Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[jessicarabbit]

Perhaps. But what if they find it as silly as most posters here, but dont want to comment? And when will these people start coming forward? When Bush/Cheney are out of office? In 10 years? In 20 years?

Even if they come forward they cant prove it because the steels gone, we will just have a separate set of conjecture like the interim report. It will never be resolved

 

[Moving On]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Can NIST’s findings be used in court?[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]As part of the act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages[/SIZE][/FONT]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm

Good night!

Hang in there Jess.

 

[jessicarabbit]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Can NIST’s findings be used in court?[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]As part of the act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages[/SIZE][/FONT]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm

Good night!

Hang in there Jess.

I'm tiring russell. It's like trying to sell ice to eskimos. They aren't buying it.

 

[Gravy]

On buildng 7 i'm 99% certain. I have read the interim report which is entirely conjecture. I have watched 17 videos of the collapse. I have read lots of testimony that talks about explosions.

Can you describe, in a few sentences, the condition of WTC 7 shortly before it collapsed?

 

[Gravy]

It's not possible for 3 steel frame buildings to have non symmetrical damage and fall symmetrically straight down on the same day within 3 blocks of each other with fire as a primary cause for the first time in history.

It's mutually exclusive with physics and probability.

Third request: please provide your calculations that show that the "official version" must be false. If you cannot, just say so. This is about the truth, right?

 

[LashL]

LashL,

<snip>NOBODY was able to "apply proper research parameters" to any of those buildings. Period and they never will be able to do so.

Have you been drinking or something, or are you being deliberately obtuse and trying to obfuscate?

Our exchange was not about the research parameters of the building collapses at all (nor about the other stuff you are spouting off about in this particular post), but about the research parameters of viewing someone's testimony in its entirety instead of cherry picking it.

It was about context and perspective in your references to Mr. Bartmer's evidence. Remember?

Now, you're talking about something entirely different and trying to pretend that that was actually what we were talking about? Bizarre.

Quoting papers as you do generated under these circumstances does not even come close to scientific methodology.

Huh? What papers are you talking about? We were discussing the fact that you ignored the vast majority of what Craig Bartmer said in his interview, and by doing so, you deliberately ignored the importance of context and perspective. I didn't quote any paper whatsoever.

Eyewitness accounts are muddled by time, motive and emotion.

Of course they are. Especially the ones that get better with time. Your point?

So just drop the pretense and the psuedo-science.

I'm not engaging in any pretense or pseudo-science. I ask again, have you been drinking or something?

You are asking us Cters for something you yourself don't have and never will.

I haven't asked you for anything except honesty and a proper approach to someone's evidence. You seem to have a problem with that. I said that it is important to look at a person's complete testimony rather than just the few words that you happen to like.

I didn't ask you for something that I myself don't have and never will. I approach the evidence of every single witness I encounter in the same way - I look at the entirety of their evidence, not just the words that serve my client's purposes; indeed it would be a foolish person indeed who ignored the words that do NOT serve the client's purposes.

I have no idea what the hell you're on about.

Wake up

I seem to be the only one between the two of us who is actually awake and functioning properly, based on this screed of yours.

You are believers in a non conspiracy cherry picking just as much as a CTer.

Oh, is this another example of your responding specifically to my post and then later saying that you were responding "generically" and apologizing for getting it wrong? One would think that you could avoid making the same mistake twice over the course of a few hours.

But you have the title of skeptic. That is it - two beliefs with different titles and diametrically opposed conclusions.

No, there's a difference between "beliefs" and facts & evidence. A very big, very important difference. Which seems to be escaping you entirely.

Now all anybody has is circumstantial evidence.

Really? Please elaborate.

Quit fooling yourselves. Quit insulting others in the process.

Stop being such a drama queen. I'm not fooling myself and I haven't insulted anyone, and your behaviour is seriously harming the persona you wish to present as a serious "researcher". You're sounding, frankly, a bit deranged at the moment, with this strange screed of yours. I have no idea what you think I'm "fooling myself" about and I have no idea what you are referring to when you claim that I have insulted others in the process, but I'm sure, as the serious researcher that you are, you will provide specifics of both. I'll wait.

