Lack of the scientific community having been provided with the information! Evidence provided!
Sorry, but lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything. Please provide some links demonstrating widespread scientific dissatisfaction with the NIST investigation.
Yes I have, and it leaves more questions then answers. For example: NIST does not address the mechenism for the collapse. It only addresses the collapse. Not very good scientific investigating if they can preciecly define how the building fell so neatly, but they can't provide ONE ounce of evidence or information about the mechenism.
What aspect of the "mechenism" [sic] of the collapse do you feel was inadequately addressed? Various reports deal with the damage from the impact, the fire damage, and the collapse initiation itself. Assuming you read all the final reports, what do you feel should have been talked about more.
Because they want to insult, I will return in kind. If they want to debate then do that. But all this "looney", "kooky", "nuts", etc. comments will not be tolerated by me and I will return in kind 10 fold.
Not a good debating practice. It makes you look 10 times worse than they do.
See previous comment. This is NOT a spelling site and I do not need to put my posts through a spell checker. You can certainly understand the meaning with a few spelling errors. If your that anal, well then just skip my posts because I do not worry about spelling. It is the content of things I worry about!
But you must realize that your ability to convey complex ideas comes into question when you can't even keep your grammar straight.
In any case, it is mostly irrelevant.
Your refusal to use the quote function is annoying, however. It makes your writing very difficult to read and harder to respond to. Please consider using this extremely useful feature.
This is why your like are becoming the minority! You TWIST and SPIN things to fit YOUR needs. NOWHERE have I ever stated "new evidence" or "will blow your socks off" comments NOWHERE!
Nor did I say you did, but thank you for putting those words in my mouth regardless. When I use quotes I am not implying you stated something. I use the quote function for that.
You hauled up the same topics as every other CTist that has come here. I would assume this is because you believe you are capable of convincing us. Did you bother to chart the course of the other discussions, or did you just dive right on in?
I see.... So it's perfectly acceptable by you people to TWIST things to make them fit your attacks? Its fine to place words in peoples mouths? It's OK for all that, but god forbid someone stands up to your LIES and refused to back down from your rediculous alterations of a persons statements?
Please provide the point at which I have put words in your mouth, twisted your statements, or lied. Every quote from you I have simply used as a frame of reference for my responses to you. Please provide evidence that any other poster has done this.
If they have indeed altered your statements, I would be most strongly opposed. This is not the sort of board for that kind of behavior.
I have consistently asked you to provide evidence for your claims through the use of outside links, which you have refused to do so.
I have tried to clear up some misconceptions you seem to have regarding the financial situation of the towers because I am knowledgable in the areas of finance and particularly insurance. As an engineer you would not have firsthand experience with the insurance industry, and I have noticed a lot of confusion on the CT sites about how exactly insurance in general works.
You have not bothered to check facts on issues as simple as the takeoff weight of a 707 versus a 767. You have not bothered to see what the outcome of the court case regarding the WTC insurance payment was. Those indicate that you are not particularly interested in correlating your beliefs with reality.
I leave the rest to those with specialized experience. We have engineers, mathematicians, and architects on this board. Perhaps you should start a more technical discussion with them.
I see! It amazes me how you can make claims about "truthers", yet you do it more and in worse cases.
Yes, yes, we're all horrible people.
Perhaps now you will post mathematical and structural data supporting your claims about the destruction of the towers.
