Cut and Dry

[whatchamacallit]

OCTers are obviously pretty damned sure of what happened to WTC7. So much so, they dismiss as a lunatic, anyone who challenges the official line. Well I gotta ask, if it's so obvious, why in 7 years has NIST not been able to help you OCTers put it to rest? Is it possible it's not so cut and dry? What's so obvious to you is apparently not so obvious to NIST. Maybe it's time to open your minds a bit...

... Nah!

[Bolo Boffin]

1. What makes you think NIST is going to put it to rest for CTers?

Hmm?

[whatchamacallit]

2. I don't. I believe the folks in charge are lying shills

I'm just sayin, if people with a vested interest in making it go away, can't, there's gotta be something very wrong with their assumptions (and yours).

[LARED]

3. Exactly what do you think they are trying to "make go away" -nt

[whatchamacallit]

4. Like I said

If you can't put together a solid report in 7+ years, either your scientific credibility, or your assumptions, could be called into question. They had no problem squirting the (super flawed) WTC1&2 fairy tale out their asses. According to you, WTC7 should be cake as well.

[LARED]

5. Lets try this one more time

What is someone trying to make go away?

[frog92969]

7. The unanswered questions hanging over their heads?

[whatchamacallit]

10. Alright, maybe they're not trying to make it go away

But by now they must be feeling some pressure to resolve the issue. What's the hold up? If it's purely in the name of being thorough, then the reports on WTC1&2 were hack jobs by comparison. No, my guess is there is not a consensus in NIST about the sanctioned theory. The longer this goes on the more it erodes the official narrative IMO.

[hack89]

11. I don't think there is any pressure

except for tiny pockets like this site, the vast majority of Americans are not aware of WTC7 nor are they interested in the report.

What will happen is that Obama will take over and nothing will change. NIST will eventually put out the report on WTC7 and the country will not care or even be aware of it.

[LARED]

12. Which is of course perfectly normal, as the NIST reports

are designed to provide information to improve building design, life safety, and building codes. It is not a report designed to address or resolve if outlandish CT's have merit.

[whatchamacallit]

13. NIST's first safety recommendation should simply be "Try not to let anyone demo your building"

:)

[Realityhack]

26. Care to prove that?

Where is your evidence?

[whatchamacallit]

31. Where's yours?

[Realityhack]

33. where is my WHAT?

You made a positive claim that the building was demolished. Back that up with some evidence. The burden is on you to back up your claim.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whatchamacallit]

15. I'm trying to remember what I'm supposed to do about quality posts like this

Oh yeah

[AZCat]

16. Why don't you try to remember how to count?

That would help the quality of your posts.

[whatchamacallit]

17. Okay, I fucked that bit up. Try not to soil yourself.

[AZCat]

18. Hmmm - you think?

Maybe you should take a little more care with your facts in the future, especially when casting doubt on someone else.

[whatchamacallit]

19. Maybe, or maybe I'll do what I please

and you'll deal. How's that sound headmaster?

[Realityhack]

20. Thank you for admiting you have no interest in the truth.

I suspected that from your OP but your statement after being corrected conifms you have no interest in the truth, only in your confirmation bias.

[whatchamacallit]

22. Well if the lies the most lying cabal in US history, pass as "truth" for you, you can have it

Enjoy your reality, Hack.

[Realityhack]

23. That's some twisted logic.

Group A lies
Therefore
Everything associated in any way with group A is a lie.

Sorry but that is the same 'logic' used to claim Clinton ran cocaine. By that 'logic' I could claim it was NOT 2008 because that is the date Bush uses.
You are committing a rather egregious logical fallacy.

If you want to convince me that something specific is a lie show me some evidence that it is. It's really that simple. The thing is your making shit up 'off the cuff' playing fast and loose with the facts simply isn't evidence.

If you want to convince me that some specific claim with regard to the WTC is a lie, show me the evidence.

Note: Keep in mind I never made a claim that everything said by an official source was correct. Neither did AZCat. That is YOUR straw man.

[AZCat]

27. I guess you don't mind looking like an idiot. n/t

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frog92969]

6. What I would really like to know

is why trying to discover the truth about what happened on 9/11 should provoke such dedicated rage from people who have no connection to the guilty parties...whoever that may be.

That alone is disturbing.

[LARED]

8. Rage? What are you talking about? -nt

[frog92969]

9. It's common and widespread

Recent example -
I commented about McCain's plan on youtube:
"33% of domestic oil is EXPORTED.
Drilling is a politicalstunt that won't do anything but make the rich richer."

And the response from someone who noticed ONE 9/11 vid on my page:
"That's just the kind of paranoid twaddle I'd expect to be coming from a raving tinfoil-hatted 9/11 truther such as yourself."

I call that rage.
One incident, but not rare in the least.


edit: Two 9/11 vids :blush:

[Realityhack]

21. What?

"OCTers are"
Right off the bat you start with negative credit for attempting to dismiss a group using a derogitory term. Ad-Hominim.

"obviously pretty damned sure of what happened to WTC7."
We have a good idea of some of what happened. Not all the details, but a fair amount. I wouldn't say 'damned sure' because it implies an inflexibility that I do not think is there.

"So much so, they dismiss as a lunatic, anyone who challenges the official line."
Bullshit. Just plain bullshit. The ideas they dismiss as ridiculous are those theories that simply do not even approach fitting the facts and are unsupported by evidence. In those cases ideas will be dismissed as childish and IF the proponents do not respond to this being pointed out they will be dismissed as lunatics.

"Well I gotta ask, if it's so obvious, why in 7 years"
Fail

"has NIST not been able to help you OCTers put it to rest?"
Nothing NIST does will ever 'put to rest' the childish babbling of conspiracy theorists any more than the NSF is going to 'put to rest' the 'theory' of 'intelligent design'.

"Is it possible it's not so cut and dry?"
It's cut and dry? Sure, the fact that a nuclear weapon was not involved is. The details of exactly what lead to things failing is a fairly complex. What do you think the investigators have been doing?

"What's so obvious to you is apparently not so obvious to NIST."
Strange strange statement.

"Maybe it's time to open your minds a bit..."
to WHAT exactly?

[whatchamacallit]

24. Maybe this can penetrate

For a long time now folks have been arguing (proclaiming) that #7 fell due to some combination of fire and structural damage. All I'm saying is, if it's so easy for you to determine the cause, what's taking NIST so long. Maybe, despite all your righteous indignation and bluster, you don't have a fucking clue.

[Realityhack]

25. Not quite true

Most of what we know about the building 7 collapse comes FROM NIST.

It HAS taken them a long time, and over time it has been found that some things that people thought might have played a role probably did not.

If NIST was just worried about demonstrating that their were no nukes to a bunch of dullards on the internet they would be done, and the dullards would still be making their claims.
That is NOT what NIST is tasked with. They are proceeding carefully and their working hypothesis is fairly detailed and based on a long analysis.

The alternative 'hypotheses' put forward by various conspiracy groups mostly advocating controlled demolition are easily dismissed because they do not fit the facts. Determining exactly what happened structurally is much more difficult.

It's not a matter of saying it fell from fire and structural damage (and BTW you are behind the times on the structural damage part. It is not part of the working hypothesis). It is a mater of doing a serious study of exactly how that occurred and propagated.

CD theories are typically easily dismissed because of gaping flaws.

[whatchamacallit]

29. What gaping flaws?

[Realityhack]

34. Which specific CD theory? n/t

[wildbilln864]

37. obviously they can give you no answer!

:rofl: "gaping flaws" just can't point them out!

[Realityhack]

48. You sould know better Bill...

*Typically* specific CD theories for WTC7 DO have gaping flaws. Care to point out a specific CD scenario that does not?

CD 'theories' are typically just 'god/explosive of the gaps' theories which run into problems quite quickly as they have no real positive evidence only conjecture in the absence of understanding/evidence.

Saying 'it looks like CD' or 'I don't understand how collapse progression could happen so it must not have' are NOT valid arguments.

[Realityhack]

47. Have you not read anything on the subject?

I suppose I *could* write a point by point analysis inclusive of all CD theories for building 7 and point out the flaws. But what would the point be? So much has already been written on the subject, I can only imagine you already have your mind made up like Bill has.

I can not imagine a situation where factual information and reasoned arguments would affect your predetermined conclusions.

[AZCat]

28. Since you seem to be so concerned about it...

exactly how long has the NIST been working on the WTC 7 investigation? Do you even have the foggiest idea where to find out?

[whatchamacallit]

32. http://wtc.nist.gov/

can you see my finger?

[AZCat]

35. I see someone who doesn't research simple fucking claims before making them.

Have any luck finding out the length of the NIST investigation yet? You'll need to use that finger: click the URL you provided above and get going.

[whatchamacallit]

36. AZHat, I admit I will never become a "Dungeon Master" like you

I have too much of a life to piss away the required time.

[Realityhack]

38. Reset.

You will earn a lot more respect here admitting you messed up the length of the investigation AND admitting that it is a clear sign you where loose with the facts, then re-reexamining your position than you will claiming people have no life because they point out you are just making shit up and basing arguments on it.

[whatchamacallit]

40. Valid point

But you have to admit AZ's "style" doesn't exactly inspire humility.

[AZCat]

41. Don't let a cynical shithead like me influence your behavior. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

42. ;-)

[Realityhack]

43. Well

AZCat tends in my experience to react quite well to reasonable, well thought out posts even if he does not agree.

The thing is their are an absolutely AMAZING number of people who feel the need to post here who haven't the foggiest idea what they are talking about that then go on to tell us how this or that is 'obvious' without providing any evidence, and then fail to address any criticisms.

I know for me this leads to a very short fuse with people who show up posting in that style.

As I expressed in other posts I don't think your OP has any merit.
You further hurt yourself by:
getting the only fact in your OP wrong
referring to people as 'OCTers'
showing ignorance of the issues involved
insulting people (for example the little "... Nah!" at the end of your post
slandering people with the false statement that they attack everyone who disagrees with the 'official line' (for the record the do not)

Come to think of it *I* should probably be swearing at you.

You have a lot to apologize for.

[whatchamacallit]

44. You must realize, "hurting myself" with your crowd isn't exactly the end of world

If you want to shame me into an apology, the line forms 10 blocks back.

[Realityhack]

45. Let me see...

You where saying something about AZCat's attitude.
I pointed out the attitude you projected in your OP and the fact that it was coupled with ignorance and a factual error.
You think I care about an apology.

I don't have a 'crowd' that I know of.

What you lost was any chance of respect or rational discussion with anyone who knows what they are talking about because you made yourself look like an ignorant dullard blinded by predetermined outcomes who wants a grade school shouting match rather than a factual discussion or debate.

Frankly I don't care if you apologize or not. Your actions since your OP have only supported that view.
I try to give people a chance to show my initial view was incorrect. You have not done that. As far as I am concerned the only reason to even respond to you at this point is for the benefit of others as I see no reason to expect a rational response from you.

[whatchamacallit]

46. News flash Hack, your respect is NOT a precious commodity that I need to earn.

Put more simply, who the fuck are you?

[Realityhack]

49. Let me know if you come up with a point.

Your OP has been shown to be ignorant and factually incorrect. If you have a point make it.

Pointing out that you don't need my respect is just another silly schoolyard tactic.

[whatchamacallit]

50. You're right Hack, it's childish of me to not give a shit what you think

after all you are the man. At least that seems to be the message in all your windy, preachy, reprimands.:boring:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.