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

[Crazytimes]

So 5 pages in and I still don't have an answer to my question.

I wish we could completely remove all post so this thread will go on like I thought it would. Completely blank.

 

[GlennB]

There are competing theories. Column 79 is central to NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

Yes, but what is your theory Red ?? The one you have claimed to have.

You still haven't told us. Please do. At the moment you're looking like Heiwa, who - when asked a jillion times whether he had actually performed his water-tank experiment - just dodged the question for about two months and then went away.

Answer that very simple question please. What is your theory regarding column 79 ?

 

[RedIbis]

No, and as everyone can see I said nothing that gives any such impression. Your response is both dishonest and off-topic.

Ok, so if you disagree with my statement you must think WTC 7 NIST's collapse theory is backed up by physical evidence. Please provide a link to such evidence.

I'm glad you agree 100% - does that mean that you withdraw your statement that the nonexistent column 79 is your best piece of evidence?

No. Column 79 is NIST's best piece of nonexistent evidence.

As far as I'm aware, NIST's computer models and their outputs are information that actually exists.

Dave

Information, yes. Physical evidence, no.

 

[Mince]

Ok, so if you disagree with my statement you must think WTC 7 NIST's collapse theory is backed up by physical evidence. Please provide a link to such evidence.



No. Column 79 is NIST's best piece of nonexistent evidence.



Information, yes. Physical evidence, no.

So, if "physical" evidence does not exist, and, as you're implying, you can't do a sufficient investigation and analysis without the "physical" evidence, how the hell are you going to rely on another investigation? Why are you asking for another investigation, independent or otherwise, if you will not trust its results based on the lack of "physical" evidence? Hmm? Hmm?

 

[Baylor]

We always have the video, audio, & seismic evidence, topped with eyewitness testimony.

 

[Baylor]

Evidence of fires: YES
Evidence of explosives: NO

 

[Baylor]

Evidence of a terrorist attack on the WTC: YES
Evidence a secret shadow government tried to pass off a controlled demolition as a fire-induced progressive collapse: NO

 

[MIKILLINI]

No evidence from any truther? Umm..Red?

WTC 7 Column 79

So what is the specific problem about WTC 7 Column 79 that causes you to believe this column is a very crucial concern to you?

 

[pomeroo]

So you would agree that NIST's theory is not based on any physical evidence?



I agree 100% and hope you would hold NIST to the same standard.

Why do the researchers for NIST, all of whom have technical backgrounds, understand the science behind building collapses less well than you do, given that you have no technical knowledge of the relevant subjects?

Don't be silly--of course you don't intend to answer! This question is asked of every fantasist without ever eliciting a coherent response.

You rely on NIST for your belief that there is no "physical" evidence. That belief is wrong, as you know. You are trying clumsily to palm off the fact that NIST did not have at its disposal steel from WTC 7 as a different, broader assertion. The absence of detonator caps, bits of wiring, chemical signatures of shaped charges are all examples of "physical" evidence.

You have never yet fooled anyone here and today won't be the first time you succeed.

 

[RedIbis]

You rely on NIST for your belief that there is no "physical" evidence. That belief is wrong, as you know.

I asked Dave Rogers the same, if you have a source for the physical evidence on which NIST based their WTC 7 collapse theory, please post it.

 

[MIKILLINI]

The new style....Lack of evidence as evidence.

So what is the specific problem about WTC 7 Column 79 that causes you to believe this column is a very crucial concern to you?

Never mind Red, you answered. So your best piece of evidence is non-evidence?

 

[pomeroo]

Column 79 is my best evidence. The exercise is simple. If I claim this iis the best evidence which proves my theory(ies), do you think I should have to produce this crucial piece of evidence?

I'll play along. What about column 79 is your best evidence? What is it evidence of? For six pages your posts have been, typically, totally devoid of substance. Be specific when you describe column 79 as "evidence." Evidence must point to something. What does the "evidence" of column 79 point to? How does it do that?

 

[pomeroo]

I asked Dave Rogers the same, if you have a source for the physical evidence on which NIST based their WTC 7 collapse theory, please post it.

You manage to bore the other rationalists with your airy nothingness. They walk away in exasperation. I keep calling you on your absurd deceptions and am occasionally rewarded with spectacular meltdowns, such as your most memorable one in the now-classic "pull it" thread.
I just pointed out that the absence (sure, I'll repeat myself) of detonator caps, bits of wiring, and chemical signatures of shaped charges is a form of physical evidence. You understand this perfectly well. NIST told you that no steel from WTC 7 was available. You didn't make this discovery through your own dogged efforts: it was spoon-fed to you by NIST.

