DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[leonAzul]

i apologise apple but sometimes this is the only way when confronted with a nitpicker. he was to call me a liar he is going to have to call himself one because he did exactly the same mistake. however my comment was taken out of context - his was not.

Anything that does not address the OP is out of context and off topic. If you can calmly and reasonably connect observations concerning WC2 with a well reasoned argument for the controlled demolition of WC7, then here is your opportunity.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

And I know, this is going to follow upon a cascade of similar responses and I am repeating myself... but...

i apologise apple but sometimes this is the only way when confronted with a nitpicker. he was to call me a liar he is going to have to call himself one because he did exactly the same mistake. however my comment was taken out of context - his was not.

I mentioned this before funk had to make his post.

He wasn't taking your statement out of context period:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3831807&postcount=1034

Where you (again) stated:
You stated the following"

"• NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the impact zone..."

If you want to avoid a misunderstanding you're [once again] responsible for making sure your responses are consistent. Pointing to a post you made a few pages back does not change the fact that you have bounced back and forth between two versions of the statement.

You should have clarified the post he was responding to before accusing him of deliberately taking your response out of context.

 

[thewholesoul]

"Now I know you are just going to brush over the above"

here is a summary of your highbrow response:

This is a lie. This is not they way it happened see above.
Irrelevant and more goalpost shifting.
Irrelevant and another attempt to shift the goalposts
I have not brushed over your false claims and lies

you see what is lacking are reasons i could easily call you a liar but i have decided to win the moral argument aswell. but if i were to make a claim such as you are lying, that is irrelevant, you are shifting the goal posts etc i would support such claims with valid reasons. something you are increasingly unable to do and it is showing.

but i apologise if my arguments are becoming a little too deep end. so once again

here is a break down of our positions:

(1) we both agree that: NIST's explanation is not a full explanation of total collapse. this is synonymous with NIST's explantion is an incomplete explanation of total collapse.

(2) moving on...

- i said they were unable to explain total collapse

- you said they explained total collapse

(3) If a given phenomena is not fully explained then naturally some of it is explained [p] and some of it is not. [- p]


(4) My comment gives the impression that no explanation - at all – was given for the total collapse.

(5) Funk’s comment gives the impression that total collapse was – fully – explained. [f]

•some of total collapse was explained [p]

•some of total collapse was not explained [-p]

(6) My comment is inconsistent with p but consistent with - p

(7) Funks comment is inconsistent with p and incomsistent with - p

I undertand this maybe a little heavy so allow me to use an example outside of 911 event to explain. lets say a group of individuals in the 12th century were tasked with providing an explanation for the water cycle. they could explain where the rain came from, they explained how it flowed down the rivers to the seas, but they could not explain how the clouds were formed.

it is therefore true to say that:

some of the water cylce was explained [p]

some of the water cycle was not explained [-p]

so imagine the king asked two members of the group to step forward. one member said they "were unable to explain the water cycle" and the other member [f] said "they explained the water cycle".

the question then is which member of the group is making the more accurate statement? or [f]?

the statement is false in one sense because there was some of an explanation for the water cycle. but the statement is true in the sense that some of the water cycle was not explained.

on the other hand the statement [f] is false because it implies that a full explanation was given when in fact only some and none at all is in fact the truth.

so have two valid arguments against your claim that i am a liar.
(1) you took me out of context
(2) if out of context it is a more accurate statement than is yours.

you see i predict you will run away in the end like the brave little robin because i can rationally demonstrate that your accustion is unfounded. i have stepped my argumentation up a noch, but can you transcend the namecalling for just one post?

peace

 

[funk de fino]

TWS

You made a claim.

The claim was false and I called you on it.

You said it was not false.

I showed you the explanation from NIST.

You claimed this was contradictory to a later claim.

I showed you this was incorrect.

You then started bleating about "FULLY" explained and moving the goalposts and crying that you had been taken out of context.

You then start to goalposts shift at a record rate to save face from being roundly trumped by me in this and other threads.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

You made a claim I proved it wrong. End of story. All your crying about impressions and implications are irrelevant. You made a claim it was wrong, get over it.

PS I would like to see a FULLY explained rebuttal to the NIST FAQ?

PPS You have a nerve to talk about namecalling when you use bigotted personal attacks on me. Yet another example of your hypocrisy. Well done for exposing yourself even more.

ETA to add PPS

 

[DC]

lol Funk de Fino

 

[bio]

@thewholesoul

please ignore unobjective posts and let them playing.

 

[funk de fino]

@thewholesoul

please ignore unobjective posts and let them playing.

@bio

using correct english would probably be a good idea

 

[Jonnyclueless]

all bark no bite, where is the photos of aluminium mixed with organics glowing and flowig bright yellow orange in daylight?

All skull and no brain. Just do a quick search fo the foums braniac. I am not going to go to any effort for you. it's not worth it. The point is making it known for others to understand just how wrong you are. Ask Chainsaw. He's one of the people that has done such experimenting. But it's also a well known fact. So I shouldn't even have to show you. You simply don't understand the first thing about metals. You simply read it on a conspiracy tabloid and that is the extent of your little knowledge.

what a pathetic apology

Please don't ever think I would ever apologize to you for anything. I may laugh at you, but I will never feel sorry for you. Please don't get upset just because you can't get anyone to take your little conspiracy theories seriously. You got shot down, get used to it kid.

all bark no bite, where are the photos?

Again kid, just do a 5 second search on the forum and you will find dozens of threads dedicated to nothing other than the color of melted aluminum. All skull and no though as usual. Once again, you are stating a completely incorrect fact about aluminum. Can you back up that claim yourself? Hint: You can't because it's not at all true. Then take 5 seconds to do a quick search on the forums and you will find dozens of photos showing you why.

do you think a jetliner turns into 15rounds of a shotgun on impact? do youn think a flat steel plate is representative of floor trusses and core columns? if not then there is no need for me to answer your question.

Kid, I am only going to say this once. Are you on drugs? Do you even understand your own question?

is the mic on? hahahah

Um, again kid, stop with the drug use.

laugh it up. the fact remains that scale or half scale testing has not been conducted by NIST to prove their hypothesis.

Again kiddo, please tell us what facility should be used to do this testing. You only need to recommend one facility. And your assertion is incorrect. NIST has proven their hypothesis. They do not need those scales to prove it. Only an idiot would think otherwise. Again, this is the 2nd request for a location to do the testing you want. Pretend you have your little investigation granted. Where will you do this test?

the point is not that lack of testing proves it wrong, nor is the point that lack of testing proves it right, if you could manage to comprehend my very simple point - it is that lack of testing PROVES NOTHING. hence their PRE-collapse theory remains unproven. yet you beleive is true. now that's funny.

Oh I comprehend you just fine kid. you're an idiot. You are making a logical fallacy here and the fact taht you don't even understand it says a lot. The pre collapse theory is absolutely 100% proven. That's what you don't get. you are simply pretending that because a test was not to a certain scale that you can simply dismiss everything. It doesn't work that way kid. And this is one of the many reasons why the scientific community laughs at you. This is one of the reasons you nor any of the pretend experts in the twoof movement are able to write a single peer reviewed paper proving this. Don't you think one of your little geniuses at ae911truth.org would write a peer reviewed paper with your argument here if it were correct? So if you are correct, why has it not been shown on an engineering level kid?

Think about that while you're getting potty trained.

arguing there are no facilities to test their hypothesis does not alter my point that their hypotehsis remains unproven due to no testing being done. does it?

You claiming their hypothesis is unproven does not make it true. It simply means you are wrong. And you have been shown why you are wrong over and over kid. Perhaps you can explain to us why not having a full scale test dismisses all data. Go right ahead there.

and that explanation has not been tested. it is an unproven explantion or should i say assumption. scientifically worthless.

Oh my God. Are you high? Yes it has been tested and it has been proven and explained. It's NOT an assumption at all. Just because you don't understand what you are talking about does not make you right. It just makes you look like an idiot.

another pathetic apology. total collapse remains unproven. telling me it would serve no purpose hardly refutes the fact that it remains unproven.

