Discussion in '9/11' started by Blues63, Mar 24, 2015.
So you've got nothing as usual. No surprise there. Go away, kid.
You're asking a question that no civilian could possibly know. Again, not knowing why building 7 was destroyed doesn't mean it wasn't destroyed by certain people. It's like saying we don't know why exactly OJ killed his wife therefore it wasn't him. The reason we point to the government is because no one else could get away with something like this.
Never said it was. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Completely laughable comment. As if in the middle of that chaos, the rescue workers are going to collect all the paper in that building and organize them. In fact, all this proves is that there wasn't that much fire going on in the building. Fire: hot enough to weaken steal, but not hot enough to burn paper. There are also things called servers and computers that were destroyed.
Never said he planned it. Again, putting words in my mouth.
Just pointing out coincidences. Lots of those on that day.
Sure, because you know exactly what he meant. How about all the people who knew it was going to collapse before it did? How did they know? Why didn't the buildings that were closer in proximity and far more damaged collapse? How could anyone think that a 47 story building is supported by one beam?
You mean the government's coverup of the government? How many people need to debunk NIST before you believe that the report was full of ****?
I'll do you one better. Why are 28 pages of the 9/11 report, which supposedly implicate the Saudi government in financing 9/11, not released? Why would the Bush administration classify those pages? What are hey hiding? We already know the Bush family relationship with the Saudi royal family. We also know that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. But hey, let's attack Iraq instead.
I have you tacit admission that you cannot even guess a range of materials it could have been from the resulting conditions observed.
Which begs the question how do you intent to argue matters outside the scope of your understanding?
And here is the point of logic. So, basically, you're attributing the event to the government without evidence. In logic, that is known as an assumption.
I didn't put words in your mouth. What is with you? I made a statement-plain & simple. If he didn't plan or influence the operation your point is immaterial.
Straw man. You missed the point completely.
No, stop that. You're building straw men with such claims. The point is if he didn't influence the events of the day, why is he important?
And without an agenda too! You're transparent. It's called throwing (*)(*)(*)(*) and see what sticks, or a gish gallop.
Which goes back to my earlier point. Do you understand yet?
You haven't read the reports have you? God this is painful! The FDNY knew it was going to collapse because the building evinced all the signs of collapse.
The same reason all the papers didn't burn, the random nature of the event. Argument from incredulity fallacy.
No-one ever said that except you.
How would you know? You obviously haven't read it.
Your conflating the cause of two wars erroneously. You don't seem to be very with it on this subject. Don't ask me about redacted pages because they were classified and any extrapolation upon them is idle speculation.
Let's stick to the topic ok?
No, I just can't be bothered with you. Read the thread and get back to me on it if you can. You won't.
The word is 'intend', not 'intent' and none of this is outside my scope of understanding (veiled ad hom is noted). Try to stay on topic and address the points, not the people. Your arguments are becoming too fallacious to bother with, and they are somewhat infantile as well. Please try to make a coherent and well developed case for a change.
nope its a fact and no level of sophistry with save it at this point.
You simply cannot even begin to guess a range of materials it could have been from the resulting conditions observed.
No ad hom, fact.
Actually from the way it looks my guess would be that you most likely would not know the procedure to figure out how to figure it out.
Oh and intent instead of intend was a typo, I do that to give grammar nazis something to cry about. Its always fun to see which ones will abuse it as a get out of jail free ticket.
Who has debunked the NIST report? No-one of any note that I know. Do you have a link to a paper? Has AE911T produced any papers debunking the NIST report? No? Why not?
Here is a link to a collection of 50 academic papers in support of the NIST report, yet you can't provide one to contradict it. Fascinating!
Excerpt: "The testimony of those experts is of special salience because Aegis Insurance, the plaintiff that retained them, was liable for hundreds of millions of dollars could it not present the strongest possible case as to negligence on the part of 7 WTCo., Tishman, and other related parties. In other words, it had every possible incentive to argue that there were controlled demolition devices used (which, if proven true, would far exceed the standard for negligence). Yet it's experts simply confirmed what NIST had concluded re a fire-induced progressive collapse that initiated at column 79."
Koko, it is all in the link and that was the conclusion. So why do some insist it was steel?
Please tell me when you use the pronoun 'you', is it at me directly or do employ it where one would normally use the term 'one'? Please clarify because I'm a little confused regarding your usage (hence the ad hom claim, is it toward me, or anyone in general?).
you are the one focusing on you not me.
I am trying to get you to post how one would determine what the possible range of substances could be and the procedure one would need to use to do so.
you are the one who is dodging and the reason is obvious that you do not know how, despite you want to argue with me and claim that the substance can not be reasonably proven.
I am very sorry but its a given that in order for you to argue your point you need to at least understand how one would make such a determination in the first place.
No need to get all butt hurt over it just because you cant fool me or trick me with innuendo.
This goes for anyone who wants to argue this matter, not only you.
That's why I asked for clarification of your usage of the term. If I misinterpreted your usage of the pronoun, I apologise.
Why don't you do it?
No, I'm confused. Strange how your tone has suddenly become reasonable and your language usage has changed. Why the silly act all the time?
You know the composition cannot be reasonably determined unless the temperature is known and whether the material is in fact metal, or whether the material contains impurities, etc. I'm well aware of the variables.
And it's a given that that is the first time you articulated such so clearly. Thank you. I do understand the process because I read the source I linked to.
I'm not butthurt and I wasn't trying to trick you.
Wow, you're reasonable and articulate. WTF happened? I don't have to try and figure out what you're trying to say at times. Keep it up!
On the Thermite Cutter hypothesis (and more):
Jim Fetzer 'distances' himself from the thermite debate:
no you did not, you grammar nazi'd what I said, any literate person would instantly know what I meant despite the typo.
none of which are my arguments.
you people continue to run around in circles arguing the same ill gotten arguments that have been proven bull(*)(*)(*)(*) long time ago.
this is my argument
No. That's not your argument. Your argument is like a mood ring.
Sometimes it's the hue of "golf ball sized pocket nukes." Sometimes it's tinted with hurricane powered space based directed energy weapons. Sometimes it's an off shade of iron fission. You never know what you're going to get when the point of your argument is constructed on the spot to support a forgone conclusion.
more ad hom mischaracterization by unreasonable and inaccurate restatement of my positions using your usual reduction fallacy to prejudice any opponent when you lack viable rebuttal. you are certainly on a roll today!
the argument singularly and severally is what I state not what you reinvent.
Take note of a thermate cutter in my previous post.
No, your argument never changes.
That is an entirely different argument than the argument I am making here therefore completely irrelevant.
You are still hanging yourself by demanding we accept your use of reduction fallacies to the absurd as valid, which fails to account for more than a single condition or event resulting in absurd and ridiculous fantasy based theories posers always purport.
I have no reason to change any unrebutted argument.
Yes I agree. Your previous argument was irrelevant.
This one is too.
great then we agree that you mischaracterized my other argument in pretense it somehow applied to this argument as well.
That said can we move on or do you need to continue this dance?
One question I'd ask is why would the government wait 7 HOURS to destroy a building that is completely unknown especially considering that I have not seen any evidence as to why they would want to destroy it in the first place.
they didnt. the stairwells were blown out during the wtc 1 and 2 action. Like everyone else ever caught in the middle of a government operation as a valid witness shortly thereafter became the late jennings, hess on the other hand kept his mouth shut and lives.
If you shoot a blank in a gun and ignite a stick of dynamite at the same time how do you make the distinction?]
best for you to research what was in that building then you will know why it was critically important to drop 7 as well.
Ask yourself about all these so called terror "experts. They always blame the Saudis or Pakistan ISI for creating Al Queda as if reading from the same script.
They never tell you 10 of the 19 hikackers photographed were found to be still alive.They excise the fact that Pakistans ISI is a CIA created cut out during the days it created Al Queda, CIA completely controlled and was present at ISI.
The so called terror experts never mention that Pentagon/CIA were running war games over NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.
The truth is the U.S. military did 9/11, not the Saudis, for the reason of making an excuse to invade oil fields in oil producing countries, and building up the huge American industrial war complex.
So, so, so much wrong with what you just said. It's mind numbing. One day I hope humanity will evolve beyond such ignorance
I now note the goal post shift.
I never said it was your argument. I posted that for its relevance.
So, a thermite cutter? What was in the source? Oh, thermite cutters, but they're not your argument. You didn't really think that through yet again.
Separate names with a comma.