15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[Alpo]

Oh no. I've never doubted your opinion of yourself. LOL

 

[chipbennett]

Are you sure about that? Do you consider not responding to my detailed refutations and attempting to start up anew after a few weeks ignoring this thread (as if the refutations hadn't happened, weren't still there and don't for some reason still stand) to be withstanding? Everyone can go back and read to verify this for themselves. Then they can read this claim of yours above, that I'd done absolutely nothing to refute it, and wonder where your intellectual honesty and integrity went.

You never posted any refutations of the assertion that the collapse of the two towers was the result of catastrophic, structural integrity failure that resulted from the impact of the airplanes that crashed into them. None whatsoever.

Go address these standing refutations and quit avoiding the conversations you've left me hanging on when they got tricky. You like to claim logical fallacies of others while you continue to blatantly avoid the questions and refutations posted in direct response to your nonsense.

There have been no such refutations of the assertion that the collapse of the two towers was the result of catastrophic, structural integrity failure that resulted from the impact of the airplanes that crashed into them. None whatsoever.

The first time you left me hanging, after I transposed some info for you to engage you further, you stated that you owed me a response after you watched a video. Even went so far as following that up with this:

Well, the thread still isn't locked, but you never got around to responding, did you? Burn me once – shame on you.

Our next conversation, weeks after, ended with me refuting an entire post of yours point by point. I ended it with this, but you really should go back and read the whole thing again, post #825, it was rather pointed. I'll bet others will:

And then guess what happened: you fell silent in this thread again for weeks until popping back in just recently to try starting all over as if we'd never even conversed, making fantastic claims about having "withstood" posts that you don't even seem to have read. That's now how it works when I can link directly to them and everyone can verify our post history.

Burn me twice, as I've shown – shame on me if I allow it. And I kinda did, allowing you one final undeserved courtesy out to take up some different aspect of the discussion which had moved beyond your earlier failures to respond. You didn't – so burn.

I'm working at home this week, and am at this very moment trudging through this video. I'm 5 minutes into it, and so far, there's nothing of worth in it. Just a bunch of accusations. We'll see what the other 90% holds. If there are any questions that warrant a response in the video, I'll transcribe them, and provide a response.

When you can respond to the previous, and the posted examples which still stand, perhaps we can continue, perhaps not. You begged for this and in doing so lost the interest I once had in engaging you on this matter (remember, I enjoy a challenge, not this repeated tactic of yours which amounts to kicking a rock, running away, then returning weeks later with no memory of the exchanges).

It will be difficult for me to not dismiss you completely at this point. That's another weakness of mine.

meh. Might as well go ahead and respond to this latest re-entry of yours to this thread while I'm at it:

Describe for me the plane that eyes saw crash into WTC7. Describe for me how anyone's eyes can determine or adopt "normal office fires" as the cause of collapse. Describe for me the work being accomplished by the building that anyone's eyes can see falling suddenly and symmetrically through its own structure into its own footprint during the period of measured freefall when no work can be accomplished by the falling body.

What caused WTC7 to collapse has exactly zero bearing on what happened to the two towers. Nothing that happened to WTC7 refutes the explanation for what happened to the two towers.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm now 10 minutes into this video, and it has talked about nothing other than WTC7. If it is entirely about WTC7, then you will have monumentally wasted my time.

I already called you out in the post linked above for constantly retreating back to only the twin towers and evading the other buildings and events of the day. You never responded, so I get to keep rubbing your face in that fact ...possibly forever ...because it truly withstood your absolute lack of response.

Of course what was seen by the eyes was plausible. You didn't really get to see the explosives, but you certainly saw their effects. If controlled demolition was somehow not plausible, or even not the most plausible explanation for those 3 building demolitions, you might be able to make a better point than this. Unfortunately, you just can't, or you would have long before now.

Explosives? In WTC1 and WTC2?

I'd have probably enjoyed that more if it hadn't been so ridiculously simple. Could you please recruit someone more qualified than yourself to continue from where you died off (again) a few weeks back? I'd sure appreciate it, since I doubt you'll have much success recovering from this

...and you do still owe me.

NEXT!

