Truthers...what is your best piece of evidence ?

[johnny karate]

I do have a theory better than NIST's.

No you don't.

Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

The electronic age is a wonderful thing. I'm sure there are many scientists and relevant professionals the world over readily available via e-mail that you could contact with you're proposition. I'm also equally sure that you will attempt to contact exactly zero.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

R.Mackey already described to in rather simple terms why everything you just said is completely wrong.

And as far as these supposed people that wish you'd shut up and go away, I can assure no one in a position to matter cares what an uninformed malcontent more practiced in denial than scientific method thinks about an engineering report.

 

[WildCat]

I do have a theory better than NIST's.

 

[stateofgrace]

See what I mean?

No, I fail entirely to see what you mean. You claimed column 79 was your evidence. To date you have done nothing to substantiate that claim.

Maybe I missed your point, could you spell it out for me?

 

[RedIbis]

I'd also like to hear more about these "novel phenomena" you have in mind. Generally, finding even one is grounds for a Nobel prize. I'll go halfies with you, how does that sound?

You're obviously misreading my post since I'm not the one proposing two novel phenomena.

 

[R.Mackey]

Feel free to explain yourself... The wording in that passage was quite confused.

 

[RedIbis]

Feel free to explain yourself... The wording in that passage was quite confused.

Just read it slower.

Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

 

[stateofgrace]

I don't want to sound disrespectful here but am I the only one here that cannot understand the point of Reds posts?

 

[WildCat]

Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

You claimed your theory was better, I guess that was a lie? If not, present it.

 

[R.Mackey]

I think he's trying to suggest, in his oh-so-clever style, that NIST is suggesting "two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it." Problem is, they aren't.

If that isn't what he's suggesting, then I can only assume he's merely baiting us. I wouldn't rise to it, but there is absolutely nothing else going on in the Truth Movement, and I wouldn't want him to get lonely...

 

[WildCat]

I don't want to sound disrespectful here but am I the only one here that cannot understand the point of Reds posts?

There's nothing to understand. RedIbis, as usual, has no point.

 

[RedIbis]

I don't want to sound disrespectful here but am I the only one here that cannot understand the point of Reds posts?

No, you are not the only one.

 

[Mince]

I don't think anyone can understand the point of RedIbis' posts...including RedIbis. It seems, after having utterly failed to convince us sheep of his "theories by YouTube", he is now just trying to be contrary.

 

[RedIbis]

I don't think anyone can understand the point of RedIbis' posts...including RedIbis. It seems, after having utterly failed to convince us sheep of his "theories by YouTube", he is now just trying to be contrary.

Post one example where I linked to youtube, just one. Otherwise, your post is ridiculous.

Wait a minute, there might have been a Jaco Pastorius video I posted in a music thread.

 

[Mince]

So; one's ignorance of a scientific principle makes it "a novel phenomenon" to the rest of the world?

 

[Mince]

Post one example where I linked to youtube, just one. Otherwise, your post is ridiculous.

Oh, I'm sorry, let me revise my post (emphasis added):

It seems, after having utterly failed to convince us sheep of his "theories by Google searches", he is now just trying to be contrary.

You don't have to post a link to YouTube to have watched it. I suppose now you're going to deny doing Google searches and attempt to convince us sheep that your investigation...and subsequent theory...into the collapse of WTC did not involve your keyboard.

Otherwise, your post is ridiculous.

Incorrect. We know you've never left your keyboard to investigate the collapse of WTC 7, yet you have "theories" for the collapse. YouTube is one of very few resources that one could use to develop such "theories." So, presuming one uses YouTube in his on-line scientific method is not ridiculous. What's ridiculous is someone developing a "theory" on the collapse of a building, lacking the requisite education and never leaving their computer chair.

 

[CHF]

Red, after 4+ pages I'm no closer to understanding what your theory is.

Spell it out for me if you don't mind.

 

[Whiplash]

I do have a theory better than NIST's.

Then I ask you again to please, please present it. I am very interested in seeing/hearing it. We've asked you nicely about a dozen times. You can't keep claiming you have a theory and not offer it. Put up or shut up. You are just splitting hairs and nitpicking in an attempt to discredit people here, as if that somehow miraculously discredits the entire official version. This ridiculously poor technique is just way too common these days, all over the place, including politics. Don't attack the message, make the messanger stumble or look like an idiot. Don't even acknowledge the message. Just attack, attack, attack, and hope that anything sticks, and then strut around like king of the world. Hopeless.

 

[pomeroo]

Doesn't the tedious and repetitive nature of your posts trouble you? And you are blatantly derailing the thread by bringing up Silverstein?

Hmmm. A thread that asks for the best twoofer evidence; a reply from you that tosses out a vague, insubstantial reference to a column 79 in WTC 7; a reply from me that reminds you of other "evidence" you've fabricated in the past. You may be on to something here. Time after time, I--and many other posters--have called attention to the glaring lack of substance in your posts. You always dismiss the criticism with a snide remark. Yes, we are foolish to play this tedious game with you.

It's like your suicidal by mod. You make this way too easy.

The mods are eager to ban me. I won't lose much sleep when it happens.

On the subject of derailing the thread, you were asked to provide your best evidence. You provided no evidence at all, even by the laughable standards of your evil movement. Care to take another crack at it?

 

[GlennB]

RedIbis - your opening gambit in this thread was "WTC7 column 79"

You subsequently stated that you "have a theory about WTC7 column 79", but, despite repeated requests, you haven't actually stated what this theory is.

Now, you can't blame others for failing to be telepathic.

What is your theory?

 

[PhantomWolf]

I do have a theory better than NIST's. Now if I could just get the funding for a team of scientists and unfettered access to any possible physical evidence, something tells me I'm not going to propose two novel phenomena without the evidence to prove it.

They don't even have the damn column. It's pure speculation by computer animation, and a lot of people would be very happy to accept it, and hope that people like me shut up and go away. At least admit this much. It's not science, it's the termination of the scientific process.

See this is where you Fail. They don't need the column to determine how the column reacted to the fire, all they need to know is how the column was made and how the metal would react to heat, the rest is pure physics. The reason that truthers are asked to produce physical evidence is because they continue to speculate about something being in the buildings for which there is no proof and normally would not be in the buildings. Physical evidence of those things would allow them to show that those things were in the building. NIST doesn't have to produce Colunm 79 to prove it was in the building, unless you are planning to argue that it was mysteriously absent that day.