Discussion in '9/11' started by Ronstar, May 24, 2016.
My understanding is that the verinage technique is/was never used on steel framed buildings.
So, when they demo a building do you think they do an investigation to find out why it collapsed? LOL It is pretty well known what caused the collapse of those buildings.
Most of the so called Truth Movement was stupid to begin with.
I went to one of Richard Gage's dog and pony shows in 2008. I think at least 2/3rds of the people there I would not even try to have a scientific discussion with.
But what kind of science have we got if it only took 4 months to make a 50 ft model of the Tacoma Narrows bridge in a wind tunnel in 1940 but we can't get a physical or virtual collapse model of the North Tower from any engineering school in almost 15 years?
No, our so called scientists and engineers have just permanently damaged the integrity of their professions.
Land a robot probe on Mars and name it "Curiosity" and then demonstrate that they do not have any here on Earth.
Yes, but what 9/11 truth deliberately ignore in this rather prosaic argument is the fact that the towers were struck with fuel laden aircraft. That is quite a feature to omit in order to make a story sound plausible.
No, it happens with more regularity that you could appreciate. That is just an argument from incredulity (which many seem to have a problem understanding).
And it would embarrass the therm*te faction in 9/11 truth. LOLOL
An unsupported claim that dismisses the empirical evidence without explanation.
To begin with, even if the alleged FLT11 and FLT175 were real, to allege that the airliner crashes justified the
complete and total destruction of WTC1, & 2 is very much a huge stretch of the imagination, to have a result
that is the very same thing that happens when an engineer designs a controlled demolition ( that is total destruction of the building )
and have this be the result of an airliner crash, Why should chaotic events = the same result as a carefully planned CD?
There is a science to probability and odds and its not just down to opinion here, there are scientific reasons for considering
the complete destruction of anything suspicious ( Note NFPA on the subject ).
To address the forces acting upon the skyscrapers, note that a controlled demolition is a precision operation,
controlled demolitions gone wrong result in incomplete demolition. therefore, it is totally legitimate to ask the
question WHY should the events of an alleged airliner crash and fire, = the precision operation of a controlled demolition?
Just for my curiosity does anyone have any documentation of runs at the Roulette table of three or more wins consecutively?
Argument from incredulity.
And the collapses were explained scientifically, so now you have the floor.
You can ask all you like, but a scientific answer has been provided. Now it is in your court to disprove the reports.
Did you bother to look it up? I've seen it.
"And the collapses were explained scientifically, "
U betcha! ..... You have your opinion, and I have solid evidence that airliners were NOT hijacked and used as weapons.
thank U very much!
It's a shame you can't produce any of this 'solid evidence'. I suspect you do not want it scrutinized by those with an education.
the evidence has been produced, just some people refuse to accept what is right in front of them.
Oh, I know that only too well! Look at your feeble responses to the evidence for the progressive collapse of 7WTC. It's fingers in the ears time, kids.
DO you have an answer about the alleged event where a falling mass can make contact with another mass and the resultant descent is >9.8 m/s^2
how is that done? what?
By who? NIST said for the twins that they were "inevitable", that's not an explanation, it's an opinion. For WTC7, NIST concocted a collapse initiation theory based on falsified data. That's not science, it's a scam.
The best scientific explanation that works because it has been proven to work on many occasions is controlled demolition. No other explanation has been provided or proven that makes sense.
A sub assembly breaking off without any support. Note the irregular collapse as it progressed. Oh, and you have the burden to disprove my evidence and you haven't done that yet. please don't try to change the subject.
"Note the irregular collapse as it progressed." Ya, like that 2.25 sec of free fall when the building descended vertically?
BTW: that spiffy graph that alleges the building fell at faster than g for at least a second, what is the source for that,
is it from a peer reviewed paper?
Lies. You cannot prove the falsified data claim and you know it. You keep dragging that turd out and it still smells like poo.
They have been provided and they do make sense. If it doesn't make sense to a fringe faction who lack the relevant expertise, why should anyone care?
Controlled demolition is a moronic belief system, as there is no evidence to support it, just pseudo-science from cranks. Nothing of any merit, therefore rational individuals can dismiss it as the musings of a certain 'nutty' element in the professional class.
I truly believe that people WANT it to be controlled demolition , therefore, they MAKE it into CD by cherry picking the evidence, but they are lying to themselves in order to sate their personal prejudice.
No-one has been able to prove me wrong yet. No-one.
Hi Bmanmcfly. Your claim is specious for the very reasons I've detailed repeatedly. Revise comprehension.
Can you disprove the evidence?
anyone who can look at the video can find the answer, its very simple, events that are so regular and uniform,
can not possibly be the result of "OFFICE FIRES"
So you can't? I knew that already.
Argument from incredulity fallacy. Stop wasting my time with fallacious junk.
Here, learn something:
then answer this:
why is it included in NFPA standards, that having complete destruction of anything is considered suspicious?
Why do you think that the experts would include this bit in their fire investigation standards, if it were not significant?
Because the cause of the collapses were obvious. This line of argument is retarded, and my opinion is supported by fire fighters who were there. The argument is a non-starter. It is the same as the moronic claim that they didn't investigate for arson.
Why didn't they check for termites! We could play this stupid game all day-well you can, I won't bother as I'm above that sort of thing.
"Because the cause of the collapses were obvious." That is wonderful, and would you go into a court of law and
state that the cause was "OBVIOUS" to anyone who sees the evidence?
Where is the foundation for this "OBVIOUS"?
I'll skip the irrelevant
It's already been proven, some of it by NIST's own documented claims. Others by comparing NIST's graphics/drawings from their own report and/or photos to the original Frankel drawings.
"Inevitable" is not science or an explanation no matter how much you want to claim it is. And concocting theories by falsifying data not only makes no sense, it's a scam.
Controlled demolition is not a moronic belief system, it's a fact of life. It has been proven many times to globally destroy buildings in seconds. Nothing else has, but if there was another cheaper method that could take down a building in seconds, it would replace controlled demolitions. Obviously nothing has.
The empirical evidence. Bman, is this going to take your usual eight pages?
That doesn't demonstrate deliberate falsification, that is merely your confirmation bias speaking and not reality. Fail!
Irrational nonsense. You still have to prove the data was deliberately falsified. Don't omit that step.
I know it is a fact of life, just not on 9/11. Note this well: I was referring in the context of 9/11. It was unrealistic, impractical, illogical, irrational and politically unnecessary and 9/11 truth is unable to prove its weak case. Simple.
But there was no CD on 9/11 so your point is immaterial. CD on 9/11 was impractical, illogical, irrational, unrealistic, absurd and lacks evidence, either theoretical or physical, whereas, the accepted account does not suffer from these problems of logic. It is a no-brainer for some that the claims of 9/11 are half baked and poorly thought out.
Reality will kick 9/11 truth in the head every time.
It doesn't for YOU. The evidence for deliberate falsification is overwhelming. NIST had the original Frankel drawings to work with and by their own claim, ONLY had the Frankel drawings to use to identify the structure and the structural components in intricate detail. The original drawings and photos show components NIST deliberately omitted in their graphics/diagrams. There's no rocket science involved in conducting a visual comparison. NIST also made several admissions about the structural components, especially about the missing stiffeners, the seat length and the missing shear studs. They also admitted to free fall, that they never heard of the molten steel claims and that they had no evidence to work with even though there's a photo of John Gross standing on a mountain of evidence. If that isn't deliberate falsification to you then you're either in denial or you have a specific agenda.
I didn't omit any steps and I don't need to prove anything to YOU that YOU would always deny as proof, the facts speak for themselves. Denial doesn't make the facts go away.
Regardless and irrelevant, the NIST explanation is based on falsification of data. No one can or has ever proven that any method can take down a building globally in seconds other than CD. Unless and until proven otherwise, it's the ONLY known real world possibility left. And because that's true, NIST was obligated to investigate it and not just because NFPA protocol requires it. NIST eliminated the most likely possibility so that they wouldn't have to investigate it. That's immediate falsification.
Just saying there wasn't doesn't make it true.
Your opinion of what it was or wasn't is irrelevant, the fact remains is that there is no other known way to take down a building in seconds other than CD. So logically, it remains the most likely possibility (and the only known realistic one) and not one to summarily dismiss.
Irrelevant. It has nothing to do with anything.
Separate names with a comma.