why is Ahmadinejad such a moron?

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Am I to take that to mean you don't possess the intelectual honesty to respect the difference between refering to a historcal event as "something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and act accordingly" and denying it?

You actually believe that framing your understanding of a well documented historical event in order to claim it's a myth is being honest? Sound like pure apologistic bullshit to me.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No he doesn't refute his denial.

Because he didn't deny any facts.[/quote]
Nor does he address any facts. He claims the holocaust is a myth yet doesn't provide a single piece of evidence to substantiate that claim. When asked to substantiate it he dances around and, similar to a truther, whines that he is prevented from finding the truth.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Claiming a select group was killed does not acknowledge that he agrees it was genocide or homicide. You are playing very fast and loose with his statements. And trying to pretend it was genocide for all and that the Nazis didn't specially and particularly target the Jews shows how you yourself are full of shit on the issue.

Rather, I know for a fact it was an attempted genocide of many groups of people which Hitler branded as sub-human, as I noted above. For example sake, in regard to Poles:

On August 22, 1939, a few days before the official start of World War II, Hitler authorized his commanders, with these infamous words, to kill "without pity or mercy, all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space [lebensraum] we need".

Am I to take it you are a denier of the Nazi's attempts at genocide against any group aside from Jews?

Except Hitler never really did specifically target all Poles for extermination. He wanted the land of Poland which is specifically why the term "lebensraum" was used. However, he DID specifically target all Polish Jews:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Poland

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Congrats on your own apologism for the Holocaust.

I have never made any apologies for any such horrors, you delusional twit.

You're making apologies for Ahmadinejad's claim that it's a myth.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nice attempt at deflection.

You are one who brought 9/11 into this, and you are the one deflecting now, as you apparently have some inkling of the fact that your arguments here stand on nothing but a giant pile of bullshit.

I didn't "bring 9/11 into this." I made a comparison between Mr. Dinner Jacket and truthers since they both use the same, lame tactics when pressed to explain their claims.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You actually believe that framing your understanding of a well documented historical event in order to claim it's a myth is being honest?

Right. Like the execution of Jesus is a reasonably well documented historical event, while the understanding that his suffering death absolves the sins of of all who declare him Divine, known as "substitutionary atonement", is a myth.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Except Hitler never really did specifically target all Poles for extermination. He wanted the land of Poland which is specifically why the term "lebensraum" was used.

He wanted the land and declared it a necessity to kill "all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language" to do so. Himmler reinforced this genocidal mindset against Poles by stating "German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles", and through the course of the Nazis time in Poland they murdered around the same number of no-Jewish Poles as they did Jewish ones.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You're making apologies for Ahmadinejad's claim that it's a myth.

Rather, your clinging to the myth that only Jews were targeted for extermination is in effect apologising for the Nazis goal of genocide against many other groups which Hitler also deemed unfit to exist.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Citrix
seriously, wtf is wrong with this guy? denying that the holocaust happened then being proud of such ignorance? i just dont get it.

link


Iran's Ahmadinejad proud of Holocaust denial
AP

TEHRAN, Iran ? Iran's president said Monday he is proud to stoke international outrage with his latest remarks denying the Holocaust as he heads for the United Nations this week ? showing he is as defiant as ever while his country comes under greater pressure to curtail its nuclear program.

What in essence is the difference between those who deny the Holocaust and those who deny anthropogenic climate change? Or those who deny evolution via natural selection and genetic drift?

In all three cases you've got ideologues so blinded by their faith and/or self-interest that they can't see the truth staring them in the face.

I've said for a long time: If you argue that "both sides" of the so-called creation debate ought to be taught in school, then you ought to also advocate teaching "both sides" of the Holocaust "debate."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You actually believe that framing your understanding of a well documented historical event in order to claim it's a myth is being honest?

Right. Like the execution of Jesus is a reasonably well documented historical event, while the understanding that his suffering death absolves the sins of of all who declare him Divine, known as "substitutionary atonement", is a myth.

The execution of the biblical Jesus is well documented, even "reasonably" well? Proof?

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Except Hitler never really did specifically target all Poles for extermination. He wanted the land of Poland which is specifically why the term "lebensraum" was used.

He wanted the land and declared it a necessity to kill "all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language" to do so. Himmler reinforced this genocidal mindset against Poles by stating "German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles", and through the course of the Nazis time in Poland they murdered around the same number of no-Jewish Poles as they did Jewish ones.

Hitler wanted to eradicate Poland as a country, not the Poles as a people. Nor did he round up all Poles, place them in concentration camps, and gradually gas them all to death. He did, however, round up nearly every Polish Jew that he could find and put them in concentration camps.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You're making apologies for Ahmadinejad's claim that it's a myth.