Again little kid, why would I apologize to you for you being wrong and uneducated? The collapse remains completely proven. saying it would serve a purpose does not make it unproven. Even your little Richard Gage knows it has been proven. Even he has admitted that the collapse from the damage and fires was inevitable. The fact is you are not intelligent enough to understand what you are talking about. You think if you keep repeating the same completely wrong claim over and over that somehow it makes it correct. but it simply makes you a sock puppet.

why do you beleive the official story is true when it remains unproven?
perhaps you provide one example of 1/5 crushing the rest of the structure?
thats what pleases me the most. all you can do is bark - but never bite

Define official story. I believe in the NIST findings because they have been scientifically proven to be true. Despite some kid trying to claim otherwise and being wrong, that's a fact.

Ah, typical special ed student here. You seem to think that the top and bottom portions of the buildings were single whole objects. This shows to the extent just how uneducated you are kiddo. You clearly have no understanding of how buildings work, so it's not a surprise someone like you might be impressed by a guy using cardboard boxes to demonstrate how the work. But a building is a series of many smaller parts. So it wasn't 1/5th of the building crushing the rest of the structure. It was 15 floors crushing 1 floor. Then 16 floors crushing 1 floor. Then 17 floors crushing 1 floor. Are you catching on kid, or is this too much for your brain to retain?

believe me, when a person who calls himself clueless, conceives an unproven hypothesis as the absolute truth and cannot provide just one example in the natural world of what be believes in - when such a person just described laughs at me, i laugh right back

isn't it scary that someone who is clueless runs circles around you and points out how uneducated you are? And kid, you can call it an unproven hypothesis all you want. But that doesn't make you right. And remember when people are laughing at you, this is one of the reasons.

You just keep digging a bigger and bigger hole. You're like that kid who came in here and tried to argue about the properties of sound a while back. It's that same kind of complete lack of though or understanding of the most basic principles of engineering and physics.

how do you expect us not to laugh at you? Seriously.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

\

here is a break down of our positions:

(1) we both agree that: NIST's explanation is not a full explanation of total collapse. this is synonymous with NIST's explantion is an incomplete explanation of total collapse.

Incorrect. NIST provides a hypothesis on what initiated the collapse. They did not set out nor have any goal in explaining the post initiation of the collapse, thius there is nothing incomplete. Doing so would serve no purpose as the collapse at that point is unavoidable and has been proven that it cannot be stopped. It's like pushing you off a cliff and then someone claiming that it can't b proven that you were pushed off a cliff until someone explains the physics of your fall. We need to know how you got to teh fall initiation. After that no further explanation is needed to understand how you got to the ground.

(2) moving on...

- i said they were unable to explain total collapse

Incorrect. This is not an issue of being unable. You are claiming that they tried and failed. NIST has explained why they did not study anything past the collapse initiation. you aren't able to understand this despite pages and pages of it being explained to you kid. So you again are wrong here. And you are getting other people's responses wrong because you are pretending that these explinations are saying that they did explain the post collapse initiation. The heart o the problem here is your complete understanding of how this works.

(3) If a given phenomena is not fully explained then naturally some of it is explained [p] and some of it is not. [- p]

Once again, incorrect. This is simply an issue of you not understanding the issue itself. You clearly never even read the NIST report, let alone understand the collapse initiation.

(4) My comment gives the impression that no explanation - at all – was given for the total collapse.

Correct. No explination was given because none is needed. At that point no explination is needed to see that the forces left at collapse initiation are so far greater than anything that the building could possibly handle. Just like if you were pushed off a cliff, no forensic experts and engineers would be sitting there doing test models and research to see how you got from high up in the air to hitting the ground.

(5) Funk’s comment gives the impression that total collapse was – fully – explained. [f]

That's again because you don't understand the issue. That's not at all what Frank is saying. you simply don't understand. The collapse initiation was fully explained. Ater that there is no other possible outcome but total collapse. Just like when thrown off a cliff, there is no other outcome for your body but to fall to the ground.

•some of total collapse was explained [p]

•some of total collapse was not explained [-p]

Wow, you really don't understand at all.

(6) My comment is inconsistent with p but consistent with - p

(7) Funks comment is inconsistent with p and incomsistent with - p

Wow WOW you really don't understand. Please do not pass your genes.

I undertand this maybe a little heavy so allow me to use an example outside of 911 event to explain. lets say a group of individuals in the 12th century were tasked with providing an explanation for the water cycle. they could explain where the rain came from, they explained how it flowed down the rivers to the seas, but they could not explain how the clouds were formed.



it is therefore true to say that:

some of the water cylce was explained [p]

some of the water cycle was not explained [-p]

so imagine the king asked two members of the group to step forward. one member said they "were unable to explain the water cycle" and the other member [f] said "they explained the water cycle".

the question then is which member of the group is making the more accurate statement? or [f]?

the statement is false in one sense because there was some of an explanation for the water cycle. but the statement is true in the sense that some of the water cycle was not explained.

on the other hand the statement [f] is false because it implies that a full explanation was given when in fact only some and none at all is in fact the truth.

Kid, lay off the drugs. Seriously. The only one this is heavy for is you. You don't even understand the difference between collapse initiation and the post initiation collapse.

so have two valid arguments against your claim that i am a liar.
(1) you took me out of context
(2) if out of context it is a more accurate statement than is yours.

you see i predict you will run away in the end like the brave little robin because i can rationally demonstrate that your accustion is unfounded. i have stepped my argumentation up a noch, but can you transcend the namecalling for just one post?

peace

Kid, get over yourself. No one is running away from you. People are simply laughing at you. The fact of the matter is that you don't understand the principles at hand. When people explain them to you, you understand less and less. It's probably not that you are lying (though its hard to believe anyone could be that dumb) as much as it is that you simply don't understand what you are talking about and thus continue to repeat the same provenly wrong statements over and over while pretending they are still as valid as they were before everyone showed you why they were wrong. And then you not being able to understand or comprehend the explanations that show exactly why and how you are wrong, you again go back to repeating the same nonsense that has been shown to be wrong.

I think some people are underestimating your lack of understanding here and interpreting that as you lying. Because even the lowest of human thinkers would generally get it after the 100th time and therefore it is reasonable to think they are being dishonest if they keep repeating the same arguments. In this case it may be that you are just geniunely not smart enough to understand.

 

[applecorped]

snip for brevity this case it may be that you are just geniunely not smart enough to understand.

I disagree. I believe TWS is completely aware and capable of fully comprehending of what he/she is posting. The only real questions are why and for what purpose does it continue. What is the ultimate goal?

 

[thewholesoul]

And I know, this is going to follow upon a cascade of similar responses and I am repeating myself... but...

I mentioned this before funk had to make his post.

He wasn't taking your statement out of context period:

first of all, this is not your dispute. you were not accused of being a liar, i was. my comment was taken out of context. and funk is a big boy so he doesnt need you to defend his false accusations.

you cite a premise i made way back but let us put it in conext in post#928i highlight the relevant parts in red.

•NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the imapct zone, so

BEACHNUT: No, they said it would fail after the top floor fell on the structure below. Sounds like you lack training in physics. You can go to school and catch up on this. You are also taking what NIST did and perverting it with your opinion and false ideas. Not too cool. Wrong again, trying to mislead others. Bad.

SOUL: I’m sorry beachnut but when NIST say "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse", call me crazy but I tend to take them at their word.

[cut for time]

•so Taken together the official hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven 7 years after the event

[cut]

BEACHNUT: Sorry, the collapse is proven. I have a video of it. Sad you have no evidence to go with your failed interpretation of NIST and what really happen on 9/11.

SOUL: So NIST have proven the total collapse but they are unable to explain it?

yes my premise does not include the full statement because regardless of whether NIST could not explain total collapse, or whether they could not fully explain total collapse the conclusion that total collapse remains unproven remains unchanged. this is why "i bounce back between the two versions of the statement" grizzly because it is IRRELEVANT to my conclusion. and i assume that readers are aware of the statement i am refering to.

in post 928 it is clear, or at least should be, that i am refering to NIST's statement in september which i highlighted above in red. because ON NO OTHER OCCASSION does NIST admit anything so bluntly.

as you know i was called a liar for writing short hand and failing to insert a qualifier. Funk failed to insert a qualifier yet you say nothing to him?

You should have clarified the post he was responding to before accusing him of deliberately taking your response out of context.

it was CLEAR that i was refering to NIST`s september statement. Funk is well aware of NIST's september statement. he took my comment out of context.

and why you dont ask Funk to qualify his statements is disappointing.

he did EXACTLY THE SAME THING. he said "they explained it" when he shoudl have said "they incompletely explained it".

cant you see how irrelevant this discusion is - we are discussing placing qualifiers into sentences - let me repeat myself. we are discussing placing QUALIFIERS into sentences. Funk is a nitpicker its not his fault -because it is his nature

peace

 

[funk de fino]

he did EXACTLY THE SAME THING. he said "they explained it" when he shoudl have said "they incompletely explained it".

English is not your first language is it? This would explain a lot because the above statement is incorrect english. Fail, 2/10, see me after class.

What you should have happened was this.

TWS - NIST have not explained the total collapse.

Fdf - Yes they have (supplies proof of explanation with calculations)

TWS - Sorry my claim was incorrect, what I meant to say was they have not fully explained the total collapse.

FdF - Thanks for clarifying your initial incorrect claim.

I was also fully aware of the sept statement and was also aware (unlike you it seems) of the december statement where they did explain it. My claim backed up the December statement which explained the total collapse.

Also lets not forget you also claimed the December statement did not explain the total collapse and was just the floors. Think I had forgotten that false claim also did you?

Now define fully?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

first of all, this is not your dispute. you were not accused of being a liar, i was. my comment was taken out of context. and funk is a big boy so he doesnt need you to defend his false accusations.
you cite a premise i made way back but let us put it in conext in post#928i highlight the relevant parts in red.

I'm not protecting him from your statements, I'm advising you so you look a little less foolish. There are other statements where you lied, and I could have directly called you a LIAR, but I chose not to... In this case I gave you the benefit of the doubt that it was a mistake, but it probably doesn't matter at this point whether benefiting you with the doubt was reasonable or not, you clearly don't think it made any difference to your conclusion.

as you know i was called a liar for writing short hand and failing to insert a qualifier. Funk failed to insert a qualifier yet you say nothing to him?

He's bound by the same... as far as I am able to tell he is referring to NIST's December update: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

Most of what propagated the collapse in the first place was connection failures, it wasn't a matter of whether the entire building as a unit could arrest collapse, it was a matter of whether the individual parts could arrest it.
Individual floors were overloaded during the collapse progression and failed, and a combination of lateral forces from the debris within the collapsing building and connection failures from the yielding floors took out the perimeter columns. The buildings were rigid but do you really believe that the lateral resistance that the exterior columns could provide could stand up against the mass of a 60,000 ton debris accumulation individually on each floor?

This is where your failing to understand the issue, and why you 1/5 vs 4/5 argument is unfounded. And it was obvious this was happeing in the video footage

cant you see how irrelevant this discusion is - we are discussing placing qualifiers into sentences - let me repeat myself. we are discussing placing QUALIFIERS into sentences. Funk is a nitpicker its not his fault -because it is his nature

peace

Ironically it is funny the discussion degraded to a point of grammar... but it did anyway... As for your nit picker comment, what do you expect in a debate? You've done the same, doesn't seem unusual... We can end it now... and get back to the point

Interestingly, the entire time we've had this discussion you've pulled most of your sources from the Journal of 911 studies, NIST, and Jone's work. Do you have any plans to start using sites that are specifically relevant to the subjects we're covering here? Like using structural engineering sites, and similar? I've been using the ASCE website and a number of engineering related sites to make my case, about structural failures, but you've not that I've seen so far...

 

[thewholesoul]

[qimg]http://i.dipity.com/uploads/events/564868b8b0c790b63922f510110dfd19.png[/qimg]


And where do the vast majority of professional fall in-line with? The ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers ) has done an evaluation on the buildings already, and they don't seem to have a problem with it. The AIAA, and others don't either. They're all professionals, who don't have any problems with much of the official conclusions of the events. What does that make them in your eyes, government apologists or wackos, since the thousands of members in those two organizations alone far outnumber the 'professionals' who support the consensus of the truth movement?

have you done a quantative survey?

have they proven their claims?

have you proven your version of the official account?

can the official account be proven?

why do you believe something to be true when it has not been proven? i dont undertsand your reasoning.

Wait, you've answered my question already, numbers apparently don't matter in regard to the merit of the conclusions... so what if anything does the fact that tens of thousands of professionals in related fields have a general agreement on the failure method of the towers? Why aren't the ASCE articles screaming thermite incendiaries for WTC 7 or the twin towers?

"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth" - Mahatma Ghandi

look if the official account was proven, if it could even be proven then I would naturally adopt another position. all these experst are tell me that 12 collapsing floors can crush 92 intact floors. i doubt believe - i want them to prove this claim. dont you?

peace

 

[e^n]

have you done a quantative survey?

Such a survey is not strictly required, engineers agree to an ethical standard which would result in severe penalties if they knew of an engineering failure and did not bring it to the attention of appropriate authorities.

have they proven their claims?

They have

can the official account be proven?

By reasonable standards, then yes it can.

all these experst are tell me that 12 collapsing floors can crush 92 intact floors. i doubt believe - i want them to prove this claim.

How?

 

[applecorped]

I disagree. I believe TWS is completely aware and capable of fully comprehending of what he/she is posting. The only real questions are why and for what purpose does it continue. What is the ultimate goal?

I admit that I could be completely wrong in my previous assumptions.

 

[thewholesoul]

You made a claim.

Correct

The claim was false and I called you on it.

And i responded. You took my comment in post 928 out of context. i made this argument in post#1057 – i called you out you avoid responding. And even out of context my comment is still partially true, your comment was not.

You said it was not false.

Correct because you took my comment out of context. And screaming that i moved the goal posts is a claim, not an argument backed by reasons.

I showed you the explanation from NIST.

You showed me an incompete explanation. in every incomplete explanation some of the explanandum is explained and some necessarily is not. My comment – even out of context – is partially true see post#1063. Besides you showed me a NIST explanation and claimed it explained total collapse when you should have said – it incompletly explained total collapse.

You claimed this was contradictory to a later claim.

Correct because your unqualified comment that “they have explained it” or “NIST explained total collapse in the December FAQ’s” runs contrary to NIST’s september claim “we are unable to fully explain the total collaspe”. Does it not?

I showed you this was incorrect.

Ah, you were talking about the mistake i made when with the dates. I thought NIST september statement was made after the FAQ’s. I was wrong. The reason i made this point however was to establish that the FAQ’s explanation was not a full explanation contrary to what your unqualified comment had suggested. A point you now concede. So mixing up the dates made absolutely no difference to the point i was aiming to establish. Unlucky.

You then started bleating about "FULLY" explained and moving the goalposts and crying that you had been taken out of context.

Can you please address post#1057 with valid reasons?

You then start to goalposts shift at a record rate to save face from being roundly trumped by me in this and other threads.[/quote[

Lol you certainly talk like a butterfly but can you sting like a bee? I am calling you out champ. Remember we are supposed to be slugging it out, rationally. And all you are doing is running around the ring waiting for the bell to ring! Answer the questions in post#1057 with valid reasons. And then maybe address post#1063.

You are a liar and a hypocrite.

So you keep saying, but you have to establish that claim with valid reasons. You have to argue that my comment was not taken out of context when it obviously was. As for being a hypocrite – now that is rich. In post#1057 i specifically raise a question in relation to your hypocracy in all of this. Why do you keep ignoring your hypocracy and hiding like a coward from a rational debate?

You made a claim I proved it wrong. End of story. All your crying about impressions and implications are irrelevant. You made a claim it was wrong, get over it.

I’m going nowhere. I am standing in the ring and you keep running around praying the bell will ring. Look if you throw the towel in i “fully” understand.

PS I would like to see a FULLY explained rebuttal to the NIST FAQ?

their claims are UNPROVEN. so why should i beleive them? you say i have to prove them wrong. sorry they have to prove their own calculations true! besides Stop changing the subject. We can answer questions of substance later but first we have to deal with your pety nitpicking, your false accusations, and inability to admit your own mistakes and treat people with respect.

PPS You have a nerve to talk about namecalling when you use bigotted personal attacks on me. Yet another example of your hypocrisy. Well done for exposing yourself even more.

You never name call Funk?

In any case i noticed in the above post you FAIL to answer any questions in post#1057, you FAIL to acknowledge your own mistakes.

Here is what a person with character says when he makes a mistake Funk

SOUL:

your right, i was wrong. its not hard to admit such things. and i apologise for my last post to you on the other thread. i was in a bad mood when i wrote it.

this was again over another nitpick that i was uninterested in debating:
SOUL:

Moreover I am unaware of any example prior to or since 911 when a gravity collapse completely pulverised the entire building.

FUNK:

You really need to stop making ridiculous claims like this. The building was not pulverised. It fell down and broke into many pieces, some of them were huge.

I posted this in response:

SOUL:

Waste Industry, Others Help with Cleanup at World Trade Center Site, WasteAge.com, 11/1/01: virtually no large pieces of concrete were found at ground zero, only twisted pieces of steel. http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...ge_cleanup.htm

FUNK:

Virtually? That does not mean none. You made a claim the building had been pulverised you are wrong.

And this

SOUL:

World trade center dust analysis: estimates put the size of the particles in the 10 to 100 micron range. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1224091033.htm

FUNK: [QUOTE[I'm not talking about dust I am talking about the building debri. You said it was pulverised it was not.

You should have said some of the building was pulverised. This would have been an acceptable claim.

but if i said SOME of the building was pulverized that would still have been inconsistent with your equally erroneous claim "the building was not pulverized".

in the end this nitpicking is hilarious i made a long and constructive argument in that thread and the best you can do is say that i should have said “some” of the building was pulverised!!! And let us not forget your own UNQUALIFIED remark at the outset “The building was not pulverised” [at all] –

the were unable to explain it - You call me a liar becuase i should have said they were unable to fully explain it

the building was not pulverized - you shoudl have said the building was not fully pulverized.

your a petty HYPOCRITE, who COWERS from my questions, and has not the CHARACTER to admit when he is wrong or APOLOGISE for calling someoneelse a liar. you are a NITPICKER and your little one liner arguments are not interesting and once you either run from my challenge to answer post 1057, 1063 i will not respond to you again.

so answer my questons you coward and stop avoiding them.

 

[e^n]

And let us not forget your own UNQUALIFIED remark at the outset “The building was not pulverised” [at all] –

You cannot simply add your interpretation of his statement and take it as fact. I think it's quite clear he was referring to the entire building as the claim that it was 100% 'dustified' is common. Just google that word.

your a petty HYPOCRITE, who COWERS from my questions, and has not the CHARACTER to admit when he is wrong or APOLOGISE for calling someoneelse a liar. you are a NITPICKER and your little one liner arguments are not interesting and once you either run from my challenge to answer post 1057, 1063 i will not respond to you again.

so answer my questons you coward and stop avoiding them.

This is ridiculous behaviour, if you do not wish to reply, add him to ignore and notify him privately you have done so.

 

[thewholesoul]

Such a survey is not strictly required, engineers agree to an ethical standard which would result in severe penalties if they knew of an engineering failure and did not bring it to the attention of appropriate authorities.


They have


By reasonable standards, then yes it can.


How?

hey, sorry i will respond to your earlier post. unfortunately my time is being wasted addressing the nitpicker.

you assert that (a) they have proven their claims (b) by reasonable standards (c) but you then ask how can they prove the collapse mechanism they claim caused Total collapse.

do you recognise any inconsistency in the above argument?

would you agree that if a phenomena is not fully explained then it cannot possibly be fully proven?

and to avod nitpickers when i say proven i mean proven according to the scientific method.

peace

i want to get to PAR and then i yoru post and then grzzly.

 

[e^n]

hey, sorry i will respond to your earlier post. unfortunately my time is being wasted addressing the nitpicker.

This is your own choice

you assert that (a) they have proven their claims (b) by reasonable standards (c) but you then ask how can they prove the collapse mechanism they claim caused Total collapse.

do you recognise any inconsistency in the above argument?

Not at all, I am asking you the question 'How can they prove it to you?'. I do not inherently claim that your standards are reasonable standards. Obviously my definition of reasonable standards is my own, but there is no logical requirement it must apply to yours.

For example, should you require a full reproduction of the towers to prove the collapse theory. My statement would be logically consistent as your standards would not be reasonable. I hope this explains it fully.

would you agree that if a phenomena is not fully explained then it cannot possibly be fully proven?

Not at all, everything from Evolution, Atomic Theory, Gravity, Relativity would not count as 'fully proven' in this context. If this is what you were expecting me to say then I will simply complain about semantics, whatever words are used, there is never in science a point at which theories become incontestable.