence. Is there a unicor in your cabinet now? Are there unicorn droppings on your bathroom floor? Are there hoof-marks around the toilet bowl indicating a unicorn has recently been drinking from it?

If there is no evidence, you can rule it out.

See?

sometimes investigators are looking for something and cannot find evidence. while exeryone knows, the accused is guilty.

When Al Capone and other Mafiosis are able to keep evedence hidden. im pretty sure that a corrupt group inside Gov Agencys are able to do the same.

[T.A.M.]

ahhh, I see. Well let's hope if you are ever accused of a crime, such standards are applied to you.

DC: "But you have no evidence, how can you convict me?"
Judge: "Well I don't like you, and I am rebellious and paranoid, so I find you guilty anyway!"

TAM;)

[DC]

ahhh, I see. Well let's hope if you are ever accused of a crime, such standards are applied to you.

DC: "But you have no evidence, how can you convict me?"
Judge: "Well I don't like you, and I am rebellious and paranoid, so I find you guilty anyway!"

TAM;)

well im sorry but i do indeed belive that Al Capone was guilty for things they never was able to prove.

maybe i have a wrong inpression and Al Capone was an honorable man :)

[moon1969]

When Nancy Lieder tells why Planet X didn"t hit the earth in 2003? Or maybe when David Icke says that Boxcar Willie was not a reptile?

[defaultdotxbe]

well im sorry but i do indeed belive that Al Capone was guilty for things they never was able to prove.

maybe i have a wrong inpression and Al Capone was an honorable man :)
how do you feel about osama bin laden?

[DC]

how do you feel about osama bin laden?

i think he is guilty for killing civilians and hate speech. and i think it is good possible that he is involved in 9/11.

[Apollo20]

I think when something like the collapse of WTC 7 occurs, the public needs to be reassured that the building was properly constructed, met all applicable codes, and that similar buildings are safe to occupy. Thus we need a good, thorough, investigation of the destruction of WTC 7; and I believe any investigation of this nature should be carried out in a timely manner.

If we think of similar examples, three come immediately to mind: the sinking of the Titanic (whose 96th anniversary is today!); the 1986 Chernobyl reactor explosion; and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster of 2003.

The British Board of Trade inquiry into the Titanic disaster ran from May 2 to July 3, 1912. The Chernobyl accident of April 26th 1986 was investigated by the Institute of Atomic Energy in Moscow who issued its “Investigation into the causes of the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant” in October 1986. The Columbia accident occurred on Feb 1st 2003 and the NASA accident report was issued August 26th 2003.

In the case of the Pickering Unit 2 pressure tube failure of August 1983, (I referred to in a previous post), the basic accident investigation was carried out within a few months of the event and reports were issued to the Canadian Atomic Energy Control Board within a year. There were programs of research established thereafter to look at alternative pressure tube materials and to set up hydrogen ingress studies, but these were secondary to the accident reports.

Thus we see that NIST is way out of line with its response to the collapse of building 7, even allowing for the fact that it had to investigate the failures of WTC 1 & 2 first!

[IDB87]

When Al Capone and other Mafiosis are able to keep evedence hidden. im pretty sure that a corrupt group inside Gov Agencys are able to do the same.

Sure!

But you do realize the sheer amount of materials required to bring down both WTCs and 7 is ENORMOUS, don't you? You do realize the debris was left at GZ for WEEKS (with thousands of people poking through it) before it was shipped off to Fresh Kills, don't you? YOU DO REALIZE that that debris was then RAKED through very maticulously to find human remains and other such items?

And to think, not one piece of evidence supporting a CD has shown up.

[Disbelief]

I think when something like the collapse of WTC 7 occurs, the public needs to be reassured that the building was properly constructed, met all applicable codes, and that similar buildings are safe to occupy. Thus we need a good, thorough, investigation of the destruction of WTC 7; and I believe any investigation of this nature should be carried out in a timely manner.


Why? Why is the collapse of a building that had large parts of one of the largest buildings in the world dropped on it, more important than other things NIST is doing? If it had not been on TV, would it be as important? Would you even know or care if they were investigating the collapse?

[DGM]

I think when something like the collapse of WTC 7 occurs, the public needs to be reassured that the building was properly constructed, met all applicable codes, and that similar buildings are safe to occupy. Thus we need a good, thorough, investigation of the destruction of WTC 7; and I believe any investigation of this nature should be carried out in a timely manner.



I see your point but I don't think there is any urgency to complete the investigation. The building experienced damage that was well beyond the scope of the design and performed well all things considering. The design of the building allowed everyone to get out and the lessons learned in the tower investigations carry over well (to include WTC 7) into safeguards to assure public safety.

What's the rush?

[Jonnyclueless]

they ruled it out without any evidence?

The same way you may have ruled out unicorns being the cause. They didn't find any evidence of them. Would you prefer they made up some evidence? Never mind, silly question.

And no, you have absolutely NO indications of a CD other than uneducated assumptions. NIST uses experts, remember? Not kids on the internet who don't know anything about CDs.

[Jonnyclueless]

I also think Apollo is right. It's a ticking time bomb waiting to happen. Just think about what could happen to you if a 110 story building collapses next to the one you are in? How do you know you will survive? How can we be sure the building you are in won't collapse as the result of noe being properly designed to withstand a 110 story building falling on it?

Think of the children.

[Apollo20]

Disbelief/DGM:

Well, here we go.... when you say why investigate "the collapse of a building that had large parts of one of the largest buildings in the world dropped on it", what exactly were those parts? Where did they hit? Why did the collapse start low down in the building?

You see, this is precisely WHY we need an inquiry!

You could say we all KNEW that Columbia had some tile damage... so why have an inquiry.

The Titanic hit an iceberg... looks like case closed there too.

And Chernobyl, well, those goof-ball operators simply pushed the wrong button!

And as for the hurry... well all the Truthers are feeding off the silence from NIST don't you know, and besides, inquiring minds need to know!

[Jonnyclueless]

But there isn't a lack of an inquiry, just a disagreement on the length of time.

[DGM]

Disbelief/DGM:

Well, here we go.... when you say why investigate "the collapse of a building that had large parts of one of the largest buildings in the world dropped on it", what exactly were those parts? Where did they hit? Why did the collapse start low down in the building?

You see, this is precisely WHY we need an inquiry!

You could say we all KNEW that Columbia had some tile damage... so why have an inquiry.

The Titanic hit an iceberg... looks like case closed there too.

And Chernobyl, well, those goof-ball operators simply pushed the wrong button!

And as for the hurry... well all the Truthers are feeding off the silence from NIST don't you know, and besides, inquiring minds need to know!
I didn't say that there was no need for an investigation did I? I think the biggest reason for the delay is because they're looking into if there was a case for "single point failure" concerns. This is the part of the investigation I'm anxious to see. I just don't see what the urgency is.

[16.5]

"And as for the hurry... well all the Truthers are feeding off the silence from NIST don't you know, and besides, inquiring minds need to know!"

Well, I guess NIST is just answering the question how you keep a moron in suspense!

Seriously, though, Silence?? There have been regular updates from NIST. Hell, I seem to recall that during the last update, Gage made a screaming ass out of himself.

but I digress.... I am sure you agree that they should take as much time as they need, so long as they get it right.

[Drudgewire]

So... Never, then?
You wish.... I wish... but it's gonna happen, and it's going to tick me off. :(

[T.A.M.]

well im sorry but i do indeed belive that Al Capone was guilty for things they never was able to prove.

maybe i have a wrong inpression and Al Capone was an honorable man :)

I agree about Al Capone. My point was on your "burden of proof to convict".

I personally think that OBL is much like Al Capone in this regard. It is for this reason, I believe, that they have not indicted him on the 9/11 charges (among other reasons).

TAM:)

[Disbelief]

Disbelief/DGM:

Well, here we go.... when you say why investigate "the collapse of a building that had large parts of one of the largest buildings in the world dropped on it", what exactly were those parts? Where did they hit? Why did the collapse start low down in the building?

You see, this is precisely WHY we need an inquiry!


Eventually, it may be important to have these questions answered, but as DGM pointed out, it is not urgent. I noticed that you failed to answer the other questions put to you:

Why is the collapse of this building more important than other matters that NIST deals with?

If it had not been on TV, would you even know or care if they were investigating the collapse?


You could say we all KNEW that Columbia had some tile damage... so why have an inquiry.

The Titanic hit an iceberg... looks like case closed there too.

Quit being so naive. You realize that NASA had to figure out what happened if they wanted money to continue flying shuttle missions. They also had to reclaim public support and trust after such a disaster.

As for the Titanic, don't you think that it would be important with the amount of sea travel at the time to know precisely what happened to an "unsunkable" ship? Probably bad for business if they don't find out.


And Chernobyl, well, those goof-ball operators simply pushed the wrong button!

I think the importance of what happened at Chernobyl far outweighs what happened to WTC7.

