Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:823:852:1124:1449]

[ozeco41]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

For example, why would a building dropped with explosives show signs of structural weakness over an hour prior?

It's anticipation by the building - getting ready for the big finale of the coming demolition.

I mean if someone had put explosive charges around your legs and was playing with the big red button - wouldn't you be showing signs of what was to come?

Tony Szamboti - leading engineer with AE911 Truth - explained to me another one of those "sequencing" problems which can be so confusing to "debunkers".

He explained that CD of the Twin Towers was by explosive cutting of core columns. Which dragged down the floor joists and pulled the perimeter columns inwards. The "inwards bowing" phenomenon noted by many.

Then a few minutes later the collapse started at near "G".

The bit I had missed - silly me - was that it used "Delayed Action Gravity"[SUP]TM[/SUP] Must be my age but I wasn't aware of that technology. OR that it was available in 2001.

 

[Quag]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

It's anticipation by the building - getting ready for the big finale of the coming demolition.

Ok that made me laugh out loud

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

It's anticipation by the building - getting ready for the big finale of the coming demolition.

I mean if someone had put explosive charges around your legs and was playing with the big red button - wouldn't you be showing signs of what was to come?

The idea that a building gets all squoogy in the knees....

Just thinking of cartoons in the 1930s with their anthropomorphic buildings.

Or this.

 

[stundie]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

And molten steel indicates explosives how? __________________________________________________

As been pointed out to you, because a hydrocarbon fire is unlikely to cause it.

That is why you ignore the people who were actually at GZ to hold on to your fantasy......lol

 

[stundie]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

what molten steel?

The molten steel at GZ.

Keep up......lol

The stuff being picked up in that photo by a mechanical fork that wasn't molten?

The ends of it were, thats for sure. lol

Or the "meteorite" that was never molten?

I'm afraid it was though....lol

Don't give liars err I mean truthers one inch, make them prove every single one of their false claims, well try to they never actually even come close.

Liars like these guys...
Such twoofing toofers aren't they these firefigthers.....lol

 

[Quag]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

The molten steel at GZ.

Keep up......lol
The ends of it were, thats for sure. lol
I'm afraid it was though....lol
Liars like these guys...
Such twoofing toofers aren't they these firefigthers.....lol

Repeating claims of molten steel is not evidence of molten steel.
I know truthers have a problem with logic but this is going overboard.

 

[stundie]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Repeating claims of molten steel is not evidence of molten steel.

So these guys are liars then?? lol

I know truthers have a problem with logic but this is going overboard.

Sorry but you are the one who appear to be logic intolerant! lol

 

[Quag]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

So these guys are liars then?? lol
Sorry but you are the one who appear to be logic intolerant! lol

Being wrong doesn't make someone a liar, of course I don't expect you to understand that.
Just more proof of your misuse of logic.

 

[stundie]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Being wrong doesn't make someone a liar, of course I don't expect you to understand that.

Do you have any evidence they are wrong??

Of course not!! hahahahahahaha!!!

You just make a claim like "they are wrong" and in typical pantomime debunker fashion, provide no evidence that they are wrong.......lol

Because according to your logic..

I make a claim and provide eyewitnesses, articles, reports and artifacts and I'm wrong. :roll: Ye
You make a claim and provide NOTHING and yet you are correct. :shock:

Hahahaha!! Hypocrisy is alive and kicking in the pantomime debunker world.

Just more proof of your misuse of logic.

Says the man who doesn't STILL doesn't get that the evidence is AGAINST you. lol

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Being wrong doesn't make someone a liar, of course I don't expect you to understand that.
Just more proof of your misuse of logic.

His arguments are just one big false dichotomy. Complicated slightly by the process issue that no one so far has posted a full counter claim laying out the weight of evidence.

And stubborn li'l ole me aint gunna post the full counter claim. We killed this nonsense back in 2006-7-8 - but it won't lie down.

So his argument:

(Analogy . yes I know the risk - over the heads of some members.)

"Hey - I've found this fruit shop which only sells apples.

Seventeen people looked at the fruit in the fruit shop and have identified apples.

Therefore the shop only sells apples."

And he pads it out with go nowhere stuff like:
"You are calling the people liars for identifying apples"
OR
"You are saying there were no apples"

Add a dozen more - he has tried many of them.

AND we haven't even got anyone saying:
"Oranges"
"Bananas"

NOR have we identified the apples witnesses who:
Cannot tell an apple from a banana;
Are lying; OR
Didn't actually see apples but heard from a friend that there were some.

etc
etc

 

[stundie]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

WOW! You have a stunning way of misinterpreting my argument.

