Friday, 10 September 2010

According to Madman Larry Simons

According to Larry the Conspiracy Twit,
“If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"
The building below has never collapsed before (it's never even been built):

Larry claims that as it has never happened before (as it has never been built) it would be impossible for anyone to suspect this building might collapse. Imagine the building supports caught fire, and caused damage similar to below. According to LArry, it is impossible for anyone to suspect the building might collapse, because "it has never happened before!"


So, no matter how obvious it is this building would collapse in its present state, Larry insists it would be impossible to even suspect it might collapse, because 'it has never happened before'.

Ridiculous.

And according to Larry The Madman this is a picture of smoke *not* coming from WTC7!


How is that smoke *not* coming from WTC7? Even better, Larry posts this picture:


How on earth can anyone claim that smoke isn't coming from WTC7? But Larry does claim exactly that.

All one need do is watch this video: where's the smoke coming from?


According to Larry, that smoke is not coming from WTC7! Larry says it is coming from WTC6....downwind!!! How does smoke move upwind towards WTC7 and then proceed downwind? Ridiculous.

72 comments:

Larry said...

Hey Last Dick Left, if you are so "honest" and on the side of truth, why are you completely lying over and over in this post? You claim that I said that no one could have "SUSPECTED" collapsen but I never EVER said that. I have repeatedly said no one could ever KNOW it was coming down, but you blatantly LIE and say that I have questioned those who were "SUSPECTING" its collapse---a LIE. I was questioning the multiple quotes you posted from policemen indicating that they KNEW it was coming down. One cop even said "keep an eye on that building, it will be coming down soon". That's a step farther than "SUSPECTING"---thats knowing! I never said they KNEW, I said THEY said they KNEW---and YOU even say they knew!

Another dishonest thing you did was post ONLY the pictures from my story that showed the fire "supposedly" coming from wtc7 as if I give support to those pictures as being evidence that smoke is coming from wtc7, but completely OMIT the pictures I posted showing the smoke billowing from wtc5 (not 6 assmunch) and blowing toward wtc7!!! Why the trickery and deception??? Why the dishonesty??? Why have u STILL not answered the question I asked 14 times?? Hmmmmmmmm??????????????????

the_last_name_left said...

Larry: "You claim that I said that no one could have "SUSPECTED" collapsen but I never EVER said that. I have repeatedly said no one could ever KNOW it was coming down, but you blatantly LIE and say that I have questioned those who were "SUSPECTING" its collapse---a LIE."
-----------------

So, you are finally admitting it is perfectly reasonable for fire-professionals to SUSPECT a building might collapse, even if "it had never happened before"?

ie NOT IMPOSSIBLE, right?

Real Truth Online said...

You said:

“They KNEW, even though it was impossible to know! You're crazy??

And how do you know they "KNEW" rather than "SUSPECTED"? What the hell are you on about? How did they KNOW it was coming down, rather than suspect it?”

Hmmmm. The cop that said “Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon” was “SUSPECTING”??? Notice, he didn’t say “Keep your eye on the building, it MIGHT come down/it PROBABLY would come down/it is LIKELY it will come down”--------------he said “it WILL BE”. And THAT quote is on VIDEOTAPE!

You said this also:

“Experienced fire professionals can form a pretty good idea of a buildings structural integrity.”

Oh yeah? Then why did NO ONE---and I mean NO ONE suspect the twin towers were going to collapse? If they can form a “pretty good idea of a buildings structural integrity” then NO ONE should have died in the towers---including all those firefighters, because “EXPERIENCED FIRE PROFESSIONALS” should have KNOWN the twin towers were going to collapse as well!

NO ONE feared the collapse of Bankers Trust? Wtc 3, 4, 5 and 6??? They were all damaged MORE and some had raging fires-----but no one even “suspected” their collapses----right? They didn’t suspect the twin towers collapses EITHER------------------NOPE! ONLY building 7’s!!!

You also said this:

“It is not *impossible* to suspect a building might collapse - it's perfectly possible. To "know" it will is a slightly different matter. You purposefully insist only the second sense can operate - "know" as opposed to "suspect". They SUSPECTED the building was going to collapse. Seemingly they felt damned sure it would collapse - for all the reasons they have given, on the record. That's positive evidence by experienced professionals - firemen, police, medics......incl. chief of FireDept Nigro, Commanders on the ground, using engineer's transits, etc.”

AFTER I said this:

“That shows you have done ZERO research, because several policeman were overheard just before the collapse saying "Keep your eye on that building, it will be coming down soon"----that's more than just "suspecting" it. Seconds before that statement in the clip below, you hear an explosion. But, of course, you wont watch it!”

Tell me something stinky nuts, when a cop says “keep your eye on that building, it WILL BE coming down soon”-----is he “SUSPECTING” it will collapse by the use of the words “WILL BE”???? Or does “WILL BE” means he KNOWS it’s coming down?

If I say, “The products WILL BE getting delivered soon”------am I “SUSPECTING” they will be arriving, or am I SURE????

Got an answer??

Oh by the way, answer this one [15th time asking now]:

““If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE .... how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

Real Truth Online said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Real Truth Online said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Real Truth Online said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Real Truth Online said...

your stupid ass blog loves to NOT show the post after several times of posting, then it will show all the posts at ONCE, that's why I deleted comments---they were all the same post posted 4 times because it wouldnt appear---then it did!

the_last_name_left said...

it's happening on all blogger sites atm. the comments have gone very glitchy.
-----------

How about answering my question?

Real Truth Online said...

jesus christ your blog sucks!!! Ive posted the same comment 3 times now and it keep s disappearing!!

the_last_name_left said...

it's happening on all blogger sites atm. the comments have gone very glitchy.
-----------

How about answering my question?

Real Truth Online said...

address my long post above, asshole

Real Truth Online said...

im gonna stop posting---your blog sucks ass

Real Truth Online said...

im sure u will IGNORE my posts ANYWAY!

the_last_name_left said...

You don't get to only ask questions - you need to answer some.

You don't get to demand answers either.

IS it reasonable for fire-pros to suspect a building of collapse, whether it has "happened before" or not?

Real Truth Online said...

"You don't get to only ask questions - you need to answer some.

You don't get to demand answers either."

Hey fuckstick, Ive asked a question to you 15 fucking times and u dont answer it---EVER!!

Real Truth Online said...

you keep fucking DELETING posts!!!

Real Truth Online said...

well, the comment u keep deleting is on MY blog---so you cant ignore it there in good conscience

the_last_name_left said...