As an aside, one of my co-op student's dad was one of the lead investigators for the Russian government into the disaster.


And as for the hurry... well all the Truthers are feeding off the silence from NIST don't you know, and besides, inquiring minds need to know!

Well, I am sure NIST does not give a crap about what the truthers think.

[T.A.M.]

I personally think that an investigation of the collapse of WTC7 is critical, for the reasons Apollo has mentioned. I also feel that where possible, a timely report be given. I also would point to the INTERIM Report on WTC7. I would also point to the fact that we do not know if more regular updates were given by the investigators to their superiors. I would also like to point out that it is CRITICAL to be as close to correct on the collapse mechanism as possible, so corrective measure in other buildings, if needed, can be taken, or mistakes in construction avoided...there fore if more time is needed to reach this, so be it.

TAM:)

[DGM]

I personally think that an investigation of the collapse of WTC7 is critical, for the reasons Apollo has mentioned. I also feel that where possible, a timely report be given. I also would point to the INTERIM Report on WTC7. I would also point to the fact that we do not know if more regular updates were given by the investigators to their superiors. I would also like to point out that it is CRITICAL to be as close to correct on the collapse mechanism as possible, so corrective measure in other buildings, if needed, can be taken, or mistakes in construction avoided...there fore if more time is needed to reach this, so be it.

TAM:)
I agree that the they should take as much time as they need because I also don't think that there is thing one (as far as codes) that can be done to prevent this collapse given the circumstances.

We want open spaces in buildings (for aesthetic and economic reasons) and these designs work well as long as there isn't problems outside of expected limitations. WTC 7 performed excellent as far as what the design of the building could ever expect to encounter. Should we install airbags on airplanes for the unlikely event it might save someone in a crash?

Our buildings are inherently safe as long as circumstances don't exceed expectations. NIST's problem at this point is to decide where to draw the line between safety and profitability for the owner.

[1337m4n]

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

I have one, very simple question for you, RedIbis. Simple as can be. A plain, easy, simple yes-or-no question that even a child could answer:


Do you accuse NIST of being "in on it"?

Yes or no?

Very simple.

[RedIbis]

I have one, very simple question for you, RedIbis. Simple as can be. A plain, easy, simple yes-or-no question that even a child could answer:


Do you accuse NIST of being "in on it"?

Yes or no?

Very simple.

NIST is an institution made up of scores of individuals. Like the illogic of suggesting that the FDNY could operate as some monolithic whole, we can't ascribe similar characteristics to an agency.

Your question is a false dichotomy, as well.

[applecorped]

So, that would be a No? You can't even answer a yes or no question.

[1337m4n]

NIST is an institution made up of scores of individuals. Like the illogic of suggesting that the FDNY could operate as some monolithic whole, we can't ascribe similar characteristics to an agency.

Your question is a false dichotomy, as well.

Did you or did you not write the following:

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

Explain. And for the love of God stop dodging. You don't even appear to know what "false dichotomy" means.

[RedIbis]

Did you or did you not write the following:



Explain. And for the love of God stop dodging. You don't even appear to know what "false dichotomy" means.

Educate me. When you offer only two choices when a range of possibilities might exist, what do you call it?

[1337m4n]

Educate me. When you offer only two choices when a range of possibilities might exist, what do you call it?

Evasion noted.

Educate me. What is this "range of possibilities"?

Given your original quote, what "possibilities" exist that do NOT make you wrong?


Stop dodging:

One more time.
Did you or did you not write this:

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

If you did write this, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY IT?


I will not entertain your attempts to derail. You will answer this question.

[RedIbis]

Evasion noted.

Educate me. What is this "range of possibilities"?

Given your original quote, what "possibilities" exist that do NOT make you wrong?


Stop dodging:

One more time.
Did you or did you not write this:



If you did write this, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY IT?


I will not entertain your attempts to derail. You will answer this question.

Were you wrong when you claimed I incorrectly called your post a false dichotomy?

[lapman]

If we think of similar examples, three come immediately to mind: the sinking of the Titanic (whose 96th anniversary is today!); the 1986 Chernobyl reactor explosion; and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster of 2003.
Um, they are still investigating the Titanic and finding out new information. It may not be an "official investigation," but it has been going on since the discovery of the wreck.

[Par]

[Y]ou offer only two choices when a range of possibilities might exist...Evasion noted. What is this "range of possibilities"? Given your original quote, what "possibilities" exist that do NOT make you wrong?Were you wrong when you claimed I incorrectly called your post a false dichotomy?


(Since we’re currently seeing an example of RedIbis refusing to answer straightforward questions: RedIbis, there’s a question for you in another thread: In what way was Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33) This is around the sixth time that I’ve put it to you.)

[1337m4n]

Were you wrong when you claimed I incorrectly called your post a false dichotomy?

No. I was going to explain why, but then I realize you have yet to explain how my post was a false dichotomy.

Are you dodging the question? Yes. I keep asking you what you mean by this quote:

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

and you keep dodging.

You know what you are RedIbis? This is you. (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm) Notice how easily I answer your questions. Why can you not do the same? It is all I ask.

I'm putting you on Ignore for a week. After that week is up, I expect you to have explained exactly how you can say

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

without accusing NIST of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks. It is like trying to use "pull it" as evidence, without accusing the fire chief of being complicit. It is illogical and cannot be done. You are an illogical person.

You have a whole week now to answer my question; I expect a well thought-out response.

[boloboffin]

The long awaited Building 7 report may also be due to a few other issues, some of which are brought up in this PDF, the 10 Myths of Rapid Development (http://www.construx.com/File.ashx?cid=798). It's about software development, but it applies across disciplines to any project-oriented process.

In particular, pay attention to slides 4-6 and then think about the released timeline of events for the Building 7 team. In fact, this would apply much more than I give it credit for above, because the centerpiece of the upcoming report is a massive computerized rendering of the collapse.

[BenBurch]

well im sorry but i do indeed belive that Al Capone was guilty for things they never was able to prove.

maybe i have a wrong inpression and Al Capone was an honorable man :)

He invented the idea of a soup kitchen during the depression and also forced dairies to freshness date milk.

;)

No, he was a killer personally and I know he had people rubbed out, but not as many as people suppose.

The rest of his crimes? Booze? Gambling? Prostitution? Pornography? All things that never should have been crimes in the first place.

[RedIbis]

You have a whole week now to answer my question; I expect a well thought-out response.

Purely for entertainment purposes only, what if I don't?

[T.A.M.]

So Red, If I get this straight, you are saying that while as an ENTIRE ENTITY, neither NIST nor the FDNY were in on it, you do feel that there were people within both institutions that were?

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

So Red, If I get this straight, you are saying that while as an ENTIRE ENTITY, neither NIST nor the FDNY were in on it, you do feel that there were people within both institutions that were?

TAM:)

It's just much more accurate to apply whatever blame of complicity exists to an individual(s) not an entity.

[pomeroo]

It's just much more accurate to apply whatever blame of complicity exists to an individual(s) not an entity.



Accuracy is not your game; evasiveness is. If there are differences of opinion within NIST and the FDNY, then point to the individuals who have stepped forward to complain that NIST's science is flawed, or that the firefighters on the ground did not determine that WTC 7 was likely to collapse.

What's that? NO MEMBERS OF NIST OR THE FDNY DISPUTE THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE AGENCY AND THE DEPARTMENT?

Gee, that sort of brings us back to Lucky Larry: given that he was merely agreeing with the FDNY's assessment, what could he have been "lying" about?

[Jonnyclueless]

So when the often shouted claim of "The government was behind it" refers to a person who just happens to have the name "government"?

[Par]

Purely for entertainment purposes only, what if I don't?


Well, if you don’t – that is, if you again simply refuse to answer a pertinent and straightforward question – then you will inadvertently adduce yet further evidence that you – a representative of the “truth moment” – are a highly dishonest and uncourageous individual who is motivated far more by his own ego and ideological predisposition than by any discernable interest in the truth. If you would consider such a consequence to be “entertainment”, then there’s at least one thing that we have in common.

[RedIbis]

Gee, that sort of brings us back to Lucky Larry: given that he was merely agreeing with the FDNY's assessment, what could he have been "lying" about?

A fire department is not a person who can express an opinion. Members of a dept. can express an opinion.

Why are you unable to understand this?

[RedIbis]

Well, if you don’t – that is, if you again simply refuse to answer a pertinent and straightforward question – then you will inadvertently adduce yet further evidence that you – a representative of the “truth moment” – are a highly dishonest and uncourageous individual who is motivated far more by his own ego and ideological predisposition than by any discernable interest in the truth. If you would consider such a consequence to be “entertainment”, then there’s at least one thing that we have in common.

Great signature!

[Garb]

A fire department is not a person who can express an opinion. Members of a dept. can express an opinion.

Why are you unable to understand this?

So instead of answering him you nitpick?

Really?

[T.A.M.]

