Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[Crazytimes]

I asked this question of a friend of mine who believes 9/11 was an inside job.

What in your mind is your ONE SINGLE BEST piece of evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job ?

He had a hard time using just ONE SINGLE piece of evidence and in the end his evidence wasnt evidence at all. It was a question.

So truthers, please answer the question.

What in your mind is your ONE SINGLE BEST piece of evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job ?

I am talking bring to court evidence. Not any of this "It looks like a controlled demo" crap.

[Reality Believer]

Be prepared to wait for a VERY long time.

[DC]

i didnt find any evidence, just a few indications :)

[Quad4_72]

i didnt find any evidence, just a few indications :)

We are well aware that you have not found evidence. Thank you for stating the obvious though.

[DC]

We are well aware that you have not found evidence. Thank you for stating the obvious though.

silly me, should have learned by now to not post in the "twoofer bashing" topics.
my fault, sorry.

[240-185]

For "Ultra-Violence" troofas, the single piece of evidence is an interview between Aaron Russo and Alex Jones, about a Rockefeller guy.

For "Nightmare" troofas, all is secret. "They" must hide everything. A single doubt is their best evidence.

[RedIbis]

WTC 7 Column 79

[1337m4n]

Who is the BEST out of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny?

[gc051360]

WTC 7 Column 79

And what about that particular column?


To the topic at hand. Usually when you ask this question of truthers (although RedIbis answered more specifically) they'll grandstand on "it's not about one specific thing....it's the entirety of the situation" and then a lot of times they'll go off into a rant about the Iraq war, or something of that nature.


Who is the BEST out of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny?
Santa Claus.

[Quad4_72]

WTC 7 Column 79

Nice try, but not good enough. Now, please give us your reasoning as to WHY column 79 is your best piece of evidence. In your reasoning, please provide calculations, scientific evidence, and relevant sources. Leave all speculation at the door.

[MikeW]

Usually when you ask this question of truthers (although RedIbis answered more specifically) they'll grandstand on "it's not about one specific thing....it's the entirety of the situation"...
Yes, that's my experience too. It's a standard response to any explanation of one of their "anomalies" or "contradictions" - "but you're ignoring The Big Picture". It's as though they accept that individual truther points are feeble, but if you just string enough of them together then somehow they now form a strong argument.

[R.Mackey]

WTC 7 Column 79
(I.e., "a key piece of structural steel that wasn't ever recovered.)

That's nuts. That isn't how science works.

That's like saying the best evidence I have for aliens is the UFO that I don't have.

[cludgie]

It reminds me of a scene from 'The Simpsons'


Judge: Mr. Hutz w've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?
Lionel Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

[RedIbis]

(I.e., "a key piece of structural steel that wasn't ever recovered.)

That's nuts. That isn't how science works.

That's like saying the best evidence I have for aliens is the UFO that I don't have.

So you're saying that I have to have Column 79 to prove my theory?

[DavidJames]

So you're saying that I have to have Column 79 to prove my theory?Careful Ryan to not fall into Red's, oh so clever trap. :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

So you're saying that I have to have Column 79 to prove my theory?

No, just to say it is a piece of evidence.

That said, I would say most truthers would say the collapse of WTC7 is their strongest piece of evidence (which is not saying much).

of course, even calling the collapse of WTC7 a piece of evidence is not really valid...is it?

TAM:)

[R.Mackey]

So you're saying that I have to have Column 79 to prove my theory?

That isn't even close to what I said, and to my knowledge, you don't even have a theory.

You were asked "what's your best piece of evidence." You answered with something that isn't yours, and that we do not have. Non sequitur. Very simple.

[Crazytimes]

So you're saying that I have to have Column 79 to prove my theory?

No, but how is column 79 evidence of an inside job ?

[bwinwright]

Practically the entire "Official" 9/11 report was false. It has been thoroughly disproved.

Also, anyone who watches WTC Building Number 7 fall to the ground at free fall speed and NOT think it was intentionally demolished is absolutely delusional. Wow!

Man, you guys who believe these towers simply fell as the result of planes and fire are completely off the hook insane. You probably believe Osama bin Laden orchestrated it too.

[MarkyX]

Also, anyone who watches WTC Building Number 7 fall to the ground at free fall speed and NOT think it was intentionally demolished is absolutely delusional. Wow!

No traces of bombs were found in the WTC7 debris, therefore your pathetic hypothesis is invalid.

[Crazytimes]

Practically the entire "Official" 9/11 report was false. It has been thoroughly disproved.

Also, anyone who watches WTC Building Number 7 fall to the ground at free fall speed and NOT think it was intentionally demolished is absolutely delusional. Wow!

Man, you guys who believe these towers simply fell as the result of planes and fire are completely off the hook insane. You probably believe Osama bin Laden orchestrated it too.

Your "free fall speed" comment confirms you don't know what you are talking about. Go on soaking in the truther lies and not actually doing some research. Let me guess, you still think "Pull" is an industry standard term for a controlled demo ?

[WildCat]

Practically the entire "Official" 9/11 report was false. It has been thoroughly disproved.

Also, anyone who watches WTC Building Number 7 fall to the ground at free fall speed and NOT think it was intentionally demolished is absolutely delusional. Wow!

Man, you guys who believe these towers simply fell as the result of planes and fire are completely off the hook insane. You probably believe Osama bin Laden orchestrated it too.
Anyone ever notice that insane people think it's actually everyone else that's insane?

[Drudgewire]

So you're saying that I have to have Column 79 to prove my theory?


Mackey beat me to the punch, but... you have a theory?

[HyJinX]

Practically the entire "Official" 9/11 report was false. It has been thoroughly disproved.

Also, anyone who watches WTC Building Number 7 fall to the ground at free fall speed and NOT think it was intentionally demolished is absolutely delusional. Wow!

Man, you guys who believe these towers simply fell as the result of planes and fire are completely off the hook insane. You probably believe Osama bin Laden orchestrated it too.

You tell em', bwinwright! Keep it up, little buddy!

<-----tussles bwin's hair and pats him on the head. :boggled:

[twinstead]

I suppose that makes a lot of structural engineers and demolition experts absolutely delusional

[MarekM]

Practically the entire "Official" 9/11 report was false. It has been thoroughly disproved.

Also, anyone who watches WTC Building Number 7 fall to the ground at free fall speed and NOT think it was intentionally demolished is absolutely delusional. Wow!

Man, you guys who believe these towers simply fell as the result of planes and fire are completely off the hook insane. You probably believe Osama bin Laden orchestrated it too.
Does anyone else find it impossible to distinguish good sarcasm from actual twoofer beliefs?
:confused:

[Quad4_72]

So you're saying that I have to have Column 79 to prove my theory?

You ignored my post. Why? Here it is again:
Nice try, but not good enough. Now, please give us your reasoning as to WHY column 79 is your best piece of evidence. In your reasoning, please provide calculations, scientific evidence, and relevant sources. Leave all speculation at the door.

Please try and give an answer this time.

[PhantomWolf]

Does anyone else find it impossible to distinguish good sarcasm from actual twoofer beliefs?
:confused:

I did have to wonder based on the last line if bwinwright was being sarcastic, but not remembering any other posts I from him/her I must admit that it's hard to tell is it's scarasm or real.

[PhantomWolf]

We are well aware that you have not found evidence. Thank you for stating the obvious though.

No evidence, no facts, no theories (other than "it was an inside job") and they wonder why they aren't getting anywhere.

[dudalb]

Yes, that's my experience too. It's a standard response to any explanation of one of their "anomalies" or "contradictions" - "but you're ignoring The Big Picture". It's as though they accept that individual truther points are feeble, but if you just string enough of them together then somehow they now form a strong argument.

A recent variation of this was when one Truther here stated that "Political LIteracy is more important to understanding 9/11 then Scientific Literacy".
In other words, "We Don't Need No Stinking Actual Proof!".

[1337m4n]

and to my knowledge, you don't even have a theory.

Ouch. He's got you there, Red.

[Hokulele]

[truther mode]

We need that new investigation so we can find the evidence we know must be there, but the Government is hiding from us.

[/truther mode]

[Mince]

There is no "best" piece of evidence. For you must have at least two pieces of evidence for one to be best. The "truthers" have none. By evidence, I mean actual empirical evidence, not "evidence" derived from speculation based on ignorance of scientific principles and personal incredulity. Of course the collapse is going to look funny...to the uninformed. Of course the explanation isn't going to make sense...to the uneducated.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

I think this place and the fact that nothing is ever debunked here is pretty good evidence.

[Totovader]

silly me, should have learned by now to not post in the "twoofer bashing" topics.
my fault, sorry.

WTMF?

"What is your evidence" is "twoofer bashing"???

My god. I'm not sure you want to admit that, DC.


:solved1

[Hokulele]

I think this place and the fact that nothing is ever debunked here is pretty good evidence.


Heh, go ahead and print out every thread from this sub-forum, bind the results with a nice cover sheet, and bring it to any agency in any country. See how much closer to a new investigation that gets you. :cool:

[RedIbis]

That isn't even close to what I said, and to my knowledge, you don't even have a theory.

You were asked "what's your best piece of evidence." You answered with something that isn't yours, and that we do not have. Non sequitur. Very simple.

So now I have to own it. Is that the semantics you're working with?

[Totovader]

So now I have to own it. Is that the semantics you're working with?

Can I just point out that- in your attempt to shift the burden of proof- you're trying to hold on to an argument from ignorance.

Lack of evidence is not evidence, Red. That's not "semantics", that's science. There's a big difference.

[RedIbis]

Can I just point out that- in your attempt to shift the burden of proof- you're trying to hold on to an argument from ignorance.

Lack of evidence is not evidence, Red. That's not "semantics", that's science. There's a big difference.

So if I don't have Column 79 to prove my theory, you don't think my theory holds much water?

[Totovader]

So if I don't have Column 79 to prove my theory, you don't think my theory holds much water?

That's not an answer to my question. You're just reiterating your fallacy- and that doesn't help your case.

[Slayhamlet]

So if I don't have Column 79 to prove my theory, you don't think my theory holds much water?

Here's a trick question: what is your theory?


Yes, I know it's not really a trick question, but you'll evade it like it were one anyway.

[RedIbis]

That's not an answer to my question. You're just reiterating your fallacy- and that doesn't help your case.

What question? I didn't see a question mark.

[Totovader]

What question? I didn't see a question mark.

Fair enough: that's not addressing my point- you're just reiterating your fallacy, and that doesn't help your case.

Is it a good idea to abandon logic in order to hold on to these fantasies of the so-called "Truth Movement", Red? Is it somehow better to ignore the evidence and reject fundamental scientific principles? Do conspiracy theories have something better (more reliable, more truthful, more factual) than reason?

You were asked for your best piece of evidence- what you responded with is something that is not evidence. I have to assume- from that- that you think the answer to each of the questions above would be "yes, science is inadequate to understand the universe- conspiracy theories are more equipped to understand the truth".

[RedIbis]

Fair enough: that's not addressing my point- you're just reiterating your fallacy, and that doesn't help your case.

Is it a good idea to abandon logic in order to hold on to these fantasies of the so-called "Truth Movement", Red? Is it somehow better to ignore the evidence and reject fundamental scientific principles? Do conspiracy theories have something better (more reliable, more truthful, more factual) than reason?

You were asked for your best piece of evidence- what you responded with is something that is not evidence. I have to assume- from that- that you think the answer to each of the questions above would be "yes, science is inadequate to understand the universe- conspiracy theories are more equipped to understand the truth".

My theory is based on Column 79. Do you think I actually have produce this piece of physical evidence for my theory to be true?

Is this a general principle of science? Or do the rules change depending on who premises their theory on the non existence of a piece of evidence?

[Totovader]

My theory is based on Column 79. Do you think I actually have produce this piece of physical evidence for my theory to be true?

Is this a general principle of science? Or do the rules change depending on who premises their theory on the non existence of a piece of evidence?

You aren't addressing my point at all- and you aren't answering my questions.

Again- my previous post was:

Fair enough: that's not addressing my point- you're just reiterating your fallacy, and that doesn't help your case.

Is it a good idea to abandon logic in order to hold on to these fantasies of the so-called "Truth Movement", Red? Is it somehow better to ignore the evidence and reject fundamental scientific principles? Do conspiracy theories have something better (more reliable, more truthful, more factual) than reason?

You were asked for your best piece of evidence- what you responded with is something that is not evidence. I have to assume- from that- that you think the answer to each of the questions above would be "yes, science is inadequate to understand the universe- conspiracy theories are more equipped to understand the truth".

[R.Mackey]

My theory is based on Column 79. Do you think I actually have produce this piece of physical evidence for my theory to be true?

Is this a general principle of science? Or do the rules change depending on who premises their theory on the non existence of a piece of evidence?

You don't have a theory.

And yes, you can have a theory based on something you no longer have, or something you will never have. Black holes, again, is the example that comes to mind.

What you're squawking about, however, is Column 79 as the key piece of evidence. That's a whole different story. Since you don't have Column 79 at all, this is obviously nonsense.

The semantic games are really, really sad. Please stop.

[RedIbis]

You don't have a theory.

And yes, you can have a theory based on something you no longer have, or something you will never have. Black holes, again, is the example that comes to mind.

What you're squawking about, however, is Column 79 as the key piece of evidence. That's a whole different story. Since you don't have Column 79 at all, this is obviously nonsense.

The semantic games are really, really sad. Please stop.


You haven't even bothered to answer any of my questions. It's quite simple actually. I have a theory, which is premised on Column 79. Do you think I need to produce this piece of evidence to support my theory?

Just answer yes or no.

[WildCat]

You haven't even bothered to answer any of my questions. It's quite simple actually. I have a theory, which is premised on Column 79. Do you think I need to produce this piece of evidence to support my theory?

Just answer yes or no.
Oh look, proven liar RedIbis is lying again, this time about having a theory.

