15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[femurphy77]

This is truly priceless.

You really do believe this ****.

Quoted because it's worth it!!

 

[jamil]

If either of you can reconcile the illogical proposition KJQ and others have attempted, I'd love to see it.

Those who believe in the incredibly simplistic claim of fire causing all that destruction, can't also propose that fire and a few bombs would be incredibly complex or unbelievable.

The latter would much more reasonably account for all that was witnessed if we don't just assume their absence.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

It's fine to assume the absence of something that you have no real evidence for. To know it explosives were used in a controlled there needs to be more evidence than the false dichotomy of "that couldn't have caused it therefore it must be this". C'mon man. You're an adult. It's time to give up the childish Santa Clause belief. The tin hat under the Christmas tree isn't evidence that Santa put it there. The buildings coming down isn't evidence that it was controlled explosives.

Now, about believing which claims are true, I'm not a qualified structural engineer or scientist to say that fire + structural damage could or couldn't have caused it. I'm also not a qualified structural engineer or scientist to say that it only could have been brought down by controlled demolition. I'm pretty sure you're not qualified either. And if you are, why are you bothering submitting your thesis to INGO. To write a paper and submit it to a peer reviewed structural engineering journal, and see if you can get published. Go ahead. I'll wait.

It's fair to complain about inconsistencies in the report. I'd like to see those addressed too. But it's quite another thing to claim facts not in evidence.

 

[rvb]

Not even required, we've all seen what happened to WTC7 and blamed on "normal office fires".

But, you could duplicate plane hits with just a few charges and dump that much fuel on it if you want,

Those who believe in the incredibly simplistic claim of fire causing all that destruction, can't also propose that fire and a few bombs would be incredibly complex or unbelievable.

Could we not also replace both a plane impact and bombs with parts of another building falling on wt7 so it, too, begins its demise from an already structurally compromised position? What if we don't totally believe it was fire alone, but instead also consider the very plausible structural damage from the towers' collapse. Surely you could concede that if bombs could take out critical structure, so could damage from the nearby tower?

WTC7 Damage

The [STRIKE]latter [/STRIKE]damage from the falling tower would much more reasonably account for all that was witnessed if we don't just assume [STRIKE]their [/STRIKE]its absence.

Personally, I think that since NIST purposely didn't investigate for the presence of robot aliens, it was the damn robot aliens.

-rvb

 

[Alpo]

I think this thread is a great paradigm for how one person with an insane idea and no proof can bring down civilization with lies and innuendo.

 

[ATM]

It's fine to assume the absence of something that you have no real evidence for.

I tend to prefer the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions prior to further testing and comparisons and I have no motivation to avoid or deny any of the evidence to promote a single, fantastic, overly-simplistic hypothesis without testing or comparison. That method leaves even the more plausible hypotheses, which might have survived the missing scrutiny and testing, still available, still perfectly acceptable and reasonable to consider, still more capable of realistically accounting for the voids that couldn't be shown via the promoted hypothesis. Do you believe that other hypotheses aren't even still available? Just because they were avoided?

If you favor their untested and uncompared promotion of a single hypothesis that couldn't explain huge segments of what occurred, you really do need to explain why you favor it and why you continue to guard it from scrutiny, testing and comparison with the more plausible hypotheses that still remain

To know it explosives were used in a controlled there needs to be more evidence than the false dichotomy of "that couldn't have caused it therefore it must be this". C'mon man. You're an adult.

An adult would recognize after the fact that plenty of evidence existed despite their denials at the time. An adult would hold them accountable for that and demand that investigation, testing and comparison which didn't occur. At least an adult interested in truth would.

It's time to give up the childish Santa Clause belief. The tin hat under the Christmas tree isn't evidence that Santa put it there. The buildings coming down isn't evidence that it was controlled explosives.

Does it challenge your belief in Santa to suggest that he could also employ a few non-magical delivery workers to assist? Do you throw out how much planning and care and the many non-magical delivery workers it would require to do it without Santa as proof that he delivers all those presents by himself? I love it when you bring up Santa at this point because it represents the fantastic part of the official claim you adopted which couldn't be shown - the part they labeled "inevitable".
Might as well have called it "magic". Beautiful, really.

Now, about believing which claims are true, I'm not a qualified structural engineer or scientist to say that fire + structural damage could or couldn't have caused it. I'm also not a qualified structural engineer or scientist to say that it only could have been brought down by controlled demolition. I'm pretty sure you're not qualified either. And if you are, why are you bothering submitting your thesis to INGO. To write a paper and submit it to a peer reviewed structural engineering journal, and see if you can get published. Go ahead. I'll wait.

I don't just believe any claims are true. Scrutinize, test, compare, repeat - that's the proper process of approaching truth through discovery. It's an open and ongoing process and should never be avoided. When I suggest that folks address what qualified structural engineers and scientists have already scrutinized, objected to and pointed out for others, they are avoided by the very people who appealed to the qualifications they meet.

