Building 7 ???

weisses · 09-09-2011 05:21PM

I maybe have to look up things about socratic anwsering ... Maybe just maybe i can learn to master replying with 4 questions in reply to 1 asked

09-09-2011 05:25PM

weisses wrote: »

I maybe have to look up things about socratic anwsering ... Maybe just maybe i can learn to master replying with 4 questions in reply to 1 asked

So I can take it you've no interest in actually addressing those questions then?

Mahatma coat · 09-09-2011 05:35PM

I wouldnt blame him for not wanting to respond, people take badly to having words put in their mouth and their opinions misrepresented

09-09-2011 05:41PM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I wouldnt blame him for not wanting to respond, people take badly to having words put in their mouth and their opinions misrepresented

Going to actually add to the discussion MC or gonna stick to swipes at me?
Cause I fail to see how I can be sticking words into peoples mouths or misrepresenting their opinions when I'm constantly asking mean old questions.

Can you point out where I've done what you're accusing me of?
Cause I can point to were professional conspiracy theorists have absolutely done so in videos posted in this and other threads?

Can you point out any of those questions I asked are unfair or irrelevant?

weisses · 09-09-2011 05:49PM

King Mob wrote: »

And these are just from my last 5 or so posts.
None of these questions were answered in detail if at all and it doesn't include the straight points I made, for example the part where I showed that your claim that WTC7 fell in a neat pile was wrong.

If you can't answer any of these questions, don't pretend I didn't ask it. Explain why you can't answer it. It might just be important.

1:The lack of raging fires on the north side (explained a couple of times)
2 No No fires were intense and widespread enough to explain the near freefall of the building

3 the total collapse of the building within seconds

4 10 secs maybe
5 yes never disputed that fact

6 My belief that never before and never again a building will fall due to the burning of office furniture
7No not on the south side but the north side was not enough to even come close to the idea of a total collapse of the building due to fires caused by office furniture
8maybe a partial collapse (south side)

Mahatma coat · 09-09-2011 05:56PM

Mob wrote:

Going to actually add to the discussion MC or gonna stick to swipes at me?
Cause I fail to see how I can be sticking words into peoples mouths or misrepresenting their opinions when I'm constantly asking mean old questions.

Can you point out where I've done what you're accusing me of?
Cause I can point to were professional conspiracy theorists have absolutely done so in videos posted in this and other threads?

Can you point out any of those questions I asked are unfair or irrelevant?

King Mob wrote: »

So now you agree that the fires didn't magically stay on one side.

Here

Now what are you basing your opinion that they weren't intense enough on exactly?

Is it possible they could have been intense enough you just couldn't see them where they were important?

Again here

Ok since now you agree that the official explanation is plausible, what exactly is your problem with it?

and again here

And your opinion is wrong and not based on anything resembling facts. The only reason it's your opinion is because you prefer it to the truth.
All the evidence shows that the fires were spread throughout the building, which you admit, and there's no reason at all for you to conclude that they could not have been intense enough.

Blanket dismissal and a veiled insult.

Wow, you're that easy to convince?

Thinly veiled insult

Well you see I don't think ill informed, untrained opinion is convince, hence why I'm not just buying yours.

that there is gettin very close to abuse

You say honest answer but fail to actually answer the question:
Before this thread, how long did you think WTC7 fell in? (In seconds.)
Had you ever seen the collapse in it's entirety? (yes or no?)

the poster did answer you, you might not have liked or accepted the answer but one was provided

These aren't trick questions and I don't understand why they would give you trouble.

Again this could be construed as a veiled insult, especially based on your posting history of thinly veiled insults

So I'm struggling to force you to answer questions I'm currently making yet you dive back into this thread to find a post I made ages ago...

of course draggin up old topics from previous poste even previous threads is something You'd Never do:rolleyes:

Why? Are you that desperate to avoid the questions I'm asking?

I just dont think posters want to engage with you, I wont go into details of why here.

No it's not true that they admit that the building fell for 2 seconds in free fall.
They say that they use a segment of video tape to measure the speed of collapse of that façade of the building.
In those 2 seconds or so of the facade falling, the internal structure of the building had already totally collapsed.
Now even if this wasn't the case, the conspiracy theorists still claim a free fall of 6 or 7 seconds.

in this example you are ascribing something that the poster didnt say to them in an attempt to deflect from the Valid point initially raised

And no, 2 seconds of free fall do not indicate it was a controlled demolition.
If it was, why was it in the NIST report?

you claim to have read the NIST report, so surely you know if it was in it or not

Now please stop trying to throw in tangents and address what I've already posted and you are straining to avoid.

DITTO

09-09-2011 06:11PM

And now unfortunatly I'm going to have to ask you some more follow up questions.

weisses wrote: »

1:The lack of raging fires on the north side (explained a couple of times)

And is the only reasoning for this the fact you can't see the fires out of the windows on the north side?
Because if it is, it's very silly reasoning to reject that there was fire in the north side of the building.

And of course, had you read any of the report you reject, specifically about the collapse you'd see that it started in an internal column not on the very edge of the north side.

weisses wrote: »

2 No No fires were intense and widespread enough to explain the near freefall of the building

So then how intense were the fires and how intense would they need to be?
Now if you can't answer these questions in full it shows that you simply can't claim what you are claiming.
And again it has to be pointed out that the building did not fall anywhere near free fall speed. I don't know how you can honestly still claim that.

weisses wrote: »

3 the total collapse of the building within seconds

But you saw the computer model of the collapse which showed how the internal structure fell. You said you thought the way the official report said it collapsed was plausible. You said you couldn't find anything in the computer model or the explanation that was impossible or conflicted with the facts.
That model showed how the building could have collapsed in seconds.

So again, why is it impossible for it to collapse in seconds?

weisses wrote: »

4 10 secs maybe
5 yes never disputed that fact

Finally, straight answers...

weisses wrote: »

6 My belief that never before and never again a building will fall due to the burning of office furniture

But you also agreed that no building has ever been demolished by thermite, yet this was not enough to conclude that thermite could never be used. Simply because it was possible for something to be the cause meant it was a plausible explanation.
And you've have said that 1) an office fire could have taken down WTC7, 2) the official explanations and the computer model were consistant and plausible.
Your reasoning is inconsistent. And saying that "a building never fell due to fire" is not a solid basis for your conclusion.
(Especially since it's not actually true.)

weisses wrote: »

7No not on the south side but the north side was not enough to even come close to the idea of a total collapse of the building due to fires caused by office furniture

weisses wrote: »

8maybe a partial collapse (south side)

So again you are presenting a completely silly scenario based on things you know aren't true.

You've admitted that a single section failing could pull the rest of the building down was a plausible explanation.
You've admitted that such an explanation matches all the observed facts. You've admitted that steel structures can fail due to fire.

Yet you persist in insisting that the official story says something it doesn't simply so you can avoid admitting you can't actually find a problem with it when all of the nonsense you are told is swept away.

If your argument holds any water you can address these points directly and honestly. But since I've been asking you the same questions only to have them ignored or given half, nonsensical answers, it's clear your argument does not hold water.

weisses · 09-09-2011 06:25PM

King Mob wrote: »

And now unfortunatly I'm going to have to ask you some more follow up questions.

And is the only reasoning for this the fact you can't see the fires out of the windows on the north side?
Because if it is, it's very silly reasoning to reject that there was fire in the north side of the building.

And of course, had you read any of the report you reject, specifically about the collapse you'd see that it started in an internal column not on the very edge of the north side.

So then how intense were the fires and how intense would they need to be?
Now if you can't answer these questions in full it shows that you simply can't claim what you are claiming.
And again it has to be pointed out that the building did not fall anywhere near free fall speed. I don't know how you can honestly still claim that.

