Perps behind 9/11 demolish another building!

[Jonnyclueless]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=84d_1221435481

The fire department knew in advance. How could they know the building was going to collapse in advance unless it was an inside job? Look at the pyrocrastic flows! Look at the pulverized concrete dust. And there weren't even fires. How can a building just fall at free fall speed for no reason? Inside Job. If only AJ was there.I bet the building contained secret files. Or better yet, that was probably the command center used to pull off the demolition of WTC 7.

We must stop them before they demolish the building used as the command center for this CD!!!

[Travis]

Those invisible and silent explosives are just everywhere.

[Orphia Nay]

And the filmmakers were there to capture it - they were in on it!

:rolleyes: :D

[DC]

especially the sudden collapse initiation ......

[Jonnyclueless]

especially the sudden collapse initiation ......

Just like WTC7!

[DC]

Just like WTC7!

oh the building was on fire?

[Jonnyclueless]

yup the building that was on fire for 7 hours.

[OneShotKi11]

This whole fire thing does sound a little strange to me now.

Atleast the old explanation sounded plausible, but WTC 7 collapsed now officially due to fire? Im back to not knowing what happened and refusing to believe it collapsed for that reason!

[T.A.M.]

well I mean if it doesn't sound plausible to a laymen like yourself, then why should I, another laymen, believe a bunch of PhD scientists and engineers.

Thats it, I am officially a truther.

TAM;)

[Grizzly Bear]

One word: NanothermitesTM

[bje]

No pancaking floors?

[AndyB]

Those invisible and silent explosives are just everywhere.

What was silent about them?

[funk de fino]

What was silent about them?

Provide audio or video evidence of any loud detonations of CD explosives from the WTC on 911 and then we can talk.

[DC]

there are whitnesses that was close to WTC7 that heard explosions.
even one that was inside WTC7.

but that is political incorrect, so they was misstaken, and Fire was the main reason for the collapse, that is political correct :)

[funk de fino]

there are whitnesses that was close to WTC7 that heard explosions.
even one that was inside WTC7.

but that is political incorrect, so they was misstaken, and Fire was the main reason for the collapse, that is political correct :)

explosions are not always blasts and there is no video or audio evidence of blasts loud enough. that just leaves thermite and there is no proof of this either

its nothing to do with politics, leave that out of it, just deal with facts and evidence please.

next.

[DC]

explosions are not always blasts and there is no video or audio evidence of blasts loud enough. that just leaves thermite and there is no proof of this either

its nothing to do with politics, leave that out of it, just deal with facts and evidence please.

next.

so when there is no video of it, it is not true :)

i heard that already somewhere :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

so when there is no video of it, it is not true :)

i heard that already somewhere :rolleyes:

there is also no physical evidence of it either

unlucky

of course if you have any proof of cd in any way, there are a few threads about WTC7 you could take it to?

[DC]

there is also no physical evidence of it either

unlucky

of course if you have any proof of cd in any way, there are a few threads about WTC7 you could take it to?

no one has evidence about what exactly happened to WTC7.

[Grizzly Bear]

there are whitnesses that was close to WTC7 that heard explosions.
even one that was inside WTC7.

but that is political incorrect, so they was misstaken, and Fire was the main reason for the collapse, that is political correct :)

Yes yes... I see now.
It's impossible for people to use similes
Nothing can possibly esplode in fires except for esplosives :)
All explosions are from esplosives
Pyrclastic dus' clouds mean demo :)

The video while nothing near comparison to the WTC collapse does demonstrate the stupidity of a few arguments, one of the obvious ones dealing with the "pyroclastic dust clouds" and "Mt St. Hellens" scene. I don't know about you, but I certainly caution against using such comparisons to make a judgment :)

[funk de fino]

no one has evidence about what exactly happened to WTC7.

They know what did not happen. I love how you shift to "exactly" eh?

For example - the explosion reported from inside by a sadly deceased man. It was the collapse of tower 1. The evidence fits this. Even if you try to attach this as a blast for a CD it happened 5 to 6 hrs before collapse? Not part of a CD then.

[Travis]

I suppose it isn't actually a tornado but an actual rumbling freight train that destroys trailer parks in Oklahoma while a child's bedroom was literally the site of a micro-tornado confined entirely to that room.

[DC]

They know what did not happen. I love how you shift to "exactly" eh?

For example - the explosion reported from inside by a sadly deceased man. It was the collapse of tower 1. The evidence fits this. Even if you try to attach this as a blast for a CD it happened 5 to 6 hrs before collapse? Not part of a CD then.

i cannot judge what someone else heard. i dont do that.

[funk de fino]

i cannot judge what someone else heard. i dont do that.

this does not answer the example i gave, not what they heard but when they heard it

the dead guy does not think it was a CD, he has been used and abused by the TM prior to his death

the explosion at the timne of tower 1 collapse was how long before the collapse of WTC7?

therefore it was not part of the CD if explosives were used.

can you supply the times of the other explosions?

NIST have eliminated explosions loud enough for CD around the collapse time. Video and audio evidence eliminates the possibility for wtc 1&2 that leaves thermite, got any proof of this?

[DC]

this does not answer the example i gave, not what they heard but when they heard it

the dead guy does not think it was a CD, he has been used and abused by the TM prior to his death

the explosion at the timne of tower 1 collapse was how long before the collapse of WTC7?

therefore it was not part of the CD if explosives were used.

can you supply the times of the other explosions?

NIST have eliminated explosions loud enough for CD around the collapse time. Video and audio evidence eliminates the possibility for wtc 1&2 that leaves thermite, got any proof of this?

here are also others that indeed do belive it was a CD, i dont know what jennings thought it was, and i am sure not gonna judge what he heard.
i only know his onterviews. and he reported explosions. where can i find his statement where he explains more detailed what he heard? especially the part where he points out that it was not a CD.

the steel is gone. no evidence left. maybe the Dust samples will bring some light into it. maybe.

[funk de fino]

here are also others that indeed do belive it was a CD, i dont know what jennings thought it was, and i am sure not gonna judge what he heard.
i only know his onterviews. and he reported explosions. where can i find his statement where he explains more detailed what he heard? especially the part where he points out that it was not a CD.

he clarified his position regarding the 911 CT to the BBC

you are avoiding the point made about the explosion reported being 5-6 hours before the collapse. how does this point to CD?

there is no evidence audio or otherwise that points to CD anytimne near the collapse. do you have any reports from witness to the collapse that refer to CD blasts just before the movement of the building?

the steel is gone. no evidence left. maybe the Dust samples will bring some light into it. maybe.

the steel was examined by demo teams, forensic investigators and city officials

only two small samples displayed any out of the ordinary apperance and they were forensically examined and one was seen to be from one of the towers and was attacked inthe pile so was not part of a pre-collapse theory

the other was thought to be from WTC7 and did not display any thermite type attack and also displayed evidence of being attacked in the piles

[DC]

he clarified his position regarding the 911 CT to the BBC

you are avoiding the point made about the explosion reported being 5-6 hours before the collapse. how does this point to CD?

there is no evidence audio or otherwise that points to CD anytimne near the collapse. do you have any reports from witness to the collapse that refer to CD blasts just before the movement of the building?



the steel was examined by demo teams, forensic investigators and city officials

only two small samples displayed any out of the ordinary apperance and they were forensically examined and one was seen to be from one of the towers and was attacked inthe pile so was not part of a pre-collapse theory

the other was thought to be from WTC7 and did not display any thermite type attack and also displayed evidence of being attacked in the piles

i dont want to go true that again, oc there is a whitness that heard explosions and he belived indeed that they are fro a CD. but oc it is claimed to be wrong mistaken etc. you know how it works here with witnesses that do not confirm the OCT. they must be mistaken liars or missquoted.

what tests did they do on all the steel you talk about?(Not the FEMA samples) btw, we are OT. we should move to a WTC7 topic, the one from gregory urich about Dr. Greenings critique could use a little bumb, since the answer from NIST is here, it is geting ignored.

[funk de fino]

i dont want to go true that again, oc there is a whitness that heard explosions and he belived indeed that they are fro a CD. but oc it is claimed to be wrong mistaken etc. you know how it works here with witnesses that do not confirm the OCT. they must be mistaken liars or missquoted.

supply the witness then who claims it was a CD?

you are running away from the explosion being 5-6 hours before the collapse? why dont you try and explain that one first?

what tests did they do on all the steel you talk about?(Not the FEMA samples) btw, we are OT. we should move to a WTC7 topic, the one from gregory urich about Dr. Greenings critique could use a little bumb, since the answer from NIST is here, it is geting ignored.

You know, you could ask the demo teams, the forensic investigators or the city officials yourself? If you really cared that is.

[Jonnyclueless]

So what determines a CD according to Cheney is if people who have no experience with demolitions just assume that explosions (which are a standard event in fires) were bombs?

Does Dick not remember that the minimum explosives required to bring the building down would create an SPL of 130 decibels at 1.5 miles away? That's not simply and explosion. Those people near by who hear the 'explosion" would no longer be able to hear. So the fact that people in the building or nearby heard explosions pretty much rules out a controlled demolition.

But I geuss we're back to the thermite/explosives flip flop nonsense that caused the building to collapse in 18 seconds?

Go go Hush-a-boom.

[DC]

So what determines a CD according to Cheney is if people who have no experience with demolitions just assume that explosions (which are a standard event in fires) were bombs?

Does Dick not remember that the minimum explosives required to bring the building down would create an SPL of 130 decibels at 1.5 miles away? That's not simply and explosion. Those people near by who hear the 'explosion" would no longer be able to hear. So the fact that people in the building or nearby heard explosions pretty much rules out a controlled demolition.

But I geuss we're back to the thermite/explosives flip flop nonsense that caused the building to collapse in 18 seconds?

Go go Hush-a-boom.

no, but it is an indication that there might be more about it.
together with a few other indications, iit might be that it was a CD.

[Grizzly Bear]

no, but it is an indication that there might be more about it.
together with a few other indications, iit might be that it was a CD.

I don't just focus on what people heard or what characteristics "look like a CD". I research the design and then assess what would likely happen if one or more structural members yield due to damage of any kind, and what role the layout of the structural frmae plays in progressing the failures. Anyone who judges a collapse without understanding how the building was constructed or making other similar considerations in my mind don't know enough about what they're asserting.

[DC]

I don't just focus on what people heard or what characteristics "look like a CD". I research the design and then assess what would likely happen if one or more structural members yield due to damage of any kind, and what role the layout of the structural frmae plays in progressing the failures. Anyone who judges a collapse without understanding how the building was constructed or making other similar considerations in my mind don't know enough about what they're asserting.

meanwhile i "know" how it was build, and it is still the same, i roughly expected what NIST's FE found.
but this comes no where close to the observed collapse, in my oppinion.

