I don't know how to make this simple enough for you to understand.

I believe the towers collapsed because the planes hit them. I believe WTC7 collapsed because of damage from the towers collapsing.

Do you?

If you don't, what do you think caused the buildings to collapse. It's exactly that simple.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudi..._wtctowers.cfm

I thought the guy that owned building 7 had them "pull it" then collected 3.5 billion in insurance, then his lawyers were able to get another 3.5 billion because of a loop hole in the insurance policy because they considered it two separate attacks.

Nope.

Always good to spout numbers like "half of all New York" without giving a source. No way people would think you are just making **** up in that case, nosiree.

(Actually not the quote itself, lots of people make bold predictions with little evidence, but the refusal to bet on it with dumb reasoning and then subsequent refusal to admit that this prediction was ever wrong).

.

Where is the explanation? First you tried to copy and paste straight from NIST section which did not explain the collapse. At that time I asked you to bold the part where they explain the collapse. You ignored me. Now you have pasted from the Q and A section (a second failed attempt) some text, which, again, does not contain any explanation.

Stop the clown show. Paste the actual explanation of the complete collapse according to NIST, which I claim does not exist, if you can.

I've cited and linked to the polls at least five times in the main thread.

I'm barely able to read one or two posts in that thread. If you think I'm going anywhere near that thread to skim it for this poll you are out of your mind

Let's also note that NYers, for obvious reasons, are most directly affected by 9/11. They would, as a group, be more prone to emotional reasoning errors and distortions IRT the attack.

Well?

Being most directly affected, New Yorkers would be more informed. For example, IIRC, people outside of New York, to this day, don't know that there was a third skyscraper that fell on 9/11. It would be hard to avoid such knowledge while living in NYC, just due to conversations passing information along and heightened general interest.

Anywhoo...

"In the long run, the United States cannot allow the Castro government to continue to exist in Cuba"
-Dwight Eisenhower to John F Kennedy, Jan 19, 1961.

gg Castro bros
yw

You're really not going to answer this? LMAO

I have stated repeatedly that I don't know why the tower fell. I've gone into depths about how I arrived at that conclusion. There are two dominant theories, one is that the planes took them down, the other is that they were blown up. Neither theory is completely satisfying, for reasons I have elaborated on. I don't dodge any legit question.

Do you not think "I don't know" is ever an appropriate answer?

Of course not. Giant planes flew into the buildings, when you say you don't know what caused the buildings to fall down you are saying you don't think the planes are the cause. Not having another cause is 100% dodging the question.

While NIST didn't say "we don't know", they did not provide any explanation for the collapse of the twin towers. I am not dodging the question as they were. I have made a case for not knowing. That means it is possible that the planes were not the cause. I've been clear on that.

You are dodging the question. As has been pointed out to you at least twice, NIST said the actual collapse wasn't in question but you refuse to respond to that as well.

If the planes were not the cause (but they were) what are your leading contenders for the cause of the collapse? You must have some reason to think it was the planes that caused it.

I described at length to you how once the collapse initiated, then the propagation of the collapse occurred because a single floor is not built to withstand 30 stories accelerating into it. That's what NIST means by "readily explained." You seemed so eager to use NIST as authority for structural analysis when you thought they supported your theory that the collapse was unnatural or something something. They didn't support that at all--they said the collapse was READILY EXPLAINED which is the total opposite of "we don't know" or "that's so weird and beyond physical understanding!" So now you just shrug that off and pretend you know more about the collapse than the world-leading engineers who studied it in depth, and you now believe that they decided, for some unspecified reason, to simply DODGE THE QUESTION about how the towers collapsed in their technical report about how and why the towers collapsed. No sir, you wouldn't dare believe that maybe just maybe you are missing a basic point about the collapse apparent to everyone else, even though you have already demonstrated on numerous other technical points to be woefully ignorant of basic engineering principles. But only you and those selling 9/11 propaganda can see the real physical conundrum that the authorities at NIST have missed!

Cliff's: You're a ****ing idiot.

As a NYer who was working that day, I was surprised that people in small towns in rural America seemed more freaked out then NYers.

Pretty much this entire thread (xpost from bad posters thread)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/11...e-you-1093382/

From classic "the market isn't that hard to beat, I've done it 2 years In a row!!!!!", to alot of nonsense about assests being mispriced just because they go up alot later. And worst of all nobody just saying the obvious.....if you are getting a 10+% return on a highly liquid, highly traded investment you are very likely taking on a commensurate level of risk even/especially if you are too dumb to see it. Both sides of that thread are pretty much a testament to the lack of appreciation of that folk theorem.

One of Jiggs many nonsensical energy trumps the economy or oil doesn't respond to supply and demand quotes belongs here, so glad you linked that thread

EXPERT

"Indeed, when pressed, most economic theorists admit that they do economics because it is fun." - Hal R. Varian

Unfortunately, and dangerously, game playing is not iconoclastic. Seldom does anyone playing a game questions its rules.

Are you paraphrasing via straw man? Where in the thread does the exchange go like that? ... At what point do you stop being a lying doosh?