His arguments are just one big false dichotomy.

If that were true, then you would be able to point it out.

Complicated slightly by the process issue that no one so far has posted a full counter claim laying out the weight of evidence.

And stubborn li'l ole me aint gunna do it. We killed this nonsense back in 2006-7-8 - but it won't lie down.

If you killed it with counter evidence back in 2006-2008, then you should be able to present it.

So his argument:

(Analogy . yes I know the risk - over the heads of some members.)

"Seventeen people looked at the fruit in the fruit shop and have identified apples.

Therefore the shop only sells apples."

That's not my argument at all....lol

The argument is that the shop sell apples.

Your argument appears to be, those apples that the shop sells could be pears.

And he pads it out with go nowhere stuff like:
"You are calling the peolpe liars for identifying apples"

Well you either believe that ALL of the people are lying or are mistaken.

You have no evidence they are mistaken, so you have a belief, which is you and your opinion.

OR
"You are saying there were no apples"

That is what Quag appears to be saying......lol

Add a dozen more - he has tried many of them

AND we haven't even got anyone saying:
"Oranges"
"Bananas"

So by your logic because the people didn't mention oranges or bananas, then they could have seen oranges or bananas? :shock:

Really?? lol

NOR have we identified the apples witnesses who:
Cannot tell an apple from a banana;
Are lying; OR

You have no idea if the apple witnesses can identify a apple from a banana, so therefore you have no basis for your argument. lol

Didn't actually see apples but heard from a friend that there were some.

There are hearsay accounts, but I didn't post them because they are accounts they heard from other people. Like this one...

“Many contractors ….said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally been melted because of the heat…” – Herb Trimpe, The Chaplain’s Tale

Not sure what to say really, other than if you are going to try and misrepresent my argument, you need to do better job than that.

Cheers

Stundie
p.s. And cheerleading the trolls does your credibility no favours! lol

 

[Quag]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Do you have any evidence they are wrong??

Of course not!! hahahahahahaha!!!

You just make a claim like "they are wrong" and in typical pantomime debunker fashion, provide no evidence that they are wrong.......lol

Because according to your logic..

I make a claim and provide eyewitnesses, articles, reports and artifacts and I'm wrong. :roll: Ye
You make a claim and provide NOTHING and yet you are correct. :shock:

Hahahaha!! Hypocrisy is alive and kicking in the pantomime debunker world.
Says the man who doesn't STILL doesn't get that the evidence is AGAINST you. lol

You have presented no evidence that there was molten steel. Either you mistake claims as evidence for the claims or post evidence of stuff that wasn't molten and say HAHA! GOTCHA!
Sorry evidence doesn't work like that.

 

[stundie]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

You have presented no evidence that there was molten steel.

Yes I have and no matter how many times you ignore it, it will still be there! lol

Either you mistake claims as evidence for the claims or post evidence of stuff that wasn't molten and say HAHA! GOTCHA!

No, I laugh and point at pantomime debunkers who say eyewitness, news articles, scientific reports and artifacts are not evidence.....and not only is it not evidence apparently, but everyone is also wrong too. lol

Sorry evidence doesn't work like that.

Sorry but I'll take advice about evidence from someone who doesn't have a idiomatic impulse to deny evidence, because it doesn't conform to what he believes thanks. lol

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

As been pointed out to you, because a hydrocarbon fire is unlikely to cause it.

That is why you ignore the people who were actually at GZ to hold on to your fantasy......lol

And what EXPLOSIVE would leave molten steel?

 

[stundie]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

And what EXPLOSIVE would leave molten steel?

Thermite/Thermate.

Let me guess, your next post will say something like...

Stoopid Toofer, Thermite/Thermate is not an explosive.

Well you are wrong, it can be used as an explosive to cut steel.


And if it was in its nano form, it release energy far greater.

Now naturally, this is going to mess your head up, so I expect strong denial, so we can go around in circles.....lol

 

[Kanzaki]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Thermite/Thermate.

Let me guess, your next post will say something like...

Stoopid Toofer, Thermite/Thermate is not an explosive.

That's a mounting device, but it doesn't fit the definition of explosive. Even the rate of energy release doesn't meet the criteria, as that cut is made almost purely through heat against the material... not the same as the impulse energy usually responsible in an explosive device. :roll:
Not saying this to be patronizing, but it's not what you're defining it to be.

 

[Quag]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Yes I have and no matter how many times you ignore it, it will still be there! lol

Nope you just think you have.

