Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse: Alex Jones

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

Yeah, but what's happening here is that you're being asked what evidence you have that you put butter on your toast, and you're refusing to answer and asking for proof that you don't.

I've given evidence to my argument, still is not proven, as is the other argument. Hense it's conspriacy/theory and well planned out event.

You're being asked to provide the evidence for what you claim to be reality. That is not an unreasonable request.

I did, to meglome, he then basically goes but how is it made of butter following

And it gets to the point, where you know the other person will not see it for what it is.

You're being asked what grounds there are to show that your perspective is reality and not fiction. That's not an unreasonable request.

I agree.

But many people have programmed minds already, not saying anyone in particular. But brains are like computers, they litterally accept what they command themselves to believe.

Giving them a reality check, doenst help.

proof :experience:D

No argument from me. Most people seem happy to just come up with their own "feeling" about what reality is, and stick with that, rather than looking for evidence to show that they're correct, then offering that evidence to others when they choose to discuss those feelings.

I said, senses, hearing, seeing, smelling, sensing, and feeling.

The divine gave us many senses, I make sure I use alll of them when dicerning.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

But there are others who do. And there are far more who agree with the findings of the NIST report.

Thats not true.

Thats a bold statment, if your going to mention many people of a profession agreeing with that statement, you must show facts.

Otherwise that is blantant accusation to win your argument:rolleyes:
From what I seen, there is as many who agree and dissagree. I don't know which is more or the other, so I'm not going to state as fact.

You're a step further than I am, but at least I'm walking in the right direction

Well finally you will be on the way, to look at things in a bigger way

It's called dicerning.

Penn

Structural magazine explanation regarding WTC7
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

History Channel Documentary on WTC7:

By the way, I've posted these before in this thread.

mysterious

Lol paddy again I will say it.

You are missing the point. I've done my research. You dont need to post me more vids:rolleyes:

I will repeat my point.and since you posted a video specially
Did you know that there is also history documentaries saying the opposite to that vid

Do you see what I'm sayin here yet???

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

I did, to meglome, he then basically goes but how is it made of butter following

What evidence have you provided? Its an honest question....refresh my memory here.

To be honest, you seem to rely on the Lionel Hutz argument.

"Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."

And it gets to the point, where you know the other person will not see it for what it is.

Indeed. Its been pointed out that you have, for example, no issue accepting basic health recommendations that the government are behind, but then laugh at the notion that something coming from the government need even be considered as anything but a lie.

Its quite clear that "the other person" here - you, in this case - are only seeing it how you want to see it. Anything that doesn't suit your position gets laughed away or hand-waved away, rather than being seriously dealt with for what it is.

You appear to take the approach that if it doesn't fit with your conclusion, one must re-interpret so that it does. Someone says X, and X doesn't fit your model....ergo X is wrong.

I agree.

WEll if you agree that its not an unreasonable request, why don't you actually answer it rather than engaging in all of this evasive dismissal?

You've repeatedly said that you weren't answering some questions because you're done with this thread. Now you keep coming back to re-iterate why you're done and won't answer the questions.

Now you're agreeing that its not unreasonable to expect you to answer the questions, but you're still not answering them.

One would think that it would take less effort to answer the questions...if you had the answers you claim to.

But many people have programmed minds already, not saying anyone in particular.

Well, either you're referring explicitly to the people who's questions you're refusing to answer, or this response is irrelevant to why you won't answer.

So are you making an irrelevant excuse, or an ad hominem against the people you're specifically posting responses to?

Penn

wow, you read that report I posted very quickly. Also, I was only using that video to prove that there are other structural engineers who agreed with what I was saying. The first link is from a structural magazine and is an article written by a structural engineer.

Dismissing these by just saying "I've done my research" makes this whole discussion pointless, as you are clearly not willing to open your mind to other possibilities. Maybe you should try it some time.

It's called discerning.

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

wow, you read that report I posted very quickly. Also, I was only using that video to prove that there are other structural engineers who agreed with what I was saying. The first link is from a structural magazine and is an article written by a structural engineer.

Dismissing these by just saying "I've done my research" makes this whole discussion pointless, as you are clearly not willing to open your mind to other possibilities. Maybe you should try it some time.

It's called discerning.

Again I have to post:rolleyes:

I didnt
Attack
Dismiss
Challenge
Redicule

I just made the point, that 7 years later, its still pretty much split down the middle on either side with experts on either side of the argument.

Your more focused on trying to win this argument:pac:
Again I'm just clarifing what Im dicerining.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Again I have to post:rolleyes:

I didnt
Attack
Dismiss
Challenge
Redicule

I just made the point, that 7 years later, its still pretty much split down the middle on either side with experts on either side of the argument.

Your more focused on trying to win this argument:pac:
Again I'm just clarifing what Im dicerining.

But did you read it? Because if you didnt, then you are dismissing it. Whether you agree with what the article says or who wrote it, by not reading the article, you are dismissing it.

I'm not trying to win the argument about what happened, as I said, I have studied very little into the topic and am mainly focusing on my own logic and intuition, as are you. I'm merely trying to get you to see that you do not absolutely know what happened. You have not provided sufficient proof and evidence to support your claims.

Again, I'm just clarifying what I'm discerning

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

But did you read it? Because if you didnt, then you are dismissing it. Whether you agree with what the article says or who wrote it, by not reading the article, you are dismissing it.

I'm not trying to win the argument about what happened, as I said, I have studied very little into the topic and am mainly focusing on my own logic and intuition, as are you. I'm merely trying to get you to see that you do not absolutely know what happened. You have not provided sufficient proof and evidence to support your claims.

Again, I'm just clarifying what I'm discerning

Hmmm.
I did post many such videos and articles that counter my argument.

Are you saying my evidence is underminded over yours.

ROFL. I can take both sides of the argument, and see straight through. It's sad that I can't put my unique gifts onto this in type form so constructively as you all wish.

But as you know, I study how the world works, and why it behaves the way it does. I'm paying attention to important aspects of 9/11 that most average people would not even understand or take into consideration. There is not many people in this world like this, and the only ones that do are forced to by life experience. I choosed to ask all the questions that are layed out in front of me.



I've have learned that people will not understand the complexities that I'm dealing with. I'm ok with that.

What do you want me to do prove that the government did it.
Well I Know for sure the government have been monitoring me enough, to know that i'm in the bracket of people they really dont want to have around. They no I'm not reacting to the nonsense on this thread and getting so cot up in whos right and whos wrong. I can see the bigger picture.

What do you want to me prove again. Prove reality? My job is not to prove reality to you. Your job and responsibitliy is to prove the reality yourself. Reality meaning taking the world around you as a whole into consideration in any particular idea or posing question.


That Im seeing things the way they are. The proof. Is 7 years of this nonsense. Years of the government planning this atrocity. Years planning of the Iraq war. Then the Next 8 years of constant fabrication of documents lies and false statements from the U.S government in almost every action in the last 8 years. The event of 9/11 does not fit the official facts. The treatment of the event afterwards does not make sense. The removal of all material of WTC7 does not make anysense, since it fell down quite illogically given the fact it did not get hit with a plane. The fabrication of linking 9/11 with Iraq. The illogic of the government putting more fear into their own people than the so called "war on terror" Why didnt the government let investigations get on site to look at the structural damage. Isn't this logical to you, or do you seem to dismiss that.

Then the questions, indeed have to be asked why is the government behaving like this. Why did the government behave strangley towards 9/11. Then final question that should be asked were they or could be responsible for 9/11. Now you all do your research and stop paying attention to what the media says. The medias states their story no you go find your story with an open mind and open to the truth
It goes on and on. These are basic BASIC facts you NEED to take into consideration.

If your able to dicern you will be able to come to the conclusion that the government have not been treating this as if it were a real accident.

I don't care what your argument is, or who you think is reponsible for the actual causing of these towers to fall down.

The evidence suggest that it is absaloute scandal what happened that day. There is deception on every corner. This is what dicernment will tell you.

Where do I get my evidence, again from using my sense's and looking around me. If you see a blind man with green spots on camera and people see it. Then your eyes tell you it's a blind man with green spots.

If you don't want to believe the obvious deception around you, that is fine. Believe in the nonsense your all programmed too.


As i knew when I was young, sitting in a classroom, everyone followed the rulebook. I knew then the way the world was. Follow the society and logic, learn it and never question it. People who have creative expansive minds were told they were daydreamers, well well well. If I'm aware of this and aware of reality then I'm a step ahead of everyone who follows the reality created by others. This is a very valid point, I wish to make to all of you especially when your dealing with topics of this nature, where power and governments are involved.

Guess some people are beginning to see again, and other's not.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

Hmmm.
I did post many such videos and articles that counter my argument.

Are you saying my evidence is underminded over yours.

ROFL. I can take both sides of the argument, and see straight through. It's sad that I can't put my unique gifts onto this in type form so constructively as you all wish.

But as you know, I study how the world works, and why it behaves the way it does. I'm paying attention to important aspects of 9/11 that most average people would not even understand or take into consideration. There is not many people in this world like this, and the only ones that do are forced to by life experience. I choosed to ask all the questions that are layed out in front of me.



I've have learned that people will not understand the complexities that I'm dealing with. I'm ok with that.

What do you want me to do prove that the government did it.
Well I Know for sure the government have been monitoring me enough, to know that i'm in the bracket of people they really dont want to have around. They no I'm not reacting to the nonsense on this thread and getting so cot up in whos right and whos wrong. I can see the bigger picture.

What do you want to me prove again. Prove reality? My job is not to prove reality to you. Your job and responsibitliy is to prove the reality yourself. Reality meaning taking the world around you as a whole into consideration in any particular idea or posing question.


That Im seeing things the way they are. The proof. Is 7 years of this nonsense. Years of the government planning this atrocity. Years planning of the Iraq war. Then the Next 8 years of constant fabrication of documents lies and false statements from the U.S government in almost every action in the last 8 years. The event of 9/11 does not fit the official facts. The treatment of the event afterwards does not make sense. The removal of all material of WTC7 does not make anysense, since it fell down quite illogically given the fact it did not get hit with a plane. The fabrication of linking 9/11 with Iraq. The illogic of the government putting more fear into their own people than the so called "war on terror" Why didnt the government let investigations get on site to look at the structural damage. Isn't this logical to you, or do you seem to dismiss that.

Then the questions, indeed have to be asked why is the government behaving like this. Why did the government behave strangley towards 9/11. Then final question that should be asked were they or could be responsible for 9/11. Now you all do your research and stop paying attention to what the media says. The medias states their story no you go find your story with an open mind and open to the truth
It goes on and on. These are basic BASIC facts you NEED to take into consideration.

If your able to dicern you will be able to come to the conclusion that the government have not been treating this as if it were a real accident.

I don't care what your argument is, or who you think is reponsible for the actual causing of these towers to fall down.

The evidence suggest that it is absaloute scandal what happened that day. There is deception on every corner. This is what dicernment will tell you.

Where do I get my evidence, again from using my sense's and looking around me. If you see a blind man with green spots on camera and people see it. Then your eyes tell you it's a blind man with green spots.

If you don't want to believe the obvious deception around you, that is fine. Believe in the nonsense your all programmed too.


As i knew when I was young, sitting in a classroom, everyone followed the rulebook. I knew then the way the world was. Follow the society and logic, learn it and never question it. People who have creative expansive minds were told they were daydreamers, well well well. If I'm aware of this and aware of reality then I'm a step ahead of everyone who follows the reality created by others. This is a very valid point, I wish to make to all of you especially when your dealing with topics of this nature, where power and governments are involved.

Guess some people are beginning to see again, and other's not.

I may get banned for this, but I need to know.

Are you mental?

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

I just made the point, that 7 years later, its still pretty much split down the middle on either side with experts on either side of the argument.

No, mysterious, its not.

While you may find some experts who disagree over the finer details of exactly what factors caused by fire and damage caused the collapse, you will not find any significant number of experts who support the notion of controlled demolition.

If you were to round to the nearest percent, 100% of relevantly-qualified experts agree on the broad details (i.e. that there was no controlled demolition).

THat is not "pretty much split down the middle".

But here's an idea...why don't you provide some of these names?

bonkey

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I may get banned for this, but I need to know.

Are you mental?

You're right.

7 days.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

and getting so cot up in whos right and whos wrong.

It seems to me that all you are doing is insisting you are right, and everyone who sees it differently is wrong. You don't seem to be "cot up" in anything else, to be honest.

These are basic BASIC facts you NEED to take into consideration.

No, mysterious.

These are your unproven allegations that you are unwilling to discuss.

If you hold them as self-evident truths, then say so, and move on.

You are clearly making the natives restless. I'm sure your intuition can tell you exactly what I mean by that. If not, then read the charter again.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

Believe in the nonsense your all programmed too.

Infracted.

As i knew when I was young, sitting in a classroom, everyone followed the rulebook.

You'll follow my rulebook, or you'll be banned.