PBS broadcast of “Solving the Mystery of WTC7″ reaches 2.7 Million Americans

reply to post by -PLB-

I have read you non-expert baseless assertions, and I do get your point. But I think your theory is complete utter nonsense. So I am saying that in order to convince anyone, you require to demonstrate that your non-expert baseless assertions actually have any connection with reality.

Me saying I'm not an expert is called "being charitable." You are obviously not an expert, and you pounce on linguistic loopholes rather than points of engineering.

Merely saying that what I've said is ridiculous is NOT a reply, a rebuttal, or a point -- it's an opinion. You haven't produced a rebuttal to this A&E Ed Asner piece -- you've just restated the Bush government opinion. That's great.

Meanwhile, I've learned that the NIST never actually conducted a demolitions investigation -- from the OP video -- which I didn't know before this.

So I'm a little MORE convinced than I was before about the Demolition and coverup. Good luck with your serial debunking efforts.

reply to post by smurfy


Oh, gotcha.

I wasn't really sure which way your were trying to say this.

>> The "different ways" of demolition certainly are frustrating for the "truther." The lack of imagination of the people who say "this is impossible" sounds like a bunch of fools saying "man cannot go to the moon" 40 years after we did it. WE can't do it NOW for some reason, because you have more sheep than dreamers.

If I really wanted to go 'tin-foil-hat' there are any number of ways one might weaken a building. The problem is, people end up debating HOW it was done. The ONLY fact that matters here is; FIRE could, in a true quirk of physics and improper building materials, bring down a building -- we've never seen it, except PERHAPS on 911 when physics changed. But there is no way in Hell it could come down at Free-fall speed -- not at Building 7.

The onus is on the Bush apologists and the NIST to come up with a better model. They used the same model when they claimed it took much longer -- and when the video tape came out AFTER the fact, they just claimed that their model also explained that.

Who is being unscientific here?


>> Meanwhile, the "debate" if you can call it that, when it's usually a collection of the greatest hits of Propaganda; Straw man, distraction, call to authority, and of course; The Chewbacca Defense. We constantly have to prove that ALL conspiracy theories are TRUE, rather than force the "wasn't a demolition theorists" to prove their case.

The NIST and Bush's friends at Popular Mechanics got the crime of the century because the SAT scores have gone down and Intelligent Design can have equivalence with Evolution as a science because everyone is distracted watching "The Bachelor."

At least it's not just me saying it now; it's MIT, it's over a thousand engineers putting their credentials on the line. All the NIST has is 140,000 engineers who decided to stay quiet on the matter.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


I agree, me saying your "theory" is completely implausible is my opinion. You claiming on the other hand it is plausible is your opinion. You don't come with any "points of engineering" either. The only ones you come with, I already pointed out, are completely unlikely, and the only way to convince a skeptic is to demonstrate otherwise. So what we have here is one non-expert opinion vs another non-expert opinion. In the meanwhile nobody in the world cares about our opinion, and if you want people to care, time to demonstrate your theory is even the slightest plausible.

You should not really see this as a personal attack on you, but rather on the truth movement as a whole, which is completely allergic to an actual experiment or investigation. Its always others who have to prove truthers wrong. Not going to happen. Well ok, it is actually, currently a bunch of "OSers" and a few truthers are getting some independent experiments done to shows the pieces op paint examined by Jones are really pieces of paint and not thermite. You will see that most truthers will hand wave the results away. Science is not the tool of truthers, only when it is used in such a way that it is in favor of them.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
If you had managed to read what I wrote you may have noticed that nothing in that post was presented as proof that there were explosives.

The only thing I said was that none of the things you think proves there was NO explosives actually do so.

But I am expecting you to read with understanding, which apparently is a big ask.

Oh boy, the irony meter is maxing out again. I nowhere claimed that anything proves there could be no explosives. Your delusional mind is imagining all kind of things I never said, or your reading comprehensions is below any scale. You have nothing more but a straw man argument here.

But lets see what was said. You said:

For the record I do believe that fire couldn't possibly do it

In the meanwhile, you do believe it is possible that the building was very much weakened, and only very small explosives are required.

