I'd enjoy an intellectual discussion-

[Donald H]

while Denis, who admits that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition,

Denis Rancourt - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia: Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. Rancourt is a recognized scientist but is more widely known for his confrontations with his former employer, the University of Ottawa, over issues involving his grade inflation and "academic squatting," the act of arbitrarily changing the topic of a course without departmental permission.[1][2]

That's only evidence and can be refuted by anyone who has an interest in an intellectual discussion.

However, it can't be refuted with just a string of 'is nots'.

This is where I've chosen to begin the intellectual discussion. Denis has no credibility and so his opinions he states can be suspected to be nothing more than his attempt to be noticed.

 

[MarathonMike]

Can you moderate your beliefs on 'simulations' so that it would make sense. Normal people will usually accept that which is rational.

Is this directed at me or Sealybobo?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I do wonder if he got his inspiration from the Clancy book,

You think US Intelligence(?) doesn't read novels? Or watch movies? I recall Bush saying he'd like for hollywood to make a movie, or some movies, to show the bad guys for what we're supposed to believe- why? People already accept that the saints in the US gov't would never perpetrate crimes against its own people-

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Trump even said pelosi should impeach bush for lying us into iraq

Which is one reason I am glad I voted fir trump.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Someone would have to be on drugs to believe the official conspiracy theory of the governments that the planes caused the towers to fall down.

Nobody can ever explain bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup that explosives brought the towers down.Nist failed,everybody has failed to debunk it that explosives brought them down. They always play dodgeball that they were not hit by a plane yet it collapsed as well yet was never mentioned in the 9/11 report.why?

I always take people to school that explosives brought down the towers pointing out not only the best architects and engineers in the country as well as even demolition experts said explosives brought them down but surviving witnesses said so as well,they talked about hearing explosives in the BASEMENT of the towers BEFORE the planes struck above. To say all these witnesses are lying as I have seen many coward shills say in the past and dismiss all the best experts in the world is being both a coward and a troll.

everytime I bring out these facts the ones whocowardly won’t accept those facts dismissing those people as liars as they do,don’t ever even attempt to address those facts and just try and laugh it off with a smiley,never fails everytime.has happened hundreds of times over and over with me every single time resorting to lies to try and get around it or coward one liners in defeat.

 

[Donald H]

Someone would have to be on drugs to believe the official conspiracy theory of the governments that the planes caused the towers to fall down.

Nobody can ever explain bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup that explosives brought the towers down.Nist failed,everybody has failed to debunk it that explosives brought them down. They always play dodgeball that they were not hit by a plane yet it collapsed as well yet was never mentioned in the 9/11 report.why?

I always take people to school that explosives brought down the towers pointing out not only the best architects and engineers in the country as well as even demolition experts said explosives brought them down but surviving witnesses said so as well,they talked about hearing explosives in the BASEMENT of the towers BEFORE the planes struck above. To say all these witnesses are lying as I have seen many coward shills say in the past and dismiss all the best experts in the world is being both a coward and a troll.

everytime I bring out these facts the ones whocowardly won’t accept those facts dismissing those people as liars as they do,don’t ever even attempt to address those facts and just try and laugh it off with a smiley,never fails everytime.has happened hundreds of times over and over with me every single time resorting to lies to try and get around it or coward one liners in defeat.

You've failed to make the cut for an intellectual discussion.

 

[Donald H]

Can you moderate your beliefs on 'simulations' so that it would make sense. Normal people will usually accept that which is rational.

Is this directed at me or Sealybobo?

Anybody who feels they can stand their ground and produce some posltive evidence for the alternative theories to the official story.

Do you want to start with building 7?

I think it's going to be hard to have that intellectual discussion because the empty bottles have already shown up and they're drowning out any attempts t discuss anything rationally.

Do you have any interest in talking about the reasons why people need conspiracy theories?

 

[MarathonMike]

Anybody who feels they can stand their ground and produce some posltive evidence for the alternative theories to the official story.

Go back and READ what I posted. I made a factual statement on why simulations are dangerous to use in the proof of anything. I base my statement on my years of experience in actually developing and executing simulations as part of my job.

 

[Gdjjr]

I recall seeing a simulation on the twin towers that looked pretty credible- and leave that at that. It was a simulation.
Bldg 7 was intentional and Silverstein was/is recorded saying "pull it"- so, adding it was in free fall speed adds to that "theory"- but, bldg 7 isn't what I'm talking about.

Now, let me address

Denis has no credibility and so his opinions he states can be suspected to be nothing more than his attempt to be noticed.

