@scholten_rik@Wiesen_Heimer@Malachymc22@FreedomMemesIRL@grok This is the first time you suggested you didn’t know exactly what happened. And you didn’t even mean to. You’re so focused on making something true you don’t consider potential variables. You’re the picture of confirmation bias
Yet in all the reports the building fell less than free fall. Correct?
This isn’t the proof you’re treating it as. It answers nothing. All you’re doing is poking holes and treating the holes as filler. I don’t care about the poking holes part. I welcome scrutiny and questions. What I don’t welcome is a presumption of understanding when it doesn’t exist. I can respect someone that says they don’t believe but also don’t know for sure. I can’t get on board with someone who says their alternative beliefs are the only possible truth. It takes as much faith to believe something isn’t true as to believe it is.
Are there more “experts” that back your claims or the official claim? Numerous times you’ve pointed to “experts.” As if your cherry picked experts are the arbiters of truth. This doesn’t exemplify critical thinking or reliable deduction. It’s more akin to a religious zealot proclaiming their path to righteousness is the only correct path.
You have yet to show true free fall occurred. The studies are conflicting as to the exact speed and nature of collapse and none offer real evidence of an unrelated contributor. It is not my burden to explain something I’ve already said I don’t have enough information to conclude. It is upon you to back the claims you so adamantly profess to possess.
On numerous occasions you’ve called me childish for my preference of Occam’s razor. Which stands in stark contrast to longstanding wisdom. The most childish of mindsets is that which hastily leaps to a conclusion and holds steadfastly to it while ignoring evidence that contradicts. I ignore nothing. I know what I know and don’t presume to know what I don’t. You obviously have a poor understanding of a mature mind. Ironically enough, your choice to baselessly call me childish time and again suggests exactly that.
I hold 4 type ratings in transport category aircraft with more than 13,000 hours of flight time and 25 years of 121 experience: I’ve served as a sim instructor on two of those aircraft and line check airman on another. You’ve chosen to dismiss my expert opinion of the plausibility they flew the planes into the towers and pentagon as seen on live television and backed up with longstanding irrefutable evidence. How am I to take you seriously elsewhere when you deny things I understand very well? It seems far more likely that your motives center around confirming a preconceived belief rather than getting it right.
You’re not explaining how it was violated. You’re just saying it was. If you are the owner of truth as you seem to believe you will explain how it was violated. You keep saying it’s impossible. So you know it’s not possible. Explain what makes it possible.
It’s obvious that you too don’t have all the answers and have filled the gaps of your understanding with speculation and assumptions.
Maybe you should bring your 11 yr old niece to have this discussion for you. Because she’d likely be more reasonable and resistant to confirmation bias. I doubt she’d act as if she is in possession of more understanding in a field of study than actual expert in that field. Let me know when she’s here. Maybe we can pick this back up again.
I know the meaning of “belief.” Do you?
From the beginning you’ve asserted things about me that aren’t true. You’ve assumed what you don’t know and got me wrong time and again. I can’t control any of that. Because it’s outside of my control. It’s only within yours.
Thanks for your time.
Ok, this whole time I thought we were talking about the twin towers. But you’ve been referencing tower 7. I wish you would have mentioned that the first time I asked.
I don’t think the NIST did a very good job of accurately investigating what exactly happened. I think they were a bit sloppy and left too many questions on the table.
From there, I don’t think any of them knows what really happened or why it collapsed exactly the way it did. And I don’t think they believe not knowing is an acceptable answer. So they produced some somewhat sloppy analysis.
I understand the questions about tower 7. I don’t really fault people for that. What does piss me off is to suggest that those crew members weren’t murdered at work that day when their aircraft were hijacked and flown into buildings and the ground. I have their pictures and have seen the grief their families were put through. I know things that most don’t know about procedures and practices that make it impossible to deny that’s what happened. It’s simply so unbelievably unlikely that I’d be a fool to believe it didn’t.
So please realize that every time this stuff is brought up it’s possible that a loved one of the deceased is having to see the grave of their family member stepped on and denied the respect they deserve. I don’t care if you believe it. I wouldn’t want you to unless you wanted to. I just have little patience for those who seek to disgrace my brothers and sisters by denying them their deserved consideration.
@scholten_rik@Malachymc22@FreedomMemesIRL@grok Here man. You got me intrigued by saying the same weird thing over and over. This guy does a rough calculation to prove that the towers could fall at the speed they did. I’m not willing to put this much work into your off the wall ideas.
https://t.co/VgAJIHlsd3