WTC 7 - OH NO! Please dont turn on the lights!

[Jango]

So, nothing to add... Find that EVIDENCE for molten STEEL yet?

I answered 'YES~!' to every question + an additional 3-4 questions that weren't even asked. So, what's your problem with that? Just being an ass per standard operating procedure, or...?

 

[Fledermaus]

I answered 'YES~!' to every question + an additional 3-4 questions that weren't even asked. So, what's your problem with that? Just being an ass per standard operating procedure, or...?

I'm sorry, the EVIDENCE for molten STEEL? You claim you found it. Please share.

 

[MadLib]

Where did I say that?

Right here:

Given the entity that published the official narrative, absolutely. Those who don't question government fall into one or more of these categories, either they are gullible, ignorant (willfully or otherwise), cognitively dissonant, disinterested or they have a specific agenda. No reasonably intelligent, reasonably educated person believes government is honest and it makes no sense to believe that government's version of what happened on 9/11 as published is 100% true.

The clear implication from this, along with your past behavior in the thread, is that someone has to question something about the official story or they have no credibility.

 

[Mark F]

The clear implication from this, along with your past behavior in the thread, is that someone has to question something about the official story or they have no credibility.

Problem being, the official story (whatever is meant by that since there really is no such thing - go ahead, Google "officialstory.com") is fundamentally correct. One can nitpick details all they want but the big-picture fundamentals - that a terrorist cabal that hates the U.S. government possibly even more than Bob and has a long history of attacking the United States orchestrated a relatively simple and highly successful terror strike against us - is correct.

Conspiracy theorists don't want to discuss the big-picture. They want to keep the discussion mired deep in the nitpicked details. For example they can talk all day long about how "NIST lied" about some minor structural detail in 7 World Trade Center but can't even touch how that has anything to do with the broader events of that day such as the attacks in D.C. and Flight 93. The remnants of what once was the 9/11 Truth Movement, having utterly failed to convince the masses about such patently ridiculous claims as CD in the Twin Towers, missiles at the Pentagon and shootdowns/phantom planes in Shanksville, are now almost solely focused on 7 World Trade Center. Oddly though, even though they seem absolutely convinced the building was blown up, they can't/won't even try to explain why anyone would want to.

I don't think it even occurs to them to ask.

Here's a radical idea. The collapse of 7 World Trade Center was incidental. It makes absolutely no difference at all to the big-picture narrative of what happened that day. It is only because the collapse of 7 World Trade Center is of such minor importance (ie: it has largely been ignored outside the professional structural engineering community) that Truthers focus so much attention on it - part of the master plan of keeping the discussion mired down in minor technical details and avoiding the big-picture issues. Conspiracy loves a vacuum and because 7 WTC was such a small part of the events of that day and no one was killed or injured in it, the general public knows little about it. CT's feel free to fill that void with whatever nonsense suits their particular brand of reality-distortion. But of course they can never take the discussion beyond those minor technical details. They can't explain who would blow up this unimportant, unknown office tower, why or how any of that fits in with the rest of the events of that day.

Personally when I have questions/concerns about whatever it is Bob wants to call the official story I take those to people who are qualified to answer them. I don't try to preach "I'm right and your wrong" in some obscure internet conspiracy forum and I am far more interested in the big-picture than in the irrelevant distractions.

 

[Fledermaus]

Problem being, the official story (whatever is meant by that since there really is no such thing - go ahead, Google "officialstory.com") is fundamentally correct. One can nitpick details all they want but the big-picture fundamentals - that a terrorist cabal that hates the U.S. government possibly even more than Bob and has a long history of attacking the United States orchestrated a relatively simple and highly successful terror strike against us - is correct.

Conspiracy theorists don't want to discuss the big-picture. They want to keep the discussion mired deep in the nitpicked details. For example they can talk all day long about how "NIST lied" about some minor structural detail in 7 World Trade Center but can't even touch how that has anything to do with the broader events of that day such as the attacks in D.C. and Flight 93. The remnants of what once was the 9/11 Truth Movement, having utterly failed to convince the masses about such patently ridiculous claims as CD in the Twin Towers, missiles at the Pentagon and shootdowns/phantom planes in Shanksville, are now almost solely focused on 7 World Trade Center. Oddly though, even though they seem absolutely convinced the building was blown up, they can't/won't even try to explain why anyone would want to.

I don't think it even occurs to them to ask.

Here's a radical idea. The collapse of 7 World Trade Center was incidental. It makes absolutely no difference at all to the big-picture narrative of what happened that day. It is only because the collapse of 7 World Trade Center is of such minor importance (ie: it has largely been ignored outside the professional structural engineering community) that Truthers focus so much attention on it - part of the master plan of keeping the discussion mired down in minor technical details and avoiding the big-picture issues. Conspiracy loves a vacuum and because 7 WTC was such a small part of the events of that day and no one was killed or injured in it, the general public knows little about it. CT's feel free to fill that void with whatever nonsense suits their particular brand of reality-distortion. But of course they can never take the discussion beyond those minor technical details. They can't explain who would blow up this unimportant, unknown office tower, why or how any of that fits in with the rest of the events of that day.

Personally when I have questions/concerns about whatever it is Bob wants to call the official story I take those to people who are qualified to answer them. I don't try to preach "I'm right and your wrong" in some obscure internet conspiracy forum and I am far more interested in the big-picture than in the irrelevant distractions.

Repeated since it says so much...


The Conspiracy Industry: Afterword to PM Expanded Investigation

Marginalization of Opposing Views
The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the "government version" or "the official version." In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let's not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: "I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests . . ."

The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree.

 

[ozeco41]

Here's a radical idea. The collapse of 7 World Trade Center was incidental. It makes absolutely no difference at all to the big-picture narrative of what happened that day. It is only because the collapse of 7 World Trade Center is of such minor importance (ie: it has largely been ignored outside the professional structural engineering community) that Truthers focus so much attention on it - part of the master plan of keeping the discussion mired down in minor technical details and avoiding the big-picture issues....

Not all that radical Mark.

Remember my often posted suggestion as to the strategic reason that truthers switched focus from the "Twin Towers" to WTC 7.

"Most of the evidence was hidden for WTC7"

The outline reasoning as follows:
1) Taken for granted most truthers cannot think - therefore give the thinking over to debunkers - therefore reverse burden of proof. (we cannot think - they can - let "them" do the thinking and the homework to support it.)
2) Reversing burden of proof long established as the foundation process of truther claiming before NIST on WTC7 came along.
3) Truthers had been claiming CD at WTC1 and WTC2 and had been soundly out reasoned. They has lost and developed two classes of evasion tactics strategies:
a) side track issues - eg "thermXte' AND
b) Shift the ground to WTC 7 where most evidence is hidden.

The reason to shift to WT 7 makes no sense if they are willing to prove their claims. They cannot, they know that they cannot so they do not try.

Reverse burden of proof - it is harder with WTC7 for debunkers to prove CD wrong - because the evidence is mostly hidden.

 

[Bob0627]

The outline reasoning as follows:
1) Taken for granted most truthers cannot think - therefore give the thinking over to debunkers

The above is meant for children of what age group?

 

[Mark F]

The above is meant for children of what age group?

That depends. How old are you?

 

[ozeco41]

That depends. How old are you?

it is not primarily about age - whether "physical age" or apparent mental age as per "IQ" rating or similar.

The evidence for "do not display clear thinking processes in posts" is very strong.

If Bob is concerned that anyone may attribute "cannot" to him all he needs to do is make some posts which demonstrate the application of clear reasoning to the thread topic.

Should be simple.




PS BTW - notice that Bob does not disagree with the main thrust of my post that he quote mined.

 

[Bob0627]

That depends. How old are you?

I'm a grandfather so I don't believe my age has anything to do with being a child. The post was obviously meant for children so Oz is probably in the wrong forum. You do know what a child is, no? Or is this yet another simple concept you don't know anything about?

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Child-like thinking, through and through.

 

[Mark F]

Indeed. Only in CT mythology can a relative non-event such as the collapse of 7 World Trade Center become the focal point of the vast gubmint conspiracy.

Remember, nobody even in the 9/11 Truth Movement much cared about 7 World Trade until after their efforts to prove CD at the Twin Towers, missiles at the Pentagon and shootdowns in Shanksville had utterly failed. Then tricky Dick "box boy" Gage came on the scene and having no more success proving CD in the Twin Towers saw an opportunity to carve his niche in the 9/11 Truth scene by cornering the market on 7 WTC. With most of the other big players in 9/11 Trutherdom having moved on/disappeared as their nonsense claims failed to gain traction among the general public, Gage with his focus on 7 became the focal point of what is left of the movement (and Gage's many fund-raising efforts).

The micro-focus on 7 though has revealed the inability of the CT to think. If 7 was indeed the primary target, as some CT's have apparently come to believe, why bother with all the faked hijacked planes, the mini-nukes and energy beams from space in the twins, missiles at the Pentagon and switched planes in Shanksville?

