NIST releases final report on WTC7!!!!

[RedIbis]

Did you or did you not write the following:



Explain. And for the love of God stop dodging. You don't even appear to know what "false dichotomy" means.

Educate me. When you offer only two choices when a range of possibilities might exist, what do you call it?

 

[1337m4n]

Educate me. When you offer only two choices when a range of possibilities might exist, what do you call it?

Evasion noted.

Educate me. What is this "range of possibilities"?

Given your original quote, what "possibilities" exist that do NOT make you wrong?


Stop dodging:

One more time.
Did you or did you not write this:

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

If you did write this, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY IT?


I will not entertain your attempts to derail. You will answer this question.

 

[RedIbis]

Evasion noted.

Educate me. What is this "range of possibilities"?

Given your original quote, what "possibilities" exist that do NOT make you wrong?


Stop dodging:

One more time.
Did you or did you not write this:



If you did write this, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY IT?


I will not entertain your attempts to derail. You will answer this question.

Were you wrong when you claimed I incorrectly called your post a false dichotomy?

 

[lapman]

If we think of similar examples, three come immediately to mind: the sinking of the Titanic (whose 96th anniversary is today!); the 1986 Chernobyl reactor explosion; and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster of 2003.

Um, they are still investigating the Titanic and finding out new information. It may not be an "official investigation," but it has been going on since the discovery of the wreck.

 

[Par]

[Y]ou offer only two choices when a range of possibilities might exist...

Evasion noted. What is this "range of possibilities"? Given your original quote, what "possibilities" exist that do NOT make you wrong?

Were you wrong when you claimed I incorrectly called your post a false dichotomy?

(Since we’re currently seeing an example of RedIbis refusing to answer straightforward questions: RedIbis, there’s a question for you in another thread: In what way was Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying? This is around the sixth time that I’ve put it to you.)

 

[1337m4n]

Were you wrong when you claimed I incorrectly called your post a false dichotomy?

No. I was going to explain why, but then I realize you have yet to explain how my post was a false dichotomy.

Are you dodging the question? Yes. I keep asking you what you mean by this quote:

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

and you keep dodging.

You know what you are RedIbis? This is you. Notice how easily I answer your questions. Why can you not do the same? It is all I ask.

I'm putting you on Ignore for a week. After that week is up, I expect you to have explained exactly how you can say

It takes time to come up with a plausible explanation that doesn't appear to defy the laws of physics and can conclude that debris damage, "normal office fires" and single column failure brought down WTC 7.

without accusing NIST of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks. It is like trying to use "pull it" as evidence, without accusing the fire chief of being complicit. It is illogical and cannot be done. You are an illogical person.

You have a whole week now to answer my question; I expect a well thought-out response.

 

[boloboffin]

The long awaited Building 7 report may also be due to a few other issues, some of which are brought up in this PDF, the 10 Myths of Rapid Development. It's about software development, but it applies across disciplines to any project-oriented process.

In particular, pay attention to slides 4-6 and then think about the released timeline of events for the Building 7 team. In fact, this would apply much more than I give it credit for above, because the centerpiece of the upcoming report is a massive computerized rendering of the collapse.

 

[BenBurch]

well im sorry but i do indeed belive that Al Capone was guilty for things they never was able to prove.

maybe i have a wrong inpression and Al Capone was an honorable man

He invented the idea of a soup kitchen during the depression and also forced dairies to freshness date milk.



No, he was a killer personally and I know he had people rubbed out, but not as many as people suppose.

The rest of his crimes? Booze? Gambling? Prostitution? Pornography? All things that never should have been crimes in the first place.

 

[RedIbis]

You have a whole week now to answer my question; I expect a well thought-out response.

Purely for entertainment purposes only, what if I don't?

 

[T.A.M.]

So Red, If I get this straight, you are saying that while as an ENTIRE ENTITY, neither NIST nor the FDNY were in on it, you do feel that there were people within both institutions that were?

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

So Red, If I get this straight, you are saying that while as an ENTIRE ENTITY, neither NIST nor the FDNY were in on it, you do feel that there were people within both institutions that were?

TAM

It's just much more accurate to apply whatever blame of complicity exists to an individual(s) not an entity.

 

[pomeroo]

It's just much more accurate to apply whatever blame of complicity exists to an individual(s) not an entity.

Accuracy is not your game; evasiveness is. If there are differences of opinion within NIST and the FDNY, then point to the individuals who have stepped forward to complain that NIST's science is flawed, or that the firefighters on the ground did not determine that WTC 7 was likely to collapse.

What's that? NO MEMBERS OF NIST OR THE FDNY DISPUTE THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE AGENCY AND THE DEPARTMENT?

Gee, that sort of brings us back to Lucky Larry: given that he was merely agreeing with the FDNY's assessment, what could he have been "lying" about?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So when the often shouted claim of "The government was behind it" refers to a person who just happens to have the name "government"?

 

[Par]

Purely for entertainment purposes only, what if I don't?

Well, if you don’t – that is, if you again simply refuse to answer a pertinent and straightforward question – then you will inadvertently adduce yet further evidence that you – a representative of the “truth moment” – are a highly dishonest and uncourageous individual who is motivated far more by his own ego and ideological predisposition than by any discernable interest in the truth. If you would consider such a consequence to be “entertainment”, then there’s at least one thing that we have in common.

 

[RedIbis]

Gee, that sort of brings us back to Lucky Larry: given that he was merely agreeing with the FDNY's assessment, what could he have been "lying" about?

A fire department is not a person who can express an opinion. Members of a dept. can express an opinion.

Why are you unable to understand this?

 

[RedIbis]

Well, if you don’t – that is, if you again simply refuse to answer a pertinent and straightforward question – then you will inadvertently adduce yet further evidence that you – a representative of the “truth moment” – are a highly dishonest and uncourageous individual who is motivated far more by his own ego and ideological predisposition than by any discernable interest in the truth. If you would consider such a consequence to be “entertainment”, then there’s at least one thing that we have in common.

Great signature!

 

[Garb]

A fire department is not a person who can express an opinion. Members of a dept. can express an opinion.

Why are you unable to understand this?

So instead of answering him you nitpick?

Really?

 

[T.A.M.]

It's just much more accurate to apply whatever blame of complicity exists to an individual(s) not an entity.

A fire department is not a person who can express an opinion. Members of a dept. can express an opinion.

Why are you unable to understand this?

I have no problem with the idea that individuals rather than an entire institution might be in on a given theory...period. However, this is weak, as it is impossible to verify, short of said persons coming forward, and it is easy enough to push as an argument (one with no teeth) as no one can prove the statement wrong.

However, short of listing names, and the proof you have that said people were in on it, the theory is useless, and very weak, IMO.

TAM

 

[1337m4n]

So Red, If I get this straight, you are saying that while as an ENTIRE ENTITY, neither NIST nor the FDNY were in on it, you do feel that there were people within both institutions that were?

TAM

Is that what he's saying? That would be pretty stupid, considering that NIST is based on peer-review. Not that I would expect a Truther to understand what peer-review is.

It's not one guy writing the entire report.

 

[Par]

Well, if you don’t – that is, if you again simply refuse to answer a pertinent and straightforward question – then you will inadvertently adduce yet further evidence that you – a representative of the “truth moment” – are a highly dishonest and uncourageous individual who is motivated far more by his own ego and ideological predisposition than by any discernable interest in the truth. If you would consider such a consequence to be “entertainment”, then there’s at least one thing that we have in common.

Great signature!

So, you’d rather attempt to cause a distraction than answer a pertinent and straightforward question. I won’t be the only one who notices, you know.