femurphy77
Grandmaster
This is truly priceless.
You really do believe this ****.
Quoted because it's worth it!!
This is truly priceless.
You really do believe this ****.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I've refuted Chandler's assumption using the "evidence" you tell us to rely on in the video. QED
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.
...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.
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 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.
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.