15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[KJQ6945]

View attachment 51465

NEVER FORGET!



The only skyscraper in history that never had a fire dept response, and burned until it collapsed.

 

[ATM]

NEVER FORGET!

The only skyscraper in history that never had a fire dept response, and burned until it collapsed.

Have you suddenly developed amnesia as well? Have you forgotten our conversation?

This has such a simple response I honestly thought you were just avoiding explaining your claim, which I highlighted (and you still haven't explained)...

Do you intend to try rehashing petty crap that's already been addressed, too? I was gentle last time, and you still didn't respond.

 

[ATM]

Oh, there's yet a *third* video. Let me go dig that one up, too.

And I see no reason to start a new thread. I'll stay here, thanks.

So, I was correct to have doubted your claim. Since we're now clear on that, go ahead and have some fun.

I can't stop you from proving my point, nor would I try - you've been most helpful.

Instead of searching through all the videos in this thread trying to make sense of what you've forgotten you said, I'll point out that you could have just returned to our conversation from 6 weeks ago. It was our first conversation that you ultimately abandoned:

Why would I need to argue by proxy? That briefing was recorded. Would watching two gentlemen from NIST fall on their swords be acceptable evidence that they were willing to?

Watching videos of planes and collapses seems to be acceptable to most.

Are you accustomed to dismissing that which has been presented, then demanding that it be presented again and again? Is that a method of investigation and discovery or a technique of suppression?

Just watch from 20:00 to 30:00, that should be sufficient.

*video quoted in post*

I'd only suggested 10 minutes of your valuable time if you wanted to see what I was describing.

You even acknowledged and agreed:

I owe you a response once I've had time to watch the video....

But, that was before you lost any memory of our conversation and decided to just start over again trying to rehash petty crap that had already been addressed.

Either you've been completely disingenuous from the start or perhaps you have a medical condition I'm unaware of. If the latter, please PM me the details because I get no joy from ridiculing the infirmed.

 

[ocsdor]

NEVER FORGET!



The only skyscraper in history that never had a fire dept response, and burned until it collapsed.

And how did it catch fire?

 

[ATM]

Seeing as how this thread is essentially the two of you flexing how large your vocabularies are, who has the closer relationship to the Thesaurus, etc... why not just take it to PMs?

chip didn't PM me. chip didn't start a new thread like I'd politely requested. This is not my forum so I don't get to make chip do anything he doesn't want to do. All I can do is try to steer the thread I started, hoping to get back around to what I originally hoped to discuss.

My apologies for using interesting words here and there, I'll try to bland it down a bit.

Onomatopoeia.

Bam!

Come back in a few months and just let the rest of us plebs know who won.

I can already tell you. Are people still wagering on this? I'll bet the spread is incredible!

I'll give my Supporter status to Chip so he doesn't run into the 50 message limit.

That's a kind gesture, but I don't think chip is honoring kind gestures at this point in this thread.

I still hope to meet him, and you, too, one of these days.

 

[chipbennett]

Instead of searching through all the videos in this thread trying to make sense of what you've forgotten you said, I'll point out that you could have just returned to our conversation from 6 weeks ago. It was our first conversation that you ultimately abandoned:

Ah, so here's yet a fourth video. Sorry that I didn't find the right one out of 24 pages and over 900 posts. It's queued up now.

I'd only suggested 10 minutes of your valuable time if you wanted to see what I was describing.

You even acknowledged and agreed:

But, that was before you lost any memory of our conversation and decided to just start over again trying to rehash petty crap that had already been addressed.

Either you've been completely disingenuous from the start or perhaps you have a medical condition I'm unaware of. If the latter, please PM me the details because I get no joy from ridiculing the infirmed.

Ad hominem probably is your best/only tactic at this point, so it doesn't surprise me to see you use it - with a bit of false dilemma tossed in for added flair. Nice touch.

EDIT:

So, this fourth video is all about WTC7. I queued it up to 20:00, and stopped shortly thereafter. Have I not made it clear that I'm not even willing to begin to discuss WTC7 unless and until you admit that the official explanation regarding the initiation of the collapses of WTC1/2 is plausible?

Concession of that point is the basis for any downstream discussion on my part.

 

[ATM]

chip, dude, you were the one who feigned interest in this at one point.

I don't care if you forgot or changed your mind and don't want to have a discourse any longer, just stop pretending any of that is on me.

Imagine the conversations we could have had if you'd actually wanted to. You probably would have actually read the thread and examined the materials of discussion, perhaps even done a bit of research on your own before attempting to speak intelligibly on the subject with others who had.

That would have been really cool, I even trusted that it was going to happen:

I look forward to discussing it with you.

Then, you do this instead.

Well, don't let me or this thread stand in your way. If you want to dig, I'll do what I can to help.

Need a bigger shovel, I got that covered.

Need some more rope, can do.

Thirsty? I've got a nice punch bowl sitting right over here for you that I'm not going to drink from, but you are more than welcome to. In fact, consider it yours. Yes, all of it.

It was investigated by "officials" to plausibly contain kool-aid and they even claimed that they found no evidence of bleach.

I didn't even bother to ask if they tested for evidence of bleach because... um... null hypothesis.

mmmmmmmmm... satisfying kool-aid, and it's all for you.

 

[chipbennett]

That would have been really cool, I even trusted that it was going to happen:

Then, you do this instead.

My interest was always predicated on accepting that the null hypothesis regarding WTC1/2 was plausible, or in providing evidence that would refute/reject the null hypothesis. If I am at fault, it is for believing/misunderstanding that you wanted me to review a video that purported to have evidence to reject the null hypothesis. if you were clear that the video you wanted me to watch dealt with WTC7, then mea culpa.

But I also think that I have been very clear that my interest is primarily in WTC1/2, and that I have stated explicitly that I don't care to discuss WTC7 unless/until there is acceptance of WTC1/2.

 

[Alpo]

 

[Dan35]

Well sure, if you like to do that sort of thing.

 

[KJQ6945]

This thread has been nothing but trolling since the OP. One persons mental masturbation all along. Any question posed, has been dodged, while claiming to be refuted.

As I stated before, I don't know exactly what happened, and neither does anybody else. This is far from a discussion.

 

[Alpo]

True dat.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

It's an important piece of the puzzle, but the whole picture is much larger than any single piece.

The vast scope of the picture could be considered an important piece.

If WTC7 did house the pentagon budget analyst backups, as I've seen reported, that would be another connecting piece of info for you.

I'd say the Gen. Wesley Clark video is another piece.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

This thread has been nothing but trolling since the OP. One persons mental masturbation all along. Any question posed, has been dodged, while claiming to be refuted.

As I stated before, I don't know exactly what happened, and neither does anybody else. This is far from a discussion.

I don't know about WTC7, but I think WTC 1 & 2 have been adequately explained by the investigation, especially since their findings agree with the structural engineers who were on the scene in the aftermath of the collapses - there were probably about at least 50 structural engineers on site over the first two weeks after the collapse, 2 for each of the 25 Urban Search & Rescue Task Forces that were deployed for the response. The 26th US&R TF - NYC - was largely lost in the collapse of WTC2; they were the initial response team to the incident.

 

[KJQ6945]

I don't know about WTC7, but I think WTC 1 & 2 have been adequately explained by the investigation, especially since their findings agree with the structural engineers who were on the scene in the aftermath of the collapses - there were probably about at least 50 structural engineers on site over the first two weeks after the collapse, 2 for each of the 25 Urban Search & Rescue Task Forces that were deployed for the response. The 26th US&R TF - NYC - was largely lost in the collapse of WTC2; they were the initial response team to the incident.

The one thing that can't be disputed, it was was a terrible day, and a lot of good Americans were lost.

WTC 1&2 were hit by transcontinental airliners. We all saw it. Ultimately, it boils down to, do you believe that caused the building to collapse, or, did the Bush machine orchestrate this to start a war to vindicate Daddy Bush?

We have heard all kinds of speculation to sway us from "the official narrative".

I have read this thread from beginning to the hopefull end, and nothing has been refuted, or even addressed. Most that have attempted to address the thread have walked away in disgust, shaking their head at the total arrogance and disregard for reality.

Let's discuss it, or not, but how long are we going to entertain this charade? This has become embarrassing.

 

[ATM]

My interest was always predicated on accepting that the null hypothesis regarding WTC1/2 was plausible, or in providing evidence that would refute/reject the null hypothesis. If I am at fault, it is for believing/misunderstanding that you wanted me to review a video that purported to have evidence to reject the null hypothesis. if you were clear that the video you wanted me to watch dealt with WTC7, then mea culpa.

