How ironic can you get? You come up with all this crap, after endlessly trying to smear William Rodriguez, with everything from massive leaps of logic, to personal interpretation, to outright lies? This is unbelievably absurd.

How do you suppose any other "interpretation" would be made from reading Gilsanz' paper?

Hmm...for starters, maybe to find out who was involved, and bring them to justice?

I thought that was in no doubt: it was the Bush Administration.
Who managed to plan, set it up, rehearse it, and pull it off, flawlessly, in less than nine months.

The proof of Rodriguez's unreliability as a witness is here:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html
You have had to wriggle and squirm like anything to try and make the information in these links less damaging to Rodriguez' reputation, picking on irrelevant points like what is an exact quote and what is a paraphrase while ignoring the main theme, and in my opinion you have failed.

The only "interpretation" I put on it is that he mentions steel collection in passing as a bit of background information. He doesn't elaborate on it because it is not relevant to anything else in his article.
You claimed to have evidence that WTC7 collapsed due to a controlled demolition, and after pages of debate all you have is whether Gilsanz should have gone into more detail on the recovered steel. It's pathetic.

that is absolutely rediculous!! no evidence??
this is all that is needed... the rest is just cooberation

the first image in your outright denial with all the smoke and no fire was taken as the towers 1 and 2 collapsed in their implosion radiating cocentric flows of pyroclastic ash and dust from the pulverized concrete-- again it has been demonsrated that the windsor tower fires are examples of "large" fires that were still unable to attain the rsults that were attained in the collapse of bldg 7,1 or 2-- you have to remove your blinders and realize what is happening right in front of your face

the rest you ask?? well there is barry jennings,satelite images of hot spots that cooberate the eye witness accounts and video of molten steel found in the subbasements of wtc 1,2 and 7-- iron microspheres that can only be produced in extremely high temperatures IN CONJUNCTION WITH extremely high pressures that can only be explained with the use of explosives-- also if you dont know your history how can you expect to have a monoploy on the truth in the present? the fact that america was taken over long ago way before the gold standard was removed is clear as day-- every world war has been nothing more than an exercise in eugenics and was realized as far back as smedley butler-- the fact that operation northwoods exists and that the first attack on the wtc in 93 was orchestrated by the fbi is undeniable-- you are in denial or worse ...intentionally committing psycological treason against your country

lets not forget that not even nist is foolish enough to use the gilsanz hogwash...no explanation given

Both of them, you mean? As far as 1939 (or 41, depending on your point of view) - 45 is conerned, then I suppose that's probably right.

Why do you clip the penthouse collapse from your video? This is dishonestly making the collapse look more like a controlled demolition, by omitting the key feature that is nothing like a CD.

You have evidence of the time when these pictures were taken? The towers were collapsing and some photographer pointed his camera at WTC7 instead? How about all these:
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

How about replying to my posts on the last page where I commented on these issues rather than just repeating the whole mish-mash again? For example, what about merril's posts about Barry Jennings on page 57? Where is the evidence that the molten metal was steel? How exactly does molten steel mean explosives, anyway?
Even turbonium now admits that iron microspheres only prove that a welder worked on the buildings at some period.

You are now just making things up to try and make your case - a sign of desperation if ever there was one. As NIST has yet to publish a report on WTC7, you cannot know whether they will include Gilsanz' work or not.

those pics are NOT representative of a large fire and it is rediculously preposterous to insinuate that fires could produce the instantaneous strucural integrity loss with tell tale crimp and squibs witnessed and videotaped -- the microspheres were also collected from the rooftops of adjacent buildings-- do you not realize that both towers 1 and 2 were pulverized to dust? you cannot explain that away with collapse alone ....end of debate

Yes... no evidence... just speculation coupled with an overactive imagination and a burning desire for there to be a conspiracy... therefore, you naturally see one.



Out of all your jibberish, speculation and opinion above, the only thing that I find the least bit interesting is this bit at the end:

intentionally committing psycological treason against your country

Given that you obviously cannot read - I mean, how else would you not see that it says "Vancouver, BC" (and last time I checked (which was just now) we weren't part of the US of A) under my handle - how am I or anyone expected to take you or any of the stuff you spout seriously...?