I'm deleting posts? That's why it says "deleted by author" in all the places you have deleted your posts? lol

Is it reasonable for fire-pros to suspect a building might collapse, even if it has "never happened before"?

Real Truth Online said...

funny how the ONLY post you are deleting is one of my long ones and NOT the short one a sentece long! Amazing!

Real Truth Online said...

Ha!!! you just deleted the one that told you which post you were deleting of mine!!! the comment is on MY blog!

You fucking scaredy ass CHICKEN!

Real Truth Online said...

YOURE DELETING POSTS!!!!!

CHICKEN!!!!! THATS OK, THE COMMENT IS ON MY BLOG!!! TRY IGNORING IT THERE!!!

Real Truth Online said...

Hmmmmm. Now you’re changing your tune. NOW you’re saying you never said you [or anyone else] was SURE it would collapse---but yet, you posted these quotes!! [ALL indicate CERTAINTY that wtc7 would fall]


“I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor” –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti


“The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down”. –Captain Robert Sohmer

‘At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down”. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

“Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable”. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade

Real Truth Online said...

You also said THIS:

“The experts on the scene that day were convinced it would collapse. Else they are all lying.”

What was that???? You said “they were CONVINCED”!!! In other words, they KNEW. Being convinced of something is FAR from “SUSPECTING”---------it’s practically KNOWING. I’M NOT saying they knew------------YOU ARE. My question is [and has ALWAYS been] HOW did they know????

You also have made other statements that indicate certainty of wtc7’s collapse-----FAR from “suspicion”----such as:

“Did the conspiracy make the building lean so as to suggest the building would collapse?”

“But by your own argument, as it had never happened before, it was impossible for the conspiracy to know the impossible - just as it was supposedly impossible for the firemen present on the day to know what would suggest the building was going to collapse”

“If it was IMPOSSIBLE for the firefighters on the ground to "KNOW" the building might collapse, then it must have been impossible for the conspirators to plan a fail-safe way of convincing the firemen that it would collapse.”

[in the above quote---you are saying that it WAS possible for firefighters to KNOW it was going to collapse—or else you wouldn’t have used it to make your stupid point]

“You say it was impossible for fire/engineers to be able to "know" WTC7 was going to fail........but that doesn't stop you implying that the conspirators hoodwinked them into believing it was going to collapse -- even though such a thing is apparently impossible to know. lol.”-------------ANOTHER of your stupid points in which you indicate that you claimed they KNEW

Even AFTER you made all these comments indicating people KNEW it would collapse, you still have the balls to say:

“How would anyone know if a building was going to collapse? What do you think, retard? I've told you plenty of times already.”

the_last_name_left said...

Larry - I have answered your question over and over.

I have said - fires, damage, building movement - as evidenced by testimony from fire people, and ER.

You should be perfectly aware of the reasons given by various fire people and ER - or are you unfamiliar with the evidence?

Even after I have given that info over and over, and provided direct quotes from firemen etc you keep repeating your silly question. You just keep repeating it to avoid answering it yourself.

If it is perfectly reasonable for firepeople to suspect a building of collapse (for all the reasons I have already given) then you have no reason to continue asking your question.

That you continue repeating your silly question proves the bankcruptcy of your earlier claim: you said -

L: "you blatantly LIE and say that I have questioned those who were "SUSPECTING" its collapse---a LIE"

So......it is perfectly reasonable for the NY firepeople to suspect a building might collapse......right? Even if it had "never happened before"? That's what you're saying here.

And yet, you repeat your question about it being impossible for Firepeople to believe it would collapse - because "it had never happened before."

If it is reasonable for firepeople to suspect a building of collapse (as you now claim)- even if it had never happened before - then you have the answer to your question and your repetition of it is exposed as pure sophistry.

socrates said...

I don't understand why you continue to interact with this dude. Most people don't want to read such vulgarities. I mean, come on, we've seen what this guy links to from Rense to David Dees. I took a quick look at his blog yesterday, and if you weren't posting, the thing would be empty. I also think you're running the risk of turning off people who might otherwise want to join in. What part of Larry is an insignificant, conspiracy theory freak don't you get?

Larry said...

"Larry - I have answered your question over and over.

I have said - fires, damage, building movement - as evidenced by testimony from fire people, and ER."

THIS wasnt the answer MORON! This was the statement that PROMPTED my question:

"If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

Larry said...

"So......it is perfectly reasonable for the NY firepeople to suspect a building might collapse......right? Even if it had "never happened before"? That's what you're saying here.

And yet, you repeat your question about it being impossible for Firepeople to believe it would collapse - because "it had never happened before.""

WRONG! I dont repeat the question about it being impossible for firepeople to BELIEVE it would collapse------but to KNOW it wuld----as your quoted comments indicate [that they KNEW]!!

Stop inserting words like "suspect" and "believe" in place of the word "KNOW"------you disinformationist turd!

I ask OVER and OVER "how did they KNOW????" and you say "they didt KNOW" but yet I just posted statements you made from YOU and the cops indicating they claimed thy KNEW. Want them again, since you cant read??

HERE THEY ARE:

“Did the conspiracy make the building lean so as to suggest the building would collapse?”

“But by your own argument, as it had never happened before, it was impossible for the conspiracy to know the impossible - just as it was supposedly impossible for the firemen present on the day to know what would suggest the building was going to collapse”

“If it was IMPOSSIBLE for the firefighters on the ground to "KNOW" the building might collapse, then it must have been impossible for the conspirators to plan a fail-safe way of convincing the firemen that it would collapse.”

[in the above quote---you are saying that it WAS possible for firefighters to KNOW it was going to collapse—or else you wouldn’t have used it to make your stupid point]

“You say it was impossible for fire/engineers to be able to "know" WTC7 was going to fail........but that doesn't stop you implying that the conspirators hoodwinked them into believing it was going to collapse -- even though such a thing is apparently impossible to know. lol.”-------------

Here are the quotes you posted that indicated peopl KNEW:

“I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor” –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

“The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down”. –Captain Robert Sohmer

‘At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down”. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

“Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable”. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade

These statements are indicating more than "suspicion" and "belief"-----ARENT THEY????

Larry said...

"So......it is perfectly reasonable for the NY firepeople to suspect a building might collapse......right? Even if it had "never happened before"? That's what you're saying here.

And yet, you repeat your question about it being impossible for Firepeople to believe it would collapse - because "it had never happened before.""

WRONG! I dont repeat the question about it being impossible for firepeople to BELIEVE it would collapse------but to KNOW it wuld----as your quoted comments indicate [that they KNEW]!!

