What's new
By:

Las Vegas: Worst Mass Shooting in US History

Paper_McGibblets said:
Apples to apples. Ok.
Building 7 didn't have a plane flown into it, but it still fell.
https://goo.gl/images/NYuvzC
NYuvzC

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Ok. How many instances of a similar building being completely engulfed in flames where no one responded to the fire and all fire suppression systems were inoperable, and no fire department was raining fire on it from the outside have occurred and resulted in the building surviving intact? In this case the fire raged, burning all available debris (office stuff is incredibly flamable, desks chairs, files, paper, wood, plastic, etc.), for HOURS with no fire department able to respond with water, and with the complete failure of the sprinkler system due to the damage to the city water supply lines. Any apples to apples comparisons there?

Here is one way it could have gone down, and they even admit in the article that it was unprecedented. But that is kind of a duh as the entire situation was unprecedented.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
 
Paper_McGibblets said:
I'm being completely sincere when I say I have too many doubts to simply believe it was just a terrorist attack. Could it have been and is it highly likely? Absolutely. I just see the other side of the argument too and can't deny tons and tons of valid counter arguments.
Click to expand...

There isn't a single valid counter argument containing any remotely reasonable case. Thermate? Completely fabricated by Dr. Steven Jones. Not one scientist has been able to replicate his claims. The guy is an absolute shyster who hides behind pages of Appeal to Authority in order to dupe those who will fall for his stuff. Starting off with that in his papers, followed up by pages of elementary scientific principles, has no place in real science. It should be a big enough red flag to anyone.
 
franklin said:
There isn't a single valid counter argument containing any remotely reasonable case. Thermate? Completely fabricated by Dr. Steven Jones. Not one scientist has been able to replicate his claims. The guy is an absolute shyster who hides behind pages of Appeal to Authority in order to dupe those who will fall for his stuff. Starting off with that in his papers, followed up by pages of elementary scientific principles, has no place in real science. It should be a big enough red flag to anyone.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I'm not a scientist, but there are many scientists, engineers and military officials who support Jones and his theory. I'd be happy to provide you with their names, backgrounds and research articles they've written about 9/11. I know you're a smart guy (I think you're an engineer or something, right?) but how can one completely invalidate many scientists and engineers opinions on this? Obviously, if it were so clear cut, you wouldn't have so many credible people support such a bogus claim.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Ok. How many instances of a similar building being completely engulfed in flames where no one responded to the fire and all fire suppression systems were inoperable, and no fire department was raining fire on it from the outside have occurred and resulted in the building surviving intact? In this case the fire raged, burning all available debris (office stuff is incredibly flamable, desks chairs, files, paper, wood, plastic, etc.), for HOURS with no fire department able to respond with water, and with the complete failure of the sprinkler system due to the damage to the city water supply lines. Any apples to apples comparisons there?

Here is one way it could have gone down, and they even admit in the article that it was unprecedented. But that is kind of a duh as the entire situation was unprecedented.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
Click to expand...

Yes, all the fires were different although some burned a lot longer than building 7. That said, I can not produce an exact example of a building burning exactly like 7.
 
Paper_McGibblets said:
Obviously, if it were so clear cut, you wouldn't have so many credible people support such a bogus claim.
Click to expand...
Oooohhhhh, but why are so many credible people supporting the bogus claim? Maybe there is a conspiracy there too? Those people are being paid by the rockafellers to come up with alternate possibilities for what happened on 911 I bet. They know that the planes were responsible for 911 but are being paid by someone (maybe the leader of the new world order. Possibly aliens) to come up with a different account of what took down the towers.

So many layers. So many possibilities.
 
fishonjazz said:
Oooohhhhh, but why are so many credible people supporting the bogus claim? Maybe there is a conspiracy there too? Those people are being paid by the rockafellers to come up with alternate possibilities for what happened on 911 I bet. They know that the planes were responsible for 911 but are being paid by someone (maybe the leader of the new world order. Possibly aliens) to come up with a different account of what took down the towers.

So many layers. So many possibilities.
Click to expand...

Except that conspiracy can not be backed up by anything credible. The 911 conspiracy can. Pretty simple. Dumb counter argument/point.
 
Paper_McGibblets said:
Except that conspiracy can not be backed up by anything credible. The 911 conspiracy can. Pretty simple. Dumb counter argument/point.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that scientists can't lie? That's an interesting theory.
 
Paper_McGibblets said:
No, that's not what I said at all.
Click to expand...
How do you know what is credible and what isnt?


There in lies the problem.

Everything and anything could be a lie.

This could all be a dream. We could be in the matrix. Up is actually down, and down is up.
 
fishonjazz said:
How do you know what is credible and what isnt?


There in lies the problem.

Everything and anything could be a lie.
Click to expand...

The source and credibility of the source, the information provided, science, counter arguments, evidence, etc.

Yeah, they could be lying or wrong. I don't find that to be their agenda though. Too many of them.
 
Paper_McGibblets said:
The source and credibility of the source, the information provided, science, counter arguments, evidence, etc.

Yeah, they could be lying or wrong. I don't find that to be their agenda though. Too many of them.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Good answer.
I will stop being a dick head now. Sorry about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top