Rather, your clinging to the myth that only Jews were targeted for extermination is in effect apologising for the Nazis goal of genocide against many other groups which Hitler also deemed unfit to exist.

You are plainly ignoring that Jews were Hitler's primary target for eradication. If that's not the case, when did Hitler espouse a "Die Endlösung" for Poles, Gypsies, Catholics, or any other group besides the Jews?

Hitler was brutal to nearly any group that did not consist of the so-called Aryan race. However, he very specifically went after Jews first and foremost. Playing a semantic game and pretending his pursuit was the same for all groups so it was Holocaust for everyone is pure intellectual dishonesty, muddying the waters, and stunk up horseshit. If you can't recognize that, or simply refuse to, than you're even a bigger tool than I imagined.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The execution of the biblical Jesus is well documented, even "reasonably" well? Proof?

See here for a compilation of various sources.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hitler wanted to eradicate Poland as a country, not the Poles as a people.

He not only wanted to eradicate Poles as a people, he ordered his commanders to kill all of them, as I quoted above. What motivates your denial of this well established historical fact?

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nor did he round up all Poles, place them in concentration camps, and gradually gas them all to death. He did, however, round up nearly every Polish Jew that he could find and put them in concentration camps.

He rounded up and killed off, by gas or otherwise, around as many non-Jewish Poles as he did Jewish ones. Granted, there were far more non-Jewish Poles than Jewish ones, so he didn't get nearly as far with them before he was stopped. On the other hand, there was notably less Romani, and he rounded up and killed off an arguably higher percentage of them compared to Jews.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You are plainly ignoring that Jews were Hitler's primary target for eradication. If that's not the case, when did Hitler espouse a "Die Endlösung" for Poles, Gypsies, Catholics, or any other group besides the Jews?

He never seriously considered any other "solutions" to the groups he deemed sub-human to have settled on a "final solution" in regard to them, where as with the Jews he had previously considered other "solutions" such as shipping them off to Palestine, and later Madagascar. Only after such other possibilities proved impractical did he commit to "Die Endlösung".

 

[Lemon law]

I still think its a forest v. the trees question here, so what, be its resolved, Achmadinejhad is a nut and a piss poor populist to boot.

But Achmadinejhad still makes the point, Hitler was a equal opportunity hater, some 60 million plus people died in WW2, and at best Jews can only claim 10% of the victimization. And if anything, far many more of the Slavic race died. So why can the Jews claim to be the sole victims?

But in terms of a nut like Achmadeinjad, if anything, reality reveals he has been the greatest gift to Israeli since sex and sliced bread. As Israel greatly distorts some of the other things Achmadinejad says with a rather broad brush.

Bottom line, anyone who equates what Achmadinejad says with the larger Iranian thinking is more than three times a fool.

Bottom line we can watch the freak side show, but in so doing miss the real big top circus that matters. And a good part of the side show clown show also involves Israeli clowns.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Freshgeardude
The biggest problem with him saying what he says is that he will get away with it. at this meeting, they wont ask about it, they wont care about it, they wont think about it. they will all pretend he never said it. He is going to get what he wants because the point of the meeting is to protect Iran from attack from Israel, which the world hates because of all the propaganda against it.

Actually they did protest against it. The USA, UK, Australia and several other countries left the UN when it was his turn to speak, he mostly spoke to an empty room.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The execution of the biblical Jesus is well documented, even "reasonably" well? Proof?

See here for a compilation of various sources.

From your link:

"However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus."

Which is what I already knew you'd find since the execution of the historical Jesus is by no means "reasonably" well documented.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Hitler wanted to eradicate Poland as a country, not the Poles as a people.

He not only wanted to eradicate Poles as a people, he ordered his commanders to kill all of them, as I quoted above. What motivates your denial of this well established historical fact?

Making a rhetorical statement and actually pursuing it is two different things. Regardless of what Hitler said, that's not what the Nazis did. History does support that fact very well. What the Nazis did in Poland was what they did in every country they invaded. They went after the intelligencia, political leadership, scholars, and people in positions of power. That wasn't genocide, that was the Nazi's way of wiping out a national identity without wiping out all of the people. otoh, Nazis went aftrer Jews without abondon and with little to no restrictions. But leave it to you, and Ahmadinejad, to try to draw parallels and try to equate the two actions. Ahmadinejad claims to be a scholar and he's clearly full of shit on that subject. So what's your excuse?

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nor did he round up all Poles, place them in concentration camps, and gradually gas them all to death. He did, however, round up nearly every Polish Jew that he could find and put them in concentration camps.

