Skeptic Project

No, we will not agree to disagree, and I am not OK with that.

I believe in supportable scientific fact. I can prove that what I believe is correct.

You believe in bullshit fantasy with absolutely no evidence to support it. You cannot prove that what you believe is correct. In fact, I can prove that what you believe is bullshit.

This is not a subject on which reasonable people can disagree. You cannot deny the facts. Not beliefs, not opinions. FACTS. Once proven, facts are established. That's the way it works.

The FDNY, the largest municipal fire department in the United States, has approximately 11,600 uniformed officers and firefighters and over 3,200 uniformed EMTs and paramedics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Fire_Department</p>

all liars ?

Ed, didn't Dylan Avery or Jason Bermas or one of the other Loose Change idiots initially claim that the FDNY are all liars, and then he later had to retract the claim due to widespread outrage?

Casey, I'm not letting you off, and don't let subsequent replies tempt you to ignore me calling you out. You do not get to "agree to disagree" on this stuff. The facts are established, and you're willfully ignoring them. That is not acceptable and no one on this site will let you get away with that.

welll i was sitting in a school house in floria....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw&feature=related

Casey,

Your first link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

1. The NYPD is not the FDNY
2. We are talking about WTC7
3. Explosions don't necessarily mean explosive.
4. "Explosions" are expected in large building fires.
5. Descriptions of pancaking progressive collapses does not equal evidence for explosives especially as none are picked up in any videos. Watch verinage demolitions. They work without explosives, yet those descriptions would still fit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwFHEoiUZ7o /> 6. If there was such big explosions in the collapse like he makes out some witness describe, it would have been picked up by some cameras. Since it wasn't its pretty certain it couldn't have happened. Just find out how loud NORMAL demolitions are, it would be impossible to hide that.
7. NO ONE SUFFERED INJURIES CONSISTENT WITH EXPLOSIVES. NO ONE AT ALL.

Your second link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaCYEEO-58I

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I'm saying...

Let me try and make this simple...

1. Some truthers claim huge explosions were heard when WTC7 collapsed

vs

No firefighters mention this (and videos don't pick this up)

2. Truthers claim no one would imagine WTC7 would collapse

vs

EVERYONE relevant knew WTC7 was probably going to collapse. The FDNY pulled everyone back and they literally waited around until it collapsed.

3. Truthers claim small minor fires on only 2-3 floors.

vs

Firefighters talk about huge, major, unfought fires on many floors raging for over 7 hours.

4. Truthers claim minor damage

vs

Firefighters talking about a huge section of the south side being gouged out by the collapse of WTC1+2. They also talked about it bulging, leaning, groaning and creaking and things were cracking and falling.

And are also no dissenting opinions to that in nearly a decade. Truthers HAVE to be saying that the FDNY are lying, there is no way around it.

Ed are you a lawyer?

ed i take it you igonred the link i posted (just a few up) the same as eveyone else then??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlWSv0NZBRw&feature=related

What the hell link am I ignoring Casey?

Since you have ignored everything I said you sure got cheek.

And btw, trying to make these conspirators out as genius idiots is stupid. ie. that they are genius' to pull off such a conspiracy but such bungling idiots they make such stupid mistakes so years later you can have something to point at and say its clear evidence of their guilt. Thats dumb.

I'm in the UK as well and I also dont have a job I have to go to, I'm a media composer and can work when I want.

I also dont see why you cant answer such a simple question. Do you accept that the FDNY HAVE to be lying, for you to believe what you truthers do about Building 7?

@Muertos:

Yes Jason Bermas did say that "the firefighters are paid off" on camera, but later retracted, saying it was some kind of "Jedi mind trick" and he didnt mean it. So instead of taking responsibility for it blames the person who asked him. He then said that they are forced to keep quiet as they are too scared to tell the truth, so he is still saying they are liars. Of course if you ask them straight out are the FDNY all lying about WTC7 they dont like to say it, but keep talking to them and they will deny it and at the same time start talking like Bermas :D

look man ed solid steel buildings do not collaps like that! Or do they? give me one example before of after! the empire states building was hit with a b25 bomber with ordenance and hardley suffered a scratch in 1945!!

Here man its a load of shite and you bought it!!!

FDNY i dont know im not a 'truther' i just look into my own stuff i dont seek the approval of others MATE!! i couldnt give two shits what anyone thinks about me! unlike alot of people

no sill im sure it was a b25 that hit the empire building!! nearly blew the top off it

Casey, why do you keep ignoring my question about the FDNY? You believe certain things about Building 7, for them to be true the FDNY have to be lying. Do you accept that the FDNY are lying? Why would the FDNY have no issue with the collapse of Building 7 that they watched collapse?

And yes the buildings would collapse like that, but if you arent even honest enough to answer the above question anything this complex is pointless discussing with you.

PS: the wtc was not a "solid steel" building.

PPS: you claim you don't care what others think and you're not a truther, but then you have linked to many truther videos in this thread and even copy and pasted an article by Jim Hoffman from 911-Research.

Casey, you asked for scientific evidence proving that the WTC towers did not collapse as a result of controlled demolition.

I provided three peer-reviewed scientific studies to that effect.

You admitted you did not read them, then claimed you really want to believe that the "official story" is true, and then posted a link about WTC7 "free fall" and said "look for more real evidence." The link you posted explains a theory that is SPECIFICALLY REFUTED in one of the papers I posted. In fact, I cut and pasted an excerpt from one of those papers that specifically refutes this theory.

Please explain to me:
1. Why you did not read the scientific refutations you specifically asked me to provide you.
2. Why you believe a YouTube link is "real evidence" that refutes what those scientific papers say.
3. Why, if you claim you want to believe in the "official story," you specifically ignored evidence to support it. Shouldn't you be desperate for supporting evidence? That is, unless the opposite is true--that you're so desperate to believe in conspiracies that you're willing to ignore the scientific peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating those theories are wrong in favor of a YouTube link.

Explain this to me, please. And please try not to include any YouTube links in your explanation.