So, the person who's complaining that JREFers are too egotistical and married to their beliefs to concede a point, REFUSES TO CONCEDE A POINT. Amazing.
You're countering with an astounding amount of ignorance. You've changed your position in the debate, and now you're arguing that NIST was able to find funding for the NCSTAR? Congress gave them the money, it wasn't unlimited, and it wasn't a lot. Why do you insist on debating this lost point?
Let me get this straight. Without evidence, we should concede to you the idea that the facts of 9/11 are in doubt. You want us to believe this because...?
Have you presented any evidence?
Have you countered any argument with facts?
Have you found any errors in the NCSTAR?
Have you found any errors made by Gravy?
Have you presented any reason to doubt other than your personal opinion and incredulity on the matter? Then why should we doubt?
Perhaps I could lecture you on intellectual cowardice. Criticizing a report you have not read, falsely representing yourself as someone with knowledge of structural engineering, and demanding that other people acknowledge your opinions above fact and reason is intellectual cowardice.
Perhaps you could point to the forum rules I've broken. And God forbid I should demand clear proof and evidence for my beliefs!
And yet, by continuously calling people names, refusing to provide evidence, and refusing to argue counter-points, you have failed to shake anyone's belief. Good job at calling everyone a bigot, though. I'm certain that really helps your argument.
So, you make reasoned speculations, and when someone asks you to produce evidence corroborating your speculations, you demand that they first accept your speculations as true, without evidence. How does that work, again?
A mocker mocks, and a mocked man mocks the mocker.
Well
The Almond, you are oh so proud of yourself for having waddled through that forest of paper NIST created, you can't waste an opportunity broadcasting the fact.
You actually believed when I used the common expression of "find money" that I actually meant it was like "out lying on the street"..lol
Congress gave them the money, but I disagree with you that $20,000,000.00 wasn't a lot.
You are also obsessed about evidence and seem to have tunnelvision regarding it's meaning. The video evidence alone is sufficient to justify reasonable doubt. I'm sure you don't need the links. Everyone here has no doubt seen the WTC7 collapse videos countless times.
Because you know your position is precarious when confined to the allowances of a forum discussion you keep trying to impose the more restrictive rules of a courtroom which this isn't!
What does NCSTAR have to do with this WTC7 attempt at a discussion? Again you want to bragg about waddling through the 10,000 page NIST spoor.
What's there to say about
Mark Roberts, Gravy. Another legend in his own mind. He bases his WTC7 paper predominantly on; attacks on the credibility of people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, voluminous firefighter statements, ridicule, and some NIST extracts.
I have presented lots of reasons to doubt but apparently your mind is incapable of thinking outside the box. That's fine, I wasn't expecting anything but kneejerk reactions from you.
I never said I haven't read the report. It would be most surprising to hear that more than a few people here have attempted it. My knowledge of structural engineering has not been falsely stated and I have not demanded anything of anyone here.
By forum rules (lol..what a one track mind you have), I was referring to the legitimate rules of discussion and not the official JREF rules of behaviour. Your insistence that my points aren't acceptable for argument unless supported by the kind of exacting evidence (clear proof) demanded in the courtroom is where you miss the point.
If people behave in a bigoted manner than it is accurate to call them bigots. I do provide references to known evidence but you choose to ignore this in your typical lame fallback to courtroom criteria. I'd be happy to argue counterpoints if people actually argued against my position instead of constantly rehashing their fixed beliefs.
I heard about floods, the toy factory collapse etc. etc. but they aren't examples of complete, high speed, symmetrical, fire and debris damage collapses.
Again you harp on about corroborative evidence. It's the old; "no, no, no I don't like that evidence, show me something else." You don't like the evidence I refer to because you can't easily explain it away, hence;
reasonable doubt!
I don't demand anyone accept my speculations as true. What I do demand, is that if they think my speculations are so without merit, they show me the errors in my logical reasoning.
You do believe in an individual's right to logically consider the credibility of what they are told don't you? Or is that something you abdicate as well in favour of the priestly experts everyone worships here?
A mocker mocks.
A mocked man can only be hurt by those who gain his respect.
It's rather depressing how many people here have embraced the group mind (the Borg) and abandoned their individual identities.
MM
