| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
A good find but not surprisingly familiar misquotes, assumptions, generalisations and so on.
Will the truth movement ever publish a theory for the WT7 collapse backed up with evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | A good find but not surprisingly familiar misquotes, assumptions, generalisations and so on.
Will the truth movement ever publish a theory for the WT7 collapse backed up with evidence? |
Will NIST ever publish a theory for the WTC7 collapse backed up with evidence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Micpsi wrote: | | Wibble wrote: | A good find but not surprisingly familiar misquotes, assumptions, generalisations and so on.
Will the truth movement ever publish a theory for the WT7 collapse backed up with evidence? |
Will NIST ever publish a theory for the WTC7 collapse backed up with evidence? |
They have already presented a theory but are making sure they are thorough. I dont expect you to understand that as a "Truther". The report is out soon but I dont expect any truthers to actually read it.
Where is the Truther report on WT7? Or even the Twin Towers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wibble,
a theory has been presented - controlled demolition.
It is a tested theory in that it has been reproduced through cad, in that you could build one hundred identical WTC7s and replicate the exact collapse through CD every time.
THAT is a theory - testable - tested - infinatley repeatable.
The OTC does not have a real theory - they are going to claim fire and debris damage - but you could not build another WTC7, throw some debris at it, set a fire and expect it to fall straight down in 6.7 seconds within a few hours.
Arguably it could never happen again.
Their theory is that the leat likely, least plausible and arguably completly impossible thing happened, on the same day that the twin towers implausibly collapsed, on the same day as hundreds of coincidences happened and protocols were not carried out - all of which were completely neccesary to allow 9/11 to happen.
In terms of probablity - the version of 9/11 you consider it is rational to parrot involves hundreds of million-in-one shot happening on the same day - so something happened which the people in power at the time had said a year before would be neccesary in order to begin the radical transformation of policy and drive towards unchallenged American global dominance they wanted to carry out.
To put it simply - you are a loon.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Where is the Truther report on WT7? Or even the Twin Towers? |
http://www.journalof911studies.com
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stefan,
Stop quoting the same garbage again and again. Do you hope that the more you quote it the more true it will become?
There is no proof of CD. There is no proof of how the CD would be planted. There is no proof of CD being detonated during the collapse.
Did you even watch the videos above? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hang on a sec. That looks suspiciously like a truther thinking critically about truther claims and being prepared to challenge those they don't think are valid. I thought all truthers always just endlessly repeated the same old stuff with no reflection whatsoever. Are you sure this isn't some kind of fake?
Not that that means I'm endorsing what he says, but Urich still thinks wtc7 is rather suspicious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
Not that that means I'm endorsing what he says, but Urich still thinks wtc7 is rather suspicious. |
There is nothing wrong with wanting an explaination of why/how WTC7 collapsed. However, there is something wrong with claiming a conspiracy without a shred of evidence.
Last edited by Wibble on Sun Jul 13, 2008 7:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wibble wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: |
Not that that means I'm endorsing what he says, but Urich still thinks wtc7 is rather suspicious. |
There is nothing wrong with wanting an explaination of why/how WTC7 collapsed. However, there is something wrong with claiming a conspiracy without a shread of evidence. |
Well I certainly wouldn't start a conspiracy without a shread of evidence. I don't even know what a shread is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: |
Hang on a sec. That looks suspiciously like a truther thinking critically about truther claims and being prepared to challenge those they don't think are valid. I thought all truthers always just endlessly repeated the same old stuff with no reflection whatsoever. Are you sure this isn't some kind of fake?
Not that that means I'm endorsing what he says, but Urich still thinks wtc7 is rather suspicious. |
I am endorsing this attempt, from a truther, to correct (what he sees as) incorrect claims from Gage and others. Can't we just agree that this is a very welcome development? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: |
Hang on a sec. That looks suspiciously like a truther thinking critically about truther claims and being prepared to challenge those they don't think are valid. I thought all truthers always just endlessly repeated the same old stuff with no reflection whatsoever. Are you sure this isn't some kind of fake?
Not that that means I'm endorsing what he says, but Urich still thinks wtc7 is rather suspicious. |
I am endorsing this attempt, from a truther, to correct (what he sees as) incorrect claims from Gage and others. Can't we just agree that this is a very welcome development? |
Them saying it or you endorsing it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | | Them saying it or you endorsing it? |
Either or both.
What do you think of Urich's points in the letter? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wibble
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 162
Location: Wibble
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just watched Mr Gage on the BBC Conspiracy files WTC7 programme and I seriously think he has lost the plot.
He claimed that the smoke seen on video, stills and eye witnesses accounts from WTC7 came from other buildings.
He also suggests the CD used in WTC7 could have been planted when the building was built in the 80s. So we should not be blaming the Bush Administration, it was Regan!!! Regan also had to develop extra special explosive that do not degrade with time as normally the shelf life is 3 years for the explosives used in CD.
Also, for some one who likes to use the fact he is an architect and the fact there are engineers in his club to gain credibility......why does he start every line with "I can only speculate"? Surely such professionals have a theory or 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | What do you think of Urich's points in the letter? |
Does anybody fancy discussing Urich's points in the letter?
Does anybody dispute the points that he makes?
If not, then what state does that leave CD theories in? Have they been abandoned by the truth movement?[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: Re: Further Gage debate... |
|
|
Just thought I'd update this thread with a bit more on Urich. Here's a post he made about his recent responses to his contributions to the Journal for 9/11 Studies...
| Quote: | | I consider both my "Open Letter to Richard Gage" and the paper on the meaning of the collapse times to be valid contributions to the discussion of controlled demolition. They have also ignored my paper on load distribution in WTC1. The journal's explanation is that these are not sufficiently ground breaking to spend their time on reviewing. I understand that the journal is understaffed and has no budget, but somehow they found time to review my 43 page paper on the Mass of WTC1 when they were publishing several papers a month. The three papers which they have refused to consider are short and simple and would together require much less effort than the mass paper. I no longer consider the Journal of 9/11 Studies to be a scientific journal but rather a propaganda outlet for a group of activists that has reached erroneous conclusions based on poor science. |
This is just more evidence that, when faced with genuine scientific examination of the collapses, the truth movement would prefer to close ranks rather than even discuss the issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
