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

[KokomoJojo]

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

Let it rest. Koko isn't going to answer the question and if he isn't I see no reason to fill this thread with his evasive nonsense. This thread is my storage area for good posts, not bad.

theres no judge here to sustain my objection to abject stupidity or unrelated questions, and/or the requirement demands of me that dablunders refuse to apply to themselves despite the debunker team loves the idea.

not that debunkers/huggers will ever provide it, still waiting for insitu proof of the plane debris.

again I have shown that there are several tapes of loud explosions of wtc 7, why do you continue to ignore it.

Truthers have never changed their claim and have always claimed that it was a CD and any debunnker or hugger who says otherwise is posting pure lies.

Well if truthers are not saying it was CD what do you think they are saying? If a truther were saying it was a collapse from fire then they would no longer be a truther. Extremely simple logic. Do you understand yet?

While you are working on that listen to all the explosive evidence!

transformers exploding all over

 

[BmanMcfly]

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

I think I found the question... was it the one where you asked how I would pull it off?

If so, I'd probably bring in mercenaries, preferably from another country with no affiliation and a track record of keeping quiet.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

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

Absolute insanity lol

 

[Fledermaus]

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

The emergency response centre was just the cover for the location where the entire thing was planned... And demolishing that building was just to destroy any and all evidence.

Not to mention the rest of the building was essentially just a warehouse of government agencies. Best to destroy all evidence than to risk it getting into the wrong (general public) hands.

Wow....

Just, wow.

Planned by whom?

I don't really expect an answer. But the question has to be asked.

And couldn't everything be "planned" elsewhere?

 

[Fledermaus]

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

Well, they blew that building up, so, apparently not.

Oh, and btw, there wasn't just a pile of papers, they would have had computers, servers, etc... What does the military do when they are done with a piece of equipments? If it's not getting brought back to use again, it gets made unusable.

No, they didn't.

Stop.

 

[Fledermaus]

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

Ok, so who should have done the shredding and when? If wtc7 stood after the flames, who goes in with all the necessary keys and scrubs the place clean? You're talking about various organizations in the building, so, who can be trusted to do that?

What question had you asked?

Who is still up to YOU.

YOU still haven't told us who the WHO is.

And shredding?

How about the days/months before the attack?

 

[BmanMcfly]

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

Wow....

Just, wow.

Planned by whom?

I don't really expect an answer. But the question has to be asked.

And couldn't everything be "planned" elsewhere?

No, they didn't.

Stop.

Good, you're starting to learn you are on the ignore list.

Of course it could have been planned anywhere, but what better place than one slated for demolition once the task was complete.

 

[Fledermaus]

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

Good, you're starting to learn you are on the ignore list.

Of course it could have been planned anywhere, but what better place than one slated for demolition once the task was complete.

Except it wasn't slated for demolition....

Really.

You have made any number of claims that simply are not supported by the evidence.

Nor are they really logical.

Mark F has pointed this out to you ad nauseum.

YOU believe it was CD.

Fine.

The problem is that the evidence ALL (save for the explosions) points to something else.

You have yet to provide a single substantial piece of evidence for CD.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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

Except it wasn't slated for demolition....

OMFG says the all knowing fly on the wall! LMAO
/od

 

[Kanzaki]

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

I dont really require method of implementation to be a factor. If materials were in the building that caused the collapse its a moot since you will have established that it was there, and it actually did as was intended.

Video recordings if the collapse at the time are like some of the wtc footage ive been pointing to, lacks audio signatures, and damage to adjacent buildings were not consitent with explosives.

So likewise if the evidence is weak at proving that the explosuves were even present.. means of implementation is pointless

 

[Mark F]

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

I dont really require method of implementation to be a factor. If materials were in the building that caused the collapse its a moot since you will have established that it was there, and it actually did as was intended.

Video recordings if the collapse at the time are like some of the wtc footage ive been pointing to, lacks audio signatures, and damage to adjacent buildings were not consitent with explosives.