[OneShotKi11]

well I mean if it doesn't sound plausible to a laymen like yourself, then why should I, another laymen, believe a bunch of PhD scientists and engineers.

Thats it, I am officially a truther.

TAM;)

Well dont worry, in another couple years they will have another explanation for the collapse of the Towers/ WTC7 and i will be right back on track with the JREFIAN thinking. As for now i am once again in the middle on the topic until i read more into this "newer" explanation.

Science is great because when they flip-flop whatever they say new is now "Scientific Fact".
I like this game....

P.S. I do get your point though on the illogical thinking of truthers, but this is clearly already known to all so no need for me to address it really.

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again Cheney, the fact that people heard explosions pretty much rules out a CD. your argument is like saying that seeing fire in a burning building proves a CD. Pointing out key characteristics of a building fire simply further shows it was what it was, not something different. The complete lack of any signs of a demolition such as the lack of audible demolition charges going off (and instead just explosions) doesn't help your case.

If those people heard demolition charges while next to the building, they wouldn't be reporting explosions. They would be reporting burst ear drums.

[funk de fino]

no, but it is an indication that there might be more about it.
together with a few other indications, iit might be that it was a CD.

supply the witness then who claims it was a CD?

twice

[OneShotKi11]

So what is the actual explanation for the explosions?

[DC]

supply the witness then who claims it was a CD?

twice

Craig Bartmer

[OneShotKi11]

supply the witness then who claims it was a CD?

twice

What a terrible question....
People use this type of comment as proof of something being false all the time and its just stupid.
Say he didnt actually have a video or anything to supply you with. Does that mean it doesnt exist?

Did you actually believe known were out there. This is something that doesnt really need a confirmation.

I have a personal friend that i just found out was at ground zero and was witness to the explosions and believes it was a CD.

[PhantomWolf]

So what is the actual explanation for the explosions?

Lots of things in a building fire can explode, quite powerfully. Did you see the Mythbusters played over the past two weeks in the US? They put fire extingushers into a fire to see if they'd explode and put out the fire, the foam based fire extingusher (very commonly used in buildings) when off with a HUGE explosion. Transformers, aeresol cans, and more can explode too.

[Profanz]

Yup. That four story (or was it three?) slum crack house is exactly like what happened at the WTC on 9/11. I don't even see any steel. It must of evaporated in that raging inferno. The truthers are on the run now. How do you debunkers keep doing it? How to you continue to find new ways to fail here day in and day out?

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/militia-fail.jpg

Keep up the good work.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yup. That four story (or was it three?) slum crack house is exactly like what happened at the WTC on 9/11. I don't even see any steel. It must of evaporated in that raging inferno.

I thnk you missed this:

The video while nothing near comparison to the WTC collapse does demonstrate the stupidity of a few arguments, one of the obvious ones dealing with the "pyroclastic dust clouds" and "Mt St. Hellens" scene. I don't know about you, but I certainly caution against using such comparisons to make a judgment :)

Also, isn't it amazing you can see such differences between this building and
the WTC, (That it's brick, and not steel for example) yet you cannot do the same when you guys try comparing concrete core high-rises to steel frame skyscrapers to justify the behavior of steel frame structures? I should take lessons on selective memory from you guys :p



<Snip image>
OK dude, that was gross, and you entirely missed the point of this thread... pat yourself on the back for earning a fail medal :o

Here was the point of this thread which your reading comprehension missed:


The fire department knew in advance that the example provided here would collapse: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=84d_1221435481

What do truthers claim? That foreknowledge of WTC 7's structural instability and eventual collapse is evidence of complicity to demolition.
So how could they know that this building was going to collapse in advance unless it was an inside job?


Look at the pyrocrastic flows! Look at the pulverized concrete dust. And there weren't even fires.

You ignored the bolded red text BTW Profanz
Hmmm what do the truthers claim as evidence of CD? They claim that the dust clouds are evidence of demolition. Following that logic I suppose the partial collapse of this brick building was a controlled demolition. The pyroclastic dust clouds and the Mt St Helens-like scene proves it TM

Keep up the good work Profanz, I'm always good for a good laugh :)
Thank you for making my day :D

[Mince]

no one has evidence about what exactly happened to WTC7.


Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! Now could you please go tell Alex Jones and the whole of the "truth" movement, who seem to think they know what happened....despite never leaving their keyboard.



ETA: Profanz, could you please stop posting personal pictures? Thanks.

[DC]

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding! We have a winner! Now could you please go tell Alex Jones and the whole of the "truth" movement, who seem to think they know what happened....despite never leaving their keyboard.



ETA: Profanz, could you please stop posting personal pictures? Thanks.

why wuold AJ listen to me? I dont even have a bullhorn.

i thought the TM is death, how could they listen?

maybe people have diffrent oppinions, no mather what label you gave them.

[funk de fino]

Craig Bartmer

Source

[funk de fino]

What a terrible question....
People use this type of comment as proof of something being false all the time and its just stupid.
Say he didnt actually have a video or anything to supply you with. Does that mean it doesnt exist?

Did you actually believe known were out there. This is something that doesnt really need a confirmation.

I have a personal friend that i just found out was at ground zero and was witness to the explosions and believes it was a CD.

Terrible if you have not read the thread and are poor at english I suppose. The bolded part above shows you are.

It is asking for a source for a claim. Standard debate tactics.

Now go and help your friend, he needs it.

[DC]

Source

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Uso9sCOakEQ

[Jonnyclueless]

Cheney, could you just list his evidence? Because anyone can think something is a CD. That doesn't make it so no matter what their proximity is. What is his evidence that his opinion is correct? We could list hundreds of first responders who claim the opposite.

[DC]

Cheney, could you just list his evidence? Because anyone can think something is a CD. That doesn't make it so no matter what their proximity is. What is his evidence that his opinion is correct? We could list hundreds of first responders who claim the opposite.

pls do that.

[funk de fino]

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Uso9sCOakEQ

Thanks I will have a look

[funk de fino]

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Uso9sCOakEQ

Sorry, you will have to point out where he claims CD.

He says boom, boom, boom after the building begins to fall, this is not CD.

oc there is a whitness that heard explosions and he belived indeed that they are fro a CD.

Please give me a time in the vid where he claims CD or even says it. I cant seem to find it?

PS this is before the WTC7 report also. What are his thoughts now?

[OneShotKi11]

Terrible if you have not read the thread and are poor at english I suppose. The bolded part above shows you are.

It is asking for a source for a claim. Standard debate tactics.

Now go and help your friend, he needs it.

I actually noticed the spelling error but hours later after i came back to the thread and my edit option was already taken away.

Does it make you feel any better pointing it out?
More intelligent?
More logical?
Better common sense?
Higher IQ?
Better English?
Better researcher?

What did you get out of pointing that out rather then the poor joy of the insult?
Do you honestly think i didnt know the difference between "known" and "none"?
Do you not acknowledge a point when something is misspelled?


So enough with the off topic nonsense...

So you never actually researched 9/11 to know there are witnesses that believe it was a CD?
If after 7 years you do not know this answer you havent researched anything even slightly. This is a blatantly obvious answer and logically it only makes sense that there would have to be a single individual in the world who was witnesses to the event, and thinks it was a CD.
Saying otherwise is a logical imparity.

So your question could only have two possible meanings.


1) You actually didnt know this answer and never researched for yourself and honestly didnt believe it existed.
(This answer would imply bad logic. Children are taught that always and never are seemingly always wrong answers)

2) You actually knew this to be true but asked for evidence in the hope that he would not be able to provide any. Thus, in your own world making you correct.

If you have another reason for your questioning him please provide it as answer 3.

[Disbelief]

So you never actually researched 9/11 to know there are witnesses that believe it was a CD?
If after 7 years you do not know this answer you havent researched anything even slightly. This is a blatantly obvious answer and logically it only makes sense that there would have to be a single individual in the world who was witnesses to the event, and thinks it was a CD.
Saying otherwise is a logical imparity.

So your question could only have two possible meanings.


1) You actually didnt know this answer and never researched for yourself and honestly didnt believe it existed.
(This answer would imply bad logic. Children are taught that always and never are seemingly always wrong answers)

2) You actually knew this to be true but asked for evidence in the hope that he would not be able to provide any. Thus, in your own world making you correct.

If you have another reason for your questioning him please provide it as answer 3.

3) In all his research, he has never been able to find any witness who believes it was CD. If it is so obvious that witnesses believe that it was a CD, why can no one provide a source? Otherwise, you are arguinig from personal incredulity.

[OneShotKi11]

Sorry, you will have to point out where he claims CD.

He says boom, boom, boom after the building begins to fall, this is not CD.



Please give me a time in the vid where he claims CD or even says it. I cant seem to find it?

PS this is before the WTC7 report also. What are his thoughts now?

Your ignorance is astounding.
He clearly doesnt believe the official story. Several times he mentions not trusting the official investigation. He asks for a real investigation, and also asks the government "what do they have to hide"?
He makes the claim that he "He knows what explosions sound like".

"I was close to building (WTC)7 when it fell down."....
"I dont know but that didnt sound like just a building falling down to me while i was running away from it. There is alot of witness testimony hearing explosions. I didnt see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did."
"I think were being lied to and the only answer to get to the bottom of that lie is a new investigation."

Now please tell me what that comment implies? Still not convinced about what hes referring to?
Thats your inability to comprehend speech.

You asked for someone to point out where he even mentions a CD.
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=xpoAmEGdsn4&feature=related
6:56 he mentions it.

He again mentions "it didnt fall on its own" (WTC7)and he doesnt believe it did!
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=itLVpimIX6g

Still cant understand what hes trying to imply? Whos comprehension skills are at fault then?

Again this implies your sorry lack of research/debate skills and or any other relevant skills to a conversation.
Im assuming you didnt watch the whole interview. Or was that too much for you to sit through? Was it because he didnt give you a little linky linky for part 1 or 3?
Lazyness get the best of everyone?

Like i said assuming that no one in the world that was witness to the event and believes it was a CD exists, is a terrible conclusion.

You can make the claim that you never said that but then what exactly did you intend by asking for evidence of a witness saying such?
You had to have a point for your asking and i would to know what it was....

[OneShotKi11]

3) In all his research, he has never been able to find any witness who believes it was CD. If it is so obvious that witnesses believe that it was a CD, why can no one provide a source? Otherwise, you are arguinig from personal incredulity.

Well i will provide one myself. Like i stated earlier this is something stupid to ask for because it actually implies that you people believe none exist.



Is that true?

I have a friend that was a witness that i just found out was down at WTC on 9/11. He claims to have heard explosions and also definitely 100% believes it was a controlled demolition.

Credibility is not what we are asking for here at this time, nor evidence of explosions. We are currently only looking for witnesses that are alive and that believe it was a CD, and i just happen to have one as a friend.

Kinda kills your argument that none exist. If thats not your argument then whats your reasoning for questioning such a statement?
To me your thoughts and questions seem to be dealing with absolutes, and we all know that true absolutes are very rare.

Like i said im just pointing out useless questions that can be avoided with simple logic. The best thing would have been to skip over asking him for evidence of witnesses (that believe it was a CD) and just assume some exist. Then question the witness credibility and lack of evidence. Proving the existence of such a witness is pointless and cheap!!!

[T.A.M.]

Well dont worry, in another couple years they will have another explanation for the collapse of the Towers/ WTC7 and i will be right back on track with the JREFIAN thinking. As for now i am once again in the middle on the topic until i read more into this "newer" explanation.

Science is great because when they flip-flop whatever they say new is now "Scientific Fact".
I like this game....

P.S. I do get your point though on the illogical thinking of truthers, but this is clearly already known to all so no need for me to address it really.

My point is this.

I have a scientific background, including entry level college Physics. Despite this, the vast majority of technical detail as to how and why WTC 1/2 and 7 Collapsed is above my level...

If I do not understand all the science behind it, then unless someone with expertise shows me how they are wrong, why should I disbelieve the scientists at NIST? They are all experts in the areas in question.

If you go to your local hospital, and a team of surgeons tell you that you have Cancer, would you insist they were wrong based on "intuition" or that "it just doesn't feel right"? No, you would believe them....unless....If several other, equally talented surgeons told you it wasn't true, and showed you the CT/MRI etc... to prove it.

I am not suggesting blind faith, but unless you can prove scientifically where they are incorrect, why on earth would you doubt them?

Answer me this. Show me one reputable scientific paper that proves that their theory is wrong?

TAM:)

[Disbelief]

Well i will provide one myself. Like i stated earlier this is something stupid to ask for because it actually implies that you people believe none exist.

Is that true?


No, people are asking that a claim be backed up. Whether we believe a witness exists or not is immaterial. Prove it.


I have a friend that was a witness that i just found out was down at WTC on 9/11. He claims to have heard explosions and also definitely 100% believes it was a controlled demolition.

Credibility is not what we are asking for here at this time, nor evidence of explosions. We are currently only looking for witnesses that are alive and that believe it was a CD, and i just happen to have one as a friend.


You citing a friend is not sourcing it for us. We do not know you from Adam, so excuse our skepticism.


Kinda kills your argument that none exist.


No, because there is no proof, just your claim.


If thats not your argument then whats your reasoning for questioning such a statement?


Because we are skeptics and think that claims need evidence.


To me your thoughts and questions seem to be dealing with absolutes, and we all know that true absolutes are very rare.

This is an absolute - you have evidence or you don't.


Like i said im just pointing out useless questions that can be avoided with simple logic. The best thing would have been to skip over asking him for evidence of witnesses (that believe it was a CD) and just assume some exist. Then question the witness credibility and lack of evidence. Proving the existence of such a witness is pointless and cheap!!!

How can one question the credibility of the witness and lack of evidence if a witness is not brought forth?

[DC]

My point is this.

I have a scientific background, including entry level college Physics. Despite this, the vast majority of technical detail as to how and why WTC 1/2 and 7 Collapsed is above my level...

If I do not understand all the science behind it, then unless someone with expertise shows me how they are wrong, why should I disbelieve the scientists at NIST? They are all experts in the areas in question.

If you go to your local hospital, and a team of surgeons tell you that you have Cancer, would you insist they were wrong based on "intuition" or that "it just doesn't feel right"? No, you would believe them....unless....If several other, equally talented surgeons told you it wasn't true, and showed you the CT/MRI etc... to prove it.

I am not suggesting blind faith, but unless you can prove scientifically where they are incorrect, why on earth would you doubt them?

Answer me this. Show me one reputable scientific paper that proves that their theory is wrong?

TAM:)

If i have doubt about the diagnosis, i would go get a second oppinion from other specialists aka new investigations, to make sure it is right.

[Jonnyclueless]

If i have doubt about the diagnosis, i would go get a second oppinion from other specialists aka new investigations, to make sure it is right.

So go start a new investigation. YOU are the one in doubt, not the rest of the world. YOU kids are the only ones who feel this need, so it's on you. Go on, do your investigation instead of trying to make the people who understand the facts waste time and money on something that has already been proven conclusively.

[Mr.Herbert]

If i have doubt about the diagnosis, i would go get a second oppinion from other specialists aka new investigations, to make sure it is right.

You have been diagnosed with Cancer. Would you seek your second opinion with another reputable oncologist, or to a doctor of lets say....theology?

[OneShotKi11]

No, people are asking that a claim be backed up. Whether we believe a witness exists or not is immaterial. Prove it.

How can one question the credibility of the witness and lack of evidence if a witness is not brought forth?

A witness was already provided for you, or did you not watch DC's video?

[OneShotKi11]

My point is this.

I have a scientific background, including entry level college Physics. Despite this, the vast majority of technical detail as to how and why WTC 1/2 and 7 Collapsed is above my level...

If I do not understand all the science behind it, then unless someone with expertise shows me how they are wrong, why should I disbelieve the scientists at NIST? They are all experts in the areas in question.

If you go to your local hospital, and a team of surgeons tell you that you have Cancer, would you insist they were wrong based on "intuition" or that "it just doesn't feel right"? No, you would believe them....unless....If several other, equally talented surgeons told you it wasn't true, and showed you the CT/MRI etc... to prove it.

I am not suggesting blind faith, but unless you can prove scientifically where they are incorrect, why on earth would you doubt them?

Answer me this. Show me one reputable scientific paper that proves that their theory is wrong?

TAM:)

I dont particularly like everyone around heres doctor analogy being that my family and myself had several occasions where doctors diagnosed us incorrectly. This example you have given is very common on these forums.

There are also times i had to verbally dispute the validity of there claims. Especially when i was in pain and a doctor told me no i wasnt that i was fine.
Again this is just real world scenarios and not the hypothetical ones used around here so take them how you want.

As for 9/11, i personally dont completely trust any theory at the moment because i have heard to many official reasons for the collapse and seem to be a bit confused as to which is accurate.

Maybe i just havent read the correct articles yet to fully be convinced.
Point me in the direction of the latest most up to date accurate theory and i will gladly read it.
Just stop treating me like a dam blind monkey, crazy man, Conspiracy Theory twoofer!
Im willing to read and learn, just show me what you have!

[T.A.M.]

I will address this, even though this poster is on ignore, as it seems it was in response to my comments, and someone quoted it.

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney


If i have doubt about the diagnosis, i would go get a second oppinion from other specialists aka new investigations, to make sure it is right.

Doubt based on what? Based on "intuition"? Based on the reputation or perceived skill etc...of the surgeon who made the initial diagnosis? Or do you simply doubt everything, no matter what? What would be the basis for doubt in this case? I am not saying it is wrong to doubt, but one has to have a reason, unless one lives in a permanent state of paranoia and mistrust.

The reason I ask is this...

In medicine, everyone is entitled to a second opinion, on anything...any diagnosis. Do you know how many people I have had request one in my 8 years of practice???

Lets say out of the tens of thousands of patients I have seen, it would be less that 50. Why? (A) They trust the system and the experts in it, and (B) they have NO BACKGROUND to suggest the Physician is wrong, no reason to doubt.

Of course surgeons can be wrong, any physician, any expert can be. I guess it is a matter of perspective. I think those who are "truthers" distrust everything, no matter what, where the majority of the general public need a LEGITIMATE REASON to do so.

Perspective.

TAM:)

[OneShotKi11]

You have been diagnosed with Cancer. Would you seek your second opinion with another reputable oncologist, or to a doctor of lets say....theology?

He didnt say that now did he?
He asked for a new investigation being done by experts in the field, not theology nuts.
Whether they deserve it or the situation even requires it is not in question.
Just trying to quickly point out your twisting of his original comment.

Hes not asking for a new investigation lead by Dylan Avery. Which is what your comment seemed to imply.

(Dylan Avery, BWahahahahhahahahaha LuLz LuLz Lulz luLz)
Sometimes i make myself laugh.......

[T.A.M.]

I dont particularly like everyone around heres doctor analogy being that my family and myself had several occasions where doctors diagnosed us incorrectly. This example you have given is very common on these forums.

There are also times i had to verbally dispute the validity of there claims. Especially when i was in pain and a doctor told me no i wasnt that i was fine.
Again this is just real world scenarios and not the hypothetical ones used around here so take them how you want.

As for 9/11, i personally dont completely trust any theory at the moment because i have heard to many official reasons for the collapse and seem to be a bit confused as to which is accurate.

Maybe i just havent read the correct articles yet to fully be convinced.
Point me in the direction of the latest most up to date accurate theory and i will gladly read it.
Just stop treating me like a dam blind monkey, crazy man, Conspiracy Theory twoofer!
Im willing to read and learn, just show me what you have!

Sorry for the derail,

Please read my post that follows yours. Especially the part about how any doctor can be wrong...of course. So would you suggest that for EVERY DIAGNOSIS, people get a second opinion? That would double, instantly, the strain on the health care system.

Incidently, I am a Physician. I have been wrong. It happens to all of us at one or more times in our careers. Like I said, if you are going to base getting a second opinion on the fact that anyone, any doctor, can be wrong, then you will instantly double the burden on the health care system (as every patient will need to doctor visits, the first and second opinion, for every diagnosis).

You are entitled to your opinion.

TAM:)

[OneShotKi11]

Sorry for the derail,

Please read my post that follows yours. Especially the part about how any doctor can be wrong...of course. So would you suggest that for EVERY DIAGNOSIS, people get a second opinion? That would double, instantly, the strain on the health care system.

Incidently, I am a Physician. I have been wrong. It happens to all of us at one or more times in our careers. Like I said, if you are going to base getting a second opinion on the fact that anyone, any doctor, can be wrong, then you will instantly double the burden on the health care system (as every patient will need to doctor visits, the first and second opinion, for every diagnosis).

You are entitled to your opinion.

TAM:)

You seemed to address the off-topic derailed portion of our conversation (which is fine) but failed to address my asking for your reading material on the topic at hand. Where does T.A.M. look when wanting to research or read about 9/11 and the physics behind it?
Where did you find your official scientific explanation?
I am just waiting to be informed and spread the love.

[T.A.M.]

