The scentific method or assumtion, what are you inclined to beleive.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Those 'probable' people are all of those who refused to acknowledge any credibility of the Truthers theories.

So the deniers that refuse to look at evidence, uh huh.

Quote

Show me another instance of two airliners crashing into neighboring skyscrapers at high speed and showering fire and debris onto another building first.

I can't that was the first time and only time it has ever happened...

Quote

I never described it as unespected. In fact, many reputable engineers have said that they were surprised the towers stood as long as they did after being struck.

HAHAHA so they expected the buildings to completely collapse? You must have some shit engineer mates, as those buildings were designed to have large airplanes hit them.

You also need to learn about newtons laws of moton, you also need to acknowledge the existance of explosive evidence, you can deny it all you want but that is not going to make it go away.

Quote

My side has already explained everything about the collapse in detail and using proven scientific methods and physical laws.

for fucks sake, imminent global collapse comes to mind, such a detailed and comprehensive explanation.

So in your mind the freefalling of building 7 has been explained and the symmetry of the collapse has been explained, can you cite this explanation.

Are you talking about the pretty computer model that NIST produced or what?

if so, Nobody but NIST has acces to the data used to create that model, so on what basis do you consider the findings correct?

Quote

Your side has only picked and chose what you want to present, and fabricated the rest, to support what you think happened.

My side will debate any aspect of the events, from the miraculous finding of the hijackers passport, to the complete absence of an aircraft in pensylvania, to molten steel in the rubble, to nano thermite in the reminants, not only will we disciss these and any aspect of the events, we have evidence that you and you croonies keep on ignoring.

This is willfull ignorance. and there is nothing scientific about willfull ignorance.

You tell me an aspect that the truth movement is unwilling to discuss, you accused us of hand picking our events, there are some plainly obvious ones such as the freefalling building and the nano thermite, but all aspects are up for discussion.

There are plenty of asssholes in the truth movement but those doe not represent the whole group.

Some of these are the very people you claim beleive the official story ans thier minds have ben changed through study over the last few years.

It is you deniers that move the subject quickly away from the concrete evidence to ambiguous matter.

you are unwilling to discuss the freefall of building 7 and NIST acknowldgement of it, you are unwilling to accepth the evidence of nono thermite in the rubble, but those things are well recorded and they are awaiting acknowledgement from official sources, no official entity on you side of the story will dscuss them as it is imossible to scientifically explain them into your fictional explanation of the 9/11 events.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Everything you just tried to use to refute my statements has been refutted many times over. Your circular arguments do not work. No matter how many times you claim the moon is square it will remain a rough sphere.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[sundevil777 102]

The NIST admitting that it fell at (near) frefall was an afterthought, correct? Not really important to their findings I thought. Wasn't it truthers that pushed them to admit that it was true? So it doesn't at all relate to the validity of the NIST report.

I've watched the various bullshit, embarrasing videos and such that you provided, the ones with the dropping things on top of other things experiments that you claim to be more useful than the Purdue simulations. You take those "experiments" to be useful evidence, but then insult me, saying I must have cheated in college, that I need to be reminded about Newton's laws. It is embarrassing when you attempt to get technical, seriously awful and pathetic. But it really doesn't matter how much you don't know about it, you claim that there is valid analysis to back up your claims. So, why don't you show me where your truther buddies have estimated how long it should have taken.

It is really not at all interesting to attempt to point out the flaws in your positions, because you just redirect the conversation to something else, It took so long for you to even address the point of how long you think it should have taken for the buildings to fall, and you say it should have been <0.5g. Why did that take so very long? Seriously, it is one of the only times you've ever answered a substantial question, and your answer was again embarrassing in how you came to that conclusion without any analysis to back it up.

This back and forth with you is no longer interesting.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

the complete absence of an aircraft in pensylvania

Wow, that is amazing

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rhys 0]

Quote

Everything you just tried to use to refute my statements has been refutted many times over. Your circular arguments do not work. No matter how many times you claim the moon is square it will remain a rough sphere.

piss weak mate, piss weak.

Just because you have decided to blindly accept what is dictated to you, does not mean it has been explained.

Dictation is not explanaition, maybe you could cite your sources, or maybe you could make irrelevant analogies to try to change the subject.

You clearly do not understand newtons laws of motion, because if you did, you would be able to discuss it and point out where you think, I am, and the rest of the truth movement is incorrect.

Instead you make some vague statement that is irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

The NIST admitting that it fell at (near) frefall was an afterthought, correct? Not really important to their findings I thought. Wasn't it truthers that pushed them to admit that it was true? So it doesn't at all relate to the validity of the NIST report.

it was an individual that was present at the time that pointed out thier inconsistancies.

You the NIST and all the deniers, denied freefall accured so the admittance of freefall is in fact very relevant.
once again newtons laws clearly render this occurance impossible without and external force.
something you seem to be having trouble understanding?

