67 of 91
67
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 13 December 2013 10:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 991 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

Robert: “Do you have evidence for additonal causes for the collapse of WTC 7?”
Jomper: “But the moon and cheese!”

LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2013 12:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 992 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 December 2013 10:04 AM

Robert: “Do you have evidence for additonal causes for the collapse of WTC 7?”
Jomper: “But the moon and cheese!”

LOL

And the amazing self destructing truck. Don’t forget the truck.

All simple metaphors to illustrate just how stunningly stupid your arguments have been.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2013 01:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 993 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

Yes, jomper, making the observation a building collapsed due to fire damage when you have undeniable evidence it was burning for prolonged period time of time and then collapsed is ‘stunningly stupid’. LOL

That conclusion is perfectly sound and reasonable, unless evidence is presented fire couldn’t have done it and/or other causes of collapse is proven.

The only ‘evidence’ you have submitted to even question the cause of fire is whining “but it didn’t collapse the way I think it should!”. As if fire signed some kind of agreement that it won’t collapse anything unless it meets your preconcieved notion of what collapses should look like. LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2013 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 994 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

Here’s an idea, jomper: if WTC 7 collapsed from fire damage only, what should it have looked like? LOL

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2013 01:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 995 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

Highly credible evidence has been presented that fire couldn’t have done it the way NIST claimed it happened, but that’s invalid according to you for reasons you cannot explain.

The best argument you’ve got is that this question is not on topic, but that would only persuade people who haven’t noticed what the title of the thread is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2013 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 996 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02

NIST could be completely and 100% wrong on how the fire collapsed WTC 7.

That does not prove or even suggest fire did not collapse WTC 7.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2013 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 997 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 December 2013 01:40 PM

NIST could be completely and 100% wrong on how the fire collapsed WTC 7.

That does not prove or even suggest fire did not collapse WTC 7.

That’s right. It would just mean that the best attempt to show the collapse was caused by fire, after several years of work on the subject and millions of public dollars, was false.

Do you ever consider what you’ve written before you post?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2013 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 998 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 13 December 2013 01:57 PM
Robert Walper - 13 December 2013 01:40 PM

NIST could be completely and 100% wrong on how the fire collapsed WTC 7.

That does not prove or even suggest fire did not collapse WTC 7.

That’s right. It would just mean that the best attempt to show the collapse was caused by fire, after several years of work on the subject and millions of public dollars, was false.

Do you ever consider what you’ve written before you post?

‘How fire collapsed the building’ and ‘fire is the only evidence based cause for collapse at all’ are two different things, jomper. You can sit there and prove without question a million different ways fire couldn’t have collapsed the building. That does absolutely nothing against the conclusion fire collapsed the building.

The only way you can challenge the conclusion fire collapsed the building is either submitting evidence for another cause or proving it is impossible for fire to have done so. You have consistently failed to do so, and thus your position is dismissed as completely unsubstantiated and baseless.

We may never know precisely how fire collapsed the building (at least if you don’t accept the NIST report). What is quite certain is that fire did so. The only way you can alter that conclusion is evidence for another cause or proving it would be impossible for fire to do so.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2013 02:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 999 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 13 December 2013 02:14 PM

your position is dismissed as completely unsubstantiated and baseless.

Ah, the irony.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 December 2013 07:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1000 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 15 December 2013 02:26 AM

Ah, the irony.

The only irony is your continued insistence upon evidence but then refusing to provide it for your position.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2013 05:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1001 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 15 December 2013 07:13 PM

The only irony is your continued insistence upon evidence but then refusing to provide it for your position.

My position is that the NIST report is invalidated by critical omissions and therefore a new, transparent and fully accountable investigation should be conducted—naturally to include a review of the NIST report’s conclusions and how they were obtained.

The evidence for this is there and has been presented on this thread. What you call “whining” about evidence for any other position is you whining to yourself, and has nothing to do with me.

One of the several things that makes your comments at post 998

Robert Walper - 06 December 2013 04:23 PM

comedy gold, people

is your obvious failure to understand what the null hypothesis is in this case.

I suggest you read up on the null hypothesis and when you can demonstrate your understanding to the forum you can

Robert Walper - 09 December 2013 08:26 AM

get back to us.

I would expect a man of your intelligence to spend some time thinking about this, so I’ll see you after the festive season.

But as something of a clue to get you started, I’ll leave you with this little gift.
phd121911s.gif

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 December 2013 07:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1002 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 16 December 2013 05:31 AM

My position is that the NIST report is invalidated

And thus I humoured your position and tossed out the NIST report entirely.

by critical omissions and therefore a new, transparent and fully accountable investigation should be conducted—naturally to include a review of the NIST report’s conclusions and how they were obtained.

Which is why I started with tossing out the NIST report and starting from scratch. And the available evidence indicates the WTC 7 building collapsed due to fire damage.

You are unable to present any evidence whatsoever for any other cause and instead appealed to probability of collapse, how the building collapsed and pretending that the observation of fire damaging the building for the prolonged time period isn’t very good evidence fire collapsed it. Even though you freely admit you don’t claim it’s impossible for fire to do so.

You have zero case for even plausible justification for calling for a new investigation.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2013 03:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1003 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

Whining to yourself as usual—and worse, doing so with a characteristic lack of humour.

You don’t get to “toss out” the highly credible evidence you’ve been given just because you can’t address it, and then proclaim ad nauseum that there isn’t any evidence it didn’t happen the way you say it did.

Similarly you don’t get to “toss out” the only “evidence” there is to support your opinion that office fire alone caused the building to collapse the way it did by repeating “yeah but fire and collapse” ad nauseum as if it actually means anything.

Anytime you feel able to address the evidence you’ve been given—or are capable of demonstrating an understanding of the null hypothesis as a baby step towards that:

Robert Walper - 09 December 2013 08:26 AM

get back to us.

Robert Walper - 06 December 2013 04:23 PM

Comedy gold, people.

Santa Walper - 25 December 2013 10:36 AM

A very Happy Christmas to all CFI forum readers. Ho, ho, ho.

[ Edited: 17 December 2013 04:40 AM by jomper ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2013 06:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1004 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  444
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 17 December 2013 03:54 AM

You don’t get to “toss out” the highly credible evidence you’ve been given

You’ve given zero evidence for me to toss out. I said I tossed out the NIST report. Any errors or problems you have with it are thus now irrelevant.

just because you can’t address it, and then proclaim ad nauseum that there isn’t any evidence it didn’t happen the way you say it did.

So, for the millionth time, present evidence there is another cause for the collapse of WTC 7 other than fire.

Similarly you don’t get to “toss out” the only “evidence” there is to support your opinion that office fire alone caused the building to collapse the way it did by repeating “yeah but fire and collapse” ad nauseum as if it actually means anything.

So present evidence there is another cause for collapse other than fire. Otherwise, the only evidence for what caused the collapse is fire and that will be the conclusion until other evidence is presented.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 December 2013 06:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1005 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 17 December 2013 06:10 PM

I said I tossed out the NIST report.

Exactly why did you toss it out again? I am not interested in what you consider humour.

Profile
 
 
   
67 of 91
67