Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

page: 32
79
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Epistemological confusion and the illusion of validity.

Exponent is to be complemented for his succinct and rational illustration of bsbray11's convoluted and contradictory thinking.

Bsbray11 illustrated one of the characteristics of 9/11 TruthThink that should be evident to all on both sides. In his OP, Bsbray11 set up the rules and constraints under which the discussion would take place about the supposed 20 "unanswered questions." He was very clear:


"Let me stress that personal speculation regarding any of these questions is not going to settle any of them definitely, so they will continue to be unanswered until addressed by proper investigation."
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Bsbray11's statement is based on several premises which none of us should accept as given:

1. The "questions" are automatically legitimate because bsbray11 says so. Any objectives standards are ruled out by fiat.
2. There is no legitimate answer to any of bsbray11's questions since "they will continue to be unanswered until addressed by proper investigation." So, is there is any reason to attempt to answer them?
3. Answering his "questions" violates stipulation #2. Any legitimate answer by rational standards can be dismissed as "personal speculation."
4. We are required, according to bsbray11, to accept his "conditions" of evidence and proof and his stipulation that he is sole arbiter.

In other words, bsbray11 has constructed his own rules by which everyone else has to play. He wrote the law, he is the judge, and he is the jury.

But bsbray11 cheerfully doesn't play by his own rules. Why should he have to? He can do anything he wants. He does so by stating:


"I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition. You know, literally pushing everything out of the way with some type of explosion. For which I can provide witness testimonies (from a police officer no less), seismic data, etc."
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So while none of us can use evidence since bsbray11's questions "...will continue to be unanswered until addressed by proper investigation," he applies no such restrictions to himself. As I have repeatedly demonstrated, bsbray11 will claim his "questions" have not been answered -- and cannot be answered until and unless there is another investigation -- HE allows himself to "answer" them by making claims he doesn't have to support.

Bsbray11 reveals the fraudulent nature of his self-appointment as lawmaker, judge, and jury, the very assault on the scientific method he claims to champion but tries to crush under his boots, and the true nature of 9/11 TruthThink, in this response to exponent:


Exponent:
You clearly believe in some sort of alternate theory, and so you should have a vested interest in developing this theory and showing it to be correct.


BB11:
No, that's someone else's job, and I don't know why you can't understand this. All I have to do is find problems with the government reports. I don't have to wipe their butts too and change their diapers, ie write a whole new report to replace their trash. I only come here and ask rhetorical questions that I know have no answers just to remind hard-headed people that they don't know everything already.


But we haven't let bsbray11 get away with it. He doesn't get to play by his rules. No way. He doesn't get to claim his "questions" are valid or that they have no answers. In the reality that he avoids and rejects at all costs, bsbray11 still has to play by the same rules we all do. No matter how much he whines and hand-waves, he does not get to exempt himself from the rules.

Has bsbray11 "found problems" with the NIST report as he claims? No. He just claimed there were problems but could not articulate any reason to reject the NIST report on WTC 7. He flew into a fury at the admonition that he has to support his own claims and refute NIST. Of course, bsbray11 cannot refute NIST, so he runs and retreats to his own rules: "Nobody can answer my questions. I don't have to do anything!" In turn, we do the obvious: we reject his unsupported claims. Is bsbray11 too dumb to understand that? YOU decide.

Has bsbray11 demonstrated "...the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition?" No. He just claimed it. And he did so by violating his own rules that he requires everyone else to follow.

Our little dictatorial emperor indeed wears no clothes. Bsbray11 ducks and dodges but he fell victim to the illusion of validity and it's come back to bite him.

Exponent has done the best job here in exposing through reason, logic, and patience the inane irrationality of a 9/11 "Truther." It's high time bsbray11 recognize that his own game is up and concede his intellectual defeat graciously - if that's possible for a "Truther."




posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
duplicate
[edit on 9-11-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I believe Bsbray11 has done a wonderful job of exposing the lies in the OS.
The OS believers have done a lousy job of defending the OS lie. Bsbray11 has punch hole after hole in the OS and he has done a wonderful job of exposing GL on these 911 forums.

