DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The thing is he might then ask you what you do think happened and why. Then what do you say? Do you go with, "I don't know, I just think NIST is wrong"?
Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
- Status
The thing is he might then ask you what you do think happened and why. Then what do you say? Do you go with, "I don't know, I just think NIST is wrong"?
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
...only when you call us murderer's...
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
You're actually saying that they're "violent thugs", not us!
Why would a fireman "physically assault" you? Isn't your mind already physically assaulted with the evidence we've provided?
Then that firefighter would then declare you an "idiot".
There's nothing shameful for being a coward. Truthers manage being cowards day in & out.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
And yet you take Gage at face value and ignore the thousands of other professionals that are telling you what happened...
Which I haven't done and never would.
I do not accuse the FDNY of anything. They have no motive to kill 3000 people in the towers. It is the most ridiculous strawman I have ever seen.
Nobody is blaming the FDNY. They went into the towers and many died, it has absolutely nothing to do with them.
The fact that you can twist us posting a video of a firefighter saying he was convinced it was secondary devices into us thinking they are murderers is just truly bizarre.
Please explain how you made that illogcal step.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Yeah, Truthers who call us "murderers" are actually the murderers themselves.
Truthers = Terrorists Sympathizers!
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Ever heard of being "guilty by association"?
I have never quoted gage. I don't know what he thinks about building 7 apart from his statement that it has all the classic characteristics of CD.
I don't even visit his website. The strawmen just keep on coming.
I am not responsible for what anyone else says. I could easily say that you are guilty by association for the activities of someone like Troy from WV.
Do you have any examples of truthers saying that the FDNY are murderers?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
As a (semi) laymen myself that happens to be a builder that has lots of access to SE's. I would suggest you talk to a few and have them explain to you what you don't understand in the reports. That's what I did.
As a (semi) laymen myself that happens to be a builder that has lots of access to SE's. I would suggest you talk to a few and have them explain to you what you don't understand in the reports. That's what I did.
Will the SE's that I ask be able to get hold of NISTs computer simulations? I wouldn't want to give them incomplete information.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
It really doesn't matter. All they need is what's in the report itself. That's why their SE's
The computer simulations don't matter? Why would NIST withhold them then. In fact, if they don't matter then why bother doing simulations in the first place?
So, all a structural engineer needs is to see the report? Why hasn't that worked for the structural engineers in ae911truth?
Last edited:
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
I think you mis-typed. Where, again, does a firefighter say he was "convinced of secondary devices"??
See, here's the problem:
- You believe (at least) that WTC7 was a CD.
- Firefighters (like myself) are taught to pay attention to sights, sounds, and other evidence, such as signs of accelerants, rigging, sabotage, and explosives.
- Since these firefighters present at WTC7 would have to "conveniently ignore" all those signs of a CD...they would be in on it, right?
- Suggesting, even remotely, that firefighters are "in on it" would also lead those to believe that they could care less about human life and that the inaction of their knowledge would equate to murdering hundreds of people.
Bascially, in short words: Evidence of a CD would have to be surpressed by the firefighters on scene...which suggests they are accessories to murder.
Might be a roundabout way of getting to that point, but a realistic one none-the-less.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
That's not what I said now was it?
Why, what have any of them written? And who are they?
It is ok to say, imo, that you do not agree with the findings of NIST. The tall buildings group did not agree with their conclusions entirely either.
What nails you, however, is that you know full well that the best explanation of what happened to wtc7 is still the nist theory, or if you dont want to give them credit, the official theory that fires brought down the tower. Because if you dont think fires brought them down, then what besides cd, is the other alternative. So unless you have a MORE plausible theory that matches all of the data, then go with it...and please, let us know.
TAM
TAM
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
No, and I would have thought it was clear that I wasn't. The only way an explosion at ground level could have caused the collapses is if it caused structural damage at ground level that then propagated up to the aircraft impact zone. This couldn't have been in the perimeter columns, because any upward propagation of failure would have been observed and would be obvious in collapse videos, and it can't have been in the core because the survival of the core spires demonstrates that the core failure propagated downwards, not upwards. In WTC7 there was no such indication that a core failure couldn't have propagated upwards; that's why I mentioned the core spire in WTC2.
Basically, the bit of the post before the word "therefore" was intended to be relevant.
Answer to cooperman (following post) is the same.
Dave
I would let you know that you should probably just speak for yourself on this matter. There are a number of quote of other truthers who DO blame some members of the FDNY.
TAM
- Status