My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition!

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath


Stop messing around and get to the point of providing your definition of "collapsing on its foot print". It is a very important matter for you so let us examine what you mean.

Interesting that you're quite happy to make demands on others, but when someone asks you to source an assertion you've made - indeed an assertion that is central to your argument - you feel quite comfortable not bothering.

Face it, you've been caught out and you're trying not to look silly. It isn't really working.

Only people who look silly are the ones who defend a 9/11 commission report/official story that is not supported by more than 1/2 of the commission members.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Who said this;

The only thing that would convince me that this was an inside job by the government would be the finding of a document commisioning 8 planes to crash into buildings no later than January 1994, all coordinated by a computer system that costs 3.4 billion pounds and doesn't work.

You are like a mugging victim who says that you do not believe in a conspiracy to mug you unless there is a document by the mugger commissioning a mugging against you all coordinated by a computer system that costs 3.4 billion pounds and doesn't work.

The bump on your head, you missing wallet, your kicked out teeth is never going to convince you! Riiiiigggghhht?

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

This is an ongoing conversation about his definitions. You, however, are demanding explanations on 9/11 from an ordinary person who is not accountable to you.

I'm not demanding explanations from you. I'm well aware that you are unable to provide them.

Mind you, if his definition is apparently so important, then a major assertion that props up your argument is also just as vital. And you should probably not feel surprised when people invite you to provide evidence for it. What makes him more accountable for what he claims than you?

You seem not distinguish between who is responsible for 9/11 and who is responsible for his own understanding of a term. You seem confused.

I'm confused by your introduction of this line of thinking. Are you saying that you don't have to provide any evidence but the people who carried out 9/11 - or at least those who you have decided carried out 9/11 - are duty bound to do so to your satisfaction? Why? Do you occupy some sort of position of special privilege?

Or are you just trying to deflect from the fact that you have been unable to provide evidence for a claim you made that props up your argument?

You think I have been caught out? Caught about what?

You are unable to provide evidence of your claims. When asked to do so you protest that no one has the right to ask you. That's true but

- it makes it difficult to take your claims seriously

- it makes you look silly when you demand that others answer your questions.

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup



Only people who look silly are the ones who defend a 9/11 commission report/official story that is not supported by more than 1/2 of the commission members.

But not quite as silly as the people who introduced a demolition expert who 'demolished' their own argument.

With opponents like you it's a wonder they need all those misinformation wonks. Or maybe...

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

You are like a mugging victim who says that you do not believe in a conspiracy to mug you unless there is a document by the mugger commissioning a mugging against you all coordinated by a computer system that costs 3.4 billion pounds and doesn't work.

The bump on your head, you missing wallet, your kicked out teeth is never going to convince you! Riiiiigggghhht?

edit on 14-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure you've grasped the point of my signature. And nice try with the analogy but I don't think that a coordinated terrorist attack that caused thousands of deaths and billions of dollars worth of damage quite compares to your mugging.

I guess I'd be more convinced by the bump on the head and the missing wallet if I didn't find that actually the bump wasn't there and that the wallet turned up in my jacket, despite what some guys on the internet said.

And if, when I asked them to say why they claimed that my wallet was gone, they just refused to answer... well, I wouldn't find that very convincing either.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

,...all coordinated by a computer system that costs 3.4 billion pounds and doesn't work.

No sense of proportion, huh?

There is most definitely an imbalance in that statement. It is silly and irrational.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup



Only people who look silly are the ones who defend a 9/11 commission report/official story that is not supported by more than 1/2 of the commission members.

But not quite as silly as the people who introduced a demolition expert who 'demolished' their own argument.

With opponents like you it's a wonder they need all those misinformation wonks. Or maybe...

Maybe you didnt do to well on reading comprehension in grade school, "My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition"

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

,...all coordinated by a computer system that costs 3.4 billion pounds and doesn't work.

No sense of proportion, huh?

There is most definitely an imbalance in that statement. It is silly and irrational.

edit on 14-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

Again, I think you've missed the point of it. And perhaps you misunderstand the whole concept of exaggerating for humorous effect in order to make a point.

No worries though.

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

Maybe you didnt do to well on reading comprehension in grade school, "My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition"

...include an expert who I disagree with.

Oops.

Hey!!!!

Let's discuss the topic and not each other!!!
Any further bickering will be removed.......


We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

So you have abrogated your right to question the government on 9/11.

No, the right still exist.

Never mind how steel framed structures collapsed from fire for the first time in history....

Please prove that this was the first time in history that it happened.

.....have you not demanded to know why the US and around the WTC was lousy with mossad agents/furniture moving labourers (

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup

Maybe you didnt do to well on reading comprehension in grade school, "My reasons for thinking WTC7 was probably a controlled demolition"

...include an expert who I disagree with.

Oops.

disagree with? What I did was reference Jowenko's belief that WTC7 was a controlled demolition a view that I agree with. What you and other "debunkers" keep bringing up, an irrelevant topic on this thread- again read the title im sure you might get it sooner or later, is Jowenko's view on WTC1 and WTC2.

Your logic is flawed in that you believe that in order to use a reference you must agree with everything that one person says. If that is the case then we would NEVER learn anything from anyone unless we live in a world of uniform thought and beliefs.....

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.[url=http://]http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-1/departments/editors-opinion/elling-out-the-investigation.html[/ url]

Interesting information worth pursuing.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

Just curious, does that building collapse into its own footprint, according to your definition? (i already gave up on you posting a shred of evidence for your NIST is wrong claim).

.
.
.

Don't worry about me attending to your demands. I will post my opinion when I wish and not when you demand it.

edit on 13-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

You claimed to have evidence that NIST's model of WTC7 was missing rigid frames that were present in the actual building, thus invalidating the model.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
.
.
.

Really? Well the NIST model did not have a skin and rigid cross members between between columns and floors. So what else was left out in model in your considered assessment?
.
.
.
The bottom line is that the NIST computer model that you herald with such authority bears no resemblance to the actual collapse of WTC 7.

Here is an example of rigid members in the form of bracings; where are they in the NIST models. A timber framed house must have rigid members so a multi-story building like WTC 7 must have multiple rigid members on every floor. Because of how the architect designed the fenestration, the rigid members would have been on stairwells and liftshafts. Merely pre-cutting rigid members in lift shafts would cause a sudden and catastrophic collapses if the foundations of the building was attacked, say with explosions to columns in the basement.
.
.
.
WHERE ARE THE RIGID MEMBERS IN THE NIST MODEL?

link


We are ready when you are, MI5. We eagerly await your evidence. When you get around to posting your evidence or argument, you should probably start a thread about it. There will be a lot of interest.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

Just curious, does that building collapse into its own footprint, according to your definition? (i already gave up on you posting a shred of evidence for your NIST is wrong claim).

.
.
.

Don't worry about me attending to your demands. I will post my opinion when I wish and not when you demand it.

edit on 13-5-2012 by MI5edtoDeath because: (no reason given)

You claimed to have evidence that NIST's model of WTC7 was missing rigid frames that were present in the actual building, thus invalidating the model.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
.
.
.

Really? Well the NIST model did not have a skin and rigid cross members between between columns and floors. So what else was left out in model in your considered assessment?
.
.
.
The bottom line is that the NIST computer model that you herald with such authority bears no resemblance to the actual collapse of WTC 7.

Here is an example of rigid members in the form of bracings; where are they in the NIST models. A timber framed house must have rigid members so a multi-story building like WTC 7 must have multiple rigid members on every floor. Because of how the architect designed the fenestration, the rigid members would have been on stairwells and liftshafts. Merely pre-cutting rigid members in lift shafts would cause a sudden and catastrophic collapses if the foundations of the building was attacked, say with explosions to columns in the basement.
.
.
.
WHERE ARE THE RIGID MEMBERS IN THE NIST MODEL?

link


We are ready when you are, MI5. We eagerly await your evidence. When you get around to posting your evidence or argument, you should probably start a thread about it. There will be a lot of interest.

edit on 5/14/2012 by DrEugeneFixer because: adding link and quote

I think your memory is poor and I still don't quite understand what interest you have in my business with PLB. I am still waiting for him to clarify what he thinks is the term "collapsing on its footprint". This query is specific to PLB. However you and PLB are holding me to account for explaining 9/11. If you are desperate for attention, try it on with someone else.

I will no longer debate with you on this matter.

As for the Nist bracing issue, I will post a new thread on it when I am ready. You badgered me for it yesterday and again today. I will no longer discuss this matter with you.

Any subsequent baiting by you will result in my linking this comment to yours.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

...I still don't quite understand what interest you have with my business with PLB. I am still waiting for him to clarify what he thinks is the term "collapsing on its footprint". This query is specific to PLB.

This is a public message board. Like I mentioned before, any private business should really be handled by personal messages. What posters post in threads is fair game for discussion.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath

As for the Nist bracing issue, I will post a new thread on it when I am ready.

I CAN'T WAIT.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
Any subsequent baiting by you will result in my linking this comment to yours.

That sounds like some kind of threat, but go ahead and link to whatever you wish.

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
I think your memory is poor and I still don't quite understand what interest you have in my business with PLB. I am still waiting for him to clarify what he thinks is the term "collapsing on its footprint".

How weird. And I though it was me who was waiting for you to clarify that, as it was you who used the term, and me who asked what you meant by it. Well, I am not really waiting, as I know you will dodge that simple question forever, for obvious reasons.

But it is good to read that you finally decided to give some of those "irrelevant points" (as you call it) called evidence for your assertion that NIST forgot to model rigid members.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by MI5edtoDeath
I think your memory is poor and I still don't quite understand what interest you have in my business with PLB. I am still waiting for him to clarify what he thinks is the term "collapsing on its footprint".

How weird. And I though it was me who was waiting for you to clarify that, as it was you who used the term, and me who asked what you meant by it. Well, I am not really waiting, as I know you will dodge that simple question forever, for obvious reasons.

But it is good to read that you finally decided to give some of those "irrelevant points" (as you call it) called evidence for your assertion that NIST forgot to model rigid members.

MI5 did use the term "collapse on its own footprint" it was YOU who said it couldnt be applied because there was minor debris (in comparison to the entire structure of WTC7) that had spilled over... OS'er such as yourself live in a fairytale world where you must resort to childish play on semantics in order to maintain your false sense of security whenever valid points are brought up to OS'ers you guys just use ridiculous technicalities to "debunk" evidence.

Just take a look around at your world today. Private Military Corporations are the core of our economy and have been reaping the rewards since 9/11, the people in TRUEpower now have the ground work to imprison/assassinate political dissidents ref. NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 2012, ENEMY EXPATRIATION ACT, PATRIOT ACT, FEDERAL RESTRICTED BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS IMPROVEMENT ACT. The war in the middle east continues to grow, as recent as April the white house was saying Tehran (thats in Iran in case your ignorance has denied you the knowledge of geography) had a play in training the 9/11 Hijackers. So tell me how is it that you believe the Conspiracy Theory that 19 Muslim Fanatics living in caves were able to plot out and execute the most devastating attack on one of the worlds most sophisticated military defense systems in the world because they hate our freedoms?

reply to post by PancakeTheoryNeedsSyrup


So, is "minor debris spilling over" the official evidence denial statement? You now seem to accept that the building collapsed outside its footprint, but you are reverting back to your original opinion by glossing it over with labeling the material outside the footprint as "minor debris."

I heard the same thing from the people saying that the damage caused by Tower 1 to WTC 7 was minimal. They kept saying "minor damage," when firefighters were very, very clear on the extent of the visible damage. They did not stutter. They described it for what it was, and it was not pretty.

I'd like to see how far people will go to continue holding their illogically based beliefs.