We won't ask you to explain why NIST chose not to fabricate steel samples it didn't actually have. You would fare no better than the frauds of the CIT. We all get the idea: the super-villains never ever plant the evidence they need. We are left wondering why they neglect such a simple procedure, one that would occur to any bright child.

Tell us why your insights into a building collapse are superior to those of people who have the technical knowledge you conspicuously lack.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I want to know how Red makes the jump from No Column 79 to No physical evidence.

 

[pomeroo]

I want to know how Red makes the jump from No Column 79 to No physical evidence.

You know, all the rationalists here who are still awake could save time and energy by responding to anything RedIbis posts with, see post # 212.

 

[stateofgrace]

Question. What is your best piece of evidence ?

Reds answser.

WTC 7 Column 79

OK,Red could you please, please explain why this is your best piece of evidence? Everybody wants to know what your theory is.

No, but how is column 79 evidence of an inside job ?

Mackey beat me to the punch, but... you have a theory?

Nice try, but not good enough. Now, please give us your reasoning as to WHY column 79 is your best piece of evidence. In your reasoning, please provide calculations, scientific evidence, and relevant sources. Leave all speculation at the door.

Here's a trick question: what is your theory?


Yes, I know it's not really a trick question, but you'll evade it like it were one anyway.

And what was your best "evidence" before you grasped this latest straw, the straw you never dreamed of until NIST published its report?

Given that column 79 is no evidence at all for your fantasy, can you suggest something else?

Red,
I'm not going to argue semantics with you on this, and I'm not going to ask you to produce the actual column for me.

Can you please tell me your theory as to why column 79 is the best evidence for a CT?

I'm very intersted in this theory, RedIbis. You have said you have one several times, but completely ignore questions and requests to state it. Please do so.

So Red, please tell us what your theory about WTC7 is and how column 79 is evidence for it. You have been asked several times, and you have conveniently ignored the question. We would all love to hear it.

What is RedIbis's theory? I though he was Just Asking Questions.

Really?

So when you claim that column 79 is your evidence, nobody is supposed to raise an eye brow and ask you back up you claim?

No this is not true; please stop acting like the poor oppressed victim. People want you to valid your claims, to back your claims with evidence and science.

Now, you claimed column 79 was your evidence, so please back up your claim ( with evidence and science).

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

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

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?

What theory(ies) would that be Red?

Yes, but what is your theory Red ?? The one you have claimed to have.

You still haven't told us. Please do. At the moment you're looking like Heiwa, who - when asked a jillion times whether he had actually performed his water-tank experiment - just dodged the question for about two months and then went away.

Answer that very simple question please. What is your theory regarding column 79 ?

So what is the specific problem about WTC 7 Column 79 that causes you to believe this column is a very crucial concern to you?

Never mind Red, you answered. So your best piece of evidence is non-evidence?

I'll play along. What about column 79 is your best evidence? What is it evidence of? For six pages your posts have been, typically, totally devoid of substance. Be specific when you describe column 79 as "evidence." Evidence must point to something. What does the "evidence" of column 79 point to? How does it do that?

When you are ready Red.

 

[Totovader]

... like I said- a strawman.

Difference between NIST and Red: NIST did not say "a lack of this column proves this theory", Red is saying that. This is also known as the argument from ignorance. Red will try to now back peddle by committing an even bigger argument from ignorance claim: that a lack of the column proves that NIST cannot be right.

Red, any comments? You seem to be doing exactly as I predicted. Do you understand the fallacy you're committing, or do you need it explained in greater detail?

 

[johnny karate]

Ok, so if you disagree with my statement you must think WTC 7 NIST's collapse theory is backed up by physical evidence. Please provide a link to such evidence.

No. Column 79 is NIST's best piece of nonexistent evidence.

Information, yes. Physical evidence, no.

R. Mackey has repeatedly explained to you in fairly simple terms how this works:

NIST's theory is supported by simulation, calculations of component strengths and failure modes, and video and related records where possible.

It is a hypothesis backed by experiments. Simulations are a valid means of conducting experiments! They do not need the column to have a valid theory, no more than we need to create a mass singularity to have a valid theory of black holes.

Your willful ignorance and denial does not change the fact that these are perfectly valid methods of scientific investigation.

 

[johnny karate]

I'd be curious to hear RedIbis' explanation as to why such a glaringly fraudulent engineering report is not being utterly crucified in the engineering community.

Perhaps he believes all the suspicious engineers have had their minds changed the way he believes the firefighters had their minds changed about what they experienced at WTC7.

 

[Mince]

I asked Dave Rogers the same, if you have a source for the physical evidence on which NIST based their WTC 7 collapse theory, please post it.

Guess what. If there's no "physical" evidence, there can be no new independent investigation. ZOMG!! You kind of shot yourself in the foot here, huh?