It's just much more accurate to apply whatever blame of complicity exists to an individual(s) not an entity.

A fire department is not a person who can express an opinion. Members of a dept. can express an opinion.

Why are you unable to understand this?

I have no problem with the idea that individuals rather than an entire institution might be in on a given theory...period. However, this is weak, as it is impossible to verify, short of said persons coming forward, and it is easy enough to push as an argument (one with no teeth) as no one can prove the statement wrong.

However, short of listing names, and the proof you have that said people were in on it, the theory is useless, and very weak, IMO.

TAM:)

[1337m4n]

So Red, If I get this straight, you are saying that while as an ENTIRE ENTITY, neither NIST nor the FDNY were in on it, you do feel that there were people within both institutions that were?

TAM:)

Is that what he's saying? That would be pretty stupid, considering that NIST is based on peer-review. Not that I would expect a Truther to understand what peer-review is.

It's not one guy writing the entire report.

[Par]

Well, if you don’t – that is, if you again simply refuse to answer a pertinent and straightforward question – then you will inadvertently adduce yet further evidence that you – a representative of the “truth moment” – are a highly dishonest and uncourageous individual who is motivated far more by his own ego and ideological predisposition than by any discernable interest in the truth. If you would consider such a consequence to be “entertainment”, then there’s at least one thing that we have in common.Great signature!


So, you’d rather attempt to cause a distraction than answer a pertinent and straightforward question. I won’t be the only one who notices, you know.

[T.A.M.]

Is that what he's saying? That would be pretty stupid, considering that NIST is based on peer-review. Not that I would expect a Truther to understand what peer-review is.

It's not one guy writing the entire report.

I think, If I am getting it correctly, the premise is that those at the top, or some at the top, move the rest of the investigators in such a way as to avoid data that does not agree with the preconceived outcome...

TAM:)

[1337m4n]

I think, If I am getting it correctly, the premise is that those at the top, or some at the top, move the rest of the investigators in such a way as to avoid data that does not agree with the preconceived outcome...

TAM:)

That'll go over real well.

Guy at Top: No, don't use that data.

Peon: Uh...why not? The entire calculation screws up without it. We'll get a completely different result.

Guy at Top: BECAUSE I SAID SO OKAY???




I really do tire of Truthers subtly accusing completely innocent men of being complicit in the murder of 3000 innocent Americans based on nothing more than complete speculation and personal incredulity, but not having the balls to admit that they are, in fact, making an accusation.

[BenBurch]

... as no one can prove the statement wrong.
...

an illustration;

If I say "Red Ibis has had carnal knowledge of goats." you can't prove I am wrong. Simply not possible to prove unless you can show you never had the necessary equipment. BUT, nobody will believe a bald calumny with no evidence.

[SDC]

A fire department is not a person who can express an opinion. Members of a dept. can express an opinion.


This is absurd. Institutional positions on important questions are expressed all the time. Email where I work (a large, semi-public non-profit) is expected to bear a note saying that the views expressed are those of the individual, not the position of the institution.

More of Red I.'s silliness, trying to show that he isn't really saying that fire fighters are to blame; only mysterious higher-ups (perhaps in cahoots with Gen Myers, as we heard in an earlier thread) were.

[1337m4n]

Gotta love the phrase "higher-ups". It allows Truthers to make completely baseless accusations without naming any names or providing even a shred of evidence.

I should start a thread challenging Truthers to explain how their conspiracy is possible, WITHOUT using the phrase "higher-ups". It'd be interesting to see how far they get.

[RedIbis]

So, you’d rather attempt to cause a distraction than answer a pertinent and straightforward question. I won’t be the only one who notices, you know.

With the barrage of questions thrown at me after every post I make, I have to pick my spots. I try to stay away from the juvenile and pathetic, but also questions that I've answered and positions I've stated numerous times already.

[Jonnyclueless]

Juvenile an pathetic meaning posts that show is assumptions and conjecture are wrong.

[Apollo20]

As Max Photon so famously said: "NIST always tells the truth; but sometimes it is the ambiguated truth"

Here is a good example:

On March 6th 2002 the US House Committee on Science heard a presentation from Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr., then Director of NIST, on NIST's plans to investigate the WTC collapse. In this presentation it was stated that NIST's invesigation would focus on WTC 1 & 2, but could also include WTC 7. Bement also stated that NIST expected to complete the investigation and issue a final report in 24 months.

P.S.

In 2003 NIST had 3000 employees and it's budget was $700 million. The final NIST Report cost $20 million. (Cheap at twice the price!)

[RedIbis]

Juvenile an pathetic meaning posts that show is assumptions and conjecture are wrong.

Wow. This is the Caesar of word salads.

[Par]

With the barrage of questions thrown at me after every post I make, I have to pick my spots. I try to stay away from the juvenile and pathetic, but also questions that I've answered and positions I've stated numerous times already.


I see. Well in that case there seems little to stop you from going over to the aforementioned thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3593817) and answering the following question: In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33)

(Of course, if you’ve answered it before, then perhaps you could simply quote or link to that previous answer. It’s a perfectly straightforward and pertinent question, and this is, after all, around the seventh time that I’ve put it to you.)

[RedIbis]

I see. Well in that case there seems little to stop you from going over to the aforementioned thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3593817) and answering the following question: In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33)

(Of course, if you’ve answered it before, then perhaps you could simply quote or link to that previous answer. It’s a perfectly straightforward and pertinent question, and this is, after all, around the seventh time that I’ve put it to you.)

At this point it's only principle and a bit of amusment that I get from seeing you repeatedly ask a question that I've previously answered. I feel absolutely no obligation to repond to your requests. Zero.

[TheRedWorm]

So, you can't respond, even if it is with a link. Is that a fair assessment, Red?

[WildCat]

The British Board of Trade inquiry into the Titanic disaster ran from May 2 to July 3, 1912.
And apparently was completely inadequate, because [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cheap-rivets-blamed-for-massive-loss-of-life-as-titanic-sank-809622.html]they're still finding things the BBoT inquiry missed.

[WildCat]

sometimes investigators are looking for something and cannot find evidence. while exeryone knows, the accused is guilty.

When Al Capone and other Mafiosis are able to keep evedence hidden. im pretty sure that a corrupt group inside Gov Agencys are able to do the same.
Al Capone and the Mafia were invented by the government so they could steal our freedom with the RICO Act and other legislation.

You hear me? Al Capone was a government agent!

[WildCat]

The Titanic hit an iceberg... looks like case closed there too.
Did the BBoT investigate the possibility of bombs aboard the Titanic that went off after it hit the iceberg? What about U-Boats? Has the steel been tested for thermite residue?

OMG, it was an inadequate investigation!!!1!!!!!1!

[Par]

At this point it's only principle and a bit of amusment that I get from seeing you repeatedly ask a question that I've previously answered. I feel absolutely no obligation to repond to your requests. Zero.


So, you call someone a liar and when asked a simple question about your accusation you claim that it’s due the principle of the matter – the principle – that you repeatedly refuse to answer it. RedIbis, this is perverse. Please go over to the aforementioned thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817) and answer the question: In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33)

If you really have already answered it then – hey! my bad! – all you need to do is provide a link or a quotation.

[Par]

So, you can't respond, even if it is with a link. Is that a fair assessment, Red?


Here’s something else that bears highlighting. He’s currently claiming (somewhat desperately) that now that I’ve asked the question eight times, he’s justified in refusing to answer on principle. But that raises another question: Why was he refusing to answer before that point?

[WildCat]

If you really have already answered it then – hey! my bad! – all you need to do is provide a link or a quotation.
RedIbis didn't answer it, he's lying. It's the one thing he does. Well, 2 things - lying and avoiding answering direct questions. Wait, I mean 3 things - lying, avoiding answering direct questions, and making accusations without any evidence to back them up.

[jaydeehess]

RedIbis didn't answer it, he's lying. It's the one thing he does. Well, 2 things - lying and avoiding answering direct questions. Wait, I mean 3 things - lying, avoiding answering direct questions, and making accusations without any evidence to back them up.

more Monty Python??

[Hyperviolet]

I was looking forward to opening this thread and getting a look-see at the final WTC7 Report.

Instead, it's just a pointless thread.
Great.

I'm sure the gag is really very witty, though.
I'm just getting old.

[Par]

RedIbis (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33)?

[RedIbis]

RedIbis (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33)?


Hello my friend. Again, great signature!

[TheRedWorm]

Either answer the question or don't respond. Please do not act like a child.

[Par]

Hello my friend. Again, great signature!


So, you’d rather attempt to cause a distraction than answer a pertinent and straightforward question.

[RedIbis]

Either answer the question or don't respond. Please do not act like a child.

And ironically, ultimatums are particularly child like.

[RedIbis]

So, you’d rather attempt to cause a distraction than answer a pertinent and straightforward question.

How can you in good conscience accuse me of distraction by bringing up worn out questions into unrelated threads?