You seemed to address the off-topic derailed portion of our conversation (which is fine) but failed to address my asking for your reading material on the topic at hand. Where does T.A.M. look when wanting to research or read about 9/11 and the physics behind it?
Where did you find your official scientific explanation?
I am just waiting to be informed and spread the love.

lol...no need to be sarcastic about it.

I do not pretend to know the physics of it. I would suggest asking the top structural engineers in the USA. Oh wait, MIT did put out something about the towers did they not? How about Bazant? How about NIST? Have you looked at their credentials?

Now if you want to know my reading material for 9/11, it is wide and varied...

1. 9/11 Commission Report
2. NIST Report
3. The Looming Tower (book)
4. 102 Minutes (book)
5. The transcripts from the first responders and firefighters at the WTC.
6. The Moussoui Trial Exhibits
7. The FBI Files on the matter.
8. The complete 9/11 Timeline (Paul Thompson)
9. Mark Roberts Links on 9/11

Are these not good resources? If not, please answer why a particular one is not?

TAM:)

[portlandatheist]

First these people robbed cave fish of their eye sight, then 9/11, then 4/29 overpass collapse, then I-35 bridge collapse, now this? They must be stopped!

[OneShotKi11]

No, people are asking that a claim be backed up. Whether we believe a witness exists or not is immaterial. Prove it.

No, not believing in the existence of a singular witness that might believe the WTC is a CD is illogical.

Again allow me to ask whats the point in questioning him?
You must have a point in your questioning him on this or i must assume you only question to harass and badger, and not actually participate in the discussion.

Allow me to give the only possible reasons for asking for evidence of the existance of such a witness.

1) Asking a question such as the one stated above would occur if the individual asking actually did not believe that such a witness existed in all of the universe. Thus, asking such question would be (illogical) validated. For this person would like to be shown the existence of such an individual to further enhance their knowledge on the topic.
OR
2) You didnt care about the answer and or already knew the answer, but just wanted to badger the original poster with additional unnecessary work.You did this in the hopes that he would not be able to provide such a person and allowing you to claim a cheap victory over this small debate.

Even if scenario 2 occurred where he could not provide an individual as evidence would you have then claimed none existed?
What would you have said if he couldnt have provided a witness?

Answer these questions and you will see why i said this line of questioning was illogical.

Again if you have another reason other then the 2 i provided please by all means state it. For i hate having flaws in my thought process and would appreciate it if someone could prove it wrong!!!

Again i see no point in asking this question for its answer has nothing relevant to provide to the debate, no matter what answer is given.

Some conversations do require evidence to be provided to continue the discussion, while others dont require any at all.

[Mr.Herbert]

He didnt say that now did he?
He asked for a new investigation being done by experts in the field, not theology nuts.
Whether they deserve it or the situation even requires it is not in question.
Just trying to quickly point out your twisting of his original comment.

Hes not asking for a new investigation lead by Dylan Avery. Which is what your comment seemed to imply.

(Dylan Avery, BWahahahahhahahahaha LuLz LuLz Lulz luLz)
Sometimes i make myself laugh.......


To suggest I was speaking of Dylan Avery is not accurate. The loser is only brought up in here as the punch line of a bad joke.
I was making a comparison to those so called leaders of the truth movement and their credentials. The reference was to Dr. David Griffin who is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology and a debunked leader of Woo.

Experts have already done a multimillion dollar investigation. Only a select few crazies are asking for it to be done again.

Just to point out; the following is a small list of the educational backgrounds of the project leaders at NIST. I think it would be interesting to bring up the educational backgrounds of Richard Gage's croonies, the "Scholar of 911 truth"... etc. The "scholars" actually had a dermatologist listed as one of their members.


NIST/WTC Project Leaders Educational Backgrounds:

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, B. Tech., (Honors), Civil Engineering, 1977

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, S.M., Civil Engineering, 1979

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sc.D., Structural Engineering, 1981

University of Wisconsin, B.S.,Mechanical Engineering, 1968

University of California, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, 1976

Washington University, B.S., Architectural Engineering, 1960

Lehigh University, M.S., Civil Engineering, 1963

University of Texas, Ph.D., Civil Engineering, 1967

Illinois Institute of Technology, B.S., Electrical Engineering, 1970

Cairo University, Egypt, B.S., Civil Engineering, 1987.

Cairo University, Egypt, M.S., Structural Engineering, 1991.

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, Ph.D., Structural Engineering, 1996.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1985), Ph.D., Metallurgy

Trinity College, B.S., Chemistry, 1965

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, 1970

Cornell University, Civil (Structural) Engineering,
B.S., 1969;
M.E., 1970;
Ph.D., 1980

Florida Atlantic University, 1979, BS Ocean Engineering

Oregon State University, 1986, MS Ocean Engineering

Johns Hopkins University, 1998, MS Structural Engineering

Johns Hopkins University, 2000, PhD Structural Engineering

Worcester Polytechnic Institute
BS Civil Engineering, 1996

MS Fire Protection Engineering, 1998
Johns Hopkins University

Continuing Studies towards Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering

Brewton-Parker College, A.A., Business Administration

Georgia Southern University, B.S., Industrial Education

Montgomery College, A.A., Computer Science, Science and Mathematics

B.S. Physics, 1988 George Mason University

[OneShotKi11]

To suggest I was speaking of Dylan Avery is not accurate. The loser is only brought up in here as the punch line of a bad joke.
I was making a comparison to those so called leaders of the truth movement and their credentials. The reference was to Dr. David Griffin who is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology and a debunked leader of Woo.

Experts have already done a multimillion dollar investigation. Only a select few crazies are asking for it to be done again.

Just to point out; the following is a small list of the educational backgrounds of the project leaders at NIST. I think it would be interesting to bring up the educational backgrounds of Richard Gage's croonies, the "Scholar of 911 truth"... etc. The "scholars" actually had a dermatologist listed as one of their members.


NIST/WTC Project Leaders Educational Backgrounds:

Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, B. Tech., (Honors), Civil Engineering, 1977

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, S.M., Civil Engineering, 1979

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sc.D., Structural Engineering, 1981

University of Wisconsin, B.S.,Mechanical Engineering, 1968

University of California, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, 1976

Washington University, B.S., Architectural Engineering, 1960

Lehigh University, M.S., Civil Engineering, 1963

University of Texas, Ph.D., Civil Engineering, 1967

Illinois Institute of Technology, B.S., Electrical Engineering, 1970

Cairo University, Egypt, B.S., Civil Engineering, 1987.

Cairo University, Egypt, M.S., Structural Engineering, 1991.

Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, Ph.D., Structural Engineering, 1996.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1985), Ph.D., Metallurgy

Trinity College, B.S., Chemistry, 1965

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, 1970

Cornell University, Civil (Structural) Engineering,
B.S., 1969;
M.E., 1970;
Ph.D., 1980

Florida Atlantic University, 1979, BS Ocean Engineering

Oregon State University, 1986, MS Ocean Engineering

Johns Hopkins University, 1998, MS Structural Engineering

Johns Hopkins University, 2000, PhD Structural Engineering

Worcester Polytechnic Institute
BS Civil Engineering, 1996

MS Fire Protection Engineering, 1998
Johns Hopkins University

Continuing Studies towards Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering

Brewton-Parker College, A.A., Business Administration

Georgia Southern University, B.S., Industrial Education

Montgomery College, A.A., Computer Science, Science and Mathematics

B.S. Physics, 1988 George Mason University




Trying to win some sort of intellectual battle on a forum overcomes everyones reading skills, or people just actually choose to overlook everything.
I clearly stated that....
"Whether they deserve it or the situation even requires it is not in question."

This i thought clearly stated that any refuting of what i said with the fact that they dont deserve another investigation was pointless. I specifically made that comment because i knew someone would do what your doing and i wanted to avoid it, but ofcourse you did it anyway.

This fact i already knew so the point in you listing all of the credentials of the NIST project leaders was???

I didnt see him mention the new investigation had to be headed by leaders within the truth movement with a background in "philosophy of religion and theology". You seemingly added this in there for him to make it easier to debate his topic in your favor.
Why did you add this in?
Is this a strawman? (Im honestly not sure)

Atleast you got my Dylan Avery joke.

[Grizzly Bear]

No, not believing in the existence of a singular witness that might believe the WTC is a CD is illogical.

Again allow me to ask whats the point in questioning him?

I think there are a few that do believe in the controlled demolition crap, but considering the physical evidence indicates the opposite I cannot simply rely exclusively on his testimony or others.
There's a reason why I do not rely solely on any one single set of evidence to make my conclusion.


1) Asking a question such as the one stated above would occur if the individual asking actually did not believe that such a witness existed in all of the universe. Thus, asking such question would be (illogical) validated. For this person would like to be shown the existence of such an individual to further enhance their knowledge on the topic.
OR
2) You didnt care about the answer and or already knew the answer, but just wanted to badger the original poster with additional unnecessary work.You did this in the hopes that he would not be able to provide such a person and allowing you to claim a cheap victory over this small debate.

Not only do I believe that some witnesses (albeit very few) believe in controlled demolition, your witness also brings up some of the same arguments that the truth movement loves to bring up. "Why wasn't WTC 7 covered in the commission report?" In case he or any other truther hadn't noticed, the commission report dealt with the terrorist attacks, not the other buildings which suffered second handed effects of the attacks resulting from the collpase of the twin towers. According to that logic, all of the buildings within the WTC complex should have been investigated by the very virtue that they were all either significantly damaged or totally destroyed. The gripe that the truth movement has with WTC 7 likely delves with their predetermined conclusion that nothing but controlled demolition could have brought the structure down. Surprising after this long that people still don't understand the scope of the commission report.

I'm sorry he suffered the ill effects of working on-site, as many workers of ground-zero have, however he as well argues his claim on the same basis as the truth movement and his standards of proof are no better. I can only hope other witness who believe in the CD theory have better standards of evidence for why they agree with the TM if they intend to convince others, as per their opinions... each to their own I suppose, freedom of speech doesn't ban people from having irrational standards for what they consider as evidence for a particular event.

I hope this answers your question...

[OneShotKi11]

I think there are a few that do believe in the controlled demolition crap, but considering the physical evidence indicates the opposite I cannot simply rely exclusively on his testimony or others.
There's a reason why I do not rely solely on any one single set of evidence to make my conclusion.



Not only do I believe that some witnesses (albeit very few) believe in controlled demolition, your witness also brings up some of the same arguments that the truth movement loves to bring up. "Why wasn't WTC 7 covered in the commission report?" In case he or any other truther hadn't noticed, the commission report dealt with the terrorist attacks, not the other buildings which suffered second handed effects of the attacks resulting from the collpase of the twin towers. According to that logic, all of the buildings within the WTC complex should have been investigated by the very virtue that they were all either significantly damaged or totally destroyed. The gripe that the truth movement has with WTC 7 likely delves with their predetermined conclusion that nothing but controlled demolition could have brought the structure down. Surprising after this long that people still don't understand the scope of the commission report.

