Building 7 ???

King Mob

Wrong thread.
Edit: posted back on the proper one for clarity.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

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

So you can't provide a single example of any doing what you accused them of?
Why did you bring it up in the first place?
Why did you bring it up at all if it "goes away from the discussion"?

What I think happened was you tried to take a swipe at meglome, but have been shown up and are now scrambling to move on before you have to address that fact.

Duke Leonal Felmet

King Mob wrote: »

So why are you throwing up a random video instead of engaging in points already raised?

Because the argument is not his, and thus he is incapable of defending it.

Economics is my profession, and I get a lot of people regurgitating Morgan Kellys/Stiglitz/etc arguments, but when you burrow deep enough, it is clear they don't understand even the most basic fundamental principles behind the professionals arguments. Without these principles, you cannot hope to adequately understand - let alone defend - their points.

The same applies here.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

What I think happened was you tried to take a swipe at meglome, but have been shown up and are now scrambling to move on before you have to address that fact.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? otherwise i suggest you keep those insinuations to yourself

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? otherwise i suggest you keep those insinuations to yourself

Yea:
You posted right after meglome.
Your insistence that "it's an open question" doesn't make any sense.
You can't point to a single example of what you're accusing people of.
You have suddenly decided that the topic is "going away from the topic" after I had pointed all this out.

And now you're telling me I should back up my claim or withdraw it?
I certainly hope you're going to hold yourself to your own high standards and withdraw your claim.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yea:
You posted right after meglome..

Again do you have any evidence ..not an assumption to back this up otherwise stop insinuating

King Mob wrote: »

Your insistence that "it's an open question" doesn't make any sense.

you are right

King Mob wrote: »

You can't point to a single example of what you're accusing people of.
You have suddenly decided that the topic is "going away from the topic" after I had pointed all this out.

No its more the general approach i think is used in dealing with this issue

King Mob wrote: »

And now you're telling me I should back up my claim or withdraw it?

Yes please

Not that i need to do this ... but here you go

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jesse+ventura&aq=f

I was looking at this stuff last night and that made me ask the question

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Again do you have any evidence ..not an assumption to back this up otherwise stop insinuating

Well generally when someone posts after another, it can be assumed that that person is addressing the previous post.
I guess it would be my fault for assuming that you'd be posting on topic and addressing what other people are writing.

weisses wrote: »

Yes please

So despite the fact I did, why are you excused from your own standards.
You admit you've no evidence yet you made the accusation anyway.

You might not be a conspiracy theorist, but you certainly are as honest and consistent as one...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Well generally when someone posts after another, it can be assumed that that person is addressing the previous post.
I guess it would be my fault for assuming that you'd be posting on topic and addressing what other people are writing.

Is it so hard to say you messed up badly

King Mob wrote: »

So despite the fact I did,

No you didn't you are assuming you are

King Mob wrote: »

why are you excused from your own standards.
You admit you've no evidence yet you made the accusation anyway.

Do i need evidence in asking for evidence by false accusations you make

King Mob wrote: »

You might not be a conspiracy theorist, but you certainly are as honest and consistent as one...

meaning ? explain please

And when you answered that last question could we please go back OT

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Do i need evidence in asking for evidence by false accusations you make

How about your first accusation:

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

Your posts are hilariously hypocritical at this point.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

How about your first accusation:


Your posts are hilariously hypocritical at this point.

Is that part of the Socratic tactics again

Come on man you are the one that messed things up en you end with that post

King Mob wrote: »

You might not be a conspiracy theorist, but you certainly are as honest and consistent as one...

Again i ask you what do you mean exactly



after that can we go back to the discussion on building 7 ?

and if you have any trouble in the way i dealt with my initial question please report me

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Is that part of the Socratic tactics again

Come on man you are the one that messed things up en you end with that post

Again i ask you what do you mean exactly

after that can we go back to the discussion on building 7 ?

and if you have any trouble in the way i dealt with my initial question please report me

Well not sure I can actually argue with a guy who not only ignores what I write, but also what he himself writes...

There's plenty of points you've left hanging, so if you want to get back to an adult discuss, try picking one of those.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Well not sure I can actually argue with a guy who not only ignores what I write, but also what he himself writes...

There's plenty of points you've left hanging, so if you want to get back to an adult discuss, try picking one of those.

Stop trying to sneak yourself out of a situation were a simple sorry would have been enough

You made accusations to me based on assumptions ... you refused to take that back (apologise fully) And you want an adult discussion ..

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Well first you're using your dishonest claim again and leaving out the fact that WTC7 was burning for 7 hours before it collapsed.

sorry i hope you don't think i try to cover things up ... you know my stand in this

King Mob wrote: »

Well after a quick flick through: about 5 minutes in he doesn't seem to understand how materials expand at different rates

.

is that about the tests the Australians apparently did? ..please be specific

King Mob wrote: »

And since that is secondary school level science and he seems quite knowledgeable, he's being dishonest on some level.

Based on what flaws he presents do you believe he is dishonest

King Mob wrote: »

8 and a half minutes in he does the typical dishonest truther thing and shows a (cropped) photo of the north side of the building to show the extent of the fires.

Provide me with photo's or links that represents or disqualify what he is claiming (the ones that you approve of as well because the fires visible on the north side were not widespread

King Mob wrote: »

And of course repeats the crap form the other video about missing files.

so the page shown on 10:38 is not from the nist report and is made up ??

King Mob wrote: »

So why are you throwing up a random video instead of engaging in points already raised.
It's kind of tedious.

what is your problem with a video that doesn't have the drama and stuff ...here he is explaining or perhaps debunking the NIST report and you disqualify him without proper reason

Do you see more things in this video that you for a fact see as blatant lies ?

meglome

weisses wrote: »

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

No I'm not saying that. What I find though with many people who really believe a large percentage of the CT's is they don't want to hear differing opinions/evidence. And as an absolute fact they don't hold 'alternative' information sources to the same standards as they do 'official' sources i.e. there is an automatic distrust of official sources but an automatic trust of CT sites etc. When clearly both are well capable of lying.

Personally I can't rule out two things... 1. The US knew something was going to happen and they let it play out. 2. They had all the pieces to put it together but through incompetence they didn't (their agencies also had a long history of not communicating with one another) which they then tried to cover up so they wouldn't look any worse. The most likely scenario to me is the second one.

Governments are bureaucratic, often inept and usually leak like a sieve. But somehow they pulled off the greatest conspiracy in history... sorry not buying it.

Duke Leonal Felmet

meglome wrote: »

No I'm not saying that. What I find though with many people who really believe a large percentage of the CT's is they don't want to hear differing opinions/evidence. And as an absolute fact they don't hold 'alternative' information sources to the same standards as they do 'official' sources i.e. there is an automatic distrust of official sources but an automatic trust of CT sites etc. When clearly both are well capable of lying.

Personally I can't rule out two things... 1. The US knew something was going to happen and they let it play out. 2. They had all the pieces to put it together but through incompetence they didn't (their agencies also had a long history of not communicating with one another) which they then tried to cover up so they wouldn't look any worse. The most likely scenario to me is the second one.

Governments are bureaucratic, often inept and usually leak like a sieve. But somehow they pulled off the greatest conspiracy in history... sorry not buying it.

Yep, that's about my belief.

However, I have a nagging hunch that anti-American elements of the Saudi Royal Family were involved.

But that is only based on my reading of political and historical books.

Just a personal hunch.

Mahatma coat

Hang on a minute Megs, I dont think theres any Automatic Trust for CT sites They just get presented here in a more favourable light simply because they are CT Sites and this is a CT Forum, you might be confusing the fact that some people dont Blanket dismiss CT sites without reading them first for acceptance of said sites.

When people read these sites its true that they will find things on them that conform to their own beliefs but more often than not they will find things that dont too. We just dont harp on about the things we dont agree with.

For example I might not believe everything that the BBC tells me in the 9/11 coverage over the last few weeks, but if I want to know who won the 2.40 at the Curragh this afternoon I'll Trust Cefax for that information.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Hang on a minute Megs, I dont think theres any Automatic Trust for CT sites They just get presented here in a more favourable light simply because they are CT Sites and this is a CT Forum, you might be confusing the fact that some people dont Blanket dismiss CT sites without reading them first for acceptance of said sites.

I'm saying that the same standard of proof is not used between 'official' sources and 'alternative' sources. Official sources are often laughed at and dismissed out of hand. I'm clearly saying both are capable of lying but their motivations are different. That said the standard of evidence on CT sites is often terrible with long debunked stuff repeated ad nauseum.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

When people read these sites its true that they will find things on them that conform to their own beliefs but more often than not they will find things that dont too. We just dont harp on about the things we dont agree with.

For example I might not believe everything that the BBC tells me in the 9/11 coverage over the last few weeks, but if I want to know who won the 2.40 at the Curragh this afternoon I'll Trust Cefax for that information.

If I go to a blog that's called 'Man United are the greatest football team in the world' my guess is it's not going to be the most balanced piece of reading ever. I have no issue with CT sites putting forward alternative views of what happened. What I do have issue with is they claim to seek 'truth' when most are very very selective with this 'truth' of theirs. The BBC might not be perfect but their standards are far superior to that of most CT sites.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

sorry i hope you don't think i try to cover things up ... you know my stand in this

And yet you still phrase it dishonestly...

weisses wrote: »

Based on what flaws he presents do you believe he is dishonest

Because if he doesn't understand how different materials expand at different rates show he either doesn't understand secondary school level science or is deliberately being dishonest.
Given what he says in the rest of the video he shows he understands science well enough...

weisses wrote: »

Provide me with photo's or links that represents or disqualify what he is claiming (the ones that you approve of as well because the fires visible on the north side were not widespread

Sorry, no that's not how it works. If he doesn't believe that the fires were widespread on the north side, he has to provide a little more than one photo and unsourced claims about what time other photos (which he didn't show) were taken.
I've no interest in digging up photos just for you to ignore.

weisses wrote: »

so the page shown on 10:38 is not from the nist report and is made up ??

So you don't understand what "Out of context" means?
He doesn't show the full page or the full text of what was sent, he's using a cheap trick to make something sound sinister, a trick you've fallen for.

weisses wrote: »

what is your problem with a video that doesn't have the drama and stuff ...here he is explaining or perhaps debunking the NIST report and you disqualify him without proper reason

But even just a quick stop and start reveal dishonesty and distortion.
I see no reason to bother listening to him when it's so easy to show how it's just more propaganda. Nor do I see a reason to watch any of his crap because you are simply going to ignore any points I make.

weisses wrote: »

Do you see more things in this video that you for a fact see as blatant lies ?

I'm sure I can find them if I look. But what I've found so far is enough to know it'd be a waste of my time.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And yet you still phrase it dishonestly...

So when yo say this

King Mob wrote: »

Firstly WTC7 didn't collapse due to fire alone, no one seriously claims that it did.

an i reply with this

weisses wrote: »

And, while debris damage to WTC 7's southern exterior was considerable (and initiated the destructive fires), the collapse originated in the northeast portion of the building. In fact, the report concludes: "Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires

You come up with this

King Mob wrote: »

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

See the difference ??? we all make mistakes .. I can admit it You make a dishonoust claim and you cannot even considering you could be wrong .. you try to wiggle, bully squeeeze your way out of these situations and that is deadly if you want to have an open discussion

King Mob wrote: »

Because if he doesn't understand how different materials expand at different rates show he either doesn't understand secondary school level science or is deliberately being dishonest.
Given what he says in the rest of the video he shows he understands science well enough...

Can you show me were in the clip he doesn't seem to understand how materials expand ??

How can you proof from this video that he is "deliberately being dishonest" ?

King Mob wrote: »

Sorry, no that's not how it works
If he doesn't believe that the fires were widespread on the north side, he has to provide a little more than one photo and unsourced claims about what time other photos (which he didn't show) were taken.
I've no interest in digging up photos just for you to ignore.

So basically it doesn't work the King Mob way so you choose to ignore a normal civil discussion ??
When he makes falls claims i would thought you to slam that right in his face ... the so called hook line sinker approach

and how can you say he uses a cheap trick when you don't know this for a fact

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtkWNHSG3MY&feature=related

from 3:20 interesting video

King Mob wrote: »

So you don't understand what "Out of context" means?
He doesn't show the full page or the full text of what was sent, he's using a cheap trick to make something sound sinister, a trick you've fallen for.

I do know what out of context means .. i demonstrated that in the other thread

I believe you have read the report (correct me when im wrong)
So when i asked you about the files being withheld in the other thread you responded with the same nonsense and insinuations

QUOTE
We are however witholding 3370 Files, The NIST director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety,This data include remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS 16 story case B collapse initiation model break element source code QUOTE

In what context do we need to see this ?

King Mob wrote: »

But even just a quick stop and start reveal dishonesty and distortion.
I see no reason to bother listening to him when it's so easy to show how it's just more propaganda. Nor do I see a reason to watch any of his crap because you are simply going to ignore any points I make.

And again you are trying not to engage in a normal discussion

And again when it is so easy to qualify this video as crap please do so .. but use arguments and not assumptions

King Mob wrote: »

I'm sure I can find them if I look. But what I've found so far is enough to know it'd be a waste of my time.

Again what did you find to justify the attitude you are displaying at the moment

It was not me but you who insisted in an adult discussion (twice)... now you have one ... and instantly you starting to give childish responses

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Can you show me were in the clip he doesn't seem to understand how materials expand ??

How can you proof from this video that he is "deliberately being dishonest" ?

I've already pointed out were and when he does this. And I'm only using observations to determine he's being dishonest, he can just as easily be incompetent.

weisses wrote: »

I believe you have read the report (correct me when im wrong)
So when i asked you about the files being withheld in the other thread you responded with the same nonsense and insinuations

I have not read the report in full, cover to cover.

weisses wrote: »

We are however witholding 3370 Files, The NIST director determined that the release of these data might jeopardize public safety,This data include remaining input and all results files of the ANSYS 16 story case B collapse initiation model break element source code

In what context do we need to see this ?

Like any context at all?
Do you have both the letter sent and the letter received in full?
If not how come neither videos contain a reference to were you can see it.

I don't know, but if you're giving out to the government for withholding files, then are with holding files yourself, what does that make you...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I've already pointed out were and when he does this. And I'm only using observations to determine he's being dishonest, he can just as easily be incompetent.

So in your observation what is he doing wrong and then coming to the conclusion he is dishonoust
And its not an answerer to my earlier question ...see the trend here??

King Mob wrote: »

I have not read the report in full, cover to cover.

fair enough

King Mob wrote: »

Like any context at all?
Do you have both the letter sent and the letter received in full?
If not how come neither videos contain a reference to were you can see it.

I don't know, but if you're giving out to the government for withholding files, then are with holding files yourself, what does that make you...

Look here you go again more assumptions ... I ask the question here for everyone to anwser ...

What files could he be withholding to debunk the claim about those files? and are those files available for me to see (public domain)

Do you agree that in the NIST report files are being withheld as stated in that video Yes or No

Can you point out with links to sites ...other video's ..you name it that he is making falls claims about those files?? ... Because I am interested in that

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

So in your observation what is he doing wrong and then coming to the conclusion he is dishonoust
And its not an answerer to my earlier question ...see the trend here??

No, I said that he made statements in the video which ignore the fact that materials expand at different rates.
Now the only reasons he would he has for doing so are either:
1) doesn't know that fact which is covered in junior cert science.
2) deliberately ignored it.

Take your pick. Cause I'm not sure if I can explain it any clearer to you.

weisses wrote: »

Look here you go again more assumptions ... I ask the question here for everyone to anwser ...

What assumptions did I make?
That he doesn't show the full letter?
That he doesn't supply a link to either letter?
That he's crying about the NIST allegedly doing the exact same thing he actually is doing?

weisses wrote: »

What files could he be withholding to debunk the claim about those files? and are those files available for me to see (public domain)

Lol. I believe I had asked this exact question when you first brought up the files you think the NIST are withholding.
And there's plenty of things in the letter that could show him up.
The fact that he doesn't show those letters leave this possibility open.
And if you are to apply your own standards equally (which we've already seen you don't) you'd have to disregard everything he say for withholding information.

weisses wrote: »

Do you agree that in the NIST report files are being withheld as stated in that video Yes or No

No I don't argee that they are being withheld "as stated in that video".
I think that the NIST report are not release some files and the video is dishonestly trying to make that sound sinister and a big deal.

weisses wrote: »

Can you point out with links to sites ...other video's ..you name it that he is making falls claims about those files?? ... Because I am interested in that

Why would I do that? I never claimed that he was doing so or that such things exist.

And just to be clear, since you asked me the same questions I can assume you know exactly what files are being withheld by the NIST and exactly how the invalidate everything about the official story?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No, I said that he made statements in the video which ignore the fact that materials expand at different rates.
Now the only reasons he would he has for doing so are either:
1) doesn't know that fact which is covered in junior cert science.
2) deliberately ignored it.

Take your pick. Cause I'm not sure if I can explain it any clearer to you.

were can i find your evidence that he is ignoring those facts (exactly where)

King Mob wrote: »

That he doesn't show the full letter?

What full letter ?

King Mob wrote: »

That he's crying about the NIST allegedly doing the exact same thing he actually is doing?

Is that a fact or your view on it ?

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. I believe I had asked this exact question when you first brought up the files you think the NIST are withholding.
And there's plenty of things in the letter that could show him up.
The fact that he doesn't show those letters leave this possibility open.
And if you are to apply your own standards equally (which we've already seen you don't) you'd have to disregard everything he say for withholding information.

If your initial answer would have been the same as the one below .. that would have made it allot easier

see I just ask that question because i don't have a feckin clue if it could be false true or something in the middle.

You make it so difficult for yourself ... Just try to answer a question to the best of your knowledge ... don't use tactics to confuse people that later in the discussion can be used to disqualify people

King Mob wrote: »

No I don't argee that they are being withheld "as stated in that video".
I think that the NIST report are not release some files and the video is dishonestly trying to make that sound sinister and a big deal.

So that piece of paper i was quoting from is rubbish ?

King Mob wrote: »

Why would I do that? I never claimed that he was doing so or that such things exist.

You can't or you won't

King Mob wrote: »

And just to be clear, since you asked me the same questions I can assume you know exactly what files are being withheld by the NIST and exactly how the invalidate everything about the official story?

What do you think the answer to that will be

Another silly attempt to ridicule people you are in discussion with ?? Grow up King Mob

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

were can i find your evidence that he is ignoring those facts (exactly where)

I had already pointed it out. Read what I post.

weisses wrote: »

What full letter ?

Another deliberately obtuse question to avoid addressing the point.
The letter both sent to the NIST requesting the files and the letter sent back.

weisses wrote: »

Is that a fact or your view on it ?

It's a fact, it's the same fact you're arguing.
He's claiming that the NIST aren't releasing all their files and believes this is suspicious.
He doesn't show or link to the full correspondence he had with them.
Both of these things are facts.

weisses wrote: »

So that piece of paper i was quoting from is rubbish ?

And again you're deliberately misrepresenting my point.
Read my post and try again.

weisses wrote: »

You can't or you won't

Neither because you are asking me to back up something I never once claimed.
I had already explained this clearly. Not sure how much clearer I can be.

weisses wrote: »

What do you think the answer to that will be

Another silly attempt to ridicule people you are in discussion with ?? Grow up King Mob

No it wasn't an attempt at ridicule.
I was pointing out that you were asking me something which you yourself cannot answer on your own side, and knew why you could not answer it.
Yet you asked it anyway and are accusing me of ridicule for asking the same question...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

I had already pointed it out. Read what I post.

I do .. you said about 5 mins in ... see i don't understand how you come to that conclusion ...You are not willing to say that fine by me point taken

King Mob wrote: »

Another deliberately obtuse question to avoid addressing the point.
The letter both sent to the NIST requesting the files and the letter sent back.

How did you come to that conclusion ??

So now there are files ??

King Mob wrote: »

And again you're deliberately misrepresenting my point.
Read my post and try again.

No i am not .. just asking if that paper shown at 10:37 is rubbish /false / fake/

Try again

King Mob wrote: »

Neither because you are asking me to back up something I never once claimed.
I had already explained this clearly. Not sure how much clearer I can be.

You said why should i do that ... letting me to believe you had something to share .. i was assuming sorry

King Mob wrote: »

No it wasn't an attempt at ridicule.
I was pointing out that you were asking me something which you yourself cannot answer on your own side, and knew why you could not answer it.
Yet you asked it anyway and are accusing me of ridicule for asking the same question...

Correct that's why i asked you about it in that other video 11:00

And you gave me more of your tactics as an answer

And that's why i am asking this again

see how we go around in circle's here when your not willing to give simple answers to simple questions ??

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

How did you come to that conclusion ??

So now there are files ??

No i am not .. just asking if that paper shown at 10:37 is rubbish /false / fake/

Try again

Now you see you're simply trying to force my argument into something it simply isn't.
You are either totally misunderstanding it or being deliberately obtuse.
Either way it's clearly not worth my time repeating it.
Go back and read it, post my argument up to show you've read it and understood it, then maybe form an intelligent question.

But since I'll be holding my breath for you to do so...
Yes, it's probable that the files do exist. I never said otherwise.
I did say that this fact was being twisted and misrepresented.

caseyann

theboss80 wrote: »

This picture for me shows that the theory of falling debris from towers 1 & 2 caused Building 7 to collapse as absolutely ridiculous. I'm of the opinion that considering what government offices this building hosted that it was a controlled explosion.



Source

Question why would they?
Or are you suggesting someone else did,as i fail to understand what possible reason USA intelligence would have to attack a building that held their own intelligence services in.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Now you see you're simply trying to force my argument into something it simply isn't.
You are either totally misunderstanding it or being deliberately obtuse.
Either way it's clearly not worth my time repeating it.
Go back and read it, post my argument up to show you've read it and understood it, then maybe form an intelligent question.

But since I'll be holding my breath for you to do so...
Yes, it's probable that the files do exist. I never said otherwise.
I did say that this fact was being twisted and misrepresented.

No I make it more clear for you

Why couldn't you when i asked you the first time from that other video just have said: Yes, it's probable that the files do exist

instead of responding like this in the architects and engineers thread

our discussion post 52, 58, 60, 61

Why make it so difficult when the answer is so simple ??

Are you not curious why they maybe withheld those apparently 3370 pages .. hey they could have a perfectly normal reason not to release them who knows

Anything else you don't like about that video ?

weisses

caseyann wrote: »

Question why would they?
Or are you suggesting someone else did,as i fail to understand what possible reason USA intelligence would have to attack a building that held their own intelligence services in.

Maybe you just answered your own question ...

caseyann

weisses wrote: »

Maybe you just answered your own question ...

Is that a riddle?

Duke Leonal Felmet

caseyann wrote: »

Is that a riddle?

Everything they say is.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Why couldn't you when i asked you the first time from that other video just have said: Yes, it's probable that the files do exist

But I did. But then you don't read what I post, so It might be expecting too much for you to know that.

weisses wrote: »

instead of responding like this in the architects and engineers thread

our discussion post 52, 58, 60, 61

Why make it so difficult when the answer is so simple ??

Because the answer isn't that simple, as I explained, which you ignored.

weisses wrote: »

Are you not curious why they maybe withheld those apparently 3370 pages .. hey they could have a perfectly normal reason not to release them who knows

But you see I'm not curious because experience tells me that there is not likely anything important. Conspiracy theorists often exaggerate little things like these and distort them to make them sound sinister.
If there something important about it, then you should be able to provide the context, or at least explain how they might debunk the official story.

But the guy in the video don't explain this, because he's either an idiot or is being dishonest.

weisses wrote: »

Anything else you don't like about that video ?

No, cause I gave up on the video after the briefest of viewings show the dishonesty and distortions he's willing to go to.
Watching any more just to find all of the instances just for you to ignore and distort what I do post up is frankly a waste of time.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But I did. But then you don't read what I post, so It might be expecting too much for you to know that.

really ... Is this the best you can do

King Mob wrote: »

Because the answer isn't that simple, as I explained, which you ignored.