No, I laugh and point at pantomime debunkers who say eyewitness, news articles, scientific reports and artifacts are not evidence.....and not only is it not evidence apparently, but everyone is also wrong too. lol

Al ready showed you why that isn't evidence, at this point you are just lying.

Sorry but I'll take advice about evidence from someone who doesn't have a idiomatic impulse to deny evidence, because it doesn't conform to what he believes thanks. lol

Apparently in truther land reality is not allowed

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

WOW! You have a stunning way of misinterpreting my argument.

Wanna bet?

BTW I am enjoying this - at least you present some argument to work at. BUT we are not progressing. OK back to the immediate post response:

Remember I hinted at the risk that some people cannot process analogies..

If that were true, then you would be able to point it out. << I did - by analogy
If you killed it with counter evidence back in 2006-2008, then you should be able to present it. <<As I have said many times I could. I have no intention of doing so. All my comments framed on those premises AND the suggestion WHICH YOU AGREE WITH that somebody should present the counter argument.

AND that depends on you making it explicit which claim you are pursuing. In THIS THREAD

That's not my argument at all....lol <<So you say.

The argument is that the shop sell apples. <<Not in dispute

Your argument appears to be, those apples that the shop sells could be pears. << I'm not presenting an argument. I presented an analogy of your claim. And that is not the point of analogy. Read again.

The witness attested FACT that there are apples DOES not mean "no other fruit" and THAT missed point is the core of your false dichotomy.
Well you either believe that ALL of the people are lying or are mistaken. <<Not worthy of comment. But here goes - there is a possibility that some of the witnesses for apples may be
"lying OR mistaken". BTW your comment is another false dichotomy. Here try an analogy to explain an analogy "All the witnesses say it was not black" Correct inference - it was some other colour (provided the witness evidence is correct but let's not derail) THE FALSE DICHOTOMY response is "The witnesses say NOT BLACK" and you conclude "WHITE"

You have no evidence they are mistaken, <<Gawd - was their a fire sale of used false dichotomies 'coz that is another one. I have no evidence that they were not mistaken. NOW do some "identify false dichotomies" training - See if you can explain why those two are NOT opposites. HINT "no evidence they are mistaken" is not the opposite of "no evidence that they were not mistaken'. (And technically the lay term "opposite" is not kosher but it should suffice here.) Resort to set theory language of you wish OR draw a Venn Diagram.
so you have a belief, which is you and your opinion. << You need to work on the meaning of 'belief" and "opinion" BUT only after you get the logic clear because I have presented neither belief nor opinion (nor assertion of fact) on the topic you refer to.

That is what Quag appears to be saying......lol <<Quag is saying something totally different to what I am saying. And I don't fully agree with his explanation - he is right within his frame of reference BUT I am addressing your issues of misunderstanding.
So by your logic because the people didn't mention oranges or bananas, then they could have seen oranges or bananas? :shock: <<Wow. Correct. Did you really mean it - like have you recognised the logical issue?

Really?? lol
You have no idea if the apple witnesses can identify a apple from a banana, so therefore you have no basis for your argument. lol <<Your argument not mine and yet another FD
There are hearsay accounts, but I didn't post them because they are accounts they heard from other people. Like this one... <<Good call. Agreed. BUT you are still within your limited "set".

“Many contractors ….said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally been melted because of the heat…” – Herb Trimpe, The Chaplain’s Tale

Not sure what to say really, other than if you are going to try and misrepresent my argument, you need to do better job than that. << I won't be trying to misrepresent your argument so the point is moot. HOWEVER be assured if I did seek to misrepresent I would do a far better job of it. Be assured if I ever - for reasons of humour - post a parody I make sure there is not the slightest doubt it is parody/humour. My serious stuff is as close as I can make it to 100% true and correct in both physics and logic.

Cheers

Stundie
p.s. And cheerleading the trolls does your credibility no favours! lol << Why spoil a good grade 3 post by sinking to Grade 1-2 dishonest PA???

 

[Fledermaus]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Thermite/Thermate.

Let me guess, your next post will say something like...

Stoopid Toofer, Thermite/Thermate is not an explosive.

Well you are wrong, it can be used as an explosive to cut steel.

And if it was in its nano form, it release energy far greater.

Now naturally, this is going to mess your head up, so I expect strong denial, so we can go around in circles.....lol

Water is used to cut steel.

That doesn't make it an explosive.

And your little thermite cutter there. I dont see a lot of molten metal.

So. What are your claiming?

Non-explosive thermite?

Or nano-thermite that lacks the explosive power of real demolition materials?