I'm sorry he suffered the ill effects of working on-site, as many workers of ground-zero have, however he as well argues his claim on the same basis as the truth movement and his standards of proof are no better. I can only hope other witness who believe in the CD theory have better standards of evidence for why they agree with the TM if they intend to convince others, as per their opinions... each to their own I suppose, freedom of speech doesn't ban people from having irrational standards for what they consider as evidence for a particular event.

I hope this answers your question...

I agree completely with everything you said. I also thank you for the legitimate response but the questions i asked werent actually for you, but you answered them anyway and there is nothing wrong with that.

I am not actually arguing in favor of the truthers beliefs but more so defending the truthers argument. Think of me more as a debate mediator that is trying to make sure all points and conversations flow logically.
Any twisting of words or other peoples points of view and or mis-interpreted speech i will hop in and surely try to correct it for all.
I am neither for or against any argument in this topic, just against the debate tactics of some within it!
I do this very often and people always twist it into me joining one side or the other. When i am actually just constantly pointing out flawed arguments so that the conversation may flow and continuing more progressively.

Some of the more intelligent posters take it as a direct insult, but everyone makes mistakes in their debate tactics especially I. So how do you learn and progressive to become a better conversationalist if they are never pointed out to you?

To a degree....
I will never point out someones spelling, grammar, or any type literature skill. As long as i feel i can understand the point and others should as well. I will let act as if the paragraphs were written by English scholars.
More of a logic/common sense things i like to deal with.

Its my own personal thing and it often causes me to rant. Sorry if it sometimes derails a topic! Hope you understand what i am getting at now...

[DC]

I will address this, even though this poster is on ignore, as it seems it was in response to my comments, and someone quoted it.

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney



Doubt based on what? Based on "intuition"? Based on the reputation or perceived skill etc...of the surgeon who made the initial diagnosis? Or do you simply doubt everything, no matter what? What would be the basis for doubt in this case? I am not saying it is wrong to doubt, but one has to have a reason, unless one lives in a permanent state of paranoia and mistrust.

The reason I ask is this...

In medicine, everyone is entitled to a second opinion, on anything...any diagnosis. Do you know how many people I have had request one in my 8 years of practice???

Lets say out of the tens of thousands of patients I have seen, it would be less that 50. Why? (A) They trust the system and the experts in it, and (B) they have NO BACKGROUND to suggest the Physician is wrong, no reason to doubt.

Of course surgeons can be wrong, any physician, any expert can be. I guess it is a matter of perspective. I think those who are "truthers" distrust everything, no matter what, where the majority of the general public need a LEGITIMATE REASON to do so.

Perspective.

TAM:)

when your doctor reacts this way to your questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ri1i6nAGOE
you will have your doubts.

but some seem to advise a selfdiagnosis. atleast some warn me that there are fraud doctors, that are actually theology doctors.

[funk de fino]

I actually noticed the spelling error but hours later after i came back to the thread and my edit option was already taken away.

Does it make you feel any better pointing it out?
More intelligent?
More logical?
Better common sense?
Higher IQ?
Better English?
Better researcher?

What did you get out of pointing that out rather then the poor joy of the insult?
Do you honestly think i didnt know the difference between "known" and "none"?
Do you not acknowledge a point when something is misspelled?


So enough with the off topic nonsense...

So you never actually researched 9/11 to know there are witnesses that believe it was a CD?
If after 7 years you do not know this answer you havent researched anything even slightly. This is a blatantly obvious answer and logically it only makes sense that there would have to be a single individual in the world who was witnesses to the event, and thinks it was a CD.
Saying otherwise is a logical imparity.

So your question could only have two possible meanings.


1) You actually didnt know this answer and never researched for yourself and honestly didnt believe it existed.
(This answer would imply bad logic. Children are taught that always and never are seemingly always wrong answers)

2) You actually knew this to be true but asked for evidence in the hope that he would not be able to provide any. Thus, in your own world making you correct.

If you have another reason for your questioning him please provide it as answer 3.

Post # 51

[funk de fino]

Your ignorance is astounding.
He clearly doesnt believe the official story. Several times he mentions not trusting the official investigation. He asks for a real investigation, and also asks the government "what do they have to hide"?
He makes the claim that he "He knows what explosions sound like".

"I was close to building (WTC)7 when it fell down."....
"I dont know but that didnt sound like just a building falling down to me while i was running away from it. There is alot of witness testimony hearing explosions. I didnt see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did."
"I think were being lied to and the only answer to get to the bottom of that lie is a new investigation."

Now please tell me what that comment implies? Still not convinced about what hes referring to?
Thats your inability to comprehend speech.

You asked for someone to point out where he even mentions a CD.
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=xpoAmEGdsn4&feature=related
6:56 he mentions it.

He again mentions "it didnt fall on its own" (WTC7)and he doesnt believe it did!
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=itLVpimIX6g

Still cant understand what hes trying to imply? Whos comprehension skills are at fault then?

Again this implies your sorry lack of research/debate skills and or any other relevant skills to a conversation.
Im assuming you didnt watch the whole interview. Or was that too much for you to sit through? Was it because he didnt give you a little linky linky for part 1 or 3?
Lazyness get the best of everyone?

Like i said assuming that no one in the world that was witness to the event and believes it was a CD exists, is a terrible conclusion.

You can make the claim that you never said that but then what exactly did you intend by asking for evidence of a witness saying such?
You had to have a point for your asking and i would to know what it was....


Dont cry cause I ribbed you about the "known" gaff

[funk de fino]

I am not actually arguing in favor of the truthers beliefs but more so defending the truthers argument. Think of me more as a debate mediator that is trying to make sure all points and conversations flow logically.

You need to understand how debate works here first, then you can come and try and mediate my arguments with DC.

He made a claim, I asked for a source. This is how it works. If I made a claim and I was asked for a source I would have to supply it or the claim is worthless. Truthers make wild claims all the time that are mostly lies that are sourced from morons who know no better, you have to try and filter them out.

That you misunderstood the debate, then proceeded to attack my question in an arrogant way is what got you the ribbing.

Now DC supplied a supposed source to his claim but this debate has now been polluted by you. So much for flow logically.

[OneShotKi11]

You need to understand how debate works here first, then you can come and try and mediate my arguments with DC.

He made a claim, I asked for a source. This is how it works. If I made a claim and I was asked for a source I would have to supply it or the claim is worthless. Truthers make wild claims all the time that are mostly lies that are sourced from morons who know no better, you have to try and filter them out.

That you misunderstood the debate, then proceeded to attack my question in an arrogant way is what got you the ribbing.

Now DC supplied a supposed source to his claim but this debate has now been polluted by you. So much for flow logically.

Your not understanding my point on how asking for the evidence of that particular claim was pointless.
Whether he was able to provide it or not didnt mean a thing for the conversation unless you were so illogical that you felt known existed.
The only purpose for asking for such evidence was to badger him which inturn caused him to do more needless work.

Please reply to post #67. Read it carefully understand what i am saying and then reply to it with what i asked.

Another question for you is this....
If he was not able to provide you with evidence of a witness that thought it was a CD, then what would you have said to him?
Would you have claimed you won the debate and that known existed?
Or was there something else you would have said to him?

Like i said in an earlier post i am all ears to an explanation from you. If im wrong, im wrong! I can admit it and move on, but without you ever acknowledging my post i will never know if i made a correct assessment of the situation.
I want you to just defend your stance and back up your reasoning for asking for such evidence. Thats it!
Take your time i have all day.....

[OneShotKi11]

What a terrible question....
People use this type of comment as proof of something being false all the time and its just stupid.
Say he didnt actually have a video or anything to supply you with. Does that mean it doesnt exist?

Did you actually believe known were out there. This is something that doesnt really need a confirmation.

I have a personal friend that i just found out was at ground zero and was witness to the explosions and believes it was a CD.
Terrible if you have not read the thread and are poor at english I suppose. The bolded part above shows you are.

It is asking for a source for a claim. Standard debate tactics.

Now go and help your friend, he needs it.
Dont cry cause I ribbed you about the "known" gaff

Actually my friend i made the claim of you having flawed logic before you ribbed me for the misspelling of the word "none". So your trying to belittle my statements and act as if they were made out of childish and petty revenge are ridiculously idiotic.
Nice Try....
You are the one who was crying because i called you out on your logic and had to make silly comment regarding the misspelling of a word in my post.
Please respond to my other posts now. I am really trying my best to see your intent with the question you asked him.

[Jonnyclueless]

And no one has been able to provide a valid reason to justify a new investigation or pointed out where the experts who have already done thorough investigating have gone wrong.

[DC]

You need to understand how debate works here first, then you can come and try and mediate my arguments with DC.

He made a claim, I asked for a source. This is how it works. If I made a claim and I was asked for a source I would have to supply it or the claim is worthless. Truthers make wild claims all the time that are mostly lies that are sourced from morons who know no better, you have to try and filter them out.

That you misunderstood the debate, then proceeded to attack my question in an arrogant way is what got you the ribbing.

Now DC supplied a supposed source to his claim but this debate has now been polluted by you. So much for flow logically.

we went true the exact same witness a few monts ago De Fino.

[DC]

And no one has been able to provide a valid reason to justify a new investigation or pointed out where the experts who have already done thorough investigating have gone wrong.

several people, truther and non truthers have pointed out several flaws in several investiagtions.
even the Commissioners of the 9/11 Commissino themself pointed out several things that are kinda odd, and for me a clear sign of some sort of coverup.
Stonewaaling by CIA for example. but also about the NIST report. the Newst NIST report is currently under heavy fire.

[Jonnyclueless]

several people, truther and non truthers have pointed out several flaws in several investiagtions.
even the Commissioners of the 9/11 Commissino themself pointed out several things that are kinda odd, and for me a clear sign of some sort of coverup.
Stonewaaling by CIA for example. but also about the NIST report. the Newst NIST report is currently under heavy fire.

There are going to be flaws in any and every investigation. No one has provided a case that shows a new investigation is needed or that the real investigations fell short. And no one has pointed out any clear signs of any sort of cover ups. No, the new NIST report is not under heavy fire.

Conspiracy theorists will do any and everything to pretend this is the case because the findings of real investigators will always interfere with their political motivations. But the problem is that these crackpots are never able to support their claims. And until the crackpots can actually come up with some valid arguments, the rest of the world is not going to appease their political agenda. Yes it may seem like they are under fire in your little world, but not in reality.

[DC]

There are going to be flaws in any and every investigation. No one has provided a case that shows a new investigation is needed or that the real investigations fell short. And no one has pointed out any clear signs of any sort of cover ups. No, the new NIST report is not under heavy fire.

Conspiracy theorists will do any and everything to pretend this is the case because the findings of real investigators will always interfere with their political motivations. But the problem is that these crackpots are never able to support their claims. And until the crackpots can actually come up with some valid arguments, the rest of the world is not going to appease their political agenda. Yes it may seem like they are under fire in your little world, but not in reality.

non of the presentations did convince YOU, but it did convince others.

you lost me at crackpot.

bye bye

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, they convinced other crackpots such as yourself. Yet none of you have been able to provide a single shred of evidence to your crackpot theories. And you lost me at your inability to do so.

Do you forget why you stick to the "new investigation" argument? Correct, because not a single one of you guys can actually back up your conspiracy claims. And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously.

[DC]

Yes, they convinced other crackpots such as yourself. Yet none of you have been able to provide a single shred of evidence to your crackpot theories. And you lost me at your inability to do so.

Do you forget why you stick to the "new investigation" argument? Correct, because not a single one of you guys can actually back up your conspiracy claims. And you wonder why you aren't taken seriously.

Dear Mr. Clueless.

Maybe one day, you will ralise that you do the same as those truthers that call others shills, you call them crackpot, this destroys every debate.

but it is quit usual for teenagers that behavior.

Have a nice day.

[OneShotKi11]

several people, truther and non truthers have pointed out several flaws in several investiagtions.
even the Commissioners of the 9/11 Commissino themself pointed out several things that are kinda odd, and for me a clear sign of some sort of coverup.
Stonewaaling by CIA for example. but also about the NIST report. the Newst NIST report is currently under heavy fire.

Is it really? I havent heard much about that up until now.
What is it under heavy fire about?

[DC]

Is it really? I havent heard much about that up until now.
What is it under heavy fire about?
Kevin Ryan for example for the truther side
Dr. Quintiere for example for the nontruther side

WTC7 report is under fire about the correctness of their findings. and not only from truther side.

[funk de fino]

Actually my friend i made the claim of you having flawed logic before you ribbed me for the misspelling of the word "none". So your trying to belittle my statements and act as if they were made out of childish and petty revenge are ridiculously idiotic.
Nice Try....
You are the one who was crying because i called you out on your logic and had to make silly comment regarding the misspelling of a word in my post.
Please respond to my other posts now. I am really trying my best to see your intent with the question you asked him.

Actually you have debunked yourself here.

You posted that I had posted a terrible question and insinuated this type of question was used by people who are stupid.

The fact that your accusation was baseless was even funnier.

This is why you got a ribbing from me. You accuse someone of being stupid and then use known instead of none. The fact you obviously also misunderstood the post below is hindering you I feel.

That you misunderstood the debate, then proceeded to attack my question in an arrogant way is what got you the ribbing.

Please tell me what is wrong about asking for a source to a claim in a debate. Enlighten us mr debate moderator.

[funk de fino]

Kevin Ryan for example for the truther side
Dr. Quintiere for example for the nontruther side

WTC7 report is under fire about the correctness of their findings. and not only from truther side.

One of whom is a liar of course.

DC, I did not know Quintiere had reservations about WTC7 report. Do you have a link?

[funk de fino]

we went true the exact same witness a few monts ago De Fino.

Me and you discussed Craig B?

[funk de fino]

Allow me to give the only possible reasons for asking for evidence of the existance of such a witness.

1) Asking a question such as the one stated above would occur if the individual asking actually did not believe that such a witness existed in all of the universe. Thus, asking such question would be (illogical) validated. For this person would like to be shown the existence of such an individual to further enhance their knowledge on the topic.
OR
2) You didnt care about the answer and or already knew the answer, but just wanted to badger the original poster with additional unnecessary work.You did this in the hopes that he would not be able to provide such a person and allowing you to claim a cheap victory over this small debate.

Even if scenario 2 occurred where he could not provide an individual as evidence would you have then claimed none existed?
What would you have said if he couldnt have provided a witness?

Answer these questions and you will see why i said this line of questioning was illogical.

Add below to your list.

OR

3. The questioner has not seen a eye witness who claims that WTC7 was a CD. He is told by a claimant that there is in fact such a person making that claim. He asks for proof of this claim so he can have a look at the source and see if it in fact supports the original claim made.

There could be a few outcomes here as far as the questioner is concerned.

1. The claimant has to admit he can find no source for an eye witness who claims CD therefore his claim is unsupported and possibly based on a hearsay TM claim. The questioner does not then go say there is no chance of there ever being a witness to the event who thinks it was a CD.

2. The claimant supplies the source for the claim that in fact supports his position and claim, in which case the questioner has to accept that source as being provided and look to see where the claim can be debunked

3. The questioner looks at the source and sees that it does not in fact support the claimant. Therefore claimant has not supported his claim and should retract it. The dialogue then continues between the debators.

The claim is also distinct from normal in that we know many people think it was a CD but I have not seen a claim supported by anyone who says an actual eye witness has said it was a CD. Therefore it needs sourcing to validate the claims. We have seen claims in the past about a countdown from an apparent eye witness which have been looked at and found to be wanting and contraditory. Who is to say this one is not the same?

You have called someone stupid for asking for a source for a claim. You do realise that dont you? This is your way of dealing in a debate is it?

The best thing would have been to skip over asking him for evidence of witnesses (that believe it was a CD) and just assume some exist

Never ever ask for a source just assume everything the TM says it true.

Claim away to your hearts content people.

[DC]

Me and you discussed Craig B?

yes when i am not totaly misstaken it was you and me discussion his testemonie in detail.

btw, i think it is ok to ask for the witness in a case like mine, where i claimed there is such a witness.

i just dont want to debate what he actually heard and what not, that is something we cannot find out. he is convinced he heard explosions and he belives there is more about it, and he wants a real investigation.

i said Dr. Quintiere in regards to WTC1 and 2, not WTC7, didnt read anything from him about 7 yet.

[funk de fino]

yes when i am not totaly misstaken it was you and me discussion his testemonie in detail.

I cannot remember this but I may be mistaken. I would have to see the debate in question of course.

btw, i think it is ok to ask for the witness in a case like mine, where i claimed there is such a witness.

Thank you, something we both agree on for once!!

i just dont want to debate what he actually heard and what not, that is something we cannot find out. he is convinced he heard explosions and he belives there is more about it, and he wants a real investigation.

Its not about what he heard, you claimed there was a witness who claimed it was CD. I fail to find this in the video? In fact he says he does not know what it was quite clearly.

This video was also before the final report, so his want for a further investigation has been carried out and it did not find any way there could have been a CD. What you have to look at, is what he thinks now.

i said Dr. Quintiere in regards to WTC1 and 2, not WTC7, didnt read anything from him about 7 yet.

We were discussing the WTC7 report and the heavy fire it was receiving. Why did you think you could use Quintiere for that?

the Newst NIST report is currently under heavy fire.

Is it really? I havent heard much about that up until now.
What is it under heavy fire about?

Kevin Ryan for example for the truther side
Dr. Quintiere for example for the nontruther side

WTC7 report is under fire about the correctness of their findings. and not only from truther side.

DC, I did not know Quintiere had reservations about WTC7 report. Do you have a link?

i said Dr. Quintiere in regards to WTC1 and 2, not WTC7, didnt read anything from him about 7 yet

C'mon now DC there is only one way to read that?

[DC]

[QUOTE=funk de fino;4080690]I cannot remember this but I may be mistaken. I would have to see the debate in question of course.



Thank you, something we both agree on for once!!



Its not about what he heard, you claimed there was a witness who claimed it was CD. I fail to find this in the video? In fact he says he does not know what it was quite clearly.

This video was also before the final report, so his want for a further investigation has been carried out and it did not find any way there could have been a CD. What you have to look at, is what he thinks now.



We were discussing the WTC7 report and the heavy fire it was receiving. Why did you think you could use Quintiere for that?











C'mon now DC there is only one way to read that?



There are going to be flaws in any and every investigation. No one has provided a case that shows a new investigation is needed or that the real investigations fell short. And no one has pointed out any clear signs of any sort of cover ups. No, the new NIST report is not under heavy fire.

Conspiracy theorists will do any and everything to pretend this is the case because the findings of real investigators will always interfere with their political motivations. But the problem is that these crackpots are never able to support their claims. And until the crackpots can actually come up with some valid arguments, the rest of the world is not going to appease their political agenda. Yes it may seem like they are under fire in your little world, but not in reality.

Kevin Ryan for example for the truther side
Dr. Quintiere for example for the nontruther side

WTC7 report is under fire about the correctness of their findings. and not only from truther side.

one could OC also use the correct context.

[funk de fino]

one could OC also use the correct context.

OK see below.


There are going to be flaws in any and every investigation. No one has provided a case that shows a new investigation is needed or that the real investigations fell short. And no one has pointed out any clear signs of any sort of cover ups. No, the new NIST report is not under heavy fire.

Conspiracy theorists will do any and everything to pretend this is the case because the findings of real investigators will always interfere with their political motivations. But the problem is that these crackpots are never able to support their claims. And until the crackpots can actually come up with some valid arguments, the rest of the world is not going to appease their political agenda. Yes it may seem like they are under fire in your little world, but not in reality.

You quoted OneShot and answered him. It was his question about the WTC7 report you answered and you used Ryan and Quintiere.

This is the context pal. Just admit you made a boo boo and dont dig yourself in any further.

[DC]

OK see below.




You quoted OneShot and answered him. It was his question about the WTC7 report you answered and you used Ryan and Quintiere.

This is the context pal. Just admit you made a boo boo and dont dig yourself in any further.

cmon de fino.......
atleast after you asked me if Dr. Quintiere had a critique about the WTC7 and i answered no, you should have understood that those two examples was in regard of the WTC1 and 2 report.......

why do you try to twist it?

[funk de fino]

cmon de fino.......
atleast after you asked me if Dr. Quintiere had a critique about the WTC7 and i answered no, you should have understood that those two examples was in regard of the WTC1 and 2 report.......

why do you try to twist it?

I am not twisting it. You answered OneShot by saying Ryan and Quintiere when asked about new report. I asked you to show me the source for this and you then admitted you had been talking about critisicms about WTC1 and 2. Why did you mention their names in your reply to OneShot when he was asking about the WTC7 report?

Its not me its about everyone else reading it who may have thought there were some valid critique of the new report by Quintiere. WTC1 and 2 have not been brought into our discussions thus far so why bring them in now when asked about the WTC7 report?