Most of you OS believers can only ridicule, insult, and do character assignations because you refuse to debate the real facts. These are your only tools you have left because, if you are to debate the real facts then you will lose and then you will have to come to terms that 911 was an inside job. Nevertheless, for now your loyalty to our government and the military and your patriotism is more important than the truth.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


There is nothing complicated or wrong about what I am asking.

For question 6 in particular, which is what we have been discussing, I am asking how WTC7 free-fell for 2.25 seconds while the building was still "collapsing" -- which means it would have to have been doing work. Free-fall by definition means all the kinetic energy of the falling building is being preserved.

NIST assumed this was consistent with their model but didn't verify that assumption with any calculations based on the structure that would have been remaining at that point in time.

All you have done is go to great lengths to misconstrue the question, and try to say the question does not deserve an answer.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


I'd still like to see evidence of massive fires across entire floors and multiple
floors that explain all core columns failing at the same time to bring
the building straight down.

Can anyone help me? There are nearly 1000 A&E's that show how fire
alone could not have accomplished what demo experts take weeks and
months to plan.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Look up the definition of "proof" and your mystery will be solved. If I knew how to prove it beforehand then I would already agree with you, having seen your proof, obviously. As it stands I do not agree with you and don't think you can prove it because it's wrong.

The logical twists keep on coming. You may as well give up here bsbray, you're not fooling anyone any more. You have repeatedly made positive claims throughout this thread, including in the paragraph I just quoted: "it's wrong". You rely on no evidence whatsoever for these assertions, and insist that you also have no burden of proof.

Despite this, you refuse to even look at any of the answers I gave in more depth, because apparently unless I do it for you, the 'official story' is in doubt. Another completely illogical leap.


Sorry, you don't get to pick what "groups" I'm in, except in your biased head, which doesn't amount to anything.

You're a truther, because you put forward controlled demolition theories. You have every opportunity to pick and choose what groups you belong to when you make positive claims. By making the positive claim that the only explanation for WTC7s collapse is controlled demolition, you have joined the truthers.

There is no way around this bsbray, it's akin to saying you believe that Jesus died for our sins, that he was resurrected and forms part of a holy trinity with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but how dare I suggest you are a christian.


Trying to force me into a group I myself don't claim to be a part of, that you think of derogatively, is trying to discriminate against me.

No, it isn't. Not in any way.


They just assumed there was nothing worth addressing about it, which doesn't make sense given how many people have had a problem with it. I don't care if your next excuse is that it isn't a report for "laymen." Whip out your slide-rule and break it down for me, then. You haven't been able to do that, either.

Yes, I have. I have repeatedly explained to you exactly the mechanism behind this free fall collapse. I have shown you the facts and figures from the NIST report on this matter and laid out a clear mechanism and timescale.

Just because you don't want to hear it, doesn't mean I didn't say it. Please don't make such silly false claims.


The evidence DOESN'T EXIST. That's why you can't answer any of the 20 questions with positive evidence!!! Your posts are turning into an ignorant mantra that you refuse to put any more thought into. Are you stuck in a loop?

Question 4: www.flight77.info...

If you spent a little more time investigating rather than posting about how you're so good nobody can answer your questions, perhaps you would find some answers. That's what this site is about right? Denying ignorance? You are currently embracing it.


The simple fact that they are unanswered casts doubt.

No, it doesn't. You have not found Vout in the challenge I set you. Does that mean that I lied about it and there is no Vout? that the resistor network is a sham conducted by TPTB? Or does it mean you haven't done the research properly?

It means the latter.


Sorry, this is supposed to read, "I apologize for twisting Jennings' testimony to fit to my own pre-conceived ideas."

Sorry this quote is supposed to read "Oh he never actually identified anything and I am unable to support my claim so I am reverting to posting insults instead"?