 

[Quag]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

His arguments are just one big false dichotomy. Complicated slightly by the process issue that no one so far has posted a full counter claim laying out the weight of evidence.

And stubborn li'l ole me aint gunna post the full counter claim. We killed this nonsense back in 2006-7-8 - but it won't lie down.

So his argument:

(Analogy . yes I know the risk - over the heads of some members.)

"Hey - I've found this fruit shop which only sells apples.

Seventeen people looked at the fruit in the fruit shop and have identified apples.

Therefore the shop only sells apples."

And he pads it out with go nowhere stuff like:
"You are calling the people liars for identifying apples"
OR
"You are saying there were no apples"

Add a dozen more - he has tried many of them.

AND we haven't even got anyone saying:
"Oranges"
"Bananas"

NOR have we identified the apples witnesses who:
Cannot tell an apple from a banana;
Are lying; OR
Didn't actually see apples but heard from a friend that there were some.

etc
etc

I disagree a bit with your analogy, because the apples (molten steel) have never been shown to exist in this store, no pics, nothing and it should be a hardware store.

I think a better analogy of what is going on here would be a claim by several witnesses that Bob was brutally assaulted with a baseball bat and beaten nearly to death. This despite the fact that Bob doesn't have any contusions or other obvious injuries, was never in the hospital and never claimed to be attacked. They then say that only Ed could have administered this beating and thus Ed should be arrested. Aside from there not being any actual evidence that Bob was indeed assaulted with a baseball bat they refuse to even explain why Ed is the only one possibly responsible for the attack.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

I disagree a bit with your analogy, because the apples (molten steel) have never been shown to exist in this store, no pics, nothing and it should be a hardware store.

Remember my analogy was of HIS argument and intended to show what was wrong with HIS argument.

So I wouldn't want to confuse members by pointing out errors in a different argument.

In terms of the analogy he is arguing "Fruit Shop" and using selected evidence - limited to the evidence that it sells apples - to falsely conclude "it sells ONLY apples".

My analogy points to errors within the argument - his argument - in favour of "Fruit Shop which sells only apples" AND I'm analogously falsifying "only apples".

His argument is a false dichotomy as I have identified several times.

Your alternate scenario is very different. The first bit is valid analogy to this current status of stundies claim:

I think a better analogy of what is going on here would be a claim by several witnesses that Bob was brutally assaulted with a baseball bat and beaten nearly to death....

That is what we have currently in this thread framed as a different analogy.

Your next bit is what will probably apply if we see a counter claim in the thread.

This despite the fact that Bob doesn't have any contusions or other obvious injuries, was never in the hospital and never claimed to be attacked. They then say that only Ed could have administered this beating and thus Ed should be arrested. Aside from there not being any actual evidence that Bob was indeed assaulted with a baseball bat they refuse to even explain why Ed is the only one possibly responsible for the attack.

All that is speculated counter evidence at this stage. But we haven't seen it....yet. So this latter part of your analogy does not yet apply.

Stundie's mistake is in claiming "only apples" wins BEFORE he or anyone else puts the case for bananas, oranges. OR - in your analogy - before the "no bruises" et al evidence has been presented.

Evidence not yet presented doesn't have any effect on the CURRENT situation. Which is another reason I'm being very careful with the logic. Too many folks jumping the gun whilst stundie is more or less pretending that the the other evidence does not or cannot exist because nobody has presented it. And therein lies his False Dichotomy :roll:

(And there are several other subtle points but I wont complicate it further at this stage.)

 

[Quag]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

Remember my analogy was of HIS argument and intended to show what was wrong with HIS argument.

So I wouldn't want to confuse members by pointing out errors in a different argument.

In terms of the analogy he is arguing "Fruit Shop" and using selected evidence - limited to the evidence that it sells apples - to falsely conclude "it sells ONLY apples".

My analogy points to errors within the argument - his argument - in favour of "Fruit Shop which sells only apples" AND I'm analogously falsifying "only apples".

His argument is a false dichotomy as I have identified several times.

Your alternate scenario is very different. The first bit is valid analogy to this current status of stundies claim:
That is what we have currently in this thread framed as a different analogy.

Your next bit is what will probably apply if we see a counter claim in the thread. All that is speculated counter evidence at this stage. But we haven't seen it....yet. So this latter part of your analogy does not yet apply.

Stundie's mistake is in claiming "only apples" wins BEFORE he or anyone else puts the case for bananas, oranges. OR - in your analogy - before the "no bruises" et al evidence has been presented.