And what exactly did I write in the post you replied to? Lets take a look:

Darkwing desperately want explosives to be there but can't really come with an argument why the building could not collapse without them.

So I say you claim there can't possibly be a collapse without explosives (you desperately want explosives) but you can not come with any argument why those buildings can not collapse without them. In other words, your position to rule out a collapse without explosives is irrational.

Making up all kind of straw man arguments isn't going to save you. It never has, and isn't now.

reply to post by -PLB-

In the meanwhile, you do believe it is possible that the building was very much weakened, and only very small explosives are required.

No, PLB, try reading what I did say rather than what your obviously overactive imagination chooses to come up with.

What I said has nothing to do with I believe to be the case, it has to do with the range of possibilities that YOUR argument allows and how YOUR conclusion is not in that range.

Let me repeat that, nothing about what I said has anything to do with what I believe, it only deals with what YOU say you believe.

So I say you claim there can't possibly be a collapse without explosives (you desperately want explosives) but you can not come with any argument why those buildings can not collapse without them. In other words, your position to rule out a collapse without explosives is irrational.

Again, read what I said, not what you imagine...

I said that YOUR argument posits a range of possibilities which can result in no sound of explosions being heard on the available recordings. In THAT range is no possibility that allows you to RATIONALLY draw the conclusion that there was no explosives, yet you implying that it does.

There are only two possible reasons why you would do this:
1) You are irrational
2) You know that your argument is nonsense and hoping to flabbergast by verbosity when you know as well as everyone else that the absence of visible flashes and audible explosions means jack squat in this context

Originally posted by Darkwing01
No, PLB, try reading what I did say rather than what your obviously overactive imagination chooses to come up with.

What I said has nothing to do with I believe to be the case, it has to do with the range of possibilities that YOUR argument allows and how YOUR conclusion is not in that range.

Let me repeat that, nothing about what I said has anything to do with what I believe, it only deals with what YOU say you believe.

So basically, you were arguing against a straw man argument. Good that we have this settled.

Again, read what I said, not what you imagine...

I said that YOUR argument posits a range of possibilities which can result in no sound of explosions being heard on the available recordings. In THAT range is no possibility that allows you to RATIONALLY draw the conclusion that there was no explosives, yet you implying that it does.

And guess what, I am not drawing conclusion based on that straw man argument.

There are only two possible reasons why you would do this:
1) You are irrational
2) You know that your argument is nonsense and hoping to flabbergast by verbosity when you know as well as everyone else that the absence of visible flashes and audible explosions means jack squat in this context

or 3) You created a straw man argument, as what you call "your argument" only exist in your head.


Anyway, we can also agree that your argument that there were just very small explosives is going nowhere, as there is nobody in this thread who believes this was the case. So we are back where we started. Where were the flashed and bangs (and to clarify, in your theory, not some made up theory that you consequently attribute to me).

reply to post by Darkwing01


- PLB - is one of those who uses circular arguments and impossible demands for "evidence". Whatever Evidence you reply with, the criteria gets higher. I'm looking for the "IGNORE" option as there is no new information with this person.

There is NO POSSIBLE way to show evidence of the explosives because no EVIDENCE was taken. So of course, say that Truthers force everyone to have to prove them wrong... isn't it the LACK of proof that got us here? Nobody can prove ANYONE wrong. It's like telling the jobless people protesting in Washington to "get a job" -- that's why they are protesting isn't it? Sheesh.

>> The point of this A&E video is that the most likely reason the towers fell was demolition -- and it's a shame that concept was totally ignored by NIST. Conspiracy theories result out of a lack of transparency and seeing crooked behavior and the only response is either; "Trust us" or "national security -- the truth would let al Qaeda win!"

The same people who tell us al Qaeda is guilty are the same people who lied us into war and wrote the patriot act before 9.11. The same people who left the investigation up to FEMA after they carted off the steel for a month. The same people who gave us nothing but excuses and corruption.

The oft-repeated "facts" from NIST are not from the entire organization. The engineer reporting on spinkler's failing is merely pointing out his compartmentalized factoid. The CONCLUSIONS are only from a couple Bush appointed people.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
- PLB - is one of those who uses circular arguments and impossible demands for "evidence". Whatever Evidence you reply with, the criteria gets higher. I'm looking for the "IGNORE" option as there is no new information with this person.

What exactly is my circular argument? Why is the evidence I request impossible? I can understand you are looking for ignore. My questions are damaging to your world view and your rather not read them.

There is NO POSSIBLE way to show evidence of the explosives because no EVIDENCE was taken. So of course, say that Truthers force everyone to have to prove them wrong... isn't it the LACK of proof that got us here? Nobody can prove ANYONE wrong. It's like telling the jobless people protesting in Washington to "get a job" -- that's why they are protesting isn't it? Sheesh.

I already told you that you can show evidence that your theory is even possible. That means you show that an explosive can survive a building fire and then take it down. If you think your theory is unfalsifiable, you can put it in the junk bin. Ask Darkwing why (even though he only grasps fragments of it).

Anyway, if you don't have any evidence (as you openly agree to) your theory is just worthless.

>> The point of this A&E video is that the most likely reason the towers fell was demolition -- and it's a shame that concept was totally ignored by NIST. Conspiracy theories result out of a lack of transparency and seeing crooked behavior and the only response is either; "Trust us" or "national security -- the truth would let al Qaeda win!"

And this is about all truther have to show. Dissatisfaction with the investigation by NIST, and some baseless assertions about controlled demolition.

The same people who tell us al Qaeda is guilty are the same people who lied us into war and wrote the patriot act before 9.11. The same people who left the investigation up to FEMA after they carted off the steel for a month. The same people who gave us nothing but excuses and corruption.

I didn't know that NIST said this or wrote the patriot act. It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with yours conclusions is part of "them". Am I correct?

The oft-repeated "facts" from NIST are not from the entire organization. The engineer reporting on spinkler's failing is merely pointing out his compartmentalized factoid. The CONCLUSIONS are only from a couple Bush appointed people.

Right... time to back up your stories.

reply to post by -PLB-


Well it isnt just his opinion. If some teens spout cr@p on the internet, thats one thing, however if Architects and engineers say something it has more weight. Who do you expect us to believe? Architects and Engineers or some guy on a conspiracy board?

I looked up some of the older posts, when people merely expressed their suspicions on what it looked like to them, it was countered by calls for professional opinions. As time went by, the truthers became evil for their constant "calls to autohority" . Funny that, does not make sense either. Sorry if you dont like what A&E have to say on that, maybe you are right, maybe there is a massive conspiracy of A&E going on, who want to rip off people by pushing Coffeemugs, but since we can not verify if all your technical talk is correct or not and a nick on the forum lacks the necessary authority, you will have to wait for architects to come forward and say otherwise.

And PLB, no offense but given the MASSIVE ammount of time you find to debate on this forum, you should probably spend your energies torwards looking for a job. I can see how some people think that some people are payd to post on here, when they (more likely imo) just have too much time on their hands.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Well it isnt just his opinion. If some teens spout cr@p on the internet, thats one thing, however if Architects and engineers say something it has more weight. Who do you expect us to believe? Architects and Engineers or some guy on a conspiracy board?

I looked up some of the older posts, when people merely expressed their suspicions on what it looked like to them, it was countered by calls for professional opinions. As time went by, the truthers became evil for their constant "calls to autohority" . Funny that, does not make sense either. Sorry if you dont like what A&E have to say on that, maybe you are right, maybe there is a massive conspiracy of A&E going on, who want to rip off people by pushing Coffeemugs, but since we can not verify if all your technical talk is correct or not and a nick on the forum lacks the necessary authority, you will have to wait for architects to come forward and say otherwise.

edit on 20-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

I wish it was as simple as calls to authority, fact is NIST, (the given authority) were compromised by their leading exponent, Sivaraj Shyam Sunder who has come out of all this as, either misleading, or arrogant, or in denial. some of his quotes in different places, "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7" and later, "The public should really recognize the science is really behind what we have said," adding, "The obvious stares you in the face" The latter quote is also related WTC7 in the final report. So just maybe we should all pay attention to what people think, given what they may have seen an heard, expert or not.

reply to post by smurfy


Speaking of expert, go ask an architect if the pancake collapse of WTC 7 can be reproduced without carefull planning and execution, see what he tells you. I did.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by smurfy

 

Speaking of expert, go ask an architect if the pancake collapse of WTC 7 can be reproduced without carefull planning and execution, see what he tells you. I did.