He rounded up and killed off, by gas or otherwise, around as many non-Jewish Poles as he did Jewish ones. Granted, there were far more non-Jewish Poles than Jewish ones, so he didn't get nearly as far with them before he was stopped. On the other hand, there was notably less Romani, and he rounded up and killed off an arguably higher percentage of them compared to Jews.

Explained above already.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You are plainly ignoring that Jews were Hitler's primary target for eradication. If that's not the case, when did Hitler espouse a "Die Endlösung" for Poles, Gypsies, Catholics, or any other group besides the Jews?

He never seriously considered any other "solutions" to the groups he deemed sub-human to have settled on a "final solution" in regard to them, where as with the Jews he had previously considered other "solutions" such as shipping them off to Palestine, later Madagascar. Only after such other possibilities proved impractical did he commit to "Die Endlösung".

But he only settled on a final solution for the Jews. Thanks for comfirming what I told you.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
From your link:
...

Also from my link:

Pines cites Josephus as having written:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus... Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.

....

Tacitus... wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...

...

Lucian... wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day ? the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...

....

The Babylonian Talmud... includes this text:

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

I've never put much time into studying the subject, and hence can't rightly claim to know the entirety of the sources which do exist. However, I can easily cite plenty of non-Christian historians who consider the execution of Jesus a reasonably well established historical fact, some are mentioned in the article I linked to. On the other hand, you don't have anything but empty headed denial to argue otherwise, do you?

Edit:
Besides, you are just haggling over my example to ignore my point, which is; there is difference between denying historical events and disputing the ideologies societies build around them, and the term "myth" only suggests the latter.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Making a rhetorical statement and actually pursuing it is two different things.

Exterminating millions of people after having deemed them sub-human and ordered their deaths is the same thing, regardless of what group of perceived sub-humans those people belong to.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What the Nazis did in Poland was what they did in every country they invaded. They went after the intelligencia, political leadership, scholars, and people in positions of power.

Nonsense. In countries the Nazis deemed "Aryan", they turned the establishments to their side to lead the populations against the few who were noble enough to resist, Vichy France being one extensively documented example of this.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But leave it to you, and Ahmadinejad, to try to draw parallels and try to equate the two actions. Ahmadinejad claims to be a scholar and he's clearly full of shit on that subject. So what's your excuse?

What is your excuse for completely ignoring the fact that Romani lost an arguably higher percentage of their population than Jews, as I pointed out above? Is it that, like Hitler, you consider Romani sub-human too?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
From your link:
...

Also from my link:

Pines cites Josephus as having written:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus... Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.

....

Tacitus... wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [Chrestians] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus...

...

Lucian... wrote:

The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day ? the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account...

....

The Babylonian Talmud... includes this text:

It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

I've never put much time into studying the subject, and hence can't rightly claim to know the entirety of the sources which do exist. However, I can easily cite plenty of non-Christian historians who consider the execution of Jesus a reasonably well established historical fact, some are mentioned in the article I linked to. On the other hand, you don't have anything but empty headed denial to argue otherwise, do you?

Actually, as someone rasied in the Catholic Church, I pondered and researched this question deeply when your momma was still likely wiping your behind. The truth is, with the few exceptions of some dubious claims, there is absolutely no solid evidence of the biblical Jesus being crucified. There is plenty of dubious speculation but nothing solid and absolutely proven.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Making a rhetorical statement and actually pursuing it is two different things.

Exterminating millions of people after having deemed them sub-human and ordered their deaths is the same thing, regardless of what group of perceived sub-humans those people belong to.

Yet the Nazis killed less than 50% of Poles, yet 90% of Polish jews, probably because they couldn't find the rest. The Nazis didn't atempt to completely exterminate the Poles or any other group. They were concentrated on Jews.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
What the Nazis did in Poland was what they did in every country they invaded. They went after the intelligencia, political leadership, scholars, and people in positions of power.

Nonsense. In countries the Nazis deemed "Aryan", they turned the establishments to their side to lead the populations against the few who were noble enough to resist, Vichy France being one extensively documented example of this.

Even in countries that the Nazis considered "Aryan" they still went after the intelligencia, political leadership, scholars, and people in positions of power. Anyone that was a threat to leadership was fair game.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
But leave it to you, and Ahmadinejad, to try to draw parallels and try to equate the two actions. Ahmadinejad claims to be a scholar and he's clearly full of shit on that subject. So what's your excuse?

What is your excuse for completely ignoring the fact that Romani lost an arguably higher percentage of their population than Jews, as I pointed out above? Is it that, like Hitler, you consider Romani sub-human too?

