No, but you are being deliberately evasive. YOU brought up the matter of lateral direction to this energy, and then when he and I try to engage YOUR point, you evade. Evasive maneuvers by posters suggest there is something to hide. Such evasive maneuvers suggest the original poster is thinking something like "How in the hell did I bring that up", or "I better not talk about that anymore."
you still don't know what I am talking about ... that's pretty ****ing sad man ... let me try this elementary style for you ... big building fall down go boom (by whatever means and I don't care right now about lateral ejections as the building was coming down) questions : In the final seconds of the collapse (and I don't care if you don't want to call it a collapse ... has nothing to do with the point) , in what direction did the mass of energy at the subterranean levels go? (the momentum of those masses didn't stop at street level) ... did it do any damage to the foundations of surrounding buildings? ...
This is something I presented many times, naturally they did not answer it. I wanted to know if the buildings were connected by tunnels. They are, but none admitted it.
You've come a long way baby! What happened to your point about lateral displacement of energy? Too thought-provoking? Too dangerous for the OCT? Elementary style is you, along with evasive answers and deception.
I made my point about lateral displacement of energy ... wtf are you talking about now? ... you tell me where the energy went ... quit playing stupid ...
That's not an answer, that's a dishonest evasion. The usual I can expect from you. If I wasn't interested I wouldn't have asked why it matters to you. That's ok, you don't need to explain, it's obvious it's just one of your typical red herrings.
so you are not interested in answering the question ... gotcha ... go back to your truther echo chamber Bob ...
Bobbie That's all you do is dishonest evasion. I asked you if there were tunnels connecting the buildings.
I asked YOU a question phony one and got a "it's part of the picture" BS response. What picture? Your posterior cavity?
You typed the words sir. You made no point at all except possibly the obvious point that you would rather not discuss it.
I did. Tough questions cause you to run around in circles eh Bobby? You support the claim that a 4 ton object was ejected 600 feet laterally. You want to claim you are a "science and research" guy. Explain how much force would be needed to eject a 4 ton object 600 feet laterally. Or you can keep running.
why do the both of you continue to play stupid? ... if you do not think that 2 huge skyscrapers crashing into the ground didn't damage the foundations of surrounding structures, then neither of you knows **** all about physics ... but keep dodging and changing the subject ... that's a truther tactic ...
That several 4 ton structural objects from the WTC tower were found 600 feet from the WTC tower is a historical fact whether I (or you for that matter) support it or not. Your question is meaningless, it doesn't change that historical fact no matter what the answer is.
None of that answers my question, it's yet another evasion. Again, why does it matter to YOU? Answer the question fake one. What I think has nothing to do with what YOU think (and never does).
I already answered the question in the 1st post when I brought up the question ... I want to know why NIST didn't address possible/probable damage to the foundation of WTC 7 ... it is more relevant than pursuing theories that have no physical evidence regarding controlled demolition ... go back and look Bob ... it's in my original post regarding this subject ... if you don't think it's a relevant question , just say so ...
I know, you already said that I didn't miss it, and I asked WHY? Is this too difficult for you to answer or you're just evading because you KNOW it's a red herring? Ok aside from comparisons with other theories, WHY is it relevant to YOU on its own? Every nook and cranny about 9/11 requires a thorough investigation, this one for me is way, way, way down the list. But YOU brought this up, not me. And I asked you WHY it's relevant to YOU. Especially given from your posts that you find this apparently more relevant than the investigation into the manner of the "collapses" of the 3 towers on 9/11. And so far your answers are mostly evasions.
what exactly am I evading Bob? ... you make no sense and seem to dismiss this so you can pursue your nonsense theories ... why are you so afraid of physics? ... I won't evade any questions on the manner of the collapses ... my theory is that the foundation of 7 was compromised and nobody knew what happened at column 79 ... it's all just educated guesses whether by NIST or the late Dr. Hulsey ... please abandon your cocoon Bob ...
Are you intentionally being ignorant Bobby? You know damn well that I understand that there were 4 ton structural objects 600 feet away. My questions deal with how YOU think they got there. You support that they were "ejected laterally" do to some explosive force. So I'm asking you and your supposed "scientific research" mentality to provide some sort of evidence for this. Specifically, how much explosive force was needed to "laterally eject" a 4 ton structural object 600 feet? Keep dancing Mr. Conspiracy apologist. And so you can't run in circles, here's your quote when I asked you if you believed it was an explosive force that propelled a 4 ton object out to 600 feet.
The rest of your post is worthless fluff so I won't bother addressing it. So now you finally explained what your issue is, sort of ... But it seems to me you're mixing apples and oranges. The discussion was about the twin towers and you've just moved the goal post to WTC7. So you have no explanation for your question about the foundation of the twin towers, just that you believe the energy went lateral and that NIST failed to investigate what happened to the foundation of the 3 towers? And somehow that's really important to you. Ok, I'm not going to pursue this utter confusion of yours, it makes no sense to me anyway and it's still an inexplicable red herring on your part.