Evidence not yet presented doesn't have any effect on the CURRENT situation. Which is another reason I'm being very careful with the logic. Too many folks jumping the gun whilst stundie is more or less pretending that the the other evidence does not or cannot exist because nobody has presented it. And therein lies his False Dichotomy :roll:

(And there are several other subtle points but I wont complicate it further at this stage.)

I suppose in referring to the false dichotomy the apples may be more apt. However as a whole I think the Bob beating best describes the entire premise of the truther argument.
The claim molten steel and base that solely on witness statements. No actual evidence is presented (though claimed) they then leap to the conclusion it has to be CD just because.
Now if there were actual evidence of molten steel, I would accept it and then we proceed to the "Ok so what" stage where truthers will never explain the leap they make from the molten steel to CD.
They will just blather on about office furniture fires etc.
But after how many years of this BS I see no reason to concede any point to truthers and very good reasons to point out their lies and falsehoods.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

I suppose in referring to the false dichotomy the apples may be more apt.

That is the analog of what is being discussed.

However as a whole I think the Bob beating best describes the entire premise of the truther argument.

True and yours is a good analogy for what you refer to as "the truther argument" BUT we are not discussing "the truther argument" we are discussing a specific claim (two versions) in this thread.

The claim molten steel and base that solely on witness statements. <<That is where we are up to so far.
No actual evidence is presented (though claimed) <<That is legal pedantry not applicable here. He has listed and linked all the witness statements which AFAICS meets the criteria for internet "presentation". We can hardly put those witnesses in the box and cross examine them.
they then leap to the conclusion it has to be CD just because. <<He hasn't "leaped" - yet. What "they" do is not under discussion.
Now if there were actual evidence of molten steel, <<That is wrong use of "evidence" Those statements are evidence whether true or false. They need counter arguments. You and I are well aware of the range of counter evidence which far outweighs those witness statements BUT those counter arguments not yet presented in response to stundie's claim. PLUS he is pretending they don't exist. That is the guts of the current stand off. So you are presumptively jumping ahead of the discussion.
I would accept it and then we proceed to the "Ok so what" stage << Agreed fully - I understand where you are coming from
where truthers will never explain the leap they make from the molten steel to CD. <<Almost certain. I'm familiar with the pattern. Doesn't mean I have to make invalid arguments just because they cheat. I don't have to sink to their level. Nor do I think "we" should BUT some debunkers disagree with me on that.
They will just blather on about office furniture fires etc. <<Yes - it is a well worn track. highly predictable. Except these days they are reluctant to move at all - they have learned after many years and are reluctant to face the inevitable loss of the argument. Hence stundie keeping THIS discussion going round in circles.
But after how many years of this BS I see no reason to concede any point to truthers and very good reasons to point out their lies and falsehoods. <<That is probably where we differ. Said it already. Even if they cheat I wont sink to that level. If they get something right I will acknowledge it THEN move onto carving up the bits they get wrong. There's usually more of them. :mrgreen:

 

[Quag]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

<<That is probably where we differ. Said it already. Even if they cheat I wont sink to that level. If they get something right I will acknowledge it THEN move onto carving up the bits they get wrong. There's usually more of them.

That is the rub IF they get something right.
I have no problem with that, however I see no point in conceding anything in a vain attempt to move the discussion along.
They have no interest in moving the discussion along they merely want get people to concede their made up points, that for them IS victory.
Perhaps you are just far more an optimist than I am but like you have said it has been years since there have been any genuine truthers and I don't expect to see one anytime soon.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Challenge time again. EXPLOSIVES at WTC7. Got EVIDENCE?[W:852]

That is the rub IF they get something right. <<Yes
I have no problem with that, however I see no point in conceding anything in a vain attempt to move the discussion along. <<Absolutely. They do have memories and slips come back to haunt.
They have no interest in moving the discussion along they merely want get people to concede their made up points, that for them IS victory. <<I'm ex Richard Dawkins Forum Moderator. Dawkins NEVER debates creationists. They have no credibility and all they want is to be on the same platform as a leading atheist world class biologist. I agree with his policy. My limited version is "don't feed trolls" AND my "Two Post Limit" ROE for clowns who are not serious.
Perhaps you are just far more an optimist than I am << Nah - I limit my posting to having fun. You wont see me playing "Whack-a-Mole" with recycled long dead canard issues circa 2006
...but like you have said it has been years since there have been any genuine truthers and I don't expect to see one anytime soon. <<Yup. No genuine truthers posting here. The last two I saw more than a year back - on JREF. Ooops - wrong - one occasionally posts on MetaBunk

Cheers - thanks for giving me the opportunity for the bit of brain work out.