I'm now 12 minutes into the video. It's still only talking about WTC7.

Where is the evidence that refutes the assertion that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed as a result of catastrophic, structural integrity failure, due to planes crashing into them? Until you address this point, I have nothing to say about WTC7.

 

[chipbennett]

There were about 3 minutes covering the assertions (with no supporting evidence) regarding WTC1/2, and then the video switched to the Pentagon, and now a bunch of non sequiturs about non-conformance psychology, etc.

I've summarized the WTC1/2 assertions, and will wait to see if the video actually presents any evidence to support its assertions.

EDIT: 35 minutes in. Nothing more yet about WTC1/2.

EDIT: I completed the video. What a complete waste of time. Here is my summary of the three minutes spent discussing WTC1/2:

"There is no official technical account of the twin towers collapses."
- Not necessary, once the initiation of the collapse is explained.

Gravitational collapse vs controlled demolition:

Initial collapse explanation (sagging trusses)
- Sufficiently answered

Complete collapse explanation
- Not needed

2 Major Laws of physics violated (free fall speed)
- No explanation of what laws were supposedly violated
- No evidence given to support assertion

Explosions
- No evidence given to support assertion

Squibs
- No evidence given to support assertion

Diagonal cuts
- No evidence given to support assertion

Ejecta
- No evidence given to support assertion

Extreme temperatures molten steel
- No evidence given to support assertion

Pulverization
- No evidence given to support assertion

Conclusion:

"Unless a comprehensive, scientifically sound explanation for all of the phenomena observed is presented, the only conclusion available is that the twin towers were brought down by some form of controlled demolition."

False dilema. Logical fallacy.

Your video has been weighed, measured, and found wanting. It provides nothing to the discussion. It asks questions and makes assertions, but provides zero evidence to support its assertions.

 

[ATM]

Everyone was offered a clean slate in season 2, and I still plan to honor that unless you beg for something else as chip did.

I'm not even sure at this point which video chip went back and watched, but he really should have paid attention to the one in this post before committing intellectual suicide in front of everyone:

While we wait for INGO to steep in the undeniable reality of this 15 year deception, while we wait for the partisan theater distraction of the current general election to pass, I'd like to offer one more video specifically tailored to the primary discussion points fielded from season 1 that many just couldn't seem to get past.

Since I have no intention of letting season 2 get mired down in constant or petty rehashing, please watch this fairly modern debunking of debunking attempts before going there. If you still absolutely insist on discussing it further, please start a new thread.

I will look for it, I will find it, and I will logically beat you senseless.

Here ya go:

[video=youtube;3pfwiCDOLO8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfwiCDOLO8[/video]

No need to comment on it here, we're moving on once playtime is over.

Stay tuned...

Moving on.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

.

 

[Gluemanz28]

.

 

[ATM]

You guys should try being ATM, just for a day

...it's awesome!

Performance art, devil's advocate, loony... so many options still on the table.

Don't forget, there are lots of people reading this who really do know me

...and I'm probably only fooling half of them.

Nearly all of them somehow knew better than to engage me in this particular thread. I wonder why that is?

 

[chipbennett]

Everyone was offered a clean slate in season 2, and I still plan to honor that unless you beg for something else as chip did.

I'm not even sure at this point which video chip went back and watched, but he really should have paid attention to the one in this post before committing intellectual suicide in front of everyone:

Moving on.

You don't even know what videos you posted? I watched the hour-long video from the OP.

And I'm not sure you understand the definition of "intellectual suicide". Certainly, pointing out that assertions presented without supporting evidence are merely specious allegations doesn't constitute "intellectual suicide".

 

[chipbennett]

While we wait for INGO to steep in the undeniable reality of this 15 year deception, while we wait for the partisan theater distraction of the current general election to pass, I'd like to offer one more video specifically tailored to the primary discussion points fielded from season 1 that many just couldn't seem to get past.

Since I have no intention of letting season 2 get mired down in constant or petty rehashing, please watch this fairly modern debunking of debunking attempts before going there. If you still absolutely insist on discussing it further, please start a new thread.

I will look for it, I will find it, and I will logically beat you senseless.

