15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[JollyMon]

 

[jamil]

Jolly. I was starting to think you got bored with it. So glad you haven't.

 

[jamil]

Perhaps I just choose my words more carefully than you, knowing your likely assumptions and pending attacks of those assumptions before you even try them.

Perhaps it's a trap.

Nah.

Or, you could just try having a straight up, honest conversation with people. No. I don't approach a conversation as a chess match. I don't have psychological need to outflank everyone. I don't have to hide. I choose words which I think most honestly conveys my thoughts. You obfuscate yours. I'm not here to engage a never ending war-game with you. Maybe if you just shared your thoughts rather than obfuscate them, I might find them more worthy of discussion.

And let's talk about assumptions. I have to extrapolate some assumptions about what you're saying because you equivocate what you're saying. In trying to prepare an "out" for every situation, you're intentionally vague so that you don't have to commit to a definite meaning. This allows you to morph meanings whenever it's convenient. That's not how real people communicate unless they are trying to evade or hide something. And you often say that you're speaking to the benefit of a wider audience. I think you don't realize that this may not actually benefit you.

 

[jamil]

I can't imagine anything but controlled demolition

Of course you can't. Because if there's something YOU can't imagine, it can't be true. Because YOUR imagination is the diviner of truth.

That's some interesting **** and all, but do you have something better to share besides your imagination?

Go get an advanced degree in structural science, and then you can come back and school people on the physics of all this. Your imagination isn't informative.

 

[JollyMon]

 

[ATM]

How many controlled demolitions have you seen of buildings similar to WTC? I can answer that for you: NONE. WTC was a unique piece of architecture. It wasn't designed as a conventional skyscraper. You've poo poohed the photograph I included showing the airiness of the building. If you looked at a model of almost any other skyscraper at that time, you wouldn't find anything similar. It didn't have the big sturdy central core that most have.

We've discussed this before, but you carry on as if you know anything about design or demolition. You don't, and your comments are beyond the pale.

Please, just stop.

I did a quick google search just for you. It might give you some real purpose in this thread. Take your time:

9/11 Experiments

Please, at some point, just start.

 

[ATM]

You did not satisfactorily address anything. You only expanded by filibuster. You obfuscated, dodged and deflected. You've proven nothing. You've refuted nothing. And then you claim victory when people decide it's impossible to have a normal conversation with you. I dunno. Maybe scuttling your ethos is victory to you.

I manage to keep expanding the conversation, while yours keep shrinking. I've seen this before, even called it. Deal with it.

 

[ATM]

Or, you could just try having a straight up, honest conversation with people. No. I don't approach a conversation as a chess match. I don't have psychological need to outflank everyone. I don't have to hide. I choose words which I think most honestly conveys my thoughts. You obfuscate yours. I'm not here to engage a never ending war-game with you. Maybe if you just shared your thoughts rather than obfuscate them, I might find them more worthy of discussion.

And let's talk about assumptions. I have to extrapolate some assumptions about what you're saying because you equivocate what you're saying. In trying to prepare an "out" for every situation, you're intentionally vague so that you don't have to commit to a definite meaning. This allows you to morph meanings whenever it's convenient. That's not how real people communicate unless they are trying to evade or hide something. And you often say that you're speaking to the benefit of a wider audience. I think you don't realize that this may not actually benefit you.

Try being on this "side" of this subject. It's rather different than you're probably accustomed to.

Also, We're not quite alike, you and I, I've pointed out and discussed some of these stark differences while you were recently just spinning your wheels.

Quit guarding your beliefs and playing it safe, be bold!

 

[ATM]

Of course you can't. Because if there's something YOU can't imagine, it can't be true. Because YOUR imagination is the diviner of truth.

That's some interesting **** and all, but do you have something better to share besides your imagination?

Go get an advanced degree in structural science, and then you can come back and school people on the physics of all this. Your imagination isn't informative.

If I see anything else that could explain the process by which the total destructions documented occurred in those cases, I'll then be able to imagine it.

It just hasn't happened yet. What, besides explosives, have you seen presented that might not stretch my imagination so far?

 

[JollyMon]

 

[Alpo]

I did a quick google search just for you. It might give you some real purpose in this thread. Take your time:

9/11 Experiments

Please, at some point, just start.

First of all, your link is busted.

Second, when I was able to find the page you reference, there is so much data on the page that what you are really referencing is NOTHING and EVERYTHING.

Your approach continues to be dishonest. You don't want a debate. You want someone to pay attention to you.

 

[JollyMon]

 

[ATM]

First of all, your link is busted.

Second, when I was able to find the page you reference, there is so much data on the page that what you are really referencing is NOTHING and EVERYTHING.

Your approach continues to be dishonest. You don't want a debate. You want someone to pay attention to you.

The link still works fine for me, but then, I'm a lyin' truther.

I know you don't like data, that's kinda why I posted it.

Why did you assume I wanted a debate when I started this thread? And why are you still paying attention to me?

So many unanswered questions...

 

[JollyMon]

 

[jamil]

I manage to keep expanding the conversation, while yours keep shrinking. I've seen this before, even called it. Deal with it.

No. What you think is expanding is only obfuscation through volume. You're clearly outmatched by just about everyone when we focus one point at a time. You manage to stay in the conversation through filibustering. I'm just not playing your game and you want to spin it as something favorable. You haven't really addressed anything.

Try being on this "side" of this subject. It's rather different than you're probably accustomed to.

Also, We're not quite alike, you and I, I've pointed out and discussed some of these stark differences while you were recently just spinning your wheels.

Quit guarding your beliefs and playing it safe, be bold!

