1751 replies to this topic

[Czero 101]

socrates.junior, on 15 January 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

Okay, Babe, I'm only going to ask this one more time. Did the engineers in the NIST reports I linked, or that Canadian guy whose name escapes me, knowingly make false statements, and what are those false statements?

Good luck getting a straight answer from BR. He has proven that he has little time for mature, intellectually honest debate or discussion...




Cz

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 15 January 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

I've never even heard of William Rodriguez.

There are people who were using him as a reference in their argument.

http://truthersaresa...liam-rodriguez/

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 15 January 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

My, don't those goalposts shift.  When your claim of "no detailed study" is proved false, you start quibbling about how detailed it should have been.

Why am I not surprised when Q24 has better knowledge of the implications of an investigation than the people who actually did it?

The initial claim of "no detailed study" has not been proven false, it is simply apparent that I have higher standards of what constitutes a detailed study than you do.

Why am I not surprised that it took flyingswan all of two posts to give up any vestige of addressing the argument presented in preference of an attack on the messenger/appeal to authority?

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 15 January 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

The initial claim of "no detailed study" has not been proven false, it is simply apparent that I have higher standards of what constitutes a detailed study than you do.

Why am I not surprised that it took flyingswan all of two posts to give up any vestige of addressing the argument presented in preference of an attack on the messenger/appeal to authority?

I reported the conclusion of the people who discovered the phenomenon, the same people who asked for a further study, the same people who conducted that study.

I certainly don't have more expertise in the subject than they do, but you obviously think you do.  As we've seen so often before, an expert opinion is only correct if it reinforces Q24's opinions.

You were quite happy to appeal to their authority when they say they want a further study, but you  question that authority when they conduct that study and present their conclusions.

Edited by flyingswan, 16 January 2013 - 12:14 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

socrates.junior, on 15 January 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

Okay, Babe, I'm only going to ask this one more time. Did the engineers in the NIST reports I linked, or that Canadian guy whose name escapes me, knowingly make false statements, and what are those false statements?

Just as you are no Socrates, I am NOT an engineer.  That said, I can comment only as a layman.  But I understand that all the "reports" issued were sheer speculation.  There were no sensors in the buildings to measure anything.  There were no video cameras to record the dynamics of what happened before, during or after the airplane strikes, and certainly that applies to WTC7 too.

So, in the sense that they were merely speculating about what REALLY happened, I'm not qualified to say whether or not they were technically false, but their statements and analysis and conclusions sure as hell do not pass the common sense test, all things considered.

Simply put, their speculative conclusions were that jetfuel and gravity caused what we saw.  Hogwash!

What IS certain is that many or all of those parties were in fact dependent upon government contracts for their livliehood.  The NIST guy was a Bush appointee as I recall, and the whole gang of them closely resemble a gang of thieves and liars.

[joc]

Babe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Just as you are no Socrates, I am NOT an engineer.  That said, I can comment only as a layman.  But I understand that all the "reports" issued were sheer speculation.  There were no sensors in the buildings to measure anything.  There were no video cameras to record the dynamics of what happened before, during or after the airplane strikes, and certainly that applies to WTC7 too.

So, in the sense that they were merely speculating about what REALLY happened, I'm not qualified to say whether or not they were technically false, but their statements and analysis and conclusions sure as hell do not pass the common sense test, all things considered.

Simply put, their speculative conclusions were that jetfuel and gravity caused what we saw.  Hogwash!

What IS certain is that many or all of those parties were in fact dependent upon government contracts for their livliehood.  The NIST guy was a Bush appointee as I recall, and the whole gang of them closely resemble a gang of thieves and liars.

Suffice to say that the bold print in your quote is true...they don't pass the common sense test.  But, most people these days don't really have Common Sense.  Sense isn't exactly common these days.  We sense something is wrong with the entire scenario.

If any of you have actually watched the video you will have seen that the sounds of the buildings collapsing have been enhanced and the graphics of the sound frequencies shown.   The result of this shows that there were indeed a series of explosions as the buildings collapsed.  All arguing amongst ourselves without watching the video is really ineffectual because the video has very clear arguments that no one to my perception has been able to debunk.

[socrates.junior]

Babe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Just as you are no Socrates, I am NOT an engineer.  That said, I can comment only as a layman.  But I understand that all the "reports" issued were sheer speculation.  There were no sensors in the buildings to measure anything.  There were no video cameras to record the dynamics of what happened before, during or after the airplane strikes, and certainly that applies to WTC7 too.

So, in the sense that they were merely speculating about what REALLY happened, I'm not qualified to say whether or not they were technically false, but their statements and analysis and conclusions sure as hell do not pass the common sense test, all things considered.

Simply put, their speculative conclusions were that jetfuel and gravity caused what we saw.  Hogwash!

What IS certain is that many or all of those parties were in fact dependent upon government contracts for their livliehood.  The NIST guy was a Bush appointee as I recall, and the whole gang of them closely resemble a gang of thieves and liars.

Alright, I'm going to condense your whole answer down to a yes. I imagine it's as close as you're going to come to actually answering the question. So, we now have reached the point where we can say that every single engineer involved in the reports, including the Canadian academic with no government credentials, was acting on behalf of the government, and knowingly lying in the reports.

We have also arrived at the understanding of what precisely they lied about. They knowingly lied about gravity and jet fuel causing the buildings to collapse. We haven't determined if they were actually lying, because no one has pointed out anywhere in the reports where they were, but that's a minor glitch. I think we can happy with the critical thinking process that just calls the scientific report "hogwash", since it's easier to not think so hard.

Good, I'm glad we have a baseline to work from. So, now we come to, why did they do it? It seems you've implied time and time again that they did it for the money?

EDIT: I'd like to point out that your understanding of the lack of video evidence is false.

Quote

NIST acquired and organized nearly 7,000 segments of video footage, totaling in excess of 150 hours and nearly 7,000 photographs representing at least 185 photographers. This guided the Investigation Team's efforts to determine...etc.

I'd also like to point out that nowhere do they say that just gravity and jet fuel caused the buildings to collapse. So that's wrong too.

I'd also like to point out that calling the reports "sheer speculation" demonstrates a disgraceful understanding of the scientific method, of the diligence of the investigators, and of the evidence contained within them. Maybe you should read them.

I'd also like to ask you to stop continually commenting on my username. It's childish, and not germane to the argument. In other words, you're being a Sophist, and I hate Sophists. Because I am actually Socrates.

Edited by socrates.junior, 16 January 2013 - 05:04 PM.

[socrates.junior]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

If any of you have actually watched the video you will have seen that the sounds of the buildings collapsing have been enhanced and the graphics of the sound frequencies shown.   The result of this shows that there were indeed a series of explosions as the buildings collapsed.  All arguing amongst ourselves without watching the video is really ineffectual because the video has very clear arguments that no one to my perception has been able to debunk.

First of all, I've been watching the video in bits and pieces. I already gave my analysis of the debris question, which I've noticed you've stopped bringing up as unassailable evidence. Then the sound of explosions, and "squibs" were brought up, and subsequently shot down. Now you've moved the the series of sounds as the building collapses.

What noise do you think 2 floors of a large building slamming into each other as it collapses makes? A big, big noise? Yes. Do huge elevators falling into sub basements make big big noises, which could also be accompanied by clouds of dust at street level? Yes.

[joc]

socrates.junior, on 16 January 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

First of all, I've been watching the video in bits and pieces. I already gave my analysis of the debris question, which I've noticed you've stopped bringing up as unassailable evidence. Then the sound of explosions, and "squibs" were brought up, and subsequently shot down. Now you've moved the the series of sounds as the building collapses.

What noise do you think 2 floors of a large building slamming into each other as it collapses makes? A big, big noise? Yes. Do huge elevators falling into sub basements make big big noises, which could also be accompanied by clouds of dust at street level? Yes.

I am not debating that question at all.  It's feasible. I've already said that.  But is that all that was heard?  Was there nothing more?  Now, I am answering the question I was posing even as I am posing it and that is:  Was it a coincidence that the elevator shaft explosions happened just as the building began to fall?  The answer is:  It is also feasible that the beginnings of collapse released the elevators hanging by a thread and that it is coincidence and nothing more.  However; do we know that the timeline of the Elevators crashing fits that scenario of the beginning of collapse of the buildings?  No. We don't.  Because once the building began to collapse, in 16 seconds it was a pile of dust.   Now, thinking again:  Does that necessarily mean that no other Elevators could have been released?  That's possible but I find the other explosions of the timeline from beginning to end very hard to explain.  What do you think?

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

If any of you have actually watched the video you will have seen that the sounds of the buildings collapsing have been enhanced and the graphics of the sound frequencies shown. The result of this shows that there were indeed a series of explosions as the buildings collapsed.

There were no bomb explosions in those videos. I have seen, heard and felt real bomb explosions in war and I saw no bomb explosions nor heard bomb explosions in those videos.

http://www.youtube.c...&v=gsUYhrXonXQ#!

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

I am not debating that question at all.  It's feasible. I've already said that.  But is that all that was heard?  Was there nothing more?  Now, I am answering the question I was posing even as I am posing it and that is:  Was it a coincidence that the elevator shaft explosions happened just as the building began to fall?

Considering the elevators crashed right after the building was struck, that is no mystery. Review what was presented at  post # 57 when it was noted the WTC buildings began to buckle prior to their collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 January 2013 - 07:36 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 16 January 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Just as you are no Socrates, I am NOT an engineer.  That said, I can comment only as a layman.  But I understand that all the "reports" issued were sheer speculation.  There were no sensors in the buildings to measure anything.  

On the contrary, there were seismic sensors in the area that detected the collapse of the WTC buildings, but did not detect any bomb explosions.

Quote

There were no video cameras to record the dynamics of what happened before, during or after the airplane strikes, and certainly that applies to WTC7 too.

What you should have said was that no video camera recorded the dynamics of a nuclear explosion in New York City on 9/11/2002.

Quote

Simply put, their speculative conclusions were that jetfuel and gravity caused what we saw.  Hogwash!

Engineers and investigators have said that fire was responsible, just as fires caused the collapse of steel frame buildings in Thailand and the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain.

Quote

What IS certain is that many or all of those parties were in fact dependent upon government contracts for their livliehood.  The NIST guy was a Bush appointee as I recall, and the whole gang of them closely resemble a gang of thieves and liars.

Are you implying that United Airlines, American Airlines, the Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Architects, Protec, Inc., the Air Line Pilots Association, Allied Pilots Association, and a number of demolition experts and engineers are lying because they confirmed the official story?

American Airlines and United Airlines did not say their aircraft were modified by the government in order to fly under remote control, but they did confirm their aircraft were hijacked by terrorist..

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 January 2013 - 07:41 PM.

[joc]

skyeagle409, on 16 January 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Considering the elevators crashed right after the building was struck, that is no mystery. Review what was presented at  post # 57 when it was noted the WTC buildings began to buckle prior to their collapse, which had nothing to do with explosives.

But there were numerous accounts of Explosions being heard just before the building came down.  Are you disputing that fact?

[skyeagle409]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 07:51 PM, said:

But there were numerous accounts of Explosions being heard just before the building came down.  Are you disputing that fact?

I dispute what they heard was the result of bomb explosions. People who have never heard the sound of real explosions are inclined to mistaken a number of sounds as explosions. I posted on another thread where residents in Hawaii reported sounds of explosions during a wind storm, which was later attributed to the breakup of buildings.

In this video, you will hear sounds that many people would have reported as explosions.



In addition:

Quote

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in "several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn" on 9/11. He says they did not show the "spikes" that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

Blanchard also takes aim at the claim that Building 7 of the WTC was demolished, writing: "Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

My link

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Elevator Man's Tale

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that's the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke. And apparently from what I talked to with other mechanics, they saw the doors, the hatch doors blow off in the lobby level of 6 and 7 car.

So right after that explosion, we were ordered to leave the building.

My link

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

My link

Here's more on William Rodriquez.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 16 January 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

I reported the conclusion of the people who discovered the phenomenon, the same people who asked for a further study, the same people who conducted that study.

I certainly don't have more expertise in the subject than they do, but you obviously think you do.  As we've seen so often before, an expert opinion is only correct if it reinforces Q24's opinions.

You were quite happy to appeal to their authority when they say they want a further study, but you  question that authority when they conduct that study and present their conclusions.

I don’t appeal to authority as you do – I use expert opinion to add credence to my own argument; I already argue that further study was required.   In contrast, you clearly have no argument of your own to begin and are entirely dependent on expert opinion to determine your thinking, seen by your inability to counter the reasonable complaints in my post #73.

The difference between the studies, is that the first was a factual report of findings based on a physical steel sample from the WTC whilst the latter was a speculative report of the cause (I don’t need to be told, but for you, the authors do admit as much) – the experiment therein failing to replicate the effect of the WTC steel sample.  How on Earth do you think the ‘non-match’ result of that experiment proves cause of the WTC steel melting/corrosion?  The authors of the report certainly did not believe that it did – they admit to providing only a hypothesis, and did not even test alternative mechanisms.

How does this result of the latter experiment...

"the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h"


Prove cause of this...




Answer: It does not – more detailed study and experimentation were required.  Until that happens, anyone is quite justified to hypothesize that the result was due to a thermite attack on the steel, which after all, is fit to the factual observation of the first study and, unlike the follow-up experiment, could certainly create the holes and sharp edges seen.