Stop inserting words like "suspect" and "believe" in place of the word "KNOW"------you disinformationist turd!

I ask OVER and OVER "how did they KNOW????" and you say "they didt KNOW" but yet I just posted statements you made from YOU and the cops indicating they claimed thy KNEW. Want them again, since you cant read??

HERE THEY ARE:

“Did the conspiracy make the building lean so as to suggest the building would collapse?”

“But by your own argument, as it had never happened before, it was impossible for the conspiracy to know the impossible - just as it was supposedly impossible for the firemen present on the day to know what would suggest the building was going to collapse”

“If it was IMPOSSIBLE for the firefighters on the ground to "KNOW" the building might collapse, then it must have been impossible for the conspirators to plan a fail-safe way of convincing the firemen that it would collapse.”

[in the above quote---you are saying that it WAS possible for firefighters to KNOW it was going to collapse—or else you wouldn’t have used it to make your stupid point]

“You say it was impossible for fire/engineers to be able to "know" WTC7 was going to fail........but that doesn't stop you implying that the conspirators hoodwinked them into believing it was going to collapse -- even though such a thing is apparently impossible to know. lol.”-------------

Here are the quotes you posted that indicated peopl KNEW:

“I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor” –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

“The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down”. –Captain Robert Sohmer

‘At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down”. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

“Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable”. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade

These statements are indicating more than "suspicion" and "belief"-----ARENT THEY????

Larry said...

"What part of Larry is an insignificant, conspiracy theory freak don't you get?"

How do you get more insignificant than refusing to post your REAL NAMES?? You call everyone frauds, but you dont post your names!!!!

Ha ha ha ha ha!!

the_last_name_left said...

Discounting the controlled demo thesis (for which there's no evidence)....clearly nobody could have "known" the WTC would collapse. Of course, many people seemingly expected/feared/suspected the building would collapse, and with very good reason : unfought fires, damage, building movement (according to their testimony)

Real knowledge about the collapse could only occur after the collapse - when it had become fact - when fears and expectation were made manifest.

But, as the fact of the collapse approached it's perfectly reasonable that fears and suspicions about impending collapse would harden, and become more certain.

So, clearly there's an ambivalence about the word "know" when speaking of whether firemen and other professionals "knew" the building would collapse.

But there is no doubt they SUSPECTED it would collapse - if the evidence is to be believed.

As such, Larry's question is wholly disingenuous -

L: "If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"
----

Of course, it is perfectly reasonable that experienced fire professionals and others could reasonably suspect a building might collapse, whether it had happened before or not.

As Larry seemingly admits when he says

L: "You claim that I said that no one could have "SUSPECTED" collapsen but I never EVER said that. I have repeatedly said no one could ever KNOW it was coming down, but you blatantly LIE and say that I have questioned those who were "SUSPECTING" its collapse---a LIE."

Larry's taking refuge in the ambivalence over the word "know" and exploiting it.

Fact is, it's perfectly reasonable firemen and others might suspect a building will collapse, whether it has happened before or not.

But only when the building does collapse do we get confirmation that people were right in their suspicions - that they had known it would. They didn't "know" it would collapse, no-one could, they only suspected so.

Larry's cynically retreating into semantics and ambivalence. Big shock. He surely knows he is doing this.

Larry said...

TLNL---you are a complete FRAUD. You continue to interchange the words "suspect" and "know" as if they are the same word when trying to prove your points. I have never EVER claimed that it was not impossible to SUSPECT collapse (although I would still love to know, since it never happened before, how they would know the characteristics of a building that was awaiting collapse), I said it's impoosible to KNOW. MOST of the quotes you posted by cops, as well as statements you made, were indicating certainty of a collapse---NOT "suspecting".

You contradicted yourself....again in the post above when you said:

"Clearly nobody could have "known" the WTC would collapse"

THEN said "But as the fact of the collapse approached it's perfectly reasonable that fears and suspicions about impending collapse would harden, and become more certain"

How can you be CERTAIN of a collapse and not KNOW it will collapse?? The words "certain" and "know" are practically the same word. Are they not?? But that wouldn't be the first of your contradictory comments, would it now?? You also said "you don't need water to save lives" (referring to the firefighters) then later said the building was evacuated. A complete contradiction.

Then you post ONLY pictured that seemingly show smoke pouring from wtc7 but OMIT the pictues of wtc5 sending smoke in the direction of wtc7 and then in your story said I ADMITTED the smoke was coming from wtc7 because I had posted the pics---when in reality I only posted them to show people that those are the pictures twits like YOU refer to to make your points, then you OMIT the pics I posted to validate my point.

Face it---youre a fraud of gargantuan proportions!

the_last_name_left said...

L: I have never EVER claimed that it was not impossible to SUSPECT collapse...
----

that it was *not* impossible?

Not impossible means possible.

But you deny ever claiming it, so your sentence means you have never claimed it was possible to suspect collapse.

IS that what you meant, or did you mean to say you have never claimed it was impossible to suspect collapse?

Assuming that you are now claiming IT IS POSSIBLE FOR COLLAPSE TO BE SUSPECTED we can end our argument and put to bed your silly question of "how could anyone know it would collapse if it had never happened before?".

You're now admitting you know the answer, and always have.

Putting this into context, you are finally conceding that it is perfectly plausible and reasonable that experienced fire people and others to have suspected WTC7 would collapse - even though it had never happened before.

And seeing as we have many different professional/expert testimonies describing their conviction that WTC7 would collapse, there's really no need to ask your silly question about "how could they know if it had never happened before". We have the answer - fire, smoke, damage, structural movement.

Where's the mystery? There isn't any? Or rather, we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for the fire-peeps to suspect the building might collapse - and it did. Why is there even a need for another explanation? What is it that demands answering? What is there left to explain that is demanding some alternative narrative? Even you admit you have not "questioned those who were "SUSPECTING" its collapse" - so where is the mystery? where is the issue?

the_last_name_left said...

L: How can you be CERTAIN of a collapse and not KNOW it will collapse??
----------

I am certain the sun will rise tomorrow - i will only 'know' it when it happens.

as dawn approaches, obviously the indications that the sun will rise start to mount and add to my confidence. The darkness lifts a little, the horizon starts to brighten, colour reappears, etc.
Now we're really getting confident.....now we really 'know'.

Just look at the definitions:

----Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information
----Have knowledge or information concerning
----Be absolutely certain or sure about something

aware of....knowledge of.....certainty.

same word, slightly different meanings. I know it's difficult, Larry......

:D

Larry said...

"I am certain the sun will rise tomorrow - i will only 'know' it when it happens."

This just might be the single dumbest statement you've ever made.

First of all, the sun rising is something that you have witnessed thousands of times and your knowledge that it will rise tomorrow is based on that fact.... unlike the completely different scenario of a building [wtc7] that collapsed by fire alone--an event that has never occurred before.

Here you are making a comparison between an event that has occurred billions of times [and that youve personally witnessed thousands of times] with an event [building collapsing by fire alone] that has not occurred even ONCE---and that makes you a moronic dickweed.

That comparison alone destroys any credibility you "may" have had prior to this unbelievably asinine comment. You had NO credibility before, so this comment did not change your status as "disinformationist FRAUD" ----all it did was add to your list of incredibly ridiculous statements---in which there are many!

Larry said...

"I am certain the sun will rise tomorrow - i will only 'know' it when it happens."

This just might be the single dumbest statement you've ever made.

First of all, the sun rising is something that you have witnessed thousands of times and your knowledge that it will rise tomorrow is based on that fact.... unlike the completely different scenario of a building [wtc7] that collapsed by fire alone--an event that has never occurred before.

Here you are making a comparison between an event that has occurred billions of times [and that youve personally witnessed thousands of times] with an event [building collapsing by fire alone] that has not occurred even ONCE---and that makes you a moronic dickweed.

That comparison alone destroys any credibility you "may" have had prior to this unbelievably asinine comment. You had NO credibility before, so this comment did not change your status as "disinformationist FRAUD" ----all it did was add to your list of incredibly ridiculous statements---in which there are many!

Larry said...

Let's examine your definitions of the word "know" and then see if any could apply to wtc7:

1. "Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information"

And how many times prior to 9-11 were you "aware of" a building collapsing by fire alone through "observation, inquiry, or information" since a building collapsing by fire alone never happened before? Oh...zero??

2. "Have knowledge or information concerning"

You had knowledge of buildings collapsing by fire alone prior to 9-11? Care to name one? If you can't [and you cant]---when would this "knowledge or information concerning" come from?

3. "absolutely certain or sure about something"

certain or sure about an event that never previously occurred? How's this possible? Do tell!!

By the way, what makes you "CERTAIN" that the sun will rise tomorrow despite seeing it rise thousands of times prior? It could burn out tomorrow. How does seeing an event happen thousands of times make it CERTAIN it will happen again? wtc7 prompts the OPPOSITE question: How does one know an event will happen when it has not happened ONCE?

Larry said...

It's interesting that you said "i will only 'know' it when it happens."---but yet you posted quotes from cops indicating they KNEW wtc7 was coming down BEFORE it fell. You made comments on MANY occasions that implied "KNOWING"----saying "their conviction that wtc7 WOULD collapse".

You defend the experts' "KNOWLEDGE" that it would collapse by saying:

"there's really no need to ask your silly question about "how could they know if it had never happened before". We have the answer - fire, smoke, damage, structural movement."

We have the answer that they KNEW? You are saying "We have the answer--fire, smoke....". So, you just got done saying that "KNOWING" can ONLY occur at THE TIME OF THE ACTUAL EVENT [sun rising/building collapsing] as opposed to BEFORE THE ACTUAL EVENT.

ANOTHER contradiction on your part:

You are now saying:

1. You can ONLY know at the time of occurrance...and

2. You can know BEFORE occurrance!

Which is it???

DUMBASS

Real Truth Online said...

Yes I didnt mean to put "NOT" in there.

We can NOT end our argument because the words "know" and "suspect" are not the SAME THING! My god, do you read ANY of my posts? I CLEARLY have explained this---and you keep interchanging the words "know" and "suspect" as if they are synonyms.

I can SUSPECT you're a douchebag all I want---doesnt mean you ARE one----but when you fail to answer questions that I ask 15 times, continually repeat long, debunked points, misinform by NOT posting the pictures of wtc5 blowing smoke toward wtc7, ignore 90% of my posts, continually repeat asking questions that Ive answered an interchange words that have nearly complete opposite definitions----then I KNOW youre a douchebag!

Real Truth Online said...

Here you are AGAIN interchanging words with different meanings. This time, you interchanged the words "would" and "might":

"And seeing as we have many different professional/expert testimonies describing their conviction that WTC7 would collapse"

"Or rather, we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for the fire-peeps to suspect the building might collapse - and it did."

Which is it??? Dif they know it "would" or think it "might"??

This is TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!

You even disagree with YOURSELF!

"Why is there even a need for another explanation?"

Better question: Why do you say complete OPPOSITE remarks in back to back paragraphs? Myabe THIS is why we need other explanations---because of fucktards like YOU that interchange the words "know" and "suspect"---and "would" and "might"!

the_last_name_left said...

Once you accept that it's perfectly reasonable for firepeople to suspect a building might collapse there is no point in continuing with your question about "How could they know it would collapse if it had never happened before?"

We know on what grounds they based such judgements by reading their testimony - fire, smoke, damage, creaking, movement.

I don't see any point in further exploring semantics of "know" - we all understand its meaning.

You are left having to believe the firemen, else you must call them liars......or that they were mistaken in both their perecptions of the buildings condition, and their conclusions/suspicions that the building would collapse. Both of which are highly problematic claims because we know the building did collapse - the firemen's suspicions were correct.

That leaves you in a tricky position because you can't assimilate those facts into your controlled demolition narrative. This explains why you were so resistant to accepting that it's perfecty reasonable for firemen to have 'known' the building would collapse - because accepting it obviates any need to introduce controlled demolition - and furthermore, accepting it makes conspiracy more difficult to sustain, "How to explain the existence of the physical evidence which *CORRECTLY* convinced experienced fire professionals that the building would collapse. Did the conspiracy set the fires, generate the smoke? Did the conspiracy fake damage? Fake the readings from the engineers' transits/theodolites?

Experienced fire professionals on the scene were (CORRECTLY) convinced by the evidence on-hand that the building was threatening to collapse.

But you, sat at home watching YouTube, know it was "impossible".

Hmmm. who to believe? it really isn't a difficult choice.

But notice - it's really only your belief that it was 'impossible' which generates a need for controlled demolition to be introduced in the first place - the fire professionals on the ground that day didn't need it. The professional firemen on the scene were convinced by the facts on the ground at the time - they were concerned the building would collapse beforehand - long before you decided that it was impossible and thus needed some other explanation ie controlled demolition.

The "theory" of controlled demolition didn't arise from a need to explain positive physical evidence such as detonators, explosives, thermite. Rather the opposite happened - the collapse was declared a priori impossible and then the (ultimately wholly unsuccessful) search for supporting evidence began.

When were 'scientific' claims published about Thermite? We all know it was long after the 'theory' of controlled demolition was conceived and promoted ie controlled demolition was postulated, and then the search for evidence to sustain it began. That search for evidence has proven entirely fruitless - 9 years later and there's still no positive evidence for controlled demolition. But we can all see that such facts have done absolutely nothing to undermine your conviction that it was "impossible" and the subsequent need for a different explanation.

The fire professionals on the ground at the time clearly didn't feel it was impossible, and thus have absolutely no need for alternative explanations.

I think you need to look at your assumption that it was "impossible". The professionals on the ground with the evidence right in front of them did not think it was impossible. This seems to suggest it is your assumption that is wrong - not the informed views of fire-professionals whom were actually there. Hardly surprising.....

Larry said...

Love how you ignored 99% of my posts and just repeated old debunked points to say that you DID respond after my posts, but actually addressed NOTHING I said. How about addressing the fact that I clearly pointed out that the words "know" and "suspect" have completely different meanings, yet you keep interchanging them as if they're the exact same word?

Address your blatant contradiction that you used the words "might collapse" and "would collapse" in back to back paragraphs as if they have the exact same meaning!

Address the fact that I schooled you on your insane comparison of the sun rising and a building collapsing by fire (two completely different things), where one has never ever happened even ONE time and the other has happened billions of times.

Larry said...

I believe even Socrates would have to agree that TLNL's posts/comments were ridiculous on a massive scale and my rebutting of them was excellent---in fact SO excellent that TLNL ignored every single word of my posts, not even bothering to copy and paste portions of it so he can address it (like he often does).

Instead, he ignores my posts and just spews off a litany of previously stated remarks he's said 15 times---especially the already debunked part where he lists characteristics like fires, creaking, smoke, etc... Which prompted me to ask the question "if a collapse due to fire alone never occurred before, how would anyone know what characteristics are of a building that never collapsed due to fire?"-----his answer?: "the fires, smoke, damage, creaking"---------MORON!!!!

the_last_name_left said...

there's no need to address any of it Larry.

people say they "know" all sorts of things when they merely suspect it - like infidelity, say.

I wasn't comparing the sunrise with a building collapse - i was comparing the viewer's response to it specifically regarding how much one can "know" the sun will rise.

Nobody "knows" the sun will definitely rise tomorrow but everyone "knows" it will. You understand both meanings of the word and you also need understand that only once the sun has risen can we really "know" that it has happened. And even then, do we trust our senses? How can one really "know" reality when our knowledge and experience of reality can only come through our senses?

There is no reason to go into this based only on the appearance of the word "know" in the context of fire and policemen speaking about "knowing" WTC7 would collapse. Likely the same police and firemen also "knew" there would be hell to pay for the attacks. Gee, how come, when it had never happened before? How could they have "known" America would have responded with fury and outrage? Impossible, right? No! Come on, Larry - stop this silly line of argument?

You're supposed to be looking for the truth, aren't you? So why are you so rigidly holding to this controlled demo idea? You're forced to resort to silly rhetorical games in order to support the CD idea -- that's symptomatic of a deep commitment to the idea and it clearly repudiates your claim to be "only asking questions".

You don't ask even a single question of your own thesis, instead you adopt farcical positions in order to protect it.

As I said before, the reason for your inability to treat 911 as anything but grand conspiracy is because your entire worldview demands it - your whole socio-political conception of the world is one of conspiracy a la "inside job". How could you operate without it? How would you structure your thinking without it? You couldn't?

Larry said...

"there's no need to address any of it Larry."

Of course! Because your smorgasbord of contradictions, repetition and just plain old dodge and deflect of the plethora of glaring ridiculous and contradictory statements by you are impossible to defend!

"people say they "know" all sorts of things when they merely suspect it - like infidelity, say."

Give me ONE example.

So, you're ADMITTING in the above quote that "KNOW" and "suspect" have DIFFERENT meanings then? Just like "PULL it" has 25 different meanings too??? Isnt it simply AMAZING that we [truthers] get ridiculed and vilified when we simply use DIRECT quotes from the ones we criticize---but when you assholes are defending yourselves, it's PERFECTLY OK for words to have MULTIPLE meanings!

"Nobody "knows" the sun will definitely rise tomorrow but everyone "knows" it will."

HUH??????????????????

So, what youre saying is: Nobody AND everybody knows the sun will rise???? Jesus! Just when I thought your comments couldn't get dumber and dumber, you continue to shatter your own records!

Larry said...

"You understand both meanings of the word and you also need understand that only once the sun has risen can we really "know" that it has happened."

Here are the THREE meanings of the word "KNOW" that YOU listed:

----Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information
----Have knowledge or information concerning
----Be absolutely certain or sure about something

Which of these definitions fits BOTH uses of the word "KNOW" in the following quote by you?:

"Nobody "knows" the sun will definitely rise tomorrow but everyone "knows" it will."

Your insanity continues.....

"And even then, do we trust our senses? How can one really "know" reality when our knowledge and experience of reality can only come through our senses?"

So, what youre saying is.....you dont REALLY know if the sun rises everyday, but you can DEFINATELY, WITHOUT DOUBT, UNEQUIVOCALLY know FOR A FACT that WTC7 collapsed because of FIRE ALONE based on a few cops and firefighters who had NO WAY OF KNOWING for sure the building was going to fall because there has never been a precedent for it? BUT, the sun [which has risen BILLIONS OF TIMES] you CANNOT be sure of because we dont REALLY know reality because we cant trust our senses??

How many drugs do you do at one time???

Larry said...

"There is no reason to go into this based only on the appearance of the word "know" in the context of fire and policemen speaking about "knowing" WTC7 would collapse."

"Appearance" of the word "know"? So, now you're saying that the cops and firefighters didnt REALLY MEAN they "KNEW"??? But, before you said they DID know, based on several of the comments by them YOU posted! So, now your OWN evidence is irrelevant and there's "no need" to go about it this way? So, you're basically saying:

"There's no need to believe the very quotes that I posted even though that was my STRONGEST evidence that they knew the building was coming down because the cops didnt REALLY MEAN they KNEW---they meant something ELSE, and ONLY I know what they meant----NO ONE ELSE DOES BUT ME"---right?

It all boils down to this:

When you are defending the premise that fires alone took the building down, you are so giddy to fire off quotes by "experts" that said the building "might" / "would" come down-----BUT, when I say "how could they have KNOWN it was coming down [since it's never happened before]---then, all of a sudden, they DIDNT "KNOW" it was coming down and then all your quotes you rambled off are now pointless and there is "no reason to go into this" based on their usage of the word 'know'???

God, you are the biggest fucking FRAUD on Earth and a pathetic scumbag!

Larry said...

"Likely the same police and firemen also "knew" there would be hell to pay for the attacks. Gee, how come, when it had never happened before? How could they have "known" America would have responded with fury and outrage? Impossible, right? No!"

Gee, ever heard of PEARL HARBOR and the Gulf of Tonkin??? and scores of other attacks that America has responded to with military force???

My god, you are an IMBECILE!!

Larry said...

"You don't ask even a single question of your own thesis, instead you adopt farcical positions in order to protect it."

I have asked MANY questions of my OWN thesis---MANY of which have not even been asked by OTHER truthers! Like "why did the fire commnder call Silverstein to begin with?" and "why did the FC need Silverstein's input, advice, consent or opinion on ANYTHING?"----these questions have not even been asked by ANYONE else in the truth movement BUT me---and if they have, I dont know of it! Those questions do NOT assume I subscribe to the CD view----they are individual, separate questions that need answered ANYWAY---and even YOU havent answered them!

I have even asked MULTIPLE other questions to YOU that you NEVER answer-----and what is your reply after I asked them 16 times??? "there's no need to address any of it Larry"-----yep, just as there was NO NEED for the 9-11 commission to address them either!

The question that I asked you 16 times now---this one:

"If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?""

...you have NEVER answered--and it is another stand-alone question that does not suggest I hold the CD view---and even if it DID, what's the harm in answering it?? You sound JUST LIKE Davin Coburn [from Popular Mechanics] when asked by Charles Goyette in 2006 "where did they [FBI] get the DNA to match the hijackers DNA from the ground zero rubble?"-----Coburn's answer????:

"I dont think that's a question that's worthy of an answer....you didnt FRAME it right.....a 2nd grader can ask 'why'....."

Youre a fucking pathetic shithead.

Larry said...

"As I said before, the reason for your inability to treat 911 as anything but grand conspiracy is because your entire worldview demands it"

Because of dishonest, disinformationist, dodge and deflect fucktards like you that REFUSE to answer questions when asked of them 20 times....when you REPEAT ALREADY debunked points OVER and OVER, make asinine comparisons of the sun rising with a building's collapse and spewcontradiction after contradiction and then IGNORE that you did it when I expose you. When you CONTINUALLY say "because it doesnt need addressed Larry" over and over and show that you are the biggest fucking fraud in faggoty-ass Britian----thats why!!

ACTUALLY respond to my posts then! Youre too fucking afraid now to copy and paste portions of my posts because every sentence I type includes one of your MANY contradictions and ridiculous comments!

the_last_name_left said...

L: "you are the biggest fucking fraud in faggoty-ass Britian"
--

Haha. You've won me over with your delightful rhetoric, Larry.

Funny you say I avoid answering your question when this entire thread is about your silly question. Try reading it again, perhaps? Clearly you're missing something.

Interesting too that when I say 911 had never happened before you deny it, and say Pearl Harbour and Gulf of Tonkin.

Yet you are the one insisting on a question premised upon the notion that "it had never happened before". Of course, you mean "a building had never collapsed from fire before".....but notice how your powers of recognition for patterns and similarity works much better in situations other than the premise of your collapse question?

The gulf of tonkin and pearl harbour episodes (even if true in the sense you mean) are not identical to 911 by any means. And yet you see obvious similarity.

Yet when discussing WTC7's collapse you assert "it had never happened before" - and your powers for recognising similarity suddenly disappear.

Funny. Buildings collapse from fire all the time. They don't have to be identical to WTC7 for this fact to have some relevance. Buildings do collapse from fire - it is wrong to say "it has never happened before". Collapse is an attendant risk in any large fire.

Anyway, back to the topic: I am happy that you have finally conceded that it is perfectly reasonable for fire professionals on the ground to "know" a building will probably collapse - even if "it had never happened before".

There's therefore absolutely no reason for you to continue pursuing your question "How did they know it would collapse if it had never happened before?"

It's been addressed - over and over. You have conceded the ground, Larry - why bother to pursue it?

Your whole point is mere semantics:

"L: You claim that I said that no one could have "SUSPECTED" collapsen but I never EVER said that. I have repeatedly said no one could ever KNOW it was coming down...."

The only issue remaining stems from the fact that you insist any testimony that uses the word "know" uses it in the strongest sense. You have no reason to make such an assumption.

Larry said...

Address at least HALF of my comments above and maybe, just maybe you will have a shred of credibility.

If youre not a scared-ass chicken, ADDRESS my posts and ANSWER my questions!

You usually LOVE to copy and paste portions of my posts----do it to the one above then!

the_last_name_left said...

L:I mentioned Pearl Harbor and Gulf of Tonkin because of THIS comment:

"How could they have "known" America would have responded with fury and outrage? Impossible, right? No!"
---------

I know why you made that comment.

It only serves to illustrate my point.

the_last_name_left said...

L: I also find it funny that I post 5 or 6 posts and all you have is ONE post in response and you leave 99.9% of my posts unchallenged with ANY kind of response. But, youre all about the truth huh?
---------

Your points don't need response - they have already been addressed. They have nothing to do with "truth".

Anonymous said...

its all rubbish, your bullocks.stop ignoring larry. lets face it , your a queenie. just zip it and answer larrys question. stop deleting, spinning and ignoring. stop playing stupid and try to refute or debunk one thing he has said. your a joke.

Anonymous said...

carefull socrates this guys grand dad fought boredom in the big war. lol..lol..lol. remember lnlt were laughing with you not at you......no were laughing at you. you jack ass

Larry said...

"Your points don't need response - they have already been addressed. They have nothing to do with "truth"."

Oh really? Already been addressed huh?

Was THIS question [the one I asked 15 times] addressed?

"If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE .... how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

NOPE

Was THIS addressed?

You contradicted yourself....again in the post above when you said:

"Clearly nobody could have "known" the WTC would collapse"

THEN said "But as the fact of the collapse approached it's perfectly reasonable that fears and suspicions about impending collapse would harden, and become more certain"

How can you be CERTAIN of a collapse and not KNOW it will collapse?? The words "certain" and "know" are practically the same word. Are they not?? But that wouldn't be the first of your contradictory comments, would it now?? You also said "you don't need water to save lives" (referring to the firefighters) then later said the building was evacuated. A complete contradiction.

