62 of 91
62
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 07 December 2013 08:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 916 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 07 December 2013 02:36 PM
electric_thistle - 07 December 2013 12:01 PM
Lois - 07 December 2013 11:59 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsjfSG69Pik&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Lol Chris Mohr can’t even read a basic graph. He had to go to the jref forum for advice the guy is a total fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8N6V68jotg

Actually, real frauds claim to be an engineer and then furiously backpedal and refuse to prove they are what they say they are when asked to prove it.

Would the statement 2+2=4 be less true for you if it came from a carpenter instead of a mathematician? You need to address the evidence you asked for from electric_thistle and were given. You’ve been back-pedalling away from that so hard you haven’t realised your back’s against the wall.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2013 09:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 917 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 07 December 2013 08:26 PM

Would the statement 2+2=4 be less true for you if it came from a carpenter instead of a mathematician? You need to address the evidence you asked for from electric_thistle and were given. You’ve been back-pedalling away from that so hard you haven’t realised your back’s against the wall.

Individuals who lie about their credentials and refuse to prove their claims will not be taken seriously and assumed to be lying.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 01:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 918 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 07 December 2013 09:10 PM
jomper - 07 December 2013 08:26 PM

Would the statement 2+2=4 be less true for you if it came from a carpenter instead of a mathematician? You need to address the evidence you asked for from electric_thistle and were given. You’ve been back-pedalling away from that so hard you haven’t realised your back’s against the wall.

Individuals who lie about their credentials and refuse to prove their claims will not be taken seriously and assumed to be lying.

You are merely indulging in ad hominem because you can’t address the evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 02:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 919 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 07 December 2013 09:44 AM
jomper - 07 December 2013 03:57 AM
Robert Walper - 07 December 2013 03:33 AM

It looks like a building that has been on fire for a long time and finally collapses due to that damage.

It looked like WTC 7 burned for quite some time and then collapsed due to fire damage.

The cause is obviously fire damage.

The attribution of cause is a claim that you need to support by showing precedent exists in the case of steel framed high rise buildings.

So you will now prove this claim by posting a link to a video of a steel-framed high-rise building collapsing due to fire with the speed, symmetry and totality of WTC 7, or concede that there are no other examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing “due to fire” that exhibit these characteristics.

I never made a claim there was a previous example identical to the WTC 7 collapse, so your demand is a dishonest Red Herring.

I didn’t ask you for an identical example. Any example showing speed, symmetry and totality in the collapse of a burning steel-framed high rise will do.

Robert Walper - 07 December 2013 09:44 AM

Precedent is not an evidence requirement, and your demand for it is proof you have no clue how evidence based reasoning works. By your logic, you could dismiss a previous example as well because there is no precedent there either.

There is considerable precedent for steel-framed high rise buildings catching fire. None of them collapsed with speed, symmetry and totality in a manner remotely comparable to WTC 7. That is why you need to support your claim that the collapse was “obviously” caused solely by fire in this case.

Robert Walper - 07 December 2013 09:44 AM

When I make the observation it looks like WTC 7 collapsed due to fire damage, the only evidence I need to provide is the proof of fire damage and that the building collapsed. Burden of proof has already been met.

You say the cause was “obviously” fire damage, but what is your experience of observing similar events that makes this so obvious to you and should make it obvious to other people?

No-one is calling into question the fact that the building was on fire and collapsed. But you have avoided the burden of proof by begging the question of what caused the collapse, which is made obvious by the fact that you cannot point to a single similar collapse occurring among the many other examples of steel-framed high rise buildings catching fire.

So you will now concede that there are no other examples of steel-framed high-rise buildings collapsing “due to fire” that exhibit anything like the characteristics of speed, symmetry and totality observed in the case of WTC 7.

[ Edited: 08 December 2013 02:36 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 02:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 920 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 07 December 2013 09:44 AM

It looked like WTC 7 burned for quite some time and then collapsed due to fire damage. The cause is obviously fire damage.

Robert Walper - 06 December 2013 05:16 PM

You think what someone claims something looks like is acceptable evidence. It isn’t.

As I’ve been saying for a while: Robert’s arguments collapse under the weight of their own stupidity. External input is hardly required.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 09:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 921 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02

You are merely indulging in ad hominem because you can’t address the evidence.

I don’t have to address any evidence regarding the NIST report when I said I’m willing to ignore it and now asking for a superior explanation. You lack basic reading comprehension.

jomper - 08 December 2013 02:44 AM
Robert Walper - 07 December 2013 09:44 AM

It looked like WTC 7 burned and collapsed due to fire damage. The cause is obviously fire damage.

Robert Walper - 06 December 2013 05:16 PM

You think what someone claims something looks like is acceptable evidence. It isn’t.

As I’ve been saying for a while: Robert’s arguments collapse under the weight of their own stupidity. External input is hardly required.

Me saying it looks like the building was on fire and collapsed due to fire damage is not evidence. The fact the building was on fire and collapsed is. The fact you do not understand this is proof you have very little ability to reason.

jomper - 08 December 2013 02:34 AM

The attribution of cause is a claim that you need to support by showing precedent exists in the case of steel framed high rise buildings.

False. If I claim it looks like WTC 7 collapsed due to fire damage, the only evidence required is that the building was on fire and collapsed. That burden of proof has been met.

So you will now prove this claim by posting a link to a video of a steel-framed high-rise building collapsing due to fire with the speed, symmetry and totality of WTC 7, or concede that there are no other examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing “due to fire” that exhibit these characteristics.

I do not need to defend claims I have not made.

I didn’t ask you for an identical example. Any example showing speed, symmetry and totality in the collapse of a burning steel-framed high rise will do.

There is considerable precedent for steel-framed high rise buildings catching fire. None of them collapsed with speed, symmetry and totality in a manner remotely comparable to WTC 7. That is why you need to support your claim that the collapse was “obviously” caused solely by fire in this case.

You say the cause was “obviously” fire damage, but what is your experience of observing similar events that makes this so obvious to you and should make it obvious to other people?

The fact that fire warps and weakens steel when exposed to it and physical forces like gravity and heavy loads.

No-one is calling into question the fact that the building was on fire and collapsed. But you have avoided the burden of proof by begging the question of what caused the collapse, which is made obvious by the fact that you cannot point to a single similar collapse occurring among the many other examples of steel-framed high rise buildings catching fire.

So you will now concede that there are no other examples of steel-framed high-rise buildings collapsing “due to fire” that exhibit anything like the characteristics of speed, symmetry and totality observed in the case of WTC 7.

I do not need to concede claims I have not made. You’re only demonstrating your own stupidity here, jomper.

If you think fire wasn’t the sole cause or couldn’t have been the sole cause of the collapse of WTC 7, present your evidence for other causes.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 10:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 922 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

All of Jomper’s posts have been lessons in weak diversionary tactics, exactly the same as all nutty conspiracy theorists use.  I haven’t seen him present a new one and certainly not one that was not completely transparent.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 10:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 923 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
Lois - 08 December 2013 10:03 AM

All of Jomper’s posts have been lessons in weak diversionary tactics, exactly the same as all nutty conspiracy theorists use.  I haven’t seen him present a new one and certainly not one that was not completely transparent.

Lois

Jomper doesn’t seem to understand that WTC 7 could be the only structure that has ever existed and collapsed while experiencing prolonged fire damage.

The logical conclusion is fire brought down the building. Precedent isn’t required. The only evidence one needs is the building was on fire, it collapsed, and it’s established fire severely compromises the structural material the building is made of. All three of those pieces of evidence have been met without question.

Even completely tossing out the NIST report does nothing to refute the above, since the NIST report was only providing the most likely way the fire collapsed the building. The conclusion WTC 7 collapsed due to fire damage isn’t dependent upon anything in the NIST report, hence why I pointed out earlier even if we humor the conspiracy theorists and toss out the report, nothing has been done to undermine the conclusion fire brought down the building. The NIST report explains how the fire brought down the building, it does not concern itself if fire “could’ve” done so. That conclusion is obvious because the building was on fire and collapsed.

If jomper or anyone else thinks fire alone was insufficient and there was another cause, they need to do what they keep furiously avoiding: present evidence.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 10:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 924 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 08 December 2013 10:27 AM
Lois - 08 December 2013 10:03 AM

All of Jomper’s posts have been lessons in weak diversionary tactics, exactly the same as all nutty conspiracy theorists use.  I haven’t seen him present a new one and certainly not one that was not completely transparent.

Lois

Jomper doesn’t seem to understand that WTC 7 could be the only structure that has ever existed and collapsed while experiencing prolonged fire damage.

The logical conclusion is fire brought down the building. Precedent isn’t required. The only evidence one needs is the building was on fire, it collapsed, and it’s established fire severely compromises the structural material the building is made of. All three of those pieces of evidence have been met without question.

Even completely tossing out the NIST report does nothing to refute the above, since the NIST report was only providing the most likely way the fire collapsed the building. The conclusion WTC 7 collapsed due to fire damage isn’t dependent upon anything in the NIST report, hence why I pointed out earlier even if we humor the conspiracy theorists and toss out the report, nothing has been done to undermine the conclusion fire brought down the building. The NIST report explains how the fire brought down the building, it does not concern itself if fire “could’ve” done so. That conclusion is obvious because the building was on fire and collapsed.

If jomper or anyone else thinks fire alone was insufficient and there was another cause, they need to do what they keep furiously avoiding: present evidence.

By this logic all forensic fire investigations are pointless provided the cause of the blaze is immediately “obvious” to armchair experts like you, Robert.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 10:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 925 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 08 December 2013 10:03 AM

All of Jomper’s posts have been lessons in weak diversionary tactics, exactly the same as all nutty conspiracy theorists use.  I haven’t seen him present a new one and certainly not one that was not completely transparent.

Lois

So says the person who has done nothing except avoid the one simple question I’ve asked her since she made the comment that there are “underying” factors to the collapse that “some people” want to ignore.

For at least the tenth time, Lois: what are you basing this idea of “underying” factors on and why should it not be ignored? Of course it’s your opinion: but is it informed by anything concrete? Anything at all?

No?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 926 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  475
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 08 December 2013 10:54 AM

By this logic all forensic fire investigations are pointless provided the cause of the blaze is immediately “obvious” to armchair experts like you, Robert.

Yes, the cause of the blaze is very obvious and we have overwhelming evidence of what caused it: the collapse of the burning twin towers next to WTC7 hitting it with burning debris.

You will now present evidence fire wasn’t the only cause of the collapse and/or fire couldn’t possibly have been the only cause of collapse of WTC 7. Claims WTC 7 was a unique collapse is not evidence for that claim and is dismissed.

Failure to do so means you concede the argument.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 12:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 927 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
jomper - 08 December 2013 10:58 AM
Lois - 08 December 2013 10:03 AM

All of Jomper’s posts have been lessons in weak diversionary tactics, exactly the same as all nutty conspiracy theorists use.  I haven’t seen him present a new one and certainly not one that was not completely transparent.

Lois

So says the person who has done nothing except avoid the one simple question I’ve asked her since she made the comment that there are “underying” factors to the collapse that “some people” want to ignore.

For at least the tenth time, Lois: what are you basing this idea of “underying” factors on and why should it not be ignored? Of course it’s your opinion: but is it informed by anything concrete? Anything at all?

No?

I have answered the question many times.  I said it was my OPINION that the falling of the other buildings COULD HAVE contributed to the collapse. I never said I had evidence of this. I offered it as a possibility.  But you have glommed onto it as if I were making a positive claim. I made no claim, I suggested a possibility.  You have done nothing but use this to avoid answering the questions I have put to you.

I withdraw the suggestion.  In my opinion the NIST report is correct. The building fell solely from fire. Whether any other building has ever fallen from fire in the same way is of no consequence. This one did and in my opinion the NIST report supported its conclusions.  None of your speculations carry any weight, nor do your conspiracy theories. So far you have said NOTHING to support your theories.  Now, I invite you to answer the questions. I don’t expect that you will. You will simply come up with another diversionary tactic, the habit of people with no valid argument. So far you have even failed to state your case with one rational argument. Everything you have suggested is so far out of the realm of possibility that it is not worth arguing. You might as well have suggested that space aliens brought down the buildiings.

This discussion started because you were making claims without evidence, yet you have yet to offer any evidence that the NIST report is incorrect. All you have done is CLAIM it is incorrect and none of your claims have been supported by objective evidence, just speculationa and claims that events are “consistent with” certain vague and unlikely possibilities. When you can come up with a reasonable objection to the NIST report we might be able to continue the discussion if you could bring yourself to actually engage in a discussion and not a litany of red herrings.. Until then, I have nothing more to say on the subject. If you want to argue your unsupported speculations, find someone else. I will no longer waste my time arguing with a fool who doesn’t have the least idea of what is rational and reasonable on any level and who refuses to even state the details of his own claims.

[ Edited: 08 December 2013 12:49 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 928 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Lois - 08 December 2013 12:47 PM

I withdraw the suggestion.

Thank you for conceding that your opinion that there were “underying” factors to the collapse which “some people want to ignore” is not something you can support with evidence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 04:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 929 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  429
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 08 December 2013 12:41 PM

we have overwhelming evidence

Of course you do not. You have merely been begging the question of how the building collapsed by making the banal observation that the building collapsed.

You have conceded that you have no evidence that fire can cause steel-framed high rises to collapse with the speed, symmetry and totality of WTC 7.

You have been forced to put the NIST report to one side because you cannot address the evidence that it contains critical omissions.

You have asserted that it is unnecessary to carry out any kind of forensic investigation of physical evidence from the building.

What then is this “overwhelming evidence” you speak of?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2013 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 930 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
jomper - 08 December 2013 03:50 PM
Lois - 08 December 2013 12:47 PM

I withdraw the suggestion.

Thank you for conceding that your opinion that there were “underying” factors to the collapse which “some people want to ignore” is not something you can support with evidence.

Which is no different than your refusal to support your contention, with evidence, that there was a government conspiracy. Thanks for conceding that you have no rational claim, no rational argument and no evidence whatsoever that your unsupported claims of a government conspiracy should be considered. At least we agree on that, finally.

Profile
 
 
   
62 of 91
62