dogsmilk wrote:
Why do you believe Building 7 collapsed? Do you believe Building 7 collapsed solely due to fire damage? Do you agree with the NIST report on this subject? If not, which parts do you disagree with?

oioioi wrote:
Thing is, I'll just say I'm nt an engineer, read the NIST report, read the engineering journals critiquing their report and take it from there. Working out why buildings collapse isn't something I have expertise in.
Why did Will Self's roof collapse? Dunno really. Can't see the point in worrying too much about it unless there's evidence the CIA did it in an effort to whack him or something.

Until or unless someone gives me convincing evidence something rum was afoot, I'm not seeing what the big deal is. Like if it was demolished by explosives that would be something pretty interesting . But there doesn't seem to be any plausible indication it was.

dogsmilk wrote: It was expected to collapse?!
Wow...who had this prior knowledge? Jesus lol ......
Did they 'pull it'?

Do you think its about proving who did it or do you think its about laughing at an official conspiracy theory that was impossible the way it was explained to happen?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
WUB I've already told you I'm not going to respond to an interrogatory style, told you why and asked you to respect that. Considering I already made a lengthy post about wtc7 which you have indicated you read, which clearly stated what I think about building 7 I can only conclude you are not paying attention to your own recent comments about people's behaviour on the forum.

dogsmilk wrote: It's not an 'interrogation'. I'm asking you a straightforward question. You feel qualified to come on the thread and say that the video in the OP is 'cack'. You're happy to rubbish other people's views. But you can't say what you believe. Because you haven't got the time. But you have got the time to sit here and rubbish other people's views. If you're not ready to even put your own views forward, don't trash other people's views.

Why do you believe Building 7 collapsed? Do you think it was due to fire damage? Quite straightforward.

If you think this post breaks any of the forum rules, please indicate which one. I've made it as courteous as I possibly can. I don't wish any harm by this, I am simply interested in what you believe, seeing as you're so adamant that other people's views have no merit. If you don't wish to discuss the subject, don't post on the thread.

andyh wrote:
Seriously Andy - I can only recommend you check out what the fire department were saying. It's there if you look.

Attention!

Look, as I keep saying I don't want some huge 911 debate. Been there. Done that. Nothing ever gets resolved, it just goes round and round.

As I've said, I really just wanted to make the point about the truth movement being sloppy and and uncritical of its own claims. I think that's an important consideration for anyone interested in truth and accuracy. And I think it is more important for people who actually believe 911 theories because they're the people trying to make a case. That's really what I was trying to get across. It kind of mystifies me why nobody has had anything at all to say about that.

dogsmilk wrote:
If you believe the vid in the OP then you're a conspiracy theorist

wake_up_bomb wrote:
I said I thought the video was cack and gave some examples of why I thought it was cack. I haven't been "rubbishing" people's views, I've been saying what I think about certain claims.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your tone is coming across as interrogatory. I have raised numerous points already on the thread, none of which you appear to be remotely interested in talking about but instead seem to want to just fire out random questions at me. I've said repeatedly what the point I was trying to make in the first place was and this is simply being ignored. I haven't said you haven't been "courteous", but I am experiencing your insistence I focus on questions of your choosing while ignoring everything else I've brought to be thread to be ordering me to talk about what you think I should talk about. Particularly given if you read posts I've already made you should be able to see quite clearly what I think and deduce why I don't find your questions relevant.

I am not on this thread to be interrogated by you. You need to accept that. If you feel you are being courteous, perhaps you would do me the courtesy of at least acknowledging the point I've said I posted to raise in the first place.

So to mimic your style -

Is it or is it not the case the 'missing trilions' were known abot substantially before 911? Yes or no? o you think it is at best sloppy or at worst mendacious to make out it was a huge coincidence Rumsfeld happened to mention it theday before 911 like it was the first time it was reported? Yes or no?

dogsmilk wrote:

dogsmilk wrote: Well, I wouldn't call asking a question an 'interrogation'. You're not on trial! I know you disagree with me on 9/11, that is quite evident. You're welcome to your view. I'm a perfectly reasonable person, and I would genuinely like to know what your view is. I don't see why this is such a big deal. Saying "LOL, that video is cack" is dismissing other people's views. I don't have a problem with that, but surely you must also be able to give your own view? I can give mine quite easily.

I basically agree with what you've said about some elements of the '9/11 truth movement', other parts of it, I believe have done a good job. No-one is infallible and people make mistakes.

All I really want to know is what you believe regarding specific issues on 9/11, as we've spent quite a lot of time discussing it, and I still don't know. I can't understand why this is a big deal. You feel strongly enough about the Corbett video to dismiss it, but not strongly enough to answer basic questions. As I say, I'm not going to critique your responses, I would just like to know what you think. We've had one long argument, I don't want any more, not with you, nor anyone else.

Do you agree with the 'official story'? If not, which parts of it do you disagree with? Do you think the 19 people named by the US federal authorities hijacked the planes, or not? Do you think Building 7 collapsed solely due to fire damage? All I was looking for was your view on these subjects. It's not a big ask, is it?

andyh wrote:

dogsmilk wrote: I don't hate it, I just don't rate it. If they think they're 'holding the truth movement to account', good luck to them.

dogsmilk wrote:

I'm not posting anything at you, I'm laughing at you :p

wake_up_bomb wrote:
It's not a big deal to me and I never said it was. I watched a short video and made a post about it because i thought it was cack and felt it raised an issue about 911 theories. That's not a big deal. You're making it a big deal by going on and on and on with these questions.
Though it's perhaps the case my opinions might have modified slightly over time, you already know what I think about building 7 because we had an enormous discussion about it on the DIF which got a bit...intense. Which makes me rather wonder why you persistently keep asking the same questions you already know the answers to and the last time they were aired became rather heated. I can't be arsed going through all that again, even in a polite fashion...can you?

Nice weaving around my questions btw LOL.

dogsmilk wrote: Well, I just wanted to hear your view, but if you don't want to give it, that's fine.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Like I pointed out, you already know it. Why do you want to hear what you already know?

dogsmilk wrote: I said 'AFAIK'. Do you know what this acronym means?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Well all that would indicate is exactly how little attention you were paying to my posts on that epic thread.

dogsmilk wrote: Actually, I don't know because you never gave your view. That's why I said 'AFAIK'. As I also said, I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong. I didn't realise that you were unable to give your view. That's fine.

@WUB - thing is as well, it all gets so fucking dogmatic (generally, I don't mean you)

Like take the Atta passport thing. Now I can see that seeming very convenient - ok that's a nifty coincidence.

Now the fact it survived is not that big a deal - numerous personal artifacts survived as they do in plane crashes generally - like you can find stuff about passenger's bank cards blah blah. I know some people claim it was all planted, but to me that's where it just gets silly and I switch off because that's where people are just arbitrarily making things up and deciding they're true.

So the actual passport surviving is not really remarkable. It's not that much of a coincidence that one of the surviving personal artifacts happened to belong to a hijacker. It is still an uncanny coincidence it was found very quickly and handed in but not quite so dramatic a coincidence as it's made out to be.

It could have been planted - it could have survived and been found and handed in. It looks suspicious but it could also be a coincidence.

And what does it prove?

Fuck all.

Yeah it looks it bit dodgy...but it might not be. So why do people keep going on about it ten years later?