[AJM8125]

There is no "best" piece of evidence. For you must have at least two pieces of evidence for one to be best. The "truthers" have none. By evidence, I mean actual empirical evidence, not "evidence" derived from speculation based on ignorance of scientific principles and personal incredulity. Of course the collapse is going to look funny...to the uninformed. Of course the explanation isn't going to make sense...to the uneducated.


Ah, but there you have it. Yes, the best evidence troofers have is, in fact, no evidence at all. In Twooferdom, not only is it possible to prove a positive with a negative, it is strongly encouraged. Take this true conversation I had with teh troof at my local watering hole:

ME: (to an interested college) "So as the collapse initiated and the columns were pulled inward,..."

Troofer: (drunk and yelling from the opposite of the bar) "That's a load of ****, everyone knows the towers were brought down by thermite."

Me: "Really? I didn't know that. How so?

Troofer: "Man, Bush's cousin was in charge of security at the WTC. They brought in demolition crews and rigged the towers to blow the weekend before 9/11"

Me: "How could you possibly know this? Marvin Bush had a seat on the board of one of the many security contractors on the job at the WTC, by the way. He gave up that seat well before 9/11 too."

Troofer: "Why did they remove all of the evidence before before anyone could investigate it?" They shipped it all off to China so nobody would find the explosive residue!"

Me: "So where's your evidence that the evidence no longer exists and no forensic investigation was conducted?"

Troofer: "Evidence? Evidence? How do you explain the hole in the C ring at the pentagon? Hmmm? How do explain the total lack of airplane parts in Shanksville? Why did Siverstein say...."

Me: "Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold up a minute, how 'bout answering my question; What is your evidence that there is no evidence?"

Troofer: "Dude, you suuuuuuuuuuuck! Total pwnage!"

Me: "Barkeep, I'll have a double."

Troofer: "So, what are you? NSA? FBI? CIA?"

Me: And keep'em coming.

[R.Mackey]

You haven't even bothered to answer any of my questions. It's quite simple actually. I have a theory, which is premised on Column 79. Do you think I need to produce this piece of evidence to support my theory?

Just answer yes or no.

Do you even read my posts?

And yes, you can have a theory based on something you no longer have, or something you will never have. Black holes, again, is the example that comes to mind.

But nonetheless, your question has no bearing on the OP, or your original answer.

---

ETA: Since that sounded terse, let me expound upon that.

In order to call a "theory" a theory, it must come with evidence that supports your hypothesis. (Note this is evidence that you must have, and must produce for verification. No sneaky word-twisting about stuff you have but don't, or stuff you should have, or whatever.)

In this case, you could, such as NIST does, have a theory for which the best piece of evidence -- this is what the OP asked for -- is theoretical. Perhaps simulations, scale models, trials, what have you. This is still evidence. Since this evidence has value, it is therefore of more value than something that does not exist, i.e. your Column 79.

Ergo, it is possible to have a theory based on, or premised on, physical articles that you do not have. You can support your theory in other ways. But you must support it somehow. In this case, if you do not have such an article, the article itself is no longer your best piece of evidence. It isn't there. Thus it isn't evidence. It isn't anything. It is therefore impossible for Column 79 itself to be your best piece of evidence. No matter what your theory is, assuming you indeed have one, which all of us rightly doubt.

QED.

So long as you do not confuse stuff you don't have with "Evidence," this should be very simple to understand.

[Sizzler]

Best evidence for inside job or best evidence that we aren't being told the truth (or only parts of the truth)?

For the former, I think the body of evidence supporting the official version is the best evidence (Commission Report, NIST WTC7 in particular).

As for an inside job I'd say the demolition of WTC7 is the best evidence because of the agencies it housed. I doubt any Saudi terrorists could set up CD without being detected.:cool:

[CHF]

I think this place and the fact that nothing is ever debunked here is pretty good evidence.

So when are you going to show this message board to the war crimes investigators in the Hague?

[Pardalis]

So both RedIbis and Sizzler, who have always claimed to be agnostic about 9/11, are now officially coming out as truthers?

[CHF]

As for an inside job I'd say the demolition of WTC7 is the best evidence because of the agencies it housed.

So the agencies it housed is proof of a demolition?

How so?

[johnny karate]

As for an inside job I'd say the demolition of WTC7 is the best evidence because of the agencies it housed.

How is something there is no evidence for evidence of something else? You might as well claim that the Loch Ness monster exists because Bigfoot told you so.

[HyJinX]

Best evidence for inside job or best evidence that we aren't being told the truth (or only parts of the truth)?

For the former, I think the body of evidence supporting the official version is the best evidence (Commission Report, NIST WTC7 in particular).

As for an inside job I'd say the demolition of WTC7 is the best evidence because of the agencies it housed. I doubt any Saudi terrorists could set up CD without being detected.:cool:

Most ridiculous post ever on this forum. Seriously. Sizz...you need to read my words carefully. What you wrote above is asinine and void of any sort of intellegence. Absolutely stupid. I'll give you the opportunity to reword you post...because you've truly proven youself to be a dolt in the post above. Really...it's the worst post ever. At lest try. Try harder. Try your hardest...because if this is the best you have...stop posting. You're truly not helping youself by being ignorant, ridiculous and lazy.

[TC329]

I asked this question of a friend of mine who believes 9/11 was an inside job.

What in your mind is your ONE SINGLE BEST piece of evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job ?

He had a hard time using just ONE SINGLE piece of evidence and in the end his evidence wasnt evidence at all. It was a question.

So truthers, please answer the question.

What in your mind is your ONE SINGLE BEST piece of evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job ?

I am talking bring to court evidence. Not any of this "It looks like a controlled demo" crap.


The list of WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville eyewitnesses who contradict the official story.

Again, I believe American citizens over the Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and has a WMD aresenal and mushroom cloud mushroom cloud mushroom cloud we're not torturing anybody because there are no secret cia european prisons and pat rambo tillman and jessica lynch and oh al qaeda al qaeda al qaeda oooga booga WMD crew.

[AJM8125]

The list of WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville eyewitnesses who contradict the official story.

Again, I believe American citizens over the Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and has a WMD aresenal and mushroom cloud mushroom cloud mushroom cloud we're not torturing anybody because there are no secret cia european prisons and pat rambo tillman and jessica lynch and oh al qaeda al qaeda al qaeda oooga booga WMD crew.

So you believe Wally Miller.

[HyJinX]

The list of WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville eyewitnesses who contradict the official story.

Again, I believe American citizens over the Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and has a WMD aresenal and mushroom cloud mushroom cloud mushroom cloud we're not torturing anybody because there are no secret cia european prisons and pat rambo tillman and jessica lynch and oh al qaeda al qaeda al qaeda oooga booga WMD crew.


Silly rabbit. :rolleyes:

[TC329]

So you believe Wally Miller.

well wally didn't really witness anything but i do believe he matched the human remains the fbi brought him to the dna samples the fbi supplied him and matched those to the flight manifest the fbi supplied him all undocumented of course.

i also find his description of the impact to be more consistent with the physical evidence and in direct contradiction to the official fairy tale.

[MarekM]

The list of WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville eyewitnesses who contradict the official story.

Why do you feel so comfortable relying on eyewitness testimony?

I found this portion of a BBC article interesting - maybe you haven't seen it yet.

In one famous study, Dutch researchers questioned people about a 1992 accident in which a cargo plane had crashed into a block of flats near Schiphol Airport.

Ten months later, they conducted a survey asking if people remembered seeing the TV film of the plane hitting the building. More than half of the respondents said they had. A later study found that the proportion had gone up to two-thirds.

The problem is, there is no TV film of the accident. Asking the question had itself apparently changed people's memories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7457653.stm

[Quad4_72]

In another thread, Redibis claimed that Column 79 in WTC7 is the twoof movement's best piece of evidence.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4067219#post4067219
Myself and a few others asked him numerous times to give us his reasoning behind his theory of "Column 79". He avoided these questions like the plague. So here is a thread just for Ibis, to give us an in depth explanation for his theory of Column 79 in WTC7 being the "Truth" movements single best piece of evidence. Please provide calculations, sources, and relevant evidence for all claims presented. This thread is not for speculation.

This is not meant to be a "Call out" thread, but rather one for RedIbis to present us with his theory so we can critique it.

[TC329]

Why do you feel so comfortable relying on eyewitness testimony?


well i think its been proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that the bush administration has been the most lying deceitful corrupt administration in the history of the united states.

these people [eyewitnesses] saw and heard what they saw and heard where they say they saw and heard it. no one has proven a single one of them to be habitual liars.

then add in the 9/11 commissioners stating they were set up to fail and that they could have "hung" over a hundred people for 9/11 and they didn't get "everything" right and it's only a "first draft of history" tends to add to the credibility of the eyewitnesses who contradict the bush administrations fable.

[PhantomWolf]

TC, I have to ask this. How you explain all the eyewittnesses that all put Flight 77 on or about I-395, further SOUTH than the offical flight path.

[beachnut]

well wally didn't really witness anything but i do believe he matched the human remains the fbi brought him to the dna samples the fbi supplied him and matched those to the flight manifest the fbi supplied him all undocumented of course.

i also find his description of the impact to be more consistent with the physical evidence and in direct contradiction to the official fairy tale.
Wrong again. Miller debunked all you have. It was funny you did not understand your own video interview debunked all your ideas on Flight 93. Parts of plane and passengers in the crater buried to 50 feet. The whole interview was debunking your false ideas. It was great, I thought you had changed. But then you failed to understand anything he said in respect to your failed ideas.

He killed your fantasy, now you are ranting about bush and other junk because you have no evidence on 9/11!
Now your CIT p4t experts are posting NoC paths of 50 to 60 Gs along with Balsamo not being able to apply math and come up with rational numbers, after he finally uses an equation for the first time.

The point for this thread; all your evidence does not exist but in your head. And you can't fix that.

[Minadin]

Calling a column "79" also isn't standard nomenclature for the building industry, so references to exactly which column he's talking about would be helpful.

[TC329]

TC, I have to ask this. How you explain all the eyewittnesses that all put Flight 77 on or about I-395, further SOUTH than the offical flight path.

such as who?

i can pull out over a dozen names and the interviews showing witnesses saw the plane further NORTH of the official flight path.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

well i think its been proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that the bush administration has been the most lying deceitful corrupt administration in the history of the united states.
But thanks to the NWO he will finish his second term in office!

these people [eyewitnesses] saw and heard what they saw and heard where they say they saw and heard it. no one has proven a single one of them to be habitual liars.
Then why aren't they in your group of loons?

then add in the 9/11 commissioners stating they were set up to fail and that they could have "hung" over a hundred people for 9/11 and they didn't get "everything" right and it's only a "first draft of history" tends to add to the credibility of the eyewitnesses who contradict the bush administrations fable.
So you post here to bring Bush to court and to start that new investigation rolling? very good! let me know when it begins!

[pomeroo]

WTC 7 Column 79


And what was your best "evidence" before you grasped this latest straw, the straw you never dreamed of until NIST published its report?

Given that column 79 is no evidence at all for your fantasy, can you suggest something else?

[pomeroo]

The list of WTC, Pentagon and Shanksville eyewitnesses who contradict the official story.

Again, I believe American citizens over the Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and has a WMD aresenal and mushroom cloud mushroom cloud mushroom cloud we're not torturing anybody because there are no secret cia european prisons and pat rambo tillman and jessica lynch and oh al qaeda al qaeda al qaeda oooga booga WMD crew.


You agree, then, that the conflicting stories told by survivors of the Titanic disaster prove that the ship didn't sink, right?

On the off chance that you don't agree, what is the significance of discrepancies in the accounts of eyewitnesses who all claim to have observed the same event?

Your second paragraph is, of course, gibberish.

[pomeroo]

such as who?

i can pull out over a dozen names and the interviews showing witnesses saw the plane further NORTH of the official flight path.


There are many more witnesses for a different flight path, although none of this matters, as all of your witnesses saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[DC]

no mather what you answer, no mather how honest you are, they will all jump over you, pathetic :)

what a kindergarten

[beachnut]

... i can pull out over a dozen names and the interviews showing witnesses saw the plane further NORTH of the official flight path.
Faded memories after 6 years. There is not one viable NoC flight path. Zero

There were zero NoC witnesses in 2001, and now after 6 years you have impossible flight paths.

You use Boger as an NoC, he saw 77 hit the Pentagon.

You have Middleton, his story is correct but he is standing in the wrong position in the Cemetery when he is interviewed. How do you guys mess this up so bad? Middleton saw 77 in a right bank come down near Columbia Pike you guys messed up where he was on 9/11. You failed to do your homework.

So you ignore the real evidence and find faded memories and make up stories.

Paik does not support a NoC!

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Edwardpointsouth.gif

And you present NoC flight paths that are all false. You can't even do the math to see they are impossible. Why?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/77citimpossibeflithjunk.jpg
You can use Balsamo's new found math equations to see the one with over 57 Gs. Now that is one fancy wing breaking impossible turn. Seems like these guys forgot something after 6 years.

On of the CIT/p4t paths takes over 88.3 degrees of bank, the plane is on it's side at over 33.7 Gs. impossible


The worse path for Gs, greater than 89 degrees, and 57 Gs. impossible


There is an 85 degrees of bank, and 11 G, wings fall off path! impossible


If you take Paik's path and try to connect it to Middleton's path, it take two turns left, then right of 89 degree of bank and 63 Gs. Someone at ATS tried to tell me that was impossible, as if I was saying it was possible. So I have to add for the flying impaired, like me, the paths are all impossible, some are impossible for reasons CIT does not know yet...

I was told because CIT has all these NoC path witnesses, there is something to it. After he said holograms and planted lamppost to solve the lamppost issue! Doubt he will guess the something is, CIT is not good at investigation.

Boger and Middleton both saw 77 impact the Pentagon. Why did CIT cut out Middleton's impact revelation? Because they cut it since he was standing in the wrong place when the interview him, they had to cut his tore into the building part. Why does p4t and CIT make up lies and quote mine interviews. It is what they do best. At the interview CIT/p4t are either dumb and say he can't see the Pentagon impact point from the interview location , or too lazy to ask Middleton where he really was.