Quote

I've watched the various bullshit, embarrasing videos and such that you provided, the ones with the dropping things on top of other things experiments that you claim to be more useful than the Purdue simulations. You take those "experiments" to be useful evidence, but then insult me, saying I must have cheated in college, that I need to be reminded about Newton's laws. It is embarrassing when you attempt to get technical, seriously awful and pathetic. But it really doesn't matter how much you don't know about it, you claim that there is valid analysis to back up your claims. So, why don't you show me where your truther buddies have estimated how long it should have taken.

experiemt is experiment, what has happened to science these days, is a computer model all that is needed to make a conclusion thesse days.

the experements you witnessed were not comparing the objects to the buildings, they were showing us newtons laws and how they pertain to every substance.

you would expect the whole building to be recreated in 100% scale. but you do not understand logic it seems.

if you understand newtons 3 laws of momentum, how can you accept that the (near) freefall of a steel framed building is possible without lying?

you cannot, because it is impossible.

that is embarresing, I don't claim to be a professional in the engineering industry but you do and you ignore the very principals you industry is based on.

Quote

It is really not at all interesting to attempt to point out the flaws in your positions, because you just redirect the conversation to something else, It took so long for you to even address the point of how long you think it should have taken for the buildings to fall

because that is a cop out in you part, you request the impossible, I has been blatanty obvious that my standpoint is the buildings should not have fallen, they should have remained standing, but you inability to acknowledge that is consistent with your inability to acknowledge VERY BASIC SCIENCE.

Quote

and you say it should have been <0.5g. Why did that take so very long?

I have been clear for a couole of years now that none of those buildings should have collapsed completely.

how is that not answering your question?

Quote

it is one of the only times you've ever answered a substantial question, and your answer was again embarrassing in how you came to that conclusion without any analysis to back it up.

Quote

you really do live in an alternative reality don't you
This back and forth with you is no longer interesting.

ditto, but at least I have learned that you are a fraud, as you have in no way given anyhting scientific to this conversation and considering you are supposed to be an engineer, you should be able to explain 'why' you think you are correct, rather than simply attacking my integrety.

I can learn, you can learn, but you choose not to.

you needn't bother replying unless you have some scientific basis for your crap.

I have given you mine.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I have blindly accepted nothing. I have studied the reports and analysis, have seen first hand the remains of the steel columns, and have determined for myself that it was the airliners and only the ailiners that brought down the towers. #7 was destroyed by debris from the towers.

On the other hand, since you don't have the education or background to interpret the reports and analysis, and have never seen first hand the remains of the columns, you cannot determine for yourself what is valid and what isn't. So you chose to believe what a bunch of self-educated idiots have told you because it is what you wanted to hear.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

I have blindly accepted nothing. I have studied the reports and analysis, have seen first hand the remains of the steel columns, and have determined for myself that it was the airliners and only the ailiners that brought down the towers. #7 was destroyed by debris from the towers.

So in these repots an analysis where does it explain the rate of decent of the building or even explain thier collpses at all, the NIST failed to do so, so whaich reports do you have access to that nonody else has?

You say you have explained before how building 7 could fall in 6.5 seconds but you cannot cite the post or article that explaines it.

are we supposed to blindly accept your explanation without reference to cross check it with?

Quote

On the other hand, since you don't have the education or background to interpret the reports and analysis

ahh but I suppose 1200 engineers and architects do not either.

on one hand we have a post whore on DZ.com that wants to act like he has infinate knowledge (you) and we have wll over 1200 industry professionals that work full time in the field, had written peer reviewed papers and conducted experiemnts and have tangible evidence of explosives.

do you beleive they are lying about nano thermite, and how do you suggest building 7 managed to fall in 6.5 seconds from fire and debris damage?

please cite you sources or you are soimply making us accept blindly you word which is not very much at this stage.

you word on the subject cn be described as a floccinaucinihilipilification.

why, because you refuse to cite you references and explain 2 fundamental questions.

You can ignore the thermite but that does not make it go away.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Amazon 7]

Quote

on one hand we have a post whore on DZ.com

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Belgian_Draft

United States

Aug 5, 2010, 8:19 PM
Post #182 of 183 (3 views)


Posts: 2112


rhys
New Zealand

Aug 5, 2010, 8:36 PM
Post #183 of 183 (2 views)

Posts: 3977

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

it was an individual that was present at the time that pointed out thier inconsistancies.

You the NIST and all the deniers, denied freefall accured so the admittance of freefall is in fact very relevant.
once again newtons laws clearly render this occurance impossible without and external force.
something you seem to be having trouble understanding?

Freefall did not occur, your own data from the video upon which I commented showed that. It was close, but it wasn't 1.0g freefall. Just because some NIST guy used the term freefall when he should have stated it as some fraction close to freefall does not give you some big confession that is important.

Did NIST say in writing what the acceleration profile was? I'm talking about details, not the use of the general, non-specific term "freefall".

How close to freefall should it have been if it were not an intentional demolition? You say <0.5g, but where is that conclusion coming from/what analysis? You said there was scientific peer reviewed blah blah with all of that, so where is it? Even if it isn't available for you to post, I can go look it up, just tell me where it was published, I have access to all the scholarly journals that normally require a payment to view online. I've asked many times, it is kinda important to your position.

