WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Fires .... CBS News

reply to post by jprophet420


Yes JP...

I can not disagree with what you are saying. I would have to assume that NIST was quite pissed off not being able to have steel from WTC7.

I am looking forward (but not holding my breath) to the NIST report that is supposed to be released this month.

Where we disagree I would assume is that I do think with the amount of damage reported, the subsequent fires, and the unique design of the building combined caused the collapse.

If

Originally posted by IvanZana
Hey weedwahacker. Mr hjones said that wtc came down with controlled demolitions.

He is a professionl and a expert when it comes to these things.

]

Your post is close to being unreadable. Can you please point out in Mr. Jones credentials where it states his expertise in controlled demolitions?

You posted above that "a expert when it comes to these things.'

thanks,

:TY:

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I would have to assume that NIST was quite pissed off not being able to have steel from WTC7.

Ever considered that all these little unsupported assumptions you make are really all that holds your entire view together?

reply to post by bsbray11


That and 99.99% of the rest of the professional engineering community. Thank you for your input.


Allow me to add that at least when I make an assumption, it is posted as such. Unlike some others in here.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
That and 99.99% of the rest of the professional engineering community. Thank you for your input.

Another great example of one of the many completely unsupported assumptions that hold your view together.

Keep them coming, maybe you'll realize something about yourself.

reply to post by bsbray11


Really?

I think I'm pretty close with the numbers I presented a few pages ago. Not exact mind you, but close.

You should look in the mirror Bsbray... I have noticed that anytime ANYONE goes against your unsubstantiated beliefs you fall into defense mode.

When will you be presenting evidence to support your beliefs?





[edit on 6-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Even if someone had taken a scientific consensus of what most professionals think, it still would not be evidence of anything but the popularity of opinions. I'm sure it would be less than 99%, too, just by the numbers of the general population that have questions. Engineers are regular people, too. So are "truthers." You guys forget that all the time because it's so convenient for you to.

reply to post by bsbray11


Convenience is not what I am talking about. It's reality. Have you ever met a truther outside of the online forums? Honestly, I never have. I bring up 911 CT's during conversations and people look at me like I have two heads.

Anyway, if you would like to continue talking about WTC-7, I am all ears. As far as the little pissing contests go, you and SeymourButz can have at it. I really don't want to indulge in it.

thanks

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Convenience is not what I am talking about. It's reality.

Do you think when you say something is real, it makes it so?

Have you ever met a truther outside of the online forums?

Actually, quite a few.

Honestly, I never have. I bring up 911 CT's during conversations and people look at me like I have two heads.

Maybe they're turned off by the vitriol? Just a thought.

reply to post by bsbray11


Ok, you got the last word.

Let's now stick to WTC7.

thank you

reply to post by ThroatYogurt

I try to conduct my online debates like a gentleman, but I cant continue with people that can't give the same respect. The 99.9% statistic is completely unfounded and you know there is no way you can back it up.

1.. If you cant back up your own facts don't ask others to.
2. If you repeatedly commit logical fallacies, don't complain when others do.

As I stated before there are thousands of professionals speaking out on either side. You can research what they have said and reiterate it or you can do your own research. You can find out if someones credentials are false to discredit them. What you can't do is use unfounded evidence and expect the conversation to remain productive.

Yes, I know, 'troofers' do it all the time. BOTH SIDES do it all the time. Try to deny ignorance. After all if the 'truthers' are so wrong its only a matter of time. The only reason i can see to resort to mudslinging and diversionary tactics (in any debacle, not just this one) is if you don't have a good case.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


There isnt anything to talk about WTC7 you have already solved it.

You have already discredit all the Scientist that dosent agree with your version of WTC7 only the Government version counts.

So we are back with the pan-cake theory of WTC7

Oh well, thats what I get for trying to have a Conversation with a 911 "Gatekeeper".
My bad!

There is not anything to prove here because other than the "Govenment" version, It "wont" be excepted in this thread.

Pro Steven Jones and all others Scientist are "liers" and a wast of "your" time. like you said earlier LETS, NOT TALK ABOUT PRO STEVEN JONES!

I know this thread is about WTC7, thats why I wanted to talk about Pro Jones report concerning WTC7.

I have read many reports about WTC7, Jones Hypothesis come close to the truth for me.

So I will set up my own thread later and discuss WTC7 with people who I feel are NOT the "Gatekeepers" of 911.

ThroatYogurt, There is alot of people who just dont agree with you in this thread, and they feel you are (wrong.)

You dont want to hear thier side of WTC7 (Lets talk about the Government version only).

I have been trying to talk to you about WTC7 but you havent given me a chance befor I can pick a Hypothesis to use, (like you are useing)Hypothesis.

You start your belittling and bashing who Hypothesis I am going to use.
So, only Your Hypothesis is the only one you are really supporting.

So how can "YOU" debate anything when you only stand by one "Hypothesis".
The Government version.

I rest my Case.



[edit on 7/6/2008 by cashlink]

[edit on 7/6/2008 by cashlink]

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

I try to conduct my online debates like a gentleman, but I cant continue with people that can't give the same respect. The 99.9% statistic is completely unfounded and you know there is no way you can back it up.

It is an estimate. I don't think it's very far off.

1.. If you cant back up your own facts don't ask others to.
2. If you repeatedly commit logical fallacies, don't complain when others do.

What haven't I backed up? If it is an opinion I will state it as such. Please show me the fallacies that I have committed.

As I stated before there are thousands of professionals speaking out on either side. You can research what they have said and reiterate it or you can do your own research. You can find out if someones credentials are false to discredit them. What you can't do is use unfounded evidence and expect the conversation to remain productive.

Thousands of professionals? In what?
If you noticed the last post to Bsbray... I really want to get away from the pissing contest. REALLY. Thanks

Back to WTC7

Originally posted by cashlink
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

...........

Pro Steven Jones and all others Scientist are "liers" and a wast of "your" time. like you said earlier LETS, NOT TALK ABOUT PRO STEVEN JONES!

We cal talk all you want. You asked me to look into him. I did. Was anything I posted about him inaccurate?

I know this thread is about WTC7, thats why I wanted to talk about Pro Jones report concerning WTC7.

I have read many reports about WTC7, Jones Hypothesis come close to the truth for me.

I have no problem talking about Mr. Jones and his hypothesis. Instead of just say... " it comes close to the truth for me" .... explain WHY it comes close.

ThroatYogurt, There is alot of people who just dont agree with you in this thread, and they feel you are (wrong.)

I would think so.. this is a conspiracy theory forum.

You dont want to hear thier side of WTC7 (Lets talk about the Government version only).

I have been trying to talk to you about WTC7 but you havent given me a chance befor I can pick a Hypothesis to use, (like you are useing)Hypothesis.

Again.. I am at a CT forum... there are MANY theories that float around. I have read most of them.

You start your belittling and bashing who Hypothesis I am going to use.
So, only Your Hypothesis is the only one you are really supporting.

I have not been shown evidence that supports a CD. Thats all. Until I see the evidence I have to go with the "BEST" hypothesis. Could I be wrong? Absolutely.

So how can "YOU" debate anything when you only stand by one "Hypothesis".
The Government version.

I rest my Case.

See above.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Ok, you got the last word.

That doesn't mean anything to me. You'll come right back tomorrow and say all over again that "99.99%" of engineers agree on something. Especially funny considering only a handful got to actually look at anything.


Maybe I should start saying 99.99% of engineers think 9/11 was an inside job. It at least meets your own standards for correctness.

It is an estimate. I don't think it's very far off.

Do you understand what bias is and how it affects the way people think? You have Zogby polls showing around 50% of New Yorkers with various unanswered questions about 9/11, and yet you somehow think 999 out of 1000 engineers are totally up-to-snuff and in agreement with a report that very few have looked over in any detail, and for which no work is shown? Do you think it's even remotely possible that you make stuff up in your own head to fit your preconceptions? Are you NOT just pulling this number completely out of your ass? Can you admit it to yourself?

I don't even understand how you can think most engineers even KNOW what the official reports say. I know tons of engineers and most of them are happy just to go home at the end of the day and have a beer. Work is work; how many people really read technical reports in their off time? I'm not saying no one does; I'm saying you are completely naive to think that even half of the engineers in this country are nerdy enough to follow this stuff. Maybe they read a news article. Does that qualify them to be worth anything in this discussion? Any engineer's by-definition ignorant opinion on any subject is not worth a damn.

Just clear your head of how many people agree, for two seconds, please. Not only is it ultimately irrelevant anyway, but you can't help but to make stuff up because you don't know. So guess what you are predictably going to be biased towards saying? Stop making stuff up. You will only confuse yourself, if anything. I don't believe you are a psychic.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


You know, he alway has to have the last words, one day when he gets older, he might stop that.

But there is no getting to any "truth" in this thread, you wont have a chance here.

This is a game to him, if you let him, he will run you in "circles" all day and all week long.

NIST, NIST (SEI/ASCE) NIST, NIST 99.99% 99.99%

repeat, repeat, repeat, same videos same sites when will they learn.

911 is not a one sided event.



[edit on 7/7/2008 by cashlink]

reply to post by bsbray11


Bsbray,


Are you on this thread to discuss WTC7? If not I suggest you start a thread in regards to the engineers that are for or against 911 truth etc. If I choose I will see you there. Now cut the sh*t and lets chat about WTC7.

reply to post by cashlink


Cash,

Same message for you. This is WTC7. You have the option to start a new thread discussing the polls. the engineers, your scientists...etc.

Each question you asked, was answered to the best of my ability. Sorry if you don't agree or didn't get the answers you were looking for.

Your mind has been made up. Trust me I'm ok with that.

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Think you might change the title of this thread to :

WTC-7 North Side MASSIVE Liars .... CBS News

Love you debunker person/s

Z

[edit on 7-7-2008 by watchZEITGEISTnow]

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Bsbray,


Are you on this thread to discuss WTC7? If not I suggest you start a thread in regards to the engineers that are for or against 911 truth etc. If I choose I will see you there. Now cut the sh*t and lets chat about WTC7.

Yes, it would be quite inappropriate to cite engineers in such a cut and dried case. 99.9% of people agree with you, you already proveded that.

Thousands of professionals? In what?

Engineering, Aviation, Military, First Responders, Demolition, Chemistry. I've cited (is that a word?) multiple sources throughout the thread.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by jprophet420]