Is it fraud or just stupidity to not correct Middleton and find where he really was. Hint, he is on the exact road he was on 9/11 but a different area. It takes two second to figure out where. But poor CIT, due to fraud or ignorance can't or won't figure it out.

Carter point south Lyte Trip keeps saying on the North side. Liar Lyte…

Then another witness, Prather, saw the lampposts hit! LOL I can't believe this is in their NoC video! He saw the poles before 77 went by, then they were down. So CIT will make up more lies!

[UNLoVedRebel]

Practically the entire "Official" 9/11 report was false. It has been thoroughly disproved.

Also, anyone who watches WTC Building Number 7 fall to the ground at free fall speed and NOT think it was intentionally demolished is absolutely delusional. Wow!

Man, you guys who believe these towers simply fell as the result of planes and fire are completely off the hook insane. You probably believe Osama bin Laden orchestrated it too.

Watching a building fall and thinking is must be a government conspiracy is delusional. And you're a dying breed. The "best" conspiracies, the ones that have survived to 2008, are just a sexed-up LIHOP version. You got the hijackers, just throw in a controlled demolition here and there. But no "pods" no fake phone calls, no remote controlled military jet hoping to get passed off as a commercial airliner. The "hijackers still alive" twoofer is sooooo 2005.

[PhantomWolf]

such as who?

i can pull out over a dozen names and the interviews showing witnesses saw the plane further NORTH of the official flight path.

At least Dawn Vignola, Dave Winslow, Michael Tinyk, Steve Patterson, Mitch Mitchell and Barbara Ensor all put the plane on or just off the edge of I-395.

[Dave Rogers]

Best evidence for inside job or best evidence that we aren't being told the truth (or only parts of the truth)?

For the former, I think the body of evidence supporting the official version is the best evidence (Commission Report, NIST WTC7 in particular).

You're saying that the body of evidence supporting the understanding that al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks is the best evidence that al-Qaeda didn't carry out the attacks? Would you please rephrase that in a form that makes sense? Like, for example, why a large body of evidence in favour of one theory necessarily also supports a second, completely contradictory, theory?

As for an inside job I'd say the demolition of WTC7 is the best evidence because of the agencies it housed. I doubt any Saudi terrorists could set up CD without being detected.:cool:

That's evading the question, because the "demolition of WTC7" is itself a theory that requires justification. What is your best piece of evidence that WTC7 was demolished?

Dave

ETA: I just realised as I hit the Post button that your second sentence makes a little more sense if the word "former" is replaced by the word "latter". Is that what you meant? If so, then I think it's undeniable that we aren't being told all the truth, for the simple reason that nobody ever is; if nothing else, it would take too long. If that's all you mean by "we aren't being told the truth", this is a trivial objection.

[chillzero]

You haven't even bothered to answer any of my questions. It's quite simple actually. I have a theory, which is premised on Column 79. Do you think I need to produce this piece of evidence to support my theory?

Just answer yes or no.

Red,
I'm not going to argue semantics with you on this, and I'm not going to ask you to produce the actual column for me.

Can you please tell me your theory as to why column 79 is the best evidence for a CT?

[UNLoVedRebel]

You haven't even bothered to answer any of my questions. It's quite simple actually. I have a theory, which is premised on Column 79. Do you think I need to produce this piece of evidence to support my theory?

Just answer yes or no.

You're tapping dancing around your own bizarre multi-hypotheses. From what I can tell, you're saying that column 79 was severed by a "cutter charge" (or even better, a thermite "cutter charge") Well, at least it's a start. Column 79 was where many of the fires were concentrated. Could the "cutter charge" (explosives, det cor, blasting cap) survive such conditions? What's melting point of RDX? Your Column 79 "theory" rests on the answer.

[gumboot]

Why do so many Conspiracy Theorists confuse "hypothesis" and "theory"?

[T.A.M.]

Practically the entire "Official" 9/11 report was false. It has been thoroughly disproved.

Also, anyone who watches WTC Building Number 7 fall to the ground at free fall speed and NOT think it was intentionally demolished is absolutely delusional. Wow!

Man, you guys who believe these towers simply fell as the result of planes and fire are completely off the hook insane. You probably believe Osama bin Laden orchestrated it too.

1. You are factually incorrect on ALL OF THE ABOVE.
2. Your post is of such ridiculous insanity, that I know discussing it with you will be absolutely pointless, so welcome to ignore.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Does anyone else find it impossible to distinguish good sarcasm from actual twoofer beliefs?
:confused:

yes. I put him on ignore. If it turns out that he was being sarcastic, please let me know, and I will take him off.

Usually one leaves some indication of ones sarcasm.

TAM:)

[Whiplash]

I'm very intersted in this theory, RedIbis. You have said you have one several times, but completely ignore questions and requests to state it. Please do so.

[RedIbis]

In another thread, Redibis claimed that Column 79 in WTC7 is the twoof movement's best piece of evidence.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4067219#post4067219
Myself and a few others asked him numerous times to give us his reasoning behind his theory of "Column 79". He avoided these questions like the plague. So here is a thread just for Ibis, to give us an in depth explanation for his theory of Column 79 in WTC7 being the "Truth" movements single best piece of evidence. Please provide calculations, sources, and relevant evidence for all claims presented. This thread is not for speculation.

This is not meant to be a "Call out" thread, but rather one for RedIbis to present us with his theory so we can critique it.

It looks to be a call out post.

[Totovader]

no mather what you answer, no mather how honest you are, they will all jump over you, pathetic :)

what a kindergarten

Coming from someone who didn't even try- that's pretty pathetic.

The onslaught of corrections coming from this side of the fence is the result of conspiracists being unable to answer the question. So yes, "no matter what", you will be "jumped on"- but that's a consequence of believing in fantasies, not in being a victim of them.

[Totovader]

Fair enough: that's not addressing my point- you're just reiterating your fallacy, and that doesn't help your case.

Is it a good idea to abandon logic in order to hold on to these fantasies of the so-called "Truth Movement", Red? Is it somehow better to ignore the evidence and reject fundamental scientific principles? Do conspiracy theories have something better (more reliable, more truthful, more factual) than reason?

You were asked for your best piece of evidence- what you responded with is something that is not evidence. I have to assume- from that- that you think the answer to each of the questions above would be "yes, science is inadequate to understand the universe- conspiracy theories are more equipped to understand the truth".

*bump* for Red.

[chillzero]

It looks to be a call out post.

So ignore it, and prove him wrong:

Red,
I'm not going to argue semantics with you on this, and I'm not going to ask you to produce the actual column for me.

Can you please tell me your theory as to why column 79 is the best evidence for a CT?

[Drudgewire]

Bottom line if this was a real movement instead of a stupid fantasist game of misdirection and fraud, we'd be the twoofers' best friends. They'd bring their evidence to us, we'd approach it skeptically, and they'd say "thanks, now we know why we can exclude this" and either move on to the next thing or try to figure out how their theories may still fit with the newly corrected data they've provided.

Instead, they put their fingers in their ears and go LALALALA YOU'RE A BUSH APOLOGIST AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP PRESENTING THIS FLAWED DATA AS THE REAL THING BECAUSE SOME DOLTS ON THE INTERNET WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE IT.

Just sayin' is all. vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv

[DC]

next time i will lie, just to confirm Toto's prejudice :)

[DC]

Bottom line if this was a real movement instead of a stupid fantasist game of misdirection and fraud, we'd be the twoofers' best friends. They'd bring their evidence to us, we'd approach it skeptically, and they'd say "thanks, now we know why we can exclude this" and either move on to the next thing or try to figure out how their theories may still fit with the newly corrected data they've provided.

Instead, they put their fingers in their ears and go LALALALA YOU'RE A BUSH APOLOGIST AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP PRESENTING THIS FLAWED DATA AS THE REAL THING BECAUSE SOME DOLTS ON THE INTERNET WILL ALWAYS BELIEVE IT.

Just sayin' is all. vhttp://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/shobon.gifv

yes you super smart beeing, thats why in every posts of twoofers in this topic you have been called shill and bushlover etc.......

you guys are so amusing.

[Totovader]

next time i will lie, just to confirm Toto's prejudice :)

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, but I have no problem admitting that I am prejudiced against irrational fantasies. Truth be told: I think they are left over appendage of an immature human belief system- I think that rational people should be able to move beyond them.

In failing to even try to answer the question- a very simple yet very important question in relation to your particular brand of fantasy- we can see that you are unable to move beyond your fantasy. As I pointed out to Red above- which he ignored- this belief that conspiracy theories are more reliable than fundamental scientific principles is the reason that conspiracists can't even answer this simple question. And it's the reason that all you can do is whine and complain about being asked for a single piece of evidence. That's your own fault- don't start picking people out of the crowd to attack because your argument can't stand up to 5 seconds of scrutiny.

[chillzero]

Can we please stay on topic? I'm interested to find out what evidence is put forward.

[Drudgewire]

"Beeing?" :confused:


And don't look at me, I'm no physicist or engineer. The difference between the old CT me and the current one is I'm no longer dense enough to let my paranoia guide me towards automatically assuming people a lot smarter than me are either brainwashed or paid shills simply because they can prove I'm full of crap. :p

[DC]

i get asked what my best evidence is, i though ill be honest and say what i think, that i have not found any evidence. thats alot more than alot other truther would admit, they would bring up some hearsay and claim it evidence, or one or two interviews with withnesses and claim it evidence.
i tryed to be honest. that was a huge misstake.

to much JREFers are not interested in a debate, they just want some stupid comments or oppinions they can jump on and laugh about it :)

laughable

[DC]

"Beeing?" :confused:


And don't look at me, I'm no physicist or engineer. The difference between the old CT me and the current one is I'm no longer dense enough to let my paranoia guide me towards automatically assuming people a lot smarter than me are either brainwashed or paid shills simply because they can prove I'm full of crap. :p

but you love to generalize :)

[Totovader]

Can we please stay on topic? I'm interested to find out what evidence is put forward.

I'm interested too...


$100 to the first conspiracist that can provide their best piece of evidence substantiating a claim of a government conspiracy. As the OP said "the Commission Report itself" and other such nonsense clearly doesn't answer the question- and since Red has gone silent on his Column 79 of Mystery- we're all left a bit unsatisfied.

And before anyone questions my ability or my sincerity- search the threads for a conversation I had regarding the Jowenko paradox with a non-truther.

[Drudgewire]

i tryed to be honest. that was a huge misstake.


Instead of being hostile about it, let that sink a second. "I tried to be honest in a thread asking what the best evidence the truth movement has and admitted we didn't have any."

I mean, not now as I understand one-upsmanship as much as anyone. But later, when you're away from the computer and aren't engaging in debate or defending yourself from attacks or anything... just let that part of your comment bounce around in your head for awhile.

Sometimes it finally sinks in. I'm living proof. :)

[Totovader]

i get asked what my best evidence is, i though ill be honest and say what i think, that i have not found any evidence. thats alot more than alot other truther would admit, they would bring up some hearsay and claim it evidence, or one or two interviews with withnesses and claim it evidence.
i tryed to be honest. that was a huge misstake.

to much JREFers are not interested in a debate, they just want some stupid comments or oppinions they can jump on and laugh about it :)

laughable

Where did you try?

There is no debate if you don't have any evidence, DC. No one is interested in discussing things that are complete fantasies and are not grounded in reality. You can talk about flying cows and invisible dogs all day long, but unless it ties back to reality its nothing more than fiction, and it's utterly pointless.

Can you possibly try and understand this? By admitting that you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence you are committing the ultimate conspiracist suicide: you are openly admitting that facts and evidence do not matter to you- and they therefore cannot change your mind... you are admitting that logic and reason are of no use to you- because you can tell the "truth" using nothing more than your own personal whims.

The fact that your fantasies have no evidence and can't stand on their own does not bother you. It should. It really should.

[DC]

Instead of being hostile about it, let that sink a second. "I tried to be honest in a thread asking what the best evidence the truth movement has and admitted we didn't have any."

I mean, not now as I understand one-upsmanship as much as anyone. But later, when you're away from the computer and aren't engaging in debate or defending yourself from attacks or anything... just let that part of your comment bounce around in your head for awhile.

Sometimes it finally sinks in. I'm living proof. :)

i did not speak in the name of the TM nor am i a representant of the TM.

it is my personal oppinion, and alot truther do not agree with me on that.

but you people cant handle it if truthers dont act all the same.

[DC]

Where did you try?

There is no debate if you don't have any evidence, DC. No one is interested in discussing things that are complete fantasies and are not grounded in reality. You can talk about flying cows and invisible dogs all day long, but unless it ties back to reality its nothing more than fiction, and it's utterly pointless.

Can you possibly try and understand this? By admitting that you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence you are committing the ultimate conspiracist suicide: you are openly admitting that facts and evidence do not matter to you- and they therefore cannot change your mind... you are admitting that logic and reason are of no use to you- because you can tell the "truth" using nothing more than your own personal whims.

The fact that your fantasies have no evidence and can't stand on their own does not bother you. It should. It really should.

jajaja
you are so totaly right, like always.

bye bye have a nice day....

[Totovader]

jajaja
you are so totaly right, like always.

bye bye have a nice day....

Well- if I was wrong, I would expect that you would have a better rebuttal than this... and you have never been able to come up with anything better than this, really.

See if you can think about an answer. Even if you don't post it- just think about my question.

[DC]

Well- if I was wrong, I would expect that you would have a better rebuttal than this... and you have never been able to come up with anything better than this, really.

See if you can think about an answer. Even if you don't post it- just think about my question.

you cant be wrong, that is not possible, not happening !

[Drudgewire]

but you people cant handle it if truthers dont act all the same.


I'm not addressing all twoofers. I'm addressing the one who said "I don't have any evidence thousands of people were killed in a massive cover-up, but you guys are jerks for harping on it."

[DC]

I'm not addressing all twoofers. I'm addressing the one who said "I don't have any evidence thousands of people were killed in a massive cover-up, but you guys are jerks for harping on it."

who are you quoting? cant find that post.

[Totovader]

you cant be wrong, that is not possible, not happening !

I'm not about to go off on this tangent with you- but your post is so incredibly ironic that I really do need to emphasize that you need to stop and think about what you have just posted over the last few minutes. You pretend to be interested in debate. You're not.

[Drudgewire]

I'm not about to go off on this tangent with you- but your post is so incredibly ironic that I really do need to emphasize that you need to stop and think about what you have just posted over the last few minutes. You pretend to be interested in debate. You're not.


Yup, reason I'm having to click "read posts by ignored member" to respond to these. It usually takes my second cup of coffee to be sharp enough not to make this mistake.

BRB, I need to go to the coffee machine.

[DC]

I'm not about to go off on this tangent with you- but your post is so incredibly ironic that I really do need to emphasize that you need to stop and think about what you have just posted over the last few minutes. You pretend to be interested in debate. You're not.

with you? no sure not, never claimed that, i cant stand you and your arrogance :) i expressed that several times.

[Totovader]

with you? no sure not, never claimed that, i cant stand you and your arrogance :) i expressed that several times.

I see- so if you don't feel like responding- or even absorbing- the information handed to you by others... you just call them "arrogant" and that allows you to just block out that information?

Interesting. I wish I had the arrogance to do that...

I want to see if you can get back on topic: you said that you don't have any evidence- can you respond to my post above where I addressed that? Or does my "arrogance" somehow mean that you don't have to respond?

[DC]

I see- so if you don't feel like responding- or even absorbing- the information handed to you by others... you just call them "arrogant" and that allows you to just block out that information?

Interesting. I wish I had the arrogance to do that...

I want to see if you can get back on topic: you said that you don't have any evidence- can you respond to my post above where I addressed that? Or does my "arrogance" somehow mean that you don't have to respond?

i did not call the others arrogant, i called you arrogant, that is my oppinion about you.
just like your oppinion about me is that i am an idiot :)

we just should stop posting to eachother. i cant stand you, sorry. there are others that do never agree with me, but i can get along with them.

but you? no sorry, i totaly dislike you, i dont mean that offending, its just my oppinion about you.
we really should stop posting to eachother, less hard words and mod actions needed then :)

[Totovader]

i did not call the others arrogant, i called you arrogant, that is my oppinion about you.
just like your oppinion about me is that i am an idiot :)

we just should stop posting to eachother. i cant stand you, sorry. there are others that do never agree with me, but i can get along with them.

but you? no sorry, i totaly dislike you, i dont mean that offending, its just my oppinion about you.
we really should stop posting to eachother, less hard words and mod actions needed then :)

Then put me on ignore- if the questions are too tough or you don't like being wrong, then I suggest you do everything in your power to avoid reading what I have to say. I will not- however- succumb to your threats- it will not stop me from posting them.

I would think that an adult would be able to keep their "oppinions" and other off-topic nonsense to himself.

So, again- you completely ignored my last post and instead went on one of your usual "I hate you" tangents to avoid the facts which I present... and which you are forced to dismiss as "arrogance". Go ahead and take me down a notch: answer the following post...

Where did you try?

There is no debate if you don't have any evidence, DC. No one is interested in discussing things that are complete fantasies and are not grounded in reality. You can talk about flying cows and invisible dogs all day long, but unless it ties back to reality its nothing more than fiction, and it's utterly pointless.

Can you possibly try and understand this? By admitting that you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence you are committing the ultimate conspiracist suicide: you are openly admitting that facts and evidence do not matter to you- and they therefore cannot change your mind... you are admitting that logic and reason are of no use to you- because you can tell the "truth" using nothing more than your own personal whims.

The fact that your fantasies have no evidence and can't stand on their own does not bother you. It should. It really should.

[DC]

Ill do my best to not press "View Post" anymore :)

[Totovader]

Ill do my best to not press "View Post" anymore :)

That's your prerogative- and I can see why someone in your position would need to do that.

Just to be clear, the post you are ignoring- the information that is so deadly to your fantasy that you have to lash out at me instead of actually think for one minute is the following:

Where did you try?

There is no debate if you don't have any evidence, DC. No one is interested in discussing things that are complete fantasies and are not grounded in reality. You can talk about flying cows and invisible dogs all day long, but unless it ties back to reality its nothing more than fiction, and it's utterly pointless.

Can you possibly try and understand this? By admitting that you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence you are committing the ultimate conspiracist suicide: you are openly admitting that facts and evidence do not matter to you- and they therefore cannot change your mind... you are admitting that logic and reason are of no use to you- because you can tell the "truth" using nothing more than your own personal whims.

The fact that your fantasies have no evidence and can't stand on their own does not bother you. It should. It really should.

Instead of attacking me or coming up with excuses- maybe you can actually address this kind of stuff for once.

Or maybe someone else can. Red- you aren't stupid enough to admit that you have absolutely no evidence, are you? Why not? Are you capable of realizing that having no evidence takes away any ounce of credibility- and tosses out the rules of knowledge altogether?

If both "sides"- or rather, if scientists- said "I don't need any evidence to believe this"... what kind of world would this be? Well- there would be no debate, because there would be nothing to debate. So when people like DC pretend to be interested in debate, but are unable or unwilling to debate- that's why: it brings us right back to square one.

If you have no criteria whatsoever for belief- then there is nothing with which to correct, challenge, or modify your belief structure. In other words, there's no way you can be right, and there's no way you can be wrong. It's no different than one priest yelling at another one that he's a lunatic because he talks to God.

Science, logic, and reason dissolve that fantasy by replacing faith with knowledge. No more floating abstractions, no more games of "who can out yell" or "who can insult the most", and what it really comes down to: who can believe the hardest. Science doesn't care about that. Any rational person shouldn't, either.

[RedIbis]

The fact that your fantasies have no evidence and can't stand on their own does not bother you. It should. It really should.

So you're saying that for a theory to be true, it must have evidence behind it. Do you think it's necessary for there to be physical evidence? In other words, if my theory is premised on Column 79, do you think this column should exist, be available for examination, and any theory premised on this column without producing it is invalid?

[funk de fino]

Where did you try?

There is no debate if you don't have any evidence, DC. No one is interested in discussing things that are complete fantasies and are not grounded in reality. You can talk about flying cows and invisible dogs all day long, but unless it ties back to reality its nothing more than fiction, and it's utterly pointless.

Can you possibly try and understand this? By admitting that you believe in something that has absolutely no evidence you are committing the ultimate conspiracist suicide: you are openly admitting that facts and evidence do not matter to you- and they therefore cannot change your mind... you are admitting that logic and reason are of no use to you- because you can tell the "truth" using nothing more than your own personal whims.

The fact that your fantasies have no evidence and can't stand on their own does not bother you. It should. It really should.

I quoted it for you DC because it is a very good post. You really should read it, think about it and see where it leaves your opinion of how you have been acting. If you refuse to reply to this honestly that leaves the rest of us with one option of how we think you are acting.

I trusted you enough to supply docs that I probably should not have so I am not doing this just to have a go at you. I just feel you should read and digest the post regardles of who wrote it.

[Totovader]

So you're saying that for a theory to be true, it must have evidence behind it. Do you think it's necessary for there to be physical evidence? In other words, if my theory is premised on Column 79, do you think this column should exist, be available for examination, and any theory premised on this column without producing it is invalid?

What I'm saying is that you are ignoring my previous post, where I address this:

Fair enough: that's not addressing my point- you're just reiterating your fallacy, and that doesn't help your case.

Is it a good idea to abandon logic in order to hold on to these fantasies of the so-called "Truth Movement", Red? Is it somehow better to ignore the evidence and reject fundamental scientific principles? Do conspiracy theories have something better (more reliable, more truthful, more factual) than reason?

You were asked for your best piece of evidence- what you responded with is something that is not evidence. I have to assume- from that- that you think the answer to each of the questions above would be "yes, science is inadequate to understand the universe- conspiracy theories are more equipped to understand the truth".

The reason you are doing that is because you're trying to insert a red herring instead of sticking to the issue.

[RedIbis]

What I'm saying is that you are ignoring my previous post, where I address this:



The reason you are doing that is because you're trying to insert a red herring instead of sticking to the issue.

You've ignored every single one of my questions. All of which are simple, direct and based on what you have previously posted. You have a propensity for verbosity, and I'm trying to condense this discussion to a very simple point.

I asked:
So you're saying that for a theory to be true, it must have evidence behind it. Do you think it's necessary for there to be physical evidence? In other words, if my theory is premised on Column 79, do you think this column should exist, be available for examination, and any theory premised on this column without producing it is invalid?

[DC]

that I probably should not have

why? i thought you trusted me enough? did i forward them to anyone? did you seem them pop up on the internet?
or is it just because i am a so called truther that you assume i wil not respect your privacy and will forward those docs to someone else?

you are disapointing me now :(

[funk de fino]

why? i thought you trusted me enough? did i forward them to anyone? did you seem them pop up on the internet?
or is it just because i am a so called truther that you assume i wil not respect your privacy and will forward those docs to someone else?

you are disapointing me now :(

your poor grasp of english has let you down again DC

i am saying that it goes against the grain to supply any truthers with info like that because of the past actions of a lot of them. see my sig for example and the CIT and pft morons actions.

it was against this better judgement that i decided to trust you because you did not seem to be like them. i put faith in you and you repaid it. To be honest i really should not have supplied those docs to anyone

i have yet to see any back up when turbofan/pft socks question my credentials though. i thought you may have stood up for me.

by trying to get you to read and think about what toto has posted is because i think it is something you should think really hard about regardless of whether you like him or not

[Totovader]

You've ignored every single one of my questions. All of which are simple, direct and based on what you have previously posted. You have a propensity for verbosity, and I'm trying to condense this discussion to a very simple point.

I asked:

You asked in an attempt to ignore my post and insert your own red herring. My question came first- if you are going to pretend to be annoyed by someone ignoring your questions- then you should taste the irony and address my points first.

Your "very simple point" is a red herring.

[RedIbis]

You asked in an attempt to ignore my post and insert your own red herring. My question came first- if you are going to pretend to be annoyed by someone ignoring your questions- then you should taste the irony and address my points first.

Your "very simple point" is a red herring.

Wrong. Your first attack against me in this thread was when you claimed that I didn't answer your questions, which as I pointed out to you would be a bit difficult since you didn't actually ask any questions.

It was then you proceeded to ignore the simplest possible question.

[DC]

your poor grasp of english has let you down again DC

i am saying that it goes against the grain to supply any truthers with info like that because of the past actions of a lot of them. see my sig for example and the CIT and pft morons actions.

it was against this better judgement that i decided to trust you because you did not seem to be like them. i put faith in you and you repaid it. To be honest i really should not have supplied those docs to anyone

i have yet to see any back up when turbofan/pft socks question my credentials though. i thought you may have stood up for me.

by trying to get you to read and think about what toto has posted is because i think it is something you should think really hard about regardless of whether you like him or not


i cant stand up for you (i hope you know what i mean)
i do belive those documents are real, and i belive you worked on the technical part of the airplanes, and it also involved FDR's. but it is not realy enough for me to assure others that it is true.

i dont say it is faked docs, or they arent yours. there is just no way i can be sure. so i will not say, yes that guy is an expert.

[Minadin]

Why do so many Conspiracy Theorists confuse "hypothesis" and "theory"?

Or, "deluded paranoid speculation" with "theory"? An hypothesis is an educated guess, and it's a valid part of the scientific process. The ramblings of conspiracists are the opposite.

[funk de fino]

i cant stand up for you (i hope you know what i mean)
i do belive those documents are real, and i belive you worked on the technical part of the airplanes, and it also involved FDR's. but it is not realy enough for me to assure others that it is true.

i dont say it is faked docs, or they arent yours. there is just no way i can be sure. so i will not say, yes that guy is an expert.

you believe thay are real or not? you are a wee bit contradictory? you are saying you believe me but not enough to tell others of my credentials?

unbelievable, read your post back and see what it is really saying. i hope this is just due to your poor english again

they are real. please tell me how i could possiblty get those specific type of documents. i used those for a reason.

are there any other docs i could supply that would allay your fears? pics of me on a plane? training course certs? picture of the medal that is mentioned in the docs i gave you with a time stamp on it (slokmed)

you either believe me or you dont, if so, you do not even have to say i am an expert on FDR but i have supplied docs that back up my claims that you have personally seen and believe are real

[GregoryUrich]

Are you asking for the best piece of evidence that there was a conspiracy or the best evidence that we need a new investigation?

[DC]

Or, "deluded paranoid speculation" with "theory"? An hypothesis is an educated guess, and it's a valid part of the scientific process. The ramblings of conspiracists are the opposite.

and the Ramblings of the nontruthers here?

[DC]

you believe thay are real or not? you are a wee bit contradictory? you are saying you believe me but not enough to tell others of my credentials?

unbelievable, read your post back and see what it is really saying. i hope this is just due to your poor english again

they are real. please tell me how i could possiblty get those specific type of documents. i used those for a reason.

are there any other docs i could supply that would allay your fears? pics of me on a plane? training course certs? picture of the medal that is mentioned in the docs i gave you with a time stamp on it (slokmed)

you either believe me or you dont, if so, you do not even have to say i am an expert on FDR but i have supplied docs that back up my claims that you have personally seen and believe are real


not do to my poor english.

its like i said.

look i had the same here, i provided documents about my education into machineengineering, i didnt even blackout my real name, i provided them to a Mod here on jref. bacuase alot claims came up that i am not what i said i am.
but for the one it was not enough, and i did understand it. because there was no way for her to know if it is true or not.

also i have no clue if your docs are real or not. I do belive they are, i dont think you would make it up.
but i dont gonna go post and say, yes he is what he sais he is.
(Ich werde nicht meine Hand für dich ins Feuer legen.)

it is not enough to confirm it. sorry, nothing personal. try to understand.
when i send you my docs, there is no way for you to know if they are real.

[Minadin]

and the Ramblings of the nontruthers here?


If they are mere speculation without evidence, they're just as bad.

[chillzero]

So you're saying that for a theory to be true, it must have evidence behind it. Do you think it's necessary for there to be physical evidence? In other words, if my theory is premised on Column 79, do you think this column should exist, be available for examination, and any theory premised on this column without producing it is invalid?

Red,
If you don't like the questions being put to you about the existence or accessibility of evidence, perhaps you could answer the (I think) very reasonable questions I asked you?


Are you asking for the best piece of evidence that there was a conspiracy or the best evidence that we need a new investigation?

The OP explains this .... twice, in fact:
What in your mind is your ONE SINGLE BEST piece of evidence that proves 9/11 was an inside job ?

[funk de fino]

not do to my poor english.

its like i said.

look i had the same here, i provided documents about my education into machineengineering, i didnt even blackout my real name, i provided them to a Mod here on jref. bacuase alot claims came up that i am not what i said i am.
but for the one it was not enough, and i did understand it. because there was no way for her to know if it is true or not.

also i have no clue if your docs are real or not. I do belive they are, i dont think you would make it up.
but i dont gonna go post and say, yes he is what he sais he is.
(Ich werde nicht meine Hand für dich ins Feuer legen.)

it is not enough to confirm it. sorry, nothing personal. try to understand.
when i send you my docs, there is no way for you to know if they are real.

ridiculous

you believe me or you dont, you cant run away and use someone else as an excuse. i gave you them in good faith and you are throwing that back in my face

if you do believe then you should say that you have seen paperwork that was supplied by me to back up my claims

if you do not then you say to me you believe the docs are faked

there is no middle ground, you either believe me or you dont

i asked you if it was enough to supply you with proof of my claims and i did. the docs i supplied are not just any old docs DC. they are assessment records from military service for a specific year. they back up every claim i have made about my service.

again, if there are any other docs i could supply that would assure you enough to say to someone else that you have seen proof i am who i say i am then feel free to tell what it would take. can i fake the medal, can i fake pics of me on a plane, can i fake my old uniform, can i fake course certs, all of which back up my claims? if i was going to fake the docs i would probably have done a better job of scanning and resizing them than i did the ones i sent you in a hurry. how quickly do you think i could fake something like that from when i first decided to give them to you?

if you supplied similar docs to me in good faith then if i felt they backed you up i would tell others that you had supplied what i believe were backup to your claims. if i did not believe them i would say so and not back you up

you have wasted my time and yours i'm afraid and sadly it does not surprise me

[dtugg]

So Red, please tell us what your theory about WTC7 is and how column 79 is evidence for it. You have been asked several times, and you have conveniently ignored the question. We would all love to hear it.

[RedIbis]

Red,
If you don't like the questions being put to you about the existence or accessibility of evidence, perhaps you could answer the (I think) very reasonable questions I asked you?




The OP explains this .... twice, in fact:

I would think that if you expect such a courtesy you would have attempted to answer my very simple questions.

[chillzero]

I would think that if you expect such a courtesy you would have attempted to answer my very simple questions.

You didn't ask me anything.

You ignored my attempts to bring you back to the subject at hand, and I specifically addressed the questions you asked others in order to accomodate you.

So please - what is your theory about column 79 that makes it clear in your mind as evidence of an inside job?

[WildCat]

The reason you are doing that is because you're trying to insert a red herring instead of sticking to the issue.
Not a red herring, a RedIbis. It is, after all, his MO. Well, that and outright lying (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121936) of course. But you have to do these things for The Truth™.

[Lennart Hyland]

This must be quite embarrassing for your Truthers. I still cant see one single evidence at all.

[Mince]

Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4067219&postcount=7 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4067219&postcount=7)

by RedIbis
WTC 7 Column 79



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4067224&postcount=9

gc051360
And what about that particular column?



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4067275&postcount=10
by Quad4_72
Nice try, but not good enough. Now, please give us your reasoning as to WHY column 79 is your best piece of evidence. In your reasoning, please provide calculations, scientific evidence, and relevant sources. Leave all speculation at the door.





RedIbis;

Why are your synapses misfiring on this rather simple issue.

[3rd grade]RedIbis, WHY...IS...WTC 7...COLUMN...79...YOUR...BEST...PIECE...OF...EVIDE NCE,...OR...EVEN...EVIDENCE...AT...ALL?[/3rd grade]

[DC]

ridiculous

you believe me or you dont, you cant run away and use someone else as an excuse. i gave you them in good faith and you are throwing that back in my face

if you do believe then you should say that you have seen paperwork that was supplied by me to back up my claims

if you do not then you say to me you believe the docs are faked

there is no middle ground, you either believe me or you dont

i asked you if it was enough to supply you with proof of my claims and i did. the docs i supplied are not just any old docs DC. they are assessment records from military service for a specific year. they back up every claim i have made about my service.

again, if there are any other docs i could supply that would assure you enough to say to someone else that you have seen proof i am who i say i am then feel free to tell what it would take. can i fake the medal, can i fake pics of me on a plane, can i fake my old uniform, can i fake course certs, all of which back up my claims? if i was going to fake the docs i would probably have done a better job of scanning and resizing them than i did the ones i sent you in a hurry. how quickly do you think i could fake something like that from when i first decided to give them to you?

if you supplied similar docs to me in good faith then if i felt they backed you up i would tell others that you had supplied what i believe were backup to your claims. if i did not believe them i would say so and not back you up

you have wasted my time and yours i'm afraid and sadly it does not surprise me

ok if you want so, i dont belive it.
i have no clue how British army docs should look like, there is no way for me to know if they are yours etc.
it was good enough for me, but now that you want me to confirm it to others, i must say, no i cant sorry.

I think you dont need my confirmation anyway, the guy you want to use it against is not an expert i think, i even think he has no clue. so actually you could show him how much you understand about FDR's when you would start debating technical issues. Like R. Mackey is doing. i never saw any docs from mackey, but i have the impression he seems to know what he is talking about more than that pft guy. Dont use your papers, use your knowledge.

If you want it confirmed, send you papers to someone that knows how british army papers look like, someone that knows your name and that those docs are yours.

i did not use my example of my experiance with that mod as an excuse.
no i used it because i understood her POV. for me it was bulletproof evidence of my education. But she told me that she cannot know if they are mine if they are real nd she also didn have a clue how swiss papers look like for my education, so i understood her POV and even had to agree.

i hoped you would understand it too, but it seems not. and i even took pictures of my papers and plans of my designs etc while holding it in front of my monitor that showed my JREF account.

dont take it personal.

[KTB]

So you're saying that for a theory to be true, it must have evidence behind it. Do you think it's necessary for there to be physical evidence? In other words, if my theory is premised on Column 79, do you think this column should exist, be available for examination, and any theory premised on this column without producing it is invalid?

Do you actually read his responses? He quite clearly states the answer to that, and even I understood it although english isn't my native language.

Could you please give us your theory conserning column 79? You seem to be avoiding this question.

[funk de fino]

ok if you want so, i dont belive it.
i have no clue how British army docs should look like, there is no way for me to know if they are yours etc.
it was good enough for me, but now that you want me to confirm it to others, i must say, no i cant sorry.

I think you dont need my confirmation anyway, the guy you want to use it against is not an expert i think, i even think he has no clue. so actually you could show him how much you understand about FDR's when you would start debating technical issues. Like R. Mackey is doing. i never saw any docs from mackey, but i have the impression he seems to know what he is talking about more than that pft guy. Dont use your papers, use your knowledge.

If you want it confirmed, send you papers to someone that knows how british army papers look like, someone that knows your name and that those docs are yours.

i did not use my example of my experiance with that mod as an excuse.
no i used it because i understood her POV. for me it was bulletproof evidence of my education. But she told me that she cannot know if they are mine if they are real nd she also didn have a clue how swiss papers look like for my education, so i understood her POV and even had to agree.

i hoped you would understand it too, but it seems not. and i even took pictures of my papers and plans of my designs etc while holding it in front of my monitor that showed my JREF account.

dont take it personal.

So you did not even read them? They are RAF docs not Army.

I have talked FDR with turbo and his theory is laughable, no-one needs to be an expert to show a datachip can be corrupted or lose data and in any case he refuses to answer my questions and handwaves my experience. The lurkers need to know this also.

Is there anything else I can send to you?

Sounds to me like you are running away from this and using someone else as an excuse. Not very nice. I trust you yet you think I would fake something like that.

[DC]

So you did not even read them? They are RAF docs not Army.

I have talked FDR with turbo and his theory is laughable, no-one needs to be an expert to show a datachip can be corrupted or lose data and in any case he refuses to answer my questions and handwaves my experience. The lurkers need to know this also.

Is there anything else I can send to you?

Sounds to me like you are running away from this and using someone else as an excuse. Not very nice. I trust you yet you think I would fake something like that.

ehm sorry, i asumed RAF is Royal Air Force. And this is for me Army, propably this is wrong.

and i clearly said that i do belive you, and i dont think you would fake it, but i cannot confirm it for you, sorry.
you didnt like that answer and wanted me to decide between 2 things, and i decided, and now your not happy again.

i really think you can handle TF without me.

[pomeroo]

So you're saying that for a theory to be true, it must have evidence behind it. Do you think it's necessary for there to be physical evidence? In other words, if my theory is premised on Column 79, do you think this column should exist, be available for examination, and any theory premised on this column without producing it is invalid?


Doesn't the sheer emptiness of your belief system trouble you at all? Some people cling to straws. You cling to invisible straws.

Do you hold any beliefs that amount to more than rhetorical tap dances? Is there the slightest bit of substance to anything that you argue?

Seriously.

Larry Silverstein lied, but the lie cannot be expressed in words. The FBI has no evidence showing the identities of the four hijacked aircraft. Something to do with column 79 proves that soundless explosives were planted by imaginary demolition workers.

Shouldn't at least a few second thoughts have intruded by now?

[Drudgewire]

i really think you can handle TF without me.


Touche, DC. :)

[PhantomWolf]

Honestly I don't know why everyone is playing with Red, it's blatently obvious he has no theory, he just wants someone to say "You need to have the column to come up with a theory and prove it" so he can say "Uhuh!, but NIST doesn't have the column, therefore their entire theory is unprovable!"

Since people here aren't dumb enough to believe that you can't prove your case without the physical column (heck they have jailed people for murder without the weapon or the bodies before) and can see right through Red's lame attempt, I really can't see why the tennis match is contiuning.

Red though you won't to take any notice, numerous people have stated that you don't need the column to put forward a theory. Can yopu prove a theory with out, well scientifically you can never prove a theory right anyways, you can only show that with the current data the theory is the one that fits the best. What you can do scientifically is prove a theory wrong. Now if you can come up with a thoery that is less complex than NISTs (ie take into account less assumptions, or shows why assumptions made are valid assumptions) or you can falsify NISTs theory by showing that it is impossible somewhere, then you might have a case, since I see no sign of you doing either, stop wasting everybodys' time.

[1337m4n]

What is RedIbis's theory? I though he was Just Asking Questions.

[TC329]

At least Dawn Vignola, Dave Winslow, Michael Tinyk, Steve Patterson, Mitch Mitchell and Barbara Ensor all put the plane on or just off the edge of I-395.


how/where can i see/hear them tell their accounts?

[Totovader]

Wrong. Your first attack against me in this thread was when you claimed that I didn't answer your questions, which as I pointed out to you would be a bit difficult since you didn't actually ask any questions.

It was then you proceeded to ignore the simplest possible question.

... to which I replied:

Fair enough: that's not addressing my point- you're just reiterating your fallacy, and that doesn't help your case.

Is it a good idea to abandon logic in order to hold on to these fantasies of the so-called "Truth Movement", Red? Is it somehow better to ignore the evidence and reject fundamental scientific principles? Do conspiracy theories have something better (more reliable, more truthful, more factual) than reason?

You were asked for your best piece of evidence- what you responded with is something that is not evidence. I have to assume- from that- that you think the answer to each of the questions above would be "yes, science is inadequate to understand the universe- conspiracy theories are more equipped to understand the truth".

... and which you have ignored.

Do I need to continue to post it, or are you going to respond?

Even if your question came first- which it obviously didn't- it's a red herring and doesn't belong here. You claimed that "Column 79" was evidence of your conspiracy theory- now you are trying to turn around your appeal to ignorance as proof of an invalid claim... but in order to do so, you would first have to admit that your claim is invalid and in the process commit a strawman.

I know what you're trying to do- and I'm not going to go in circles around you and wait for you to catch up. Either address my post above or move on. It's just that simple. We've been through this before and your tactic has not worked. Try something new: respond.

[Mince]

What is RedIbis's theory? I though he was Just Asking Questions.


Here, I'll answer for RedIbis since he seems utterly incapable or unwilling to do so.


Well, I don't really have a "theory". Actual scientific theories are derived from extensive and exhaustive observation, experimentation and testing, not YouTube videos and Google searches. Sorry.

[RedIbis]

Since people here aren't dumb enough to believe that you can't prove your case without the physical column (heck they have jailed people for murder without the weapon or the bodies before) and can see right through Red's lame attempt, I really can't see why the tennis match is contiuning.

.

Are you sure about that? If you were to go through this thread and see the variety of ways people responded to my posts, you will not find such uniformity.

I give you credit for recognizing the exercise, but you should be able to recognize how much emphasis is placed on physical evidence to prove theories, except when the absence of evidence if offered as proof for official theories.

This is bias, pure and simple. People around here are not nearly as skeptical as they claim.

[R.Mackey]

The only person in this thread offering absence of evidence as proof is you.

You've provided no theory,

You stated in your first post, "Column 79" in response to the question in the OP, which is something that does not exist,

You complain about "bias" amongst us.

Incredible. Yet, amazingly, you persist.

By the way, you never acknowledged my answer to your question.

[RedIbis]

Doesn't the sheer emptiness of your belief system trouble you at all? Some people cling to straws. You cling to invisible straws.

