Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[T.A.M.]

you mean you had access to the grandchild of the anti-christ without having to slay the red dragon first?

TAM

 

[Hokulele]

What the hell is wrong with some people that they can callously discuss and dismiss people's suffering when trying to debate what happened at WTC 1 & 2?

Pff. Now I remember why I gave up trying to discuss anything with one of the latest crop of CTists. Thank goodness for the Ignore button.

 

[Horatius]

Well you guys and gals deserve medals or something for all of your valiant efforts. And I'll see if bigowl can find it in his heart to put a little something extra in your Christmas stockings too.

... squirrels are conspiring to decimate my feeders.

I've stopped those little bastards by hanging the feeder off my clothesline.


****in' squirrels!

 

[Brainache]

you mean you had access to the grandchild of the anti-christ without having to slay the red dragon first?

TAM

Yep. Just lucky I guess.

 

[T.A.M.]

bump

 

[ULTIMA1]

What the hell is wrong with some people that they can callously discuss and dismiss people's suffering when trying to debate what happened at WTC 1 & 2?

Yes that is a good question. Why do believers disrespect those that died by not wanting to find the truth of what happened that day?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes that is a good question. Why do believers disrespect those that died by not wanting to find the truth of what happened that day?

We do want to find the truth of what happened that day. That's why we look at the real evidence instead of making up our own.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

We do want to find the truth of what happened that day. That's why we look at the real evidence instead of making up our own.

Dave

So what's the real evidence that proves NIST's WTC 7 theory?

 

[Dave Rogers]

So what's the real evidence that proves NIST's WTC 7 theory?

Documentary, testimonial, historical and scientific evidence indicate that NIST's theory is a better description of the collapse than any potential theory involving therm*te or explosives. What's the real evidence that proves the theory that you favour but refuse to divulge?

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Documentary, testimonial, historical and scientific evidence indicate that NIST's theory is a better description of the collapse than any potential theory involving therm*te or explosives. What's the real evidence that proves the theory that you favour but refuse to divulge?

Dave

But there is no physical evidence to support their theory. They don't have the steel that thermally expanded. They don't have the buckled column that initiated the collapse. They don't have any evidence that the fires were hot enough to compromise the steel. In short, you must rely on a hypothesis produced by computer simulation.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

What's the real evidence that proves the theory that you favour but refuse to divulge?
Dave

But there is no physical evidence to support their theory. They don't have the steel that thermally expanded. They don't have the buckled column that initiated the collapse. They don't have any evidence that the fires were hot enough to compromise the steel. In short, you must rely on a hypothesis produced by computer simulation.

That’s not an answer to the question he asked.

You know that don’t you?

Woof!

 

[GStan]

But there is no physical evidence to support their theory. They don't have the steel that thermally expanded. They don't have the buckled column that initiated the collapse. They don't have any evidence that the fires were hot enough to compromise the steel. In short, you must rely on a hypothesis produced by computer simulation.

All that is true. They had to fill in alot of information gaps. The computer managed to produce a hypothesis that is consistent with documentary, testimonial, historical and scientific evidence. It is far more supported (by several orders of magnitude), than every other hypothesis that has been directly proposed or indirectly implied by all other investigators.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But there is no physical evidence to support their theory.

You didn't ask for physical evidence, you asked for real evidence. Testimony, history, modelling and documents are real.

They don't have any evidence that the fires were hot enough to compromise the steel.

Wrong, they have the evidence from modelling. Again, this may not be the type of evidence you personally are prepared to accept, but it is real evidence.

In short, you must rely on a hypothesis produced by computer simulation.

At present it is the only hypothesis that isn't directly contradicted by real evidence. If you would like people to reject this hypothesis, please advance one that fits the evidence better. Otherwise you're just making meaningless noises.

Dave

 

[Thunder]

Yes that is a good question. Why do believers disrespect those that died by not wanting to find the truth of what happened that day?

Why do 9-11 deniers disrespect those that died on 9-11 by making believe that their own government, FDNY, and NYPD, killed them?

 

[johnny karate]

But there is no physical evidence to support their theory. They don't have the steel that thermally expanded. They don't have the buckled column that initiated the collapse. They don't have any evidence that the fires were hot enough to compromise the steel. In short, you must rely on a hypothesis produced by computer simulation.

Computer modelling is a valid form of scientific investigation.

I defy you to present a reputable scientist that says otherwise.

 

[Brainache]

A friend emailed me a list of new words from the Washington Post. I found these ones amusing and entirely appropriate for this thread:

5. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.

15. Dopeler effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.

 

[T.A.M.]

But there is no physical evidence to support their theory. They don't have the steel that thermally expanded. They don't have the buckled column that initiated the collapse. They don't have any evidence that the fires were hot enough to compromise the steel. In short, you must rely on a hypothesis produced by computer simulation.

are you finished griping about it Red. I mean on most subjects you seem to say yourpiece and move on, but I have watched you now, over and over, repeat that NISt had no physical evidence for their WTC7 theory.

You are right, in the sense that they did not have the column in question, or columns and steel near it.

So who has the theory with the most NON PHYSICAL evidence??? hmmm?????

who?

NIST DOES!

TAM

 

[ULTIMA1]

Computer modelling is a valid form of scientific investigation. .

So does that mean you agree with the original NIST model that stated the plane impacts and fire DID NOT cause the collapse?

 

[stateofgrace]

So does that mean you agree with the original NIST model that stated the plane impacts and fire DID NOT cause the collapse?

As oppose to your theory? That, of course you will not state, because you are just JAQing off and asking questions, right?

 

[Hokulele]

Yes that is a good question. Why do believers disrespect those that died by not wanting to find the truth of what happened that day?

This is the last time I will address you directly. The callousness and lack of compassion, or even humanity, you displayed by requesting someone to post a photo of Edna Cintron actually jumping has destroyed any interest I may have had in discussing anything with you.