But I also think that I have been very clear that my interest is primarily in WTC1/2, and that I have stated explicitly that I don't care to discuss WTC7 unless/until there is acceptance of WTC1/2.

You find yourself in quite a dilemma at this point, correct? The walls of reality are closing in on you and the easiest, safest thing for you to do at this point is to examine and argue less and less of what you initially thought would be quite easy to examine and refute in nearly its entirety.

Am I right? It could only lead to this point for you.

You've gone from seemingly inquisitive to now defensive, from seemingly open-minded a few weeks ago to closing off more and more, narrowing your focus and attempts to anything that might survive refutation.

You're now down to just one tiny, rather insignificant detail and you're trying to claim (to believe, really) that it all hinged on that one detail from the beginning.

It didn't, and you know this. It still doesn't.

You've come so far to this place of clinging to and attempting to elevate the importance of that one isolated and insignificant point.

Having now, finally, flailed miserably at some of the evidence and some of the points in this thread that you'd originally skipped, you're starting to realize that you've never come close to touching me in any of the process.

I didn't even bother to duck when you were swinging, I just stood nearby and taunted you to please continue.

What an a$$ that ATM is!

I'll just offer this comforting meme to you because I think it suits your current predicament more appropriately than it could ever be applied to me at this stage in the thread.

I've proven beyond any doubt in this thread that I'm not even slightly hesitant to examine all of the (remaining and unhidden) evidence, all of the hypotheses, all of the arguments and refutations of those arguments. I don't have any need to look away or avoid most or any of it.

I also don't appear to be clinging desperately to... well... anything at this point. This is effortless and casual for me.

Come at me, bro.

No, really. I've conceded nothing to you. Batter up.

 

[ATM]

This thread has been nothing but trolling since the OP. One persons mental masturbation all along. Any question posed, has been dodged, while claiming to be refuted.

Seriously? Do you realize how easy it is for people to go back and read what really transpired in our last discussion?

They could just click the link below to see if I dodged, as you claim, or really refuted your question. Just like post #825 still stands as a thorn in chip's side, this one allows folks to judge for themselves if there is truth to your charge. They'll see for themselves (if they look) whether you let it stand or responded, whether you called me out specifically for the 'dodge claiming to be a refutation', or if you waited quite a while before attempting to do so vaguely:

...I will address your crafted "gotcha!" question by refuting its premise and, with it, your desired (but flawed) assumption...

If they verify by re-examining this post for themselves, they'll even see that I did much more than refute that one question, I addressed the whole of your post point by point, and ended that post politely calling you out for failing to support an earlier claim of your own:

...Don't forget to explain and support your original claim up top, Thanks!

That was all back when I was being courteously restrained. Are you sure you want to provoke me to apply the full focus and aim of my "mental masturbation" on your posts individually? Do you want to individually take the sort of "mental load" I might hit you in the "mental face" with ...apart from, but still in front of, the jeering crowd that bolstered your confidence enough to rejoin them on the sidelines?

The illusion of safety, in just being part of a crowd, vanishes pretty quickly when I pull you out and deal with you as an individual. The crowd can't save you, they don't even care about you, you were just one of their mob and the rest are only glad it didn't happen to them.

That's your last warning. Be careful what you type in public, you might just have to "mentally swallow" it later. (ew. you all knew I was going to go there, right? ew.) If you'd like another clean slate in this thread, I'd suggest a return to some real discussion from the OP and avoid further jeering with the sideline crowd.

As I stated before, I don't know exactly what happened, and neither does anybody else.

One question: Who was the first person in this thread to propose that? Let me at 'em, I'll rip them a new one.

This is far from a discussion.

Incorrect. This is a discussion with many elements you have yet to figure out.

It's like a magic trick, or any other simple deception.

 

[Dean C.]

I do not think there is enough popcorn in Tipton county to get me through this **** show of a thread at this point. Masterfully done ATM

 

[ATM]

I do not think there is enough popcorn in Tipton county to get me through this **** show of a thread at this point. Masterfully done ATM

YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH!







...I'm accomplishing something here.

 

[ATM]

True dat.

You want some?

You know I'm here to help in any capacity you truly desire.