But you saw the computer model of the collapse which showed how the internal structure fell. You said you thought the way the official report said it collapsed was plausible. You said you couldn't find anything in the computer model or the explanation that was impossible or conflicted with the facts.
That model showed how the building could have collapsed in seconds.

So again, why is it impossible for it to collapse in seconds?

Finally, straight answers...

But you also agreed that no building has ever been demolished by thermite, yet this was not enough to conclude that thermite could never be used. Simply because it was possible for something to be the cause meant it was a plausible explanation.
And you've have said that 1) an office fire could have taken down WTC7, 2) the official explanations and the computer model were consistant and plausible.
Your reasoning is inconsistent. And saying that "a building never fell due to fire" is not a solid basis for your conclusion.
(Especially since it's not actually true.)

So again you are presenting a completely silly scenario based on things you know aren't true.

You've admitted that a single section failing could pull the rest of the building down was a plausible explanation.
You've admitted that such an explanation matches all the observed facts. You've admitted that steel structures can fail due to fire.

Yet you persist in insisting that the official story says something it doesn't simply so you can avoid admitting you can't actually find a problem with it when all of the nonsense you are told is swept away.

If your argument holds any water you can address these points directly and honestly. But since I've been asking you the same questions only to have them ignored or given half, nonsensical answers, it's clear your argument does not hold water.

I will maybe answer more questions but you are assuming again taking things for a fact thst i dismissed and no this time i ask you to look up your own flaws .... Lets see how you manage to do that maybe i give you a few hints when you cant make sense anymore of your own nonsense

09-09-2011 06:26PM

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Here

Again here

and again here

Those aren't misrepresentations of his opinion.
He changed his story about the fires, I then asked him a question.
The next one is after he admitted that my explanation of how the building fell was plausible. That explanation was the official one.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Blanket dismissal and a veiled insult.

It was a dissimal after several pages of trying to find out what that opinion was based on and finding out it's not based on anything.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Thinly veiled insult

that there is gettin very close to abuse

Then report it.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the poster did answer you, you might not have liked or accepted the answer but one was provided

The questions asked for a time in seconds and a yes or no answer.
He did not answer the question.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Again this could be construed as a veiled insult, especially based on your posting history of thinly veiled insults

Then report it.
But since you didn't you realise that they are either not insults or so wonderfully veiled that they appear not to be so reporting them is a waste of time.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

of course draggin up old topics from previous poste even previous threads is something You'd Never do:rolleyes:

So you're not just hunting for my horrible misrepresentations and insults you're looking for any excuse to give out about me?
You should have just said so...

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I just dont think posters want to engage with you, I wont go into details of why here.

Oh.. I think I might have to cry now MC....

Mahatma coat wrote: »

in this example you are ascribing something that the poster didnt say to them in an attempt to deflect from the Valid point initially raised

Not what I did. I clearly pointed out that's what conspiracy theorists (as distinct from the poster) claim, and why it's different to what the NIST report says, yet they still claim that it agrees with them.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

you claim to have read the NIST report, so surely you know if it was in it or not

Which I then say and explain in the text you quoted.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

DITTO

Lol. Irony.

Any chance you'd like to engage in the actual discussion now MC?
Cause not sure about how your dislike of me and misrepresentations of my posts is relevant to the discussion.

09-09-2011 06:29PM

weisses wrote: »

I will maybe answer more questions but you are assuming again taking things for a fact thst i dismissed and no this time i ask you to look up your own flaws .... Lets see how you manage to do that maybe i give you a few hints when you cant make sense anymore of your own nonsense

So, basically I just wasted my time addressing your answers?

If there's flaws point them out. If you can't I suggest trying to engage in the discussion rather than the laughable tactic you're trying now.

But frankly I'm done repeating questions over and over for you to avoid them simply because you can't and don't want to question what you believe.

The points are there for when you want to try adult discussion.

weisses · 09-09-2011 07:11PM

King Mob wrote: »

So, basically I just wasted my time addressing your answers?

If there's flaws point them out. If you can't I suggest trying to engage in the discussion rather than the laughable tactic you're trying now.

But frankly I'm done repeating questions over and over for you to avoid them simply because you can't and don't want to question what you believe.

The points are there for when you want to try adult discussion.

No KM you wasted your time With anwsering questions with (more) questions

If i would point out were the flaws are i get probably 3 questions first before anything else ... look up your own flaws and learn from them

Don't you mean repeating and adding questions before anwsering one ?

That last point i leave with you

09-09-2011 07:19PM

weisses wrote: »

No KM you wasted your time With anwsering questions with (more) questions

If i would point out were the flaws are i get probably 3 questions first before anything else ... look up your own flaws and learn from them

Don't you mean repeating and adding questions before anwsering one ?

That last point i leave with you

Except for all the points I made that weren't questions.
And all the points I made that use your own statements to show your position is unsupported.

But it's a good thing you've an excuse to avoid them now...

weisses · 09-09-2011 07:40PM

King Mob wrote: »

Except for all the points I made that weren't questions.
And all the points I made that use your own statements to show your position is unsupported.

But it's a good thing you've an excuse to avoid them now...

Unsupported no .. I bet there are people even knowledgeable people out there who agree ... I dare to aks questions .... be curious ... dont believe anything that is rammed down my throat

Just if some of my anwsers are unsupported to you does not make them less valid

But just keep using that socratic tactics here and i bet there will not be many people left to debate with

09-09-2011 07:47PM

weisses wrote: »

Just if some of my anwsers are unsupported to you does not make them less valid

Lol. Yea, it kinda does.
And they're not just "unsupported to me" they are unsupported because you are unable to support them, despite me asking you to support them for umpteen pages.

I dare to aks questions .... be curious ... dont believe anything that is rammed down my throat

But you don't seem to be able to ask questions about what you yourself believe and you seem to have no issue buying whatever conspiracy theorists tell you, as long as it agrees with your predetermined beliefs.

The fact that you're crying about my mean old tactics shows exactly how willing you are to actually put your beliefs to the test.

weisses · 09-09-2011 08:04PM

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. Yea, it kinda does.
And they're not just "unsupported to me" they are unsupported because you are unable to support them, despite me asking you to support them for umpteen pages.

But you don't seem to be able to ask questions about what you yourself believe and you seem to have no issue buying whatever conspiracy theorists tell you, as long as it agrees with your predetermined beliefs.

The fact that you're crying about my mean old tactics shows exactly how willing you are to actually put your beliefs to the test.

Me crying .. Me need to grow up? are you running out of valid points ?? is that the second chapter in the tactics? making it personal ??

Me supporting them to you would never happen because you are only believing your own narrow minded explanation and all the tricky ones you brush aside with question about questions

I am still learning so to say .... Not buying the CT crap fully and vice versa

The fact that Im open about many things makes me your perfect target

And i am not buying all what the CT people say i pointed that out to you in different posts .. but instead of aknowledge that fact... you were to busy formulating more questions on those points

09-09-2011 08:07PM

weisses wrote: »

Me supporting them to you would never happen because you are only believing your own narrow minded explanation and all the tricky ones you brush aside with question about questions

Maybe I shouldn't be so narrow minded and try to find out why you believe what you believe and what basis such beliefs have?
How would I accomplish that I wonder...
Maybe by asking you?

You know for all this energy you could have been addressing my still standing questions and showing how I'm wrong.

weisses · 09-09-2011 08:22PM

Dealing with someone who is using tactics (trics) is very energy consuming yes

Fandango · 09-09-2011 08:40PM

King Mob wrote: »

And one thing missing from the video thanks to it's oddly uplifting soundtrack is the very loud, very noticeable explosion sounds in sequence followed immediately by the collapse.

Like this for example:

http://youtu.be/SaBQ3AkRetI

Thats what came to mind for me with these theories. There is a few loud bangs a good bit apart in the WTC docs ive seen and then the tower collapses however every programme about controlled demolitions ive seen has many many more sharp bangs and they are buildings alot smaller than the WTC. Personally dont think everything adds up about that day but I dont believe the controlled demolition theories.

PS. How the hell do you embed a youtube video here!

Duke Leonal Felmet · 09-09-2011 08:57PM

You shouldn't be asking so many questions, King Mob. You won't solve anything with logical enquiry. Best to just accept the explanation from the "slickest" video.

10-09-2011 12:12AM

Fandango wrote: »

Like this for example:
]http://youtu.be/SaBQ3AkRetI

Thats what came to mind for me with these theories. There is a few loud bangs a good bit apart in the WTC docs ive seen and then the tower collapses however every programme about controlled demolitions ive seen has many many more sharp bangs and they are buildings alot smaller than the WTC. Personally dont think everything adds up about that day but I dont believe the controlled demolition theories.

Precisely. Most conspiracy theorist would attempt to counter by providing a list of witness saying they heard explosions.
But by examining these we would find that the reports are often taken way out of context and contain stuff like "Sounded like an explosion."

Conspiracy theorists generally ignore the fact that no demolition in the world uses explosions going off randomly well before the collapse.
And the fact that explosions would in inconsistent with the popular thermite theory.

Fandango wrote: »

PS. How the hell do you embed a youtube video here!

You take the code after the equals sign and use the youtube button when you post:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

Quote my post to see how it works.

meglome · 10-09-2011 08:09AM

King Mob wrote: »

Precisely. Most conspiracy theorist would attempt to counter by providing a list of witness saying they heard explosions.
But by examining these we would find that the reports are often taken way out of context and contain stuff like "Sounded like an explosion."

Conspiracy theorists generally ignore the fact that no demolition in the world uses explosions going off randomly well before the collapse.
And the fact that explosions would in inconsistent with the popular thermite theory.

This is another thing I don't get. There are literally hundreds of videos of controlled demolition on the internet. One of things I did when looking into 911 going back was to watch a whole load of them. They are all remarkably similar in most respects, especially with the explosives going off. But in 911 other than the buildings fall down the similarities are not there. And surprise surprise when the CT'er use video footage to compare controlled demolition to 911 they 'forget' to keep the very clear and distinct sounds of explosives going off.

weisses · 10-09-2011 09:16AM

Is everyone who does not agree with the official report automatically a conspiracy theorist ??

weisses · 10-09-2011 11:39AM

So all the things pointed out in this Video is ridiculous CT crap ?

If so can someone point out the flaws and we discuss them

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

10-09-2011 11:44AM

meglome wrote: »

This is another thing I don't get. There are literally hundreds of videos of controlled demolition on the internet. One of things I did when looking into 911 going back was to watch a whole load of them. They are all remarkably similar in most respects, especially with the explosives going off. But in 911 other than the buildings fall down the similarities are not there. And surprise surprise when the CT'er use video footage to compare controlled demolition to 911 they 'forget' to keep the very clear and distinct sounds of explosives going off.

I think that's one of the reasons thermite was "found", it's meant to be noiseless so that explains why there's no explosions.
Except when they are using witnesses reporting stuff that sounds like explosions, then thermite explodes somehow...

weisses wrote: »

Is everyone who does not agree with the official report automatically a conspiracy theorist ??

No, people who believe in and put forward elaborate conspiracy theories are conspiracy theorists.
If you are insisting that the buildings came down due to a controlled demolition, then you believe in a conspiracy theory.

Now since you've been coy enough not to put your eggs in that basket, have I called you a conspiracy theorist because you "question" the official story?
And to save you from moaning about another question: No. I have not. And I have purposefully pointed this out before, and you had agreed.
And neither has Meglome.

weisses · 10-09-2011 12:01PM

King Mob wrote: »

Now since you've been coy enough not to put your eggs in that basket, have I called you a conspiracy theorist because you "question" the official story?

No ... and did i suggest you did??

What basket ??

And about that "other question" ? you say "No i have not" what do you mean ?

I just asked you One question in that post

10-09-2011 12:13PM

weisses wrote: »

No ... and did i suggest you did??

Well you seem to be exasperated by the amount of times it happens and seemed upset that someone was doing it.

Is everyone who does not agree with the official report automatically a conspiracy theorist ??

Unless I was misreading your post. It's not really clear cause you're not quoting anything that shows what you're claiming people have say, or even who exactly you are addressing it to.
And since meglome, Duke Leonal Felmet or fandango do not make such comments, I thought you must have been referring to earlier in the thread were you and I were the only posters.

But maybe you can clarify who exactly you were accusing of unjustly labelling people who question the official story, and point out were they did so...?

weisses wrote: »

What basket ??

Well you've just "questioned" the official story, but are quiet about what you think did bring down the towers hence you're not proposing or expressing belief in any conspiracy theories, hence not a conspiracy theorist.

weisses wrote: »

And about that "other question" ? you say "No i have not" what do you mean ?

I just asked you One question in that post

The other question was my own.
Had I not answered it myself in my own post I think we'd have to wait a few pages before we got an answer.

weisses · 10-09-2011 12:59PM

King Mob wrote: »

Well you seem to be exasperated by the amount of times it happens and seemed upset that someone was doing it.

Unless I was misreading your post. It's not really clear cause you're not quoting anything that shows what you're claiming people have say, or even who exactly you are addressing it to.
And since meglome, Duke Leonal Felmet or fandango do not make such comments, I thought you must have been referring to earlier in the thread were you and I were the only posters.

But maybe you can clarify who exactly you were accusing of unjustly labelling people who question the official story, and point out were they did so...?

Well you've just "questioned" the official story, but are quiet about what you think did bring down the towers hence you're not proposing or expressing belief in any conspiracy theories, hence not a conspiracy theorist.

The other question was my own.
Had I not answered it myself in my own post I think we'd have to wait a few pages before we got an answer.

I just asked an open question
I did so because everyone who questions the 9/11 explanation is labelled as a CT ... Valid assumption for some ... less for others

Look to you it doesn't matter what i think ...because when i say what i think it is brushed aside for not being in the report/evidence ... do i come up with video's (yes made by CT people) its brushed aside as being false or incorrect or not supported by NIST ....

When you keep hiding behind your report and only will ask/accept other evidence from people who maybe know just as much as you but don't have an 10000 page report to hide behind you will always win the discussion

Look almost no one is up to pair with your tactics and Socratic approach .. so yeah you might end up answering your own questions now and then .. sorry

10-09-2011 01:08PM

weisses wrote: »

I just asked an open question
I did so because everyone who questions the 9/11 explanation is labelled as a CT ... Valid assumption for some ... less for others

Except no one here has done so...
Can you point to an example made on this thread, let alone on in the posts on the last page?

weisses · 10-09-2011 01:14PM

King Mob wrote: »

Great, we're making progress.
So then since your video does not show that WTC7 could not have collapsed, what exactly is your point with it?
Why are you using it to back up your insistence that WTC7 could not have fallen "the way it did"?

That its quite possible a steel building can survive a 20 hour inferno

I am using that video as an example to expose/point out two opposites

1: the total collapse of wtc7 in under 20 seconds due to office fires

2: the building showed in the video burned for 20 hours (inferno) and didn't collapse or crumble

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

what in this video are lies ...twisting of facts etc ?

weisses · 10-09-2011 01:24PM

King Mob wrote: »

Except no one here has done so...
Can you point to an example made on this thread, let alone on in the posts on the last page?

No i won't go back 20 pages KM

You don't agree that the label CT is used to easily when not agreeing?

But i leave this one for now if that's alright because it goes away from the discussion

Building 7 ???

Comments