View Single Post
  #98  
Old 09-13-2019, 06:16 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by namahoo View Post
This is provably false.

For the longest time I worked under the same assumption. Too large to keep secret. Once I realized that it *could* have been pulled off by a fairly limited number of people, then I began taking those theories a lot more seriously.

One reporter who's been putting forward a sketch of how it *could* have been done is one Christopher Bollyn.
So I'm sure you can summarize his hypothetical, since you find it compelling. Who would be involved in this "fairly limited number of people"?

A link would also be helpful, but note that merely linking other people's YouTube videos is not in itself an argument.

Also, I have no information on Bollyn's treatment of puppies one way or the other.

Quote:
I'm sure I'll be told he kicks puppies or something. Ad hominem seems to be pervasive here.!
Look at the banner. See the bit about "fighting ignorance"? We tend to have a low tolerance for people who promote it, and a lower tolerance for people who wilfully ignore evidence. We have been around and around the Truther conspiracy theories ad nauseum for the better part of two decades. They don't get any more convincing, and the vast majority of Truthers appear to be arguing in questionable faith. Look at LAZombie's "You can't explain why WTC7 fell" statement even after it was already explained, and his continuing to ignore the even more substantive explanations afterwards. Why should we even bother answering the questions, when the responses merely get ignored?

So you want to present a new study. You're making an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence just for a start. Instead, you linked to a YouTube video, which is not a credible source for anything, and the one bit of detail you provided - about WTC7 collapsing in a way that could not have happened without deliberate intervention - is demonstrably false. In addition, pointing out that the author of the paper is not actually a "forensic structure engineer" and that the people who commissioned the report have a specific agenda they commissioned the report to support is not "ad hominem"; it is entirely germane to assessing the weight to be given to the report.

You asked us "what we make of it". We told you. You didn't like it. You are welcome to put forth a robust counterargument - indeed, it would make a nice change - but don't blame us if we don't immediately fall to our knees aghast at the brilliance of it, like the subjects of some secular Jack Chick tract.