• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Grizzly Bear said:
I can give people a break for being only one person... He's on a web forum where the overwhelming majority of posters are against his position and that inevitably leads to long pauses whether it's actual avoidance or not. It's somewhat of a lose-lose situation there, where he responds to a number of people but doesn't pgysically have to time to get to everything immediately... The real issue in my opinion is the quality of research which is abysmal. I made my point to Clayton, but it applies to the majority WTC Demolition proponents... you can't argue these topics strictly with common sense yet that's exactly what they attempt to do. No wall-o-text will work if the research behind it blows
Click to expand...

Yet the responses aren't the simple, quick yes or no answers. Those are off-limits for obvious reasons.

The responses are the long winded, word jumbles that are supposed to support a theory but do nothing but further lies, quote mine, and offer opinion as unquestioned fact.

It has nothing to do with how much time a person has, and everything to do with the response being able to muddy the waters and confuse. The sad thing is it simply doesn't work.

You'll never see an answer to a yes or no question from a truther. Ever.
 
Miragememories said:
For the Official Story zealots, everything is in one basket.

WTC7 had a number of possible load paths.

Controlled demolition just simplified the equation.

MM
Click to expand...

It's an unscientific line of reasoning, which is ironic considering how much the idea of the scientific method gets pushed around by demolition proponents who don't follow it.

How you specifically treat anonymity as if it automatically invalidates anything people on the forum says.

How Clayton wants to say this is all "common sense," and he's worse than the average CD proponent at research.

The entire WTC CD argument is based on arguments that sound fuzzy and charismatic at the surface, but crumble at the slightest inkling of exposure to truly researched detail. Proof is in our very exchange in the Molten steel thread, among quite a history of prior exchanges.
 
Last edited:
I have warned members about this kind of behavior before, when they've been frustrated by my refusal to answer their stupid questions the way they wanted me to.
Click to expand...


FYI - what you translate as "the way they wanted me to" is, in reality, what the rest of us call "at all".

I've asked you ad naseum about the meteorite photographs, and you refuse to answer anything that you can't mangle.

For instance, YES OR NO - paper can survive the temps of molten steel?

YES OR NO
 
Miragememories said:
It shouldn't have.

MM
Click to expand...

Yet NIST and others vastly more intelligent and educated than you say it could and did......

I'm just a mere Mech Eng and from what I've read and seen of the construction of both the WTC Towers and WTC 7 it seems likely to me that that they are right.

So who am I to believe NIST and other genuine experts and my own education in the relevant subjects.....................or you? Hint: its not you!
 
can any of the truthers who post here give an explanation for why WTC7 was destroyed?
Come on, don't be shy.
 
RCory said:
didn't think you'd want to share. Too embarrassing?
Click to expand...

NoahFence; said:
7794910Yet the responses aren't the simple, quick yes or no answers. Those are off-limits for obvious reasons.

The responses are the long winded, word jumbles that are supposed to support a theory but do nothing but further lies, quote mine, and offer opinion as unquestioned fact.

It has nothing to do with how much time a person has, and everything to do with the response being able to muddy the waters and confuse. The sad thing is it simply doesn't work.

You'll never see an answer to a yes or no question from a truther. Ever.
Click to expand...

You know what's embarrassing?
 
Last edited:
RCory said:
every explanation I've ever heard for why WTC was destroyed by CD. For the person giving it, that is.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiment.


BUT...

As far as I am aware there has never been an explanation "for why WTC was destroyed by CD".

...bits of claims, partial explanations possibly, but never a coherent complete explanation.
 
Yanno, if WTC7 had indeed "collapsed without explosives" the media would have provided animation after animation from every conceivable angle of how it "collapsed." Vying for the position of best, most realistic, most authentic, most accurate animation. And making big bucks for the latest and greatest to boot.

But they didn't. Because they couldn't.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Yanno, if WTC7 had indeed "collapsed without explosives" the media would have provided animation after animation from every conceivable angle of how it "collapsed." Vying for the position of best, most realistic, most authentic, most accurate animation. And making big bucks for the latest and greatest to boot.

But they didn't. Because they couldn't.
Click to expand...

You're wrong, and I'll tell you why:

WTC 7 was irrelevant. The only reason it was on TV at all is because of its size, and because they were told to look for it to come down by experts who were in front of the thing. That's all. It was a photo-op.

I'll say it again - WTC 7 was irrelevant. Just another casualty of the day, exactly like the other 1/2 dozen or so buildings you people ignore because they can't be put in your conspiracy neatly.

WTC 7 was irrelevant. It wasn't a target.

It was irrelevant.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Yanno, if WTC7 had indeed "collapsed without explosives" the media would have provided animation after animation from every conceivable angle of how it "collapsed." Vying for the position of best, most realistic, most authentic, most accurate animation. And making big bucks for the latest and greatest to boot.

But they didn't. Because they couldn't.
Click to expand...
Wow. A new goalpost. zzzzz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom