A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132:1312]

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:

I don't know about mini nukes, or beam weapons... If mini nukes there would be radiation? If a beam from space, how did it not hit from the top floor downward?

Though, it's probably Technologically plausible, there would be extra evidence... radiation burns, etc...

I've always said, These are controlled oposition stories that serve to make truthers look crazy.

Click to expand...

Technologically plausible? Mini-nukes? Beam weapons? Really?

REALLY? I suggest the term "Technologically plausible" is one you really don't understand.

And, no, these are not "oposition stories". These are TRUTHER CLAIMS.

HD believes in the mini-nukes.

BTW - EVIDENCE of EXPLOSIVE in WTC7. Are you going to present any?

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:

Folks, could we have just one thread that doesn't get muddied up with endless repetitions of the same old circular arguments that are already going on in 5 other threads?

Click to expand...

Apologies...

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Fledermaus said:

Apologies...

Click to expand...

Back at Post #94 Bman actually made a fairly reasonable critique and commentary, worthy of discussion. The first I think in this entire thread from the CT side which is why I ignored all the others but responded to his. I'd like to encourage that and see if a genuine discussion can be had. I would rather not encourage the repetition of the same old same old routine. Not in my thread anyway.

:soap

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:

Folks, could we have just one thread that doesn't get muddied up with endless repetitions of the same old circular arguments that are already going on in 5 other threads?

Click to expand...

Of course not!

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:

I don't know about mini nukes, or beam weapons... If mini nukes there would be radiation? If a beam from space, how did it not hit from the top floor downward?

Though, it's probably Technologically plausible, there would be extra evidence... radiation burns, etc...

I've always said, These are controlled oposition stories that serve to make truthers look crazy.

Click to expand...

They are not controlled opposition stories they are what truthers claim.
Same as the 0,1,2,3 plane crowd, they actually believe this nonsense.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Quag said:

They are not controlled opposition stories they are what truthers claim.
Same as the 0,1,2,3 plane crowd, they actually believe this nonsense.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify; the no planes / hologram and mini nukes/ space beams group were the first "alternative theory" that was put up on TV. This original group does not actually believe what they were selling. Others have bought into this, and push those versions.

Even though most of that technology likely exists, and even if that were actually the case (I've not been convinced of this), it's hard enough to get people to accept that the government isn't looking out for their best interests, never mind convincing them of mini nukes and space lasers.

And, I'm only entertaining the possibility here because....

Fledermaus said:

Technologically plausible? Mini-nukes? Beam weapons? Really?

REALLY? I suggest the term "Technologically plausible" is one you really don't understand.

And, no, these are not "oposition stories". These are TRUTHER CLAIMS.

HD believes in the mini-nukes.

BTW - EVIDENCE of EXPLOSIVE in WTC7. Are you going to present any?

Click to expand...

I've ignored you some time ago now, but I see that you can't understand what Technologically plausible means...

Cell phone calls from an airplane in flight in 2001 was not Technologically plausible. The technology did not exist.
The phone call coming from one of the phones hardwired to the seats at the time, is Technologically plausible source of phone calls from a flight.

If a technology exists it becomes Technologically plausible that the tech is used.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

I was hoping you might reply to Post #95 as you had made reasonable inquiries in post #94 which I would be interested in pursuing. I am losing hope you are actually interested in a serious discussion.

A place for all things 7 World Trade Center

Mark F said:

Precisely which bit did NIST get wrong then and how exactly do you know this?

Click to expand...

It's not quite that simple... Because if you look at any one aspect; the impact damage, the flame path, Etc... It's as accurate as one could expect.

However, within that, they conceal assumptions, impact damage gets treated as more than it was, the fires get treated as larger than they were, they only consider warming, and nothing about heat dissipation / cooling, etc..

By reading through the reports.

Which NIST model for example are you referring too?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the wtc7 was the only one they modelled.

The other towers, they only cared about collapse initiation,

And aren't you leaving something out of your list of possibilities - that NIST did the best they could under their mandate with the very limited data available to come up with what they labeled as a Probable Collapse Scenario?

