NIST releases final report on WTC7!!!!

Par said:
So, you’d rather attempt to cause a distraction than answer a pertinent and straightforward question.
Click to expand...

How can you in good conscience accuse me of distraction by bringing up worn out questions into unrelated threads?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
How can you in good conscience accuse me of distraction by bringing up worn out questions into unrelated threads?
Click to expand...


Incidentally, this is the second time that RedIbis has employed a “two wrongs make a right”/“tu quoque” fallacy in order to try to avoid this question. The other example is above. Further, note the equivocation fallacy. The word “distraction” is conflated in order to equate partially derailing a thread – a thread devoted to a joke which has now passed, I might add – with desperately and cynically trying to avoid a pertinent and straightforward question by repeatedly attempting to change the subject.
 
Last edited:
Par said:
Incidentally, this is the second time that RedIbis has employed a “two wrongs make a right”/“tu quoque” fallacy in order to try to avoid this question. The other example is above. Further, note the equivocation fallacy. The word “distraction” is conflated in order to equate partially derailing a thread – a thread devoted to a joke which has now passed, I might add – with desperately and cynically trying to avoid a pertinent and straightforward question by repeatedly attempting to change the subject.
Click to expand...


In other words, RedIBis is following Truther Standard Operating Procedure.
 
RedIbis said:
Purely for entertainment purposes only, what if I don't?
Click to expand...

Then it is just one more example of you being unable or unwilling to back up contentions you make.

Does someone need to explain to you what does to any credibility you might wish to have?

For instance, did you ever explain how you figure that the removal of fire insulation would not accellerate the raising of the temperature of the steel in the WTC towers. I do recall trying to get you to explain how that would work but I if you ever did get around to it I must have already gotten frustrated and left the thread. It destroyed your credibility so much, in my view, that I included it in my sig.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
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?
Click to expand...


Why do you prefer making yourself look ridiculous to acknowledging that you've trapped yourself in an untenable position? You are pretending to people who know better that you have answered questions that you have steadfastly refused to answer.

Stop playing word games with someone who is far more skilled at detecting verbal trickery than you are capable of producing it. The opinion of the FDNY is expressed through its spokespersons, i.e., commanders on the ground. It was the opinion of the department--NOT merely individual members--that WTC 7 was dangerously unstable and likely to collapse. NO MEMBERS OF THE FDNY HAVE COME FORWARD TO CONTRADICT THIS STATEMENT--AS YOU KNOW!

We will keep hammering away at the question you avoid, the one that undermines the fantasy you are wedded to:

GIVEN THAT LARRY SILVERSTEIN WAS AGREEING WITH THE FDNY'S ASSESSMENT, WHAT WAS HE LYING ABOUT ??????
 
pomeroo said:
Why do you prefer making yourself look ridiculous to acknowledging that you've trapped yourself in an untenable position? You are pretending to people who know better that you have answered questions that you have steadfastly refused to answer.

Stop playing word games with someone who is far more skilled at detecting verbal trickery than you are capable of producing it. The opinion of the FDNY is expressed through its spokespersons, i.e., commanders on the ground. It was the opinion of the department--NOT merely individual members--that WTC 7 was dangerously unstable and likely to collapse. NO MEMBERS OF THE FDNY HAVE COME FORWARD TO CONTRADICT THIS STATEMENT--AS YOU KNOW!

We will keep hammering away at the question you avoid, the one that undermines the fantasy you are wedded to:

GIVEN THAT LARRY SILVERSTEIN WAS AGREEING WITH THE FDNY'S ASSESSMENT, WHAT WAS HE LYING ABOUT ??????
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you. Can you speak louder?
 
Please, answer the question, or don't respond. It is pretty clear that you are not answering the questions in your responses anyway, so to abstain from posting should not be too far of a stretch for you.
 
pomeroo said:
GIVEN THAT LARRY SILVERSTEIN WAS AGREEING WITH THE FDNY'S ASSESSMENT, WHAT WAS HE LYING ABOUT ??????
Click to expand...
RedIbis said:
I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you. Can you speak louder?
Click to expand...


Further down the spiral you go: Your desperation has now driven you to common babyishness and sneering – like a young child who’s been caught lying. There’s no way out. Perhaps you should attempt to salvage some level of dignity and simply answer the question.
 
Par said:
In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter one way or the other. Silverstein's comments do not have the power to change the physical characteristics of the collapse.

Instead of worrying about Silverstein, maybe you guys should work on figuring out how the building collapsed at near-freefall speed, almost entirely into its own footprint? Because right now, you have absolutely nothing to refute the 300+ architects, engineers, and scientists who disagree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom