Obviously ANYBODY who isn’t just skeptical about evidence or theories, but who will spend page after page boldly refuting and painstakingly trying to dismantle the facts or evidence has an alternate theory.
I can understand the frustrations of ‘debunkers’ faced with ‘truthers’ whose basic position is something like “hey, I’m only asking questions!”.
But I think your incredulity at the reality of the situation we are in today expresses it well.
VYAZMA - 08 May 2013 02:52 PM
Really? They really didn’t concern themselves with the actual collapses? The most dramatic, phenomena ridden event of the whole time-line, and they didn’t concern themselves with the collapses?
R.Walper-I should point out, VYAZMA, jomper hasn’t refuted any facts. If I’m incorrect on this, please point it out.
I guess so..technically maybe. I’m too lazy to go back and check.
This is precisely though what Psikey and Jomper want to keep the argument about though…
“No I didn’t say that”....“You said that…”....“You show me where tests were done….” “You can’t do those tests…..”
“Those tests haven’t been done”.....
It’s obfuscation! It’s refuting on a grander scale than minor points of fact!
Obviously they are refuting the grander theme here. Which is perfect for them…they can fall back and deny having provided any questionable evidence themselves.
All the while using petty little tricks to plant suggestion.
Really? They really didn’t concern themselves with the actual collapses? The most dramatic, phenomena ridden event of the whole time-line, and they didn’t concern themselves with the collapses? Jomper-
Yes, my dear VYAZMA. Really.
This is an example of refutation. I said they did concern themselves with the collapse shortly after that post.
Here Jomper is refuting that!
I read the summary of their report. They explicitly stated they showed what caused the collapse.
Of course Jomper can cast doubts on their report. Especially when he can define what collapse means.
Especially when he can set the parameters for when a collapse starts and ends.
Especially when he can suggest that a given collapse that actually took place couldn’t have taken place as is generally accepted.
Where do you go from there?
Ah, I knew you were going to say that. I’ve made my point: neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to experimentally demonstrate the phenomenon that actually destroyed the towers, even though you claim the reality of what happened is essentially simple and self-evident. I predict you will never actually address this, but that’s just going on your past form.
They explicitly stated they showed what caused the collapse.
My point then and now is that it is not demonstrable, even in greatly simplified form. I would dearly love to be proved wrong in this, but even the Purdue simulation does not do so.
So what does that mean? There was another cause of the towers collapsing?
Or do you just like to go around telling everyone that peoples reports and studies are incomplete? Presumably because you have greater powers of calculation and scrutiny.
Maybe you are disgruntled Purdue student who was rejected from the final study group? This is your way of getting back?
This could be possible! Maybe that’s it!
That is SO FASCINATING! I can’t see what is happening to the core. The NIST says it supported 53% of the weight.
So between any laughable analysis you make while refusing to provide numbers for it and the NIST expert analysis that does provide numbers, math and evidence, guess which one I will favour?
Give me one reason why I should give your opinion any weight, never mind assuming it weighs more than hundreds of experts? You won’t even provide numbers for your model, admit you don’t know anything about the WTC towers and have asserted you will never provide such numbers or math to back up your claims. Never mind your claims have been proven to be lies.
Tell you what psikey. You actually made your model as strong as possible. You put solid heavy duty nuts in your lower levels where collapse stopped to pull a fast one over everyone. I won’t prove this, I won’t submit evidence, I won’t do any math and I’ll just keep repeating that your model is as strong as possible.
I’ll argue just like you, therefore you should be convinced in no time!
You do know that their tests involved more than a corny computer animation?
Corny to you but very expensive to make, like the NIST WTC 7 sims. It doesn’t model the actual collapses, though, does it?
Don’t break my heart, darling.
What the little You-tube video? Or the whole project of studies by Purdue…which aren’t on You-tube?
Again though, I’m tired of defending evidence that supports facts.
I’d like to hear the ideas you OBVIOUSLY have. But you don’t want to get laughed off the stage. I understand.
There’s also no need to refer to me as darling if you don’t mind. My intention is not to break your heart.