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

[Oystein]

I mentioned in one of the 9/11 threads the possibility that Bush or Cheney could be detained outside of the US.

What has this got to do with architects and engineers allegedly solving the Mystery of Building 7?

Can you tell a complete story that links Bush and Cheney to what some architects and engineers found out about Building 7?

If you can tell such a story, then I invite you to tell it here. If not, please stop the derail.

 

[tfk]

After learning what physical evidence actually is, you must now realize that NIST admitted they did not use physical evidence to come up with their speculative hypothesis.

So what?

Documentary evidence IS evidence.

You're playing the game of implying that documentary evidence is somehow subservient, lesser than, physical evidence.

You'd be wrong about that.

Furthermore, it is merely (& inconsequentially) a LEGAL definition, not a reality based definition, that video tapes & audio tapes are not considered physical evidence. They contain precisely the same qualities of all other physical evidence. There are physical magnetic domains on those tapes that can be examined & analyzed for their content in PRECISELY the same way that a hunk of steel can be examined.

Now that you've lost on every other stage (engineers, academics, historians & popular opinion), you & MM are now trying to move the matter to arena of legality.

To see what hairs you might be able to split.

Sorry. You've already lost there as well. See KSM.

Too bad. Another straw slips thru your fingers.

 

[RedIbis]

So because only one piece was extensively analyzed by the FEMA team before all the steel from WTC7 was made unavailable, we should have had no investigation as we could never had had actual physical evidence?

Why lambast NIST then if your logic would lead us to not even have an investigation?

If the above is false assumption on my part then how should they approach another investigation to allay your concerns?

"Was made unavailable" and "we could never had had actual physical evidence" are very strong indications that you are not really a skeptic, but like Dave, biased by faith.

 

[twinstead]

"Was made unavailable" and "we could never had had actual physical evidence" are very strong indications that you are not really a skeptic, but like Dave, biased by faith.

Since there is also absolutely no actual physical evidence for any other method of collapse, where does put you?

 

[Clayton Moore]

"Was made unavailable" and "we could never had had actual physical evidence" are very strong indications that you are not really a skeptic, but like Dave, biased by faith.

I find it laughable that believers of the governments position on 9/11 call themselves skeptics.

It's not unlike the transformation of the term transparent. It used to be negative if you said someone was transparent. Now it's negative if a person is not transparent.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

I suppose it bears reminding of something that he said in 2009 that has always raised my interest; he wants column 79 to satisfy his personal curiosity but he doesn't need the piece of foam that doomed Columbia... Never have figured out what the idea was between the double standard here. He seems keen to accept a variety of evidence in other cases of similar rarity in a rational means, yet demands absolute narrow scope for WTC 7. Can I ask again why there's such a stark difference in the treatment between the two?

EDIT:
To expand things further; as far as I remember from the matter of the titanic, they determined through radar imagery that what sank the ship was not actual buckling of the hull, but smaller slits in the steel caused by the ice burg it hit, and the failure of bolts along the places where the hull panels met. It was later suggested that the forging of the steel was done such that it was brittle and made more vulnerable to failure in the cold waters the ship was traversing. If we follow red's logic with WTC 7, one would demand a physical sample of the hull to show it was "gashed by an ice burg." But like the Columbia example, he seems perfectly rational that the available evidence, however physical, demonstrative, or otherwise satisfies the notion that it wasn't unsinkable as many of that time claimed.


Moreover, a question that was posted:

Is it possible or not, to come to a sound conclusion without the critical piece of physical evidence?

Remains inconclusive because red's latched onto both "yes and no" in the past apparently

 

[twinstead]

I find it laughable that believers of the governments position on 9/11 call themselves skeptics.

It's not unlike the transformation of the term transparent. It used to be negative if you said someone was transparent. Now it's negative if a person is not transparent.

Your position would be MUCH more compelling if you had ANY evidence at all to support it. You are working on faith yourself, a curious ideological faith; when you lecture us about being a REAL skeptic, it just makes us laugh.

 

[sylvan8798]

I suppose it bears reminding of something that he said in 2009 that has always raised my interest; he wants column 79 to satisfy his personal curiosity but he doesn't need the piece of foam that doomed Columbia... Never have figured out what the idea was between the double standard here. He seems keen to accept a variety of evidence in other cases of similar rarity in a rational means, yet demands absolute narrow scope for WTC 7. Can I ask again why there's such a stark difference in the treatment between the two?