Here ya go:

[video=youtube;3pfwiCDOLO8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfwiCDOLO8[/video]

No need to comment on it here, we're moving on once playtime is over.

Stay tuned...

Ooooh! This must be the video you wanted me to watch/comment on. Let's see what we have, shall we?

Start:


"Even though a controlled demolition seems the only valid explanation for the collapses..."


False premise, unsupported by evidence. (This video isn't off to a good start, either.)


"Arguments against controlled demolition"


Aaaaand, we're done here. I'm not going to waste time on this video. It excludes, without justification, all other possible/plausible explanations, and then sets itself to "debunking" the controlled-demolition "debunkers".


I'll repeat: show me evidence that refutes the assertion that the collapses of WTC1/2 were caused by catastrophic structural integrity failure, which was caused by the crashes of the airplanes into the buildings.


You have utterly failed to present any such evidence. We're still at ground zero, so to speak. Unless and until you present such evidence, you are doing nothing more than wasting everyone's time.

 

[ATM]

You don't even know what videos you posted? I watched the hour-long video from the OP.

And I'm not sure you understand the definition of "intellectual suicide". Certainly, pointing out that assertions presented without supporting evidence are merely specious allegations doesn't constitute "intellectual suicide".

You don't even remember the video we were discussing that you said you'd watch and didn't want to miss your opportunity to comment on?

The one that had NIST engineers falling on their swords? Ring any bells?

No, it wasn't the video from the OP, that one was much more suited to the questions I wanted to discuss when I started this thread.

I only suggested that I'd entertain defenses of the official narrative for my own amusement. You are failing to amuse me with your forgetfulness and continued lack of rational defense of that entire narrative.

 

[chipbennett]

You don't even remember the video we were discussing that you said you'd watch and didn't want to miss your opportunity to comment on?

The one that had NIST engineers falling on their swords? Ring any bells?

No, it wasn't the video from the OP, that one was much more suited to the questions I wanted to discuss when I started this thread.

I only suggested that I'd entertain defenses of the official narrative for my own amusement. You are failing to amuse me with your forgetfulness and continued lack of rational defense of that entire narrative.

If you are of the misconception that my participation in this or any other thread is for your personal amusement, then you will continue to be disappointed.

I've looked at two videos now, neither of which refute the stated cause of the collapses of WTC1/2.

 

[ATM]

...Unless and until you present such evidence, you are doing nothing more than wasting everyone's time.

Well, when they stop being entertained, I suppose they'll stop reading. Thinking and seeing were always optional.

I think I'll just politely wreck your standing in this thread a bit more before dismissing you.

Stand by.

 

[ATM]

If you are of the misconception that my participation in this or any other thread is for your personal amusement, then you will continue to be disappointed.

I've looked at two videos now, neither of which refute the stated cause of the collapses of WTC1/2.

Sorry, old chap, it seems you are the one with the misconception. You're also quite mistaken if you believe that I have been in any way disappointed.

See? It was right there in the OP this whole time:

...I'll also entertain any 'falsers' who dare to try supporting the official cover-up narrative here for my own amusement purposes...

Thanks for playing, but I'm still not finished with you...

 

[chipbennett]

Well, when they stop being entertained, I suppose they'll stop reading. Thinking and seeing were always optional.

I think I'll just politely wreck your standing in this thread a bit more before dismissing you.

Stand by.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[chipbennett]

Sorry, old chap, it seems you are the one with the misconception. You're also quite mistaken if you believe that I have been in any way disappointed.

Why am I not surprised that you are as inconsistent and evasive on this point as you have been on the fundamental question of attempting to refute the plausibility of the determined cause of the collapses of WTC1/2?

I only suggested that I'd entertain defenses of the official narrative for my own amusement. You are failing to amuse me with your forgetfulness and continued lack of rational defense of that entire narrative.

The determined cause is the null hypothesis. There is no sense in debating/discussing alternative theories until you have disproved the null hypothesis. Your personal amusement has nothing to do with it.

 

[ATM]

Nothing personal, chip, I assure you. Just calling it like I see it.

Certainly fair. I wouldn't be here if I weren't at least making an attempt at sincere discourse. I find no joy in trolling...

Remember that? Why do you suppose I might doubt your claim at this point? Why are you mucking up this thread now, weeks after you abandoned both of my previous attempts at respectfully engaging you in sincere discourse?

You never responded to the 10 minute video segment I suggested, and you'd agreed to watch, of 2 NIST engineers responding with terribly nervous and flawed attempted defenses when they were called out for attempting to use an incorrect methodology and conclusion to obscure an important fact, and another error which should have been immediately comprehended and admitted as just a simple mistake to be corrected. That was about 5 weeks ago.

Then, 2 weeks ago, you re-entered the thread to selectively quote just a portion of one of my responses to someone else (highlighting only a fraction of my first sentence in red), accused me of stating a false premise (while apparently missing or denying the fact that the entire sentence, beyond your red highlighter, was a direct response to a post from someone else I was actually having discussion with), then went on to state a few false and unsupported opinions of your own as facts:

False premise. Sound mathematics did not need to prove the absence of a demolition; rather, sound mathematics merely needed to prove the plausibility of a collapse caused by airplane collision. Given that such plausibility was confirmed by said mathematics, no need existed to disprove any other, arbitrary root cause or theory.

I responded, assuming our previous discussion was over, those points likely having been settled for you when you finally watched that 10 minute segment of video I'd suggested weeks earlier and you saw for yourself what I'd been trying to describe for you in writing. Little did I know then, you probably never watched it. You don't even remember which video it was at this point.

I only got one more post of discourse from you that time before you, again, abandoned the discourse and left my final response, a pointed refutation of your last, to stand unanswered and unopposed for 3 more weeks (the previously mentioned and still victorious post #825).

Then, just yesterday, you pop in again, and selectively quote one sentence from one of my recent posts for response:

Remember, you don't need to be an engineer or an architect to see what happened to those buildings...

Did you have no responses for the rest of that post? Did you have no responses to my last direct reply to you in this thread, addressing and refuting your entire last reply point by point? Obviously not, you chose to start all over with a simple rehash of your original, limited-scope assertions and protestations from 6 weeks ago:

Indeed. Anyone with eyes to see, saw that planes crashed into them, causing them to collapse.

Being an engineer merely helps one understand the forces that demonstrate that what was seen by the eyes was plausible.

Oh, but that doesn’t work now, 6 weeks and hundreds of posts later. 4 buildings were damaged that day, 3 of them completely demolished. You can’t just keep claiming that only one narrow time segment (from impact to initiation) of only 2 of those 4 buildings, and only the 2 planes which interacted with those 2 buildings, out of the whole of the official narrative, are significant (all while retreating from and avoiding comment on the greater portion of that whole narrative’s claims).

You certainly seem to have adopted the whole narrative immediately 15 years ago, without ever scrutinizing an ounce of it to see if it was produced by real scientific testing and investigation or just fabricated and rubber stamped by “officials” and secret model inputs. Sorry, but that silliness just no longer plays like it might have briefly 6 weeks and hundreds of posts ago when it seemed almost too easy to jump in on the dogpile and have some fun.

If you have chosen not to fully examine the evidence contained in the debunking the debunkers video I offered, which includes the witnessed and reported secondary explosions and the explosive nature of the witnessed and reported absolute demolitions of the twin towers (beyond the point of “collapse initiation” that you and the NIST engineers had to stop at), that’s on you. I can’t force you to look at what happened to those buildings after you covered your eyes and refused to see.

I politely refuted you, I warned you, I’d asked for anyone who still insisted on a petty rehashing of defenses to please start a new thread so we could move on in this one. Nope, you dropped back in with your apparently recurring amnesia and a total disregard for the course this thread had taken in your posting absence and dropped your same tired and insignificant little denial from a month and a half ago right here in the present conversations. You didn't even do it well, leaving yourself wide open and unable to refute or admonish what I'd actually typed in that single sentence you chose to quoted from my post: "...those buildings."

You know I wasn't referring to only 2 of those buildings, we got to see what happened to all those buildings.

That means we should be able to understand and explain all the forces that demonstrate that all of what was seen by the eyes was plausible.