Is it really? I havent heard much about that up until now.
What is it under heavy fire about?
Kevin Ryan for example for the truther side
Dr. Quintiere for example for the nontruther side

WTC7 report is under fire about the correctness of their findings. and not only from truther side.

Why mention them in your answer to OneShot?

[T.A.M.]

Incidently, calling Kevin Ryan "Heavy Fire" on behalf of the truther side, is kind of like calling a BB gun "heavy fire" in a tank battle.

TAM:)

[DC]

oh **** this
im so damn tired with you guys.....

really.

yes im a liar, i made up the whole thing and claimed Dr. Quintire wrote a critique about the WTC7, just to wake sheeple up.....
and those that might think i was mistaken or missunderstood, no not possible, i am a truther, thus i admit or lie. i cant be wrong, truthers are always liars...

night all

[funk de fino]

oh **** this
im so damn tired with you guys.....

really.

yes im a liar, i made up the whole thing and claimed Dr. Quintire wrote a critique about the WTC7, just to wake sheeple up.....
and those that might think i was mistaken or missunderstood, no not possible, i am a truther, thus i admit or lie. i cant be wrong, truthers are always liars...

night all


I think you made a silly mistake.

[Disbelief]

I am not actually arguing in favor of the truthers beliefs but more so defending the truthers argument. Think of me more as a debate mediator that is trying to make sure all points and conversations flow logically.
Any twisting of words or other peoples points of view and or mis-interpreted speech i will hop in and surely try to correct it for all.
I am neither for or against any argument in this topic, just against the debate tactics of some within it!
I do this very often and people always twist it into me joining one side or the other. When i am actually just constantly pointing out flawed arguments so that the conversation may flow and continuing more progressively.



I was going to respond to your other points, but after this little gem I decided that you are not worth it. What type of mediator would think it is ok to make a claim and not source it? How can you claim to make conversations flow logically when you commit many logical fallacies? What mediator would step in and derail a thread when they are supposed to be guiding it along?

[Jonnyclueless]

Dear Mr. Clueless.

Maybe one day, you will ralise that you do the same as those truthers that call others shills, you call them crackpot, this destroys every debate.

but it is quit usual for teenagers that behavior.

Have a nice day.

And one day you will grow up and realize how childish your arguments are. A crackpot and a shill both have meanings to them. One (crackpot) is being used correctly. It refers to people who make absurd baseless claims that cannot be backed up by any facts. This is indeed proven to be the case with most of these conspiracy theories. A shill is someone paid by the government to spread disinformation. Now if you have some actual proof that someone is actually a Shill, then you might have an argument. OR if you have some proof that these crackpot theories you guys push can be backed up with some actual facts, then you might have an argument.

Calling people who present legitimate arguments shills is childish. Pointing out that people who make baseless arguments and make claims without any evidence to support them crackpots is simple using a proper label.

Don't kid yourself and pretend that the two are mutual. That would be dishonest of you. Just like trying to claim that Dr Q supports your crackpot theories just because he has some somewhat legitimate arguments. That's about as dishonest as it gets. But to be expected from immature crackpots.


It's really simple kiddo. Don't want to be a crackpot? Then step up and assert your claims instead of the silly "just asking questions" route. No one is going to waste millions of dollars on every crackpot that says they disagree for clearly only political reasons. You want a new investigation, then bring up a good reason for one. So far not one single person has done so. If you can do this, you will no longer be a crackpot.

[OneShotKi11]

I was going to respond to your other points, but after this little gem I decided that you are not worth it. What type of mediator would think it is ok to make a claim and not source it? How can you claim to make conversations flow logically when you commit many logical fallacies? What mediator would step in and derail a thread when they are supposed to be guiding it along?

When the source of a claim is not actually required to make a point.
Or when the absence of such a source/evidence (a witness that believes its a CD) does not really prove anything for either poster.

Like i said a million times already, if DC could not provide the witness then what did Funk de Fino prove? What point would he have been able to make?
That no witnesses exist that believe it was a CD?
VERY illogical assumption that would actually have no evidence to back it up. I believe i have heard this phrase somewhere before. That "lack of evidence is not evidence"

To continue with my point i will now quote someone who went along with the conversation the way it should have flowed. He was able to respond to DC without the silly evidence that such a witness existed.

So what determines a CD according to Cheney is if people who have no experience with demolitions just assume that explosions (which are a standard event in fires) were bombs?

Does Dick not remember that the minimum explosives required to bring the building down would create an SPL of 130 decibels at 1.5 miles away? That's not simply and explosion. Those people near by who hear the 'explosion" would no longer be able to hear. So the fact that people in the building or nearby heard explosions pretty much rules out a controlled demolition.

But I geuss we're back to the thermite/explosives flip flop nonsense that caused the building to collapse in 18 seconds?

Go go Hush-a-boom.

This is what logically should have been done instead of asking for evidence of witnesses.
Jonnyclueless replied to the argument without the need of him providing witnesses and made a very valid point!
Why?
Because the assumption without evidence of the existence of singular witness that believes it was a CD was not in anyway going to hurt Jonny's argument. He knew this and is why he was able to reply so astoundingly, and
you could have done the same but choose not too.

Cheney did not have to prove the existence of a witness for that is truely pointless. We all know that witnesses that believe it was a CD exist. It would have been the most astounding odds if we were not able to find any witnesses who believed such a thing. Even if this were true and we werent able to find a witness that believes such a thing it still WOULDNT PROVE THEY DIDNT EXIST!
Also, like i said earlier even without the evidence of a witness claiming it was a CD. You could have safely assumed for the sake of argument that one existed and then debunked any or all things Cheney could have said next. Thus to me, asking for evidence of a witness is in noway a necessary part of this debate.

Every intelligent person on this forums knows where this argument leads to. It all ends with asking for the credentials and our scientific background to make any claim valid.
This argument never has boiled down to "Well you cant provide a witness who thinks its a CD so that means it wasnt".

Again my question is.
If he couldnt provide a witness, then what?

[funk de fino]

When the source of a claim is not actually required to make a point.
Or when the absence of such a source/evidence (a witness that believes its a CD) does not really prove anything for either poster.

Like i said a million times already, if DC could not provide the witness then what did Funk de Fino prove? What point would he have been able to make?
That no witnesses exist that believe it was a CD?
VERY illogical assumption that would actually have no evidence to back it up. I believe i have heard this phrase somewhere before. That "lack of evidence is not evidence"

To continue with my point i will now quote someone who went along with the conversation the way it should have flowed. He was able to respond to DC without the silly evidence that such a witness existed.



This is what logically should have been done instead of asking for evidence of witnesses.
Jonnyclueless replied to the argument without the need of him providing witnesses and made a very valid point!
Why?
Because the assumption without evidence of the existence of singular witness that believes it was a CD was not in anyway going to hurt Jonny's argument. He knew this and is why he was able to reply so astoundingly, and
you could have done the same but choose not too.

Cheney did not have to prove the existence of a witness for that is truely pointless. We all know that witnesses that believe it was a CD exist. It would have been the most astounding odds if we were not able to find any witnesses who believed such a thing. Even if this were true and we werent able to find a witness that believes such a thing it still WOULDNT PROVE THEY DIDNT EXIST!
Also, like i said earlier even without the evidence of a witness claiming it was a CD. You could have safely assumed for the sake of argument that one existed and then debunked any or all things Cheney could have said next. Thus to me, asking for evidence of a witness is in noway a necessary part of this debate.

Every intelligent person on this forums knows where this argument leads to. It all ends with asking for the credentials and our scientific background to make any claim valid.
This argument never has boiled down to "Well you cant provide a witness who thinks its a CD so that means it wasnt".

Again my question is.
If he couldnt provide a witness, then what?

Never ever ask for a source just assume everything the TM says it true.

Claim away to your hearts content people.

Go help your friend, then come back when you learn how to debate.

[OneShotKi11]

Never ever ask for a source just assume everything the TM says it true.

Claim away to your hearts content people.

Go help your friend, then come back when you learn how to debate.

Having trouble reading?
Clearly i have replied to this exact statement several times.
From multiple people.

[funk de fino]

Having trouble reading?
Clearly i have replied to this exact statement several times.
From multiple people.

I did not see any recent ones to my posts where I called you on it?

ETA - specifically post 90

[funk de fino]

btw, i think it is ok to ask for the witness in a case like mine, where i claimed there is such a witness.

OSK

See above from the person I was debating with. He says it was ok for me to ask for a source for his claim.

Now do you have a eye witness who says it was a CD?

[DC]

Kevin Ryan for example for the truther side
Dr. Quintiere for example for the nontruther side

WTC7 report is under fire about the correctness of their findings. and not only from truther side.

And one day you will grow up and realize how childish your arguments are. A crackpot and a shill both have meanings to them. One (crackpot) is being used correctly. It refers to people who make absurd baseless claims that cannot be backed up by any facts. This is indeed proven to be the case with most of these conspiracy theories. A shill is someone paid by the government to spread disinformation. Now if you have some actual proof that someone is actually a Shill, then you might have an argument. OR if you have some proof that these crackpot theories you guys push can be backed up with some actual facts, then you might have an argument.

Calling people who present legitimate arguments shills is childish. Pointing out that people who make baseless arguments and make claims without any evidence to support them crackpots is simple using a proper label.

Don't kid yourself and pretend that the two are mutual. That would be dishonest of you. Just like trying to claim that Dr Q supports your crackpot theories just because he has some somewhat legitimate arguments. That's about as dishonest as it gets. But to be expected from immature crackpots.


It's really simple kiddo. Don't want to be a crackpot? Then step up and assert your claims instead of the silly "just asking questions" route. No one is going to waste millions of dollars on every crackpot that says they disagree for clearly only political reasons. You want a new investigation, then bring up a good reason for one. So far not one single person has done so. If you can do this, you will no longer be a crackpot.

Mr. Clueless

you are a liar.

[DC]

OSK

See above from the person I was debating with. He says it was ok for me to ask for a source for his claim.

Now do you have a eye witness who says it was a CD?

yes he has, like he posted several times, a friend of him.

[funk de fino]

yes he has, like he posted several times, a friend of him.

Are you vouching for his friend?

[DC]

Are you vouching for his friend?

Sure not, i dont know his friend, i dont even know if it is true, but i have no reason to doubt it. Nor do i expect him to name his name here.

But i will oc not use him as an indication or evidence. nor does it influence my oppinion in any way.

I will use only people where i personaly have the impression they are honest, one of the reasons why i never use that mcPadhen or what that guy his name is, you know the guy from Alex Jones. I dont claim his story is not true, i dont know it, but i have the impression the guy is not honest, i might be wrong, but thats my feeling, so i will never use him.