And I asked, what the hell difference would it make in terms of failing structure within the building? It would still be failed. The difference is small-minded people (cough) now can give themselves an excuse to say the explosions weren't part of an obvious demolition sequence as if they had all gone off in regular intervals just seconds before the building dropped. But even if that happened I have a feeling you would be here saying it was a series of transformer explosions.

Ah so once again you have invoked a nonexistent hypothesis to explain things with no logic whatsoever other than "Loud noise = possible explosion = maybe demolition".

EVIDENCE. You have been crowing about it for 30 pages, but once again you feel justified in accepting something without any backing because it supports your position.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Already you are putting words in my mouth. I said they would have to judge that based on what was seen in photos/videos, that this would be the sole exception of having to look for this data as opposed to just pumping it out through formulas.

The sole exception? Actually no!
a) Office contents and layout, mass distribution
b) WTC1 Impact damage
c) Fires (as acknowledged)
d) Fire induced damage

In fact the only thing NIST do have good reference material for is the WTC7 construction and in the report they very clearly do exactly what you have asked with the exception of the above 4 criteria. You are once again denying reality, rather than denying ignorance.


Here's another idea: allow the WTC investigation more money than the investigation into Bill's BJ

How much money have you contributed so far?


Because they plug in arbitrary parameters to find a "best case" for their theory. There is nothing objective about that data when they are pruning it.

In your previous post you pointed out how you used error margins. Yet again you claim NIST have picked an arbitrary number which you must be insinuating is not within error margins.

Please show any evidence for this claim.

I'm also cutting out a bunch of your response because all you do is repeat yourself while ignoring the logical requirements of your text. You claim NIST violated error margins but without evidence this is what you have been so quick to label "personal speculation" and has apparently no place in this thread.


What criteria would you say they used to select one case of data over another?

Similarity to evidence from 911 of course. I've pointed this out many many times. What other standard of evidence is there to select upon?


It was never a secret that you intentionally used horribly inaccurate resistors in your example. What I would do is rebuild the entire circuit using more accurate resistors. You still haven't shown how a 10% tolerance over and over and over many times relates in any way to how WTC7 must have been investigated.

What would more accurate resistors change? It would just mean I had to specify more decimal places, making everything slightly more annoying.

The points I were making were these
1. Errors multiply
Depending on the system you are investigating, a 1% error can be easily compounded to a 10% error. This is something NIST very much had to battle with as every state of their simulation is based upon a previous one, there is no way to avoid errors increasing.
2. Problems with lots of simultaneous variables are exceptionally time consuming to solve
The reason I set you this task specifically, is because I engineered that resistor network to have the following qualities:
a) It can be simplified significantly
b) Without simplification, it is incredibly time consuming to analyse
c) It can be analysed in more than one way
d) There is genuinely missing information you have no possible hope of recovering

In order to investigate this, and to provide realistic values so that Vout matches within a reasonable margin of error, you will have to do everything NIST did in their investigation. You will not be able to provide "the full range of possibilities" because unless you have access to enough machines, even investigating 3 different values per resistor will take you well over a decade.

If it was possible for NIST to do as you ask, I am sure they would have, because it would have lead to a more accurate simulation. However, while my simulator run takes 0.005s. NISTs WTC7 simulator runs could take months and so they had to simplify to a total of 2 full runs.

All you have done here is to post some questions, claim they cast doubt on the 'official story' and then absolutely refuse to look at any evidence, to research on your own, or to even carry out a relatively simple task. All the while crowing about how nobody has been able to answer your questions.

Of course we have not been able to answer your questions to your standard, because nothing other than "911 was an inside job" will suit you. You then go on to complain that I call you a "truther".

Deny Ignorance, don't embrace it.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
I'd still like to see evidence of massive fires across entire floors and multiple
floors that explain all core columns failing at the same time to bring
the building straight down.

Who claims that 'all core columns failed at the same time'? The official story doesn't, so are you just making things up?


Can anyone help me? There are nearly 1000 A&E's that show how fire
alone could not have accomplished what demo experts take weeks and
months to plan.

Can you point me to a single publication by these 1000 A&Es? I would like to read their research into the matter.

Incidentally, no demolition expert has ever taken down a structure anywhere near as big as WTC7, and WTC 1, 2 and 7 all did significant damage to surrounding buildings, something controlled demolitions by definition avoid.

Nothing in this post has any validity, you are just repeating facts from a fantasy world.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
For those attacking "Truthers" what rational motivates you? By definition they are simply seeking the TRUTH! To call those seeking truth "irrational" is quite ignorant. Combating any quest for TRUTH is illogical.


More ridiculous than opposing TRUTH is to boastfully strut around these threads claiming explanation while completely ignoring most of the questions asked? Until you can explain all of it, you've explained nothing!

If the official story is accurate, why is Bin Laden not even a suspect to the crime?



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zerbst
More ridiculous than opposing TRUTH is to boastfully strut around these threads claiming explanation while completely ignoring most of the questions asked? Until you can explain all of it, you've explained nothing!

(emphasis mine)

So, you don't believe in gravity, protons, spaceflight, computing, buildings, weather? None of these are fully explained, but we have good theories for all of them.

Why do people make such weird claims without thinking?


If the official story is accurate, why is Bin Laden not even a suspect to the crime?

He is.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
"i]"So, you don't believe in gravity, protons, spaceflight, computing, buildings, weather? None of these are fully explained, but we have good theories for all of them."

This to me is grasping at straws to try to make a point. We can prove these things exist and can predict their behavior by reproducible scientific testing. The building collapses on 9/11 should be studied in ways that adhere more strongly to the scientific method that are reproducible with physical test models.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
The building collapses on 9/11 should be studied in ways that adhere more strongly to the scientific method that are reproducible with physical test models.

How should the NIST report have adhered more strongly to the scientific method? You realise they did build physical test models for things like fire simulation right?



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
How should the NIST report have adhered more strongly to the scientific method? You realise they did build physical test models for things like fire simulation right?


Can you post links? If you're talking about the Twin Tower report, they didn't produce anywhere near the data they assumed in their models despite them using an incredible amount of heat in a small area, and NIST said they were only for 'calibrating computer simulations' anyway and ignored the implications of those results in their final hypothesis.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
Look up the definition of "proof" and your mystery will be solved. If I knew how to prove it beforehand then I would already agree with you, having seen your proof, obviously. As it stands I do not agree with you and don't think you can prove it because it's wrong.

The logical twists keep on coming.


You said you don't think NIST could have done a better job with their investigation.

All I said: prove it.

You are having such a hard time with this.


A formal proof or derivation is a finite sequence of sentences (called well-formed formulas in the case of a formal language) each of which is an axiom or follows from the preceding sentences in the sequence by a rule of inference. The last sentence in the sequence is a theorem of a formal system. The notion of theorem is not in general effective, therefore there may be no method by which we can always find a proof of a given sentence or determine that none exists. The concept of natural deduction is a generalization of the concept of proof.


en.wikipedia.org...


You may as well give up here bsbray, you're not fooling anyone any more.


Backing up your claims would be the sensible thing to do. Posting crap like this, like jthomas always does, is just going to result in 60 more pages of thread.


Despite this, you refuse to even look at any of the answers I gave in more depth, because apparently unless I do it for you, the 'official story' is in doubt. Another completely illogical leap.


Not at all. You haven't resolved any of the questions. All you've done is post conjecture, crap like, "the eutectic that ate through the steel must have somehow formed in the debris pile," which is total speculation to begin with and not proven in the least, but then from there, you can't even explain how all the right ingredients could have just coincidentally came together in just the right proportions and right particle sizes, and how the sulfur was separated from all the other components of drywall. When you can't answer questions like that, guess what? Not only did you not provide a legitimate answer to begin with, those answers don't even make a damned bit of sense short of some miracle happening, unless you have a better idea you haven't posted yet.

You already admitted once that your answers were just speculation. Why do you change your tune now? Because you finally realize you have no case and you want to back track to cling tighter onto things that you now realize make no sense? Do you even WANT to know what really happened, or do you just want a case that you can argue with people over the internet with? Because so far you've got neither, and you might want to make up your mind.



Sorry, you don't get to pick what "groups" I'm in, except in your biased head, which doesn't amount to anything.

You're a truther


Sorry, wrong again.


If I'm a Truther, then you're a Nazi. If you get to make up your own rules, so do I.


There is no way around this bsbray, it's akin to saying you believe that Jesus died for our sins, that he was resurrected and forms part of a holy trinity with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, but how dare I suggest you are a christian.


Right, none of that makes any sense to me either but I have no more faith in your competence just because you realize something I figured out on my own when I was 10. No offense to Christians, believe what you want.



Trying to force me into a group I myself don't claim to be a part of, that you think of derogatively, is trying to discriminate against me.

No, it isn't. Not in any way.


Bull. The only people using the word "truther" are you "debunkers" and you use it in a derogative way. If moderators hadn't called off the use of the word "twoofer" in this thread you'd probably be using it, too. I never joined such a group, ignorant people like you force the name upon me simply because tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people entertain different ideas than you about 9/11 and you need some psychological crutch to make up for the cognitive dissonance of knowing that fact.


Yes, I have. I have repeatedly explained to you exactly the mechanism behind this free fall collapse. I have shown you the facts and figures from the NIST report on this matter and laid out a clear mechanism and timescale.


No, you haven't. The timescale does not make a rat's ass difference and I've already explained that a ridiculous number of times. It just goes right through your head without you processing it. But I'll say it again. Any period of free-fall during the "collapse" means no work is being done when the building is SUPPOSED to be doing work. There. Maybe this time it will sink in? No? Okay, didn't think so. What were you saying about Christians believing something stupid?



If you spent a little more time investigating rather than posting about how you're so good nobody can answer your questions, perhaps you would find some answers.


Now you take your inability to answer my questions as me putting on like I'm better than everybody else I guess. No, my understanding of 9/11 is just better than yours. Because I realize these questions have yet to be legitimate addressed, but you do not. So you pull out all number of speculations and conjectures. That's not what I've been asking for, my friend.



The simple fact that they are unanswered casts doubt.

No, it doesn't. You have not found Vout in the challenge I set you. Does that mean that I lied about it and there is no Vout?


You said yourself the output could be pinned within a single volt or two. The "official story" can't even be pinned between that few possibilities. The possibility of an inside job can still fit precisely in the cracks and holes left in the full story by the questions on the main page that remain unresolved to this day. And speculating about them without hard information is about as useful as pissing in the wind.



Sorry, this is supposed to read, "I apologize for twisting Jennings' testimony to fit to my own pre-conceived ideas."

Sorry this quote is supposed to read "Oh he never actually identified anything and I am unable to support my claim so I am reverting to posting insults instead"?


Anyone who wants to see that you intentionally misconstrued Barry Jennings' own testimony about explosions going off in WTC7 to fit with your preconceptions, in a classic case of bias, can just read your posts above. He was there, you weren't, he worked there, yet you think you know better than him what he experienced.


Ah so once again you have invoked a nonexistent hypothesis to explain things with no logic whatsoever other than "Loud noise = possible explosion = maybe demolition".


Way to weasel out of defending what you were originally saying. We have been here before. You will later claim there were no loud explosions indicative of a demolition. When I keep telling you these explosions are just that. And that it does not matter if they set a "charge" off 5 hours before the total collapse ensues, or only 5 seconds, that building is still going to fall. The only effect is to confuse simple-minded people, or people with an attention span of only 30 seconds. Ie your typical American.



EVIDENCE. You have been crowing about it for 30 pages, but once again you feel justified in accepting something without any backing because it supports your position.


I have not accepted anything specific. I am working with ideas I myself consider very vague and am unhappy with. However, they still make a much better case in the end than what NIST has offered, simply because NIST also didn't prove anything in their report. And I keep asking questions related to this and not getting straightforward answers, or any answer at all really. Just repeatedly misconstruing the question or telling me it doesn't need an answer. I have seen both numerous times on this thread. But not an answer.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


(Piles of bsbray11's über-Truther denial snipped)


However, they still make a much better case in the end than what NIST has offered, simply because NIST also didn't prove anything in their report.


I rest my case.

See www.abovetopsecret.com... above.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


When are you going to post something of substance, jthomas? I realize you've given up on trying to resolve any of the 20 questions. You never even touched 17 or 18 of them with so much as a 10-foot pole.


And do you really think no one sees through you triple-posting that rant just so it would make the first post on the new thread page?
I have seen your tactics long enough.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
As an interested observer of this thread, I get the impression that some people are so earnest in accepting and defending the government's authority as truth they overlook the fact that truth should be the authority, not the government.

It seems obvious to most who research 9/11 that if nothing else there were extensive efforts made in covering up and concealing evidence, so the truth is not known.

Since the truth is not known, we must push forward with good science. It is apparent that bsbray believes in good science and is a true skeptic. A good researcher, is not a proponent of a particular point of view, but remains cognizant of the fact that trials finding support for or refuting a hypothesis are both valuable in our quest for understanding. Seeing and believing the data, both in support of or refutation of a hypothesis, is the primary goal in scientific inquiry.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Can you post links? If you're talking about the Twin Tower report, they didn't produce anywhere near the data they assumed in their models despite them using an incredible amount of heat in a small area, and NIST said they were only for 'calibrating computer simulations' anyway and ignored the implications of those results in their final hypothesis.

I don't understand what you are saying in this paragraph. You acknowledge that the high heat output was for calibration, but make it seem as if NIST changed their mind? They did not, but here is the link you will need to learn about their fire simulation:
wtc.nist.gov...


Originally posted by bsbray11
You said you don't think NIST could have done a better job with their investigation.
All I said: prove it.
You are having such a hard time with this.

Is it surprising I am having a hard time? You have asked me to prove something which has no clearly defined standard of proof, in an argument where you reject evidence soley based on your own bias.

I am not even foolish enough to attempt it without pointing this out, I also have to point out the part of your quote you apparently missed:


A formal proof or derivation is
...
The notion of theorem is not in general effective, therefore there may be no method by which we can always find a proof of a given sentence or determine that none exists. The concept of natural deduction is a generalization of the concept of proof.

emphasis mine.


Backing up your claims would be the sensible thing to do. Posting crap like this, like jthomas always does, is just going to result in 60 more pages of thread.

Nothing is going to resolve this thread, as you have appointed yourself the judge and jury and apparently require video evidence of every event that occurs, otherwise you judge it not to occur. Example given below.


Not at all. You haven't resolved any of the questions. All you've done is post conjecture, crap like, "the eutectic that ate through the steel must have somehow formed in the debris pile," which is total speculation to begin with and not proven in the least, but then from there, you can't even explain how all the right ingredients could have just coincidentally came together in just the right proportions and right particle sizes, and how the sulfur was separated from all the other components of drywall. When you can't answer questions like that, guess what? Not only did you not provide a legitimate answer to begin with, those answers don't even make a damned bit of sense short of some miracle happening, unless you have a better idea you haven't posted yet.

Yes how could materials possibly come together just after the collapse of 220 acres worth of skyscraper? Why it is as if both skyscrapers generated significant amounts of debris containing these materials!

Seriously, this argument is illogical to begin with and perhaps indicative of your need for more serious care. How exactly do you think the materials came together? Drywall was probably the most abundant material in the towers, and is primarily calcium sulphate.

