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

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

ROFL....
I mean, people who are aware and dicern reality know exactly why I'm laughing. Why you all try to figure the Government is this angelic lord.

In the meantime, they are now preparing for an Iran war. They haven't got public support yet.

So you can take it, they need a few more buildings to knock.:D
God some of you really do need to wake up......

Evidence is all around you people, its your choice not to look ffs.

I wasn't going to post in here again and yet here I am. I'm not sure we can meet anywhere on this. I like some sort of evidence, but even when you're shown evidence you just ignore it if it doesn't suit your view. I have no fixed view on what did or didn't happen on 911, I just read the available evidence and came to a conclusion based on it. You've point blank said that you used intuition to form your view. Intuition is sometimes shown to be correct but when cold hard facts show otherwise?

So according to you Governments Lie=Governments Always Lie (except where it agrees with you it would seem). I'm sorry but by no stretch of the imagination is one equal to the other.

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

I wasn't going to post in here again and yet here I am. I'm not sure we can meet anywhere on this. I like some sort of evidence, but even when you're shown evidence you just ignore it if it doesn't suit your view. I have no fixed view on what did or didn't happen on 911, I just read the available evidence and came to a conclusion based on it. You've point blank said that you used intuition to form your view. Intuition is sometimes shown to be correct but when cold hard facts show otherwise?

So according to you Governments Lie=Governments Always Lie (except where it agrees with you it would seem). I'm sorry but by no stretch of the imagination is one equal to the other.

Evidence hmmmm.

Ok lets break this down for you. Trying to think wonderful calm things while posting this:rolleyes:

RIIIIIIGHT.
Before we get to evidence.
Do you uses your senses, to gain knowledge in the environment around you. Reason being, cus you are totally dependant on people g-i-v-i-n-g you the information and knowledge on worldly events.

Do you not question the given reality, on events such as 9/11 or do you again as I repeat, rely on what other people say, and what the T.V says and what the government says.

I will not show you the reality.
I have been on 4 major forums, and dealth with 1000s of people on this conspiracy on 9/11. I have Muslims friends, I have American friends. I ask them. I research on this tirelessy. I dedicate my skills to such events. I study politics. I study people in politics. I study what are there motives. I study the dyamics of each political agenda on both sides of any argument. I look at the probable outcomes of each agenda in the present. I look around as much as possible.

This is called
Questioning, using awareness, listening to your thougths (logic) Listening to your feelings (intuition) Obseving the world in this way, and gaining the knowledge that is available to you, asking people what they think on both sides. Trying to gain many aspects as you can into consideration and then coming to the final conclusion. This is getting a full picture. This is why I'm a step ahead of you, as your focused on a particular detail, and seem so puzzeled and lost as to how I got to any conclusion.


You are here, to rely on other people, and you do as I will make sure I point this out meglome. You choose the facts you want to believe. You have not reached the cause of dicernment. It is noted on many threads, where the majority can see something and you either don't see it or refuse to see it.

What exactly do you want me to do, spoon feed you and tell you the reality of this world down to a tee. Why can't you put the pieces together?


Is how you dicern reality, of anything you have been focused on.


People today, and most that I deal with, are like prove to me that you put butter on toast. I do, prove to me that you actually eat it. I eat. prove to me that your body digest it. I did...

But what does this toast do in your body. I explain, but why eat toast. Can you tell me whats in butter

I'm sitting here, why don't you try answer your own question's.
Isn't obvious that you put butter on toast, or do I have to explain the reality in front of you.

This last paragraph Is the number one problem in this world today. People are to lazy to become aware of reality.

meglome

mysterious wrote: »

This last paragraph Is the number one problem in this world today. People are to lazy to become aware of reality.

Well thankfully you're here to help us.

I saw a video of Tom Cruise a while back where he said him and his scientology friends were the only ones who could help. He sounded crazy.

bonkey

mysterious wrote: »

People today, and most that I deal with, are like prove to me that you put butter on toast. I do, prove to me that you actually eat it. I eat. prove to me that your body digest it. I did...

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.

Isn't obvious that you put butter on toast, or do I have to explain the reality in front of you.

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

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

If you feel the need to think calming thoughts in order to be able to refuse to answer such questions, then I'd suggest that this isn't actually a discussion you want to have.

This last paragraph Is the number one problem in this world today. People are to lazy to become aware of reality.

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.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

This is called Questioning, using awareness, listening to your thougths (logic) Listening to your feelings (intuition) Obseving the world in this way, and gaining the knowledge that is available to you, asking people what they think on both sides. Trying to gain many aspects as you can into consideration and then coming to the final conclusion.

Following this process is how I ended up at the conclusion that WTC7 collapsed due to a combination of the damage sustained by falling debris and fires in the building. Does that mean I am right? I study engineering. I thought logically about what happened to the building. Not who may have caused it, or who was in the building, but the building itself. I thought logically, and I listened to my intuition. Does that mean I am right?

Sofa_King Good

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Following this process is how I ended up at the conclusion that WTC7 collapsed due to a combination of the damage sustained by falling debris and fires in the building. Does that mean I am right? I study engineering. I thought logically about what happened to the building. Not who may have caused it, or who was in the building, but the building itself. I thought logically, and I listened to my intuition. Does that mean I am right?

NO. Not according to the NIST report

mysterious

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Following this process is how I ended up at the conclusion that WTC7 collapsed due to a combination of the damage sustained by falling debris and fires in the building. Does that mean I am right? I study engineering. I thought logically about what happened to the building. Not who may have caused it, or who was in the building, but the building itself. I thought logically, and I listened to my intuition. Does that mean I am right?

One thing is, your not applying my process.

Eg.
Why
Because, I've already looked where you haven't
You can sing all day, as other that your right and that your a structural engineer.

But as I said, This argument is theory, it is not proven to either
Point second
There are structural engineers who don't agree with your argument.

See how I'm already a step further than you, is dicerning reality.

Penn

I know, but this is my point. To quote mysterious:

using awareness, listening to your thougths (logic) Listening to your feelings (intuition) Obseving the world in this way, and gaining the knowledge that is available to you, asking people what they think on both sides. Trying to gain many aspects as you can into consideration and then coming to the final conclusion.

I did this and arrived at my conclusion, without being influenced by things like the NIST report or pretty much anything by the government. I did this without taking sides, without investigating who may have organised these attacks, or who had the most to gain. I arrived at this conclusion using logic and my intuition. So does that mean I am right?

mysterious

meglome wrote: »

Well thankfully you're here to help us.

I saw a video of Tom Cruise a while back where he said him and his scientology friends were the only ones who could help. He sounded crazy.

Riiiight.

Penn

mysterious wrote: »

There are structural engineers who don't agree with your argument.

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

mysterious wrote: »

See how I'm already a step further than you, is dicerning reality

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

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.