Do you have a friend that saw something that is contradicting your belive?
i

[funk de fino]

Sure not, i dont know his friend, i dont even know if it is true, but i have no reason to doubt it. Nor do i expect him to name his name here.

But i will oc not use him as an indication or evidence. nor does it influence my oppinion in any way.

I will use only people where i personaly have the impression they are honest, one of the reasons why i never use that mcPadhen or what that guy his name is, you know the guy from Alex Jones. I dont claim his story is not true, i dont know it, but i have the impression the guy is not honest, i might be wrong, but thats my feeling, so i will never use him.

Do you have a friend that saw something that is contradicting your belive?
i

Last question does not make sense and is possibly irrelevant.

What I am getting at is that, as far as I can tell, there is not one eye witness to the collapse on record who says it was a CD as you originally claimed. That you said there was, meant I needed a source which in my opinion you have not done as it seems Craig does not claim it was a CD and heard boom, boom, boom or thoom, thoom, thoom after the building had started to fall. OSK called me stupid incorrectly on this request for a source and you rightly agreed with me that it was a valid query.

He has said that of course there are eyewitness that claim that WTC7 was a CD and I should not have asked for a source. I was asking him if he had a source for this. As he has only claimed a friend as this source then by yours and mine higher standards this is not good enough. I thought he may have another and was asking him for it (not you).

It seems in his logical world you do not need to source any claim.

[DC]

Last question does not make sense and is possibly irrelevant.

What I am getting at is that, as far as I can tell, there is not one eye witness to the collapse on record who says it was a CD as you originally claimed. That you said there was, meant I needed a source which in my opinion you have not done as it seems Craig does not claim it was a CD and heard boom, boom, boom or thoom, thoom, thoom after the building had started to fall. OSK called me stupid incorrectly on this request for a source and you rightly agreed with me that it was a valid query.

He has said that of course there are eyewitness that claim that WTC7 was a CD and I should not have asked for a source. I was asking him if he had a source for this. As he has only claimed a friend as this source then by yours and mine higher standards this is not good enough. I thought he may have another and was asking him for it (not you).

It seems in his logical world you do not need to source any claim.

what do you think , Mr Bartmer thinks about the cause of the collapse?

[funk de fino]

what do you think , Mr Bartmer thinks about the cause of the collapse?

It does not matter what he thought then because there has been a full investigation into WTC7 carried out since he made his video interview. This is what he wanted. What he thinks now is the important part. Do you know what he thinks now?

But in any case, in the interview he says he does not know what happened. I cannot see him claim that WTC7 was a CD.

Why does he say the boom, boom, boom (or thoom, thoom, thoom) happened after he looked up and saw the building ripple and start to fall down? The investigation from NIST has proven that it could not have been CD charges and in any case he would have heard the charges before the building had started to fall if it had been a CD.

[DC]

It does not matter what he thought then because there has been a full investigation into WTC7 carried out since he made his video interview. This is what he wanted. What he thinks now is the important part. Do you know what he thinks now?

But in any case, in the interview he says he does not know what happened. I cannot see him claim that WTC7 was a CD.

Why does he say the boom, boom, boom (or thoom, thoom, thoom) happened after he looked up and saw the building ripple and start to fall down? The investigation from NIST has proven that it could not have been CD charges and in any case he would have heard the charges before the building had started to fall if it had been a CD.

i dont know what he thinks now. I dont know how to contact him.

he does say boom boom boom when the building started to fall, most propably because it is then he heard it.

and why do you think it cannot be charges?
according to NIST, the inner part of the building is already collapsing when the outer fasade starts moving. so it could be well from chrages.

[funk de fino]

i dont know what he thinks now. I dont know how to contact him.

Then it is irrelevant what he thought then.

he does say boom boom boom when the building started to fall, most propably because it is then he heard it.

No, he distinctly says the building started to ripple and fall down then he heard the noises. This is after the outside of the building started to fall. This is some time after the internals started to fall as he could not see this from his vantage point presumably. The fact he does not hear them before the outside falls is even more damaging to the CD theory.

and why do you think it cannot be charges?

see above and NIST report.

according to NIST, the inner part of the building is already collapsing when the outer fasade starts moving. so it could be well from chrages.

He hears the charges sometime after the inside fell and after the outside start to fall. Another witness says there was one large crack like thunder or words similar. Who to believe?

NIST have the video and audio evidence. How about an FOIA to get it and see if you can hear the boom, boom, boom of CD charges. In any video or audio evidence from that day I have yet to see any that have this on or anything similar on it. have you?

[DC]

Then it is irrelevant what he thought then.



No, he distinctly says the building started to ripple and fall down then he heard the noises. This is after the outside of the building started to fall. This is some time after the internals started to fall as he could not see this from his vantage point presumably. The fact he does not hear them before the outside falls is even more damaging to the CD theory.



see above and NIST report.



He hears the charges sometime after the inside fell and after the outside start to fall. Another witness says there was one large crack like thunder or words similar. Who to believe?

NIST have the video and audio evidence. How about an FOIA to get it and see if you can hear the boom, boom, boom of CD charges. In any video or audio evidence from that day I have yet to see any that have this on or anything similar on it. have you?

what was his distance to the Building?

[funk de fino]

what was his distance to the Building?

You tell me. But be careful as you could debunk yourself and him again.

ETA - Bear in mind he had to run from it so he must have been pretty close. Being a first responder this would make sense no?

[DC]

You tell me. But be careful as you could debunk yourself and him again.

ETA - Bear in mind he had to run from it so he must have been pretty close. Being a first responder this would make sense no?

I dont know where he was. we should ask him.

[funk de fino]

I dont know where he was. we should ask him.

If he had to run away he must have been pretty close?

[funk de fino]

In fact "real close"

I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn't see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did -- and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don't know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don't know -- but it's the truth.

[DC]

In fact "real close"

real close, how close is that?

[funk de fino]

real close, how close is that?

Close enough that he had to run when it colapsed and that he was able to walk around the building.

Now how does this affect your question?

He sees the building start to peel and fall down and he starts to run, as he is running he hears boom, boom boom or thoom, thoom, thoom. This is some time after the penthouse has collapsed and after the main collapse.

How many CD do you see where the explosives (that are not recorded on any evidence that NIST has) only start after the building has collapsed? he is close enough to walk around the building and see the holes in it.

I guess if you were trying to look at the speed of sound and a delay then you are stumped now eh?

[DC]

Close enough that he had to run when it colapsed and that he was able to walk around the building.

Now how does this affect your question?

He sees the building start to peel and fall down and he starts to run, as he is running he hears boom, boom boom or thoom, thoom, thoom. This is some time after the penthouse has collapsed and after the main collapse.

How many CD do you see where the explosives (that are not recorded on any evidence that NIST has) only start after the building has collapsed? he is close enough to walk around the building and see the holes in it.

I guess if you were trying to look at the speed of sound and a delay then you are stumped now eh?

liar? or misstaken, does he say AFTER the main collapse?

but very early at the start of this adventure into Craig Bartmers interview, i already said, i dont gonna judge what the man heard.

if you want to do that, have funn.

[funk de fino]

liar? or misstaken, does he say AFTER the main collapse?

but very early at the start of this adventure into Craig Bartmers interview, i already said, i dont gonna judge what the man heard.

if you want to do that, have funn.

If he is that close to the building then how would he see the penthouse collapse? It happened sometime before the rest of the building. He saw the building peel and start to fall. Parts are falling around him so yes it is the main collapse. This is the main collapse not the penthouse.

The noise is after this collapse starts. It cannot then be a CD. The explosive noises (which NIST have no evidence of in there material) in CD are before the building collapses.

You have painted yourself into a corner saying this man claims CD when he did not and he also does not support it in any way in his evidence?

He also says the radios exploded. Were they CD'd also?

[DC]

If he is that close to the building then how would he see the penthouse collapse? It happened sometime before the rest of the building. He saw the building peel and start to fall. Parts are falling around him so yes it is the main collapse. This is the main collapse not the penthouse.

The noise is after this collapse starts. It cannot then be a CD. The explosive noises (which NIST have no evidence of in there material) in CD are before the building collapses.

You have painted yourself into a corner saying this man claims CD when he did not and he also does not support it in any way in his evidence?

He also says the radios exploded. Were they CD'd also?

so you belive he is misstaken. ok :)

[funk de fino]

so you belive he is misstaken. ok :)

No, you are mistaken when you claimed he was a witness who claimed CD. He says he does not know what it is but it was not fire and planes. He is correct about that. It was fire. He says he needs a new investigation and he got it. We do not know what he thinks now.

You should admit it. You were wrong.

I have looked at the evidence that you provided me and shown it could not be a CD from that.

[DC]

No, you are mistaken when you claimed he was a witness who claimed CD. He says he does not know what it is but it was not fire and planes. He is correct about that. It was fire. He says he needs a new investigation and he got it. We do not know what he thinks now.

You should admit it. You were wrong.

I have looked at the evidence that you provided me and shown it could not be a CD from that.

you convinced yourself that it is not possible from a CD, but not me. we dont know enough details :)

[funk de fino]

you convinced yourself that it is not possible from a CD, but not me. we dont know enough details :)

Did you forget this part of my post?

evidence that you provided me

Please bring any other witness you have o any other evidence of CD?

[DC]

Did you forget this part of my post?



Please bring any other witness you have o any other evidence of CD?

hey it is you that say his interview is evidence, i never claimed that, or i would have posted it in the other topic where we got asked for evidence, where i answered, i didnt find any evidence.

[funk de fino]

hey it is you that say his interview is evidence, i never claimed that, or i would have posted it in the other topic where we got asked for evidence, where i answered, i didnt find any evidence.

If you supplied him as a witness and his inteview was not evidence then why did you provide him?

You were wrong just admit it.

I have admitted mistakes on my part when they happen. You could not support your claim.

[DC]

If you supplied him as a witness and his inteview was not evidence then why did you provide him?

You were wrong just admit it.

I have admitted mistakes on my part when they happen. You could not support your claim.

you went into the judgement what others heard or not, i pointed out early in this thread, i will not go there, you went there anyway, so have funn there, you are there without me.

He could be misstaken, but he also could be correct.

[funk de fino]

you went into the judgement what others heard or not, i pointed out early in this thread, i will not go there, you went there anyway, so have funn there, you are there without me.

He could be misstaken, but he also could be correct.

From his interview he is incorrect even if he claimed what you said he did (which he did not). I have shown this.

I am not the one who supports a position with zero evidence and have admitted so.

[DC]

a few more interviews with Bartmer

http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/1587

[funk de fino]

a few more interviews with Bartmer

http://www.911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/1587

Cant watch these here. Will have a look later to see if he claims CD and if he is happy with the NIST final report for WTC7.