So likewise if the evidence is weak at proving that the explosuves were even present.. means of implementation is pointless

In this case, the hypothetical question at hand - how would you do it if you were in charge was laid out in this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...s-7-world-trade-center-28.html#post1064010687

The question is separate from the complete lack of say suspects, or plausible motive. Bman is trying to employ pure conjecture to cover that, while not actually answering the question of mechanism. It is my position that CT's - trying desperately to fit what they think they observe into any scenario they can pass off as CD - completely miss the plot and end up with implausibly complicated mechanisms (8 floors blown simultaneously to achieve observed moment of free-fall, etc.) that in the real world nobody with half a brain would actually employ. Or in other words, once again they work the problem backwards to reach the conclusion they want. Pile that on the complete lack of physical evidence you pointed out above and there is no case for CD, it having been discredited on multiple levels.

 

[BmanMcfly]

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

In this case, the hypothetical question at hand - how would you do it if you were in charge was laid out in this post:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...s-7-world-trade-center-28.html#post1064010687

The question is separate from the complete lack of say suspects, or plausible motive. Bman is trying to employ pure conjecture to cover that, while not actually answering the question of mechanism. It is my position that CT's - trying desperately to fit what they think they observe into any scenario they can pass off as CD - completely miss the plot and end up with implausibly complicated mechanisms (8 floors blown simultaneously to achieve observed moment of free-fall, etc.) that in the real world nobody with half a brain would actually employ. Or in other words, once again they work the problem backwards to reach the conclusion they want. Pile that on the complete lack of physical evidence you pointed out above and there is no case for CD, it having been discredited on multiple levels.

That's not the question that was asked...

You asked how I would do it... and I said, I would hire foreign mercenaries, ensure their access and the requirements of the task, then I would let them handle it.

Hell, if I had the money, after the job was done I'd hire them for a suicide mission the days after just for insurance.

If you want to ask a new question then frame it for your intention, don't insult me because I can't read your mind to know that you meant to ask a question different from the one you asked.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

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

Reporting straight from comicbookland, BmanMcfly.

 

[Mark F]

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

That's not the question that was asked...

You asked how I would do it... and I said, I would hire foreign mercenaries, ensure their access and the requirements of the task, then I would let them handle it.

Hell, if I had the money, after the job was done I'd hire them for a suicide mission the days after just for insurance.

If you want to ask a new question then frame it for your intention, don't insult me because I can't read your mind to know that you meant to ask a question different from the one you asked.

In other words, another copout. You know damn well what the question is asking since it is multiple choice. And at some level you know damn well why you are evading a direct answer - and so does everyone else.

 

[ozeco41]

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

In other words, another copout. You know damn well what the question is asking since it is multiple choice. And at some level you know damn well why you are evading a direct answer - and so does everyone else.

We can but try. :doh

 

[Mark F]

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

We can but try. :doh

Sadly, Bman is only fooling himself - and apparently with some considerable success

 

[ozeco41]

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

Sadly, Bman is only fooling himself - and apparently with some considerable success

He has some of the base level reasoning skills - demonstrated in recent interactions with me. Sadly they lack a compass or GPS. Plus a foundation problem of reading comprehension. Very rare that his posts show that he comprehends bits that he posts. Then a flash of semi-genius will appear - but directed at twisting the argument. And all encapsulated in "Gish Multiple Gallop" style. The late unlamented Duane G has a lot to account for. AND the analogies creationists CF truthers continue to emerge. AKA "Faith based" v "rational based".

 

[Mark F]

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

He has some of the base level reasoning skills - demonstrated in recent interactions with me. Sadly they lack a compass or GPS. Plus a foundation problem of reading comprehension. Very rare that his posts show that he comprehends bits that he posts. Then a flash of semi-genius will appear - but directed at twisting the argument. And all encapsulated in "Gish Multiple Gallop" style. The late unlamented Duane G has a lot to account for. AND the analogies creationists CF truthers continue to emerge. AKA "Faith based" v "rational based".

I think I mentioned just the other day how much progress could be made if Bman re-directed all the energy he puts into evasion and derail into actual thinking. The only reason I still engage him is that (unlike say Bob) every once in a while there is a glimmer of hope.

 

[ozeco41]

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

Agreed.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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

He has some of the base level reasoning skills - demonstrated in recent interactions with me. Sadly they lack a compass or GPS. Plus a foundation problem of reading comprehension. Very rare that his posts show that he comprehends bits that he posts. Then a flash of semi-genius will appear - but directed at twisting the argument. And all encapsulated in "Gish Multiple Gallop" style. The late unlamented Duane G has a lot to account for. AND the analogies creationists CF truthers continue to emerge. AKA "Faith based" v "rational based".

has beeter reasoning skills than I have seen from any debunker/hugger out here.

and here you are whining about gish, no one posts more Gish than you and mark.

So when you gonna talk debate me about your roosd pancake theory? Do you even know why everyone rejected the pancake theory?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

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

Gonna have to disagree with you guys, Bman seems to have some serious issues processing things.

 

[ozeco41]

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

...So when you gonna talk debate me about your roosd pancake theory?

As soon as YOU:
A) make a debatable claim free of insults, dishonesties and other debating tricks; OR
B) respond rationally free of insults, dishonesties and other debating tricks to this post.

So for a start drop the "your roosd pancake theory" nonsense. I'll discuss ROOSD in the context of my "Three Mechanisms" explanation of collapse progression for the Twin Towers. AND I will not conflate "pancake hypotheses" for the initiation stage with pancake analogies used as descriptors in progression stage hypotheses.

My SOP's have not changed in years - if you respond with rational discussion I will take part. As soon as you resort to lies or other tricks I will call you on the trickery but still give you another round of posts to get back on the rails.

... Do you even know why everyone rejected the pancake theory?

Of course I do - begging the hyperbole of "everyone". And your conflation of two different explanations for two different stages of collapse will not distract me. Keep your tricks for your target group of susceptible victims.

 

[ozeco41]

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

Gonna have to disagree with you guys, Bman seems to have some serious issues processing things.

IMNSHO there is no doubt about that. With the usual problem of where the line lies between deliberate mendacity and actual limits of comprehension or reasoning.

But his posts do occasionally show reasoning - low level and lost among the apparent poor comprehension plus deliberate evasions and tricks.

 

[BmanMcfly]

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

In other words, another copout. You know damn well what the question is asking since it is multiple choice. And at some level you know damn well why you are evading a direct answer - and so does everyone else.

What are you talking about? I gave a direct answer... Not your contrived options, but a direct answer and you call it evading?

And you wonder how come you get called delusional every other day.

 

[BmanMcfly]

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

has beeter reasoning skills than I have seen from any debunker/hugger out here.

and here you are whining about gish, no one posts more Gish than you and mark.

So when you gonna talk debate me about your roosd pancake theory? Do you even know why everyone rejected the pancake theory?

He doesn't care... He's here to sell a pack of lies, under his claimed expertise.

That's why as soon as you begin to question his claims he runs away, comes back insulting and then stops addressing the content of posts and just pretends like he's arguing the logical fallacies.

I suppose there are times where he'll put up a wall of gish to hide the bs...

Oh and then to top it off, whatever tactic he's using at the moment he will accuse you of at the same time. It's a great tactic because to point it out appears childish. (Ex; he will create a lie about a false generalization while accusing you of using false generalizations,Mathis way if you come back with "you are the one using false generalizations" it comes off as infantile. This method is a form of gas lighting, and is thoroughly dishonest.)

Not to mention his demonstrable lack of character, like I sent him a pm to explain how I was going to address a post he made, but lacked the time to do it justice... A couple days later I come back to the forum and he's saying that my lack of response was clearly dodging his "superior logic". Seriously, who does that kind of thing?