Prove to me that the collapses did not look right

[Oystein]

I note that Red Ibis has made no attempt to answer.

So? He attempted to troll and succeeded. You know Red's reply was not aimed at constructively coming to conclusions. Why feed the troll?

Why don't we all just patiently wait for any truthers to accept the challenge posed by the OP, bump it now and then maybe, and simply ignore all replies that do not attempt to answer the OP?

 

[Justin39640]

I for one would love to hear you explain how it is "disingenuous" to ask truthers to substantiate their claims?

Cause everyone knows they can't.

 

[Travis]

So far this is disappointing. I was hoping they would at least try.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So far this is disappointing. I was hoping they would at least try.

If they knew enough to know why they were "wrong" they wouldn't be twoofers because they would know they look right. Its catch 22....by saying they look wrong means they cannot tell you why.............

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So far this is disappointing. I was hoping they would at least try.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Granted for them to apply this rule now to hide it all is too late.

Actually I agree with redibis on one thing, the threads' a waste of time calling out on "truthers." For one, the attempt you made with the molten steel showed beyond any doubt that even when you make clear you're willing to let them lay everything out they'll find ways to either derail or evade pulling every other poster with them.

Secondly, this subforum has such a polarized attitude anyway since genuine skeptics are a rarity these days that it's difficult to maintain anything on topic whenever anyone strays off. (Yes I know I deserve to have my face smacked for helping out on that in your other thread).

Personally, I think that thee OP question is a valid one; but I tend to decide against making threads when I have a strong feeling the underlying question I want to posit isn't going to be answered sufficiently or at all. Don't get me wrong, I know you're trying to be practical and have them lay it out which in turn demonstrate these very points, but I think the answers are already all too apparent IMO.

 

[Travis]

And, perhaps, this can serve as a demonstration to others how hallow the movement is. That when I create these threads that give them golden opportunities to lay out their case they avoid it.

 

[RedIbis]

And, perhaps, this can serve as a demonstration to others how hallow the movement is. That when I create these threads that give them golden opportunities to lay out their case they avoid it.

You think a "movement" is responding or not responding to your posts? I find that strange.

 

[LSSBB]

You think a "movement" is responding or not responding to your posts? I find that strange.

Not to me. I have come to expect a kind of "movement" as a response from Truthers.

 

[Travis]

You think a "movement" is responding or not responding to your posts? I find that strange.

Well, they don't have to. But if they do have all this stuff worked out this would be a good opportunity to make me look silly.

 

[plague311]

You think a "movement" is responding or not responding to your posts? I find that strange.

You took that completely out of context, the question is a legitimate question that truthers as a whole seem to avoid? I.E. what you're doing right now. Instead of answering the questions you hijack it.

Give reasonable and factual evidence that the collapses of the World Trade Centers did not look right.

 

[dropzone]

Why did the Towers collapsed straight down?

Yeah, "down" is where every thing goes. It may get a jerk from left or right, but down always wins. Watch the collapses: almost immediately they consolidate on "down."

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You think a "movement" is responding or not responding to your posts? I find that strange.

Putting the responses made to you another way, remove "truther" from the question and you have a something which simply asks any skeptic to outline what constitutes "the collapses don't look right."

Would that have made any difference at all if he'd left the label out? Obviously not since the label in of itself is the only reason you've given any consideration to the thread at all.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Well, they don't have to. But if they do have all this stuff worked out this would be a good opportunity to make me look silly.

They've outlined their "reasons" why the collapses "don't look right" for years. What the skeptics claiming this lack is the competence to support those reasons - another thing I suspect your OP sets out to challenge. They'll ignore the OP, or when they respond, they'll exploit any legitimate chance they can find to avoid questions offering them the opportunity to elaborate. In this case, the respondents in a position to address the OP question are using your "truther" reference as a reason to ignore the broader question. If it weren't the "truther" label, it would have been something else. Something all too common when one tries to make a scientific argument into a political matter.

 

[RedIbis]

Well, they don't have to. But if they do have all this stuff worked out this would be a good opportunity to make me look silly.

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

Cripes Red, just answer the question or don't. Stop thread jacking with your whining about the monolithic movement crap.

It is getting boring.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

redibis, there is a thread or two already where you can levy you're complaints about people's treatment of the "truth movement". If that's the only reason you're even in this thread then neither you, me, or anyone else has any business derailing this thread with petty cherry picking.

 

[LSSBB]

Cripes Red, just answer the question or don't. Stop thread jacking with your whining about the monolithic movement crap.

It is getting boring.

I don't get the point of the whining. If you want to make change, you have to have a movement, don't you, like the Tea Party or OWS?

 

[timhau]

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

So, you're finally admitting that the Truth Movement is dead?

 

[Travis]

You're doing a fair enough job of that on your own in thinking that a monolithic movement, as opposed to individuals, is reading and responding to your posts here on jref.

How terrible of me to think that people who cite the collapses "looking" wrong should know what they really ought to look like.

 

[Miragememories]

"Here you go Truthers. You always make a big deal that the buildings came down sort of straight and sort of vertically. Now here is your chance to provide all the evidence that this means anything.

So go ahead, prove to me that a fire initiated structural failure collapse would look any different from what happened.

Knock yourselves out. I'm sure you will have all sorts of detailed studies to bring up in support of your position. "

Okay.

Quick answer, gravity.

What goes up eventually has to come down.

Whether it be from artificial means or natural decay over a long period of time.

Eventually gravity will have its way.

The only thing that will be different is the pattern of the collapse.

WTC7 is the best case since fire was credited with the primary reason for its collapse.

So why should a fire-induced collapse of a steel-structured modern office tower look different from what actually happened?

Given that in spite of the fact, that of the thousands of major fires that steel-structured office towers have faced, that prior to 9/11, only controlled demolitions have achieved the kind of collapse pattern exhibited by the collapse of WTC7?

There are no valid other examples, so we can only consider non-fire induced collapses, fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings, or accept the validity of pioneered computer models such as that produced by the NIST.

Since a computer model, regardless of how well designed, is fundamentally an attempt to make an educated approximation of reality, it loses credibility when attempting to mimic an unprecedented event with no valid historical corroboration.

Since you reject non-fire induced collapse, such as controlled demolition, we can only look to the pattern of fire-induced collapses of non-steel structured buildings.

Well, those collapses tend to be piecemeal, as random fire distribution does not attack structural supports in a uniform, equally timed destructive pattern.

Clearly, the WTC Twin Towers and WTC7 did not collapse in a piecemeal pattern.

They collapsed in a controlled demolition pattern.

The only argument that exists to support a fire-induced collapse pattern is a pioneered computer model with no proven reference to backup the conclusions that are drawn from it.

All of the references based on real examples point towards artificially induced collapse.

MM