'What about building 7'?

[triforcharity]

You have no idea what Dr. Greening currently thinks about WTC7.

MM

Do you?

 

[triforcharity]

Do you think that NIST can revise reality in their final report?

Maybe, I don't know, but just maybe they found information that showed that the photo was earlier in the day? That is certainly plausable.....

 

[T.A.M.]

Do you think that NIST can revise reality in their final report?

No, I don't. When you actually prove to me that they did, I will be very upset with them. Afraid that hasn't happened yet.

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

My question was--
Where are the raging inferno fires that the NYC fire department could not attack?

Starting, just not visable yet in that picture. Fires take time.

 

[grandmastershek]

Anyone see this video yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00SDW4sOpI&feature=related

 

[cooperman]

Anyone see this video yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00SDW4sOpI&feature=related

Why is the penthouse collapse cut out of it?

 

[beachnut]

Anyone see this video yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00SDW4sOpI&feature=related

No CD, and they saw the penthouse fall first. No squibs. oops, cd dies.

They had the camera off and saw the penthouse fall, and filmed the rest. Wow, no explosives.

 

[T.A.M.]

Why is the penthouse collapse cut out of it?

Are we watching the same video? Where is the penthouse collapse "cut out"?

TAM

Edit...sorry, now i see what you mean.

 

[T.A.M.]

A better question,

Why do YOU think the collapse of the Penthouse is missing from this cut-up video that contains many different clips.

TAM

 

[Sabretooth]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122220

Why am I even surprised that you haven't read it?

His concerns include what I am arguing here.

Stop being a hypocrite. You haven't even read my posts that completely discount your attempt at questioning NIST.

 

[LashL]

A bunch of off-topic and bickering split to AAH. Discuss the topic and not each other.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

As noted above, this thread had a bunch of off-topic and bickering posts split to Abandon All Hope this morning, and now another batch of more of the same have joined them. I strongly suggest that you rein things in, because if you cannot discuss things within the boundaries of the Membership Agreement, suspensions are likely to follow for further breaches.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Fonebone]

Here is one reason

What was so important about WTC7 that it had to be destroyed that day?

When weill a truther tell me?

How about a lobby with charred bodies for a start.
Those firemen that told Barry Jennings and Hess not to look down
haven't been questioned under oath. Don't look down because ...........
.Barry Jennings is dead but mr Hess
isn't and he refuses to discuss the incident .
This is a murder investigation the citizens are conducting.
Put him under oath.

 

[Sabretooth]

How about a lobby with charred bodies for a start.
Those firemen that told Barry Jennings and Hess not to look down
haven't been questioned under oath. Don't look down because ...........
.Barry Jennings is dead but mr Hess
isn't and he refuses to discuss the incident .
This is a murder investigation the citizens are conducting.
Put him under oath.

And your statement is a complete fabrication.

 

[Travis]

I'm still waiting for someone to acknowledge they understand what happens to a constrained steel truss when it's first superheated then cooled.

 

[jaydeehess]

And what did he have to say about the jref response? You didn't bold that bit did you?

Had I chose to try and run away from his comments about JREF I would have done the typical truther thing and conveniently ommited that part of the quote.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I do not need a better one to show that the NIST theory is wrong and dishonest.

Why do their fire simulations not match reality? Why are they claiming there was fire at the initiating event when there wasn't? If you have to lie to make your theory work then your theory fails.

Why do you care? You don't have a theory of your own. Apparently, all you're concerned about is that a government investigation came to a wrong conclusion.

So, what is it that bothers you? That the NIST report was a waste of money? That the investigators displayed incompetence? That someone violated the municipal code by improperly demolishing a building?

Do you show the same concern for ALL bureaucratic snafus?

 

[T.A.M.]

Why do you care? You don't have a theory of your own. Apparently, all you're concerned about is that a government investigation came to a wrong conclusion.

So, what is it that bothers you? That the NIST report was a waste of money? That the investigators displayed incompetence? That someone violated the municipal code by improperly demolishing a building?

Do you show the same concern for ALL bureaucratic snafus?

I think many truthers try to employ the Socratic method when trying to debate or convince.

They feel if they can prove that the NIST WTC7 report was flawed, and get you to admit it, then the next step is convince you that it was INTENTIONALLY flawed. If they get you to admit that, then the next step is to get you to believe that it was intentionally flawed TO COVER UP something. If they get you accepting that, then the next step is that the cover up was to HIDE DEMOLITIONS. If they convince you of that, the next step is to get you to believe that members of the USG and corporate interests HAD THE MONEY AND MOTIVE to orchestrate such a plan...and so on.

In doing so one step at a time...trying ONLY at that time to convince you of the single step, they feel they can eventually lead you down the path that will eventually lead to you accepting the "inside job" theory.

Common MO in trutherville.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

I'm still waiting for someone to acknowledge they understand what happens to a constrained steel truss when it's first superheated then cooled.

I would like to see proof that any steel was "superheated" in WTC 7.

 

[T.A.M.]

I would like to see proof that any steel was "superheated" in WTC 7.

What do you mean by "superheated"? You think those fires simply sat there and the steel magically remained cool to the touch?

I know that is a bit saucy, but you are not being honest in your questioning, are you? Your question, if I am reading you correctly, is offhanded rhetoric aimed at the lack of actual steel samples from WTC7 available for the investigation...right?

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

What do you mean by "superheated"? You think those fires simply sat there and the steel magically remained cool to the touch?

I know that is a bit saucy, but you are not being honest in your questioning, are you? Your question, if I am reading you correctly, is offhanded rhetoric aimed at the lack of actual steel samples from WTC7 available for the investigation...right?

TAM

What does Travis mean by "superheated"? It's his word. NIST said the fires were from ordinary office contents.