If I were Dr. Evil, sitting in my secret volcano lair gently stroking Mr. Bigglesworth and contemplating how to destroy 7 World Trade Center would I fake the hijacking of 4 commercial aircraft, wire the Twins with mini-nukes and thermite, fire missiles at the Pentagon and crash a fake Boeing in Shanksville, then spend months and thousands of man-hours secretly wiring dozens of columns over 8 stories in a busy office tower with super-secret hush-a-boom explosives (without a single person noticing their office had been demolished to accomplish the task), just to create the all-important "2.25 seconds of symmetrical free-fall" in the primary target, the unimportant Building 7?

Of course not.

If I were da ebil gubmint and my focus was to destroy some secret gubmint file cabinets in 7 (and there was no money in the budget for a paper shredder, a metal trash bin and a lighter) I would just use two Arab patsies with a McVeigh type truck bomb and forget about the rest of it. Wouldn't you?

You would - unless you were a conspiracy theorist.

Only when you work the problem backwards, starting with the conclusion then trying to make the observable's fit that conclusion can you come up with something as absolutely absurd as Szamboti's blowing 24 columns over 8 floors simultaneously 7 hours after the twins collapsed and present it with a straight face. And you have to be a CT (ie: can not think) to look at a story like that and go "yeah, that seems totally reasonable".

But as we have both pointed out, the only reason 7 World Trade Center is even a topic of discussion is because the Truthers couldn't make a case for the Twins, Shanksville and the Pentagon where the evidence is obvious and thus switched to the insignificant building 7 where the evidence is (mostly) hidden. Remember, conspiracy loves a vacuum it can fill with its own (completely implausible and ridiculous) narrative. The less evidence there is, so much the better for the CT with their reliance on reversed burden of proof and unwillingness/inability to prove their own claims.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Mark, none of that makes for a fantastic comic book plot, though! That's not X-Files-y enough! It's gotta be super intricate and complex, even if that's...not how things actually work. And if you don't think so? You're a government shill, obviously. I bet you and I don't even disagree on the overarching story! Isn't that eerie?

 

[Mark F]

Mark, none of that makes for a fantastic comic book plot, though! That's not X-Files-y enough! It's gotta be super intricate and complex, even if that's...not how things actually work. And if you don't think so? You're a government shill, obviously. I bet you and I don't even disagree on the overarching story! Isn't that eerie?

Still waiting on my Government Shill check. Damn government can't get anything right.

 

[Bob0627]

it is not primarily about age - whether "physical age" or apparent mental age as per "IQ" rating or similar.

So when you post such idiotic trash as "Taken for granted most truthers cannot think - therefore give the thinking over to debunkers", it's meant for those who are either children or mentally incompetent? Since I do consider it idiotic trash (I can't speak for anyone else) and not a reasonable or serious claim for adults who are intellectually sound, are you also saying that you're lowering yourself to the level of a child or one who is mentally incompetent? In other words, what is the purpose of making such an idiotic claim in this forum?

 

[Bob0627]

Indeed. Only in CT mythology can a relative non-event such as the collapse of 7 World Trade Center become the focal point of the vast gubmint conspiracy.

I can make the same argument that only a childish mind would characterize the destruction of WTC7 as a "relative non-event" and accept the government mythology as fact and question nothing. And only a childish mind would use terms such as "da ebil gubmint" or use the terms truther and conspiracy theorist as objects of ridicule. And let's not forget the utterly idiotic "Taken for granted most truthers cannot think - therefore give the thinking over to debunkers". I could go on and on but this is so off topic and I take it that that's part of the agenda.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

Seriously, someone who makes up their own definitions for words and then argues upon that foundation of pages and pages probably shouldn't call other people idiotic or childish.

 

[ozeco41]

I'm a grandfather so I don't believe my age has anything to do with being a child. The post was obviously meant for children so Oz is probably in the wrong forum. You do know what a child is, no? Or is this yet another simple concept you don't know anything about?

Cute. Bob gets annoyed by his own strawman. And tries to attribute it to me.

He introduced "age" and "child".

I simply referred to the FACT that many truther posts do not use clear thinking.

AND the HYPOTHESIS that many of them don't use clear thinking because they cannot think clearly.

If Bob wants to dispute the fact of "Don't show clear thinking" he only needs to refer to his post which I quoted above and where he objects to his own strawman.

It proves my point about "don't use clear thinking".

Thanks Bob. Self rebuttal saves a lot of work.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

hahahaha

He honestly seems to do a lot of that. See: "I speak only for myself" then a few posts later "I don't speak at all..."