Stop and wonder what if you are wrong - what then?

Wrong about what? The facts and evidence are what they are. If additional facts and evidence come to light and lead to another conclusion, that's perfectly fine with me.

 

[jessicarabbit]

Can you describe, in a few sentences, the condition of WTC 7 shortly before it collapsed?

Lots of fire. Bulge over 3 stories in the south west corner. 20 storey hole in the centre (although that is disputed and photos are obscured by smoke)

 

[jessicarabbit]

Third request: please provide your calculatons that show that the "official version" must be false. If you cannot, just say so. This is about the truth, right?

Totally unfair since you cant provide proof of how 7 collapsed. That interim report is not something I would advise you to point people to. Its one of the things that convinced me of CD!

 

[apathoid]

Lots of fire. Bulge over 3 stories in the south west corner. 20 storey hole in the centre (although that is disputed and photos are obscured by smoke)

It was also leaning. Thats not merely conjecture, it was verified by the FDNY with an engineers transit..

 

[jessicarabbit]

It was also leaning. Thats not merely conjecture, it was verified by the FDNY with an engineers transit..

The tower of piza is leaning. If a leaning builing goes it doesn't go straight down.

 

[apathoid]

The tower of piza is leaning. If a leaning builing goes it doesn't go straight down.

It didnt go straight down!

 

[jessicarabbit]

It didnt go straight down!

May I ask a question. If everyone knew it was going to collapse why didnt they bother trying to get video of it from the south or west? It would make the investigation easier.

 

[Gravy]

On the towers NIST started with a conclusion and worked backward. They do not practise good science.

What conclusion did they start with, and specifically how was their science flawed? I don't expect an immediate answer, but I hope you'll think about that.

Jessica, in almost every single post you demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. You get almost everything wrong, but you sail blithely along, seemingly content to be the mole in Whack-a-Mole. Doesn't it bother you that you're so easily proven wrong, time and again? Doesn't it bother you that you make claim after claim that you cannot back with evidence? Is this adult behavior?

Why not take a step back and study up? Whatever CT sites you're visiting, you're getting laughably bad information from them. You recommended Loose Change as a valid source of information, for crying out loud. You can't get much more wrong than that.

Please stop. And think. And use reliable sources. You mentioned the Washington Post as one. What's their take on 9/11 conspiracy theories?

 

[Gravy]

Totally unfair since you cant provide proof of how 7 collapsed. That interim report is not something I would advise you to point people to. Its one of the things that convinced me of CD!

Totally unfair? Stop being childish. My post was in response to Russell's:

It's not possible for 3 steel frame buildings to have non symmetrical damage and fall symmetrically straight down on the same day within 3 blocks of each other with fire as a primary cause for the first time in history.

It's mutually exclusive with physics and probability.

If he knows that, he has the calculations to back it up. I'm calling his bluff. Russell? Fourth time: show us your math or withdraw the claim.

How many times do you need to be asked? What's the problem? You know you won't get away with making absurd statements without being challenged. So put up or withdraw the claim.

 

[apathoid]

May I ask a question. If everyone knew it was going to collapse why didnt they bother trying to get video of it from the south or west? It would make the investigation easier.

For what reason? Mentally take yourself back to that day for a moment and ask the same question again. The answer should be obvious. Noone gave a rats ass about WTC7, there were more pressing priorites.

 

[Bell]

*Looks at thread*

What. The. Hell?!

 

[realitybites]

May I ask a question. If everyone knew it was going to collapse why didnt they bother trying to get video of it from the south or west? It would make the investigation easier.

I can't be sure, but I'm guessing it had something to do with the fact people were a little preoccupied at the time and really weren't thinking about what they could do in that moment to ease the minds of conspiracy theorists 5 years down the road.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

"Science" at its best!

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

I'm well aware of the scientific method, thanks. Your point?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It's not possible for 3 steel frame buildings to have non symmetrical damage and fall symmetrically straight down on the same day within 3 blocks of each other with fire as a primary cause for the first time in history.

It's mutually exclusive with physics and probability.

You're mistaken. Doesn't that give you pause?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The primary evidence for controlled demolition is the explosives which of course blow up.

This is just comedy gold. More, please!