Don't be such a gaping asshole. This has nothing to do whatsoever with my own considerations and you're pathetic even attempting that lame attempt at disparaging me.

Nor am I ignoring any issues about the Romani. In fact, I'm a decendent of the Romani so you're wasting your breath trying to school me about them, dumbass.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, as someone rasied in the Catholic Church, I pondered and researched this question deeply when your momma was still likely wiping your behind.

Yep, empty headed denial is all you've got, your whole post. You are no better than the "no holes, no Holocaust" morons, just on the other side of that particular argument.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Actually, as someone rasied in the Catholic Church, I pondered and researched this question deeply when your momma was still likely wiping your behind.

Yep, empty headed denial is all you've got, your whole post. You are no better than the "no holes, no Holocaust" morons, just on the other side of that particular argument.

It's your claim. It's your responsibility to provide proof of that claim. Your Wiki link did nothing to substantiate it whatsoever. In fact, reading it with any discerning eye, it discounts your claim. You need to do far, far better if you want to present any actual proof.

Bu apparently your standards for "proof" exist on the same level as Ahmadinejad. You both seem to believe that making noise = proof.

 

[kylebisme]

I never claimed "proof", you dolt. I claimed "a reasonably well documented historical event" as I substantiated with the Wiki article, quoted examples from after you first denial, and offered to quote non-Christian historians supporting my claim a well. Yet all you can do is blow smoke out your ass, because that is all you've got.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Your "proof" was a single link to a Wiki page containing a few passages from documents written decades AFTER the alleged death of Jesus. If that's your definition of something being "reasonably well documented" then I find your standards of what is reasonable to be pathetic. No doubt Ahmadinejad would agree with you though. Seems you both have low standards.

 

[kylebisme]

Your argument is pathetic. You are not citing any sources, not proposing any alternative explanation, just blowing smoke out your ass, because that is all you've got here. And again, you are just haggling over my example to ignore my point, which is; there is difference between denying historical events and disputing the ideologies societies build around them, and the term "myth" only suggests the latter.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Citing sources to what? Proof that the execution of Jesus DIDN'T happen? You can't prove a negative, doofus.

Besides that, it' YOUR fucking claim therefore you need to substantiate it and have failed; miserably so.

 

[Infohawk]

I wonder how he does with the women.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Citing sources to what? Proof that the execution of Jesus DIDN'T happen?

To provide a contrary explanation of how he died. But of course you can't do that, as there is nothing of the sort, leaving the explanations we do have as reasonably well documenting him having be executed. Again, your arguments here are of the same ilk as the morons who argue that since the gas chamber at Auschwitz is a reconstruction, nobody was ever gassed by the Nazis. Of course you are on the other side of that particular argument when it comes to Jews, but somehow you continue to deny Hitler's genocidal acts towards other groups, including the Romani you claim to be partially descended from.

Also, to further debunk your inane arguments, you can find a bunch interviews with and research of people your claims deny the existence of in the book Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military .

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Citing sources to what? Proof that the execution of Jesus DIDN'T happen?

To provide a contrary explanation of how he died. But of course you can't do that, as there is nothing of the sort, leaving the explanations we do have as reasonably well documenting him having be executed. Again, your arguments here are of the same ilk as the morons who argue that since the gas chamber at Auschwitz is a reconstruction, nobody was ever gassed by the Nazis. Of course you are on the other side of that particular argument when it comes to Jews, but somehow you continue to deny Hitler's genocidal acts towards other groups, including the Romani you claim to be partially descended from.

Also, to further debunk your inane arguments, you can find a bunch interviews with and research of people your claims deny the existence of in the book Hitler's Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military .

Wow. You are dumber than a box of rocks and clearly don't understand how this works.

I am not positing alternate explanations. I am questioning YOUR specific claim, the one you have failed to substantiate. I am not bound to offer alternatives in any way, shape, or form, but congrats on your patheticaly transparent attempt to put me on the defensive.

Then you go on to make a straw man of an argument by suggesting I made a claim that I never did.

What's your major fucking malfunction? You come off as an utterly complete moron.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: ElFenix
ORLY?

Yes, really. Did you watch the video I posted?

yes, it didn't mention anything about buildings collapsing, rather, it showed how sometimes people conform.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken I am not bound to offer alternatives in any way, shape, or form...

You are bound to accept the collection of secondary sources from the various societies involved in the event all agreeing as "a reasonably well documented historical event", at least if you don't want to come off as a complete moron. After all, this is how much of our understanding of distant history is derived, as primary sources don't last forever.

My only question at this point is if you are so ignorant as to honestly not know this, or if you do know but just don't have enough of a sense of shame to avoid making such an idiotic argument anyway. Granted, either way, I can't rightly expect to ever have a reasonable discussion with you at this point, so I will stop bothering to try. I do hope someone else might step in with a way to coax you out of your stupor.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
yes, it didn't mention anything about buildings collapsing, rather, it showed how sometimes people conform.

Rather, it shows the explanation of the building "collapsing" which many people conform to, in contrast to video of the actual building being demolished and examples of that. You can watch another comparison of the official explanation and reality which provides a wider angle video of the building being demolished here, and of course plenty more information on the matter all over the place if you care to look for it. That said, do you have a dispute with any of the particular facts I've stated here, or are you simply uncomfortable with the logical conclusions they lead to?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: ElFenix
yes, it didn't mention anything about buildings collapsing, rather, it showed how sometimes people conform.

Rather, it shows the explanation of the building "collapsing" which many people conform to, in contrast to video of the actual building being demolished and examples of that. You can watch another comparison of the official explanation and reality which provides a wider angle video of the building being demolished here, and of course plenty more information on the matter all over the place if you care to look for it. That said, do you have a dispute with any of the particular facts I've stated here, or are you simply uncomfortable with the logical conclusions they lead to?

no, it didn't. it showed experiments on group think and authority figures. it doesn't show anything about any explanation of why or how the building collapsed. but it certainly is designed to have you draw a conclusion

and lets go back to my original post:

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Of course you sound like a falser trying to claim the impact damage of rubble and office fires could have made WTC7 collapse with a period of free fall covering around 8 stories

ORLY?

and instead you've gone off about videos on group think.

videos showing group think are not evidence of how the WTC7 collapsed. the one video you've now posted compares two NIST videos with the actual event, but only the first NIST video is anywhere near relevant. the first was to show what the WTC7 collapse might look like taking into account the reported debris damage. the second was was the collapse might look like without the debris damage. because the exact extent and location of the damage is not known and never will be known, it's not at all shocking that the first model is a bit different from the actual collapse. and of course the second model is very different, it's to show what would likely happen without the debris damage.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken I am not bound to offer alternatives in any way, shape, or form...

You are bound to accept the collection of secondary sources from the various societies involved in the event all agreeing as "a reasonably well documented historical event", at least if you don't want to come off as a complete moron. After all, this is how much of our understanding of distant history is derived, as primary sources don't last forever.

My only question at this point is if you are so ignorant as to honestly not know this, or if you do know but just don't have enough of a sense of shame to avoid making such an idiotic argument anyway. Granted, either way, I can't rightly expect to ever have a reasonable discussion with you at this point, so I will stop bothering to try. I do hope someone else might step in with a way to coax you out of your stupor.

Clearly you are far more ignorant than I initially believed, and delusional to boot.

YOU made the claim. It's YOUR responsibility to back up that claim, which you have not. It is not MY responsibility to offer alternative explanations either.

Got it yet? btw, all you flailing responses really make you look stupid. Just admit there really is no "reasonably well documented" history of your claim and move the fuck on. Stop with the stupid already.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
...it showed experiments on group think and authority figures.

That it did, and I presented it for precisely that reason, as I was addressing a bandwagon/appeal to authority argument.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
it doesn't show anything about any explanation of why or how the building collapsed.

Rather, the video shows WTC7 collapse, as I stated previously.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
but it certainly is designed to have you draw a conclusion

Seems more rightly designed to provoke people to evaluate a conclusion they had previously jumped to.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
and lets go back to my original post:

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Of course you sound like a falser trying to claim the impact damage of rubble and office fires could have made WTC7 collapse with a period of free fall covering around 8 stories

ORLY?

Right, again; do you have a dispute with any of the particular facts I've stated here, or are you simply uncomfortable with the logical conclusions they lead to?

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the one video you've now posted compares two NIST videos with the actual event, but only the first NIST video is anywhere near relevant.

Rather, neither are rightly relevant, as neither show anything comparable to the collapse with a period of free fall covering around 8 stories, which WTC7 indisputably experienced.

Originally posted by: ElFenix
,,, because the exact extent and location of the damage is not known and never will be known, it's not at all shocking that the first model is a bit different from the actual collapse.

If they could get their model to undergo a period of free fall covering around 8 stories by simulating impact damage of rubble and office fires, that would be shocking, as to do so flagrantly contradicts well established laws of physics. This is obviously why they couldn't show anything of the sort, and hence had to settle for a Big Lie, which many are sadly too conditioned to call them on.