Quote

experiemt is experiment, what has happened to science these days, is a computer model all that is needed to make a conclusion thesse days.

Of course not, but the "experiments" on that video were really pathetic - that people went to all that trouble to set up those sad little demonstrations. That wasn't science, it wasn't anything that could contribute to understanding of what happened. That truthers need to try and explain Newton's laws with those wretched video "experiments" just shows that they know their audience - people that don't already know anything about such stuff and are easily impressed by some techno-babble.

Quote

if you understand newtons 3 laws of momentum, how can you accept that the (near) freefall of a steel framed building is possible without lying?

NEAR freefall, you said it, NEAR freefall. Not freefall, but NEAR. Well, exactly how near freefall does your guy claim it did fall and that it should have fallen? It is an important point, so please answer the question. Where is that analysis that shows that we should expect it to have fallen so slowly? You said <0.5g and made it clear that it was just a number you assumed (because it is a long way from freefall), but then later said your truther guys had an analysis, so again, please provide it. People like myself that have some a more educated sense of such matters aren't surprised at all by the fact that it did fall at NEAR freefall. You should know that repeating this point is not convincing, except to people that are not educated in such things. I'm sorry if that is an insult, but that is just the way it is. During the process of getting degrees in such subjects, there are many things that are learned that are not intuitive, but you want to appeal to an intuitive sense that NEAR freefall is out of the realm of possibility. It is NOT, except to those that don't know better by training.

Quote

I has been blatanty obvious that my standpoint is the buildings should not have fallen, they should have remained standing

Yes, you've made it blatantly "obvious" that you make conclusions based upon an appeal to an intuitive engineering sense. Sorry, but your intuition doesn't work well. Why is it that you think it is so "obvious", because you were reminded of Newton's laws? It really is awful when you try to get technical, but can't, so you just fall back on it not being "obvious". Not very convincing to just say, It is obvious, Newton's laws blah blah... Ir is not very, as you say so often, "scientific".

Quote

ditto, but at least I have learned that you are a fraud, as you have in no way given anyhting scientific to this conversation and considering you are supposed to be an engineer, you should be able to explain 'why' you think you are correct, rather than simply attacking my integrety.

I can learn, you can learn, but you choose not to.

you needn't bother replying unless you have some scientific basis for your crap.

I have given you mine.

I have gone way out of my way to refute your arguments very specifically, as have many others. It is you that dodges and weaves your way around those bothersome little details, to fall back on the all encompassing "it is obvious", and "Newton's laws"!

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

I think it's obvious from post 175 that he's just winding you up. The shrillness of the writing, the lameness of the arguments...it's an act, or he's lost any rational grasp of reality.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

I have blindly accepted nothing. I have studied the reports and analysis, have seen first hand the remains of the steel columns, and have determined for myself that it was the airliners and only the ailiners that brought down the towers. #7 was destroyed by debris from the towers.

So in these repots an analysis where does it explain the rate of decent of the building or even explain thier collpses at all, the NIST failed to do so, so whaich reports do you have access to that nonody else has?

You say you have explained before how building 7 could fall in 6.5 seconds but you cannot cite the post or article that explaines it.

are we supposed to blindly accept your explanation without reference to cross check it with?

Quote

On the other hand, since you don't have the education or background to interpret the reports and analysis

ahh but I suppose 1200 engineers and architects do not either.

on one hand we have a post whore on DZ.com that wants to act like he has infinate knowledge (you) and we have wll over 1200 industry professionals that work full time in the field, had written peer reviewed papers and conducted experiemnts and have tangible evidence of explosives.

do you beleive they are lying about nano thermite, and how do you suggest building 7 managed to fall in 6.5 seconds from fire and debris damage?

please cite you sources or you are soimply making us accept blindly you word which is not very much at this stage.

you word on the subject cn be described as a floccinaucinihilipilification.

why, because you refuse to cite you references and explain 2 fundamental questions.

You can ignore the thermite but that does not make it go away.

Where have i relied upon the NIST reports?
You give credit to the 1200 who signed the petition, but you totally discredit the tens of millions who didn't.

I challenge you to provide one piece of hard evidence to back your claim of the use of thermite, thermate, super-nano-techno-extreme-thermite, or whatever you are calling it these days. ONE PIECE of evidence that can hold up to scrutiny. Time to back what you claim.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Everything you just tried to use to refute my statements has been refutted many times over. Your circular arguments do not work. No matter how many times you claim the moon is square it will remain a rough sphere.

piss weak mate, piss weak.

Just because you have decided to blindly accept what is dictated to you, does not mean it has been explained.

Dictation is not explanaition, maybe you could cite your sources, or maybe you could make irrelevant analogies to try to change the subject.

You clearly do not understand newtons laws of motion, because if you did, you would be able to discuss it and point out where you think, I am, and the rest of the truth movement is incorrect.

Instead you make some vague statement that is irrelevant and has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject.

All relevant questions have been answered. All silly ideas have been very thoroughly rebutted - more like debunked. You keep asking the same questions, mostly because the answers provided are not the answers you want. If you think you already know the answers, stop asking the questions.

You are a poster child for Michael Shermer.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley