Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

[twinstead]

The boy aint got all his marbles in one bag.

MM knows that too. It's just that ANYBODY who disagrees with the "Official Story" gets his support, no matter how kooky or stupid that person's reasons are.

 

[RedIbis]

You find it funny and stupid that any attempt should be made to uncover evidence that might lead to an explanation of WTC7's collapse that you might accept? That's a strange attitude for someone who claims to be interested in determining the truth.

No. I find it funny and stupid that you think that any WTC 7 steel could be analyzed now. I know you understood what I meant, you're just being petulant.

Then can we assume that you would oppose any further investigation into the collapse of WTC7 on the grounds that the real cause is unknowable so it would be a waste of time and money?

You can assume whatever you want, even something very stupid, as you are obviously capable of doing so.

Remember, the sole reason you reject NIST's conclusions is that they are not backed up by what you describe as "physical evidence", although your definition is not the common one; your definition of "physical evidence" equates to "physical samples of the debris from WTC7 demonstrating the specific collapse mode proposed in the report". Since you admit that no such physical evidence can possibly be obtained, logically you must reject any alternative conclusion on the same grounds. So, do you support or oppose further investigation into the collapse of WTC7; and, if you oppose it, wouldn't it make a bit more sense just to shut up about it?

Dave

Holy crap, Dave. There are no alternative definitions of physical evidence. Don't create strawman or make up fake quotes that I defined physical evidence as demonstrating the collapse mechanism. I didn't say that. I said that NIST did not backup their novel collapse scenarios with corroborating WTC 7 steel. You know this as well.

Here's a rather straightforward question that I doubt you'll answer sincerely:
Did NIST present or analyze any WTC 7 steel to support their novel collapse sequence?

I'm going to assume you know the difference between physical and documentary evidence, so a simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm going to assume you know the difference between physical and documentary evidence, so a simple yes or no will suffice.

As I already said - what you call documentary evidence includes testimony from people on the ground, on the site, right in front of the friggin building. THAT IS MORE THAN ENOUGH.

Period.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No. I find it funny and stupid that you think that any WTC 7 steel could be analyzed now. I know you understood what I meant, you're just being petulant.

I'm pretty sure you're trying desperately hard not to understand what I mean, though. What physical evidence could possibly be gathered now to support the NIST hypothesis for the collapse of WTC7? If the answer is that no physical evidence can be gathered, is this not true for any other hypothesis for the collapse of WTC7? If the NIST hypothesis must be rejected for lack of physical evidence, is this not true for any other hypothesis for the collapse of WTC7? And, therefore, is it not pointless to inquire further into the cause of WTC7's collapse, since without physical evidence it is unknowable?

Holy crap, Dave. There are no alternative definitions of physical evidence.

Then the NIST collapse scenario was backed up by physical evidence; it was just not backed up by physical evidence recovered from the WTC7 debris.

Don't create strawman or make up fake quotes that I defined physical evidence as demonstrating the collapse mechanism. I didn't say that. I said that NIST did not backup their novel collapse scenarios with corroborating WTC 7 steel. You know this as well.[/quote]

You are a liar. You have repeatedly claimed that the WTC7 collapse was not supported by physical evidence. Do you want me to go back and find a few examples of you saying exactly that to prove you're a liar? Well, from this thread:

However, presenting unprecedented scenarios without physical evidence is more than enough reason to be skeptical. In fact, NIST's conclusions should be taken as nothing more than fancy speculation, which it is.

So it's ok to believe in a theory as long as it confirms your preconceived beliefs regardless of the lack of physical evidence and your false assumption that gathering supporting physical evidence is "impossible."

And no, I never suggested that physical evidence was faked for WTC 7 since NIST didn't use any of it to support their hypotheses, so how could I claim it was faked?

Your argument, all along, is that NIST used no physical evidence to support their collapse scenario. Your claim that it was that NIST used no corroborating WTC7 steel is a deliberate lie.

Here's a rather straightforward question that I doubt you'll answer sincerely:
Did NIST present or analyze any WTC 7 steel to support their novel collapse sequence?

Not as far as I'm aware. However, the collapse scenario was backed up by physical evidence in the form of decades' worth of analysis of the thermal properties of steel.

I'm going to assume you know the difference between physical and documentary evidence, so a simple yes or no will suffice.

I'm going to assume you know the difference between physical evidence and physical evidence collected from the WTC7 debris pile; based on that assumption, your repeated attempts to equivocate between the two are simple dishonesty.

