It was skydummy’s initial claim that, “The FDNY noted the damage of WTC7 and knew the danger that eventually WTC7 might collapse”. In other words, it is an official story adherent claim that the confidence of collapse existed due to FDNY observation of the building condition, i.e. a claim that the damage and fire were so terrible that it was almost inevitable WTC7 would collapse. You took up that initial claim and so I asked, “Why don’t we test it? You quote a firefighter who thought WTC7 would come down, and I’ll show the chain of communication that led to their expectation originated [not of their independent judgement, but] with the anonymous advisor(s)”. That you decline this reasonable request and my offer tells me you know the claim cannot be upheld.
It is my opposing claim that, “every single firefighter was influenced to believe WTC7 would collapse by the anonymous advisor(s)”. I have already shown this to you previously through the quotes and links here.
Yes, let us rewind, and try reading for comprehension this time. Nowhere did I even mention sky nor his claim; I responded to your claim, ya know, the one I quoted from you and that you admit in your third paragraph is an actual claim. I have no idea what kind of bizarre thinking leads you to believe that I 'took up' sky's initial claim by disagreeing with your claim, that makes no rational sense whatsoever. Is this another of your 'prime examples of facts and logical thought' that you were so modestly noting a few posts ago? We really need to go all the way back to the basics and make sure you understand about the nature of claims and corresponding burdens and all that?
Really, you showed that every single firefighter was influenced to a significant extent in that link? I think you're reading something different than I am. I'm assuming that there actually is something to your claim and that you can show that this is 'influence' is overriding all of the FDNY's independent judgment, and that you either aren't erroneously trying to make it an 'either/or' situation and that you aren't just stating that since they may have heard the announcement over the radio that that necessarily must have 'influenced' them, whether or not it was of any significance.
My god man, did you actually just use the word 'speculate'?! If you would only have insinuated that I needed to use innuendo also we'd have a perfect slice of utter hypocrisy.
Not only is your analogy also not great but it is difficult not to note, despite all your attention to the subject of 'influence', that nowhere in your post do you even mention a minor little influence, namely that the most spectacular attack and collapses in modern history has just occurred in their presence resulting in the deaths of their friends and coworkers. That's the inconsequential 'noise' that you are trying to get your 'anonymous advisor influence' signal out of. Where do you even acknowledge or account for that anywhere? Jesus Christ, 'precedent'... what about the precedent that they are standing in that just happened?! This must be some of that real 'skepticism' you're applying to yourself instead of that pseudo-skepticism that you say I indulge in so frequently.
Okay, so I'll try and play, I'm sure you're very familiar with this quote from Richard Baniciski:
Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about.
Where is the adamant imminent definity? They didn't apparently say to get away from 7 because it is coming down, they were worried about 7 coming down which implies uncertainty. No indication of an advisor influence there, matter of fact he states a reason supporting the worry, the corner of the building is gone and there are tremendous fires; he doesn't say, "I don't know what they were talking about no one had any reason to think it would collapse so I don't know why they ordered us away". I normally think this kind of pedantic word game stuff is pretty pointless, but since you're such a stickler for literal meanings and are actually trying to construct some kind of argument out of it.