tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post3323551464623149623..comments2024-01-03T08:31:24.554+00:00Comments on the_last_blog_left: 9/11 Conspiracism and Sibel Edmondsthe_last_name_lefthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-30532006118472745572009-08-18T18:04:12.194+01:002009-08-18T18:04:12.194+01:00I ask questions OVER AND OVER
That's ALL that...<i><b>I ask questions OVER AND OVER</b></i><br /><br />That's ALL that you have done. Just the one question. <br /><br />You somehow imagine that amounts to proving a conspiracy of fantastic proportion. <br /><br />Pathetic.<br /><br /><i><b>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!</b></i><br /><br />I gave you the link to the report in question over and over and over. I have quoted the report over and over.<br /><br />You refused to go and look at it. Over and over and over again. <br /><br />I find it interesting you are surprised I said "GO AND LOOK YOURSELF!"<br /><br />Why did you refuse to go and look at the evidence yourself? Interesting commitment to the evidence you have Larry. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />As I said - <br /><br /><b>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.</b><br /><br />You said it's impossible - you've done nothing to establish that. Not one single thing.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />CAN CAN CAN. Get it? No......oh well.<br /><br /><i><b>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</b></i><br /><br />You CANNOT use that as a reason to say it was IMPOSSIBLE. DUH <br /><br /><b><i>[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.</i></b><br /><br />No - you didn't. Go check what you've written?<br /><br />here's your scribbles:<br /><i><b>Larry: <br />I asked you SPECIFICALLY-----what buildng other than WTC 7 has suffered a UNIVERSAL collapse due to FIRE AND DAMAGE ALONE??</b></i><br /><br />No "pre911" in there.<br /><br />But again - it's your arbitrary insistence that the WTC 1+2 can't be included.<br /><br /><i><b>You are a delusional, psychotic, hair-brained DIPSHIT.</b></i><br /><br />LOL - and you've done absolutely nothing to provide evidence for your hypothesis of controlled demolition.<br /><br />You won't even look at the evidence I supplied you saying ANY building is susceptible to collapse from fire blah blah. <br /><br />You still insist it is "impossible". Good for you.<br /><br />I can't see that you would obtain an accurate view of anything at all. <br /><br /><i><b>L: Ive spent way too much time on your sorry, pathetic excuse as ahuman being and I will spend no more.</b></i><br /><br />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 ......<br /><br />And instead of answering them, you're gonna flounce off? Victorious! Yeah - well done Larry - you've won again huh?the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-26724453621527518942009-08-18T16:00:32.283+01:002009-08-18T16:00:32.283+01:00You are a complete MORON. You said:
"I asked...You are a complete MORON. You said:<br /><br />"I asked if the other buildings were identical, if they'd suffered identical damage, if they were in identical positions to WTC7.<br /><br />The answer is no - they were not. (The implication being - why expect them to when they didn't suffer the same conditions as WTC7.."<br /><br />Yeah, the other buildings suffered WORSE DAMAGE AND WORSE FIRES!!!!<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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!<br /><br />Here's yet ANOTHER example of your BLATANT contradictions:<br /><br />You said:<br /><br />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!!!!)<br /><br />Then you said:<br /><br />"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......."<br /><br />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!!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Then you said this:<br /><br />"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? <br /><br />The answer is no - they were not.<br /><br />Nobody said they were.<br /><br />Why you think that makes the report worthless is beyond my comprehension."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />You ADMITTED that the remaining FIVE buildings WERE SMALLER when you said THIS:<br /><br />"Larry the architect has decided that because the buildings in the report on total collapses were not "tall buildings"....."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />You are complete FRAUD and you KNOW deep down I have beaten you. Even your ONE reader agrees with me!Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-85762320331481640962009-08-18T11:05:33.507+01:002009-08-18T11:05:33.507+01:00you have FAILED to name ANY of the buildings by na...<i><b>you have FAILED to name ANY of the buildings by name OR show me pictures of them. Hmmmm. I wonder why?????</b></i><br /><br />I gave you the link to the report - get off your arse and do something for yourself if you are so concerned?<br /><br /><i><b>L: You could EASILY look at YOUR report and list the names, but you REFUSE to.</b></i><br /><br />LOL<br /><br />I could yes - but so could you? You haven't even read it. Jeez.<br /><br />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 ? <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i><b>L: molten steel in the rubble?</b></i><br /><br />Was there? What's your evidence? Some nazi claiming it - so it must be true?<br /><br /><i><b>pulverize into dust?</b></i><br /><br />What building was pulverised into dust? Do you mean to imply no other building generates dust - or that WTC was pulverised into ONLY dust?<br /><br /><i><b>collapse into their own footprint?</b></i><br /><br />Like the towers? LOL<br /><br />Or WTC7? LOL<br /><br /><i><b>if NIST is right, PM are LIARS.</b></i><br /><br />No - people can be wrong without being liars. You have to do a bit more than find "wrong" to prove someone was lying. <br /><br />So come on then Larry - you've pursued your stupid point ad nauseum - when are you going to address your own totally flawed hypothesis?<br /><br />Oh - that's right. Never.<br /><br />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.......<br /><br />Why has 911 troof got nowhere in all this time? Because all it has is questions - and not many of those left anymore.the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-86842481421648323812009-08-18T11:04:21.582+01:002009-08-18T11:04:21.582+01:00You really don't get it do you?
You wanted to...You really don't get it do you?<br /><br />You wanted to know why WTC7 collapsed, but the other buildings didn't.<br /><br />I asked if the other buildings were identical, if they'd suffered identical damage, if they were in identical positions to WTC7.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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? <br /><br />The answer is no - they were not.<br /><br />Nobody said they were.<br /><br />Why you think that makes the report worthless is beyond my comprehension.<br /><br />Of course they were not identical to WTC7 - and of course they did not experience conditions identical to WTC7. <br /><br />Nobody said they were or had.<br /><br />If you had once bothered to look at the report you'd have known that.<br /><br /><i><b>So, he ADMITS the buildings in the report were NOT tall buildings!!! FINALLY, he ADMITS IT!</b></i><br /><br />LOL - the report is about MULTI-STOREY BUILDINGS (4+) which suffered partial or total collapse due to fire. <br /><br />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. <br /><br /><i><b>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?</b></i><br /><br />Man, are you slow. <br /><br />Evidence showing multi-storey buildings <b>CAN</b> collapse from fire, in no way means they MUST collapse under fire. Only that they can - that it is not impossible.<br /><br />You claim collapse was impossible - the report says <b>"This data demonstrated that <i>buildings of all types of construction and<br />occupancies, in North America, and abroad, are susceptible to fire-induced collapse,</i><br />particularly older buildings. ".</b><br /><br />OK? <br /><br /><i><b>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?</b></i><br /><br />No - CAN collapse. CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN CAN<br /><br />You say IMPOSSIBLE - the report says ANY type CAN collapse.<br /><br />OK?the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-5000762958383388912009-08-18T09:44:52.396+01:002009-08-18T09:44:52.396+01:00You remind me of the Popular Mechanics people that...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!<br /><br />PM never answered 2 questions about that "supposed" photo of the "gash":<br /><br />1) What would it hurt if the public saw that picture?<br /><br />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.Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-53430194106823551952009-08-18T09:34:25.242+01:002009-08-18T09:34:25.242+01:00"Larry the architect has decided that because..."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.."<br /><br />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!<br /><br />Here's the part I LOVE. You said:<br /><br />"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?"<br /><br />No, YOU decided that when previously I had mentioned why didnt WTC 4, 5 an 6 collapse---you said:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />You are INSANE!<br /><br />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. <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"8 total collapses in that report I linked to - which was a survey done for NIST. All buildings were multi-storey - above 4 storeys."<br /><br />and yet you have FAILED to name ANY of the buildings by name OR show me pictures of them. Hmmmm. I wonder why?????<br /><br />Oh, and by the way--even if there ARE 5 other buildings that have collapsed universally----did they:<br /><br />1) collapse into their own footprint?<br /><br />2) have molten steel in the rubble?<br /><br />3) pulverize into dust?<br /><br />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.Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-38015625713602196402009-08-18T06:15:17.236+01:002009-08-18T06:15:17.236+01:00Previously Larry said
L: you CANNOT give me an ex...Previously Larry said<br /><br /><i><b>L: you CANNOT give me an example of a universal collapse of a building pre-9/11, because not one exists.</b></i><br /><br />I said - <i><b>Apart from the 7 others included in the report I linked to?</b></i><br /><br />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)<br /><br />NIST said WTC7 was the first time a "tall building" - ie above 15-20 storeys had collapsed solely due to fire. <br /><br />There is no contradiction there.<br /><br />Why you keep blabbing on is beyond comprehension. You haven't moved a single inch forward. Not one fraction of an inch.<br /><br />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.the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-70134142478570336722009-08-18T06:03:51.472+01:002009-08-18T06:03:51.472+01:00First of all, Larry - you again show you haven'...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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />Is that what you're saying? <br /><br />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?<br /><br />That's your "point", is it?<br /><br />I suspect it is. How ridiculous.the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-91749228493989814942009-08-18T01:54:17.031+01:002009-08-18T01:54:17.031+01:00"You're just mental Larry.
You keep bang..."You're just mental Larry.<br /><br />You keep banging on asking the same pointless question - whilst avoiding the real ones that you need answer.<br /><br />Pathetic."<br /><br />Nice dodging!<br /><br />REFUSING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION? How tall were the buildings in your report Turd????<br /><br />How tall were they??? Gonna keep IGNORING me?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />BUT, when I told him the NIST report said that fires have never made a tall building collapse before---he said:<br /><br />"This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building<br /><br />In the NIST Final Report "tall buildings" are defined as "taller than 15 or 20 storeys"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Congrats Turd, only 2 people look at your blog and they BOTH think youre a crackpot.<br /><br />You stand alone.Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-81438317925312839552009-08-17T22:43:07.927+01:002009-08-17T22:43:07.927+01:00S: it does look like Larry has done a good job in ...<i><b>S: it does look like Larry has done a good job in this debate. </b></i><br /><br />LOL<br /><br />I'll put that up for posterity.the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-17681119917405071582009-08-17T22:36:22.548+01:002009-08-17T22:36:22.548+01:00Ok, I can't keep track of every thread and pos...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. <a href="http://prosemiteundercover.phpbbnow.com/viewtopic.php?t=11287" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> 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,<br /><br />"Missing Topic<br />The page you requested cannot be displayed. The administrators may have removed the topic that you are looking for.<br /><br />If you have any questions, please contact the site administrator." <br /><br />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.Tokyo Shemphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01764134901412321022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-92074149741064737642009-08-17T18:57:26.295+01:002009-08-17T18:57:26.295+01:00L: Yep--i KNEW you'd ignore when Ive crushed y...<i><b>L: Yep--i KNEW you'd ignore when Ive crushed you with facts!</b></i><br /><br />You don't work with facts - you just ask the same question over and over - even though it's been addressed over and over.<br /><br />Don't agree with the answer? fine.<br /><br />On the other hand you just ignore questions asked of you. Because you can't even BEGIN to address them without exposing yourself.<br /><br />Pathetic and dishonest. But you enjoy yourself, Larry - Master of the Universe - Hero - Superman. What a guy.the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-58113601135129887322009-08-17T18:53:01.905+01:002009-08-17T18:53:01.905+01:00You're just mental Larry.
You keep banging on...You're just mental Larry.<br /><br />You keep banging on asking the same pointless question - whilst avoiding the real ones that you need answer.<br /><br />Pathetic.the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-42528988055517697382009-08-17T13:02:57.692+01:002009-08-17T13:02:57.692+01:00"This was a fire induced progressive collapse..."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."<br /><br />if it was DISPROPORTIONATE----WHY DID IT COLLAPSE PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL????<br /><br /><br />Hmmmmm????????<br /><br />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:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />You also said this to me:<br /><br />"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?"<br /><br />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)???<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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!<br /><br />YOU LOSE....AGAINLarrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-74214415354429450952009-08-17T13:02:11.151+01:002009-08-17T13:02:11.151+01:00Yep--i KNEW you'd ignore when Ive crushed you ...Yep--i KNEW you'd ignore when Ive crushed you with facts!<br /><br />Funny how you blasted me for my "foul language" on your site, but you go to PrisonPlanet and type this repeatedly on the threads:<br /><br />"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"<br /><br />Under the screen name "Giant Haystacks" under this story:<br /><br />http://www.prisonplanet.com<br />/two-faced-pelosi-if-you-<br />protest-republicans-<br />you%e2%80%99re-<br />%e2%80%9cvery-american%e2%80%9d<br />-if-you-protest-democrats-<br />you%e2%80%99re-a-<br />%e2%80%9cnazi%e2%80%9d.html<br /><br />Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, it "wasnt you". You'll be a COWARD and deny it!<br /><br />Anyone who spams up a thread like that----ESPECIALLY on a site they hate is an unstable, mentally-ill, psychotic ticking time bomb.<br /><br />I KNEW you would IGNORE my question where I asked HOW TALL WERE THE BUILDINGS IN THE REPORT YOU GAVE? HOW TALL WERE THEY?<br /><br />ILL KEEP POSTING MY POST UNTIL YOU ANSWER ITLarrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-37557151149303730892009-08-17T08:00:35.894+01:002009-08-17T08:00:35.894+01:00I will ignore 90% of what you said because it'...I will ignore 90% of what you said because it's the same tired old rubbish.<br /><br />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?"<br /><br />Think about it Larry? <br /><br />Let's try a little thought experiment to help you through it?<br /><br />Let's imagine that several identical buildings had collapsed from fire, in China, or anywhere.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />Got that? To be clear:<br /><br />Lack of knowledge of identical buildings having previously collapsed does not preclude being able to tell a building is going to collapse.<br /><br />Nor must it preclude the building from collapsing.<br /><br />Read the firemen's testimony - they had good reason to suspect the building was going to collapse. And lo and behold - it collapsed.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(The first time something happens, of course there is no previous occasion.)<br /><br />Has anyone ever flown jets into the WTC before and there were no collapses? No. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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. <br /><br />You don't realise how much of a leap you're making there, do you?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />You're not an architect, are you, Larry? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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".the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-70168045895439692009-08-17T07:20:10.373+01:002009-08-17T07:20:10.373+01:00NIST said it was fire in 2005, then they took 3 ye...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???<br /><br />The amazing thing is, YOU BUY THIS SHIT!Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-49526952675310397672009-08-17T07:15:59.329+01:002009-08-17T07:15:59.329+01:00Are you paying attention Socrates? Im nailing him ...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Or will the big fat baby enable moderation AGAIN like a good, obedient little Nazi?Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-15834919462647817572009-08-17T07:09:38.066+01:002009-08-17T07:09:38.066+01:00"This was a fire induced progressive collapse..."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."<br /><br />if it was DISPROPORTIONATE----WHY DID IT COLLAPSE PERFECTLY SYMMETRICAL????<br /><br /><br />Hmmmmm????????<br /><br />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:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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?<br /><br />You also said this to me:<br /><br />"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?"<br /><br />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)???<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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!<br /><br />YOU LOSE....AGAIN<br /><br />You will ignore 90% of what I just saidLarrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-14890963594216889672009-08-17T04:40:26.846+01:002009-08-17T04:40:26.846+01:00And that's arse-backwards. Obviously.And that's arse-backwards. Obviously.the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-13931870095448758072009-08-17T04:39:15.280+01:002009-08-17T04:39:15.280+01:00That's why 911 is so important to the conspira...That's why 911 is so important to the conspiracists - and not to anyone else in the same way. <br /><br />That's also why evidence is so unimportant, and so completely disregarded by conspiracists, but not by anyone else.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <i>committed</i> to the worldview that their government does such things. They "know" it did such a thing - the only thing is to find out <i>how it did it</i>.the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-31823651222099263602009-08-17T04:28:24.273+01:002009-08-17T04:28:24.273+01:00See if you can understand this:
From the report ...See if you can understand this: <br /><br />From the report FOR NIST: <br /><i>Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire<br />by<br />Beitel, J. J., Hughes Associates, Inc<br />Iwankiw, N. R., Hughes Associates, Inc.<br />-snip-<br /><b>A multi-story building was defined<br />to consist of 4 or more stories</b></i><br /><br />Multi-storey. <br /><br />From NIST report:<br /><br /><i>This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of <b>a tall building</b></i><br /><br />In the NIST Final Report "tall buildings" are defined as "taller than 15 or 20 storeys"<br /><br />Understand?<br /><br />The NIST report says "<b><i>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.</i></b><br /><br />And<br /><br /><i><b>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.</b></i><br /><a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf" rel="nofollow"><br />LINK</a><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Read the NIST reports now and I find it very hard to see why people are still so suspicious.<br /><br />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_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-28157269476498400152009-08-17T02:31:40.218+01:002009-08-17T02:31:40.218+01:00NIST??? Are you kidding me?
You mean THIS NIST re...NIST??? Are you kidding me?<br /><br />You mean THIS NIST report?<br /><br />http://www.nist.gov/<br />public_affairs/releases/<br />wtc082108.html<br /><br />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!<br /><br />It took THREE years for them to come to the conclusion it was FIRES????<br /><br />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. <br /><br />NIST completely IGNORED the molten metal found in the rubble of WTC 7.<br /><br />Paul Watson wrote right after the NIST report came out:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Also, NIST was NOT peer reviewed. Numerous experts have questioned NIST's conclusions. They are:<br /><br />Dr. James Quintiere<br />Dr. Joerg Schneider<br />Dr. Hugo Bachmann<br />Kamal S. Obeid<br />Ronald H. Brookman<br />Graham John Inman<br />Danny Jowenko<br />Dr. David L. Griscom<br />and of course Richard Gage---who said:<br /><br />"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.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />How will you spin and ignore this?Larrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-36564482580628905802009-08-17T02:06:58.977+01:002009-08-17T02:06:58.977+01:00"Funny - because you are the one saying "..."Funny - because you are the one saying "inside job" and controlled demolition - and your evidence amounts to absolutely diddly squat."<br /><br />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<br /><br />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 FRAUDLarrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2904940198922843174.post-61133562970102533762009-08-16T22:36:03.334+01:002009-08-16T22:36:03.334+01:00L:YOU must supply the names and info, not me.
LOL...<i><b>L:YOU must supply the names and info, not me.</b></i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i><b>YOURE the one trying to prove that point</b></i><br /><br />Funny - because you are the one saying "inside job" and controlled demolition - and your evidence amounts to absolutely diddly squat.<br /><br />But that doesn't matter for you does it? There's your (self) deceit - right there.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />You on the other hand have provided absolutely ZILCH evidence for ANY alternative hypothesis, let alnoe for controlled demolition.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i><b>WHAT INVESTIGATION OF WTC 7 ARE YOU REFERRING TO?<br /></b></i><br /><br />NIST.<br /><br />What controlled demolition hypothesis are you referring to? Larry's own?<br /><br />Are you an architect, Larry?the_last_name_lefthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12276770064991215910noreply@blogger.com