Wednesday, 12 August 2009

9/11 Conspiracism and Sibel Edmonds

Alex Jones appears to do everything to prevent the words "Saudi Arabia" appearing in context with Sibel Edmonds.

Here, there is a whole page at Prionplanet about Sibel Edmonds, and her claims of "foreign government" and "criminal" involvement with 9/11. But throughout the entire page there is no mention of Saudi Arabia.

Of course Jones takes the least suggestion of "inside job" as vindicating his hypothesis.....but what about at least mentioning Saudi Arabia? Furthermore, Edmonds' claims seem to revolve around Al Qaeda being responsible - Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Why Jones downplays AQ and completely omits to mention Saudi seems obvious - it doesn't fit with his preconceived notions, and it doesn't fit with all his friends' views that the "foreign government" involved was Israel. Why else would AJ avoid mentioning Saudi and instead refer to just "foreign governments" and "criminal elements". (Of course 'criminal elements' were involved! They hijacked planes and flew them into huge office buildings!)

Here, there's a prisonplanet page on Alex Jones' interview with Sibel Edmonds......and not a mention of "Saudi Arabia". The transcript provided says "partial transcript"......and fails to mention Saudi Arabia, but it does feature Alex trying to get Sibel Edmonds to say "inside job". It's headlined
Foremost 9/11 Whistleblower Discusses Possibility Attack Was Inside Job

Edmonds agrees weight of evidence leans towards criminal complicity
Doesn't mention Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia.....just "inside job". Alex Jones knows his audience will read that as Israel?

Rivero of whatreallyhappened,com certainly must know that his audience will suspect Israeli involvement at the merest mention of the phrases "inside job", "government complicity", "foreign government involvement" etc. he does everything he can to make sure his audience thinks like that. Purposefully avoiding mentioning Saudi can only help create such impressions in his audience's mind.

Whatreallyhappened has this on Sibel Edmonds:
....if she is to be believed, a treasonous plot to embed moles in American military and nuclear installations and pass sensitive intelligence to Israeli, Pakistani, and Turkish sources was facilitated by figures in the upper echelons of the State and Defense Departments. Her charges could be easily confirmed or dismissed if classified government documents were made available to investigators.
LINK
No mention of Saudi Arabia at all. But Israel appears in the list, of course. Maybe Israel deserves to be in the list, in this case, but why not Saudi Arabia? It seems a concerted, or at least subconcious, effort at avoiding mentioning Saudi and AQ, unless it is in terms of "government contact" with AQ. But anyway, government contact with Al Qaeda in no ways means the government intended Al Qaeda to attack America.

Another reference at WRH to Edmonds says:
How many House or Senate Republicans have you heard screaming, or even better, calling for an investigation? The right wing remains silent. Some may have their hand, directly or indirectly, in the same AIPAC cookie jar.
LINK
Israel (AIPAC) again, but nothing about Saudi Arabia.

It's funny - try to find a mention about Saudi Arabia amongst the far-right connected 911-conspiracy crowd and there's absolutely nothing. Indeed, the far-right has a record of tactically embracing Islam, with the intent of making common cause against their shared enemy - Israel.

Sibel Edmonds appears frequently amongst the far-right 911-conspiracist crowd - but her claims are edited, and waved around only to confirm the meme that "foreign governments" were involved with 911. Nothing is mentioned about Saudi or about Islam.

Amongst such a morass of stories and commentary that "Israel did it!", Sibel Edmonds' quotes about "foreign government involvement", shorn of any implicatory mention of Saudi, are clearly meant to implicate Israel - and that's how the far-right 911 conspiracy sites employ her quotations.

51 comments:

socrates said...

Now this is getting insane. I don't check out Prison Planet and Rivero anymore. Not that I did that much to begin with. I am on the net a bit and never knew of Edmonds doing an interview with Alex Jones. Now why on Earth would someone who wants her story to be taken seriously go on that show? That doesn't add up.

I think what these people do is take a real story, like say election fraud, 9/11 anomalies, Turkish denial of genocide, corrupt politicians, and then they spin some yarn around it. This is about the rich man's version of tinfoil.

I swear just a bit ago I noticed Edmonds guest blogging and posting at BradBlog, and it really threw me for a loop. But now I am grateful to know of one other person not to be taken seriously. Of course, if one were to try to publicise such concerns at BradBlog, they would be censored, ridiculed, or buried in hundreds of meaningless woo woo posts.

I used to be a regular at BradBlog. I got ripped a new one by Agent99 for referring to Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist. Well, what the heck is he then?

Let's see. Say you had an important story to share with the world. Where would you try to get such ideas published that were being ignored by the main stream press? Would you try some free progressive weeklies like the Boston Phoenix, or would you hook up with Brett Kimberlin and Alex Jones?

Michael Moore came out with this angle of yours back in the day. He was concerned how all these Bin Laden family members and Saudi Arabian associates were allowed to leave America, while every other form of commercial aircraft was grounded.

the_last_name_left said...

if i wanted to break a story, i'd do it myself. there's nothing to stop anyone doing it themselves anymore.

does it matter if it's on bradblog or xyz blog, really?

How much that stuff matters is an indication of how wrong everything is. Equal voices? Sure....it just isn't true.

I would go on Alex Jones - but I would challenge everything. I have no respect for the people who go on there and just answer his questions. Why has no guest ever said they disagreed with him? Why has no guest ever said "You know what, Alex, you talk a load of shit........and you're wrong because of xyz, and you're full of shit because of abc, and you disgust me because of LMNOPQRST?

Nobody on his show ever disagrees in the least with him. They pay to go, so why would they disagree?

Do they pay to go on? I've seen it claimed by a former guest that people do have to pay to go on. ie the whole thing is advertising.

Regardless - he has nobody on his show who will challenge his bullshit. his bullshit couldn't withstand the least criticism - and it never gets it. part of the deal about going on his show?

Wayne Madsen has been a guest.......why ? who cares if LAex has "an audience" - if you aren't going to challenge Alex's worldview, you have no reason to be on there.

Alex Jones IS a conspiracy theorist - but that's too grand a word - "theory". It's not a theory - it's a crock of shit. Nobody calls total nutcases "theorists". Conspiracism doesn't deserve the term "theory".
Not until it deserves the term.

Anyway - nobody goes on Alex Jones - unless they're tossers. I wouldn't go on there - unless it was to say "you're a total fucking tosser! WILLIS CARTO ! DAVID DUKE ! REV PIKE !!! MIKE RIVERO !! " etc Alex Jones is a piece of shit to anybody who is genuinely "left", "progressive", "liberal".

On michael moore - look at how much attention his "SICKO" got amongst the conspiracy crowd? That was a big wake-up for me. The 911 crowd - the fake fucking critics in 911 conspiracy - they all ignored SICKO. They fucking BURIED it.

Yeah, right.

FUCK YOU and your fucking fake criticism!!!!

The way Rivero and Alex Jones and all the rest of those far-right fucks ignored and buried Moore's SICKO was an eye-opener. It just confirmed what I'd been seeing.

They were saying "fuck you and your healthcare!" "Fuck you Mikey Moore!"" "Fuck you and your cuban fucking healthcare!"

Yeah........right. Now you're exposed, Rivero, Jones? Your criticism stops there? So you have no real criticism......

the_last_name_left said...

yet they are the ones saying there's no left/right!!!

why in hell would they say that when they disagree with people?

of course there's differences! that's the issue - the differences!

the_last_name_left said...

there's no left or right - it's all bull.

so why disagree with socialised healthcare?

the_last_name_left said...

"there's no difference" is what Alex and his toadies say.....I mean.

of course there's differences - else why not agree with socialised healthcare, for example?

they disagree - but they say there's no difference between left and right.

FUCK YOU

socrates said...

That there's no difference between left and right is saying there is none between night and day. One emphasises a planned economy, the other a free market. One professor I had said it'd probably be best to have a mix of the two. I think the basics should be inherent rights. Shelter, food, housing, education, and yes, health care. Do these fockers want to spend 20 dollars for a box of cereal? I hear your anger, and I agree with it. These people are the scum of the earth selling snake oil for a buck or for psyops or both.


If people have to pay to go on that dumbass show, that implies someone like Sibel Edmonds is a paid disinfo bitch. Unless she has some hard core evidence, she is just talking trash. Did I say Tinoire claimed to be military intel without evidence, or the same about Michael Rivero working for the world's largest military contractor? How come all these dumbasses supporting this network of paid fakes have nothing to say about Rivero being tied to the military? They talk up cointelpro and all this evil new world order and whatnot, so why would any of them trust Jones and Rivero? I think it's because most of them are either slightly retarded or paid fascists acting out their jobs via the blogosphere.

the_last_name_left said...

i was drunk - and angry. ooops.

Not sure if I can find the claims about paying to go on AJ's show. I know I posted about the claims once. They might not be true.......but I wouldn't be surprised. I remember posting about Prisonplanet's advertising page....where it used to say "adverts are disguised as news links"....."ensuring frequent hits".....

LOL. I loved that - "disguised as news". haha. They changed the page not long after - not sure if it was down to me pointing it out.

What I dislike about these places is there's no accountability: they seemingly can lie at will, and never EVER do they say "we made a big mistake - we said this, we were wrong". Neither do they have transparency over their ownership and funding. Nor do they have statements of principles people can hold them to. Nothing - just constant, self-serving output. For who? For what? To what end?

And they never carry anything critical of themselves - unless it's to call it "a smear", "a hackjob" etc. i wouldn't care if they didn't appear to be so popular and ubiquitous.

socrates said...

I thought something was up. You're usually Mr. Groovy for the most part.

I just noticed you made a few posts at my blogspot. I hadn't been to the email in a while which informs me of posts. I guess better late than never. This is why you should have comments on moderation, or at least set it so you are informed of every post that is added. Otherwise, stuff could easily be added to the archives, and you'd never know about it.

There's another name you can check out. Patrick Timpone. He works with Alex Jones. I agree with you that these people never exhibit one drop of critical thought and self-reflection. You are correct that these people never correct themselves. Which brings us to today's news about Dick Cheney coming out and saying he had problems with Bush because he was too conciliatory. Cheney was like never apologise for nothing. I guess that is a primary fascist trait. All macho and no female. You know, there's a reason God invented yin and yang.

It's insane that Edmonds went on Alex Jones' show. Now it adds up why she is hooked up with Brett Kimberlin. These people are schizophrenic-like. On the one hand, they want to have all this credibility. But on the other, their stuff lacks in such. So what is going on here? These people can't believe in what they peddle. Are they evil? You'd have to be evil to make money off of hoaxes, tinfoil, and the promotion of hate and fascism. They must know what they are doing. An election integrity activist I was emailing with told me that Brad might have a serious drug problem. Well, drug use isn't gonna explain how someone believes in bullshit. It might explain how someone justifies bad behaviour in search of drug money.

the_last_name_left said...

1n 1998 he launched The Patrick Timpone Show on 590KLBJ 6-8 PM every Saturday. The Show is focuses on health with a monthly appearance by an expert on the U.S. Monetary system, Andrew Gause –for the last Saturday show, “The Real World of Money>”

Hmmmm. Health ----> money. errr........right. :)

Poor digestion is the cause of allergies for instance. Interesting.

I call bullshit. People get allergies to ecstacy - "E". They poorly digested it, huh? Rubbish.

And WTF are you supposed to do about "digestion" when it happens all by itself?

Humans were engineered to eat raw food. Our intestines are made for raw food. That’s a proven fact.

Raw food is more difficult to digest than cooked food - that's partly why we cook it FFS!

Eating a raw food diet simply is not going to happen for most of us, for a variety of reasons. So, the easiest way to assist is to take a good digestive enzyme with each meal and also supplement our diet with hydrochloric acid. Premier Research labs of Round Rock, Texas makes a good Digestive enzyme and HCL supplements.

Listen to our show Saturdays 6PM on 590 KLBJ and we go into great deal about the digestion challenge. But, for now try the enzymes and HCL and you’ll feel better right away.


Hmmmm. Buy our stuff? And ADD HCL acid? You're kidding!?

He sounds like a joker - another charlatan.

Cannabis cure cancer! LOL

Larry said...

"FUCK YOU and your fucking fake criticism!!!!"

Hmmmm, who has FOUL language NOW????

Larry said...

Still waiting on a picture of a univeral collapse of a building that resulted from fires and damage. Remember, the term is UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE.

Still waiting......

the_last_name_left said...

Still waiting for Larry to ansswer if he's an architect.

I sent you a link already on a report that discusses 8 full collapses. It says ANY building which has a fire and lacks fire protection etc is at danger of full or partial collapse.

It was written by architectural consultants........but you're an architect and you disagree. Fine.

the_last_name_left said...

Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire
by
Beitel, J. J., Hughes Associates, Inc
Iwankiw, N. R., Hughes Associates, Inc

Partial collapses (14 events) were the most frequent
occurrences, and the three World Trade Center complete collapses dominated the full
collapse event total of eight cases.

This data demonstrated that buildings of all types of construction and
occupancies, in North America, and abroad, are susceptible to fire-induced collapse,
particularly older buildings.


.......

If the fire could not be quickly contained and suppressed by sprinklers, firefighters, or
other fire protection measures, it posed a serious life safety hazard for any of the building
occupants present. Continued fire spread can lead to a partial or total collapse in a multi-
story building, compounding occupant losses, as in some of the cases described above


LINK

the_last_name_left said...

and there's a thread dedicated to this Larry - keep it in there?

Larry said...

"I sent you a link already on a report that discusses 8 full collapses. It says ANY building which has a fire and lacks fire protection etc is at danger of full or partial collapse."

But, yet you cant name one? Did these buildings have names? Were there pictures of the "full" collapses? Wheres the evidence? Where's the pics?

Im waiting.....yawn...

So far youve sent me an invalid link of the McCormick Center which wasnt universal and I had to provide the RIGHT link. Then you sent me a video of that college library that collapsed in the Netherlands---partical collapse--not universal. The funny thing about that collapse was---it SUPPORTED my view of WTC 7, because that's the way WTC 7 SHOULD have collapsed.

Waiting on the links and pictures of these "8 buildings" that suffered FULL collapses. I'll be ignored Im sure

Larry said...

Notice you said ".... ANY building which has a fire and lacks fire protection etc is at danger of full or partial collapse."

Saying it's "in danger" of it is not synonymous with it "HAS" happened. The Earth is in danger of being wiped out by solar flares from the sun, but HAS IT HAPPENED?

Give me links to the pictures of these collapses. Surely you have the evidence right??

the_last_name_left said...

This is the wrong place, Larry.....there's a thread dedicated to the issue.

McCormick shows steel-frame buildings can collapse from fire.

The report, by professionals, says ANY types of buildings are at a danger of suffering partial or full collapse if fire-fighting systems are compromised.

The report details the buildings - go look at it.

WTC1+2 (and 7) all collapsed on one day. There is no evidence for any reason to explain their collapse other than planes, explosions, fires (plus debris damage for 7).

If you have any evidence for any other explanation for their collapse, what is it? You don't have any. You only have your a priori belief that full collapse was "impossible".

You say no building had collapsed prior to WTC7 - seemingly forgetting two buildings had entirely collapsed earlier that very day - WTC1+2.

Here's the questions you never answer Larry:

---Are you an architect?
---What's your alternative explanation for WTC collapses?
---Why do you link to jooooo-hate websites?

socrates said...

There's a bunch of stuff going on here. Of course Larry is an over the top conspiracy theorist. He is a wingnut of epic proportions. He's got no clue about how he appears. Otherwise, why would he link to Jeff Rense? Why would he dodge the accountability issues? Basically, why doesn't he care who he is associated with? If he could own up to these fundaamental problems, maybe he has things to offer. I notice he also links to Raw Story and keeps saying there is no difference between left and right. That's fried. That's Tinoire style. Will Larry be informing folks someday that he was military intelligence, worked for McDonnell Douglas, or is Brett Kimberlin's nephew?

As for this 9/11 topic, I admit it is not my forte so both of you will know this is where I'm comong from. I hate to admit it, but I tend to go with Larry on this one. That link is cover for the official story. It doesn't appear solid enough to definitively evoke with sincere authority that big buildings will fall like they did due to fire. One would think that planes are now equipped with less fire provoking jet fuel. One would think a building hit on the side would topple over. One would think they wouldn't have fallen at what appeared as free fall/CD. One would think the debunkers would leave at least a bit of wiggle room with their points. The ones I have seen, at the now deleted Randi Rhodes Message Board and at the heavily censored Democratic Underground, are basically sadistic assholes many of which come from the JREF cult. Again, this isn't my topic, so there probably isn't much use in my getting involved. But to both of you, if you really want fence sitters and newbies to listen to what you're saying, you should make it interesting and easy to understand. Plus, no one wants to read personality clashes. No one wants to read the evoking of authority. No one wants to read woo woo. No one wants to hear about Alex Jones and Eustace Mullins. No one wants to read cursing and screaming capital letters, or at least not too often. Personally, I don't appreciate Larry never having anything to say about the topics at hand. He's got nothing on what we have been discussing about Sibel Edmonds and BradBlog. For the love of God, he links to Jeff Rense. What kind of nonsense is that? These woo woo people are everywhere, and they are tied to mostly nonsense and a good chunk of anti-semitism. These are the types who used to be into the John Birch Society and Lyndon LaRouche. These are the types who sided with the Republicans in blasting Bill Clinton. These are the types who now go after Obama in a way that makes them appear as unhinged tea party/townhall wingnuts. There are incredible amounts of differences between left and right. One final point. Obama and Clinton are not left wing for the most part. They are moderate Republicans/classic liberals- Republocrats, so to speak, the true essence of no difference between parties, or triangulation. The true left has never had power in America. If one wants to call FDR a socialist, go for it. But it wouldn't be an honest statement. Until there is equality in health care, schools, housing, food, etc., until the military-industrial complex is disbanded, there will be no socialism/left wing ideological power in America. There are traces of it. But that is all- traces.

Larry said...

"This is the wrong place, Larry.....there's a thread dedicated to the issue."

More dodde, deflect and ignore tactics.

"McCormick shows steel-frame buildings can collapse from fire."

Yes and as I PROVED to you by sending you a CORRECT LINK that actully showed a picture of it (your link did NOT)--the McCormick Center was NOT A UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE. I know you have a selective memory but you told me about McCormick as a reply to my question "Name ONE building that suffered universal collapse due to FIRE and damage"---thn you sent the INVALID link of the McC Center---which did NOT answer my question. It was NOT universal collapse.

"The report, by professionals, says ANY types of buildings are at a danger of suffering partial or full collapse if fire-fighting systems are compromised."

But yet you cant name ONE by name that did? If you cant name ONE and theres NO precedent for it, ho did policeman and firefighters KNOW it was coming down before it did???

Hmmm???

"You say no building had collapsed prior to WTC7 - seemingly forgetting two buildings had entirely collapsed earlier that very day - WTC1+2."

1 and 2 were hit by PLANES--and even THAT doesnt explain why the South tower collapsed FIRST when it was the SECOND building hit. What about the 47 steel beams in the center of the twin towers? Why did the 9-11 commission say in their "investigation" they had HALLOW centers???

I asked you SPECIFICALLY-----what buildng other than WTC 7 has suffered a UNIVERSAL collapse due to FIRE AND DAMAGE ALONE?? And your answer was "the McCormick Center"--not a universal collapse. Then you said the college library in the Netherlands---not a universal collapse. NOW youre saying the twin towers---which was NOT BY FIRE AND DAMAGE BY DEBRIS---but by PLANES.

WHEN WILL YOU GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF A UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE OF A BUILDING BY FIRE AND BEING HIT BY DEBRIS ALONE??

Funny, when I mentioned the OTHER buildings that were damaged MORE and burned more severe fires, you said "Not the same structure and size"----but then you give three examples to argue your case FOR collapse that were NOT the same structure and size: McCormick, Netherlands college library and WTC 1 and 2!!! Unbelievable that I have to use your OWN argument against you!

So answer my question:

WHEN WILL YOU GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF A UNIVERSAL COLLAPSE OF A BUILDING BY FIRE AND BEING HIT BY DEBRIS ALONE??

If they did studies on buildings that suffered universal collapses---what are the NAMES of the buildings? Wheres the pics? I see socrates is sucking your dick and pretending not to see that you CONTINUALLY refuse to answer my questions---you RESPOND to them but you IGNORE the question---thats called DODGING.

If you have the TRUTH, why the need to dodge and deflect?

the_last_name_left said...

Larry - are you an architect?

Aren't you embarassed you've avoided answering that simple question 20 times?

Here's some more questions you pretend to never see - ie these are questions you have dodged, over and over and over:

Why do you link to jew-hate websites?

Why do you link to Nazi-affiliated websites?

What is your explanation for the collapses on 911?

How many times have you avoided addressing these questions, Larry?

Over and over again you refuse to answer, and just pretend they've never been asked.

Then you have the gall to ask: "why the need to dodge and deflect?"

LOL.

As for the total-collapses mentioned in the report I posted, well......they are in the report I posted. Imagine that!? How amazing.

Anyway - that's hardly the point.

You aren't going to be swayed, so what's the point? You are entitled to believe what you like - so change the record?

Real Truth Online said...

I have actually already answered this question numerous times---ahhh but you wont post THAT will you? I said I am NOT answering your questions until you give me ONE example of a universal collapse of a building due to fire pre-9/11. I asked MY question WAY before you asked yours.

But, thats your psychotic debate tactic: You ignore my question and then ask a question in reply and tell me you wont answer MINE unless I answer YOURS, even though MY question was asked FIRST, then you not only keep IGNORING my quesion, you continue to tack on more questions asked WAYYY after mine were asked to somehow try to trick your one reader into believing I ignored not just ONE question, but multiple questions---when the truth is, you KNOW darn well I originally said I wont answer yours until mine is addressed.

I am STILL waiting on ONE example of a universal collapse---and in order for you to avoid answering me, you ask me MULTIPLE questions in an attempt to cause a distraction so you can play the "He's avoiding my questions" game when in reality, thats the ENTIRE reason youre ASKING the questions, to AVOID answering mine!

You need 24 hour doctor care and to be heavily medicated.

I know now I will NEVER get an answer from you---thats mainly because you CANNOT give me an example of a universal collapse of a building pre-9/11, because not one exists.

the_last_name_left said...

L: you CANNOT give me an example of a universal collapse of a building pre-9/11, because not one exists.

Apart from the 7 others included in the report I linked to?

It isn't my fault you just reject any evidence which doesn't fit your preconceived notions Larry.

Here's the view of real engineers, Larry:
....buildings of all types of construction and
occupancies, in North America, and abroad, are susceptible to fire-induced collapse,
particularly older buildings.


But you continue trusting your intuition, huh?

I mean, you are an architect after all, right? So you know about such things, obviously.

Larry said...

"Apart from the 7 others included in the report I linked to?"

For the 4th time now---do these buildings have NAMES? Are there PICTURES? I'll be IGNORED on this AGAIN

"....buildings of all types of construction and
occupancies, in North America, and abroad, are susceptible to fire-induced collapse,
particularly older buildings."

LOL, WTC 7 was 14 YEARS OLD at the time of it's collapse-----HARDLY ANYONE'S definition of OLD!! Any video evidence to back up that quote? Pictures??? So, if you just SAY it, it's true? LOL. Are you saying 14 years old is OLD for a building?? Not only is 14 years old NOT OLD, but WTC 7 was STATE OF THE ART!!!

"But you continue trusting your intuition, huh?"

No--I rely on VIDEO EVIDENCE, PICTURES, VERIFYABLE SOURCES and EVIDENCE to back up GENERAL statements----NONE of which you provide--even after REPEATED requests.

But you IGNORE demolition experts like Danny Jowenko who says WTC 7 was a controlled demolition huh? Where are the NAMES of your "experts"? Do they have NAMES? Do they have pictures of collapses of buildings that were 14 years old or even CLOSE to that VERY YOUNG AGE for a building?

Heres my evidence
http://www.911blogger.com/
node/2807

Larry said...

Demo EXPERT Danny Jowenko:

http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I&eurl
=http%3A%2F%2F911blogger.com
%2Fnode%2F3231

the_last_name_left said...

Larry / Real Truth - For the 4th time now---do these buildings have NAMES? Are there PICTURES? I'll be IGNORED on this AGAIN

So even you admit that you've been given this report at least 4 times. LOL

Why don't you go and actually look at it?

Of course they have names. No - the report does not include pictures.

LOL, WTC 7 was 14 YEARS OLD at the time of it's collapse-----HARDLY ANYONE'S definition of OLD!! Any video evidence to back up that quote? Pictures???

it says 'particularly older buildings', not ONLY older buildings. Duh.

you IGNORE demolition experts like Danny Jowenko who says WTC 7 was a controlled demolition huh?

You ignore evidence, Larry. How come you have to ask if the report you've been given 6 times has pictures? Because you ignore it.

How come you reject the NIST report, Mackey's explanations, the firemen testimony, the fire-chief's testimony?

Clearly it's YOU whom ignores evidence Larry.

As for Jowenko - interesting that we're only now supposed to pay special attention to (one person's) expertise. And why this one person? Because he appears to support your claim. LOL. It's called cherry-picking - confirmation bias. What about expertise when it disagrees? You just disregard it like it doesn't exist.

And you know Jowenko doesn't believe WTC 1+2 were controlled demolitions?

The only reason we're supposed to listen to Jowenko as opposed to the enormous number of other experts who disagree with him is because you think he agrees with you, and the rest don't.

Tsk - what a way to carry on.

And what does Jowenko say?

For me, it is a little bit "watching coffee dregs," I mean, that is not a lot of information. If we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers...

LINK


Worth considering his opinion - but why not anyone else's Larry? And why not weight his single opinion against the enormous number of experts who disagree - and whom were involved in the actual investigation - not just watching the very limited information available via youtube?

He even says himself, "it isn't much to go on" - and the need for pictures from "the other side".

It's funny how you find this one guy so important, and disregard the rest. That's indicative of your flawed method.

I'm happy to take onboard what he says - however you simply reject anything which disagrees with your view. Like the people actually involved in the investigation - for example - which you simply totally disregard because of your prejudice. You are totally committed to demolition and nothing else matters. Hardly the correct approach, but there we are.

Larry said...

"Of course they have names. No - the report does not include pictures."

THEN WHAT ARE THE NAMES????

NO PICTURES! LOL! OF COURSE THERES NO PICTURES, WHO NEEDS EVIDENCE RIGHT??? LOL

"So even you admit that you've been given this report at least 4 times."

Yep---the burden of proof is on YOU---NOT me. YOU must supply the names and info, not me. YOURE the one trying to prove that point. So, youre saying if youre a prosecuting lawyer and you had evidence to get your client off---I would have to do that research and not you???? LOL

You said:

"it says 'particularly older buildings', not ONLY older buildings. Duh."

Yeah, and EVERY building in the report you supplied was OLD---REALLY OLD. NONE were even CLOSE to 14 years old----arent YOU th one who used as a defense [when i said WTC 5 and 6 didnt collapse] dont give examples of buildings not the same structure , size, etc....I would think AGE is a HUGE factor as well---and NO building on that report was even CLOSE to 14 years old!

You said:

"As for Jowenko - interesting that we're only now supposed to pay special attention to (one person's) expertise. And why this one person? Because he appears to support your claim. LOL. It's called cherry-picking - confirmation bias. What about expertise when it disagrees? You just disregard it like it doesn't exist.

And you know Jowenko doesn't believe WTC 1+2 were controlled demolitions?"

TALK ABOUT CHERRY PICKING! Ive already PROVED you do that! And by the way, another reason why WTC 7 is such a big deal is because if that was a controlled demolition [which I believe was] it wouldnt matter about WTC 1 & 2 or even the Pentagon. If government officials or black ops took out WTC 7, that means WE (the USA) is covering up something---so the rest wouldnt matter.

You said (hilariously):

"I'm happy to take onboard what he says - however you simply reject anything which disagrees with your view. Like the people actually involved in the investigation - for example - which you simply totally disregard because of your prejudice."

I reject anyone who ignores FACTS, like YOU. Evety single example you have given me has been debunked.

McCormick Center---not universal collapse

College Library in the Netherlands---not a universal collapse

The so-called "report"----ALL buildings were VERY old and you have NO pictures of them---LOL.

You said:

"Like people actually involved in the investigation"

LOL--what investigation??? What investigation are you referring to? The 9-11 commission? For your info-----THE 9-11 COMMISSION DID NOT MENTION OR INVESTIGATE WTC 7 ONCE IN THE ENTIRE 571 PAGE REPORT. WTC 7 WAS COMPLETELY EXCLUDED. SO, I ASK YOU AGAIN:

WHAT INVESTIGATION OF WTC 7 ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

Going to dodge and deflect THAT too???

the_last_name_left said...

L:YOU must supply the names and info, not me.

LOL - you admit I've given you the link loads of times already. Why don't you do something yourself and look at the report? Obviously you haven't - oh truthseeker.

YOURE the one trying to prove that point

Funny - because you are the one saying "inside job" and controlled demolition - and your evidence amounts to absolutely diddly squat.

But that doesn't matter for you does it? There's your (self) deceit - right there.

You have NO EVIDENCE FOR CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. I have supplied loads of evidence for the obvious explantion - but that's all it is evidence - there is no such thing as absolute proof going to be possible.

You on the other hand have provided absolutely ZILCH evidence for ANY alternative hypothesis, let alnoe for controlled demolition.

When you can come up with the evidence you will have a case - until then you don't have one. That's what you continually fail to understand.

WHAT INVESTIGATION OF WTC 7 ARE YOU REFERRING TO?


NIST.

What controlled demolition hypothesis are you referring to? Larry's own?

Are you an architect, Larry?

Larry said...

"Funny - because you are the one saying "inside job" and controlled demolition - and your evidence amounts to absolutely diddly squat."

LOL, is that why you come up with bogus comparisons like the McCormick Center and the College library in the Netherlands. Is that why you feel the need to OMIT portions of my posts to make your points? You have the "truth", yet you have to give shoddy evidence and have to edit my posts to justify yourself. LOL

I rest my case at last. You cannot give the names of the buildings because if you gave names, I could find pictures and if I could find pictures, I could show you that they were NOT universal collapses! you are a FRAUD

Larry said...

NIST??? Are you kidding me?

You mean THIS NIST report?

http://www.nist.gov/
public_affairs/releases/
wtc082108.html

Hmmmmm. It says in this report that "This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building". NIST says its the FIRST TIME FIRE CAUSED A COLLAPSE, but YOU said in your "report" its happened before!!! Either YOU are a liar or NIST is!

It took THREE years for them to come to the conclusion it was FIRES????

And since you trust NIST so much and THEY said it was the FIRST TIME FIRE CAUSED A BUILDING TO COLLAPSE----please explain to me HOW firefighters and policemen KNEW it was coming down BEFORE it did. Explain how the BBC reported its collapse BEFORE it collapsed. Explain how CNN reported the collapse BEFORE it collapsed.

NIST completely IGNORED the molten metal found in the rubble of WTC 7.

Paul Watson wrote right after the NIST report came out:

"We are actually being asked to believe the impossible – that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate."

Also, NIST was NOT peer reviewed. Numerous experts have questioned NIST's conclusions. They are:

Dr. James Quintiere
Dr. Joerg Schneider
Dr. Hugo Bachmann
Kamal S. Obeid
Ronald H. Brookman
Graham John Inman
Danny Jowenko
Dr. David L. Griscom
and of course Richard Gage---who said:

"Tons of [molten metal] was found 21 days after the attack,” said Gage in an interview with a Vancouver, Canada television station. “Steel doesn’t begin to melt until 2,700 degrees, which is much hotter than what these fires could have caused.”

I cant believe you believe the debunked NIST report-----even when NIST completely contradicts your "report" that said that it has happened before----NIST says it DIDNT.

How will you spin and ignore this?

the_last_name_left said...

See if you can understand this:

From the report FOR NIST:
Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire
by
Beitel, J. J., Hughes Associates, Inc
Iwankiw, N. R., Hughes Associates, Inc.
-snip-
A multi-story building was defined
to consist of 4 or more stories


Multi-storey.

From NIST report:

This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building

In the NIST Final Report "tall buildings" are defined as "taller than 15 or 20 storeys"

Understand?

The NIST report says "had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available, and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likely that fires in WTC7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.However, the collapse of WTC7 highlights the importance of designing fire-resistant structures for situations where sprinklers are not present, do not function (eg due to disconnected or impaired water supply), or are overwhelmed.

And

This was a fire induced progressive collapse, also known as disproportionate collapse, which is defined as the spread of local damage, from an initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure, or a disproportionately large part of it.

LINK


I think it was reasonable to be suspicious immediately after 911 - when we had no information, were in a state of shock, and were lacking proper explanations.

Read the NIST reports now and I find it very hard to see why people are still so suspicious.

Well, I do understand it insofar as people are wedded to a wider idea - a political conception - a worldview - and that's what sustains (demands!) their suspicion. People need to believe in the conspiracy to sustain the worldview they've built-up. Without the conspiracy their entire worldview is far less sustainable - hence their attachment to it.

the_last_name_left said...

That's why 911 is so important to the conspiracists - and not to anyone else in the same way.

That's also why evidence is so unimportant, and so completely disregarded by conspiracists, but not by anyone else.

Because 911 plays a fundamental part in conspiracists worldview......and they need to sustain that worldview, obviously. That's why it has come to increasingly resemble a cult.

Conspiracists like to suggest "disbelievers" are incapable of imagining their government was capable of such a thing - hence their disbelief. But really the facts of the matter are that conspiracists are committed to the worldview that their government does such things. They "know" it did such a thing - the only thing is to find out how it did it.

the_last_name_left said...

And that's arse-backwards. Obviously.

Larry said...

"This was a fire induced progressive collapse, also known as disproportionate collapse, which is defined as the spread of local damage, from an initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure, or a disproportionately large part of it."

if it was DISPROPORTIONATE----WHY DID IT COLLAPSE PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL????


Hmmmmm????????

What's your point about bringing up that the NIST report said it was the first TALL building that collapsed due to fire?? Were the buildings in YOUR stupid "report" all shorter than 15-20 stories??? If so, than ONCE AGAIN, you are using your OWN logic AGAINST you when you said to me on August 2:

"Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No."

Funny how you used the fact that WTC 4, 5 and 6 werent the same design, height and position when you was arguing why they DIDNT collapse on 9-11, but you throw that logic out the window when you mention your stupid "report" of other buildings that supposedly collapsed pre-9/11 due to fire. Now you use the NIST report as a defense by pointing out that they said "first TALL building"---well, unless the buildings in your report are all 15-20 stories or less then there's no point in bringing the stupid report up! And if the buildings in your report are taller than 15-20 stories, then either YOU are lying or NIST is when they said its the first TALL building to collapse due to fire.

So, I ask you Mr. "I have my "report""-----how tall were the supposed univeral collpsed buildings in your report?? Let me guess, I have to do YOUR research AGAIN?? LOL. How tall were the buildings? Got an answer? Or will I be ignored like I ALWAYS am?

You also said this to me:

"Buildings have collapsed before from fire - even steel framed ones. There are plenty of transcripts and statements from FDNY that say they were worried the building was going to collapse. The Silverstein episode even makes that clear. Don't pretend you aren't aware of them?"

OK--how did they KNOW WTC 7 was going to collapse when NIST even admitted it was the first TALL building to collapse due to fire(and you AGREE with NIST)???

You AND NIST are implying there were buildings that suffered universal collapses pre-9/11 that were SHORTER buildings. OK, how tall were the buildings that supposedly collapsed by fire prior to WTC 7? And since you are saying that the buildings were SHORTER, how would the firefighters KNOW a TALL building would collapse when it had NEVER happened before?

You even said it above --you said "Buildings have collapsed before from fire - even steel framed ones."----were you referring to other buildings of the same SIZE, HEIGHT and LOCATION? If so, name them! If not, name the ones that were NOT the same SIZE, HEIGHT and LOCATION. AND, if ONLY shorter buildings collapsed in the past----how did the firefighters and cops know that would happen to a TALL one?

Face it. I have cornered you with facts and there's NO escape. Admit I crushed you with your OWN contradictions from your OWN words and what NIST has said. When you made that statement above, the one about "Buildings have collapsed before due to fire..."--you were referring to buildings JUST like WTC 7---NOT smaller ones, because smaller buildings wouldnt have applied to our debate!

YOU LOSE....AGAIN

You will ignore 90% of what I just said

Larry said...

Are you paying attention Socrates? Im nailing him with facts and Ive sent the Turd to the canvas for a knockout and you are silent, as usual. If you (or anyone for that matter) would read what Im saying, you will clearly see that I've destroyed the Turd once again.

How will he twist and distort my words this time? How will he dodge, deflect and ignore what I have said this time? I cant wait to see the dodging, twisting and omitting of my words.

Or will the big fat baby enable moderation AGAIN like a good, obedient little Nazi?

Larry said...

NIST said it was fire in 2005, then they took 3 years to put out another report. then in 2008, they said the cause was .......FIRE!!! THREE years to come to the same conclusion???

The amazing thing is, YOU BUY THIS SHIT!

the_last_name_left said...

I will ignore 90% of what you said because it's the same tired old rubbish.

You keep saying that "no building exactly like WTC7 had ever collapsed before" and then go on to ask "So how did the firemen know it was going to collapse? Eh? Eh?"

Think about it Larry?

Let's try a little thought experiment to help you through it?

Let's imagine that several identical buildings had collapsed from fire, in China, or anywhere.

Now, imagine some firemen fighting a fire in an identical building in USA somewhere - and the firemen were unaware that they were fighting a fire in a building identical to the ones in China that had collapsed previously.

Does that make it impossible for the building in the USA to collapse? Just because the firemen were unaware of identical buildings having collapsed before? Would it be IMPOSSIBLE for the American firemen to tell that the building might very well collapse?

The answer is - no - it would not be impossible for the firemen to tell the building was going to collapse, if there were very good signs that the building WAS going to collapse.

Got that? To be clear:

Lack of knowledge of identical buildings having previously collapsed does not preclude being able to tell a building is going to collapse.

Nor must it preclude the building from collapsing.

Read the firemen's testimony - they had good reason to suspect the building was going to collapse. And lo and behold - it collapsed.

Plus there's the simple logical fallacy you're falling into when you assume that because something hasn't happened before, it can't happen in the future.

(The first time something happens, of course there is no previous occasion.)

Has anyone ever flown jets into the WTC before and there were no collapses? No.

The point about the report on previous collapses - of multi-storey buildings - shows buildings can suffer total collapse. It's true that none of the buildings in that report were identical to WTC7 and it's true none of them were "tall buildings" in the sense the Final Nist Report used the term. But why does that make it "impossible"? It doesn't. Why don't you get that?

You insist lack of identical previous occurrence means total collapse of WTC7 was "impossible" and that the firemen could not have known it was going to collapse. You then assert that therefore it *must* have been controlled demolition.

You don't realise how much of a leap you're making there, do you?

And yet what is the evidence for controlled demolition? There's no evidence. All you have is your leap to the conclusion it was "impossible" for WTC to suffer total collapse - and "impossible" for the firemen to have suspected it was going to collapse.

That's you claiming it was "impossible" - that's all. You have no positive evidence for any other explanation, and you have no personal expertise upon which to base your intuition it was "impossible."

You're not an architect, are you, Larry?

I draw attention to you again moving away from offering any explanation of how your hypothesis of controlled demolition was achieved. You're back to pursuing the same questions we've been through already and which clearly you reject.

So what is your hypothesis, and how do you answer the questions I posed about it? WHAT WHEN HOW WHO WHERE etc? See - you can't even begin to address them.......you have nothing except your intuition "it's impossible".

Larry said...

Yep--i KNEW you'd ignore when Ive crushed you with facts!

Funny how you blasted me for my "foul language" on your site, but you go to PrisonPlanet and type this repeatedly on the threads:

"ALEX JONES IS A CUNT – YEAH SUPPORT LIBERTY – ALEX SUPPORTS NAZIS – ALEX IS A FRIEND OF FASCIST TWATS – ALEX SUPPORTS WILLIS CARTO – ALEX EMPLOYS JIM TUCKER – ALEX EMPLOYS MIKE RIVERO – RIVERO PUBLISHES CURT “kill the niggers” MAYNARD – ALEX SUPPORTS AFP’s JOOOO HATING REV PIKE – ALEX PUBLISHES AFP’S JOOOO HATING BOLLYN – ALEX JONES IS A CLOSET FASCIST SUPPORTING CUNT"

Under the screen name "Giant Haystacks" under this story:

http://www.prisonplanet.com
/two-faced-pelosi-if-you-
protest-republicans-
you%e2%80%99re-
%e2%80%9cvery-american%e2%80%9d
-if-you-protest-democrats-
you%e2%80%99re-a-
%e2%80%9cnazi%e2%80%9d.html

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, it "wasnt you". You'll be a COWARD and deny it!

Anyone who spams up a thread like that----ESPECIALLY on a site they hate is an unstable, mentally-ill, psychotic ticking time bomb.

I KNEW you would IGNORE my question where I asked HOW TALL WERE THE BUILDINGS IN THE REPORT YOU GAVE? HOW TALL WERE THEY?

ILL KEEP POSTING MY POST UNTIL YOU ANSWER IT

Larry said...

"This was a fire induced progressive collapse, also known as disproportionate collapse, which is defined as the spread of local damage, from an initiating event, from element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure, or a disproportionately large part of it."

if it was DISPROPORTIONATE----WHY DID IT COLLAPSE PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL????


Hmmmmm????????

What's your point about bringing up that the NIST report said it was the first TALL building that collapsed due to fire?? Were the buildings in YOUR stupid "report" all shorter than 15-20 stories??? If so, than ONCE AGAIN, you are using your OWN logic AGAINST you when you said to me on August 2:

"Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No."

Funny how you used the fact that WTC 4, 5 and 6 werent the same design, height and position when you was arguing why they DIDNT collapse on 9-11, but you throw that logic out the window when you mention your stupid "report" of other buildings that supposedly collapsed pre-9/11 due to fire. Now you use the NIST report as a defense by pointing out that they said "first TALL building"---well, unless the buildings in your report are all 15-20 stories or less then there's no point in bringing the stupid report up! And if the buildings in your report are taller than 15-20 stories, then either YOU are lying or NIST is when they said its the first TALL building to collapse due to fire.

So, I ask you Mr. "I have my "report""-----how tall were the supposed univeral collpsed buildings in your report?? Let me guess, I have to do YOUR research AGAIN?? LOL. How tall were the buildings? Got an answer? Or will I be ignored like I ALWAYS am?

You also said this to me:

"Buildings have collapsed before from fire - even steel framed ones. There are plenty of transcripts and statements from FDNY that say they were worried the building was going to collapse. The Silverstein episode even makes that clear. Don't pretend you aren't aware of them?"

OK--how did they KNOW WTC 7 was going to collapse when NIST even admitted it was the first TALL building to collapse due to fire(and you AGREE with NIST)???

You AND NIST are implying there were buildings that suffered universal collapses pre-9/11 that were SHORTER buildings. OK, how tall were the buildings that supposedly collapsed by fire prior to WTC 7? And since you are saying that the buildings were SHORTER, how would the firefighters KNOW a TALL building would collapse when it had NEVER happened before?

You even said it above --you said "Buildings have collapsed before from fire - even steel framed ones."----were you referring to other buildings of the same SIZE, HEIGHT and LOCATION? If so, name them! If not, name the ones that were NOT the same SIZE, HEIGHT and LOCATION. AND, if ONLY shorter buildings collapsed in the past----how did the firefighters and cops know that would happen to a TALL one?

Face it. I have cornered you with facts and there's NO escape. Admit I crushed you with your OWN contradictions from your OWN words and what NIST has said. When you made that statement above, the one about "Buildings have collapsed before due to fire..."--you were referring to buildings JUST like WTC 7---NOT smaller ones, because smaller buildings wouldnt have applied to our debate!

YOU LOSE....AGAIN

the_last_name_left said...

You're just mental Larry.

You keep banging on asking the same pointless question - whilst avoiding the real ones that you need answer.

Pathetic.

the_last_name_left said...

L: Yep--i KNEW you'd ignore when Ive crushed you with facts!

You don't work with facts - you just ask the same question over and over - even though it's been addressed over and over.

Don't agree with the answer? fine.

On the other hand you just ignore questions asked of you. Because you can't even BEGIN to address them without exposing yourself.

Pathetic and dishonest. But you enjoy yourself, Larry - Master of the Universe - Hero - Superman. What a guy.

socrates said...

Ok, I can't keep track of every thread and post going on, but it does look like Larry has done a good job in this debate. I'm also curious why TLNL won't own the epitaths written under the other username or deny it. I also believe TLNL uses debate skills more often than sticking to the exact points. He really needs to come up with a similar situation to #7 in how fire and fire alone causes a complete pancake with extra syrup collapse. One thing I noticed about Jeff Wells at Rigorous Intuition is how he has had trouble with Sept. 11th inconsistencies yet has gone out of his way to say in no uncertain terms that there was no controlled demolition. We already know how he banned me without making one post at his place due to insider cross-forum knowledge. We also know he is very close to Tinoire, and that she came out backed with zero evidence the ludicrous notion that I am TLNL. She banned me because I confronted a poster named Virgil who used the epitath jewboy. She said I made that up. A forum called Prosemite Undercover found the proof. Unfortunately, that forum has closed shop. Yay, I just found the yahoo cache from ProsemiteUndercover which proves that Tinoire was a bold faced liar in banning me. I have saved the page and will screenshot it for at my forum. I honestly can't remember if I already did this. Er, oops, maybe ProsemiteUndercover is still around. Here's the link to the original page. And guess what? If one goes to the link where Virgil used the phrase Jewboy, one gets the message,

"Missing Topic
The page you requested cannot be displayed. The administrators may have removed the topic that you are looking for.

If you have any questions, please contact the site administrator."

I believe I have beaten down Tinoire as badly as one can be on public forums. I guess she forgot a thing or two from when she was allegedly military intelligence.

the_last_name_left said...

S: it does look like Larry has done a good job in this debate.

LOL

I'll put that up for posterity.

Larry said...

"You're just mental Larry.

You keep banging on asking the same pointless question - whilst avoiding the real ones that you need answer.

Pathetic."

Nice dodging!

REFUSING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION? How tall were the buildings in your report Turd????

How tall were they??? Gonna keep IGNORING me?

Socrates---glad you noticed his bullshit, spin, deflection and contradictions. Ive asked him how tall the buildings were in his report and he refuses to tell me--because he KNOWS no matter wat he answers, he' in a corner.

If he says they were BELOW 15-20 feet, then his OWN logic he used on me contradicts his own words on the NIST report. When I asked "why didnt WTC 4, 5 and 6 collapse?"---he said:

"Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No."

BUT, when I told him the NIST report said that fires have never made a tall building collapse before---he said:

"This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building

In the NIST Final Report "tall buildings" are defined as "taller than 15 or 20 storeys"

So, I asked HIM "How tall were the buildings in his stupid report?" he's been constantly referring to---because he KNOWS if he says they were SHORTER than 15-20 feet, then those buildings in the report would not APPLY to this debate and if he says they are TALLER than WTC 7, then the NIST report is lying.

He refuses to answer the question because either way, he's trapped and he KNOWS IT. I ask him questions about the report that HE brought into the debate and when I ask questions--he says I HAVE TO FIND THE ANSWER, NOT HIM. (LOL)

Socrates, Ive been dealing with ignorant gatekeepers like The Turd for 5 years now, and I win every single time. Im glad you are smart enough to see through his bullshit.

Congrats Turd, only 2 people look at your blog and they BOTH think youre a crackpot.

You stand alone.

the_last_name_left said...

First of all, Larry - you again show you haven't been to read the report. Why don't you just read it? And then you might find an explanation instead of your continual obsession on this inconsequential point.

Out of all that, the point of contention is that you, Larry, arbitrarily have decided that a report on buildings above 4 STOREYS cannot "APPLY" to this debate?

Is that what you're saying?

Larry the architect has decided that because the buildings in the report on total collapses were not "tall buildings" then they have absolutely nothing to say about "tall buildings" collapsing - ie above 15-20 storeys?

That's your "point", is it?

I suspect it is. How ridiculous.

the_last_name_left said...

Previously Larry said

L: you CANNOT give me an example of a universal collapse of a building pre-9/11, because not one exists.

I said - Apart from the 7 others included in the report I linked to?

8 total collapses in that report I linked to - which was a survey done for NIST. All buildings were multi-storey - above 4 storeys. (3 are from 911)

NIST said WTC7 was the first time a "tall building" - ie above 15-20 storeys had collapsed solely due to fire.

There is no contradiction there.

Why you keep blabbing on is beyond comprehension. You haven't moved a single inch forward. Not one fraction of an inch.

Now - want to answer the questions you've been avoiding since you arrived here Larry? Like where is the least bit of evidence for your stated belief in controlled demolition of all WTC buildings? No - of course you don't.

Larry said...

"Larry the architect has decided that because the buildings in the report on total collapses were not "tall buildings" then they have absolutely nothing to say about "tall buildings" collapsing.."

So, he ADMITS the buildings in the report were NOT tall buildings!!! FINALLY, he ADMITS IT! Yes, they would have NOTHING to say about tall buildings since there has never been a PRECEDENT for coming to that conclusion!

Here's the part I LOVE. You said:

"Out of all that, the point of contention is that you, Larry, arbitrarily have decided that a report on buildings above 4 STOREYS cannot "APPLY" to this debate?"

No, YOU decided that when previously I had mentioned why didnt WTC 4, 5 an 6 collapse---you said:

"Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No."

So, let me get this straight: YOU can use the argument AGAINST me that the reason why WTC 4, 5 and 6 DIDNT collapse on 9-11 was because they werent the same design, size and position as WTC 7-----BUT when you argue FOR your claim that OTHER buildings [in your "report"] HAVE collapsed that were MUCH smaller (you admitted it, in the above quote by YOU)---then your OWN logic that you used AGAINST me ["Were all the buildings surrounding the Towers of the same design? No. Were they all of the same height? No. Were they all in the same position? No."] suddenly goes out the window?

When I used why WTC 4, 5 and 6 did NOT collapse when they were hit by debris that fell DIRECTLY on these buildings and were fully ablaze---you brushed it aside by saying those buildings were SMALL and werent the same position and design-----but now you are using the SMALLER buildings from your "report" to argue your case that because smaller buildings HAVE collapsed, that means a building MUCH taller would too?

You are INSANE!

Why do you persist on continuing to humiliate yourself by debating with me? How much beating can you take? Even your ONE reader on here agrees with me! GEESH! He saw through your BULLSHIT and abundance of contradictions and dodge/deflect. You should just throw in the towel now.

You said:

"8 total collapses in that report I linked to - which was a survey done for NIST. All buildings were multi-storey - above 4 storeys."

and yet you have FAILED to name ANY of the buildings by name OR show me pictures of them. Hmmmm. I wonder why?????

Oh, and by the way--even if there ARE 5 other buildings that have collapsed universally----did they:

1) collapse into their own footprint?

2) have molten steel in the rubble?

3) pulverize into dust?

Ahhh, but how would YOU know? You dont have PICTURES! How CONVENIENT. You dont even know the NAMES of the buildings! You want ME to do your research for you! You could EASILY look at YOUR report and list the names, but you REFUSE to.

Larry said...

You remind me of the Popular Mechanics people that claimed that WTC 7 had a 10-story chunk taken out of it at it base and they said they even SAW THE PICTURE of it, but yet they failed to include the picture in their "debunking" book. LOL. They said they got the picture from the police. Yeah, the NYPD is REALLY going to release a confidential photo to a MAGAZINE PUBLISHER---yeah, and Im the King of Siam!

PM never answered 2 questions about that "supposed" photo of the "gash":

1) What would it hurt if the public saw that picture?

2) If WTC 7 collapsed because of a huge gash on one side--why didnt it TOPPLE over??? And PLUS, the NIST report released last year did NOT say the collapse was due to a "gash"----so if NIST is right, PM are LIARS. If PM is right, then NIST didnt do ANY research. They are BOTH frauds actually.

the_last_name_left said...

You really don't get it do you?

You wanted to know why WTC7 collapsed, but the other buildings didn't.

I asked if the other buildings were identical, if they'd suffered identical damage, if they were in identical positions to WTC7.

The answer is no - they were not. (The implication being - why expect them to when they didn't suffer the same conditions as WTC7, weren't in the same position as WTC7, and weren't of identical design to WTC7)

Were the buildings that escaped collapse at WTC identical in design, position, and experience as the buildings in the report on total/partial collapse provided to NIST?

The answer is no - they were not.

Nobody said they were.

Why you think that makes the report worthless is beyond my comprehension.

Of course they were not identical to WTC7 - and of course they did not experience conditions identical to WTC7.

Nobody said they were or had.

If you had once bothered to look at the report you'd have known that.

So, he ADMITS the buildings in the report were NOT tall buildings!!! FINALLY, he ADMITS IT!

LOL - the report is about MULTI-STOREY BUILDINGS (4+) which suffered partial or total collapse due to fire.

3 of the examples ARE "tall buildings" - but as they are all from 911 you'll just discard them as evidence anyway, having already decided it was impossible they could have suffered total collapse.

L: YOU can use the argument AGAINST me that the reason why WTC 4, 5 and 6 DIDNT collapse on 9-11 was because they werent the same design, size and position as WTC 7-----BUT when you argue FOR your claim that OTHER buildings HAVE collapsed that were MUCH smaller ....then your OWN logic that you used AGAINST me... suddenly goes out the window?

Man, are you slow.

Evidence showing multi-storey buildings CAN collapse from fire, in no way means they MUST collapse under fire. Only that they can - that it is not impossible.

You claim collapse was impossible - the report says "This data demonstrated that buildings of all types of construction and
occupancies, in North America, and abroad, are susceptible to fire-induced collapse,

particularly older buildings. ".


OK?