[Par]

How can you in good conscience accuse me of distraction by bringing up worn out questions into unrelated threads?


Please stop trying to cause a distraction. All you need to do is answer the question: In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33)

Of course, if you’ve answered it before, then perhaps you could simply quote or link to that answer.

[Par]

How can you in good conscience accuse me of distraction by bringing up worn out questions into unrelated threads?


Incidentally, this is the second time that RedIbis has employed a “two wrongs make a right”/“tu quoque” fallacy in order to try to avoid this question. The other example is above. Further, note the equivocation fallacy. The word “distraction” is conflated in order to equate partially derailing a thread – a thread devoted to a joke which has now passed, I might add – with desperately and cynically trying to avoid a pertinent and straightforward question by repeatedly attempting to change the subject.

[dudalb]

Incidentally, this is the second time that RedIbis has employed a “two wrongs make a right”/“tu quoque” fallacy in order to try to avoid this question. The other example is above. Further, note the equivocation fallacy. The word “distraction” is conflated in order to equate partially derailing a thread – a thread devoted to a joke which has now passed, I might add – with desperately and cynically trying to avoid a pertinent and straightforward question by repeatedly attempting to change the subject.


In other words, RedIBis is following Truther Standard Operating Procedure.

[jaydeehess]

Purely for entertainment purposes only, what if I don't?

Then it is just one more example of you being unable or unwilling to back up contentions you make.

Does someone need to explain to you what does to any credibility you might wish to have?

For instance, did you ever explain how you figure that the removal of fire insulation would not accellerate the raising of the temperature of the steel in the WTC towers. I do recall trying to get you to explain how that would work but I if you ever did get around to it I must have already gotten frustrated and left the thread. It destroyed your credibility so much, in my view, that I included it in my sig.

[Bobert]

WOW a truther NOT ANSWERING a simple question?
I am shocked!
:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[pomeroo]

A fire department is not a person who can express an opinion. Members of a dept. can express an opinion.

Why are you unable to understand this?


Why do you prefer making yourself look ridiculous to acknowledging that you've trapped yourself in an untenable position? You are pretending to people who know better that you have answered questions that you have steadfastly refused to answer.

Stop playing word games with someone who is far more skilled at detecting verbal trickery than you are capable of producing it. The opinion of the FDNY is expressed through its spokespersons, i.e., commanders on the ground. It was the opinion of the department--NOT merely individual members--that WTC 7 was dangerously unstable and likely to collapse. NO MEMBERS OF THE FDNY HAVE COME FORWARD TO CONTRADICT THIS STATEMENT--AS YOU KNOW!

We will keep hammering away at the question you avoid, the one that undermines the fantasy you are wedded to:

GIVEN THAT LARRY SILVERSTEIN WAS AGREEING WITH THE FDNY'S ASSESSMENT, WHAT WAS HE LYING ABOUT ??????

[Jonnyclueless]

Wow. This is the Caesar of word salads.

I am just gonna have to assume that that was some attempt to be clever. But like your answer as to what Larry was lying about, I guess we'll never know.

[jaydeehess]

I am just gonna have to assume that that was some attempt to be clever.

Maybe he watches "Boston Legal"

[Jonnyclueless]

Maybe he watches "Boston Legal"

Ah, so that's why i don't get it. I have never seen the show.

[RedIbis]

Why do you prefer making yourself look ridiculous to acknowledging that you've trapped yourself in an untenable position? You are pretending to people who know better that you have answered questions that you have steadfastly refused to answer.

Stop playing word games with someone who is far more skilled at detecting verbal trickery than you are capable of producing it. The opinion of the FDNY is expressed through its spokespersons, i.e., commanders on the ground. It was the opinion of the department--NOT merely individual members--that WTC 7 was dangerously unstable and likely to collapse. NO MEMBERS OF THE FDNY HAVE COME FORWARD TO CONTRADICT THIS STATEMENT--AS YOU KNOW!

We will keep hammering away at the question you avoid, the one that undermines the fantasy you are wedded to:

GIVEN THAT LARRY SILVERSTEIN WAS AGREEING WITH THE FDNY'S ASSESSMENT, WHAT WAS HE LYING ABOUT ??????

I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you. Can you speak louder?

[TheRedWorm]

Please, answer the question, or don't respond. It is pretty clear that you are not answering the questions in your responses anyway, so to abstain from posting should not be too far of a stretch for you.

[Garb]

I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you. Can you speak louder?

You could at least have the decency to answer the question. Or explain why it is unreasonable.

[Par]

GIVEN THAT LARRY SILVERSTEIN WAS AGREEING WITH THE FDNY'S ASSESSMENT, WHAT WAS HE LYING ABOUT ??????I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you. Can you speak louder?


Further down the spiral you go: Your desperation has now driven you to common babyishness and sneering – like a young child who’s been caught lying. There’s no way out. Perhaps you should attempt to salvage some level of dignity and simply answer the question.

[deep]

In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3593817&postcount=33)


It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.

[Jonnyclueless]

If this turns into a discussion of Larry saying pull it, someone please blow my brains out for me.

[Par]

It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse. Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.


Please stop trying to change the subject, Deep44. RedIbis has a question to answer.

[pomeroo]

I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you. Can you speak louder?


I genuinely have no desire to re-ignite our feud. Can we agree that you have demonstrated, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have no intention of ever coming to grips with this question, one that has been put to you by several posters? When you claim to have answered it, you are simply not telling the truth.

[pomeroo]

It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.


Stop lying. No serious researchers agree with Gage's gaggle of frauds.

[Jonnyclueless]

No, I like Deep44's post. I would like him to point out the evidence those 300+ architects, engineers, an scientists have to prove WTC 7 was a CD. Surely 300 such professionals would have an argument more than 'it looked like a CD and it fell entirely into its own foot print" The whole footprint claim I can't imagine being made by experts since it's completely untrue. And i can't imagine experts calling an 18 seconds collapse to be near free fall speed.

[Myriad]

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.


The supposed 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with "us" (you meant, with every government, law enforcement agency, university faculty, and professional society in the world, right?) have not published any peer-reviewed papers setting out the rationale for their disagreement.

Hence, there's nothing to refute.

So, back to worrying about Silverstein.

What was he lying about?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[peteweaver]

Lastchild WTC 7 was built over an existing electrical substation, its load distribution was uniquely wide. And it is known that the more load a steel structural member has to support, the less heat it takes to cause it to fail.

When load bearing columns fail, they give way. When they give way their load collapses.

[DGM]

It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.
Actually out of these 300+ individuals that you so worship not a single one has come up with a theory on how it was done. Why don't you go talk to them and ask them why this is. The best your hero's have done so far is "because it looks like one" (CD that is). Demolitions leave tons of evidence. Are you ready to accuse everyone involved in the cleanup of being "in on it". That's what it would take, or do you think the "perps" were hoping they'd get lucky and no one would notice?

[slyjoe]

Come up with a theory? They can't even get the acceleration of gravity right.

[jaydeehess]

It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.

Those 300 have nothing with which to dispute that there were impact damages done when large pieces of WTC 1 fell on WTC 7 or that large office fires were occuring in WTC 7.

Furthermore all they do have to support the contention of CD is "it looks like it if you squint and ignore the fire and impact damage"

[1337m4n]

Please, gentlemen. Silverstein is for the other thread.

For this thread, the question is how can RedIbis say this:

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

without implicating everyone working on the project as being complicit.

[Dave Rogers]

It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Strangely, though, you seem to believe that yours do.

Dave

[Oliver]

Well, Gravy told me the latest news about the scheduled date for the final release. Being a Skeptic and keeping recent release-dates in mind, I'm doubtful about the date - but I also take it as a aimed date and hope that they're able to meet their estimate. :)

[MarkyX]

It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint?

It didn't, so your argument is flawed.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you. Can you speak louder?

I'd like to sugest everyone to ignore this idiot.
pure and simple.

[1337m4n]

2 days left, RedIbis. How's the explanation coming along? I'm quivering with anticipation!

[RedIbis]

2 days left, RedIbis. How's the explanation coming along? I'm quivering with anticipation!

I'm sorry, what?

[1337m4n]

Alrighty Red. Time's up.

What's the word?

Do you retract this statement:

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

or do you stand by it?

If you stand by it, are you implicating everyone working on the project as being complicit? If yes, what evidence do you have that this is the reason for the delay?

If you stand by it but do not implicate everyone working on the project as being complicit, could you please explain what on God's green earth you are talking about, as well as how your position makes any logical sense?

Can you explain what your position even IS? Do you even have a position?

[RedIbis]

Alrighty Red. Time's up.

What's the word?

Do you retract this statement:



or do you stand by it?

If you stand by it, are you implicating everyone working on the project as being complicit? If yes, what evidence do you have that this is the reason for the delay?

If you stand by it but do not implicate everyone working on the project as being complicit, could you please explain what on God's green earth you are talking about, as well as how your position makes any logical sense?