Of course you want me to prove it came together, which is of course impossible. Are you expecting me to have video footage of this eutectic forming? Will you then deny that it exists because I don't have the chemical analysis to show at what rate the steel was eroded?

More Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt from someone who doesn't seem to require any evidence at all when making claims, but will not accept anything that contradicts him without evidence no reasonable person could expect.


You already admitted once that your answers were just speculation. Why do you change your tune now?

Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. Some of them were speculation, some were not.


Because you finally realize you have no case and you want to back track to cling tighter onto things that you now realize make no sense?

I'm sorry, but when I pointed out you invented theories that made no sense, you seem to think they require disproving, but now you claim this of me, and that I need to prove things. Which is it?


Do you even WANT to know what really happened,

I believe we do know what really happened, the evidence strongly favours it. You yourself admit that you are not a proponent of any specific alternate theory, meaning that you do not have one that can compete.


or do you just want a case that you can argue with people over the internet with?

You started this thread, not me, so you should be asking yourself these questions.


If I'm a Truther, then you're a Nazi. If you get to make up your own rules, so do I.

(emphasis mine)
I had no idea you were such an offensive human being. I'll be reporting this of course.


Right, none of that makes any sense to me either but I have no more faith in your competence just because you realize something I figured out on my own when I was 10. No offense to Christians, believe what you want.

None of it makes any sense but you figured it out on your own? You are losing the ability to even write a coherent paragraph.


Bull. The only people using the word "truther" are you "debunkers" and you use it in a derogative way.

Derogatory is not Discrimination. They are two different words meaning two different things.


If moderators hadn't called off the use of the word "twoofer" in this thread you'd probably be using it, too.

I have never used 'twoofer' except in this context. Yet again you make a claim with no evidence.


I never joined such a group, ignorant people like you force the name upon me simply because tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people entertain different ideas than you about 9/11 and you need some psychological crutch to make up for the cognitive dissonance of knowing that fact.

Like I said, that's akin to someone claiming that atheists push the christian label on people who hold christian beliefs. You put forward theories of controlled demolition, therefore you are a truther, there is no escaping it except to not put forward these theories without evidence.


No, you haven't. The timescale does not make a rat's ass difference and I've already explained that a ridiculous number of times. It just goes right through your head without you processing it. But I'll say it again. Any period of free-fall during the "collapse" means no work is being done when the building is SUPPOSED to be doing work. There. Maybe this time it will sink in? No?

Who says the building is supposed to be doing work? NIST certainly doesn't, I certainly haven't, could it be you are inventing criteria for complaint?


Okay, didn't think so. What were you saying about Christians believing something stupid?

I wasn't, perhaps you should read my posts more carefully instead of pretending I said things I did not.


Now you take your inability to answer my questions as me putting on like I'm better than everybody else I guess. No, my understanding of 9/11 is just better than yours.

I very much doubt that, why is it you are unaware of the answers to your questions if your knowledge is so vast?


You said yourself the output could be pinned within a single volt or two. The "official story" can't even be pinned between that few possibilities.

So let me get this straight. You are unable to answer a simple 25 element problem to any greater accuracy than a 20% variation, but you somehow expect NIST to be able to simulate a 47 storey office building and reproduce its behaviors exactly?

Reply continued in next post

edited for minor grammatical, spelling and formatting errors.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by exponent]



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

The possibility of an inside job can still fit precisely in the cracks and holes left in the full story by the questions on the main page that remain unresolved to this day.

Yet another positive claim. We don't know that an 'inside job' can fit in these cracks because you nor anyone else has yet to come up with a hypothesis. How can you claim that something that doesn't exist, fits in cracks you cannot explain, in a theory you don't understand?


Anyone who wants to see that you intentionally misconstrued Barry Jennings' own testimony about explosions going off in WTC7 to fit with your preconceptions, in a classic case of bias, can just read your posts above. He was there, you weren't, he worked there, yet you think you know better than him what he experienced.