Oh. I understand that it's probably difficult being on your side of the subject. I imagine you're ridiculed a lot. But think of it this way. You can feel like a martyr. Like you're sacrificing for "truth".

I'm quite open to changing my beliefs when standards are met. I'm not gonna start believing in Santa and his elves anytime soon though. Or this controlled demolition that you imagine. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. You ain

If I see anything else that could explain the process by which the total destructions documented occurred in those cases, I'll then be able to imagine it.

It just hasn't happened yet. What, besides explosives, have you seen presented that might not stretch my imagination so far?

When your imagination is qualified to be more important, I'll pay more attention to it.

 

[jamil]

The link still works fine for me, but then, I'm a lyin' truther.

I know you don't like data, that's kinda why I posted it.

Why did you assume I wanted a debate when I started this thread? And why are you still paying attention to me?

So many unanswered questions...

I think it's reasonable to assume when you've said so much.

 

[ATM]

No. What you think is expanding is only obfuscation through volume. You're clearly outmatched by just about everyone when we focus one point at a time. You manage to stay in the conversation through filibustering. I'm just not playing your game and you want to spin it as something favorable. You haven't really addressed anything.

You can just leave it all stand and pretend that I did, too, but others actually read it and I can always quote it if need be.

I haven't just "manage(d) to stay in the conversation", I actually started it and have done everything in my power to keep people in it and draw back those who have quit several times. I've managed you, among others.

Oh. I understand that it's probably difficult being on your side of the subject. I imagine you're ridiculed a lot. But think of it this way. You can feel like a martyr. Like you're sacrificing for "truth".

Why would I do something I knew would be difficult, that I knew would invite ridicule? Why won't most people?

I'm quite open to changing my beliefs when standards are met. I'm not gonna start believing in Santa and his elves anytime soon though. Or this controlled demolition that you imagine. Incredible claims require incredible evidence. You ain

You already believe the incredible story you were handed by our nanny state. I require credible evidence, but you're fine with incredible claims. How's that Santa Clause thing working out for you? It was one of those things more appropriately placed on your shoulders to bear back in post #1840. You probably skimmed past it. Not a problem for me.

When your imagination is qualified to be more important, I'll pay more attention to it.

You skipped the question again. Help me out, here.

"What, besides explosives, have you seen presented that might not stretch my imagination so far?"

In the real world, imaginations just aren't qualified to be important, evidence is. That's why evidence is hidden, destroyed or avoided, not imaginations.

 

[JollyMon]

 

[jamil]

You already believe the incredible story you were handed by our nanny state. I require credible evidence, but you're fine with incredible claims. How's that Santa Clause thing working out for you? It was one of those things more appropriately placed on your shoulders to bear back in post #1840. You probably skimmed past it. Not a problem for me.

Okay, this is interesting. Let's talk about that.

No, but an otherwise reasonably competent adult guarding their belief in Santa Clause might be. It’s not lame or cowardly for many children to adopt such a ruse, but to guard it from scrutiny, evidence, or testing later in life would be rather lame and cowardly. I don’t blame anyone for simply adopting the official narrative they were handed, but there comes a point of accountability to subject not only the belief, but the manner, methods and motives for offering it to you, to scrutiny …just like those who adopted the narrative of Santa from their parents.

I wouldn't fault children for believing in what adults have told them. It's all they've known. And of course there are many analogous themes in adult life. People believe wrong stuff as adults for much the same reason children do. So how does that apply to you and me? I think we're in agreement that people shouldn't just believe anything they hear. Healthy skepticism is healthy. You think you've guarded yourself from the "lies" of NIST and company. I think I've guarded myself from the tin-foil brigade.

But you seem to be intimating that I'm acting cowardly because I reject information that doesn't meet my standards. Haven't you admitted to doing the same? You don't think the NIST report meets your standards. Right? You've implied that it's not my standards of truth that I'm guarding but some belief that you insist I won't let go of. That's the mistake you keep making. I'm not guarding a currently held belief. I'd think of it as more of a filter. I'll accept any information that passes standards. I never said that the official narrative meets all my standards. However, given the facts, I think the truth is somewhere closer to their narrative than controlled demolition. That's the extent of my belief on it.

You skipped the question again. Help me out, here.

"What, besides explosives, have you seen presented that might not stretch my imagination so far?"

In the real world, imaginations just aren't qualified to be important, evidence is. That's why evidence is hidden, destroyed or avoided, not imaginations.

I judge the evidence which passes scrutiny to favor the NIST conclusions over yours, over your limited imagination. You made the point about your imagination. I'm saying the point has no value at all. You said you can't imagine another explanation. So what? Why bother even saying that? It's not like the failure of imagination in a person with limited understanding of things matters. You're asserting domain knowledge we all know you don't have. It'd be the same thing as you using your inability to imagine there not being a Santa Clause, as evidence that he exists.

 

[ATM]

They gave you conclusions, not evidence. They avoided evidence. You adopted their Santa claims and are assured everything that happened was inevitable. It's "settled science" for you because they have a FAQ.

They didn't even investigate or disprove the most plausible explanation, they just tried rather horribly to come up with some way of claiming it could have happened, against all odds, without it.

It wasn't an investigation, it wasn't discovery from testing hypotheses against the evidences, it was an attempt to support a predetermined conclusion: that THERE WERE NO EXPLOSIVES.

They failed, of course. They left that very plausible hypothesis untouched and still quite plausible. They avoided "finding" it, but that's all.

If you believe fires could do it, you must also believe that fires and explosives could do it ...and more assuredly, more completely, more quickly, more symmetrically, etc.

They couldn't explain everything without explosives, so they just left some important things undone and substituted "inevitable" where they couldn't even show "possible".

It was enough for you. Their incredible claim that couldn't be shown. Santa.