Are you sure about that? Do you consider not responding to my detailed refutations and attempting to start up anew after a few weeks ignoring this thread (as if the refutations hadn't happened, weren't still there and don't for some reason still stand) to be withstanding? Everyone can go back and read to verify this for themselves. Then they can read this claim of yours above, that I'd done absolutely nothing to refute it, and wonder where your intellectual honesty and integrity went.
Go address these standing refutations and quit avoiding the conversations you've left me hanging on when they got tricky. You like to claim logical fallacies of others while you continue to blatantly avoid the questions and refutations posted in direct response to your nonsense.
The first time you left me hanging, after I transposed some info for you to engage you further, you stated that you owed me a response after you watched a video. Even went so far as following that up with this:
Well, the thread still isn't locked, but you never got around to responding, did you? Burn me once – shame on you.
Our next conversation, weeks after, ended with me refuting an entire post of yours point by point. I ended it with this, but you really should go back and read the whole thing again, post #825, it was rather pointed. I'll bet others will:
And then guess what happened: you fell silent in this thread again for weeks until popping back in just recently to try starting all over as if we'd never even conversed, making fantastic claims about having "withstood" posts that you don't even seem to have read. That's now how it works when I can link directly to them and everyone can verify our post history.
Burn me twice, as I've shown – shame on me if I allow it. And I kinda did, allowing you one final undeserved courtesy out to take up some different aspect of the discussion which had moved beyond your earlier failures to respond. You didn't – so burn.
When you can respond to the previous, and the posted examples which still stand, perhaps we can continue, perhaps not. You begged for this and in doing so lost the interest I once had in engaging you on this matter (remember, I enjoy a challenge, not this repeated tactic of yours which amounts to kicking a rock, running away, then returning weeks later with no memory of the exchanges).
It will be difficult for me to not dismiss you completely at this point. That's another weakness of mine.
meh. Might as well go ahead and respond to this latest re-entry of yours to this thread while I'm at it:
Describe for me the plane that eyes saw crash into WTC7. Describe for me how anyone's eyes can determine or adopt "normal office fires" as the cause of collapse. Describe for me the work being accomplished by the building that anyone's eyes can see falling suddenly and symmetrically through its own structure into its own footprint during the period of measured freefall when no work can be accomplished by the falling body.
I already called you out in the post linked above for constantly retreating back to only the twin towers and evading the other buildings and events of the day. You never responded, so I get to keep rubbing your face in that fact ...possibly forever ...because it truly withstood your absolute lack of response.
Of course what was seen by the eyes was plausible. You didn't really get to see the explosives, but you certainly saw their effects. If controlled demolition was somehow not plausible, or even not the most plausible explanation for those 3 building demolitions, you might be able to make a better point than this. Unfortunately, you just can't, or you would have long before now.
I'd have probably enjoyed that more if it hadn't been so ridiculously simple. Could you please recruit someone more qualified than yourself to continue from where you died off (again) a few weeks back? I'd sure appreciate it, since I doubt you'll have much success recovering from this
...and you do still owe me.
NEXT!
While we wait for INGO to steep in the undeniable reality of this 15 year deception, while we wait for the partisan theater distraction of the current general election to pass, I'd like to offer one more video specifically tailored to the primary discussion points fielded from season 1 that many just couldn't seem to get past.
Since I have no intention of letting season 2 get mired down in constant or petty rehashing, please watch this fairly modern debunking of debunking attempts before going there. If you still absolutely insist on discussing it further, please start a new thread.
I will look for it, I will find it, and I will logically beat you senseless.
Here ya go:
[video=youtube;3pfwiCDOLO8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfwiCDOLO8[/video]
No need to comment on it here, we're moving on once playtime is over.
Stay tuned...
Everyone was offered a clean slate in season 2, and I still plan to honor that unless you beg for something else as chip did.
I'm not even sure at this point which video chip went back and watched, but he really should have paid attention to the one in this post before committing intellectual suicide in front of everyone:
Moving on.
While we wait for INGO to steep in the undeniable reality of this 15 year deception, while we wait for the partisan theater distraction of the current general election to pass, I'd like to offer one more video specifically tailored to the primary discussion points fielded from season 1 that many just couldn't seem to get past.
Since I have no intention of letting season 2 get mired down in constant or petty rehashing, please watch this fairly modern debunking of debunking attempts before going there. If you still absolutely insist on discussing it further, please start a new thread.
I will look for it, I will find it, and I will logically beat you senseless.
Here ya go:
[video=youtube;3pfwiCDOLO8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pfwiCDOLO8[/video]
No need to comment on it here, we're moving on once playtime is over.
Stay tuned...
You don't even know what videos you posted? I watched the hour-long video from the OP.
And I'm not sure you understand the definition of "intellectual suicide". Certainly, pointing out that assertions presented without supporting evidence are merely specious allegations doesn't constitute "intellectual suicide".
You don't even remember the video we were discussing that you said you'd watch and didn't want to miss your opportunity to comment on?
The one that had NIST engineers falling on their swords? Ring any bells?
No, it wasn't the video from the OP, that one was much more suited to the questions I wanted to discuss when I started this thread.
I only suggested that I'd entertain defenses of the official narrative for my own amusement. You are failing to amuse me with your forgetfulness and continued lack of rational defense of that entire narrative.
...Unless and until you present such evidence, you are doing nothing more than wasting everyone's time.
If you are of the misconception that my participation in this or any other thread is for your personal amusement, then you will continue to be disappointed.
I've looked at two videos now, neither of which refute the stated cause of the collapses of WTC1/2.
...I'll also entertain any 'falsers' who dare to try supporting the official cover-up narrative here for my own amusement purposes...
Well, when they stop being entertained, I suppose they'll stop reading. Thinking and seeing were always optional.
I think I'll just politely wreck your standing in this thread a bit more before dismissing you.
Stand by.
Sorry, old chap, it seems you are the one with the misconception. You're also quite mistaken if you believe that I have been in any way disappointed.
I only suggested that I'd entertain defenses of the official narrative for my own amusement. You are failing to amuse me with your forgetfulness and continued lack of rational defense of that entire narrative.
Certainly fair. I wouldn't be here if I weren't at least making an attempt at sincere discourse. I find no joy in trolling...
False premise. Sound mathematics did not need to prove the absence of a demolition; rather, sound mathematics merely needed to prove the plausibility of a collapse caused by airplane collision. Given that such plausibility was confirmed by said mathematics, no need existed to disprove any other, arbitrary root cause or theory.
Remember, you don't need to be an engineer or an architect to see what happened to those buildings...
Indeed. Anyone with eyes to see, saw that planes crashed into them, causing them to collapse.
Being an engineer merely helps one understand the forces that demonstrate that what was seen by the eyes was plausible.
I like fun facts.
[video=youtube;luGkdBs95kY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luGkdBs95kY[/video]