NOPE

Was THIS addressed?

"Here you are making a comparison between an event that has occurred billions of times [and that youve personally witnessed thousands of times] with an event [building collapsing by fire alone] that has not occurred even ONCE---and that makes you a moronic dickweed."

NOPE

Larry said...

Was THIS addressed?

"Let's examine your definitions of the word "know" and then see if any could apply to wtc7:

1. "Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information"

And how many times prior to 9-11 were you "aware of" a building collapsing by fire alone through "observation, inquiry, or information" since a building collapsing by fire alone never happened before? Oh...zero??

2. "Have knowledge or information concerning"

You had knowledge of buildings collapsing by fire alone prior to 9-11? Care to name one? If you can't [and you cant]---when would this "knowledge or information concerning" come from?

3. "absolutely certain or sure about something"

certain or sure about an event that never previously occurred? How's this possible? Do tell!!

NOPE

Was THIS addressed?

"It's interesting that you said "i will only 'know' it when it happens."---but yet you posted quotes from cops indicating they KNEW wtc7 was coming down BEFORE it fell. You made comments on MANY occasions that implied "KNOWING"----saying "their conviction that wtc7 WOULD collapse".

You defend the experts' "KNOWLEDGE" that it would collapse by saying:

"there's really no need to ask your silly question about "how could they know if it had never happened before". We have the answer - fire, smoke, damage, structural movement."

We have the answer that they KNEW? You are saying "We have the answer--fire, smoke....". So, you just got done saying that "KNOWING" can ONLY occur at THE TIME OF THE ACTUAL EVENT [sun rising/building collapsing] as opposed to BEFORE THE ACTUAL EVENT.

ANOTHER contradiction on your part:

You are now saying:

1. You can ONLY know at the time of occurrance...and

2. You can know BEFORE occurrance!

Which is it???"

NOPE

Larry said...

Was THIS addressed?

[YOU SAID] "You don't ask even a single question of your own thesis, instead you adopt farcical positions in order to protect it."

I have asked MANY questions of my OWN thesis---MANY of which have not even been asked by OTHER truthers! Like "why did the fire commnder call Silverstein to begin with?" and "why did the FC need Silverstein's input, advice, consent or opinion on ANYTHING?"----these questions have not even been asked by ANYONE else in the truth movement BUT me---and if they have, I dont know of it! Those questions do NOT assume I subscribe to the CD view----they are individual, separate questions that need answered ANYWAY---and even YOU havent answered them!

I have even asked MULTIPLE other questions to YOU that you NEVER answer-----and what is your reply after I asked them 16 times??? "there's no need to address any of it Larry"-----yep, just as there was NO NEED for the 9-11 commission to address them either!

The question that I asked you 16 times now---this one:

"If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE [which it has NOT], how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?""

...you have NEVER answered--and it is another stand-alone question that does not suggest I hold the CD view---and even if it DID, what's the harm in answering it?? You sound JUST LIKE Davin Coburn [from Popular Mechanics] when asked by Charles Goyette in 2006 "where did they [FBI] get the DNA to match the hijackers DNA from the ground zero rubble?"-----Coburn's answer????:

"I dont think that's a question that's worthy of an answer....you didnt FRAME it right.....a 2nd grader can ask 'why'....."

NOPE

ANOTHER contradiction from you:

BOTH of these quotes are from you:

“there's no need to address any of it Larry.”

And

“…they have already been addressed”

Hmmmm. “no need” to address them because they have “already been addressed”???

Yet, you don’t re-post your responses to SHOW you already addressed them???

Yeah, ok.

Larry said...

Was THIS addressed?

Your insanity continues.....

"And even then, do we trust our senses? How can one really "know" reality when our knowledge and experience of reality can only come through our senses?"

So, what youre saying is.....you dont REALLY know if the sun rises everyday, but you can DEFINATELY, WITHOUT DOUBT, UNEQUIVOCALLY know FOR A FACT that WTC7 collapsed because of FIRE ALONE based on a few cops and firefighters who had NO WAY OF KNOWING for sure the building was going to fall because there has never been a precedent for it? BUT, the sun [which has risen BILLIONS OF TIMES] you CANNOT be sure of because we dont REALLY know reality because we cant trust our senses??

How many drugs do you do at one time???

NOPE

Larry said...

Was THIS addressed?

“Here you are AGAIN interchanging words with different meanings. This time, you interchanged the words "would" and "might":

"And seeing as we have many different professional/expert testimonies describing their conviction that WTC7 would collapse"

"Or rather, we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for the fire-peeps to suspect the building might collapse - and it did."

Which is it??? Dif they know it "would" or think it "might"??

This is TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!”

NOPE

Larry said...

Was THIS addressed?

[YOU SAID]"people say they "know" all sorts of things when they merely suspect it - like infidelity, say."

Give me ONE example.

So, you're ADMITTING in the above quote that "KNOW" and "suspect" have DIFFERENT meanings then? Just like "PULL it" has 25 different meanings too??? Isnt it simply AMAZING that we [truthers] get ridiculed and vilified when we simply use DIRECT quotes from the ones we criticize---but when you assholes are defending yourselves, it's PERFECTLY OK for words to have MULTIPLE meanings!

"Nobody "knows" the sun will definitely rise tomorrow but everyone "knows" it will."

HUH??????????????????

So, what youre saying is: Nobody AND everybody knows the sun will rise???? Jesus! Just when I thought your comments couldn't get dumber and dumber, you continue to shatter your own records!”

NOPE

Anonymous said...

game set match, larry. you won again. you now own this blog. this queenie is your bitch. youve answered his questions and he hasnt answered yours. he hasnt refuted nor debunked you on anything yet hes rubbish and bullocks.

the_last_name_left said...

1. ( also intr; may take a clause as object ) to be or feel certain of the truth or accuracy of (a fact, etc)
2. to be acquainted or familiar with: she's known him five years
3. to have a familiarity or grasp of, as through study or experience: he knows French
4. ( also intr; may take a clause as object ) to understand, be aware of, or perceive (facts, etc): he knows the answer now
5. ( foll by how ) to be sure or aware of (how to be or do something)
6. to experience, esp deeply: to know poverty
7. to be intelligent, informed, or sensible enough (to do something): she knew not to go home yet
8. ( may take a clause as object ) to be able to distinguish or discriminate
9. archaic to have sexual intercourse with
10. I know what I have an idea
11. know what's what to know how one thing or things in general work

the_last_name_left said...

