North Tower Exploding...

[William Seger]

21. Ah, so you judge reaoning by who presents it rather than validity?

You ignore arguments by anonymous internet posters because they're anonymous; you ignore arguments by qualified engineers like Bazant and Greening because their arguments weren't included in the NIST report; and you ignore arguments in the NIST report because they're a dishonest pack of government shills.

But you accept arguments by Gourley and Chandler even after flaws are pointed out to you that you can't rectify, because... they are conspiracists like you?

And this is your idea of a superior epistemology?

> Who exactly measured the squibs and found that they accelerated?

Many people have, but here's an animated gif that I did myself several years ago, showing that the "squib" undergoes three separate acceleration phases, implying a varying pneumatic flow:



Careful observation should tell you that something similar could be done with the "squibs" in Chandler's video, since there is at least one noticeable acceleration phase. (And if you want to say you don't see it, I'll do a gif and we'll see who is the more careful observer.) For contrast, here is an actual controlled demolition squib. Notice that after appearing, the expansion is strictly decelerating, for the obvious logical reason that I gave you but you insist on ignoring:



> Your argument about the shell of WTC7 made no sense. You claimed that the non-structural curtain wall that hung from the perimeter framing stood even when that framing distorted and fell down.

That's simply not true, "Ace." I made it clear several times that I believe the interior framing fell away from the exterior framing -- i.e. the exterior columns and beams -- which held its box shape because of the rigidity of the attached curtain walls. Maybe you still don't get it, but it's hard to tell with you where your lack of comprehension ends and the blatantly disingenuous arguments begin.

> Life is too short to address the bogus arguments of bullshitters whose preference for bullying over persuasion trashed their credibility.

LOL, that's a lame excuse considering how you apparently find it impossible to stop digging yourself deeper into every losing argument you engage in. Obviously you have plenty of time to beat your dead horses, but you're too busy to think of good reasons for why you're doing that? Fascinating.

> Most (and probably all) of the WTC towers' core columns were accessible at some point from the elevator shafts. Only by restricting the universe of columns to those accessible at the floor where you believe the collapses began can you give the illusion of having an argument.

What a pantload. If conspiracists want to claim that it wouldn't have been hard to rig the core columns for a controlled demolition because "most" of them were easily accessible from elevator shafts, then the columns in the areas where the collapses began are the ones that would need to be rigged! When confronted with clear evidence that that wasn't true -- that you were parroting bullshit you read on a "truther" site without checking it out -- you tried to chicken-shit your way out of it by saying you weren't claiming any controlled demolition theories, you were just sayin' "most" of the columns were accessible, somewhere, which meant, uh, absolutely nothing. And now you have the chutzpah to say I'm the one who is trying to create an "illusion of having an argument!" You are, without a doubt, the biggest hypocrite I have ever encountered anywhere on the net.

> I can comprehend the concrete pulverization just fine. I want NIST to explain it to me. I don't want to hear it from obsessive and anonymous propagandists.

Bullshit, anyone who believes that's what you want hasn't been paying attention. You've made it clear that you don't trust anything coming out of NIST because you think they are dishonest. You find some excuse, no matter how lame, for ignoring anyone who challenges your 9/11 fantasies, even while pretending to be the heroic objective investigator. And anyway, you have yet to present anything remotely resembling a rational reason why the concrete pulverization has anything to do with anything. When confronted with how idiotic it is to believe the alleged perps planted massive amounts of magical silent explosives all over occupied office floors just to pointlessly crush a lot of concrete, you tried to chicken-shit your way out of that implicit argument by saying you hadn't made any such claim, you were just mystified about energy, or something, but you definitely don't want "obsessive and anonymous propagandists" to explain it to you.

But, hey, don't worry about me being "frustrated" by someone who is so determined to not understand my arguments -- "amused" would be more accurate.