 

[Mark F]

So when you post such idiotic trash as "Taken for granted most truthers cannot think - therefore give the thinking over to debunkers", it's meant for those who are either children or mentally incompetent? Since I do consider it idiotic trash (I can't speak for anyone else) and not a reasonable or serious claim for adults who are intellectually sound, are you also saying that you're lowering yourself to the level of a child or one who is mentally incompetent? In other words, what is the purpose of making such an idiotic claim in this forum?

Conspiracy theorists by and large do not/can not think (reason). They cannot perform the process known as "reasoning" which is required to construct a cohesive argument from multiple factors. They can not judge which of those many factors is important or how the pieces fit together. Thus CT's rather than forming a reasoned, cohesive argument from many factors rely instead on making assertions based on individual anomalies they can not explain, THEN demanding that others (non-CT's who can reason) prove their assertion wrong. This shortcoming is a pattern we see repeated here over and over again and is why people become conspiracy theorists.

CT's appeal to those who can not apply logic and reason - who can not "think". CT's do not do due diligence and apply the two questions:
1. Is it true AND
2. So what? Why do we care? Why is this relevant?

CT claims are presented almost exclusively without demonstrated "relevance". Unless a claim is shown to be both true and relevant it is pointless speculation. What I mean by relevance is "If the fact is true how does it change what we know about what happened on 9/11?" CT's almost never can answer that - inability to reason,…

Part of the reason for the massive drop-off in interest in the 9/11 Truth Movement and 9/11 related conspiracy theories in the last 5 years or so is that those who were once active in the movement and had some ability to think were eventually able to reason their way out of the mind trap, got their "truth" and moved on. What is left now generally fall into 3 categories (which sometimes overlap).
1. Those who hold genuine delusions about 9/11 and are unable to form reasoned arguments nor are able to comprehend reasoned arguments presented to them
2. Trolls
3. POE's

 

[Mark F]

I can make the same argument that only a childish mind would characterize the destruction of WTC7 as a "relative non-event" and accept the government mythology as fact and question nothing. And only a childish mind would use terms such as "da ebil gubmint" or use the terms truther and conspiracy theorist as objects of ridicule. And let's not forget the utterly idiotic "Taken for granted most truthers cannot think - therefore give the thinking over to debunkers". I could go on and on but this is so off topic and I take it that that's part of the agenda.

The collapse of 7 World Trade Center was incidental. It tells us nothing about who did 9/11 or why.

 

[ozeco41]

So when you post such idiotic trash as "Taken for granted most truthers cannot think - therefore give the thinking over to debunkers", it's meant for those who are either children or mentally incompetent? Since I do consider it idiotic trash (I can't speak for anyone else) and not a reasonable or serious claim for adults who are intellectually sound, are you also saying that you're lowering yourself to the level of a child or one who is mentally incompetent? In other words, what is the purpose of making such an idiotic claim in this forum?

It's your own strawman you are chasing.

Why not respond and argue with yourself. You may want to label your posts as "Bob Persona A - pretending to be annoyed by his own strawman" AND "Bob Persona B - defending his strawman"

If you like I'll grade your abilty to argue with yourself. Could be a bit of fun.

But whatever please stop making false claims about my posts. Continuing to misrepresent me about your own accusations of "childlike" will actually prove your strawman...

...and I'll bet that bit of re-entrant logic is beyond your ken. If you claims of confusion are genuine. :roll:

 

[Fledermaus]

I can make the same argument that only a childish mind would characterize the destruction of WTC7 as a "relative non-event" and accept the government mythology as fact and question nothing. And only a childish mind would use terms such as "da ebil gubmint" or use the terms truther and conspiracy theorist as objects of ridicule. And let's not forget the utterly idiotic "Taken for granted most truthers cannot think - therefore give the thinking over to debunkers". I could go on and on but this is so off topic and I take it that that's part of the agenda.

Bob, try thinking about THIS...

WTC 1 and 2 were the TARGETS.... The hijackers aimed their hijacker AIRLINERS at those TWO buildings....

WTC 7 was one of the WTC buildings damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. ALL the WTC buildings were damaged or destroyed that day. ALL OF THEM. Were they the TARGETS or were they COLLATERAL DAMAGE to the collapses of the TARGETS?

WTC7 takes on importance ONLY because Truthers give it importance.

 

[OldWorldOrder]

That's only what The Man wants you to believe!!!

 

[KokomoJojo]

I simply referred to the FACT that many truther posts do not use clear thinking.

and I refer to the FACT that most debunker and official story claims cant even reach to that level and are pure loonacy.

I had a debunker tell me the wtc perimeter was made out of glass if that doent top the tard charts!