Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

King Mob wrote: »

But I did answer the question, quite directly.
Then pointed out the issue I still have with the point.

But then on the other hand you've just totally ignored a whole post of questions...

So how about you actually address the points I've been trying to get you to address for the last 3 pages before I go digging up stuff on a totally different topic?

Different topic ?? Was it not in the op movie ??

You know my view on the matter regarding wtc7 i do not accept the nist report ... Do i need to be an expert to dismiss that ?

I will try to post wtc7 related things in the proper thread

Now ..point out to me wich parts of OP movie you think are a lie
And still there are those secret parts in the nist report .. so instead of being an expert on burning overpasses this would be something to investigate further ... agree ?

I try to stay away from the ct against nist bashing just because i'm trying to get my own head around the whole thing ... not with much succes i must say

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, and we've been discussing several points stemming from that.
Several points which you are now ignoring.
So if you want me to address this new point, at least do me basic courtesy and address the points I've already brought up.


But your view is based entirely on misunderstandings of the evidence, incomplete evidence and the opinion of "experts" who I've shown are telling you untrue things.
And then when I've asked you three times specifically to point out were the NIST reports simulation is wrong, you've ignored the question.

So yea, if your not looking to start questioning your beliefs, I'd stay away from that topic too....

I did try anwser the questions i had an anwser too i think

Soo your stance is now you didn't look into my questions the way i want them anwsered so now i just ignore a difficult question myself ?

The evidence has nothing to do with my view because i don't see it as evidence

About the simulation i said that it was a nice one but simulations are not evidence imo because its fabricated

My only problem is whith the way wtc 7 fell ... Im very openminded about everything but not impressed by the way you try to ram your evidence down my throat

King Mob wrote: »

You didn't.
Please point out were you think you did.

No it's more like I'm not going to go on a tangent until you actually address the points I put forward.


Your statement makes no sense.


That's still not answering my point. I've explained this several times.
I'm not using it as evidence. It's an example of how the building could have collapse. (this example being the one actually supported by the facts and observations)
And I'm asking you to point out which bits of the simulation are wrong, impossible or inconsistant with the facts.
And I'm am also asking you whether or not you understand how it is showing that the building can collapse without all of the supports failing at once.

These are not hard questions.


What about the way it fell specifically?


Since you are open minded, what evidence would you accept that could convince you that the building did fall due to fires?

Please point out the ones i didn't

You must be curious as well that that holy NIST report is not complete (maybe) and your basing all your believes on the wrong evidence, I will even try to help you out with that because it will anwser my question at the same time

Are these the nist facts in the simulation if so ...i already said that the whole nist report means nothing to me

evidence theories bring em on but not the office furniture thing again please

King Mob wrote: »

And these are just the separate ones form the last page or so. It doesn't include the points I've repeated.
Several of them you simply ignored entirely.

Well I'm not especially curious because given the lies and distortions already present in the film, I very much doubt there's much to this point.
I'm far more interested in the points I've already brought up and have been trying to get you to actually think about for the last few pages.

If you really want me to tackle this new tangent, stop ignoring the the questions you've already left dangling.


Again you didn't address the question. Whether or not you trust the NIST is irrelevant to the question. It's repeated above so please this time actually read what I have posted and answer the point I am actually making.


And we can add another unanswered question to the list.

I'm asking you for specific evidence or arguments you'd accept, which shouldn't be an issue if you're really open minded.
Cause I've already provided you with solid, well supported theories, which you simply ignore for no good reason.

No its a nice simulation well made cant see anything wrong with the way they wanted to go couldn't have done it better myself

Are you still not over the building collapsing thing .. explaint to you what was relevant to me in that clip a couple of times the rest is for the maker of that clip

The penthouse collapsing was part of the colapse it says it in the word penthouse collapse

And Im not ignoring you just to piss you off some points i cant anwser and you know that but somehow you find joy in putting people in the corner with your line of questions

And you are always asking questions but refuse to debate things outside the nist report ohh yeah space lasers sorry

Im trying to make up my own mind as much as i can

But you have the ct guys on 1 side

And the likes of you on the other

every theory is labelled ct stuff the moment it hits the web

every person trying to work against the goverment spin is labelled a ct nut

Do you really think the government would come out and say ohh yeah we have a load of other points in the report that we are not publishing for public safety?

So its pointed out by a group that makes a video and you reject it because its made public by CT fanatics or whatever you call them

Nice way to avoid tricky questions ..you learn fast from the CT side

King Mob wrote: »

Except you're not, you simply regurgitating what you're being told by conspiracy theorists and refusing to question it.


Now who's doing the labelling...
And can you show a single instance of me doing this anywhere?
Hell I don't even use the term "nut".


Now hold up a second, where are you getting the idea that the documents being withheld contain points they wish to cover up?
I've asked you you explain what was being withheld, but that got lost in the flurry of other questions and points your are still ignoring.

Yea, you do learn how to avoid uncomfortable questions from the CT side.
Unfortunately it's not an honest way to argue a point.
Now could you at least explain why you're avoiding the points from my last post. It's clear now that you aren't going to answer the very simple questions.

I am making up my own mind im not believing everything the CT side says ..stop assuming i do

So your not on the opposite side of the CT group ? thats new to me

I am not saying you do but it is the general trend .. it happens both ways

I am not saying they cover it up they just didn't release them is what is said in the video true or false i don't know

You asked me what was beying witheld... how would i know I asked you about that part but you still refuses to anwser it and come back with a question that again i can't anwser

i will try to adress the other questions when I'm home

King Mob wrote: »

And now watching later segments they make lots of appeals to authority and
Repeating the canard that "no steel framed building had collapsed before".
Which is both misleading and factually wrong.

They keep showing photos that supposedly show the fires not being as bad as claimed.
So how come they didn't show this photo?:


And the biggie: Gage claims the building fell in 7 seconds.
This is totally false.

And all these "experts" keeping making claims that simply aren't true.

And now referring to the long debunked, thoroughly dishonest "paper" that claims to have found thermite.

This video is a hodge podge of lies, half-truths, distortions, misrepresentions, logical fallacies and plain old nonsense.
I gave up after 10 minutes the dishonesty was coming too fast and thick for me to stomach.

Those darn lying architects and engineers, they are known for lying and they have so much to gain. Sneakies !! I'll never either of the said again !!!! AGAIN I TELLS YA !!!

King Mob wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything at all. I'm simply going by what you've posted which indicates that you are simply, uncritcially buying what you're being told in a evidently dishonest video.
If you really were making up your own mind, I;m sure you could point out a few things claimed in the film which you think aren't true and can explain why you think so.

Well I'm on the side of facts and truth. that usually puts me on the opposite side to conspiracy theorists.
So what exactly was your point?

So what exactly didn't they release?
You seem convinced that they are important, yet don't seem to know what they actually are...


Why doesn't the video supply the answer to that?
If the people making the video actually cared about the truth they'd say what what being withheld.
But they don't care and saying that the government is withholding something (regardless of what they actually are) makes for a bombastic claim.
A cheap trick which you fell for hook, line and sinker.

And then at the same time ignore the fact they themselves are withholding half of the collapse they are basing their claim on.

Surely you can see your double standards at play here?
But then you're complaining to me for ignoring questions, so I don't think you're seeing most of the irony.

Honestly, I'm not going to hold my breath...
I've repeated them ad nauseum. You clearly have no intention of answering them honest.
But hey, I might be surprised.


Sources for any of this?
Who says this is the opposite behaviour?
Who says this cannot lead to a collapse?
What is their information they are using to base these claims on?

I know you don't believe it because you already admitted that fire can bring down the building.

1: Yes you are assuming ...(do you actually read what i post or do you only pick stuff out to corner me with?)
I asked you the question to point out in the video which parts you did believe .... seems i am not the only one with difficulty in answering a question

2: So instead of me labelling you actually are on the other side ... just would have been easier if you said that straight away

3:My point ? is that you cant be in the middle in this discussion (open minded

4:I don't know what they didn't release because they didn't release it ( sighh)
Again assumptions
I asked YOU the question what you thought of it and still (surprise surprise) no answer besides the ct bashing

5:Maybe ...just maybe they did and were refused (public safety reason) so again your assuming things and labeling people without knowing the facts (wasn't that what you hated yourself when dealing with all that ct stuff)

So lets get this straight ... Me asking you a question ... you cannot or will not answer and then in the blink of an eye i fell hook line and sinker for the question i asked you ... your good KM
I never said that i support all that what is in that video (please point out were i do that) again assumptions
And you blame me for not seeing the Irony ... ohh the irony

6:Again assumptions and arrogance added now
We were talking on two threads about the same thing so yes maybe i missed a few questions but also some of the questions i simply cannot answer because i don't have the knowledge to do that
Do you really think that when i had the proof that would take down a 10000 pages 200000 man hour NIST report i would be discussing it with you on this forum ?

I have questions and I'm not buying the whole NIST version and I'm not Buying the whole CT spin

7:It was on a CT site i cant find now (its on the laptop)
Again see my open approach to this

I find something that maybe is true maybe it isn't i don't have that knowledge hence my question "DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE

Instead of an answer i get .wait for it......... 4 questions back

See KM that is the way you try to get rid of people .. Why are you on this forum anyway because all you seem to do is spit assumptions from behind your 10000 pages NIST report and everything that is not "truth" or "evidence" you just sweep aside and when people have a difficult question you just ask a couple of questions back to them ..maybe they get confused ... maybe they give the wrong answer so you can ask 3 more questions on that wrong answer ..

Ohh and yes i believe fire could have destroyed wtc7 but not in the way it burnt that day.

Barrington wrote: »

I would say that the two things aren't mutually exclusive. The only way the beam can sag is if it is being weakened by the fire. But to sag, it also needs to be thermally expanding.

In my opinion, a lot of it has to do with where the fire was acting. If the beam was thermally expanding, it would probably just sag. If the column was thermally expanding, it would probably effect the connections to the beams more as the column would be a much more rigid member (held in place at more points and carrying a greater load)

Okay accepted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

so the part 0:35 is not really Representative with the way things went inside wtc7?

and the part starting at 2:34 would that be representing what happened inside wtc7?

King Mob wrote: »

And I never said that the video was lying about the files, just distorting the facts to make them sound more sinister than they are.

The fact you can't even say what those files are, who asked for them and when should tell you that you are missing the context. And the fact that the video is leaving that stuff out should tell you they are being dishonest.

I don't know why you are falling for such an obvious and cheap trick.


But the building you are referring to is not the same construction as WTC7 and was not subject to the same circumstances.
Just like you are arguing with the overpass.

You can't have it both ways I'm afraid. Either you can use examples of different construction to show how WTC7 should have collapse, in which case you'd have to accept the overpass collapsing, or you can't use such examples and your point is moot.
so which is it?

So you are saying that the video of that engulfed building

and the 2 points in this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

0:35 and 2:35 are not usuable in the wtc 7 discussion ?

simple yes or no will do

we take it from there then