Question to truthers

[tsig]

My grandmother who had been a nurse was sure that the nerves in the body turned to worms after death..

So being stupid runs in the family?

 

[tsig]

Are you saying it doesn't look like a controlled demolition??? Where is the conflicting evidence?

I'm saying it doesn't look like a controlled demolition and I need no more evidence for my statement than you do for yours.

 

[AndrewBurley]

You didn't read the NIST report; Your conclusion is drawn from watching videos.

No I have read it. Their explanation doesn't adequately address the collapse.

 

[AndrewBurley]

Why it was demolished is called motive.

Yes, I know that. Your point?

 

[AndrewBurley]

I'm saying it doesn't look like a controlled demolition and I need no more evidence for my statement than you do for yours.

You are lying. I am not.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I noticed that AB is ignoring my posts directed at him. I wonder why?

 

[Animal]

You need means, motive and opportunity to convict someone. You don't need it to establish the crime occured in the first place. If I find a body with a knife in it's back, I know a murder has been committed but I don't know who, or why.

Your problem is you have jumped to a conclusion without supporting evidence. You make assumptions without knowing ALL the facts. A body with a knife in its back is not proof of murder. It may not even be a homicide.

Troofers stay willingly ignorant of the facts involved and jump to their pre drawn conclusion.

BTW.......your body with a knife in its back could have been a suicide, an accident, or a self defense injury.

 

[Animal]

speaking of steel losing it's integrity, i've got some new pictures curtesy of my wife.

There recently was a fire in an abandoned paint manufacturing plant here in florida. Not a major fire, but lasted about 30 minutes or less.

She took some pictures for me, since this weekend they took off the skin of the building.

You can see the steel beams roof purlins that held the arches laterally, have sagged about 1-2 feet.
[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/saggingsteel2.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/saggingsteel1.jpg[/qimg]

cheers!

ftfy

 

[Animal]

Because that's a magic trick. We know of magic tricks and we know enough about human anatomy to know this is just a trick. You won't find a consensus among experts saying that this woman was literally pulled into two moving pieces, only to be contradicted by a small fringe group of alleged experts saying that it was really just a trick.

It is youtube.......troofers automatically believe it is real.

 

[MIKILLINI]

No I have read it. Their explanation doesn't adequately address the collapse.

It does address the collapse, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but it is addressed. There's no indication of evidence depicting controlled demolition in the report either.

 

[AndrewBurley]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_481644e6d80b26ef43.jpg[/qimg]

Your problem is you have jumped to a conclusion without supporting evidence. You make assumptions without knowing ALL the facts. A body with a knife in its back is not proof of murder. It may not even be a homicide.

Troofers stay willingly ignorant of the facts involved and jump to their pre drawn conclusion.

BTW.......your body with a knife in its back could have been a suicide, an accident, or a self defense injury.

Is stabbing oneself in the back a common suicide method?

Ok, I will be more specific. You find a body with 47 stab wounds in the back, you have ruled out suicide rolleyes and you know it is murder.....but you don't know who did it or why.

My point remains. Why do I need to know a motive to know wtc7 was demolished?

 

[Animal]

Is stabbing oneself in the back a common suicide method?

Ok, I will be more specific. You find a body with 47 stab wounds in the back, you have ruled out suicide rolleyes and you know it is murder.....but you don't know who did it or why.

My point remains. Why do I need to know a motive to know wtc7 was demolished?

Like a good little troofer, you move the goal posts instead of admitting your error, and the goal post move (and your point) still fails you. 47 wounds still in itself is not proof of murder, but then one so blinded by his pre drawn conclusions will never figure it out.

 

[AndrewBurley]

Like a good little troofer, you move the goal posts instead of admitting your error, and the goal post move (and your point) still fails you. 47 wounds still in itself is not proof of murder, but then one so blinded by his pre drawn conclusions will never figure it out.

Are you saying murder is never established before a motive and suspect emerge? To claim the motive must be known to establish wtc7 was demolished is simply wrong. Be a good little debunker and move on from that point.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

So let me get this straight. There was a controlled demolition but there was no motive for that demolition. Am I understanding you correctly? They did it for the lulz? Is that what you're going with?

I think that you don't want to answer the simple question because you know that it would lead to things that you can't or won't answer because you know deep down inside yourself that those answers will shatter your brittle fantasy world.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

 

[Animal]

Are you saying murder is never established before a motive and suspect emerge?

Motive is not the issue. The issue is coming to a conclusion without knowing the all the facts.

To claim the motive must be known to establish wtc7 was demolished is simply wrong. Be a good little debunker and move on from that point.

To claim demolition based on a 7 second video, without knowing all the facts is simply being willfully ignorant. As a troofer, you fail miserably.

 

[AndrewBurley]

Motive is not the issue. The issue is coming to a conclusion without knowing the all the facts.



To claim demolition based on a 7 second video, without knowing all the facts is simply being willfully ignorant. As a troofer, you fail miserably.

Motive is the issue. This began when a debunker claimed I couldn't know it was a demolition without knowing the motive. So you agree that is wrong?

 

[AndrewBurley]

I noticed that AB is ignoring my posts directed at him. I wonder why?

So let me get this straight. There was a controlled demolition but there was no motive for that demolition. Am I understanding you correctly? They did it for the lulz? Is that what you're going with?

I think that you don't want to answer the simple question because you know that it would lead to things that you can't or won't answer because you know deep down inside yourself that those answers will shatter your brittle fantasy world.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comment

Why would I wish to debate with someone who stoops to this level?

 

[Robrob]

Why would I wish to debate with someone who stoops to this level?

Really, that offended you? Welcome to the internet.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Why would I wish to debate with someone who stoops to this level?

Ah, now he answers. Good. Now then, how about responding to my much more civil posts earlier in this thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7557016#post7557016

Originally Posted by AndrewBurley
Why would I need to know the motive to know that the building had been demolished?

Well either there was a reason for it (and one has to assume that it was a good one, I mean you wouldn't exactly expect to see anyone making a call for war over an empty office building burning for hours and then collapsing with no casualties) or there wasn't a reason for it and someone did it just for ***** and giggles.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7557095#post7557095

Originally Posted by AndrewBurley
I am yet to see a reasonable explanation, other than demolition, for it's collapse.

Well to start off with the case for demolition has no actual evidence to support it. No audio with the distinctive sounds always associated with a demolition. No markings on the steel to indicate the use of explosives. No explosive residue found by the dogs searching for people to rescue or cadavers (and before you ask, yes, those dogs were also trained to detect explosive residues as well as bodies). No detritus associated with explosives being used (such as used det cord). None. The only "Evidence" is that a portion of the collapse had some of the same visual characteristics as a controlled demolition. Namely that gravity will destroy a building once it has started to move downwards. Unfortunately for truthers the same holds true for any collapse regardless of the cause. I haven't even gone into the logistical impossibilities that having explosives sit in a burning building for seven hours entails.

The evidence for a fire driven collapse is primarily that the building was on fire for over seven hours with no firefighting efforts at all. It simply wasn't designed for, nor should it be expected, that a typical steel structure would withstand that type of environment. The building and fires were modeled and that's how they narrowed it down to a specific column and failure mechanism. That doesn't preclude someone from looking at a structure on fire and leaning while making loud popping and creaking noises from determining that it will collapse.

Truthers intentionally lie and mislead people by excluding the events ten seconds prior to the north face starting to move (their prime evidence of a CD) showing that the structure was already failing and that a major collapse had already begun.

You've been lied to.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7559971#post7559971

Originally Posted by AndrewBurley
You need means, motive and opportunity to convict someone. You don't need it to establish the crime occured in the first place. If I find a body with a knife in it's back, I know a murder has been committed but I don't know who, or why.

The thing is that truthers find a body with a knife in the back and claim that it was a gunshot that killed the guy and that's after discovering that there was no bullet hole, no bullet and no gun.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7561912#post7561912

Originally Posted by AndrewBurley
How is it badly informed?

Your opinion is that "it is plain to see that it was demolished. ". There is no evidence at all that supports that opinion. There is plenty of uninformed speculation, bad science and outright lies that attempt to support that claim.

What you think that you see as a CD in that seven second video snippet is the final result of gravity overcoming a weakened structure. By itself it is absolutely inconclusive of anything other than that. It neither supports CD nor fires as the root cause. For that you need to look at what happened before that seven second interval and what the debris showed after that seven second interval. From that you can make a much better determination as to what happened to cause that collapse.

There is no evidence at all of the building being prepared for a CD in the weeks and months leading up to that collapse. There are no sounds of detonations that are always present in a CD in the seconds immediately prior to or during the collapse. There was no physical evidence of explosives in the debris after the collapse.

There is evidence of structural damages caused by the collapses of the twin towers. There is evidence of fires on multiple floors in the hours leading up to the collapses. There is historical evidence of fires weakening and causing the collapse of other steel framed structures in the past.

Yet you choose to believe that the first option is the most viable one. That's what makes people say that your opinion is badly informed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7562849#post7562849

Originally Posted by AndrewBurley
Are you saying it doesn't look like a controlled demolition??? Where is the conflicting evidence?

You are asking for proof of a negative "You say that (X) didn't happen. Prove it." The simple lack of any supporting evidence for (X) is the evidence against (X) ever happening. Meanwhile there is plenty of extra evidence for (Y) that includes the (ambiguous at best) evidence for (X).

What you have to show (X): It looks like a CD to me. What you don't have to show (X): Audio or video proof consistent with a CD. Physical evidence of a CD. Witnesses saying that they saw a CD being prepared in the weeks and months prior to the event.

I've already explained to you why fires are a much more likely cause and, if you'd like I can also cover why the fires also preclude the use of explosives (the short answer is that fire and explosives don't mix well at all) but I really shouldn't have to.

Fire weakens steel if given enough time. WTC 7 had spent enough time on fire to expect nothing else but an eventual collapse.

So then. Any response to those nicely put points or are you simply going to continue to act like a sockpuppet who has already been told these things in a different life and keep your digits in your auditory canals while hoping that nobody else will notice?

 

[Animal]

Motive is the issue. This began when a debunker claimed I couldn't know it was a demolition without knowing the motive. So you agree that is wrong?

<sigh> Motive is one issue that can can provide supportive evidence. It is NOT a factor in your proven false claim that a knife in the back of a corpse is murder, just as your claim that a building fell "like a controlled demolition" is NOT proof that such collapse was in fact a controlled demolition. You have already proven in your posts that you have no interest in learning the facts, rather you just wish to affirm your religious beliefs.