9/11 Collapse Presentation - Gordon Ross, MEng - London 06/08/2007

Originally posted by exponent
So let me get this right. It doesn't matter whether it's inaccurate or not? You don't even bother to check the accuracy of things you post, just post them anyway?

The NIST report is a bunch of theories, but you will quote from it right?

If in your opinion the video is inaccurate then that is up to you, I happen to think that it is a good analysis of the collapse of the towers, and the beams, I'm entitled to that, I posted it because it is interesting and plausible, and others in this thread agree with me. If you don't agree with the video, or find it interesting I really could not care. As I have said, I do not post just for you.

No, posting a video and then refusing to answer vital questions about it is playing a game. You are claiming this video is accurate, but refuse to defend its inaccuracies.

If that is your opinion then you are free to think that, other people in this thread have praised the video, I cannot please everyone. As Already stated to you quite a few times, I posted it because it was interesting and plausible, my actual OP comments were the following:

"His presentation explains where explosives would have been placed to bring the towers down, and analyses the beams in the debris, and other important factors surrounding the collapse of these buildings."

Where in that statement am I saying it is entirely accurate? You are making that up claim up! I'm not saying it is accurate, and I'm not saying it is in accurate, I'm saying it is interesting and very plausible.

I do not have to answer technical questions about every video I post, I posted it for everyone to see, so they can take it as they wish. I do not claim to be a structual engineer, or and explosives technician, I do however think Gordon Ross's presentation is very good, he puts his presentation across well, and his ideas are very plausible.

If they are not to your liking, or if you have any specific questions, then you are free to contact Gordon Ross directly, I'm sure he will be happy to answer any questions you may have about his video presentation.

I have ignored the rest of your questions comments because they are just meaningless immature drivel that are of no interest to me.

Enjoy the video, and do speak to Gordon Ross if you have any further questions.

Originally posted by thegameisup
If in your opinion the video is inaccurate then that is up to you, I happen to think that it is a good analysis of the collapse of the towers, and the beams, I'm entitled to that,

The quality of the analysis is not a matter of opinion. The fact is that it's a poor analysis.

I posted it because it is interesting and plausible, and others in this thread agree with me. If you don't agree with the video, or find it interesting I really could not care. As I have said, I do not post just for you.

So again I say, you post things without regard to their accuracy, and care only about your viewpoint, not the facts.

If they are not to your liking, or if you have any specific questions, then you are free to contact Gordon Ross directly, I'm sure he will be happy to answer any questions you may have about his video presentation.

He has had 5 years to publish an updated analysis. He has not done so.

I have ignored the rest of your questions comments because they are just meaningless immature drivel that are of no interest to me.

Enough said to prove my point. You have no care for the facts involved, only for your opinion, and you post whatever supports your opinion without regard to its accuracy.

Please deny this.

Originally posted by exponent
The quality of the analysis is not a matter of opinion. The fact is that it's a poor analysis.

Yes it is a matter of opinion, and as already stated many time before you are entitled to your opinion. Some people think it's a good presentation, and then there is you that does not like it.

Why do you not agree with the analysis?

So again I say, you post things without regard to their accuracy, and care only about your viewpoint, not the facts.

The facts are in the video, take them any way you so wish.

What do you feel is inaccurate?

He has had 5 years to publish an updated analysis. He has not done so.

Why would he need to update it?

Has NIST updated their hypothesis in recent times?

How do you feel about NIST not updating their hypothesis to include all the analysis of evidence they left out?

Enough said to prove my point. You have no care for the facts involved, only for your opinion, and you post whatever supports your opinion without regard to its accuracy.

I told you many times in this thread, that you are entitled to your opinion, and the facts are in the video.

Do you have your own presentation I can critique?

Why do you keep saying the same things, over and over and over again?

Do you have a limited vocabulary?

Have I ever said in this thread that you are not entitled to your opinion?

Are people not allowed to have a different opinion to you?

What about it do you find inaccurate?