Click to expand...

That would fall under incompetence... This group, with all their degrees, and over a century of experience... Incompetence is unlikely.

If NIST's probable collapse scenario is not precisely what actually happened, does that rule out any sort of fire-induced collapse?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, but, in this case, at best, they tackled the problem by coming up with a solution and maki the evidence fit, most likely, it's a case of outright fraud, given what was done to achieve the result.

It seems to be a cover up / whitewash ... With what intention, that's not quite so clear.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:

Most are not engineers where they can go through a technical analysis...

Click to expand...

I will take a two part approach to responding to your reasoned comments BmanMcfly. This is the first part dealing only with the fundamental problem of lay persons dealing with engineering explanations.

That they are not engineers is a fundamental problem for many. But many engineers are not a lot better off.

The obvious "on the face of it" aspect being that persons unqualified in engineering may not - probably do not - understand the technical issues in their own right - of their own skill or comprehension. They then have to rely on persons who are qualified to present accurate and honest explanations. Begging the questions of honesty and accuracy the unqualified person must either:
a) Accept what the qualified person states as an authority without question; OR
b) The qualified person(s) post(s) explanations which the non-qualified can judge for themselves and be persuaded as to their veracity.

As an engineer and experienced manager of engineers and applied science functions I try to take the second approach. That I am qualified should be obvious from the content of my posts and the issue of my honesty should be evident when my arguments stand up to examination.

BUT that raises two more even bigger issues which are:

1) Many engineers posting are technically focussed on details - leading to forests v trees syndrome AND they are not good explainers especially in a polarised high emotion setting. PLUS the WTC 9/11 events are at least two grades - two levels - more complicated that technical details engineers meet in their real life experience. They design buildings to be safe in a static setting under code guided standards of safety so they do not fall down. WTC 9/11 collapse were dynamic events when buildings were loaded way outside the boundaries of safety and did fall down. That reality adds about two layers of complexity beyond the experience of many practising engineers.

2) The reasoning methods and "styles" of those posting from what is seen as the "truther side" - either pro-truther arguments OR claims which seem to be truther oriented. Truther reasoning - whenever it is presented - is usually deficient in many ways. Some of them reappearing frequently. And I'm not claiming that debunker reasoning is automatically better. It isn't. But the default position is that the truthers are the ones making the claims. So it is their reasoning that comes under scrutiny. If the reasoning supporting the claim is in error it will be identified by at least one and possibly multiple counter arguments. If any one debunker misses the point it will tend to be overlooked. The playing field is not level in that regard.

As I have attempted several times to explain BmanMcfly, your reasoning is often characterised by logical errors which fall broadly under the heading of "False Generalisations" - various aspects - false global assertions or negations - misdirection of focus - unsupported assertions - false dichotomy - reliance on innuendo/inference when being specific would show the underlying error. No point me once again discussing the generic errors of process. But I will in a second post address the remainder of your post and as briefly as I can identify what I regard as errors of logic and for each one identify the generic reasoning fault AND the specific error of fact associated with it.

Watch this space. It may be a few hours - conflicts with RL.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:

I was hoping you might reply to Post #95 as you had made reasonable inquiries in post #94 which I would be interested in pursuing. I am losing hope you are actually interested in a serious discussion.

Click to expand...

A bit delayed but I am also addressing BmanMcfly's post #94 response to my post #88.

I will ignore Koko's sillinesses for obvious reasons.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

ozeco41 said:

That is a fundamental problem for many. The obvious "on the face of it" aspect being that persons unqualified in engineering may not - probably do not - understand the technical issues in their own right - of their own skill or comprehension. They then have to rely on persons who are qualified to present accurate and honest explanations. Begging the questions of honesty and accuracy the unqualified person must either:
a) Accept what the qualified person states as an authority without question; OR
b) The qualified person(s) post(s) explanations which the non-qualified can judge for themselves and be persuaded as to their veracity.

As an engineer and experienced manager of engineers and applied science functions I try to take the second approach. That I am qualified should be obvious from the content of my posts and the issue of my honesty should be evident when my arguments stand up to examination.

Click to expand...

I trust that you are qualified... Your honesty, not so much as ill get into later,

BUT that raises two more even bigger issues which are:

1) Many engineers posting are technically focussed on details - leading to forests v trees syndrome AND they are not good explainers especially in a polarised high emotion setting. PLUS the WTC 9/11 events are at least two grades - two levels - more complicated that technical details engineers meet in their real life experience. They design buildings to be safe in a static setting under code guided standards of safety so they do not fall down. WTC 9/11 collapse were dynamic events when buildings were loaded way outside the boundaries of safety and did fall down. That reality adds about two layers of complexity beyond the experience of many practising engineers.

Click to expand...

A valid explanation as to why the attempt was only to get up to collapse initiation... But really a cop out given that just because a structure collapses does not mean that the entirety of the structure will fail...

2) The reasoning methods and "styles" of those posting from what is seen as the "trtuehr side" - either pro-truther arguments OR claims which seem to be truther oriented. Truther reasoning - whenever it is presented - is usually deficient in many ways. Some of them reappearing frequently. And I'm not claiming that debunker reasoning is automatically better. It isn't. But the default position is that the truthers are the ones making the claims. So it is their reasoning that comes under scrutiny. If the reasoning supporting the claim is in error it will be identified by at least one and possibly multiple counter arguments. If any one debunker misses the point it will tend to be overlooked. The playing field is not level in that regard.

Click to expand...

I'd say the debunkers have it easy... They can literally make up anything, regardless of actual veracity, because they do not actually support or defend NIST, they support "anything other than ct".

You, being an engineer, and having put out a technical explanation of the towers collapses, are in somewhat of a unique position, since you can put your analysis as an alternative...

As I have attempted several times to explain BmanMcfly, your reasoning is often characterised by logical errors which fall broadly under the heading of "False Generalisations" - various aspects - false global assertions or negations - misdirection of focus - unsupported assertions - false dichotomy - reliance on innuendo/inference when being specific would show the underlying error. No point me once again discussing the generic errors of process. But I will in a second post address the remainder of your post and as briefly as I can identify what I regard as errors of logic and for each one identify the generic reasoning fault AND the specific error of fact associated with it.

Watch this space. It may be a few hours - conflicts with RL.

Click to expand...

Just stop with the looking for errors in logic, I've seen you thumbs up completely illogical and nonsensical comments before because they agree with your position... So, stop with this game where saying NIST was wrong = the towers did not collapse and whatever other debunker game you start playing. It's transparent, and given your expertise it demonstrates just how you are dishonest while maintaining a thinning veil of professionalism.

You are smart enough to know what I mean, or if it's not clear enough get me to clarify, but don't treat it because I'll use some wrong jargon that all of a sudden nothing makes sense to you anymore.

Your not some arbiter of logical fallacy, if you were, you would also shut down the nonsense of most of these debunkers out of principle. Instead, they often get thumbs up from you...

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:

I trust that you are qualified... Your honesty, not so much as ill get into later,

Click to expand...

I am. Don't pretend to miss the point I made. If you are serious go back and read what I said. And if you wish to keep me interested in discussion drop the snide insults. I was very explicit as to how honesty can be demonstrated.

BmanMcfly said:

A valid explanation as to why the attempt was only to get up to collapse initiation...

Click to expand...

Lets get some basics clear. I will enter into reasoned discussion of what I post. If you make a specific and explicit claim I may choose to discuss it with you.

I posted some comments on the strengths and weaknesses of those qualified as engineers and those who are not so qualified. You are posting with quotes of my post. If you don't intend to comment on my post then why quote it? If you aren't responding then please don't quote me. I will not chase you all over the internet as you resort to evasions or missing the point. Nor will I continue responding to you if you continue the trolling games.

I said nothing whatsoever about the NIST report. I commented on engineer's and non-engineer's discussion skills.

BmanMcfly said:

But really a cop out given that just because a structure collapses does not mean that the entirety of the structure will fail...

Click to expand...

Look up "Gish Gallop" and stop doing it.

Answer these questions:
Do you want to enter into serious debate? If so will you discuss what is posted or will you run away with evasions and ill founded insults?

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

ozeco41 said:

I posted some comments on the strengths and weaknesses of those qualified as engineers and those who are not so qualified.
Answer these questions:
Do you want to enter into serious debate? If so will you discuss what is posted or will you run away with evasions and ill founded insults?

Click to expand...

Translation, gotta play in oz land and use oz logic to pass go. I demonstrated how crazy your logic is more times than I can count.

Your constantly drilling us that you are an engineer doesnt make you one. I have not seen it frankly.

ozeco41 said:

asking for evidence in support of your claim is not trolling and really helps me when I am in the process of determining if what you posted is typical debunker quackery or has some figment of legitimacy.

I implied nothing, you did, I simply asked what you know about them and so far it appears you nkow nothing about them.

Click to expand...

I will ignore Koko's sillinesses for obvious reasons.

Click to expand...

thats one way to avoid a black eye

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Apologies for the mini-derail

BmanMcfly said:

I've ignored you some time ago now, but I see that you can't understand what Technologically plausible means...

Cell phone calls from an airplane in flight in 2001 was not Technologically plausible. The technology did not exist.
The phone call coming from one of the phones hardwired to the seats at the time, is Technologically plausible source of phone calls from a flight.

If a technology exists it becomes Technologically plausible that the tech is used.

Click to expand...

Where did you get THIS tidbit?

Cell phones WERE capable of calls in 2001. The WERE NOT a reliable means of communication due to frequent drops. But they were not only plausible, but proven.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Fledermaus said:

Apologies for the mini-derail...

Click to expand...

Take two demerit points and stay back on detention after school.

Fledermaus said:

Where did you get THIS tidbit?

Call [cell??] phones WERE capable of calls in 2001. The WERE NOT a reliable means of communication due to frequent drops. But they were not only plausible, but proven.

Click to expand...

I had my first cellular phone long before the (US??) term "cell-phone" was common. 1991-2. Analogue technology and half a briefcase sized package.

As for plausible from aircraft BmanMcfly is, I think quoting someone else's error but it is the same class of error he makes in his posts. False dichotomy. Since the cellular systems were not designed for aircraft use they were neither guaranteed nor likely to work from aircraft. BUT not guaranteed is a long way short of "certainly would never". The logical opposite of "black" is not "white" it is "not black". Draw it up as Venn diagrams of the sets if not clear in words. In fact I'm nearly at the point of using Venn diagrams in my posts given the massive number of false generalisations we see around here based on false or ambiguous set and sub set definitions. If people do not think clearly using words then let's try pictures and Venn diagrams are quite unambiguous. :mrgreen:

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:

Let me clarify; the no planes / hologram and mini nukes/ space beams group were the first "alternative theory" that was put up on TV. This original group does not actually believe what they were selling. Others have bought into this, and push those versions.

Even though most of that technology likely exists, and even if that were actually the case (I've not been convinced of this), it's hard enough to get people to accept that the government isn't looking out for their best interests, never mind convincing them of mini nukes and space lasers.

And, I'm only entertaining the possibility here because....

Click to expand...

As far as I can tell you are the only truther on this forum who admits to all 4 planes existing. Are you saying all the others here are not serious and do not believe the nonsense they spew? I would have to agree with that assessment for some but not all.

The term "believe what they are selling" is very apropos as the entire truther movement exists purely to sell stuff to people. Its main aim is cash oriented not truth oriented, always has been.

So according to you mini-nukes and beam weapons that can destroy buildings likely exist? Seriously? You think the military has extremely advanced technologies that they have never ever used? I understand them keeping stuff on the hush hush, but the military, any military, has never been known to not use advanced technology when they had it during wartime. Peacetime yes but we've had over a decade of war and they have never used any of this fantasy tech truthers blather on about I think its safe to say it doesn't exist.

I would like to understand why you accept the planes yet somehow think there was CD used as well. What was the purpose of the CD? What reason would anyone overcomplicate a conspiracy and increase the chances of getting caught?

