NIST's Fraudulent Report on the Collapse of WTC7 on 9/11 [W:2152,2510]

[Fledermaus]

This is why a discussion with you is an exercise in futility. You try to lump 2 entirely different things into the same thing. End of discussion.

They were your words, eh?

 

[Mark F]

A one story drop would not have enough energy to propagate and would have either arrested or toppled. The upper section was most likely 33 stories tall which is about 400 feet.

But the building is still a write-off, correct? So what's wrong with that? Presumably that is the goal of the plotters, to write off the building. So whatever minimum is necessary to make that happens should be sufficient. No reason it has to be neat.

The hypothesis of the removal of the 24 core columns over 8 stories is more than plausible. It replicates all of the observables reliably and the charges could easily have been set with numerous construction activities in the building (such as Giuliani's bunker and the Salomon Brothers reconfiguration of a large number of floors) being used as cover stories. You clearly have no basis to say different and your simple and unimaginative incredulity is not germane to the issue.

All of the observables?

In the hours leading up to the collapse of 7 World Trade Center firefighters reported the building was fully involved in fire, was creaking, moaning and leaning, and had developed a bulge about 3 stories tall in one side. I do not see these observables mentioned in your 24x8 hypothesis. Can you explain them?

 

[KokomoJojo]

In the hours leading up to the collapse of 7 World Trade Center firefighters reported the building was fully involved in fire, was creaking, moaning and leaning, and had developed a bulge about 3 stories tall in one side.

they also reported there was molten steel flowing under tower 1 and 2, as well as explosions, so how come you believe them regarding 7 but you do not believe them regarding 1 and 2?

 

[Mark F]

they also reported there was molten steel flowing under tower 1 and 2, as well as explosions, so how come you believe them regarding 7 but you do not believe them regarding 1 and 2?

Never said they didn't. Nice try though strawman.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Never said they didn't. Nice try though strawman.

never said "they didnt"?
Is english your second language or do you have serious unresolved comprehension issues.

For some strange reason its easier to communicate with a 10 year old than it is with debunkers.

Here I will draw you another picture;

You said:
In the hours leading up to the collapse of 7 World Trade Center firefighters reported the building was fully involved in fire, was creaking, moaning and leaning, and had developed a bulge about 3 stories tall in one side.

Quoting the firefighters as a valid source and demanding an explanation from truthers based on the same.


In the molten steel thread you claim there is no molten steel or explosions despite the fire fighters also reported that there was.

Therefore if you have no reasonable explanation why you think their reports are valid on building 7 but not on buildings 1 and 2 that would fall under the definition of a hypocrite and cherry picking to fit your agenda.

your saying "they didnt" is unintelligible nonsense.

Now do you understand the simple question?

 

[Mark F]

In the molten steel thread you claim there is no molten steel or explosions despite the fire fighters also reported that there was.

Then quote me. And cite the thread and post # while you are at it. I'll wait.

There is no question some firefighters made casual remarks about hearing things that sounded like explosions and of seeing molten materials.

So what?

Still waiting for someone from the 9/11 Truth side to explain why too observations that are fairly routine in large fires mean something.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Then quote me. And cite the thread and post # while you are at it. I'll wait.

There is no question some firefighters made casual remarks about hearing things that sounded like explosions and of seeing molten materials.

So what?

Still waiting for someone from the 9/11 Truth side to explain why too observations that are fairly routine in large fires mean something.

when a fireman makes a statement it is not a "casual" remark, it is an official remark unless expressed otherwise.

explosions sound like explosions mark.

So what? well that would make you agenda driven and very dishonest meaning you could care less what is true and just want to pound your agenda.

 

[Mark F]

when a fireman makes a statement it is not a "casual" remark, it is an official remark unless expressed otherwise.

explosions sound like explosions mark.

So what? well that would make you agenda driven and very dishonest meaning you could care less what is true and just want to pound your agenda.

Firemen don't ever speak plainly? Is that a trait unique to that profession.

Don't think I didn't notice your evasion here BTW. So where is the quote from me that backs up what you claim I have said?

What are anecdotal reports of things that sound like explosions and molten materials in a large fire supposed to mean and why? Why is it important? Why is it relevant?

 

[Fledermaus]

Firemen don't ever speak plainly? Is that a trait unique to that profession.

Don't think I didn't notice your evasion here BTW. So where is the quote from me that backs up what you claim I have said?

What are anecdotal reports of things that sound like explosions and molten materials in a large fire supposed to mean and why? Why is it important? Why is it relevant?

Ask Koko how "molten steel" dovetails with "explosives".

 

[ozeco41]

Ask Koko how "molten steel" dovetails with "explosives".

Better still only respond to those parts of his posts which contain reasoned argument. He has proved that he can misdirect the ball so why throw him another one to play with???

 

[Fledermaus]

Then quote me. And cite the thread and post # while you are at it. I'll wait.

There is no question some firefighters made casual remarks about hearing things that sounded like explosions and of seeing molten materials.

So what?

Still waiting for someone from the 9/11 Truth side to explain why too observations that are fairly routine in large fires mean something.

Still waiting for the LOGICAL connection between explosives and "molten steel".

 

[Fledermaus]

Better still only respond to those parts of his posts which contain reasoned argument. He has proved that he can misdirect the ball so why throw him another one to play with???

Oh, I've blocked him completely. I only see him "by proxy" when another poster quotes some of his *ahem* interesting claims.

 

[ozeco41]

Oh, I've blocked him completely. I only see him "by proxy" when another poster quotes some of his *ahem* interesting claims.

I've got him fenced in with clear argument on another thread and he's taken to posting "self rebutting" claims - quotes me, hilites my key points - which being mine are obviously true. :3oops:

Then posts his own "opposing" version - hilites his bits which are blatantly NOT what I said and therefore don't rebut my true statements.

Talk about cynical "using" of fellow truthers - his presumption that they are too silly to see his tricks when so openly displayed.

Then, from the other perspective, the sad reality that he is probably right in that presumption.....:roll:


It is all a sideline interest for me - all this "arguing for the sake of arguing" stuff.

My main purpose remains - explaining issues for genuine people who don't understand and want to know. Precious little of that left these days - ah for the golden days of 2006-7-8. :mrgreen:

 

[Bob0627]

My main purpose remains - explaining issues for genuine people who don't understand and want to know.

What is there not to understand? I believe there's even a condensed version of the 9/11 Commission Report, the "9/11 Commission Report for Dummies" if you will. Or there's always this:



It's pretty simple for the simple minded, most people swallowed it without any further explanation. But I can understand your die hard devotion to the official conspiracy theory. Do you also pound into them to never again question anything about it? It's poor etiquette and gets you labeled a "truther", "conspiracy theorist", "tin foil nutjob", etc.

 

[Mark F]

What is there not to understand? I believe there's even a condensed version of the 9/11 Commission Report, the "9/11 Commission Report for Dummies" if you will. Or there's always this:



It's pretty simple for the simple minded, most people swallowed it without any further explanation. But I can understand your die hard devotion to the official conspiracy theory. Do you also pound into them to never again question anything about it? It's poor etiquette and gets you labeled a "truther", "conspiracy theorist", "tin foil nutjob", etc.

How many lies did we decide there were in the first minute of that video? I think it was 20. Such is 9/11 "Truth" for you.

 

[ozeco41]

How many lies did we decide there were in the first minute of that video? I think it was 20. Such is 9/11 "Truth" for you.

Cannot remember. But beyond the dishonesty Bob "borrows" is the process issue "What is there not to understand?" - where references to "there's none so blind..." or to the proximity of thirsty horses to water...etc etc

AKA "signal to noise ratio very high" - no intelligible signal detectable....

 

[Bob0627]

How many lies did we decide there were in the first minute of that video? I think it was 20. Such is 9/11 "Truth" for you.

What do you mean? Isn't it what you defend? Only 20 lies? I thought the whole thing is a lie.

 

[Fledermaus]

What is there not to understand? I believe there's even a condensed version of the 9/11 Commission Report, the "9/11 Commission Report for Dummies" if you will. Or there's always this:



It's pretty simple for the simple minded, most people swallowed it without any further explanation. But I can understand your die hard devotion to the official conspiracy theory. Do you also pound into them to never again question anything about it? It's poor etiquette and gets you labeled a "truther", "conspiracy theorist", "tin foil nutjob", etc.

Bob, why do you keep dredging up a video with numerous inaccuracies in the first few minutes....

Oh, wait, you are a "Truther".

It is part of your DNA.

 

[Fledermaus]

What do you mean? Isn't it what you defend? Only 20 lies? I thought the whole thing is a lie.

Bob, I ask again.

Are the 19 hijackers a lie?
Are the 4 airliners hijacked a lie?

Etc.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Sometimes, the videos Bob posts aren't supposed to be taken literally. Other times, they're supposed to be the complete argument. It'd be nice if he'd at least tell everyone beforehand.

 

[Fledermaus]

Sometimes, the videos Bob posts aren't supposed to be taken literally. Other times, they're supposed to be the complete argument. It'd be nice if he'd at least tell everyone beforehand.

Ah, so a parody video is supposedly the "official theory".... Got it.

 

[Thoreau72]

What do you mean? Isn't it what you defend? Only 20 lies? I thought the whole thing is a lie.

Snorting cocaine with pink-haired strippers was the best part! :lamo

 

[Mark F]

What do you mean? Isn't it what you defend? Only 20 lies? I thought the whole thing is a lie.

That video which YOU have repeatedly linked to is nothing but 5 minutes of Truthers making s__t up. But for some reason you seem to be proud of it.

 

[Bob0627]

Sometimes, the videos Bob posts aren't supposed to be taken literally. Other times, they're supposed to be the complete argument. It'd be nice if he'd at least tell everyone beforehand.

That you can't tell which is which is understandable given your irrational unquestioned defense of the entire 9/11 narrative.

 

[Thoreau72]

And for the obvious reasons, you are embarrassed by it. :lamo