Main Entry: know

Part of Speech: verb

Definition: understand information

Synonyms: apperceive, appreciate, apprehend, be acquainted, be cognizant, be conversant in, be informed, be learned, be master of, be read, be schooled, be versed, cognize, comprehend, differentiate, discern, discriminate, distinguish, experience, fathom, feel certain, get the idea, grasp, have, have down pat, have information, have knowledge of, keep up on, ken, learn, notice, on top of, perceive, prize, realize, recognize, see, undergo

Antonyms: misinterpret, misunderstand

Main Entry: know

Part of Speech: verb

Definition: be familiar with

Synonyms: associate, be acquainted with, be friends with, experience, feel, fraternize, get acquainted, have dealings with, identify, savor, see, sustain, taste, undergo

Antonyms: be ignorant, forget

the_last_name_left said...

Once upon a time, skepticism about 911 was warranted. None of us could believe it. People have adjusted at different rates, and some still can't believe it. However, the legitimacy of disbelieve is receding all the time, because of a lack of evidence for it on the one hand, and a mountain of evidence for the bloody obvious - terrorist attack, fire, collapse.

Bazout and Lou --- publishing in real science/engineering journals properly peer-reviewed and open for dispute --- show that even 10% of the energy from the collapsing topmost parts would have caused the buildings to collapse.

10%.

All their calculations are shown. Bazout and Lou are apparently leading structural engineers.

Troofers should address their work properly, and respond to the paper. They haven't.

Instead we have the charlatan Richard Gage dropping cardboard boxes.

And the LIAR Stephen Jones misleading people and conducting very poor "research" which he chose to publish in a vanity journal;, causing its editor to resign as she knew nothing about it. Some peer-review process that is, eh?

Calculations elsewhere show that the energy in the collapsing building was circa 1/2 a kiloton - at least. That explains the speed of collapse - the buildings were completely overcome once the collapse initiated.

And it wasn't "freefall" at all - everyone can see the debris cloud overtakes the collapse zone. The debris was in freefall - and it went quicker than collapse. End of.

I am perhaps done with this. I no longer even see why there is a cause for argument. I'm convinced Troofers are just mentally ill, or chronically stupid. And some are just dishonest and opportunist. Hugely Cynical. Nothing of value has nor is coming out of 911 Troof. It's a grotesque. That much is clear.

I have found the whole journey very rewarding and sobering though. I've learnt a lot - mostly about my own attitude to evidence, how belief influences perception etc. The phenomena of "911 Troof" itself is now more intriguing than the events itself, which seem relatively uncontroversial (at least without something new).

It has wasted a lot of time.

For one thing, everyone who believes it wasn't Al Qaida have totally failed to even begin dealing with the true implications.

I mean - let's just consider what for you, Larry, would be a hypothetical question:

let's assume that it really was Al Qaida, ok? What implications would that have your on position regarding

1) Al Qaida
2) The US and world response (Afghan)
3) Militant Islam
4) The US government/NWO
5) Terrorism


[Putting the question back to myself, and hypothetically accepting AQ aren't responsible but rather the US government is somehow: I'd accept your position as a fairly reasonable one, I guess.]

the_last_name_left said...

Larry says:

----------
"[15th time asking now]:

““If collapsing by fire alone NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE .... how would anyone know what the characteristics are of a building that "was going to collapse?"

----------

It's far more than 15 times.

Repeating the question does you no good Larry - only harm. That you feel a need to ask it at all says a lot. To repeat it after everything that has been said is.....I dunno what. A stubborn stupidity?

The reasons why firepeople on-the-ground thought the building would/could collapse are well-known.

They were right - as the facts testify: WTC did collapse.

As already explained, the only avenues available to you now are:

1) call the fire people liars / claim their testimony is fiction somehow

2) claim the phenomena they saw before them and upon which they based their judgements about collapse were somehow manufactured.

Larry said...

"Repeat it after everything has been said..."??

You make it appear as if "everything that has been said" includes you ANSWERING the question------it does not, because you NEVER answered it. And the fact that you just IGNORED the posts I just re-posted says youre a colossal FRAUD on all counts

Now, read my posts I re-posted [above] and actually ADDRESS and ANSWER them. Or are you afraid??

Larry said...

WHY DO YOU KEEP DELETING POSTS?????

Larry said...

"I am perhaps done with this. I no longer even see why there is a cause for argument. I'm convinced Troofers are just mentally ill, or chronically stupid. And some are just dishonest and opportunist. Hugely Cynical. Nothing of value has nor is coming out of 911 Troof. It's a grotesque. That much is clear."

Translation:

"I am done with people I consider crazy [troofers] asking EXCELLENT questions that I am too afraid to answer because they make a hell of a lot of sense. And because they make excellent points and ask excellent questions that I cannot and refuse to answer, I will resort to ad hominem attacks and call them "mentally ill" and "chronically stupid" despite the fact that I refuse to answer their questions and make the most stupid comments a person can utter by comparing Building 7's collapse to sunrises [which has happened billions of times] and saying:

"Nobody "knows" the sun will definitely rise tomorrow but everyone "knows" it will."----

which basically says nobody AND everybody knows the sun will rise. I am done because I lost credibility [if I ever had any] a LONG time ago and this troofer is making a complete fool out of me and I have run out of ridiculous comments, comparisons and contradictory statements that I refuse to address when this troofer points them out and exposes me. I'm a huge FRAUD"

Anonymous said...

larry you just proved that he contradicted himself and that hes a fn queenie.

Larry said...

I win. The last COCK left has been defeated.....AGAIN.

Real Truth Online said...

"So, no matter how obvious it is this building would collapse in its present state, Larry insists it would be impossible to even suspect it might collapse, because 'it has never happened before'."

But the Empire State building resting on top of 4 wooded logs [3 of which are sheard off] HAS never happened before---so even your PREMISE is non-existent, therefore you have to throw this stupid example down the drain.

We DO have examples of buildings with massive damage and fire NOT collapsing in the past, so those precedents is what gives us the knowledge to know WTTC 7 should NOT have collapsed.

But, your stupid scenario of the Empire State Building resting on 4 logs [3 sheared] has NEVER happened before. The premise is stupid from the start, because the top part of a building would be too heavy for 4 wooden logs to support---so even in your obvious attempt to point out the ridiculousness of it, you failed even with the premise.

That's why you need locked up and thrown into a rubber room, never to be freed.