L : When I used why WTC 4, 5 and 6 did NOT collapse when they were hit by debris that fell DIRECTLY on these buildings and were fully ablaze---you brushed it aside by saying those buildings were SMALL and werent the same position and design-----but now you are using the SMALLER buildings from your "report" to argue your case that because smaller buildings HAVE collapsed, that means a building MUCH taller would too?

No - CAN collapse. CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN

You say IMPOSSIBLE - the report says ANY type CAN collapse.

OK?

the_last_name_left said...

you have FAILED to name ANY of the buildings by name OR show me pictures of them. Hmmmm. I wonder why?????

I gave you the link to the report - get off your arse and do something for yourself if you are so concerned?

L: You could EASILY look at YOUR report and list the names, but you REFUSE to.

LOL

I could yes - but so could you? You haven't even read it. Jeez.

And all this when you avoid answering simple direct questions, and refuse to address the questions your own conspiracy hypothesis throws up - like WHO WHAT WHEN HOW ?

Funny you're ignoring all those questions, isn't it, Larry? No - because that's all you've done since you showed here - been a stupid cunt.

L: molten steel in the rubble?

Was there? What's your evidence? Some nazi claiming it - so it must be true?

pulverize into dust?

What building was pulverised into dust? Do you mean to imply no other building generates dust - or that WTC was pulverised into ONLY dust?

collapse into their own footprint?

Like the towers? LOL

Or WTC7? LOL

if NIST is right, PM are LIARS.

No - people can be wrong without being liars. You have to do a bit more than find "wrong" to prove someone was lying.

So come on then Larry - you've pursued your stupid point ad nauseum - when are you going to address your own totally flawed hypothesis?

Oh - that's right. Never.

Why? Because you know it can't stand the least scrutiny. That's why you're scared of addressing the questions your own hypothesis raises. That's why you're left with asking the same questions over and over and over.......

Why has 911 troof got nowhere in all this time? Because all it has is questions - and not many of those left anymore.

Larry said...

You are a complete MORON. You said:

"I asked if the other buildings were identical, if they'd suffered identical damage, if they were in identical positions to WTC7.

The answer is no - they were not. (The implication being - why expect them to when they didn't suffer the same conditions as WTC7.."

Yeah, the other buildings suffered WORSE DAMAGE AND WORSE FIRES!!!!

You said:

"Evidence showing multi-storey buildings CAN collapse from fire, in no way means they MUST collapse under fire. Only that they can - that it is not impossible."

LOL. Yet you provide NO names of buildings and NO pictures! WHERE is the evidence? You keep saying REPEATEDLY theres evidence, and when I ASK for it, you tell ME to look it up! UNBELIEVABLE!

Here's yet ANOTHER example of your BLATANT contradictions:

You said:

When I said that you REFUSE to provide the EVIDENCE of your report, you said this: "I could yes - but so could you? You haven't even read it. Jeez." (So, I have to ASK for the evidence FROM you AND compile YOUR evidence FOR you???? LOL!!!!)

Then you said:

"That's why you're scared of addressing the questions your own hypothesis raises. That's why you're left with asking the same questions over and over and over......."

I ask questions OVER AND OVER because you either IGNORE the OVER AND OVER or you ask ME to do YOUR work for you! YOU said there's evidence, I ask "Where is this evidence?" and then you tell ME to gather it FOR you!!

So, if I was a defense attorney in a courtroom and I had evidence to get my client off, would I PRESENT the evidence MYSELF, or would I ask my adversary [the prosecution] to gather it FOR me? According to YOU, you'd expect the latter.

Then you said this:

"Were the buildings that escaped collapse at WTC identical in design, position, and experience as the buildings in the report on total/partial collapse provided to NIST?

The answer is no - they were not.

Nobody said they were.

Why you think that makes the report worthless is beyond my comprehension."

Youre an IDIOT. I NEVER said that YOU said WTC 4, 5 and 6 WAS identical in size, position and design! On the contrary, I have repeated over and over that you said they WERENT----to make my point that you agree with your stupid "report" that YOU ADMITTED that 5 of the 8 buildings were SMALLER than WTC 7 [You cant count the 3 ON 9/11, because my question was "name buildings that suffered total collapses PRE-9/11"]---so counting the 3 ON 9-11 makes you a complete BUFFOON.

You ADMITTED that the remaining FIVE buildings WERE SMALLER when you said THIS:

"Larry the architect has decided that because the buildings in the report on total collapses were not "tall buildings"....."

So, you ADMITTED that the architect of the report said they were NOT tall buildings---which coincides with my entire point that YOU said that because WTC 4, 5 and 6 were NOT THE SAME SIZE, DESIGN AND POSITION, then I could not use that as a reason to question WHY WTC 7 DID collapse------but you are allowed to ADMIT that your report says the buildings WERE NOT TALL and you can use that to explain why WTC 7 collapsed when THEY were NOT THE SAME SIZE, DESIGN AND POSITION?

You are a delusional, psychotic, hair-brained DIPSHIT. Ive spent way too much time on your sorry, pathetic excuse as ahuman being and I will spend no more. You are nothing but waste of space who uses contradiction, word trickery, deception, ignoring, twisting of words, omission, deflecting and spinning to make your points.

You are complete FRAUD and you KNOW deep down I have beaten you. Even your ONE reader agrees with me!

the_last_name_left said...

I ask questions OVER AND OVER

That's ALL that you have done. Just the one question.

You somehow imagine that amounts to proving a conspiracy of fantastic proportion.

Pathetic.

L: Yet you provide NO names of buildings and NO pictures! WHERE is the evidence? You keep saying REPEATEDLY theres evidence, and when I ASK for it, you tell ME to look it up! UNBELIEVABLE!

I gave you the link to the report in question over and over and over. I have quoted the report over and over.

You refused to go and look at it. Over and over and over again.

I find it interesting you are surprised I said "GO AND LOOK YOURSELF!"

Why did you refuse to go and look at the evidence yourself? Interesting commitment to the evidence you have Larry.

You reveal yourself as interested in evidence only in so far as it contributes to "a side" of the debate. Not for your own interest - not for the sake of it itself. Shock.

The point about the report was never that the buildings were identical to WTC7 - but that the report references 8 total collapses of multi-storey buildings from fire.

As I said -

Evidence showing multi-storey buildings CAN collapse from fire, in no way means they MUST collapse under fire. Only that they can - that it is not impossible.

You said it's impossible - you've done nothing to establish that. Not one single thing.

You won't even check for yourself the report I showed you that provides some evidence they CAN. The report says ANY type of building is susceptible to collapse from fire. ZZZZZzzzzzz.

CAN CAN CAN. Get it? No......oh well.

my entire point that YOU said that because WTC 4, 5 and 6 were NOT THE SAME SIZE, DESIGN AND POSITION, then I could not use that as a reason to question WHY WTC 7 DID collapse

You CANNOT use that as a reason to say it was IMPOSSIBLE. DUH

[You cant count the 3 ON 9/11, because my question was "name buildings that suffered total collapses PRE-9/11"]---so counting the 3 ON 9-11 makes you a complete BUFFOON.

No - you didn't. Go check what you've written?

here's your scribbles:
Larry:
I asked you SPECIFICALLY-----what buildng other than WTC 7 has suffered a UNIVERSAL collapse due to FIRE AND DAMAGE ALONE??


No "pre911" in there.

But again - it's your arbitrary insistence that the WTC 1+2 can't be included.

You are a delusional, psychotic, hair-brained DIPSHIT.

LOL - and you've done absolutely nothing to provide evidence for your hypothesis of controlled demolition.

You won't even look at the evidence I supplied you saying ANY building is susceptible to collapse from fire blah blah.

You still insist it is "impossible". Good for you.

I can't see that you would obtain an accurate view of anything at all.

L: Ive spent way too much time on your sorry, pathetic excuse as ahuman being and I will spend no more.

good. It wasn't like I ever asked for your contribution - apart from the questions I asked of you and which you have ignored over and over and over and ......

And instead of answering them, you're gonna flounce off? Victorious! Yeah - well done Larry - you've won again huh?