Why would I write or submit a thesis to INGO or anywhere else while the findings and questions from those more qualified are still available to consider and answer, yet still avoided?

It's fair to complain about inconsistencies in the report. I'd like to see those addressed too.

I have no problem with the report, it is simply evidence that a proper investigation was not achieved and likely not attempted. I'd still like to see a proper investigation attempted.

Will you ask for one with me? Will you demand no less?

But it's quite another thing to claim facts not in evidence.

OK, I won't. The official claims did. They also avoided and even denied a great many facts that were evidence ...as well as many that remain.

 

[ATM]

Could we not also replace both a plane impact and bombs with parts of another building falling on wt7 so it, too, begins its demise from an already structurally compromised position? What if we don't totally believe it was fire alone, but instead also consider the very plausible structural damage from the towers' collapse. Surely you could concede that if bombs could take out critical structure, so could damage from the nearby tower?

WTC7 Damage

Personally, I think that since NIST purposely didn't investigate for the presence of robot aliens, it was the damn robot aliens.

-rvb

If you're the type to naturally suspect that some localized damaged would lead "inevitably" not only to the total destruction, but somehow explain the observed nature of that destruction, you might be temped to avoid looking for or comparing with anything more plausible than that and just stop there, presenting it or accepting it as your best conclusion.

Scientists must resist that temptation as the general population is lazy and clueless enough to just adopt that as "settled".

Stand up and demand better.

 

[Alpo]

[video=youtube_share;8PA6-YbNFyA]http://youtu.be/8PA6-YbNFyA[/video]

 

[JollyMon]

 

[JollyMon]

 

[ATM]

I think this thread is a great paradigm for how one person with an insane idea and no proof can bring down civilization with lies and innuendo.

I think this thread is a great paradigm for how one attack with an insane conclusion and no proof can bring down civilization with lies and innuendo.

I suppose it just boils down to a person's motivation:

Those motivated to discover which hypothesis most reasonably accounts for the observed events via the scientific process of testing and comparing each to demote the least likely and advance the more likely, ultimately leaving only the most suiteable to become theory

vs.

those motivated to support just one among the group of available hypotheses and promote it as the "settled" conclusion, even if it wasn't or can't be shown to uniquely (or even reasonably) account for all that was observed ...and then just abandoning and denying all others that still might as if they had been reasonably disqualified.


Which motivation are you portraying in this little role-playing exercise?

No need to answer, I'd prefer you all just remain in character for now. Thanks.

 

[JollyMon]

 

[Alpo]

Those motivated to discover which hypothesis most reasonably accounts for the observed events via the scientific process of testing and comparing each to demote the least likely and advance the more likely, ultimately leaving only the most suiteable to become theory

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.

I

So, detonations were the most plausible...er, very plausible....er, plausible.......Which is it?

We have shown that the buildings did not fall at free fall speed. A number of videos show exterior wall sections falling faster than the building. THAT is science. What science were you able to rely on? None. Thank you. Please place your tray table in its full, upright position prior to landing.

The FACTS are that you have no science or math supporting your wild hypothetical of a detonation. You have not done the work and none of the sites referenced by you have put science to detonation, placement of charges, types of explosives, etc. Nano-thermite is a word. It was not reality. Nevermind your lack of evidence.

No science.

No math.

Hair-on-fire unsupportable claims.

Yes, you qualify.

 

[ATM]

So, detonations were the most plausible...er, very plausible....er, plausible.......Which is it?

All of the above. That which is most reasonable and plausible, might also be very reasonable and plausible, or perhaps it's just reasonable and plausible in a field of less reasonable and less plausible hypotheses.

How would you rate your command of the English language? I shouldn't have to keep pointing out the answers to such elementary questions as folks keep bringing up.

We have shown that the buildings did not fall at free fall speed.

You actually claimed to have shown that WTC 7 did not have a period of free fall acceleration months ago in this thread and it made you look foolish. Remember the conversation which followed?

I've refuted Chandler's assumption using the "evidence" you tell us to rely on in the video. QED

WTC7 did have a period of free fall acceleration, suggesting zero resistance to the falling mass, finally acknowledged by NIST after David Chandler exposed their efforts to assert otherwise and the improper methodology which allowed them to. At least they owned and changed their failed attempt, admitting he was correct, something you have not been so willing to do when exposed. You just try to backpedal from your claim. You've shied away from directly debunking any point of significance in this thread since. You now just ignore most points and change the subject.

A number of videos show exterior wall sections falling faster than the building. THAT is science. What science were you able to rely on? None. Thank you. Please place your tray table in its full, upright position prior to landing.

Are you referring to WTC1 and 2 now? That neither tower came down at free fall acceleration was already pointed out by Chandler in the same video being referenced at about the 50 minute mark. Don't you remember? You're agreeing with him now, and I don't think you'd have the fortitude to do so unless you've forgotten that he said it first.

Watch that video again, as others are free to do, to verify my claim. (Don't claim the link doesn't work, either, it will work for most people and you'll look foolish again.)

...Here's one for my 'Physics!' friends to reference and point out any fundamental errors as they were applied to shred and expose NISTs 'analysis' and true role in supporting the cover-up, since I don't understand enough to ask good questions. Indeed, Alpo could probably command a very tidy sum if he can truly provide a scientific explanation of the "collapses" we witnessed that can survive the fundamental scrutiny of a high school teacher and doesn't require controlled demolition. NIST couldn't...

[video=youtube;x-jWUzhtTIY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-jWUzhtTIY[/video]

The FACTS are that you have no science or math supporting your wild hypothetical of a detonation. You have not done the work and none of the sites referenced by you have put science to detonation, placement of charges, types of explosives, etc. Nano-thermite is a word. It was not reality. Nevermind your lack of evidence.

No science.

No math.

Hair-on-fire unsupportable claims.

Yes, you qualify.

You probably only wrote that last part because you didn't realize you'd have been busted so easily at this point in my reply. I'm actually laughing at you now as I state again, for the record: WE WERE LIED TO. THE TRUTH WAS BURIED.

Deal with it.

 

[Alpo]

You switch between WTC7 and WTC 1&2 to suit your evasiveness in argument. WTC7 has been proven against your hypothesis. So have WTC 1&2.

You do not know what you are talking about. Once again, you declare victory when the evidence and science is against you. Pure malarkey.

Most plausible and very plausible are not the same thing...except when you say them. And both are indeed the least plausible explanation of the events that day. You choose to be confused.

 

[ATM]

While we're dealing with those who insist on revisiting their past failings and forgetfulness in this thread, while we wait for them to respond to the parts they keep skipping past, I might as well go back and punk this bit of nonsense offered in evasion of the actual point they still need to reconcile or retract:

The key point of controlled demolition, is the controlled part.

Uncontrolled fire, and crashing $180mil planes, although obviously effective might be a tough sell when your talking to a client. But hell, give it a shot.

ATM's demolition company. "I know **** about physics and stuff"

You didn't really just try to make a point of comparing an unlawful act of destruction to a lawful act of destruction, did you?

Which of those two might need to secure a permit and show that it can and will be done safely to proceed? Which one doesn't matter if it kills thousands of people, releases all that asbestos-filled dust all over the city, etc?

Which of those would be paid massive insurance claims as attacks, more than covering the costs? Which is the responsibility of the owner to cover whatever the cost?

ATM's demolition company - Knows all this should be common sense, but obviously isn't.


Now, quit burying yourself further until you actually respond to what you quoted.

 

[ATM]

You switch between WTC7 and WTC 1&2 to suit your evasiveness in argument. WTC7 has been proven against your hypothesis. So have WTC 1&2.

You do not know what you are talking about. Once again, you declare victory when the evidence and science is against you. Pure malarkey.

Most plausible and very plausible are not the same thing...except when you say them. And both are indeed the least plausible explanation of the events that day. You choose to be confused.

I was extremely clear and direct, such that a child could follow along, point by point, and provided quotes to support.

Where are your reasoned responses to all that? Do you have any? Should we expect anything further from you?

Because I have to be honest with you, that. was. tragic.

 

[Alpo]

You and Chandler. You bring that video up again when you previously downplayed it due to the numerous errors within?

I really think you have detached from reality on a permanent basis.

 

[ATM]

Just a tip here, folks. Don't try to capitalize on Jolly's memes without doing a bit of research, they are for amusement purposes only. It appears Alpo fell into one of them and it brought back some unpleasant memories that he'd already fallen into others.

It was an unforced error, but he just couldn't resist.

I'll bet it was this one, how sad:

 

[Alpo]

You certainly misread that one. It is obvious that sections of the perimeter wall fell at a velocity greater than the main body of the towers. Indisputable.

You cannot discern the difference between Jolly's sarcasm and a fact.

But, we already know that.

 

[ATM]

You certainly misread that one.

Nope, he posted a meme and you fell for it.

It is obvious that sections of the perimeter wall fell at a velocity greater than the main body of the towers. Indisputable.

It's quite obvious. I haven't seen it disputed. Chandler measured the falling tower at only 2/3 the acceleration of gravity. That was posted months ago.
You recently saw a meme attacking a false claim and decided to champion it as if you'd finally found something I'd said that you could actually refute.
It's hilarious. Alpo the meme defender!

You cannot discern the difference between Jolly's sarcasm and a fact.

You're the one who trusted the claim of a meme.

But, we already know that.

You should have stayed away while you were behind. You are finished, with no real response and no real path forward. Bye.