Can you explain what your position even IS? Do you even have a position?

You have a lot to learn about your tactic of disingenuous ultimatums and false dichotomies. This is not likely to inspire sincere debate.

[funk de fino]

You have a lot to learn about your tactic of disingenuous ultimatums and false dichotomies. This is not likely to inspire sincere debate.

What are you implying with that statement then? That it is taking time to cover something up?

[RedIbis]

What are you implying with that statement then? That it is taking time to cover something up?


I was pretty clear when I said, "It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7. "

[funk de fino]

I was pretty clear when I said, "It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7. "

So, you are saying that because they are taking too long they must be trying to find a way to cover something up.

Thats what it looks like. Fair assessment of your statement?

[RedIbis]

So, you are saying that because they are taking too long they must be trying to find a way to cover something up.

Thats what it looks like. Fair assessment of your statement?

I don't know if they're covering anything up. I think it would be difficult and time consuming to construct an explanation, blaming the collapse on normal office fires and single column failure, that is not going to be torn apart by simple logic.

[Jonnyclueless]

Then that would explain why it is taking ae911truth.org to write a peer reviewed paper explaining their claims. 7 years now and nada.

[pomeroo]

You have a lot to learn about your tactic of disingenuous ultimatums and false dichotomies. This is not likely to inspire sincere debate.


Your side has no interest whatever in "sincere debate." The baseless slanders of Larry Silverstein demonstrate the accuracy of that contention. You accuse the man of lying, but you can't begin to explain what he might conceivably be lying about.

[funk de fino]

I don't know if they're covering anything up. I think it would be difficult and time consuming to construct an explanation, blaming the collapse on normal office fires and single column failure, that is not going to be torn apart by simple logic.

So are you saying that office fires weakening steel and progressive collapse are illogical phenomena?

[Par]

I was pretty clear when I said, "It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7. "So, you are saying that because they are taking too long they must be trying to find a way to cover something up. Thats what it looks like. Fair assessment of your statement?I don't know if they're covering anything up. I think it would be difficult and time consuming to construct an explanation, blaming the collapse on normal office fires and single column failure, that is not going to be torn apart by simple logic.So are you saying that office fires weakening steel and progressive collapse are illogical phenomena?


RedIbis has recently learned that when he makes his accusations unequivocally, he can end up being confronted by them and, as a result, put into some extremely difficult positions. Consequently, he’s taken to passive aggressive behaviour.

In this case, he’s taken a prosaic sentence like “Conducting a thorough investigation that arrives at a valid conclusion is both complicated and time-consuming” and has reconstructed it using innuendo-laden terms such as “construct an explanation” and “blaming the collapse on” in order to imply that the report will be a fabrication of some kind without actually having to state as much clearly. Of course, if he did state as much clearly, then, given that he can’t have yet read the report, he would make plain that his position is based upon predetermined dogma as opposed to anything approaching reason.

In any event, he seems to have been so eager to express his bristling disdain for the report that he’s essentially made it plain anyway: Something that necessarily follows from his statements, if nothing else does, is that the report’s conclusion is predetermined.

[1337m4n]

You have a lot to learn about your tactic of disingenuous ultimatums and false dichotomies. This is not likely to inspire sincere debate.

Please quote me where I made a "disingenuous ultimatum" or a "false dichotomy".

Then, please quote yourself where you answer my question.

You have a lot to learn about your tactic of hiding subtle accusations and insults in your words, and then running away from debate every time you get confronted about it.

[1337m4n]

ME: Hey, RedIbis, is it raining outside?

REDIBIS: FALSE DICHOTOMY!!11!!11oneone!!

ME: wtf there's no "false dichotomy", it's either raining or it isn't.

REDIBIS: LA LA LA LA LA LA FALSE DICHOTOMY LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

[1337m4n]

RedIbis has recently learned that when he makes his accusations unequivocally, he can end up being confronted by them and, as a result, put into some extremely difficult positions. Consequently, he’s taken to passive aggressive behaviour.

In this case, he’s taken a prosaic sentence like “Conducting a thorough investigation that arrives at a valid conclusion is both complicated and time-consuming” and has reconstructed it using innuendo-laden terms such as “construct an explanation” and “blaming the collapse on” in order to imply that the report will be a fabrication of some kind without actually having to state as much clearly. Of course, if he did state as much clearly, then, given that he can’t have yet read the report, he would make plain that his position is based upon predetermined dogma as opposed to anything approaching reason.

In any event, he seems to have been so eager to express his bristling disdain for the report that he’s essentially made it plain anyway: Something that necessarily follows from his statements, if nothing else does, is that the report’s conclusion is predetermined.

Some time ago on another forum, I heard the perfect description of the kind of lying behavior RedIbis is practicing (by which lies are told which aren't outright, but are subtle and manipulative). I'd like to repeat it here.

A man runs around town shouting "A meteor is coming! We're all going to die!". Now, technically speaking, the man isn't "lying". In fact, his words aren't even false. The Earth is constantly flying through dusty fields of space, and technically speaking even a small particle of space dust can be considered a "meteor". Furthermore, as there is no known means of achieving immortality, we all ARE going to die...eventually.

But is the man TRULY lying? Yes. Although technically true, his words are crafted with the deliberate intent to decieve and, in this case, cause mass panic.

RedIbis doesn't tell OVERT lies, but they're there. He doesn't spew OUTRIGHT insults (i.e. he doesn't say "you're stupid"), but every time you read one of his posts, it's obvious that he's insulting you.

[chillzero]

l33t, please stop it, and concentrate on the thread topic.

[dommyboysinjapan]

All this baseless speculation about whether or not truthers will read the building 7 report or whether or not they will disagree with it if there is no reference to cd is intriguing (even if it does paint them all in the same category), but the fact remains that it has still not been released to the public and it has been over 6 and a half years since the event itself. It was originally slated to come out in mid 2005. I have read the interim report and it is far from decisive as to the cause of the collapse although it lists what is believed to be the most likely possibilities.

I don't think a little bit of speculation on the part of ctists or anyone else for that matter is unfounded in the absence of a clear and/or timely official explanation from the scientific community. I am a little sensitive to the fact that people are readily accepting the ct without the benefit of clear and convincing evidence. Even if there were a few explosives added by the fire department in order to bring building 7 down in a more controlled fashion (so as to prevent more damage to the neighboring buildings than was already sustained), this would not automatically point to any nefarious government involvement. The Truther community would do much better to politely push for a new investigation as opposed to screaming accusations of treason.

[johnny karate]

All this baseless speculation about whether or not truthers will read the building 7 report or whether or not they will disagree with it if there is no reference to cd is intriguing (even if it does paint them all in the same category), but the fact remains that it has still not been released to the public and it has been over 6 and a half years since the event itself. It was originally slated to come out in mid 2005. I have read the interim report and it is far from decisive as to the cause of the collapse although it lists what is believed to be the most likely possibilities.

See here's the thing: NIST has other responsibilities besides appeasing delusional paranoids. For the most part, "the public" does not care about WTC7. It was not attacked and no one died as a result of its collapse. Pretty much the only people interested in the pending NIST report are industry professionals and CTers lying in wait to reject it.

Even if there were a few explosives added by the fire department in order to bring building 7 down in a more controlled fashion (so as to prevent more damage to the neighboring buildings than was already sustained), this would not automatically point to any nefarious government involvement.

Except that no one in the FDNY says this happened. Their official position is that WTC7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire. Which either makes them liars and complicit in some kind of cover-up, or your little theory total crap. I'll leave it up to you to decide which.

[dommyboysinjapan]

johnny karate,

See here's the thing: NIST has other responsibilities besides appeasing delusional paranoids.
This sounds like you are making excuses for their delays. I guess saying that they have other responsibilities is a fair enough assessment. It is much better than saying "my dog ate it." For the most part, "the public" does not care about WTC7.
For the most part the public doesn't KNOW about WTC 7 because it was under reported by the mainstream media. Of those who do know about WTC 7 there are a lot of questions and speculation. I assume that you believe everyone who has not accepted the mainstream conclusions brought forth by the government, media and FDNY in an a priori manner is a conspiracy theorist. We should shut up and believe everything we are told by the authorities without scrutiny or critical thinking, right?
Pretty much the only people interested in the pending NIST report are industry professionals and CTers lying in wait to reject it.
In a few cases these people might fall into both categories.

Originally Posted by dommyboysinjapan View Post
Even if there were a few explosives added by the fire department in order to bring building 7 down in a more controlled fashion (so as to prevent more damage to the neighboring buildings than was already sustained), this would not automatically point to any nefarious government involvement.
Except that no one in the FDNY says this happened. Their official position is that WTC7 collapsed due to debris damage and fire. Which either makes them liars and complicit in some kind of cover-up, or your little theory total crap. I'll leave it up to you to decide which.
So maybe only one or two members of the fire department did give some information that they knew was not totally accurate. Would this be so shocking? It has already been admitted on these boards by the mainstream defenders that members of NEADS, NORAD, and the DOD gave some timelines that were incorrect so as to cover for their own mistakes. Stranger things have happened and certainly bigger secrets have been kept by the American government historically. There is a whole lot of room between a few white lies that may or may not have been made by certain people to dissuade cts and my arguement being crap.

