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

[Marokkaan]

What's the evidence that there was a controlled demolition? Tell me that first. And since you insist on Physical Evidence, that's what we'll limit it to.

Hmmm, dodging the question and try to mirror the question.

It sounds like a debunkers tactic

 

[cantonear1968]

You see, this is why I say that truthers know they're distorting things for the sake of argumentation but do it anyway because their goal is never to honestly uncover truth. How in God's name does someone try to make an argument that analyses are facts? That's going out of your way to be illogical. That's deliberate obsfucation that has no other purpose than to bog down a debate with irrelevancies.

Honest critiques would concentrate on potential sources for error, and the inevitable discontinuities between simulations built on observations and real world occurances, but they'd understand that material properties are indeed established and accurate, therefore uncontroversial. Dishonest critiques just try to throw wrenches in the machinery.

Exactly. And while I wouldn't normally feed the beast ...

[this thread has gone on for 33 pages]

....sometimes it can be entertaining to point out their limitations; as long as it only takes minimal effort. Long narratives are lost on the likes of these people.

 

[Marokkaan]

No. I did answer.


That's not me. And I like your irony.




[face palm]


Could you try writing that sentence more coherently?




Nope. I have read enough. And for the facts and the evidence try reading the report some time. It will be very helpful to you.



Again, read the report.Or please tell me what you find scientifically incorrect with their conclusions. I'm willing to listen, if only to correct your misconceptions.

Whoopss the troll meter.

 

[cantonear1968]

Whoopss the troll meter.

Again, the irony!

 

[LSSBB]

Hmmm, dodging the question and try to mirror the question.

It sounds like a debunkers tactic

I'm not the one demanding physical evidence. I am satisfied that the preponderance of the evidence shows a collapse due to the effects of the fire. You are not, and are demanding physical evidence. So where is the physical evidence to prove that the collapse was not due to the effects of the fire?

 

[cantonear1968]

Or please tell me what you find scientifically incorrect with their conclusions.

Is that not a valid question to the subject at hand?

 

[Marokkaan]

I'm not the one demanding physical evidence. I am satisfied that the preponderance of the evidence shows a collapse due to the effects of the fire. You are not, and are demanding physical evidence. So where is the physical evidence to prove that the collapse was not due to the effects of the fire?

So thats how a discussion goes. You say there is evidence. Im asking you what the evidence is. You dodge the question, and suddenly its my turn to say what the evidence is

Troll meter.....

 

[cantonear1968]

However, getting back to the topic of this thread, when will AE911Truth actually do something besides spend donor's money? Either present their petition to Congress or actually write a report on the topic for review?

 

[cantonear1968]

So thats how a discussion goes. You say there is evidence. Im asking you what the evidence is. You dodge the question, and suddenly its my turn to say what the evidence is

Troll meter.....

The evidence has been well documented in multiple reports. If you are going to attempt to criticize these reports, you should know that.

Now, I believe LSSBB has a valid point: where is your evidence of a CD?

 

[LSSBB]

So thats how a discussion goes. You say there is evidence. Im asking you what the evidence is. You dodge the question, and suddenly its my turn to say what the evidence is

Troll meter.....

I did not say there is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the fire collapse. Tell me, do you turn to stone when the sun hits you, or are you Olog-Hai?

 

[Marokkaan]

I did not say there is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the fire collapse. Tell me, do you turn to stone when the sun hits you, or are you Olog-Hai?

Physical evidence?, can you please quote, where i said physical evidence?

Show me evidence. Come on. Is that difficult.This is what you said.

Got you own perpetual motion machine there Marokkan? As long as you ignore all the other evidence, and concentrate soley on column 79 not being found, you can maintain your claim that a collapse due to a fire is not proven. Why does the lack of physical evidence trump all else?

 

[LSSBB]

Physical evidence?, can you please quote, where i said physical evidence?

Show me evidence. Come on. Is that difficult.This is what you said.

From your earlier post:

What happened to the steel, where NIST has no answer about it, are the facts?

Existence of steel is Physical Evidence.

 

[Marokkaan]

From your earlier post:


Existence of steel is Physical Evidence.

Im not talking about physical evidence, and im not asking you about physical evidence.

As long as you ignore all the other evidence,

And in this sentence, you are not talking about physical evidence.

This is trolling, you are really talking gibberish

 

[cantonear1968]

Im not talking about physical evidence, and im not asking you about physical evidence.

As long as you ignore all the other evidence,

And in this sentence, you are not talking about physical evidence.

This is trolling, you are really talking gibberish

Ok. That's as much as I can take. "You're a Troll!" is obviously Marokkaan's answer for everything inconvenient to him.

Which is everything!

 

[LSSBB]

From Wikipedia:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".

Marokkaan, I am not trying to get you to respond emotionally, I am asking you to defend your position with regards to there being a controlled demolition, and apply the same standards of evidence for the controlled demolition that you are insisting that NIST conform to for a collapse by fire. You, so far, have not.

 

[tfk]

Can you define "key bits" in regard to the NIST report so i can try to find it?

Executive summary.

Isn't it unlikely that anything from the load bearding columns would be significantly pushed when they are the main supports for the building,

Nope.

the main force from thermal expansion of trusses I would have thought would push outwards from the main support columns, using their structural strength to expand into more external areas with less structural strength.

Trusses are irrelevant. Learn the definition of terms so that you make sense.

Beams & girders matter. Look up the difference between the two. (Hint: what ties into them defines the difference.)

Here is the over-riding principle: direction of forces matter.

If I gave you a football helmet & some shoulder pads, I could hit you with a pretty large downward force on your shoulders, and would be very unlikely to break one of your leg bones. They are designed to take loads in the vertical direction.

But if I were to take a Louisville Slugger and hit your tibia horizontally, there is a fair chance that the bone will snap.

Direction of forces matter.

The tall, thin columns were well designed to take vertical forces. They also take some pretty high horizontal forces … AS LONG AS those forces are balanced from each side and sum to approximately zero. As they do, for horizontal thermal expansion forces, in most buildings & most parts of WTC7.

But there was a previously unrecognized flaw in the design. With fire & thermal expansion, there was the possibility that the horizontal forces from thermal expansion did NOT laterally cancel out for just a couple of main girders in WTC7.


Read the executive summary. Then look at the beam & girder floor plan.

It becomes immediately obvious where the problem lies.


tk

 

[sylvan8798]

Physical evidence?, can you please quote, where i said physical evidence?

Show me evidence. Come on. Is that difficult.This is what you said.

What would qualify as "evidence" in your mind? Please be specific.

1)
2)
3)
...

 

[DGM]

What would qualify as "evidence" in your mind? Please be specific.

1)
2)
3)
...

He's a "truther". It would require a time machine. He would need to see it for himself. Or maybe a really..........really good Youtube video.

 

[tfk]

"... really good youtube video ..."

For a truther video, that means synthesized voice & spooky music.

And a lot of questions.

No answers.

Just questions.

Go figure.


tk

 

[Marokkaan]

Can somebody ask LSSBB what the evidence is to supprt the official story? Or answer it for him?