Do you hold any beliefs that amount to more than rhetorical tap dances? Is there the slightest bit of substance to anything that you argue?

Seriously.

Larry Silverstein lied, but the lie cannot be expressed in words. The FBI has no evidence showing the identities of the four hijacked aircraft. Something to do with column 79 proves that soundless explosives were planted by imaginary demolition workers.

Shouldn't at least a few second thoughts have intruded by now?

Doesn't the tedious and repetitive nature of your posts trouble you? And you are blatantly derailing the thread by bringing up Silverstein?

It's like your suicidal by mod. You make this way too easy.

[stateofgrace]

Are you sure about that? If you were to go through this thread and see the variety of ways people responded to my posts, you will not find such uniformity.

I give you credit for recognizing the exercise, but you should be able to recognize how much emphasis is placed on physical evidence to prove theories, except when the absence of evidence if offered as proof for official theories.

This is bias, pure and simple. People around here are not nearly as skeptical as they claim.

Really?

So when you claim that column 79 is your evidence, nobody is supposed to raise an eye brow and ask you back up you claim?

[RedIbis]

The only person in this thread offering absence of evidence as proof is you.



And what exactly do you think NIST's entire WTC 7 theory is premised on? Despite what Sunder has said, video of the exterior of the bldg and architectural and mechanical blueprints are in no way evidence for their collapse theory.

Spare me the indignation, I've yet to read you express even a shred of skepticism for this unprecedented proposition.

[RedIbis]

Really?

So when you claim that column 79 is your evidence, nobody is supposed to raise an eye brow and ask you back up you claim?

Yes, I do expect you to raise an eyebrow, and I would hope you would raise it anytime someone proposes a novel phenomenon or two without physical evidence.

[R.Mackey]

And what exactly do you think NIST's entire WTC 7 theory is premised on? Despite what Sunder has said, video of the exterior of the bldg and architectural and mechanical blueprints are in no way evidence for their collapse theory.

Spare me the indignation, I've yet to read you express even a shred of skepticism for this unprecedented proposition.

At best this would be an Ad hominem tu quoque, and it has nothing to do with either the OP or my remarks.

However, since you apparently still didn't read my reply, NIST's theory is supported by simulation, calculations of component strengths and failure modes, and video and related records where possible. It isn't as strong as a theory that also has physical remains of the structure to bolster its conclusions, but it is a totally valid way to conduct science.

I hold out the possibility for alternate hypotheses, maybe even one better than NIST came up with. But you don't even have one. You're not participating. You're griping, and badly. Nobody here is fooled.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, I do expect you to raise an eyebrow, and I would hope you would raise it anytime someone proposes a novel phenomenon or two without physical evidence.

Just a suggestion, you might consider how much that column was carrying. How much of the floor area did each column support and by how much does the load change in adjacent columns when one fails in a building designed like WTC 7. If the load capacities for these components are known, then it can be determined at what point others would give way with a redistributed load. How do simulations conducted by NIST lack in that area? Those would be nice places to theorize whatever you see fit.

Just my two cents... "Column 79" is not much a statement for a theory to begin with but to explain it to you would be repeating material already said

[stateofgrace]

Yes, I do expect you to raise an eyebrow, and I would hope you would raise it anytime someone proposes a novel phenomenon or two without physical evidence.


That is not what you posted is it? You claimed column 79 was your evidence, didn’t you?

So, care to offer up your evidence, rather than referring to a report I have spent a few days reading? Not as though I am in a position to comment on it yet, as I have not read it fully, I take it you have.

So skeptism as kicked in, could you point out where I should look? Your evidence is?

[RedIbis]

At best this would be an Ad hominem tu quoque, and it has nothing to do with either the OP or my remarks.

However, since you apparently still didn't read my reply, NIST's theory is supported by simulation, calculations of component strengths and failure modes, and video and related records where possible. It isn't as strong as a theory that also has physical remains of the structure to bolster its conclusions, but it is a totally valid way to conduct science.

I hold out the possibility for alternate hypotheses, maybe even one better than NIST came up with. But you don't even have one. You're not participating. You're griping, and badly. Nobody here is fooled.

I do have a theory better than NIST's. Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

[Totovader]

... like I said- a strawman.

Difference between NIST and Red: NIST did not say "a lack of this column proves this theory", Red is saying that. This is also known as the argument from ignorance. Red will try to now back peddle by committing an even bigger argument from ignorance claim: that a lack of the column proves that NIST cannot be right.

[stateofgrace]

I do have a theory better than NIST's. Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

No this is not true; please stop acting like the poor oppressed victim. People want you to valid your claims, to back your claims with evidence and science.

Now, you claimed column 79 was your evidence, so please back up your claim ( with evidence and science).

[RedIbis]

People want you to valid your claims, to back your claims with evidence and science.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

See what I mean?

[HyJinX]

I do have a theory better than NIST's. Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

Do you mean irrelevant, insignificant internet posters with zero evidence or credibility and no education to back up thier claims? You think they really are concerned about you and your ilk? Really? You're a factor here? Really?

Puh-lease Red. You and the rest of the TM® have absolutely zero relevance or play any sort of roll in any of the findings concluded by NIST or any other reputable organization. You're sad.

[R.Mackey]

I do have a theory better than NIST's.

Oh, really?

Let's hear it.

Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

Aaaahhh... You're not likely to get funding on the strength of "I have a theory." You need to actually tell people about it.

Besides, in the above, you admit that you do not have a theory. You may, possibly, still have a hypothesis. One that you refuse to share with anyone.

I'd also like to hear more about these "novel phenomena" you have in mind. Generally, finding even one is grounds for a Nobel prize. I'll go halfies with you, how does that sound?


They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

No, it is not pure speculation. It is a hypothesis backed by experiments. Simulations are a valid means of conducting experiments! They do not need the column to have a valid theory, no more than we need to create a mass singularity to have a valid theory of black holes.

Speculating is the crap that you do, i.e. gainsaying their conclusions without any better results of your own, in fact any results of any kind. Or even a speculative alternate hypothesis.

Basically, all you've done is confirmed that you either do not understand, or you implicitly reject, the Scientific Method. Having done so, all of us are fully justified in not taking you seriously at all.

[johnny karate]

I do have a theory better than NIST's.

No you don't.

Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

The electronic age is a wonderful thing. I'm sure there are many scientists and relevant professionals the world over readily available via e-mail that you could contact with you're proposition. I'm also equally sure that you will attempt to contact exactly zero.


They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

R.Mackey already described to in rather simple terms why everything you just said is completely wrong.

And as far as these supposed people that wish you'd shut up and go away, I can assure no one in a position to matter cares what an uninformed malcontent more practiced in denial than scientific method thinks about an engineering report.

[WildCat]

I do have a theory better than NIST's.
:dl:

[stateofgrace]

See what I mean?


No, I fail entirely to see what you mean. You claimed column 79 was your evidence. To date you have done nothing to substantiate that claim.

Maybe I missed your point, could you spell it out for me?

[RedIbis]

I'd also like to hear more about these "novel phenomena" you have in mind. Generally, finding even one is grounds for a Nobel prize. I'll go halfies with you, how does that sound?


You're obviously misreading my post since I'm not the one proposing two novel phenomena.

[R.Mackey]

Feel free to explain yourself... The wording in that passage was quite confused.

[RedIbis]

Feel free to explain yourself... The wording in that passage was quite confused.

Just read it slower.

Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

[stateofgrace]

I don't want to sound disrespectful here but am I the only one here that cannot understand the point of Reds posts?

[WildCat]

Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.
You claimed your theory was better, I guess that was a lie? If not, present it.

[R.Mackey]

I think he's trying to suggest, in his oh-so-clever style, that NIST is suggesting "two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it." Problem is, they aren't.

If that isn't what he's suggesting, then I can only assume he's merely baiting us. I wouldn't rise to it, but there is absolutely nothing else going on in the Truth Movement, and I wouldn't want him to get lonely...

[WildCat]

I don't want to sound disrespectful here but am I the only one here that cannot understand the point of Reds posts?
There's nothing to understand. RedIbis, as usual, has no point.

[RedIbis]

I don't want to sound disrespectful here but am I the only one here that cannot understand the point of Reds posts?

No, you are not the only one.

[Mince]

I don't think anyone can understand the point of RedIbis' posts...including RedIbis. It seems, after having utterly failed to convince us sheep of his "theories by YouTube", he is now just trying to be contrary.

[RedIbis]

I don't think anyone can understand the point of RedIbis' posts...including RedIbis. It seems, after having utterly failed to convince us sheep of his "theories by YouTube", he is now just trying to be contrary.

Post one example where I linked to youtube, just one. Otherwise, your post is ridiculous.

Wait a minute, there might have been a Jaco Pastorius video I posted in a music thread.

[Mince]

So; one's ignorance of a scientific principle makes it "a novel phenomenon" to the rest of the world?

[Mince]

Post one example where I linked to youtube, just one. Otherwise, your post is ridiculous.


Oh, I'm sorry, let me revise my post (emphasis added):


It seems, after having utterly failed to convince us sheep of his "theories by Google searches", he is now just trying to be contrary.


You don't have to post a link to YouTube to have watched it. I suppose now you're going to deny doing Google searches and attempt to convince us sheep that your investigation...and subsequent theory...into the collapse of WTC did not involve your keyboard.



Otherwise, your post is ridiculous.



Incorrect. We know you've never left your keyboard to investigate the collapse of WTC 7, yet you have "theories" for the collapse. YouTube is one of very few resources that one could use to develop such "theories." So, presuming one uses YouTube in his on-line scientific method is not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is someone developing a "theory" on the collapse of a building, lacking the requisite education and never leaving their computer chair.

[CHF]

Red, after 4+ pages I'm no closer to understanding what your theory is.

Spell it out for me if you don't mind.

[Whiplash]

I do have a theory better than NIST's.

Then I ask you again to please, please present it. I am very interested in seeing/hearing it. We've asked you nicely about a dozen times. You can't keep claiming you have a theory and not offer it. Put up or shut up. You are just splitting hairs and nitpicking in an attempt to discredit people here, as if that somehow miraculously discredits the entire official version. This ridiculously poor technique is just way too common these days, all over the place, including politics. Don't attack the message, make the messanger stumble or look like an idiot. Don't even acknowledge the message. Just attack, attack, attack, and hope that anything sticks, and then strut around like king of the world. Hopeless.

[pomeroo]

Doesn't the tedious and repetitive nature of your posts trouble you? And you are blatantly derailing the thread by bringing up Silverstein?


Hmmm. A thread that asks for the best twoofer evidence; a reply from you that tosses out a vague, insubstantial reference to a column 79 in WTC 7; a reply from me that reminds you of other "evidence" you've fabricated in the past. You may be on to something here. Time after time, I--and many other posters--have called attention to the glaring lack of substance in your posts. You always dismiss the criticism with a snide remark. Yes, we are foolish to play this tedious game with you.



It's like your suicidal by mod. You make this way too easy.


The mods are eager to ban me. I won't lose much sleep when it happens.

On the subject of derailing the thread, you were asked to provide your best evidence. You provided no evidence at all, even by the laughable standards of your evil movement. Care to take another crack at it?

[GlennB]

RedIbis - your opening gambit in this thread was "WTC7 column 79"

You subsequently stated that you "have a theory about WTC7 column 79", but, despite repeated requests, you haven't actually stated what this theory is.

Now, you can't blame others for failing to be telepathic.

What is your theory?

[PhantomWolf]

I do have a theory better than NIST's. Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

See this is where you Fail. They don't need the column to determine how the column reacted to the fire, all they need to know is how the column was made and how the metal would react to heat, the rest is pure physics. The reason that truthers are asked to produce physical evidence is because they continue to speculate about something being in the buildings for which there is no proof and normally would not be in the buildings. Physical evidence of those things would allow them to show that those things were in the building. NIST doesn't have to produce Colunm 79 to prove it was in the building, unless you are planning to argue that it was mysteriously absent that day.

[PhantomWolf]

how/where can i see/hear them tell their accounts?

You mean you know all about the Pentagon attack but you don't even know where to locate all the Witness statments (http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm)?

Dave Winslow
"I heard this enormous sound of turbulence. . .As I turned to my right, I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395. It was like the rear end of the fuselage was riding on 395. I just saw the tail go whoosh right past me. In a split second, you heard this boom. A combination of a crack and a thud. It rattled my windows. I thought they were going to blow out. Then came an enormous fireball."

Michael Tinyk
he saw a dark orange and blue commercial airliner just above the tree line "coming in lower and lower" on what he instantly registered as the "wrong side" of the flight path to the airport. "There was no reason for a plane to come in that low, that fast" ... The plane took "a flight path straight up 395,"

Steve Patterson
Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said. He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side. The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.

Mitch Mitchell
"Just as we got even with the Pentagon, I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road (I-395) at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it, and it looked like it was coming in to hit us. I told my wife, 'It's going to hit the Pentagon.' It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon, and there was no indication whatever that it was doing anything other than performing a direct attack on that building. The landing gear was up. There were no flaps down and it looked like a deadly missile on the final phase of its mission into the building."
"We saw what I estimate to be about the last seven seconds of the flight. It was a straight-in flight, angled slightly down, and there was--there was no intent to turn or to maneuver in any way. It was headed straight for its target and we were helpless to do anything about it but watch."

Barbara Ensor
It was coming on less than a 45 degree angle, and coming down towards the side of the -- of 395. And when it came down, it just missed 395 and went down below us, and then you saw the boom -- the fire come up from it.

Tim Timmerman
I was looking out the window; I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon, in a corner apartment, so I have quite a panorama. And being next to National Airport, I hear jets all the time, but this jet engine was way too loud. I looked out to the southwest, and it came right down 395, right over Colombia Pike, and as is went by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building.

And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames. It was horrible.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

So both RedIbis and Sizzler, who have always claimed to be agnostic about 9/11, are now officially coming out as truthers?They are NOW coming out of their closet because they are the last members of the dying TWOOFER generation.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Ill do my best to not press "View Post" anymore :)
Vás a llorár ahóra? como una niña?

[DC]

Vás a llorár ahóra? como una niña?

¿Qué quieres?

ETA: Translation: He :Are you going to complain? like a girl?
me : waht do you want?

[funk de fino]

ehm sorry, i asumed RAF is Royal Air Force. And this is for me Army, propably this is wrong.

and i clearly said that i do belive you, and i dont think you would fake it, but i cannot confirm it for you, sorry.
you didnt like that answer and wanted me to decide between 2 things, and i decided, and now your not happy again.

i really think you can handle TF without me.

Royal Air Force = military

Royal Air Force does not = Army

Could be seen as an insult by a lot of RAF lads;)


It was not about handling TF, that you fail to see it does not surprise me. Its a question of faith. I gave you what you asked for and would be happy with and you back away from what it tells you.

[DC]

Royal Air Force = military

Royal Air Force does not = Army

Could be seen as an insult by a lot of RAF lads;)


It was not about handling TF, that you fail to see it does not surprise me. Its a question of faith. I gave you what you asked for and would be happy with and you back away from what it tells you.

I am a Pacifist :)
I even refused to go to the Swiss Army.
and military and Army was the same for me, but i will now go read the exact differences so i dont offend the top guns anymore :D
I am already happy i did not confuse it with the "Rote Armee Fraktion" :D

it is you that does not get my point :)
I have faith in you and your papers, it is enough for me personaly, i even excused for even doubting it, while i actually said i will not do that, because noone ever excuse him for doubting that i am swiss etc.
I belive you was Airplane Technican in the RAF as far i can read from the Papers, to me it even looks as if you had a higher or even leading position. but i cannot confirm it, because it is faith based.
as a sceptic, you just have to understand it.
there is no way i can check those papers and your ID. So i cannot be 100% sure it is real.
propably i dont express my self in a proper way you would understand it. If someone else can understand my point, i would be happy if he can write it in proper english :)

[RedIbis]

On the subject of derailing the thread, you were asked to provide your best evidence. You provided no evidence at all, even by the laughable standards of your evil movement. Care to take another crack at it?

Column 79 is my best evidence. The exercise is simple. If I claim this iis the best evidence which proves my theory(ies), do you think I should have to produce this crucial piece of evidence?

[Mince]

Column 79 is my best evidence. The exercise is simple. If I claim this iis the best evidence which proves my theory(ies), do you think I should have to produce this crucial piece of evidence?


No. Now please go away.

[HyJinX]

What theory(ies) would that be Red?

[dtugg]

Column 79 is my best evidence. The exercise is simple. If I claim this iis the best evidence which proves my theory(ies), do you think I should have to produce this crucial piece of evidence?

You should at the very least state what your theory is and how column 79 proves it. But you won't do that for some reason.

[RedIbis]

No. Now please go away.

I know how much you'd like that, but it's not going to happen. I stay within the rules, and appreciate the jref very much.

I don't mind saying I've learned a great deal here, and appreciate when the discourse is sincere, civil and productive.

[RedIbis]

You should at the very least state what your theory is and how column 79 proves it. But you won't do that for some reason.

There are competing theories. Column 79 is central to NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

[Mince]

I know how much you'd like that, but it's not going to happen. I stay within the rules, and appreciate the jref very much.

I don't mind saying I've learned a great deal here, and appreciate when the discourse is sincere, civil and productive.

I'm indifferent. You're presumption is wrong. But you offer no probative value to this thread and your participation is unnecessary. That is all. Ignoring repeated requests to clarify your position could be considered trolling...against the rules. You're nothing more than dead weight to this thread, that is why I told you to go away...from the thread, not the message board.

[dtugg]

There are competing theories. Column 79 is central to NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

You have a talent for talking without actually saying anything. You should be a politician or something.

[DC]

I'm indifferent. You're presumption is wrong. But you offer no probative value to this thread and your participation is unnecessary. That is all. Ignoring repeated requests to clarify your position could be considered trolling...against the rules. You're nothing more than dead weight to this thread, that is why I told you to go away...from the thread, not the message board.

oops i must have missed the part about trolling in tha MA. can you show me that pls?

[Mince]

There are competing theories. Column 79 is central to NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.


Ah. We might be getting somewhere with the intellectually stubborn one.

Could you provide a cite for this assertion?

Thanks.

[Mince]

oops i must have missed the part about trolling in tha MA. can you show me that pls?


There is no clause in the Constitution of the United States of America that guarantees Americans the right to breath oxygen. So, we have no right to breath oxygen?


Anyway, I said it could be considered trolling. At best, it is very rude and unseemly.

[Dave Rogers]

There are competing theories. Column 79 is central to NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

That's rather a disingenuous answer. NIST's WTC7 collapse theory is based on predictions of the behaviour of Column 79 by computer modelling. NIST are not therefore claiming that Column 79 is evidence for their theory; rather, they are claiming their computer models for evidence. However unsatisfactory you personally may consider that, it's still incorrect to claim that NIST is using Column 79 as evidence.

Can I suggest that the evidence offered be either a physical object or a piece of information that is actually known to exist, rather than an unproven hypothesis or a physical object that is known not to exist? It would seem reasonable, for example, to claim the destruction without analysis of Column 79 as a piece of evidence. Otherwise, claiming an object that doesn't exist as your best piece of evidence seems equivalent to a claim that you have no evidence.

It would be interesting to see what your theory is too.

Dave

[RedIbis]

That's rather a disingenuous answer. NIST's WTC7 collapse theory is based on predictions of the behaviour of Column 79 by computer modelling. NIST are not therefore claiming that Column 79 is evidence for their theory; rather, they are claiming their computer models for evidence. However unsatisfactory you personally may consider that, it's still incorrect to claim that NIST is using Column 79 as evidence.

So you would agree that NIST's theory is not based on any physical evidence?

Can I suggest that the evidence offered be either a physical object or a piece of information that is actually known to exist, rather than an unproven hypothesis or a physical object that is known not to exist? It would seem reasonable, for example, to claim the destruction without analysis of Column 79 as a piece of evidence. Otherwise, claiming an object that doesn't exist as your best piece of evidence seems equivalent to a claim that you have no evidence.

I agree 100% and hope you would hold NIST to the same standard.

[Dave Rogers]

So you would agree that NIST's theory is not based on any physical evidence?

No, and as everyone can see I said nothing that gives any such impression. Your response is both dishonest and off-topic.

I agree 100% and hope you would hold NIST to the same standard.

I'm glad you agree 100% - does that mean that you withdraw your statement that the nonexistent column 79 is your best piece of evidence?

As far as I'm aware, NIST's computer models and their outputs are information that actually exists.

Dave

[Crazytimes]

So 5 pages in and I still don't have an answer to my question.

I wish we could completely remove all post so this thread will go on like I thought it would. Completely blank.

[GlennB]

There are competing theories. Column 79 is central to NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

Yes, but what is your theory Red ?? The one you have claimed to have.

You still haven't told us. Please do. At the moment you're looking like Heiwa, who - when asked a jillion times whether he had actually performed his water-tank experiment - just dodged the question for about two months and then went away.

Answer that very simple question please. What is your theory regarding column 79 ?

[RedIbis]

No, and as everyone can see I said nothing that gives any such impression. Your response is both dishonest and off-topic.

Ok, so if you disagree with my statement you must think WTC 7 NIST's collapse theory is backed up by physical evidence. Please provide a link to such evidence.

I'm glad you agree 100% - does that mean that you withdraw your statement that the nonexistent column 79 is your best piece of evidence?

No. Column 79 is NIST's best piece of nonexistent evidence.

As far as I'm aware, NIST's computer models and their outputs are information that actually exists.

Dave

Information, yes. Physical evidence, no.

[Mince]

Ok, so if you disagree with my statement you must think WTC 7 NIST's collapse theory is backed up by physical evidence. Please provide a link to such evidence.



No. Column 79 is NIST's best piece of nonexistent evidence.



Information, yes. Physical evidence, no.


So, if "physical" evidence does not exist, and, as you're implying, you can't do a sufficient investigation and analysis without the "physical" evidence, how the hell are you going to rely on another investigation? Why are you asking for another investigation, independent or otherwise, if you will not trust its results based on the lack of "physical" evidence? Hmm? Hmm?

[UNLoVedRebel]

We always have the video, audio, & seismic evidence, topped with eyewitness testimony.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Evidence of fires: YES
Evidence of explosives: NO

[UNLoVedRebel]

Evidence of a terrorist attack on the WTC: YES
Evidence a secret shadow government tried to pass off a controlled demolition as a fire-induced progressive collapse: NO

[MIKILLINI]

WTC 7 Column 79

So what is the specific problem about WTC 7 Column 79 that causes you to believe this column is a very crucial concern to you?

[pomeroo]

So you would agree that NIST's theory is not based on any physical evidence?



I agree 100% and hope you would hold NIST to the same standard.


Why do the researchers for NIST, all of whom have technical backgrounds, understand the science behind building collapses less well than you do, given that you have no technical knowledge of the relevant subjects?

Don't be silly--of course you don't intend to answer! This question is asked of every fantasist without ever eliciting a coherent response.

You rely on NIST for your belief that there is no "physical" evidence. That belief is wrong, as you know. You are trying clumsily to palm off the fact that NIST did not have at its disposal steel from WTC 7 as a different, broader assertion. The absence of detonator caps, bits of wiring, chemical signatures of shaped charges are all examples of "physical" evidence.

You have never yet fooled anyone here and today won't be the first time you succeed.

[RedIbis]

You rely on NIST for your belief that there is no "physical" evidence. That belief is wrong, as you know.


I asked Dave Rogers the same, if you have a source for the physical evidence on which NIST based their WTC 7 collapse theory, please post it.

[MIKILLINI]

So what is the specific problem about WTC 7 Column 79 that causes you to believe this column is a very crucial concern to you?

Never mind Red, you answered. So your best piece of evidence is non-evidence?

[pomeroo]

Column 79 is my best evidence. The exercise is simple. If I claim this iis the best evidence which proves my theory(ies), do you think I should have to produce this crucial piece of evidence?


I'll play along. What about column 79 is your best evidence? What is it evidence of? For six pages your posts have been, typically, totally devoid of substance. Be specific when you describe column 79 as "evidence." Evidence must point to something. What does the "evidence" of column 79 point to? How does it do that?

[pomeroo]

I asked Dave Rogers the same, if you have a source for the physical evidence on which NIST based their WTC 7 collapse theory, please post it.


You manage to bore the other rationalists with your airy nothingness. They walk away in exasperation. I keep calling you on your absurd deceptions and am occasionally rewarded with spectacular meltdowns, such as your most memorable one in the now-classic "pull it" thread.
I just pointed out that the absence (sure, I'll repeat myself) of detonator caps, bits of wiring, and chemical signatures of shaped charges is a form of physical evidence. You understand this perfectly well. NIST told you that no steel from WTC 7 was available. You didn't make this discovery through your own dogged efforts: it was spoon-fed to you by NIST.

We won't ask you to explain why NIST chose not to fabricate steel samples it didn't actually have. You would fare no better than the frauds of the CIT. We all get the idea: the super-villains never ever plant the evidence they need. We are left wondering why they neglect such a simple procedure, one that would occur to any bright child.

Tell us why your insights into a building collapse are superior to those of people who have the technical knowledge you conspicuously lack.

[PhantomWolf]

I want to know how Red makes the jump from No Column 79 to No physical evidence.

[pomeroo]

I want to know how Red makes the jump from No Column 79 to No physical evidence.


You know, all the rationalists here who are still awake could save time and energy by responding to anything RedIbis posts with, see post # 212.

[stateofgrace]

Question. What is your best piece of evidence ?

Reds answser.

WTC 7 Column 79


OK,Red could you please, please explain why this is your best piece of evidence? Everybody wants to know what your theory is.

No, but how is column 79 evidence of an inside job ?

Mackey beat me to the punch, but... you have a theory?

Nice try, but not good enough. Now, please give us your reasoning as to WHY column 79 is your best piece of evidence. In your reasoning, please provide calculations, scientific evidence, and relevant sources. Leave all speculation at the door.

Here's a trick question: what is your theory?


Yes, I know it's not really a trick question, but you'll evade it like it were one anyway.

And what was your best "evidence" before you grasped this latest straw, the straw you never dreamed of until NIST published its report?

Given that column 79 is no evidence at all for your fantasy, can you suggest something else?

Red,
I'm not going to argue semantics with you on this, and I'm not going to ask you to produce the actual column for me.

Can you please tell me your theory as to why column 79 is the best evidence for a CT?

I'm very intersted in this theory, RedIbis. You have said you have one several times, but completely ignore questions and requests to state it. Please do so.

So Red, please tell us what your theory about WTC7 is and how column 79 is evidence for it. You have been asked several times, and you have conveniently ignored the question. We would all love to hear it.

What is RedIbis's theory? I though he was Just Asking Questions.

Really?

So when you claim that column 79 is your evidence, nobody is supposed to raise an eye brow and ask you back up you claim?

No this is not true; please stop acting like the poor oppressed victim. People want you to valid your claims, to back your claims with evidence and science.

Now, you claimed column 79 was your evidence, so please back up your claim ( with evidence and science).

Red, after 4+ pages I'm no closer to understanding what your theory is.

Spell it out for me if you don't mind.

RedIbis - your opening gambit in this thread was "WTC7 column 79"

You subsequently stated that you "have a theory about WTC7 column 79", but, despite repeated requests, you haven't actually stated what this theory is.

Now, you can't blame others for failing to be telepathic.

What is your theory?

What theory(ies) would that be Red?

Yes, but what is your theory Red ?? The one you have claimed to have.

You still haven't told us. Please do. At the moment you're looking like Heiwa, who - when asked a jillion times whether he had actually performed his water-tank experiment - just dodged the question for about two months and then went away.

Answer that very simple question please. What is your theory regarding column 79 ?

So what is the specific problem about WTC 7 Column 79 that causes you to believe this column is a very crucial concern to you?