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

ozeco41 said:

I am. Don't pretend to miss the point I made. If you are serious go back and read what I said.

Click to expand...

No, I got your point, that's the second time you've asked me if I wanted to get serious (even though I give your responses more seriousness than the rest), and then launching into some side issues and debunker nonsense. Worse, the first time where the conversation was centered around wtc7... you ask me if I want to get serious then continue to ask what building we were talking about, like you are too important to even follow the conversation.

And if you wish to keep me interested in discussion drop the snide insults. I was very explicit as to how honesty can be demonstrated.
Lets get some basics clear. I will enter into reasoned discussion of what I post. If you make a specific and explicit claim I may choose to discuss it with you.

Click to expand...

I've pointed out, before, your displayed dichotomy of having an air of honesty and rational integrity, meanwhile you will support even the most asinine of posts at times, the only viable reason being that it's because it supports your position.

I posted some comments on the strengths and weaknesses of those qualified as engineers and those who are not so qualified. You are posting with quotes of my post. If you don't intend to comment on my post then why quote it? If you aren't responding then please don't quote me. I will not chase you all over the internet as you resort to evasions or missing the point. Nor will I continue responding to you if you continue the trolling games.

Click to expand...

How are you the victim here? Aside from calling into question your actual honesty, that's not an insult... it's, if you want to have a serious topic, that you should try to be equally serious and not start listing fallacious use of language, which I've explained previously, is just to not require several paragraphs to be explicitly clear.

And I was applying what you said to the NIST group... and I said, in terms of wtc 1 and 2 that it is a viable explanation as to why the investigation was only concerned with collapse initiation.

So, I did respond to what you said...

What have I evaded from you?

I said nothing whatsoever about the NIST report. I commented on engineer's and non-engineer's discussion skills.
Look up "Gish Gallop" and stop doing it.

Click to expand...

Are NIST people not engineers? Do your comments not apply to NIST engineers?

While you can separate your position from NIST, given your expertise, however, you cannot separate NIST from 911 discussion.

Answer these questions:
Do you want to enter into serious debate? If so will you discuss what is posted or will you run away with evasions and ill founded insults?

Click to expand...

Yes. I already commented, just because you don't like the implications raised. it's not an insult to observe that I may have given you more credit than due simply because you are a relevant engineer.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

CD at 7 World Trade Center - How?

Way back in post #68 of this thread I posed a challenge for someone to come up with a plausible CD scenario for 7 World Trade Center:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...gs-7-world-trade-center-7.html#post1063544450

Predictably I got no takers.

People who insist in had to be, could only be CD it seems are not actually interested in describing the pratical matters of who/what/when/where/why/how. They are happy to discuss how it was not fire, but not how it was CD. If it is sooooo obvious it had to be, could only be CD it shouldn't be too hard to explain the how (maybe a bit harder to explain the why).

So then, how was this done exactly?

Lets take the Szamboti hypothesis of 24 columns on each of 8 floors being blown simultaneously:

How many offices had to be demolished to gain access to the steel over 24 columns and 8 floors?

1. How long do you suppose it took to make the preparations and plant the devices?
2. How many workers do you suppose would have been required to achieve this? It seems like quite a job.
3. How many stairwells and elevators had to be shut down during this highly invasive process?
4. How many occupied offices had to be gutted to gain access to the steel?
5. How many office workers complained about this inconvenience? Have you personally interviewed any of them to get more detail about how this work was done?
6. Why no bang? If done with conventional explosives we are talking about a minimum of what, nearly 400 charges to blow that many columns in that many places with each charge producing 180-190db at the source, 125-130db a half-mile away. Yet the collapse of 7 was eerily quiet.
7. Why no flash?
8. Why no high-velocity ejecta?
9. Why no window-busting pressure wave?
10. How did the devices survive the fires?
11. Why pre-wire the building with hundreds of devices that could be discovered, revealing the plot? Why not just park a McViegh bomb in front of the place that morning? Simple, cheap, only needs a couple of guys not hundreds, and easily blamed on terrorists.
11. Perhaps most importantly, why bother at all? What's the point?

I know what you are thinking. Secret government demolition Ninja's snuck in after hours day after day after day, ripped the walls out of hundreds of occupied offices on 8 floors, planted super-sekret hush-a-boom explosives that produce no noise, no flash, no blast, no pressure wave, and no potentially lethal high-velocity ejecta. Then each night before they left restored every office to its original condition so no one would be the wiser.

What more logical solution could there be than that for the destruction of a totally unknown and unimportant office tower that had been on fire for 7 hours?

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Mark F said:

CD at 7 World Trade Center - How?

Way back in post #68 of this thread I posed a challenge for someone to come up with a plausible CD scenario for 7 World Trade Center:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...gs-7-world-trade-center-7.html#post1063544450

Predictably I got no takers.

People who insist in had to be, could only be CD it seems are not actually interested in describing the pratical matters of who/what/when/where/why/how. They are happy to discuss how it was not fire, but not how it was CD. If it is sooooo obvious it had to be, could only be CD it shouldn't be too hard to explain the how (maybe a bit harder to explain the why).

So then, how was this done exactly?

Lets take the Szamboti hypothesis of 24 columns on each of 8 floors being blown simultaneously:

How many offices had to be demolished to gain access to the steel over 24 columns and 8 floors?

1. How long do you suppose it took to make the preparations and plant the devices?
2. How many workers do you suppose would have been required to achieve this? It seems like quite a job.
3. How many stairwells and elevators had to be shut down during this highly invasive process?
4. How many occupied offices had to be gutted to gain access to the steel?
5. How many office workers complained about this inconvenience? Have you personally interviewed any of them to get more detail about how this work was done?
6. Why no bang? If done with conventional explosives we are talking about a minimum of what, nearly 400 charges to blow that many columns in that many places with each charge producing 180-190db at the source, 125-130db a half-mile away. Yet the collapse of 7 was eerily quiet.
7. Why no flash?
8. Why no high-velocity ejecta?
9. Why no window-busting pressure wave?
10. How did the devices survive the fires?
11. Why pre-wire the building with hundreds of devices that could be discovered, revealing the plot? Why not just park a McViegh bomb in front of the place that morning? Simple, cheap, only needs a couple of guys not hundreds, and easily blamed on terrorists.
11. Perhaps most importantly, why bother at all? What's the point?

I know what you are thinking. Secret government demolition Ninja's snuck in after hours day after day after day, ripped the walls out of hundreds of occupied offices on 8 floors, planted super-sekret hush-a-boom explosives that produce no noise, no flash, no blast, no pressure wave, and no potentially lethal high-velocity ejecta. Then each night before they left restored every office to its original condition so no one would be the wiser.

What more logical solution could there be than that for the destruction of a totally unknown and unimportant office tower that had been on fire for 7 hours?

Click to expand...

Don't you see the trap you set?

Why not ask what the demolition team had for lunches?

You know as well as I do that any answer will be met with one of two responses; either you say "prove it" or, if it requires more than 2 people that will be claimed as the evidence that makes it impossible.

It'd be like, you get to your car and the window is broken, and the cops telling you that they can't do anything unless you tell them what kind of tool was used to break the window. At a certain point, it doesn't matter, because the car window is broken.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

It's impossible because the only thing a rational thinker could conclude, after thinking about the necessary answers, that regardless of what NIST did or didn't get wrong, and what things do or don't look right to someone watching on tv, the idea that the US was attacked that day is infinitely more probable than a crazy, overly complex conspiracy theory. That's the point.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:

Don't you see the trap you set?

Why not ask what the demolition team had for lunches?

You know as well as I do that any answer will be met with one of two responses; either you say "prove it" or, if it requires more than 2 people that will be claimed as the evidence that makes it impossible.

It'd be like, you get to your car and the window is broken, and the cops telling you that they can't do anything unless you tell them what kind of tool was used to break the window. At a certain point, it doesn't matter, because the car window is broken.

Click to expand...

Or looked at from the other direction - the fact that nobody can come up with a CD scenario that is plausible or makes logical sense should tell you something about how likely CD of this unimportant, unknown building for which there is no likely motive is.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

BmanMcfly said:

Don't you see the trap you set?

Why not ask what the demolition team had for lunches?

You know as well as I do that any answer will be met with one of two responses; either you say "prove it" or, if it requires more than 2 people that will be claimed as the evidence that makes it impossible.

It'd be like, you get to your car and the window is broken, and the cops telling you that they can't do anything unless you tell them what kind of tool was used to break the window. At a certain point, it doesn't matter, because the car window is broken.

Click to expand...

You analogy is flawed as is much of your argument.

Look. It is simple as this.

The is EVIDENCE for fire. There is ZERO evidence of explosives, pyrotechnics, Godzilla or Santa's Custard.

There is a logical reason to consider fire as the cause of collapse. There is a NO logical reason to consider explosives, pyrotechnics, Godzilla or Santa's Custard as the cause of collapse.

It is not that you cannot explain what the demolition team had for lunches.... It is that you cannot/will not address the REAL questions pertaining to explosives and their uses.

It is only a trap for those that have nothing but nebulous claims a TRUTHER talking points.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Fledermaus said:

You analogy is flawed as is much of your argument.

Look. It is simple as this.

The is EVIDENCE for fire. There is ZERO evidence of explosives, pyrotechnics, Godzilla or Santa's Custard.

There is a logical reason to consider fire as the cause of collapse. There is a NO logical reason to consider explosives, pyrotechnics, Godzilla or Santa's Custard as the cause of collapse.

It is not that you cannot explain what the demolition team had for lunches.... It is that you cannot/will not address the REAL questions pertaining to explosives and their uses.

It is only a trap for those that have nothing but nebulous claims a TRUTHER talking points.

Click to expand...

Only one person I am aware of has postulated anything even remotely specific about how a CD could have been done at 7 and I alluded to it in my post above. He claims based on his observations (which IMHO are deeply flawed) the only way to bring the building down is to remove the 24 core columns simultaneously over 8 floors. That same person (his initials are T.S.) refuses to entertain any thoughts on how that might have been accomplished or why other observations we should have with such an event are absent.

Again, I suspect there is a reason for that.

Conspiracy theorists for the most part are not liars. They genuinely believe their delusions. So often what we see is that when confronted with an issue where the only logical, plausible explanation will run counter to their beliefs they avoid having to lie by just not answering at all. This keeps the cognitive dissonance in balance. They don't have to admit they are wrong to themselves or anyone else. Several of our resident CT's have turned this craft into a highly refined art.

Thus, CT's even while insisting 7 could only have been a CD will refuse to entertain any notion of how it might have been done. I suggest this is because there is no plausible scenario for CD because there was no CD. But to maintain the fiction they have to rationalize not answering or just avoid the subject entirely.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

Fledermaus said:

You analogy is flawed as is much of your argument.

Look. It is simple as this.

The is EVIDENCE for fire. There is ZERO evidence of explosives, pyrotechnics, Godzilla or Santa's Custard.

There is a logical reason to consider fire as the cause of collapse. There is a NO logical reason to consider explosives, pyrotechnics, Godzilla or Santa's Custard as the cause of collapse.

It is not that you cannot explain what the demolition team had for lunches.... It is that you cannot/will not address the REAL questions pertaining to explosives and their uses.

It is only a trap for those that have nothing but nebulous claims a TRUTHER talking points.

Click to expand...

why do you continually post such lies, we can see the cutters sequentially going off.

re: A place for all things 7 World Trade Center [W:424,1132]

KokomoJojo said:

who do you think is going to read that wall of gaslighting Gish which is nothing more than debunker spin which has nothing to do with facts much less truth?

Click to expand...

Is there somebody paying you for each time you type the term "debunker" or something?

Your profligate use of such seems to be your defining characteristic. Is this the new conspiracy that acts like an umbrella for all the other conspiracies, and if so, are debunkers above the illuminati or below in the chain of command?