[thewholesoul]

You do realize that NIST has already ruled out any kind of explosive devices right?

i wonder did they speak with Barry Jennings and Mike Hesh?

You see those two guys experienced "explosions" INSIDE wtc 7 BEFORE any tower fell.

i wonder can you explain their testimony. obviously the explosions werent caused by "explosives" in your mind...so tell me what in your opinion was their cause?

And kind of funny comment considering that the truthers 7 years later don't even have a paper on WTC 1&2 let alone 7, where the only argument is "It looks like a CD".

no it was a controlled demolition that is why it looked like one.

even debunkers are smetimes honest enough to admit that it "looks" like a CD, and when they do i ask them how many natural collapses do they know that looked like a CD. they never respond to that one.

Yes, forgive us for not needing NIST to debunk "It looks to me like a CD". The laughter you hear when that claim is made can be considered NISTs response as well.

look NIST deny the existence of molten steel dispite all the testimony to the contrary. they obviously cannot be trusted.

[e^n]

i wonder did they speak with Barry Jennings and Mike Hesh?
Mike Hess, and yes we are aware, there are many threads discussing this issue.

even debunkers are smetimes honest enough to admit that it "looks" like a CD, and when they do i ask them how many natural collapses do they know that looked like a CD. they never respond to that one.
I do think WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition, and I probably can't give you any examples of a 'natural collapse' which looked similar. There are good reasons for that though, building safety is carefully considered and well thought out in the western world. When it isn't, typically buildings are small, under 15 floors. There are no direct analogues to WTC1, 2 or 7 in either the 'natural collapse' world or the Controlled Demolition world.

look NIST deny the existence of molten steel dispite all the testimony to the contrary. they obviously cannot be trusted.
So because you feel molten steel existed you have rationalised dismissing everything NIST has to say? What about Arup, Edinburgh, Weidlinger, Quintire? Do you dismiss them with the same flimsy reason?

edit: We really shouldn't necro this topic, you should search for existing topics on each individual issue, there are always many.

[DC]

When the WTC7 "collapse" is so logic and normaly like the selfdeclared "skeptics" and "debunkers" want us to belive, why does NIST need so much time?

[e^n]

When the WTC7 "collapse" is so logic and normaly like the selfdeclared "skeptics" and "debunkers" want us to belive, why does NIST need so much time?
Because it's important they get it right. How long should it take in your eyes? Can you contrast the time it has taken with similar projects?

[funk de fino]

When the WTC7 "collapse" is so logic and normaly like the selfdeclared "skeptics" and "debunkers" want us to belive, why does NIST need so much time?

Who said it was logical and who said it was normal?

[DC]

Because it's important they get it right. How long should it take in your eyes? Can you contrast the time it has taken with similar projects?

i dont know, do you know?

but i dont try to fing excuses etc fro NOST like the "debunkers" try to.....

[e^n]

i dont know, do you know?

but i dont try to fing excuses etc fro NOST like the "debunkers" try to.....

If you don't know how long it should take, how can NIST possibly need an excuse? You just admitted you have absolutely no basis to judge the time it has taken them. Neither do I, which is why I accept "it's done when it's done".

[DC]

If you don't know how long it should take, how can NIST possibly need an excuse? You just admitted you have absolutely no basis to judge the time it has taken them. Neither do I, which is why I accept "it's done when it's done".

See here's the thing: NIST has other responsibilities besides appeasing delusional paranoids.

sounds like an excuse to me, and its from a "debunker"

[DC]

You do realize that NIST has already ruled out any kind of explosive devices right?
Johnnyclueless

oh did they? so we dont gonna have the FE sim with blast events?

[funk de fino]

sounds like an excuse to me, and its from a "debunker"

Should they have stopped the report for the Twin Towers to continue with WTC7?

What was the priority?

[DC]

Should they have stopped the report for the Twin Towers to continue with WTC7?

What was the priority?

when was the WTC 1 and 2 reports finished and published?????

[e^n]

sounds like an excuse to me, and its from a "debunker"
You have clearly established that there's no basis for NIST needing an excuse. All the line you have quoted (you should attribute it properly but I don't care) is saying is that NIST has other responsibilities, they are not throwing 100% of their research capability into the WTC7 report as it is not of vital importance to anyone but a tiny subset of an already quite small 911 truth movement.

[funk de fino]

when was the WTC 1 and 2 reports finished and published?????

That is not what i asked DC

[zorro99]

I was pretty clear when I said, "It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7. "

I think I'm going to start having open-flame BBQ lunches in my office during lunchtime. If the boss says something, I'll just say "Hey, it's just a 'normal office fire'! What's the harm?"

[zorro99]

I think it's worth noting that NIST will likely issue a DRAFT of its report on WTC 7, and will make it available for public comments and criticisms for about a six-week period or so (as it did with the first WTC reports).

If Redibis or anyone else has issues with their conclusions, they would be free to submit their comments in writing and post copies of said comments here.

[DC]

That is not what i asked DC

well when you want an answer to your question, ask NIST :)

[funk de fino]

well when you want an answer to your question, ask NIST :)

I was asking your opinion not NISTs

dodge noted DC, you are racking up some amount of avoiding the question posts

quite pathetic really

[DC]

I was asking your opinion not NISTs

dodge noted DC, you are racking up some amount of avoiding the question posts

quite pathetic really

ah you wanted my oppinion?
well i think it would be time to release the first Drafts. in a few months the final report should be released.
it was ok to use the same team on both reports, its ok that they first finished the other report on 1 and 2.
my point was actually, that the collapse is not so easy like the "debunkers" want ut to belive.

[16.5]

Who thinks it looks like a CD??

I certainly do not think so.

Put aside the massive damage from the fall of the towers and the fires within the structure, I'd suggest that anyone who thinks that it looks like CD should investigate the undisputed testimony regarding the fact that the FDNY put a transit on the structure and what that revealed, and also the fact that the mechanical penthouse on the roof fell into the structure many seconds before the remainder of the structure.

C'mon, Truthers, don't believe everything you see on You Tube.

[Stellafane]

When the WTC7 "collapse" is so logic and normaly like the selfdeclared "skeptics" and "debunkers" want us to belive, why does NIST need so much time?

Because that's how sane people do things. They take nothing for granted. It doesn't take much time to pull something out of your anus (see Loose Change as a prime example). The real truth, however, takes time.

[DC]

Because that's how sane people do things. They take nothing for granted. It doesn't take much time to pull something out of your anus (see Loose Change as a prime example). The real truth, however, takes time.

are you saying that the "debunkers" that claim the collapse was only do to fire and onesided damage, are not sane?
i think i can agree on that :)

[DC]

Who thinks it looks like a CD??

a demolition expert and several structural engineering experts for example.

[Stellafane]

are you saying that the "debunkers" that claim the collapse was only do to fire and onesided damage, are not sane?
i think i can agree on that :)


No, and cut the crap now, OK? Stop putting words in my mouth -- I know you think it's clever, but it's incredibly irritating and frankly makes you look like a jerk.

[twinstead]

Who thinks it looks like a CD??

a demolition expert and several structural engineering experts for example.

Lots of people think it looks like CD, but how many actually think it was CD? A couple? 5? How many structural engineering and demolition experts are there in the world? I would recommend you get a couple more, don't you think?

Regardless, I wouldn't recommend we have a contest as to how many experts each side can get to agree with him. That's a 'war of attrition' you don't want to get involved in.

[DC]

No, and cut the crap now, OK? Stop putting words in my mouth -- I know you think it's clever, but it's incredibly irritating and frankly makes you look like a jerk.

but alot "debunkers" take it as granted that the cause for the "collapse" was the fires and damage. mmmhhhh :confused:

[applecorped]

but alot "debunkers" take it as granted that the cause for the "collapse" was the fires and damage. mmmhhhh :confused:

Because that is what happened. You and others that think like you will never be able to change this.

[DC]

Because that is what happened. You and others that think like you will never be able to change this.

do you take it as granted that only fire and the onesided damage cause the collapse?

[applecorped]

No, I initially thought it was space aliens but no one could corroborate that for me. I then suspected Charlie Sheen because no one could account for his whereabouts that day. I flirted with the notion that Herve Villachez might have done it because he ws so small so as to go undetected but I found out he was dead.
I relented and went with reality, it was all I had left.

[CptColumbo]

but alot "debunkers" take it as granted that the cause for the "collapse" was the fires and damage. mmmhhhh :confused:I'm not surprised that you are confused. It best fits the known evidence (there were fires and structural damage to the building) and is also the realistic explanation of what happened. There is no evidence to suggest it was otherwise. However, the NIST must still conduct a close examination of how it happened.

Three guys are standing in the middle of a basketball court, during the halftime of an NBA game. They are part of the cleaning crew and are just dry mopping the court floor. One is wearing a hat with the basketball team’s logo on it, one is wearing a bandana, and the third is wearing a hat with the local baseball team’s logo on it. Suddenly, the guy with the baseball hat shoots the other guy with the hat in the head, using a 9mm he had hidden in his coveralls. Not all the spectators were paying attention, but some saw the first shot. Since it was halftime the feed from the cameras were not live and the cameras were not pointed at the location of the killing. Now however, everyone is now watching the middle of the court, and the technical director of the game instructs his camera crew to get shots of the action for the news division of the network. Before security has time to react, the gunman then shoots the guy with the bandana, in the chest. Almost all the spectators, numbering in the thousands, saw this. The shooter then turns the gun on himself, placing the gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger. The back of his head explodes in a shower of blood and brains.

In David Simon's book Homicide: a Year on the Killing Streets this would be regarded as a "dunker" (slang for "a slam dunk case"), an obvious suspect and plenty of witnesses. However, Will Peterson and his crew (CSI, for those who are unfamiliar with American TV) arrive, and must still map out what happened at the scene. The coroner will still do an autopsy to determine a cause of death. Detectives look into the backgrounds of the victims and the shooter, to find a possible motive. Bullets are found in the two victims, along the track of the wounds. Unfortunately, the bullet that killed the suspected shooter can't be found. It traveled (according to witnesses and video playback) at an upward angle, most likely going into the rafters of the building, and may have struck one of the steel supports above it, been spent and fell to the ground. Thus, it was probably lost in the crowd as it left the building.

However, before the findings of the investigators are completed a dentist has some unanswered questions. Why did the bullet go through the shooter's head and not the first victim's head? Why was the fact that the second victim had a pacemaker never made available to the public? Why has the third bullet never found? The explanation to him and others he enlists is obvious. There is a vast conspiracy, on the part of professional sports, to raise ticket prices.

The dentist, referred to as "Doctor" by his supporters, explains that only explosives placed within the logo of the hat of the first victim can explain the wound not being a through-and-through. He finds an explosive expert who tells him that "yeah an explosive could cause a wound like that..." Leaving out the rest of the statement, "but to propel the bullet into the skull would require an explosive package size that would be noticeable to the victim and the people around him." He also shows that an explosive could be placed in the pacemaker of the second victim, without doing research into when the victim's last operation was. "Isn't it obvious that the absence of the third bullet is proof that an explosive charged was placed in the man's head?" Also, some of the eyewitnesses (including off-duty cops, and soldiers on leave) described some of the "gunshots" as "sounding like small explosions." There can be no other possible explanation.

Further, who benefited? Since the event all major league sports have raised their ticket prices, to pay for extra security, it must be the professional sports teams.

Why hasn't the investigation been completed? The sport teams have the city and state officials in their pocket.

Finally, isn't it suspicious that the suspect was identified so quickly?

According to the coroner, all three people died of gunshot wounds. According to the forensics team, the guy in the baseball hat was the shooter. He has GSR on his hands and his fingerprints are the only ones on the gun and the bullets inside the gun. According to the detectives, there was bad blood between the shooter and the victims. Apparently, the guy in the basketball hat was sleeping with the baseball hat wearer's wife, and the guy in the bandana knew this was going on for sometime and didn't tell baseball hat. Two days before there had been an altercation between the men in their locker room.

[DC]

how do sportteams benefit when they have to rise ticketprices to pay for the security?
lower prices will rise the demand of tickets :)

[CptColumbo]

how do sportteams benefit when they have to rise ticketprices to pay for the security?
lower prices will rise the demand of tickets :)Now you see why you are wrong.

[Stellafane]

but alot "debunkers" take it as granted that the cause for the "collapse" was the fires and damage. mmmhhhh :confused:

You need to reconsider the meaning of the word "debunker." It means to debunk claims, not make them. In this case, the claim being made is that, contrary to all expert opinion, elementary physics, visual evidence, appearances, and common sense, the WTC was brought down not by debris falling from the Twin Towers, but by a controlled demolition (or some other thing). I know this has been explained innumerable times, but it's up to the party making the claim to back it up. And it's the role of the debunker to question that claim, to demand evidence, and when appropriate (and this is such a case) to point out that a much simpler, seemingly more obvious, rational, and sane theory is available that explains the existing evidence far better.

So there you have it (not that I expect it'll have a great deal of impact). CTers by definition make claims. Debunkers by definition question those claims. The roles are not equivalent, as you appear to imply. And when a truther pulls a claim out of his rectum and insists it's the unvarnished truth, debunkers have every right to say "That isn't truth, it's a piece of crap." And when said truther then retorts "But I pulled it out so quickly! Much quicker than it's taking the official report to get done. That must mean something!!" we have every right to laugh in his face.

[applecorped]

Bingo! No conspiracy! You're catching on.

[DC]

Now you see why you are wrong.

i dont see how it is related to 9/11, beside that security firms provit from it.

[DC]

You need to reconsider the meaning of the word "debunker." It means to debunk claims, not make them. In this case, the claim being made is that, contrary to all expert opinion, elementary physics, visual evidence, appearances, and common sense, the WTC was brought down not by debris falling from the Twin Towers, but by a controlled demolition (or some other thing). I know this has been explained innumerable times, but it's up to the party making the claim to back it up. And it's the role of the debunker to question that claim, to demand evidence, and when appropriate (and this is such a case) to point out that a much simpler, seemingly more obvious, rational, and sane theory is available that explains the existing evidence far better.

So there you have it (not that I expect it'll have a great deal of impact). CTers by definition make claims. Debunkers by definition question those claims. The roles are not equivalent, as you appear to imply. And when a truther pulls a claim out of his rectum and insists it's the unvarnished truth, debunkers have every right to say "That isn't truth, it's a piece of crap." And when said truther then retorts "But I pulled it out so quickly! Much quicker than it's taking the official report to get done. That must mean something!!" we have every right to laugh in his face.

contrary to all expert opinion, elementary physics, visual evidence, appearances, and common sense,

are you sure you want to claim that?

[Stellafane]

are you sure you want to claim that?

Actually, I don't. Let me add "intelligence" and "sanity" to the list, and see how it reads:

...contrary to all expert opinion, elementary physics, visual evidence, appearances, intellgence, sanity, and common sense...

Hmm, maybe I see what you mean. It's the word "all" in front of "expert opinion." As I recall, CTers seemed to have found one or two people who claim they're qualified to make a judgement on the WTC7 express the opinion that it could have been a CD. Now in my less charitable moments I think anyone who really believes that is both stupid or crazy, or perhaps just enjoys the attention for some perverted reason. But seeing as I'm a nice guy, I'll amend it instead to the following:

...contrary to the overwhelmingly vast majority of expert opinion, elementary physics, visual evidence, appearances, intellgence, sanity, and common sense...

Yep, that's about right.

[beachnut]

Who thinks it looks like a CD??

a demolition expert and several structural engineering experts for example.
I few dolts in 9/11 truth who lack knowledge; why are they so wrong? I know of no body who understands WTC7 and the events of 9/11 who thinks it was CD or thermite. Thermite is the dumbest idea yet. CD is impossible based on the evidence. That leave you thinking it was, and you are wrong. WTC7 is what happens when a building burns all day. But that takes knowledge to understand that trumps your own biased made up ideas that you think are correct. Maturity and knowledge may help you make a rational conclusion instead of being wrong, except your sig, on 9/11.

Your opinions, not based on facts, are wrong on 9/11. You may want to debate something you have some evidence on. I suspect, from you posts, you have no real knowledge to support your opinions on 9/11.

Since WTC7 was burning out of control, what would happen after 6 or 7 hours? Go ahead set fire to your home of office and do not fight the fire and disable the fire systems. Tell me what happen?

[DC]

Actually, I don't. Let me add "intelligence" and "sanity" to the list, and see how it reads:



Hmm, maybe I see what you mean. It's the word "all" in front of "expert opinion." As I recall, CTers seemed to have found one or two people who claim they're qualified to make a judgement on the WTC7 express the opinion that it could have been a CD. Now in my less charitable moments I think anyone who really believes that is both stupid or crazy, or perhaps just enjoys the attention for some perverted reason. But seeing as I'm a nice guy, I'll amend it instead to the following:



Yep, that's about right.


elementary physics?
explain how fires can cause a symmetrical collapse of a onesided damaged building?

[Pardalis]

Still no ideas for the new investigation? Still clinging to your nonsensical "questions" uh DC?

It's going to take forever if you'll keep doing this.

[DC]

Still no ideas for the new investigation? Still clinging to your nonsensical "questions" uh DC?

It's going to take forever if you'll keep doing this.

what new investigation?
they are not even done with the first one.....

maybe they will this summer.

[Pardalis]

what new investigation?
they are not even done with the first one.....

maybe they will this summer.

Well it's from the same organisation that did the report on the towers, so you'll refuse it without reading it.

So what about that new investigation? Any ideas or do you want to keep JAQing off? It's not on a message board that you're going to get your answer you know.

[Stellafane]

elementary physics?
explain how fires can cause a symmetrical collapse of a onesided damaged building?

Oh dear, oh dear...apparently my little explanation of the respective roles of "CTer" and "debunker" hasn't had the desired effect (not that this is a heart-attack-provoking surprise). So just in case you missed it the first time, here it is again in a nutshell: You make the claim. You support it. I point out, if I can, the flaws in your claim. If I can't, you've got yourself (if I do say so myself) a reasonably intelligent and articulate convert. Otherwise, I keep treating your claims like the load of feces I'm fairly certain they are. Got it?

So let's try this again: what, exactly, are you claiming?

[BenBurch]

do you take it as granted that only fire and the onesided damage cause the collapse?

Not for granted; I'd also not be surprised to find the design of the building was fundamentally flawed.

[DC]

Oh dear, oh dear...apparently my little explanation of the respective roles of "CTer" and "debunker" hasn't had the desired effect (not that this is a heart-attack-provoking surprise). So just in case you missed it the first time, here it is again in a nutshell: You make the claim. You support it. I point out, if I can, the flaws in your claim. If I can't, you've got yourself (if I do say so myself) a reasonably intelligent and articulate convert. Otherwise, I keep treating your claims like the load of feces I'm fairly certain they are. Got it?

So let's try this again: what, exactly, are you claiming?

well you claimed that elementary physics can explain it......

but its a good thing you retracted that claim.

[DC]

Well it's from the same organisation that did the report on the towers, so you'll refuse it without reading it.

So what about that new investigation? Any ideas or do you want to keep JAQing off? It's not on a message board that you're going to get your answer you know.

welcome to ignore , liar.

[Stellafane]

well you claimed that elementary physics can explain it......

but its a good thing you retracted that claim.

I have done no such thing, because, as I've patiently tried to explain to you to no effect, I am not making any claim. I've already warned you about putting words in my mouth, but apparently it hasn't deterred you from doing it again. I have never put anyone on ignore before, and I'm not going to start with you. But I will say I will never again respond to anything you ever write, because you have proved youself simply unworthy of the bother.

ETA: And oh yeah, the fact that you desperately avoided making a claim, because you knew it would be humiliatingly thrown back into your face like every other piece of insanity ever offered by any truther anywhere, and instead resorted to a schoolyard insult unworthy of a 10 year old child, did not escape my notice.

[DC]

I have done no such thing, because, as I've patiently tried to explain to you to no effect, I am not making any claim. I've already warned you about putting words in my mouth, but apparently it hasn't deterred you from doing it again. I have never put anyone on ignore before, and I'm not going to start with you. But I will say I will never again respond to anything you ever write, because you have proved youself simply unworthy of the bother.

so you are a no claimer?

[Pardalis]

welcome to ignore , liar.

Great, this way you'll have justification for totally ignoring the real question.

[beachnut]

welcome to ignore , liar.
You ignore reality too. At least you practice what you preach.

So why do you care about the NIST report on 7? It will only dash your hopes of the dumb CD idea.

[eeyore1954]

When the WTC7 "collapse" is so logic and normaly like the selfdeclared "skeptics" and "debunkers" want us to belive, why does NIST need so much time?

Just because it was logical based upon observation that day that collapse was imminent does not mean it is so simple to ascertain the exact cause of the collapse and to make recommendations for building safety. You can be pretty sure that not one of the scientists at NIST is looking at the collapse and is perplexed that such a thing could have happened.

Start petitioning the truth movement so they can raise funds to hire PHD's from a few top engineering schools to report back to you if the building collapse behaved in any unexpected fashion.

If all NIST was to do as RedIbis suggested
to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.
the report would have been finished long ago. The evil cabal probably would have had it written and ready to go before 9/11.

[DC]

Just because it was logical based upon observation that day that collapse was imminent does not mean it is so simple to ascertain the exact cause of the collapse and to make recommendations for building safety. You can be pretty sure that not one of the scientists at NIST is looking at the collapse and is perplexed that such a thing could have happened.

Start petitioning the truth movement so they can raise funds to hire PHD's from a few top engineering schools to report back to you if the building collapse behaved in any unexpected fashion.

If all NIST was to do as RedIbis suggested

the report would have been finished long ago. The evil cabal probably would have had it written and ready to go before 9/11.


Joerg Schneider and Hugo Bachman will not take money :)

[Pardalis]

Joerg Schneider and Hugo Bachman will not take money :)

Again, completely ignores the point by hiding behind a smiley.

Why do we waste time on this troll?

[T.A.M.]

the report would have been finished long ago. The evil cabal probably would have had it written and ready to go before 9/11.

Bingo, game set and match.

The argument over the delayed release, and it somehow being proof of the "inside job" is ridiculous.

Ask yourself, if you were plotting to blow up a building that was not destroyed as a direct result of your primary action (planes into buildings), do you not think you would have had a plan in place, to explain how it happened, before it did?

wait, before you answer DC, I think the evil Cabal would have been thorough enough to count on people such as teenage investigooglists, from cracking open their super ebil plan, so if you had any plans to say that the bad guys simply didn't anticipate the scrutiny that would follow, forget it, not gonna fly...

The ebil Cabal would not allow a small single man space ship to destroy their death star.

TAM:)

[DC]

Bingo, game set and match.

The argument over the delayed release, and it somehow being proof of the "inside job" is ridiculous.

Ask yourself, if you were plotting to blow up a building that was not destroyed as a direct result of your primary action (planes into buildings), do you not think you would have had a plan in place, to explain how it happened, before it did?

wait, before you answer DC, I think the evil Cabal would have been thorough enough to count on people such as teenage investigooglists, from cracking open their super ebil plan, so if you had any plans to say that the bad guys simply didn't anticipate the scrutiny that would follow, forget it, not gonna fly...

The ebil Cabal would not allow a small single man space ship to destroy their death star.

TAM:)

im not even sure if WTC7 was planned before the event. Also i dont think NIST is in on it. i dont belive in such huge conspiracys alla illuminaten etc.

[Pardalis]

Also i dont think NIST is in on it.

So why do you find it suspicious that the report is taking so long?

At least try to keep up with yourself.

[Dog Town]

i dont belive in such huge conspiracys alla illuminaten etc.

How could you not? You are a complex kat! Exactly how many people are you? Personality wise that is.

[DC]

How could you not? You are a complex kat! Exactly how many people are you? Personality wise that is.

as far i remember atm, only one, i hope so, maybe i ignore the others or forgot them.

[applecorped]

Three faces of eve?

[BenBurch]

Three faces of eve?

Except I don't think there are ANY real MPDs... (Or if there are, they are lost in the noise of the faked ones.)

[mrbaracuda]

Why do we waste time on this troll?

He better be a troll, otherwise it would be an even sadder story.

[BenBurch]

DC,

Have you looked up the structural theory of the undamaged building yet? Do you know yet what was virtually unique about it?

-Ben

[pomeroo]

elementary physics?
explain how fires can cause a symmetrical collapse of a onesided damaged building?


You were incapable of reading Arthur Scheuerman's paper, in which he makes an honest attempt to explain. He cautions us that we must until NIST releases its report for definitive answers, but you won't attempt to read that either.

[Pato2747]

Don't stop belieeeeeeeeevin'...

[CptColumbo]

Don't stop belieeeeeeeeevin'...

Are you implying that DC is "just a small town girl, livin' in a lonely world?"

[jaydeehess]

so you are a no claimer?

In as far as the investigation has gone, and backed up by the available evidence, that being that there were large fires and severe damage to the structure, it certainly seems resonable to expect that the combination of the fires and impact damage caused the collapse.

You, and the TM then make the claim that this is not the case and that only explosives or high temperature incidiares could cause the collapse of WTC 7. This is an extraordinary claim and thus requires some direct evidence to back it up.

On the one hand we have the very real, very obvious, direct evidence of impact damage and large fires whereas your extraordinary claim has only circumstantial evidence such as the relatively symmetric collapse, and absolutly no direct and unambiguous evidence.

Thus when one is asked to draw a logical and objective conclusion based upon the facts, one can only conclude that fire and impact damage are the resonable explanation for the collapse.

[jaydeehess]

Are you implying that DC is "just a small town girl, livin' in a lonely world?"

Well I know he's not from South Detroit.:D

[DC]

You were incapable of reading Arthur Scheuerman's paper, in which he makes an honest attempt to explain. He cautions us that we must until NIST releases its report for definitive answers, but you won't attempt to read that either.

liar.