Never mind Red, you answered. So your best piece of evidence is non-evidence?

I'll play along. What about column 79 is your best evidence? What is it evidence of? For six pages your posts have been, typically, totally devoid of substance. Be specific when you describe column 79 as "evidence." Evidence must point to something. What does the "evidence" of column 79 point to? How does it do that?


When you are ready Red.

[Totovader]

... like I said- a strawman.

Difference between NIST and Red: NIST did not say "a lack of this column proves this theory", Red is saying that. This is also known as the argument from ignorance. Red will try to now back peddle by committing an even bigger argument from ignorance claim: that a lack of the column proves that NIST cannot be right.

Red, any comments? You seem to be doing exactly as I predicted. Do you understand the fallacy you're committing, or do you need it explained in greater detail?

[johnny karate]

Ok, so if you disagree with my statement you must think WTC 7 NIST's collapse theory is backed up by physical evidence. Please provide a link to such evidence.

No. Column 79 is NIST's best piece of nonexistent evidence.

Information, yes. Physical evidence, no.


R. Mackey has repeatedly explained to you in fairly simple terms how this works:
NIST's theory is supported by simulation, calculations of component strengths and failure modes, and video and related records where possible.

It is a hypothesis backed by experiments. Simulations are a valid means of conducting experiments! They do not need the column to have a valid theory, no more than we need to create a mass singularity to have a valid theory of black holes.


Your willful ignorance and denial does not change the fact that these are perfectly valid methods of scientific investigation.

[johnny karate]

I'd be curious to hear RedIbis' explanation as to why such a glaringly fraudulent engineering report is not being utterly crucified in the engineering community.

Perhaps he believes all the suspicious engineers have had their minds changed the way he believes the firefighters had their minds changed about what they experienced at WTC7.

[Mince]

I asked Dave Rogers the same, if you have a source for the physical evidence on which NIST based their WTC 7 collapse theory, please post it.


Guess what. If there's no "physical" evidence, there can be no new independent investigation. ZOMG!! You kind of shot yourself in the foot here, huh?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Hey RedEyE, how does column 79 support your theory that a secret shadow government tried to pass off a controlled demolition as a fire-induced progressive collapse?

[RedIbis]

So your best piece of evidence is non-evidence?

Exactly. Just like NIST.

[Totovader]

Exactly. Just like NIST.

Not just like NIST: NIST is not saying that a lack of this column is proof, YOU ARE. You are committing an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Seriously, how many times do we have to repeat ourselves, here?

And, as a point of fact: you have just admitted that your best piece of evidence does not exist. So not only are you making yourself look silly because you are pretending to be "no better than NIST" (when you claimed earlier to have a theory which is better than NIST- a theory which you cannot post), but you're pissing on your own feet and admitting that your theory is completely void of any evidence.

Way to go.

:dig:

[RedIbis]

Not just like NIST: NIST is not saying that a lack of this column is proof, YOU ARE. You are committing an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Seriously, how many times do we have to repeat ourselves, here?

And, as a point of fact: you have just admitted that your best piece of evidence does not exist. So not only are you making yourself look silly because you are pretending to be "no better than NIST" (when you claimed earlier to have a theory which is better than NIST- a theory which you cannot post), but you're pissing on your own feet and admitting that your theory is completely void of any evidence.

Way to go.

:dig:

If Column 79 doesn't exist, it's far more damaging to NIST's claims than it is to the exercise I'm engaging in, which you are incapable of recognizing.

[Mince]

Quotation by Dictator Cheney (in another thread):


no one has evidence about what exactly happened to WTC7.



At last! A truther speaks the truth. Of course, Alex Jones, and a greater part of the self-named truth movement, will never accept this altruism because they know...via Google searches and YouTube videos...that WTC 7 was purposefully demolished by a mysterious "rogue element" of the U.S. Government.


RedIbis, have you worked out your conundrum yet? You imply the NIST investigation is faulty because they lacked physical evidence. But then you call for another investigation...that would lack physical evidence. What gives?

[johnny karate]

If Column 79 doesn't exist, it's far more damaging to NIST's claims than it is to the exercise I'm engaging in, which you are incapable of recognizing.

You mean the one where you pretend a supposedly non-existent column is your evidence, because according to you that's what NIST has done?

Yeah, that little "exercise" was kind of obvious.

But what you seem incapable of recognizing is that it was also retarded and based on your complete ignorance of scientific investigation.

[WildCat]

Why anyone bothers with the proven liar RedIbis I have no idea. He's obviously lyinbg about having a theory beter than NISTs, he can't produce what he doesn't have, so why keep feeding the troll?

[RedIbis]

You mean the one where you pretend a supposedly non-existent column is your evidence, because according to you that's what NIST has done?

Yeah, that little "exercise" was kind of obvious.

But what you seem incapable of recognizing is that it was also retarded and based on your complete ignorance of scientific investigation.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[johnny karate]

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Hey, I'm here to help.

Anyway... you were rambling on about how much you don't understand science?

Please continue.

[Totovader]

If Column 79 doesn't exist, it's far more damaging to NIST's claims than it is to the exercise I'm engaging in, which you are incapable of recognizing.

Since NIST isn't the topic of discussion, you have just proven why red herrings are your favorite scapegoat.

YOU were asked for YOUR best evidence. Whatever you think about NIST and it's "lack of evidence" is irrelevant at this point- the FACT that you have presented your "best piece of evidence" and then admitted that it does not exist, and that's your evidence means you have committed an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Lack of evidence is not evidence. And- completely off topic: NIST doesn't claim that is is- YOU DO. By claiming that NIST does- you are committing a strawman.

So I ask again- since you continually ignore it- is logic a proper method for understanding the world around you, or do conspiracy theories offer something more reliable than science and critical thinking, Red?

[pomeroo]

Thanks for clearing that up for us.



"Come and meet those dancing feet
On the avenue I'm taking you to
Forty-Second Street
Hear the beat of dancing feet..."

[Totovader]

Since NIST isn't the topic of discussion, you have just proven why red herrings are your favorite scapegoat.

YOU were asked for YOUR best evidence. Whatever you think about NIST and it's "lack of evidence" is irrelevant at this point- the FACT that you have presented your "best piece of evidence" and then admitted that it does not exist, and that's your evidence means you have committed an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Lack of evidence is not evidence. And- completely off topic: NIST doesn't claim that is is- YOU DO. By claiming that NIST does- you are committing a strawman.

So I ask again- since you continually ignore it- is logic a proper method for understanding the world around you, or do conspiracy theories offer something more reliable than science and critical thinking, Red?

Any thoughts, Red?

[RedIbis]

Any thoughts, Red?

You really want me to address your convoluted, rhetorical question?

[Totovader]

You really want me to address your convoluted, rhetorical question?

I want you to quit stalling and address the many questions before you in this thread- including mine.

[KTB]

You really want me to address your convoluted, rhetorical question?

BTW, when have you last actually answered any question here?
I have noticed that you have left unanswered questions in many threads. And still you demand answers from others.

Why are all you truthers this difficult to communicate with? Every "debunker" here bends over backwards to answer all your mundane and silly questions, but you can't answer even simple questions that would shed some light on your tought processes and beliefs.
Doesn't your behaviour bother you? Are you the same way in person also, and this doesn't bother the people around you?

[beachnut]

You really want me to address your convoluted, rhetorical question?
This is your best evidence. Talk?

Got any physics, math, or real evidence to present? No? How long have you been evidence free? 7 years? This was your chance, and you failed to provide evidence.

[KTB]

This is your best evidence. Talk?

Got any physics, math, or real evidence to present? No? How long have you been evidence free? 7 years? This was your chance, and you failed to provide evidence.

Hey, just askin' questions, unlike you sheeple/believers/gubmint shills!
-- RedIbis contribution for the last seven years

[bynmdsue]

Red- did NIST pick Column 79 totally at random or did they have a reason to do so?

[RedIbis]

Red- did NIST pick Column 79 totally at random or did they have a reason to do so?

I'm sure that after all of their computer modeling, this was the one column, that if by some miracle is weakened just enough, could in some hypothetical scenario, cause the complete collapse of the building.

Not that they ever bothered to present this evidence. It's entirely hypothetical.

[pomeroo]

I'm sure that after all of their computer modeling, this was the one column, that if by some miracle is weakened just enough, could in some hypothetical scenario, cause the complete collapse of the building.

Not that they ever bothered to present this evidence. It's entirely hypothetical.


Ah, the plot thickens! Now, we've established that NIST, an agency tasked with discovering why structures fail, has become, for unfathomable reasons, part of a gigantic, mathematically-impossible conspiracy designed to transfer control of both houses of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats. It is safe to say that absolutely none of us are interested in learning why any human capable of feeding himself and crossing the street without getting killed would talk himself into swallowing such idiocy. Restrict yourself to accounting for the soundless explosives. What were they and how did they get there?

And you thought I was going to ask you why no physicists or structural engineers anywhere in the world are refuting the bogus science in NIST's report.

[AZCat]

I'm sure that after all of their computer modeling, this was the one column, that if by some miracle is weakened just enough, could in some hypothetical scenario, cause the complete collapse of the building.

Not that they ever bothered to present this evidence. It's entirely hypothetical.

No, it isn't. The basis for the simulation run by NIST is (as a number of people have pointed out) at least partly empirical. The properties of the various materials, the behavior of fires, the construction of WTC 7, the visible locations of damage and fires - all this is data collected, not hypothesized (with a few exceptions - the temperature dependence of properties of steels is still a bit uncertain). Just because you don't have the debris from the building doesn't mean you can't produce a valid collapse hypothesis.

[RedIbis]

Just because you don't have the debris from the building doesn't mean you can't produce a valid collapse hypothesis.

We agree it is nothing more than a hypothesis.

[AZCat]

We agree it is nothing more than a hypothesis.

Who has ever claimed otherwise? Even the NIST calls it a hypothesis. Even if the NIST had all the remnants of WTC 7 and they were clearly marked as to location they would still only be able to produce a collapse hypothesis.

[stateofgrace]

We agree it is nothing more than a hypothesis.

Last time I heard nobody had actually been to the centre of the sun but it seems to be generally accepted the temperature is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit.

This is a hypothesis; it is almost impossible to prove. It is impossible because nobody can go to the centre of the sun armed with a thermostat and actually measure it, but given the fact that many guys, who are far cleverer than me and you came up with this, I see no reason not to accept it. I see no reason to question it; I see no reason to doubt it, because nobody has come up with a better hypothesis, nobody, to the best of my knowledge, as offered up a better theory. Therefore the theory that the centre of the sun is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit seems reasonable, it seems plausible, rational.

So if you have a problem with NIST hypothesis, then offer your own. For once stop avoiding the question that as been asked of you over and over again.Offer up your reasonable, plausible and rational theory.

What is your theory? What is your hypothesis?

[Mince]

We agree it is nothing more than a hypothesis.


Surprise! duh. And guess what: any subsequent investigation would be...guess what...that's riiiiggghhht...a hypothesis. But I bet their hypothesis is better than yours.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Last time I heard nobody had actually been to the centre of the sun but it seems to be generally accepted the temperature is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit.

This is a hypothesis; it is almost impossible to prove. It is impossible because nobody can go to the centre of the sun armed with a thermostat and actually measure it, but given the fact that many guys, who are far cleverer than me and you came up with this, I see no reason not to accept it. I see no reason to question it; I see no reason to doubt it, because nobody has come up with a better hypothesis, nobody, to the best of my knowledge, as offered up a better theory. Therefore the theory that the centre of the sun is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit seems reasonable, it seems plausible, rational.

What happened to the pancake hypothesis?

What happened to the jet fuel fire melted steel hypothesis?

What happened to the 10 story gash hypothesis?

Is Pluto still considered a planet?

My hypothesis is that you aren't very smart. Hopefully for you someone will come along with a better hypothesis that's more reasonable, plausible, or rational. Keep your fingers crossed.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Totovader]

Since NIST isn't the topic of discussion, you have just proven why red herrings are your favorite scapegoat.

YOU were asked for YOUR best evidence. Whatever you think about NIST and it's "lack of evidence" is irrelevant at this point- the FACT that you have presented your "best piece of evidence" and then admitted that it does not exist, and that's your evidence means you have committed an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Lack of evidence is not evidence. And- completely off topic: NIST doesn't claim that is is- YOU DO. By claiming that NIST does- you are committing a strawman.

So I ask again- since you continually ignore it- is logic a proper method for understanding the world around you, or do conspiracy theories offer something more reliable than science and critical thinking, Red?

Seriously, Red...

[stateofgrace]

[quote=stateofgrace;4079484]Last time I heard nobody had actually been to the centre of the sun but it seems to be generally accepted the temperature is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit.

This is a hypothesis; it is almost impossible to prove. It is impossible because nobody can go to the centre of the sun armed with a thermostat and actually measure it, but given the fact that many guys, who are far cleverer than me and you came up with this, I see no reason not to accept it. I see no reason to question it; I see no reason to doubt it, because nobody has come up with a better hypothesis, nobody, to the best of my knowledge, as offered up a better theory. Therefore the theory that the centre of the sun is about 27 million degrees Fahrenheit seems reasonable, it seems plausible, rational.

What happened to the pancake hypothesis?

What happened to the jet fuel fire melted steel hypothesis?

What happened to the 10 story gash hypothesis?

Is Pluto still considered a planet?

My hypothesis is that you aren't very smart. Hopefully for you someone will come along with a better hypothesis. Keep your fingers crossed.

My hypothesis is I will report you. I will you report you for the flame baiting troll you are who inputs zero into any rational civil debate, oh wait, it's true I just did.

[Homeland Insurgency]

[quote=Homeland Insurgency;4079586]

My hypothesis is I will report you. I will you report you for the flame baiting troll you are who inputs zero into any rational civil debate, oh wait, it's true I just did.


So much for rational. Don't have an aneurism.

[stateofgrace]

[quote=stateofgrace;4079594]

So much for rational. Don't have an aneurism.

Reported.

More flame bait from the resident troll.