Cz

I did some reading about 9/11, and what gets me is the accuracy in which the aircraft hit the towers, I was talking to a commercial pilot who flies the same type of aircraft and he said that he doubts any commercial pilot could even come close to hitting the targets at that speed. He said he is trained to fly a Boeing 747 when it is travelling at about 300kmph (for landing and take off), not almost 800kmph, because they do not fly the aircraft when crusing, the autopilot does, so they do not have the skills to fly the aircraft at this speed at such a low altitude.
Even Al Gore said in his book "The assault on reason" that either the aircraft were being flowen by a fighter pilot, or they were remote control.

I think that's a question which it would be worth investigating further myself; not the remote control thing, which I think is pure fantasy, but who were the hijackers? That's always seemed the most suspicious part of the "official version": that they were able to say exactly who the hijackers were, as soon as it happened, even to the extent of supposedly finding the passport of one of them in the wreckage, somehting whcih I think stretches credibility to the limit. I do think that's one area where they could very usefully concentrate their energies, if they weren't so distracted by all these elaborate fantasies about switched planes, remote control. etc.





.

Do you really think the government is distracted by any of that stuff to the point it stops them from double checking on the identies of hijackers?

I don't know why people get so caught up in all the elaborate conspiracy theories when there is plenty of information out there suggesting the government knew of the terrorists plans in advance and allowed the attacks to happen anyway.

Shouldn't that be enough for people to be outraged?

Now personally, I think that is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to what happened on 9/11, but that alone is enough to show the government didn't have the interest of its citizens in mind before, during, and after the attack.

Indeed so.


I'm not suggesting that this is another conspiracy theory; I'm not suggesting that the "hijackers" were actually government agents or anything; I'm sure that they were actual hijackers; just that I think there is enough to question whether they did just have the few hours' training they were supposed to. I think it's quite possible that the government did double check on the identity of the hijackers; but what they found out was so embarrassing that they just decided to lump them under the conveniently wide-ranging category of "Al Qaeda".

i don't knwo anything about anything

bush talks

people are trying to make bush look like a liar

bush talks

was the plane over penn state shot down?

rumsfeld talks

i just don't know anything about anything

is that a cunning clue concealed in there?

I donno, I heard all this before about the explosions in the basement and how you could see charges going off on the side of the building. But for me this is not enough to sway the most skeptic of people out there, even though it should it doesn't.

For me the most swaying arguments is the stuff the government has on paper. The best being just how fast they organized all the clean up contracts and other contracts relating to the attacks. for example:

Delaware Storage and Pipe Line Co.*, Nashua, N.H., was awarded on Sept. 13, 2001, a $5,104,500 firm-fixed-price with cost reimbursable items type contract to secure the necessary services to receive, store and ship one grade of government-owned JP-8 in the Delaware area for the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. This contract is a three-year contract with two one-year options. Work is to be performed at Port Mahone, Del. Work is expected to be completed by Sept. 30, 2006. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. The proposals were solicited on the World Wide Web, and only one responded. The Defense Energy Support Center, Fort Belvoir, Va., is the contracting activity (SP0600-01-C-5113).

Sept 13th! That's only 2 days after the attack they were so organized they signed a 3 year 5 million dollar contract. Fast forward a few years to the New Orleans disaster where it took 4 days to get the poor people in the convention center water, and there was even a plan in that case for if such a disaster ever did strike. I might make a bigger deal of this then it is, but something is definately up there.

You're still doing it - ignoring my arguments and repeating the same old inaccurate claims. How can anyone watch these clips of smoke pouring out of the building and still claim no large fires?
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos
Pulverised to dust? You're joking, there are plenty of pictures of very large lumps of concrete in the debris pile. You can only claim "end of debate" by making up this stuff - it's plain dishonest.

What on earth has a contract to supply aviation fuel got to do with a conspiracy to cover up government involvement in 9/11*? And have you ever thought that, given the speed government procurement departments usually work at, this was in the pipeline (sic) probably for months earlier.


*Oh sorry, i forgot, everything is, isn't it.

:-/

BEST DEMOLITION JOB I HAVE SEEN...........

There's no need to shout.

Read the rest of the thread and see how that "demolition job" has itself been demolished.

To summarize:

Damage due to debris from the north tower then a six-hour fire.

They misinterpreted reports that it was about to collapse.

It wasn't, plenty of large pieces left.

Long-duration fires in the debris pile, as sometimes happens.

That's what happens when a roomful of batteries get short-circuited.

Because the upper stories falling on the lower ones produced dynamic loads many times the ultimate design load of the structure.

Burning aviation fuel coming down the lift shafts.

all of those counters are rediculous but the one in red is all the justification any logical person needs to completely write you off a a loon-- you really insult peoples intelligence by expecting them to fall for that hogwash

If you think it's hogwash, try this experiment:

1) Place a 10 lb weight on your head. You should have no problem holding it up.
2) Lift the weight 6 inches and drop it. If you are still conscious, you have just learned an important lesson about momentum.

President Bush does seem to have lied a few times about when he first heard of 9/11, ect. I'm sure after his presidence is over, he'll be acused for a number of things

Now, now, that's not the way an argument works. You are supposed to give reasons why "all of those counters are rediculous". Your unsupported opinion is not an argument point - where is the evidence?

Have you tried phunk's little demonstation yet?

that experiment may be applicable if we were made out of 10lbs weights and steel toothpicks

This seems to be a standard problem with the conspiracist mind-set - suggest a demonstration of a completely general principle and they immediately object that it doesn't resemble some specific case closely enough.

It doesn't matter whether it's collapsing buildings or weights on heads - the dynamic load experienced by a structure due to some thing dropping on to it is greater than the static load of that same thing just resting in place on it.

Is this on of those things that you see and you prey every night there's a conspiricy behind it? And because conspiricy theories can fit doesn't mean they do.

Sure I guess Amerika could have blown them up. Or those other guys could have. But what difference does it make?

Ummm English has to be your second language?

What does knocking myself out with a 10lbs weight have to do with the twin towers collapse? I will fall down to one side or another, I will not collapse into my own base like the towers did. I would not also fall at free fall speed I am sure I would sway for a second or two before I fell. Therefore Mister Rational thinker this experiment would even come close in comparison. Oh my gosh I have a conspiracist mind set because this experiment in totally invalid......


P.S Nothing was dropped on top of the Towers just FYI

...except the many upper stories of the building falling onto the impact/damage/fire zone...

Nonsense. You're the only one who has had to "wriggle and squirm" endlessly. Even after I've dismantled each and every claim you've brought up from your worthless and despicable links, you just keep on citing them as if they were valid sources of "information". They're not.

All it takes to confirm that is a review of the specific claims you've made in this thread, in italics...

Your first claim was that Rodriguez denied the existence of a fireball...

From "certainly questions the reality of the fireball" and "he also suggests that there was no fireball." to "He mentions the fireball only to question whether it was real."

Despite your making the same claim repeatedly, you then went to great lengths to squirm out of it...

"Quibble as much as you like, it still looks to me as if he is saying, in both quotes, that the survival of the liftman disproves the fireball theory." "your quibbling about whether it was a fireball or a fireball theory is irrelevant."

In his early statements Rodriguez says that a fireball came down the liftshaft, in his later statements he denies this.

You tried to spin it with a bunch of nonsense about how I was "quibbling", when it was very obvious to see that you were the one who was "changing his story". Which was beyond ironic, considering you constantly accuse Rodriguez of that!

Anyway, your revised claim was dealt with...

Rodriguez was simply recalling what the burned man told him at the time. There is no possible way Rodriguez was giving his own account, because he didn't know what had happened. He specifically asked the burned man "what happened?", so the burned man told him

"It looks to me as if Rodriguez is interpreting the burned man's evidence and providing his own explanation for it, first as a fireball coming down the shaft, later denying it."

And so, your revised claim is merely your personal opinion - what it "looks" like to you.

This was another thing you brought up...

How about this from Roberts, quoting Rodruigez:

"My story has not changed." But, "It is a well known fact that I was believeing the goverment official story early on. As I asked questions and put things together, the whole thing changed from their side and also from mine." Then, "I do not say there were bombs in the building."
Two incompatible statements followed by a false statement. Rodriguez does say that there were bombs in the WTC towers, and several aspects of his story have changed drastically. His account of what he heard in the basements has changed. Perhaps the greatest change is that Rodriguez used to blame al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. Now he blames George Bush for sponsoring the terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq.

Roberts deliberately fabricated a quote which Rodriguez never said. But you tried to defend Roberts...

"Roberts appears to have paraphrased Rodriguez' statement, but I don't see that he has altered its meaning."

Wrong. Roberts significantly altered its meaning - to DIRECTLY SMEAR Rodriguez with it...

Rodriguez' actual quote....

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert."

Now, the quote Roberts made up...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

Roberts then proceeded to smear Rodriguez with the fake quote, by noting...

"Two incompatible statements followed by a false statement. Rodriguez does say that there were bombs in the WTC towers"

Roberts makes up a quote, then uses it to falsely accuse Rodriguez of changing his story. Roberts' main lie (Rodriguez changing his story) is totally founded on another lie!

That is clear evidence of Roberts conducting a smear campaign against Rodriguez. And since you fully approve of what Roberts is doing, that makes you no better than him.



You even claimed that Rodriguez was "setting himself up as an explosive expert"!!

I pointed out to you that Rodriguez clearly said that he's not an explosives expert in the very same interview you cited! But you still went on with it...

1. Rodriguez "..may say that he is not an expert.."

Yes, indeed, he does say that he is not an expert. And why do you think he makes that point very clear to the listeners/viewers, flyingswan? So nobody will think he is an explosives expert, perhaps? So everyone will understand that he is only giving his personal, layman's opinion on the matter. So nobody will misconstrue his opinion as an expert opinion.

2. Rodriguez is "..putting forward opinions that require expertise.."

Wrong. He is putting forward his personal, layman's opinion on the subject. He does not "require expertise" in order to be 'allowed' to speak. The First Amendment hasn't been repealed (not yet, anyway!).

3. Rodriguez is "..effectively making himself out to be an expert."

Total nonsense. He is not "..making himself out to be an expert"! You already know that, because he specifically points out that he is NOT an expert!! How can he be "making himself out to be an expert", when he makes it very clear to everyone that he is NOT an expert??

It's amazing how you and Roberts have the nerve to claim that Rodriguez is not a reliable witness, when it's obvious to all that you are the ones who change your story, make up false quotes to twist them into unfounded accusations, and spin it all into an argument for how you "see" things.



"Not relevant"? Think again. And read that section of the paper...



His "information" includes plans, eyewitness accounts, videos, photos.....and structural pieces they collected. This "information" was used to create the computer model he cites in his paper.

Hardly irrelevant.

And hardly an unfounded "interpretation".



It's only your argument which is pathetic, actually.

I pointed out a false claim he made right off the top. But when you can't even accept or grasp such a basic mistake as this, how can you ever begin to understand some of the more complex problems in this paper?

nothing dropped!! thats not how a structure with intact supports and a weak spot is going to collapse ever-- ever ever-- there would have been resistance end of debate-- the towers were over engineered marvels-- there is a completely unfounded paper written by some one in despair that tries to eliminate the entire floor where the impact took place in an attempt to rationalize the free fall collapse by removing ten feet of the wtc in his calculations completely disreguarding your intellect and discernment concerning the remaing structure beneath and its capacity to offer resistance...also never mind the alternate dimension that the ten feet of wtc is hiding in-- wake up people DO NOT accept the ranting opinions of someone either in denial or operating with ulterior motives and inestigate it for yourself...your life may depend on it

And after saying this, do you honestly believe that anyone will put any credence into anything you say or have said....?





Cz

Don't worry, after checking the alleged whistle blower thread, all credence was lost. A quick check of a few of those whistle blower characters showed that they either didn't exist or had no credentials whatsoever in this filed of expertise. But I guess it is a lot easier to find support for a flaky ideas in the fringes of "science"

Cheers,
Badeskov

A lot more wriggling and squirming on your part, but the proof of Rodriguez' changing story is here for anyone to read:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html
If anyone thinks Roberts paraphrase of Rodriguez is misleadng, just replace the paraphrases by Rodriguez own words and see if it makes a blind bit of difference to the sense of the passage. I am not getting into the argument again about who manufactured quotes, because a mod has asked us not to raise the issue of your own clear manufacture of a misleading quote again.

Why do you need samples of steel to create a computational model of a structure? How do you think engineers create such models of buildings that are still at the design stage?

He mentions it is passing when giving an introductory background, he doesn't mention it again, how is it relevant?

You were the one who put the interpretation on it, but putting strange interpretations on other people's words is obviously your major talent.

Is that an argument at all? You are losing the plot completely on this one.

You pointed out something you said was false, but only because you chose to interpret it in that way. I cannot see that it is false in any way. You haven't mentioned any other problems with the paper at all.

You may think you know about the way structures behave, but I assure you that you do not. A steel column can only bend so much before it loses the capacity to support a vertical load, and once it does that it fails very quickly, because the more it bends, the less load it can support. The "completely unfounded paper" you mention is presumably this one:
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/405.pdf
Somehow the panel of engineers reviewing this paper for publication managed to miss the flaws that a completely unqualified person like you has nevertheless uncovered. Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

Comedian

Is this the same thread where you cannot describe the WTC7 collapse process in any detail?



The words I bolded are interesting, 747400, as not so long ago when I posted a list of evidence here, you deduced in your following post that the hijackers were CIA linked. You did that by yourself based only on facts I supplied and yet you have still reverted to following the ‘official’ story. Classic.

Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy… isn’t that what they say?

Each point you've raised from your sources has been thoroughly debunked, so all you do now is post the links over and over, and say 'Here's the proof'.!?! When you have to resort to such flaky tactics as this, it's time you showed a modicum of integrity, and honestly accept the fact that you have no argument.



That's exactly what I did. Roberts fabricated a quote (about no bombs in the building), to deliberately smear Rodriguez. Are you incapable of understanding that Roberts did this?



No, the mod asked us not to raise this issue because only I know what my intentions truly were. And I made it very clear to you that I meant it solely as humor. Your deliberate attempt to perpetuate this falsehood is the same slimeball tactic you use in your attacks on Rodriguez. Start acting like a mature adult and not a troll.



You have problems grasping basic concepts. I didn't say that.



I'll try to explain it to you one more time.

Gilsanz claims structural pieces were collected, along with existing plans, eyewitness accounts, videos, and photos. He collectively calls this the "information". Which means videos are "information". Photos are "information". Eyewitness accounts are "information". And structural pieces they collected are "information".

He then describes how this "information" was used...

1. "This information led to the formation of several probable collapse theories."

In other words...

"The structural pieces collected, existing plans, eyewitness accounts, videos, and photos led to the formation of several probable collapse theories."


2. "The team then created a computerized model of the building, using existing plans and information, to test these theories."

In other words....

"The team then created a computerized model of the building, using existing plans and structural pieces collected, eyewitness accounts, videos, and photos, to test these theories."


Structural steel is NOT something he "mentions in passing". It is the very first piece of "information" he cites. "Information" which was used to formulate probable collapse theories, and to create a computer model to test those theories.

Are you now able to see how his claim that "structural pieces were collected" is entirely relevant?



The only strange interpetation is your utterly absurd notion - that he simply "mentions" the collected steel "in passing".

You claim to be an engineer, but I find that really hard to believe, when you are so inept at grasping even the most rudimentary concepts of logic.

Turbo,

I used to have respect for you. A "HB" who dealt with facts and common sense. That has changed. Your position has been forced more and nmore in one direction... but instead of looking at everything and saying that despite your beliefs, the evidence points towards an actual moon landing, you decided to disregard anything that opposed your views. You continued this belief to 9/11, where you take a side not supported by evidence yet claim it as correct.

DISREGARD your own opinions; examine the evidence. If you are not qualified to judge the evidence, then consult someone who IS qualified. Then consult another expert - and another. Do this until you obtain a consensus.

On the contrary, I dismiss all your sophistry for the worthless fluff it is and again present the original links for anyone to see and make up their own minds:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html
You have debunked nothing, all you've done is twist other people's words in strange and unreasonable directions.

Actually it was me who put Rodriguez' actual quotes in place of the paraphrases (post #470). Roberts' "fabrication" ("I do not say there were bombs in the building.") is just a paraphrase of what Rodriguez said. You yourself have resorted to paraphrasing me in quotes (eg post #787), so you can't complain if Roberts does it too. Just to remind those who haven't had the endurance to follow our debate on this, here is Rodruigez actual quote:
"I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert."
and here is Rodriguez contradicting that, which makes Roberts' point:
Radio Host: "Do you believe there was a bomb in both buildings?"

WR: "Definitely. "

Since you persist in this, I might add that the mod said that you were less than honest, no matter what your motive:
"Turbonium was less than honest in that case and admits it (whether as a joke or out of dishonest is something only he knows)."

You said: "His "information" includes plans, eyewitness accounts, videos, photos.....and structural pieces they collected. This "information" was used to create the computer model he cites in his paper." This implies that you think the data from collected steel was used in the creation of the model. How about answering the question rather than ducking it? Again: Why do you need samples of steel to create a computational model of a structure? How do you think engineers create such models of buildings that are still at the design stage?

You once again demonstrate your talent for sophistry. Nowhere in the article is there any mention of the steel data being of any significance.

So where else does he mention it?

When you demonstrate some logic, I might have something to grasp. You claimed to have all the evidence you needed to show that the buildings were CDed, and at the end it just boils down to your finding a few words in an article, irrelevant to the general theme of the article, that you can twist into something you think is suspicious.

Now, now. You don't need to know exactly which elements failed and in what order to know that steel-frame buildings can collapse due to fire.

Anyway, where is the description in detail of how the "inside job" was carried out? You have an elaborate theory involving remotely controlled aircraft, Mossad, thermite, high explosives, maintenance staff that are all corrupt and ignition systems that can survive aircraft impact and fire, and not a shred of supporting evidence. Don't give me that list again, because none of it actually supports CD as the only possible cause and some of it isn't explained by CD anyway.

As this thread is about 9/11, I won't get into the (purported) moon landings, and all the evidence which clearly shows it was hoaxed.

As for 9/11, the overwhelming evidence is EXACTLY what has convinced me (and so many others) that the official story is a complete fairy tale. I'm baffled by those of you who support the official story, when it is utterly void of actual evidence.

Yet amazingly enough, despite all the supposed evidence you claim to have, you spend most your time quibbling over minor things like one or two quotes, or one or two frames of video while the rest of your time seems to be spent dodging the important major questions and issues.



Cz

While you again fail to present any actual claims from those links.

And so it should be noted, yet again, that the only possible reason you've given up trying to present any more specific claims from those links, is because each and every claim you've previously cited was found to be utter claptrap.



As I've already told you - Roberts is not paraphrasing what Rodriguez said.

Roberts fabricated a quote, and deliberately attributed it to Rodriguez.

The evidence is very clear.

Roberts significantly changes the meaning of Rodriguez' actual words. A quick comparison...

Rodriguez' actual quote: "I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert."

Roberts' fabricated quote: "I do not say there were bombs in the building."

These two quotes do NOT mean the same thing. Roberts smears Rodriguez by fabricating a quote with an entirely different meaning.

You, on the other hand, have tried using the actual quote to support your own nonsense argument. More on that later..



I made it very clear that was a fictional conversation between you and Rodriguez. But Roberts didn't paraphrase Rodriguez. Roberts deliberately lied.



I can't believe your lack of basic reasoning skills. Will you ever understand that there is no contradiction in Rodriguez' comments?

1. Rodriguez says "I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert."

2. Rodriguez believes there were bombs in the buildings.


"I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert" means the same thing as: he does not believe there were bombs in the building?!?

That's your argument in a nutshell, and it's truly ridiculous.



"whether as a joke or out of dishonest is something only he knows". I've told you it was a joke, repeatedly.

You were told to drop the issue. Yet you've ignored the mods' requests, repeatedly...





In other words, 'I'm not going to get into ________ (re-raise an unfounded accusation), because the mod has asked us not to raise the issue again.'

Who do you think you're fooling with this infantile crap?

We were told to drop the subject. So grow up, and drop the subject. Period.



Not quite - this does imply that the data from collected steel was used in the creation of the model.



I did answer the question. I told you -I never said that steel samples were needed to create a computer model of a structure.



Wrong. It's the very first item of "information" mentioned by Gilsanz. He claims that this "information" led to the formation of several collapse theories. He also claims that this "information" was used to create their computer models. That certainly makes it significant.



No. It just shows that it's impossible to get even the simplest concepts in logical thinking across to you, despite my repeated attempts. This is just the latest example, among many others I've previously discussed with you.

And - of course - all the courts are in on it. That is because - yet again - legal challenges have totally failed to provide anything like proof.

http://reynoldslitigation.googlepages.com/...thprejudice.pdf



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=381...mp;postcount=22

Of course, conflict of interest has nothing at all to do with it, right? The government-appointed judges actually ruled in favor of the people who appointed them?!? What a shocker that is!!

Moreover, there is no legal precedent for such lawsuits against the federal government. There are plenty of loopholes which make these cases easy to dismiss before assessing their actual merit.

Look at the reasons given for dismissing the lawsuits, and you'll understand that it's not due to lack of proof.

They won't even give anyone the chance to show proof/evidence in an actual trial.

Because all the claims I wish to make are contained in those links:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html

That may be your opinion, but I've seen little sign of your opinion being a convincing argument for anything. You've made yourself a laughingstock, both here and in your Apollo hoax and Trieste threads.

As Roberts' paraphrase is in a link which leads directly to Rodriguez' actual words, you can hardly claim that it's in anyway misleading.

Rodriguez says he talks about explosions, not bombs, but when asked directly if he thinks there were bombs, what does he say? "Definitely"

To be consistent he would have to say "There were definitely explosions, but I don't have the expertise to know if they were bombs or not". Since he doesn't say this, Roberts' accusation of inconsistency holds.

Repeating the mod's verdict is hardly raising the subject again, so I've actually raised it only once, not "repeatedly". However, I don't feel restrained from mentioning the incident each time you start flinging around accusations of manufacturing quotes. Pot - kettle.
Neither do I feel restrained from mentioning the separate incident where you fabricated a quote you attributed to me, which isn't subject to a mod's warning.

This is an example of your boasted logic that I can't grasp?
Gilsanz gives a list of various types of information that was collected by FEMA and NIST, but that doesn't mean that every time he subsequently uses the word "information", it must mean every item on the list rather than just the parts of the list relevant to the context.
You are also simultaneously claiming that steel samples were needed to create a computer model of a structure and that they weren't. Either they were, in which case you need to explain why by answering my question, or they weren't, in which case your argument is pointless.

See above for your total lack of logic in your thinking.

Doesn't change the fact that your claim to have evidence for controlled demolition boils down to quibbling about what Roberts and Gilsanz mean by what they say.

......yawn. I can't believe you guys are still arguing over this. Why don't you take it to some different forum?
I have watched countless videos of controlled demolitions, and I have seen the videos of 9/11 countless times. No similarity. I have seen
the documentaries on PBS and the History channel where the people who designed, built and inspected the Twin Towers have
given their explanations, based on metallurgical examinations of remnants of the steel that held up the Towers. I can find no
fault with their scientific explanations.

Conspiracy theorists have a way of reinterpreting every fact. Reminds me of a religion. I would say it is useless to
argue with a conspiracy nut. They are best ignored.

~~Cebrakon

I have a great idea!!!!!! Just don't come into a thread in the CONSPIRACY FORUM about 911 if you don't want to read it What other forum would you like us to take it to Space? Computer gaming? I think the only thing out of place here is you.

FYI your PBS documentary you watched is not even the now accepted official story. Shows how educated you are on the subject.

Accepted by whom? Accepted by you? Does that make it official? The official "Enigma wrapped around a puzzle." Big planes loaded
with fuel going very fast collide with the Twin Towers, and they collapse! Who would of thought of it? The people who engineered it,
that's who. They knew it would collapse and knew that the one hit last would collapse first.

But cease and desist. I take your advice and bow out. This could go on for years, like the nonsense associated with the assasination of
JFK.

~~~Cebrakon