YES it is ... here it comes again Yes, it's probable that the files do exist all i asked for the first time nothing more no hidden agenda nothing

King Mob wrote: »

But you see I'm not curious because experience tells me that there is not likely anything important. Conspiracy theorists often exaggerate little things like these and distort them to make them sound sinister.

If there something important about it, then you should be able to provide the context, or at least explain how they might debunk the official story.[/QUOTE]

So when I'm reading this right you had me labelled as an Conspiracy theorist from the word go ... and based all your devious questioning after that on yet another assumption ?

King Mob wrote: »

But the guy in the video don't explain this, because he's either an idiot or is being dishonest.

He is stating that there are files being witheld, you stated yourself that they probably exist ... But it doesn't make any sense the way you disqualify him .. but your good at it

King Mob wrote: »

No, cause I gave up on the video after the briefest of viewings show the dishonesty and distortions he's willing to go to.
Watching any more just to find all of the instances just for you to ignore and distort what I do post up is frankly a waste of time.

See more assumptions you are just as bad as any CT nut i talked to ... only you are on the other end showing the same attitude you loath from the truthers and CT folks

lebowski11

From reading a 23 page thread, the only partially unexplained evidence I've seen that might support claims that structural damage and fire did not bring down WTC 7 is a passport and uncurroborated reports of molten steel.

There really does not seem to be any another irrefutable evidence that points to anything other than what's already been presented in the official report.

weisses

lebowski11 wrote: »

From reading a 23 page thread, the only partially unexplained evidence I've seen that might support claims that structural damage and fire did not bring down WTC 7 is a passport and uncurroborated reports of molten steel.

There really does not seem to be any another irrefutable evidence that points to anything other than what's already been presented in the official report.

Wasn't the passport story related to the twin towers?

lebowski11

weisses wrote: »

Wasn't the passport story related to the twin towers?

I'm not sure, I suppose it is. Which makes it all the more baffling that it would come up in a thread about the collapse of building 7.

I guess my point is that I haven't seen any evidence that supports any other possible theory outside of the official one.

Duke Leonal Felmet

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

King Mob

That video ends with the best analogy ever.

Brown Bomber

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

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

Was that video directed at weisess? (s)He has already stated numerous times that he is not a conspiracy theorist.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Was that video directed at weisess? (s)He has already stated numerous times that he is not a conspiracy theorist.

No, i was messing around on YT and I saw it and felt it would fit this thread.

Brown Bomber

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

No, i was messing around on YT and I saw it and felt it would fit this thread.

Why...?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why...?

Because it illustrates several of the points that were made before in a clear, concise and amusing way?
Plus it's a continuation of sorts by the maker of a video posted earlier?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why...?

Why should I be obliged to answer your question?

Brown Bomber

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Why should I be obliged to answer your question?

From the charter

This is not your personal blog. If you're not interested in discussing what it is that you post, then you probably shouldn't be posting it.

So again, why did you post it?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Brown Bomber wrote: »

From the charter


So again, why did you post it?

Report away, BB. Report away.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

No, i was messing around on YT and I saw it and felt it would fit this thread.

I thought I would repeat this for the short-sighted among us.

Brown Bomber

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Report away, BB. Report away.

So if I have this straight your going to post a random video of some random baldy ****er playing comedian in his random living room because it somehow randomly "fits" ? [Embedded Image Removed] And no explanation is necessary?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So if I have this straight your going to post a random video of some random baldy ****er playing comedian in his random living room because it somehow randomly "fits" ? [Embedded Image Removed] And no explanation is necessary?

I did explain. End of conspiracy.

Duke Leonal Felmet

I wonder, what was it that offended you so much in that video?

Brown Bomber

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

I did explain. End of conspiracy.

Nope. You said it fits. That's not an explanation ffs.

man A - Building 7 was taken down by king kong

man B - really? how do you know?

Man A - It fits

Man B - Oh, that is a satisfactory explanation.

see?