No, I don't think I know better than him. I just happen to know what he actually said. You apparently do not, because this was your response to me:


Originally posted by exponent
The lobby was not destroyed in WTC7 until the collapse of WTC1


Originally posted by bsbray11
Not according to Jennings' testimony. Unless you are just changing it on your whim now to fit with your already-formed opinions.

One would expect you to provide evidence of his "testimony" to support this, but apparently you do not remember it well enough. Just for laughs, here is a video of the lobby of WTC7 after the collapse of WTC2, and before Barry Jennings reached it. He did not actually escape the building until after the collapse of WTC1.
video.google.com...


Way to weasel out of defending what you were originally saying. We have been here before. You will later claim there were no loud explosions indicative of a demolition. When I keep telling you these explosions are just that.

If you believe they are indicative of a demolition, you must have evidence that they are, in order to prove it, like you have been saying over and over again. Without evidence, you are literally resorting to "loud noise = possible explosion = maybe demolition", except perhaps you are going even further by assuming probable or even definite demolition.

Who knows, you clearly don't apply your standards universally.


And that it does not matter if they set a "charge" off 5 hours before the total collapse ensues, or only 5 seconds, that building is still going to fall. The only effect is to confuse simple-minded people, or people with an attention span of only 30 seconds. Ie your typical American.

It does not matter? You don't think perhaps that if a firefighter saw the damage from this charge, they would know what it was? You don't think that perhaps if the calculations were incorrect this would cause the structure to fail in a way unexplainable?

Do you often allow such horrifying possibilities in your plans to destroy a building for no reason whatsoever? I mean really, you are speculating harder than anything I have posted in this thread, despite having a big chip on your shoulder about how you want proof. It's just sad to watch.


I have not accepted anything specific. I am working with ideas I myself consider very vague and am unhappy with. However, they still make a much better case in the end than what NIST has offered, simply because NIST also didn't prove anything in their report.

So what you're saying is your apparently unqualified and uneducated opinion about the structural behaviour of WTC7 is more convincing to you than a thorough analysis by several hundred if not thousand licensed and practising engineers?

Thank you for demonstrating your bias explicitly.


And I keep asking questions related to this and not getting straightforward answers, or any answer at all really. Just repeatedly misconstruing the question or telling me it doesn't need an answer. I have seen both numerous times on this thread. But not an answer.

You have made it clear that you are not interested in an answer, rather continuing speculation from which you can select the most pleasing demolition theory to post in support for, and then deny that you do actually support it.

Once again I point out my challenge. For someone with the resources of a university or college at your disposal, you should have already solved my little puzzle shouldn't you?

If you want NIST to be able to prove things with this unbelievable amount of rigor, how is it that you are unable to even analyse a resistor network? Does this make sense to you? Is a 25 resistor network somehow a more complex simulation project than a 600ft high building with multi floor fires and structural damage?

Of course it isn't, so why haven't you completed my challenge?



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
As an interested observer of this thread, I get the impression that some people are so earnest in accepting and defending the government's authority as truth they overlook the fact that truth should be the authority, not the government.


Only a true-believing Truther would ever make such a silly statement as thinking anyone is defending the government for anything.

It is only 9/11 "Truthers" who claim the "government" has something to do with 9/11. We rational people understand that you have never been able to to demonstrate one iota of evidence that the "government" had anything to do with 9/11. We'll continue to do what we always do - demand that "Truthers" support their claims and refute the evidence you all so desperately avoid.

As we can see by our not-so-friendly Über-Truther here, he will never provide us one bit of evidence to doubt NIST's report on WTC 7.

The subject matter in this thread remains the inability of any of you "Truthers" to demonstrate that NIST's evidence, methodologies, computer simulations, and conclusions are wrong in any way whatsoever. We don't have to do anything but wait around for you all to finally get off your butts and support your claims. If you don't, you'll just keep whining here like you have done for the last 8 years.

The burden of proof remains on your shoulders, just where it has always been.





new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join