Even more directly, MM has no physical evidence of a CD either. Why does he not demand to see and hold such evidence as well? It would seem that without physical evidence of ANY sort, he should be unable to arrive at ANY conclusion, which would at least be consistent, as Twinstead points out.

 

[LSSBB]

After learning what physical evidence actually is, you must now realize that NIST admitted they did not use physical evidence to come up with their speculative hypothesis. At this point only blind faith and stubborn bias compels you to continue to assert that their conclusions are backed by physical evidence.

Real skepticism does not let the emotional content of an event get in the way of scrutiny. You are obviously not a skeptic but a blind follower of faith.

RedIbis, you are using the same tactic as the holocaust deniers on the other thread. By reframing the argument to just physical evidence for the NIST collapse mechanism, you are setting yourself up for an unchallengeable position. A true skeptic would look at all the evidence for and against his position, not just cherry pick the ones that will give him the outcome that reinforces his preconceptions.

 

[GlennB]

Even more directly, MM has no physical evidence of a CD either.

But he does have physical evidence of a lack of CD - many video soundtracks that are missing any explosive blasts and none (or perhaps one, arguably?) of the thousands of ear-witnesses mentioning such blasts.

Or did MM switch to nano-thermite at WTC7? It's hard to keep track.

 

[Oystein]

I find it laughable that believers of the governments position on 9/11 call themselves skeptics.

It's not unlike the transformation of the term transparent. It used to be negative if you said someone was transparent. Now it's negative if a person is not transparent.

Clayton Moore, I was talking to you! Please do not pretend like you don't read replies to your own posts!

I mentioned in one of the 9/11 threads the possibility that Bush or Cheney could be detained outside of the US.

What has this got to do with architects and engineers allegedly solving the Mystery of Building 7?

Can you tell a complete story that links Bush and Cheney to what some architects and engineers found out about Building 7?

If you can tell such a story, then I invite you to tell it here. If not, please stop the derail.

 

[funk de fino]

Well Senator Mike Gravel has come up with what appears to be a truly effective means of investigating 9/11.



You can read the rest of his speech here;

http://9-11cc.org/index.php/2011/08/30/a-new-path-to-peace-and-prosperity/#more-708

MM

I thought you would have bright enough to know that didn't answer my question. I was mistaken.

It's a good job copy/paste does not waste too much time.

 

[funk de fino]

"Was made unavailable" and "we could never had had actual physical evidence" are very strong indications that you are not really a skeptic, but like Dave, biased by faith.

When did they start the investigation and where was the physical evidence at that point? If there was a lack of physical evidence to start the investigation then what then?

If we do not have physical evidence we can never have an investigation? Or we can but only if it does not involve silly 911 fantasies?

You have no idea what a skeptic is either and also avoided the question yet again.

How do you propose a new investigation is carried out into WTC7 collapse? Has that ship sailed?

 

[funk de fino]

Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"

And it is known that steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire? Yes or no?

 

[Clayton Moore]

And it is known that steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire? Yes or no?

No. Not before 9/11 or since.

 

[Oystein]

No. Not before 9/11 or since.

This is why whatever theory about 9/11 you hold as true is wrong: Because you are ill-informed.

 

[RedIbis]

No. Not before 9/11 or since.

He's going to post the collapse of the roof of a steel framed warehouse. Just remind him it's not a high rise. For some reason he seems to think this refutes NIST's admission that before 9/11 no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

 

[RedIbis]

This is why whatever theory about 9/11 you hold as true is wrong: Because you are ill-informed.

So since Dave Rogers claimed that NIST backed up their WTC 7 report with physical evidence, whatever he thinks about 9/11 is also wrong?

 

[A W Smith]

No. Not before 9/11 or since.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2834132&postcount=98

 

[LSSBB]

He's going to post the collapse of the roof of a steel framed warehouse. Just remind him it's not a high rise. For some reason he seems to think this refutes NIST's admission that before 9/11 no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

He answered Yes to "Steel Framed Buildings". Don't change the question.

Aren't you going to defend your position in regards to my earlier accusation to you about you reframing the argument, or will you let it stand, RedIbis?