Dave

 

[sheeplesnshills]

It was more than just the paper, grizzly. You can't imagine the nightmare we had coming up with a plan to get rid of all those computers, spare cans of thermite paint, failed remote control devices, cuttings from faked videos, extra plane parts, voice morphing machines, etc. etc.

Ooops... I think I've said too much

That was the easy part, all we did was dig a big hole near shanksville and bury them there....add a few plane parts (we used bits of an old 737, I mean who was going to check the serial numbers ) on the top, spray a little jet fuel, body parts etc and we could be sure they would never disturb the site ever again........The really clever bit though was to start a CT about the whole event. That attracted the usual nuts and soon no one with any claim to sanity would go anyplace close to the subject.

Its ironic that the so called 911 "Truth" movement (I came up with that name by the way) are the biggest block to anyone ever finding out what really happened

Opps, just got a email.....Kitty wants to see me about something......later

 

[RedIbis]

Not as far as I'm aware. However, the collapse scenario was backed up by physical evidence in the form of decades' worth of analysis of the thermal properties of steel.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and I shouldn't have done so. You clearly do not know the difference between physical and documentary evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and I shouldn't have done so. You clearly do not know the difference between physical and documentary evidence.

OK, multiple choice time. I measure the length of a piece of steel at room temperature. I then measure it again at 200ºC. Are my measurements:

(a) Physical evidence, or
(b) Documentary evidence?

If (a), then the NIST report is supported by physical evidence. If (b), then on to question 2.

I make observations of the condition of a piece of steel from WTC7, and communicate the results to NIST. Are my observations:

(a) Physical evidence, or
(b) Documentary evidence?

If (a), how is this different from case 1 above? If (b), then is there any such thing as physical evidence?

Think carefully before answering.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

OK, multiple choice time. I measure the length of a piece of steel at room temperature. I then measure it again at 200ºC. Are my measurements:

(a) Physical evidence, or
(b) Documentary evidence?

If (a), then the NIST report is supported by physical evidence. If (b), then on to question 2.

I make observations of the condition of a piece of steel from WTC7, and communicate the results to NIST. Are my observations:

(a) Physical evidence, or
(b) Documentary evidence?

If (a), how is this different from case 1 above? If (b), then is there any such thing as physical evidence?

Think carefully before answering.

Dave

Think carefully before asking questions. Is the steel from the WTC 7?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Think carefully before asking questions. Is the steel from the WTC 7?

Is it not physical evidence if it isn't from WTC7? Let me remind you, your initial claim, however much you may choose to lie about it, was that the NIST WTC7 collapse mechanism was not supported by physical evidence, not that it was not supported by physical evidence obtained from WTC7.

So, wherever the steel was obtained from, do physical measurements on a physical piece of steel constitute physical evidence?

Dave

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Not as far as I'm aware. However, the collapse scenario was backed up by physical evidence in the form of decades' worth of analysis of the thermal properties of steel.

And he knows that the American Society for Testing and Materials AKA ASTM International has already helped to establish those standards which have garnered the physical data on steel used in building construction, including the grade used on WTC 7. But he doesn't like it when little details like that are pointed out.

 

[RedIbis]

Is it not physical evidence if it isn't from WTC7? Let me remind you, your initial claim, however much you may choose to lie about it, was that the NIST WTC7 collapse mechanism was not supported by physical evidence, not that it was not supported by physical evidence obtained from WTC7.

So, wherever the steel was obtained from, do physical measurements on a physical piece of steel constitute physical evidence?

Dave

Dave, somehow you have overlooked the fact that NIST itself has admitted that it did not use physical evidence in its WTC 7 report.

They did not equivocate on the term 'physical evidence' as you do. They didn't deny it. They simply said there just wasn't much for them to analyze. At best it's an incredibly lame excuse. Worse than that it's an out and out lie.

Granted, I'm far more concerned that NIST conducted such a shoddy investigation than the fact that you really don't understand what physical evidence is. But it should be of at least some concern to you.

By your incredibly stupid description, if there's a murder trial and the prosecutor introduces a book on handguns, as opposed to the actual murder weapon, this is somehow physical evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, somehow you have overlooked the fact that NIST itself has admitted that it did not use physical evidence in its WTC 7 report.

Whatever NIST may have said, the physical properties of steel were incorporated in its modelling, and hence this modelling was based on physical evidence. And by your "incredibly stupid description", if there's a murder trial and the prosecution introduces into evidence a series of tests of the ballistic properties of the same type of gun and ammunition as were used for the murder, that's not physical evidence.

We all understand where you're coming from; you don't like NIST's conclusions, so you'll grasp at any excuse, however spurious, to reject their work. I just wish you wouldn't keep lying about it, because you're really very bad at it.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

You went from this:

Whatever NIST may have said, [...]

to this:

you don't like NIST's conclusions, so you'll grasp at any excuse, however spurious, to reject their work.

Which is to say, you don't like what NIST has said and will "grasp at any excuse, however spurious," to accept their work.

Call me a liar all you want, Dave. You're a self-debunking anti-skeptic.

 

[RedIbis]

And by your "incredibly stupid description", if there's a murder trial and the prosecution introduces into evidence a series of tests of the ballistic properties of the same type of gun and ammunition as were used for the murder, that's not physical evidence.

And yes, that's not physical evidence. At best (and I'm not even sure your example would qualify) what you describe is demonstrative evidence, not physical evidence.

 

[NoahFence]

Unbelievable. I'm reading this exchange, and it's painfully obvious that RedIbis has no intention of ever coming to grips with the fact that nobody needs a physical piece of the structure to know what happened.

EVEN THOUGH

Experts were on site, and called it. He's (well all truthers actually) ignoring the fact, AGAIN, that dozens of people WERE THERE AND SAW IT HAPPEN. They were there the entire day, looking at it, hearing it, smelling it burn. And we're supposed to believe that somehow twoofers know more than these people?

THEY WERE THERE

Physical evidence such as steel beams from WTC 7 are IRRELEVANT. If they're there, fine. If not, the conclusion doesn't change ONE IOTA.

Drop it Red - you're not doing yourself or your kind any favors.

 

[NoahFence]

By your incredibly stupid description, if there's a murder trial and the prosecutor introduces a book on handguns, as opposed to the actual murder weapon, this is somehow physical evidence.

Jesus H....

Even I can see how misguided that statement is. Big surprise.

Listen - Poor sap gets shot with a .22 on a boat. Bullet goes in and out, finds itself at the bottom of the ocean. There's no way to find it. Perp drops gun overboard, ditto. Can't find it.

Police have examples of hundreds of people getting shot in the same manner, but they do have the bullet and gun.

Two conclusions can be drawn from that scenario.

1) Poor sap on boat was shot by .22 - evidence strongly supports this due to them having "the book" on what it's like to get shot by a .22 cal rifle. Police are almost certain it was a .22

2) Poor sap was NOT shot by a .50 cal. Police also have "the book" on what it looks like to be shot by .50 cal - the poor sap on the boat did not sustain any injury consistent with a .50 cal bullet. Police are 100% sure what did NOT

WE ARE 100% SURE WHAT DID NOT CAUSE THE COLLAPSE.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Unbelievable. I'm reading this exchange, and it's painfully obvious that RedIbis has no intention of ever coming to grips with the fact that nobody needs a physical piece of the structure to know what happened.

EVEN THOUGH

Experts were on site, and called it. He's (well all truthers actually) ignoring the fact, AGAIN, that dozens of people WERE THERE AND SAW IT HAPPEN. They were there the entire day, looking at it, hearing it, smelling it burn. And we're supposed to believe that somehow twoofers know more than these people?

THEY WERE THERE

Physical evidence such as steel beams from WTC 7 are IRRELEVANT. If they're there, fine. If not, the conclusion doesn't change ONE IOTA.

Drop it Red - you're not doing yourself or your kind any favors.

He's been called on this before (from memory) WRT the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. He accepts that it was destroyed on re-entry, even though the exact panel with the foam damage was never recovered.

 

[twinstead]

He's been called on this before (from memory) WRT the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. He accepts that it was destroyed on re-entry, even though the exact panel with the foam damage was never recovered.

Believe me, if Red thought the Columbia Disaster was a conspiracy, he would be complaining that determining it broke up in flight due to damage to a panel was impossible without recovering that panel, therefore his conspiracy theory wins by default.

 

[NoahFence]

Believe me, if Red thought the Columbia Disaster was a conspiracy, he would be complaining that determining it broke up in flight due to damage to a panel was impossible without recovering that panel, therefore his conspiracy theory wins by default.

...and I'm sure Buzz Aldrin would have "Made out like a bandit".....

 

[LSSBB]

After all this hoohah, I still not see RedIbis adress the following:

explain why not being able to find column 79 in the rubble justifies discrediting NIST, especially when there is no physical evidence of the alternate hypothesis of controlled demolition, and in light of the amount of non-physical evidence used by NIST to build their case.