What/who will you accept as credible- you disagee that credentials don't count. Well, attacking a messenger is not addressing a message- so, before an intellectual discussion can begin, the parameters of acceptable have to be addressed, and to do that, it has to be understood the message it what counts- not the messenger. Or, can I attack your veracity and leave your message alone? Is that really an intellectual endeavor in Canada? Intellectual honesty plays a major role in intellectual- so, what/who do you consider credible?

 

[jc456]

Someone would have to be on drugs to believe the official conspiracy theory of the governments that the planes caused the towers to fall down.

Nobody can ever explain bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup that explosives brought the towers down.Nist failed,everybody has failed to debunk it that explosives brought them down. They always play dodgeball that they were not hit by a plane yet it collapsed as well yet was never mentioned in the 9/11 report.why?

I always take people to school that explosives brought down the towers pointing out not only the best architects and engineers in the country as well as even demolition experts said explosives brought them down but surviving witnesses said so as well,they talked about hearing explosives in the BASEMENT of the towers BEFORE the planes struck above. To say all these witnesses are lying as I have seen many coward shills say in the past and dismiss all the best experts in the world is being both a coward and a troll.

everytime I bring out these facts the ones whocowardly won’t accept those facts dismissing those people as liars as they do,don’t ever even attempt to address those facts and just try and laugh it off with a smiley,never fails everytime.has happened hundreds of times over and over with me every single time resorting to lies to try and get around it or coward one liners in defeat.

LA, you’re a fairly open minded reasonable individual, if the buildings were brought down by explosives in the basement, why did the towers fall top down?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Someone would have to be on drugs to believe the official conspiracy theory of the governments that the planes caused the towers to fall down.

Nobody can ever explain bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup that explosives brought the towers down.Nist failed,everybody has failed to debunk it that explosives brought them down. They always play dodgeball that they were not hit by a plane yet it collapsed as well yet was never mentioned in the 9/11 report.why?

I always take people to school that explosives brought down the towers pointing out not only the best architects and engineers in the country as well as even demolition experts said explosives brought them down but surviving witnesses said so as well,they talked about hearing explosives in the BASEMENT of the towers BEFORE the planes struck above. To say all these witnesses are lying as I have seen many coward shills say in the past and dismiss all the best experts in the world is being both a coward and a troll.

everytime I bring out these facts the ones whocowardly won’t accept those facts dismissing those people as liars as they do,don’t ever even attempt to address those facts and just try and laugh it off with a smiley,never fails everytime.has happened hundreds of times over and over with me every single time resorting to lies to try and get around it or coward one liners in defeat.

You've failed to make the cut for an intellectual discussion.

I rest my case,a cowardly one liner post in defeat as always,never fails everytime.

So unable to refute my facts this is your lame rebuttal.thanks for proving you cannot stand toe to toe in debate.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Can you moderate your beliefs on 'simulations' so that it would make sense. Normal people will usually accept that which is rational.

Is this directed at me or Sealybobo?

Anybody who feels they can stand their ground and produce some posltive evidence for the alternative theories to the official story.

Do you want to start with building 7?

I think it's going to be hard to have that intellectual discussion because the empty bottles have already shown up and they're drowning out any attempts t discuss anything rationally.

Do you have any interest in talking about the reasons why people need conspiracy theories?

You failed to disprove my facts,you cowardly did not even try to address them you lose.you believe in the laughable unproven conspiracy theory that 19 Muslims and bin laden were behind the attacks..lol The fact you don’t try and counter facts and ignore the best experts in the world as well as what witnesses said and take the word over the media,Isure am glad you are not my lawyer,you would lose every case fir me in court.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Anybody who feels they can stand their ground and produce some posltive evidence for the alternative theories to the official story.

Go back and READ what I posted. I made a factual statement on why simulations are dangerous to use in the proof of anything. I base my statement on my years of experience in actually developing and executing simulations as part of my job.

He only sees what he wants to see,he won’t read it.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I recall seeing a simulation on the twin towers that looked pretty credible- and leave that at that. It was a simulation.
Bldg 7 was intentional and Silverstein was/is recorded saying "pull it"- so, adding it was in free fall speed adds to that "theory"- but, bldg 7 isn't what I'm talking about.

Now, let me address

Denis has no credibility and so his opinions he states can be suspected to be nothing more than his attempt to be noticed.

What/who will you accept as credible- you disagee that credentials don't count. Well, attacking a messenger is not addressing a message- so, before an intellectual discussion can begin, the parameters of acceptable have to be addressed, and to do that, it has to be understood the message it what counts- not the messenger. Or, can I attack your veracity and leave your message alone? Is that really an intellectual endeavor in Canada? Intellectual honesty plays a major role in intellectual- so, what/who do you consider credible?