You then had to retreat from the questions that your own post allowed me to ask of you when they reached beyond the limited-scope of your preference. You let me do that. You begged for me to do that. Then you avoided answering them. How anti-climactic.

Your entire defense at this point consists of clinging desperately to any possible shreds of fact that can’t be disproved among the overwhelming volume of glaring, unexplained flaws and omissions I’ve addressed and exposed which constitute the whole deceitful narrative you adopted without scrutiny 15 years ago.
Of course, there are shreds of possibility and even many facts included, just as there are within every other alternate hypothesis out there. There’s quite a bit of bowl to most sieves, but that doesn’t mean they'll hold water with all those holes they're riddled with.

I mean, I’m pretty sure there was some kool-aid in that poison punch they served up at Jonestown back in the 70s. If I’d warned you not to drink that poison, you’d have replied that since it wasn’t entirely poison (as you simply refused to examine or discuss any portion of the mixture that might not, in fact, possibly be kool-aid) it had been reasonably defended from refutation and perfectly fine to ingest. Sound familiar?

Having failed to convince you against your will, despite my best efforts at reaching you via the obvious totality of the truth of the matter (beyond the limited-scope item of your willfully myopic focus), I would find no joy in watching you drink it.

Would you at least do me the courtesy of wandering away and starting a different thread if you want to respond to this? I really don't want to have to deal with your stinking corpse cluttering up and distracting the flow of this one. I even said please when I made that request originally.

I promise to meet you there and continue this discussion if you like, even if I don't think you'll last much longer on this subject.
That’s what friends do for friends who chose to drink bleach despite the warnings, right? They stick with them to the bittersweet end.


...and I still don’t owe anybody a beer.

 

[chipbennett]

Oh, there's yet a *third* video. Let me go dig that one up, too.

And I see no reason to start a new thread. I'll stay here, thanks.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

.

 

[chipbennett]

I like fun facts.

[video=youtube;luGkdBs95kY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luGkdBs95kY[/video]

Maybe THIS is the one you wanted me to watch/comment on? Done:

"The pile driver theory not only violates Newton's second law, it also violates the third."


No, it doesn't. Gravity (which is not a factor in the non-analogous example of a car crash) is exerted on the entire building, in the same direction.


Comparing the two graphs:


Looks like the first one shows the timing of the fall of the building. Note that it has a constant slope. The slope is the rate of fall.


The speaker claims that this graph shows no deceleration. If I am understanding this graph correctly, the speaker is incorrect. Gravity would cause a change in slope, representing an increase in rate of fall, UNLESS an opposite force were acting on the building. Such opposing force would represent the deceleration that the speaker discusses.


The second graph shows a rate of fall. The two graphs are not directly comparable, though they can be related.


Alone, the two graphs prove nothing (other than that the two collapses were different), because the conditions of the two test cases are considerably different.


Next guy:


"So where is this tamper, this block, that is supposed to wipe out the lower floors? Sorry; it ain't there."


Where did all that mass go? Did it somehow disappear?


Next:


NIST guy is trying to answer a question, and is getting flustered because a bunch of rude people keep interrupting him.

(I think this is the guy claiming was flustered because he was unable to answer the question? More like he was subjected to a lay heckler's veto. It wasn't that he was unable to answer the question; rather, they kept shouting him down and prevented him from doing so.)


Next:


Firefighter mentions "molten steel" running like lava.


I am curious if the firefighter is qualified to know the difference, in that circumstance between various types of molten metals present?


Lead WTC structural engineer recounts a second-hand story about "rivers of steel".


This one has already been addressed adequately. He was recounting a story second-hand. He did not himself witness the "rivers of steel".


Then, there's a video showing pure, molten aluminum.


This one also has been addressed adequately. Not only were there other metals in the building, but also, any aluminum would have been adulterated with numerous impurities.


(And no; I don't find an ad hoc lab experiment to be persuasive. That little mixing exercise wouldn't even come close to approximating the conditions inside the buildings.)


And then, the video moves on to WTC7.

And then, a discussion of the ridiculous nanothermite theory.

Nope. Still nothing persuasive here. The null hypothesis still has not been rejected.

 

[ocsdor]