Frankly, I have no perception of a pancake collapse in regard to WTC7. I have no clue to what you are saying.

reply to post by smurfy


True enough... the credibility of NIST has certainly been impugned.

reply to post by -PLB-

3) You created a straw man argument, as what you call "your argument" only exist in your head.

So what you are saying is that you agree that the fact that there are no readily apparent bangs and flashes indicating explosions in the available record is not evidence that there were no explosives?

Great then we are in agreement.

If you hold that position then what I said was indeed a straw-man and I sincerely apologize, but I will also bookmark the page and hold you to it every time you ask about "hush-a-boom" explosives.

Deal?

Originally posted by Darkwing01
So what you are saying is that you agree that the fact that there are no readily apparent bangs and flashes indicating explosions in the available record is not evidence that there were no explosives?

Great then we are in agreement.

If you hold that position then what I said was indeed a straw-man and I sincerely apologize, but I will also bookmark the page and hold you to it every time you ask about "hush-a-boom" explosives.

Deal?

Finally it seems to sink in your twisted brain. Of course explosives can be made so small you wont hear or see them on video. And of course I can't with 100% certainty say they were not there. Just like I can't with certainty say there was no group of robots with flame torches. Your obvious problem is that those kind of explosives will hardly do any damage. So it is just a completely silly conspiracy theory. And then there is the problem that there is no evidence at all. Just like there is no evidence for a group of robots with flame torches.

And all this while nobody, even you, thinks that all this makes any sense. Talk about diversion and avoiding questions. Truther

reply to post by -PLB-


They were heard by whitnesses and the audio has been captured on video. And not just with regard to wtc 7 by the way.

reply to post by -PLB-

Of course explosives can be made so small you wont hear or see them on video. And of course I can't with 100% certainty say they were not there. Just like I can't with certainty say there was no group of robots with flame torches. Your obvious problem is that those kind of explosives will hardly do any damage.

Nonsense, they are doing controlled rock blasting to build a new subway right outside my window, I have to cross the road or go to the second story to see into the hole. You never HEAR the blasting, but you can feel it when it happens, and you can be sure that it does damage. There are no terribly loud bangs or flashes (that couldn't be muffled) in the Cole thermate video either, and yet that does the required damage.

There is no logical route from "large enough to be apparent" to "large enough to do damage".

There are ways and means of deadening the sound of an explosion, but it is expensive, which is why it is not used on large scale demolitions.

www.trainex.org...

The idea that just because it doesn't look like some particular big explosions you found on YouTube means no damage was done is pure fiction.

The fact of the matter is that the types of sound that is so obvious on your conventional demolition videos is precisely the type of noise that is easily suppressed: High frequencies.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by -PLB-

 

They were heard by whitnesses and the audio has been captured on video. And not just with regard to wtc 7 by the way.

Have you got a link to any of that video/audio please ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
Have you got a link to any of that video/audio please ?

You've been here since 09, and you've never seen these vids that have been posted a billion times?







Really? The only reason you all keep claiming there were no sounds of explosions in WTC 7, is because that is what NIST said, right? (see last vid) Gotta keep to the script eh Alfie?

reply to post by Darkwing01


If fire resistant hush-a-booms that leaves no significant traces is you theory, then it should be demonstrated it is possible. I don't believe it is. After you demonstrated it is possible, the next step is to come with evidnce. Or is your theory not falsifiable Darkwing? You know what we should do with such theories. In fact, I like my fire resistant army of robots with blowtorches that leaves no significant traces theory better.