Yeah he keeps attacking the person instead of addressing the message or the facts knowing he can’t refute them silverstein tried to explain away His explanation when he said pull it saying that he meant to pull out all the firefighters,that’s laughable because you are not going to call firefighters IT. He has the retarded logic of believingthe CIA controlled media over zrchirptects,engineers,demolition experts and witnesses.

 

[jc456]

I recall seeing a simulation on the twin towers that looked pretty credible- and leave that at that. It was a simulation.
Bldg 7 was intentional and Silverstein was/is recorded saying "pull it"- so, adding it was in free fall speed adds to that "theory"- but, bldg 7 isn't what I'm talking about.

Now, let me address

Denis has no credibility and so his opinions he states can be suspected to be nothing more than his attempt to be noticed.

What/who will you accept as credible- you disagee that credentials don't count. Well, attacking a messenger is not addressing a message- so, before an intellectual discussion can begin, the parameters of acceptable have to be addressed, and to do that, it has to be understood the message it what counts- not the messenger. Or, can I attack your veracity and leave your message alone? Is that really an intellectual endeavor in Canada? Intellectual honesty plays a major role in intellectual- so, what/who do you consider credible?

Yeah he keeps attacking the person instead of addressing the message or the facts knowing he can’t refute them silverstein tried to explain away His explanation when he said pull it saying that he meant to pull out all the firefighters,that’s laughable because you are not going to call firefighters IT.

Again,you all need to show why the buildings fell top down

 

[Donald H]

I recall seeing a simulation on the twin towers that looked pretty credible- and leave that at that. It was a simulation.

I can't conclude anything from that and so I wonder why you even mentioned it?

Bldg 7 was intentional and Silverstein was/is recorded saying "pull it"- so, adding it was in free fall speed adds to that "theory"- but, bldg 7 isn't what I'm talking about.

Let's begin with you explaining what you mean by saying that bldg 7 was intentional? Intentionally built? Intentionally destroyed?
Pull it? I'm aware of the words that were supposedly spoken but I find no reason to rush to a conclusion that the words meant to 'blow it up'. Pursue that suggestion further if that's of interest to you. Don't try suggesting that I'm trying to gloss it over.
But then you say that you're not talking about bldg 7 and so I'm not going to try to lead you off the topic you want to talk about. You either do or you don't and then you have some other topic you're trying to hint about.

What/who will you accept as credible- you disagee that credentials don't count.

I'll accept sources of information that are credible. Don't deliberately confuse that with 'credentials', they're not the same thing. Let's cut through the bullshit and get down to the issue.
I don't intend to attack your messenger every time you present one but maybe you could screen your messengers out first. If you're proposing a theory then you shouldn't have any difficulty finding numerous experts or groups of experts on the topic. If I present experts, I'll hold myselt to the same expected standards!

What is the debate you wish to have? It seems you have suggesting that it isn't about bldg.7? But then there are some indications in what you say that you 'do' want to discuss bldg.7.

I'll proceed cautiously until you inform me otherwise.

You mentioned 'free fall'. Building 7 came down at the speed at which physics would demand. If that's your area of interest then pursue that as my submission for an opening argument.

If not then start making yourself clear on what the intellectual discussion will be.

Well, attacking a messenger is not addressing a message- so, before an intellectual discussion can begin, the parameters of acceptable have to be addressed, and to do that, it has to be understood the message it what counts- not the messenger. Or, can I attack your veracity and leave your message alone? Is that really an intellectual endeavor in Canada? Intellectual honesty plays a major role in intellectual- so, what/who do you consider credible?

You don't get to dictate the rules of a debate to me. If you present a flawed messenger then you will hear my attack against him/her.

And fwiw, you haven't even presented an issue for debate yet. When is that coming?

The closest you've come is in a somewhat ambiguous suggestion that building 7 didnt' fall at the right speed? If that's where you're heading then I suppose we could get into an analysis of the film evidence to show whether it's been tampered with? Or are you trying to suggest something more sinister or mysterious?

 

[Donald H]

--------------------?

Can you and me talk about the speed at which building 7 fell? That seems to be of interest to you.

What is your contention? Didn't the laws of physics dictate the exact speed at which it woulld have had to fall? Was the speed of the film manipulated to show a 'faster' or 'slower' rate of fall?
Are you suggesting that it feel too slow or too fast.
Fwiw, until proven otherwise, I'm going with 'just right'!

I suspect you're a bit deeper than that so you're going to have to present a theory.

 

[jc456]

I recall seeing a simulation on the twin towers that looked pretty credible- and leave that at that. It was a simulation.
Bldg 7 was intentional and Silverstein was/is recorded saying "pull it"- so, adding it was in free fall speed adds to that "theory"- but, bldg 7 isn't what I'm talking about.

Now, let me address

Denis has no credibility and so his opinions he states can be suspected to be nothing more than his attempt to be noticed.

What/who will you accept as credible- you disagee that credentials don't count. Well, attacking a messenger is not addressing a message- so, before an intellectual discussion can begin, the parameters of acceptable have to be addressed, and to do that, it has to be understood the message it what counts- not the messenger. Or, can I attack your veracity and leave your message alone? Is that really an intellectual endeavor in Canada? Intellectual honesty plays a major role in intellectual- so, what/who do you consider credible?

Yeah he keeps attacking the person instead of addressing the message or the facts knowing he can’t refute them silverstein tried to explain away His explanation when he said pull it saying that he meant to pull out all the firefighters,that’s laughable because you are not going to call firefighters IT. He has the retarded logic of believingthe CIA controlled media over zrchirptects,engineers,demolition experts and witnesses.

Can you and me talk about the speed at which building 7 fell? That seems to be of interest to you.

What is your contention? Didn't the laws of physics dictate the exact speed at which it woulld have had to fall? Was the speed of the film manipulated to show a 'faster' or 'slower' speed of fall?
Are you suggesting that it feel too slow or too fast.
Fwiw, until proven otherwise, I'm going with 'just right'!

I suspect you're a bit deeper than that so you're going to have to present a theory.

Here’s some information for him.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Someone would have to be on drugs to believe the official conspiracy theory of the governments that the planes caused the towers to fall down.

Nobody can ever explain bld 7 the crux of the 9/11 coverup that explosives brought the towers down.Nist failed,everybody has failed to debunk it that explosives brought them down. They always play dodgeball that they were not hit by a plane yet it collapsed as well yet was never mentioned in the 9/11 report.why?

I always take people to school that explosives brought down the towers pointing out not only the best architects and engineers in the country as well as even demolition experts said explosives brought them down but surviving witnesses said so as well,they talked about hearing explosives in the BASEMENT of the towers BEFORE the planes struck above. To say all these witnesses are lying as I have seen many coward shills say in the past and dismiss all the best experts in the world is being both a coward and a troll.

everytime I bring out these facts the ones whocowardly won’t accept those facts dismissing those people as liars as they do,don’t ever even attempt to address those facts and just try and laugh it off with a smiley,never fails everytime.has happened hundreds of times over and over with me every single time resorting to lies to try and get around it or coward one liners in defeat.

LA, you’re a fairly open minded reasonable individual, if the buildings were brought down by explosives in the basement, why did the towers fall top down?

There were explosives planted on all floors,you can see from the videos the explosive charges going off with bright lights flashing and puffs of smoke coming out in some of the videos where they show closeups.many witnesses said they heard explosions going off including many credible firefighters experienced in the sound of explosives,the firefighters said they were insulted by the commissions finds of the cause of the collapse rightfully so,calling their investigation a half baked farce.

correct me if I am wrong,but aren’t you one of the folks here that agree with me thst the corona virus is a hoax,that the virus is not anywhere near as dangerous as what the CIA media claims it to be!that you agree it’s no worse than the common flu? I find it baffling and even comical posters here who I have seen say they believe the virus is a hoax yet they can’t accept 9/11 being an inside job.

that is easily the most baffling logic I have ever heard in my lifetime,somehow folks here accept the virus being a hoax where all the world leaders are involved in this including a former mod,yet incredibly,somehow they don’t believe 9/11 was an inside job even though it was a much much smaller operation that did not require all the world leaders to be involved.thst to me is mind boggling beyond words. Leaves me speechless.

I could understand much much better if someone like You believed that 9/11 was an inside job but did not believe it that there is a fake pandemic and believed the media that the virus was everybit as dangerous as they claim and millions were dying from it but certainly not the other way around.like I said I am flabbergasted beyond words on that one.

 

[Donald H]

Yeah he keeps attacking the person instead of addressing the message or the facts knowing he can’t refute them silverstein tried to explain away His explanation when he said pull it saying that he meant to pull out all the firefighters,that’s laughable because you are not going to call firefighters IT. He has the retarded logic of believingthe CIA controlled media over zrchirptects,engineers,demolition experts and witnesses.

One possible explanation for using the word 'IT' would be that it was meant as pulling the 'effort' by firefighters to save building 7.
I'll present that as being just as likely as the theory that it had to mean, 'blow it up' or something to that effect.

But assuming you aren't going to accept that possibility, could you suggest some reason why anybody would want to blow up building 7?

Could it have contained written evidence of a conspiracy between the perpetrators of 911 and the government that needed to be destroyed?

I'm fine with any opening theory but I'm not fine with all the pretending to have a theory and then not coming out with presenting it.

I think a discussion is needed on the rate of fall of building 7, because all conspiracy theories appear to be based on the sinister aspects of that question.