Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Impossible Fast Collapse of The Towers


  • Please log in to reply
848 replies to this topic

#421    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 July 2011 - 09:02 AM

View PostStundie, on 07 July 2011 - 01:05 AM, said:

That is because I disagree and I have pointed out that Stacey uses the term "pull" numerous times to describe a building being pulled via explosive devices. The direction is irrelevant because as she clearly points out in her interview.
Amazing, you quote all the instances that demonstrate my point, "pull" always used with a direction (in, away, forward), "shoot" without a direction, like Silverstein's "pull it", and yet you still can't see the distinction.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#422    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 07 July 2011 - 09:18 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 07 July 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

99.75% of architects and engineers worldwide don't find the subject worth shrugging their shoulders at.
Do you pride yourself on being deceptive or do you really not understand the logical fallacy of your statement?

I have identified three groups amongst your 99.75% that make the figure irrelevant and/or false: -

  • Those who do not have an interest/time for the detail.
  • Those who do not have a mentality to challenge.
  • Those who disagree with official reports but will not speak out.

In slightly more detail here: -

Quote

It happens that the only two structural engineers I have raised the subject with in person had not even viewed the NIST report and had no particular interest in 9/11... “the what report?” was one answer I received. You see, the majority of engineers are no different to the general population, they will accept authority and the official word without thought and get on with planning for their weekend.

There are also the engineers who have in-part read the reports but sadly do not understand them or hold the capacity to objectively critique the findings, our resident engineer (non-building/construction aspect, mind you) flyingswan, is an example. Yes, because obtaining an engineering degree does not necessarily mean one has a logical, enquiring or otherwise competent mind.

Yet another potential large group are those who doubt or disagree with the official story yet choose not to speak out to safeguard their reputation and/or job security. Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan are examples of what can happen if you present controversial views in a professional capacity. I myself choose not to speak out in a professional capacity knowing full well the risk it would bring to my career.

Do you accept that these three groups exist or not?

If the first two groups exist, then your 99.75% just became irrelevant.
If the third group exists, then your 99.75% just shrunk by a potentially significant number.
If you believe none of the groups exist, then you are suffering some form of self-deception.

Do you understand you are taking architects and engineers who have not critiqued the official studies or who actually doubt/disagree with the official studies and including them in the 99.75% supposedly supporting your view?

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#423    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 07 July 2011 - 10:03 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 07 July 2011 - 08:58 AM, said:

How should I know what info CNN were getting about the state of the building?
I'm asking for suggestion as to what information could possibly have became available to CNN prompting them to change their caption from, "may collapse" to the more confident, "on verge of collapse".

Don't you think a notable change in the condition of WTC7 15 minutes prior collapse should be noted by the official study?  It is not, and the official theory does not rely on any such visible change.  It must be deduced there was in fact no notable change to the building condition at this time.

It therefore follows there was another source/reason which alerted CNN of the imminent collapse, not dependent on the building itself.


View Postflyingswan, on 07 July 2011 - 08:58 AM, said:

Why on earth should conspirators tip off the media?
The media reports come from information that the building certainly was going to come down - there was knowledge on the scene.  Again, the level of certainty, timing and terminology used are indicative not of a guess, but of a deliberate act.

It seems at the time they were prepared to use ‘the building was brought down for safety reasons’ cover story and were not wholly concerned with maintaining secrecy.  Thus CNN were able to update the building status, more than one responder stated the building was about to “blow up”, another responder quotes being told, “we’re gonna have to bring it down”, there was complete certainty from other responders and John Kerry is on record saying the building was brought down for safety reasons, as is conceivably Larry Silverstein


View Postflyingswan, on 07 July 2011 - 08:58 AM, said:

As Aquatus has already pointed out, engineering is not a belief system.  If you get it wrong, your designs don't work.
Actually we have seen a vital grey area in the NIST report where you interject your own opinion.

NIST best estimate simulation did not recreate collapse.
NIST over-estimate simulation did recreate collapse.

Your belief system forces you to speculate on the unproven existence of an intermediate case which also brings collapse.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#424    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 July 2011 - 10:23 AM

View PostQ24, on 07 July 2011 - 10:03 AM, said:

I'm asking for suggestion as to what information could possibly have became available to CNN prompting them to change their caption from, "may collapse" to the more confident, "on verge of collapse".

Don't you think a notable change in the condition of WTC7 15 minutes prior collapse should be noted by the official study?  It is not, and the official theory does not rely on any such visible change.  It must be deduced there was in fact no notable change to the building condition at this time.
The times when a reporter gathers information and when it is relayed to the public are not the same. The caption may have changed 15 minutes before the collapse because a reporter spoke to a fire-fighter sometime in the previous hour or two.

Quote

The media reports come from information that the building certainly was going to come down - there was knowledge on the scene.  Again, the level of certainty, timing and terminology used are indicative not of a guess, but of a deliberate act.

It seems at the time they were prepared to use ‘the building was brought down for safety reasons’ cover story and were not wholly concerned with maintaining secrecy.  Thus CNN were able to update the building status, more than one responder stated the building was about to “blow up”, another responder quotes being told, “we’re gonna have to bring it down”, there was complete certainty from other responders and John Kerry is on record saying the building was brought down for safety reasons, as is conceivably Larry Silverstein
Another example of your skill in making the facts fit your beliefs.  I'm sure you could prove black is white if it helped your ideas.

There is ample evidence that the fire-fighters were confident that a collapse would happen because of their own observations of the building, but no, you have to make out that they are too stupid to do the assessment and have to rely on what they are told by a passing conspirator.

Grossly insulting to the fire-fighters and completely ludicrous.

Quote

Actually we have seen a vital grey area in the NIST report where you interject your own opinion.

NIST best estimate simulation did not recreate collapse.
NIST over-estimate simulation did recreate collapse.

Your belief system forces you to speculate on the unproven existence of an intermediate case which also brings collapse.
Not belief, but an understanding of the probabilities that you evidently lack.  I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to explain this to you, but you obviously just don't want to know.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#425    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 07 July 2011 - 01:15 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 07 July 2011 - 10:23 AM, said:

The times when a reporter gathers information and when it is relayed to the public are not the same. The caption may have changed 15 minutes before the collapse because a reporter spoke to a fire-fighter sometime in the previous hour or two.
Oh thank you, there’s the laugh I was looking for.

What is it still the 19th century?  Perhaps they were sending news by horseback or carrier pigeon.

Sorry, news these days is pretty much instantaneous, reporters on scene have live-links to the studio and the 9/11 event was covered as breaking news.


View Postflyingswan, on 07 July 2011 - 10:23 AM, said:

There is ample evidence that the fire-fighters were confident that a collapse would happen because of their own observations of the building, but no, you have to make out that they are too stupid to do the assessment and have to rely on what they are told by a passing conspirator.
You are using the early fire fighter precautionary assessment as excuse to ignore the following certainty, the timing, the terminology and desire surrounding collapse … all of which you continually fail to address (given the excuses you are coming out with I can see why… ‘inducing urgency’ and ‘21st century news lag’, tsk haha).

Basically you are cherry-picking one set of evidence to the exclusion of other evidence.

Except I feel like making you face up to these other facts.

There is evidence that a desire existed to bring the building down: -

  • Silverstein’s phone call requesting authorisation of controlled demolition.
  • Also from the Fox News article, “Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible [demolition] option.”
  • John Kerry’s understanding that the building was brought down for safety reasons.
  • FDNY Lieutenant Rastuccio’s statement, “We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down…
  • EMT Indra Singh’s who quotes being told, “we’re gonna have to bring it down”.

As seen, there was desire and even enquiries/indications of intent on the day to bring WTC7 down.

Do you understand this?

This is despite the earlier fire fighter assessment based on the South-West corner of the building… which interestingly is now confirmed had nothing at all to do with the collapse initiation.

What you are asking us to believe in, is that fire beat the talked about demolition to the punch… in producing a visibly controlled demolition-imitating collapse.


View Postflyingswan, on 07 July 2011 - 10:23 AM, said:

Not belief, but an understanding of the probabilities that you evidently lack.  I've lost count of the number of times I've tried to explain this to you, but you obviously just don't want to know.
The admittance that we must delve into “probabilities” proves my point.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#426    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 July 2011 - 02:26 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 07 July 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

I don't think you understand what a standard is.  See, in order for a standard to be relevant, then the standard actually has to be relevant to the actual topic.  In other words, If you are talking about an engineering analysis that was done by a group of engineers and published in a journal reviewed and vetted by engineers and read by the world-wide population of engineers so that they can apply the principles learned directly into their work as engineers, that would be a relevant standard.
WOW! What a spectacular way to miss the point of my post.  :blink:

View Postaquatus1, on 07 July 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

Alternatively, you have your approach up there, which seems to imply that personal faith in a given subject equates to knowledge and experience.  
It has nothing to do with faith, knowledge or even experience. It's to do with you skewing the numbers in your favour in a desperate attempt to maintain credibility by suggesting that because 0.25% of architects and engineers have signed up for 9/11 truth that the other 99.75% don't agree with them.

Utter rubbish and you know it.

You have not asked the other 99.75% what they think and therefore you can't assume to know what they think or speak for them.

Unless of course, you have asked all 99.75% what they think? Have you done that to support your claim??

I didn't think so!  :w00t:

View Postaquatus1, on 07 July 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

One doesn't subscribe to a professional journal because you all happen to believe the same thing.  You subscribe to it because the data that is disseminated through those journals is of direct and imminent impact on your profession.
So if a professional journal only manages to get a subscription of 20% of the experts in that profession, do we assume that the other 80% disagree with them? Or do we assume that the other 80% think the professional journal is rubbish? Or do we assume that the other 80% think that the 20% who subscribe are complete loons?

View Postaquatus1, on 07 July 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

You can choose to believe or not believe in a matter of faith.
You can also choose to believe whether WTC7 was a demolition or not and until there is data which conclusively supports the argument one way or another, then it's all down to possibilities.

View Postaquatus1, on 07 July 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

You do not get to choose in a matter of engineering. Yes Either the argument is logically sound and empirically valid, or it is not, and there are hundreds of thousands of engineers out there who will call you on it if it is not.  Their profession depends on it.
Doesn't that depend on how many of the hundreds and thousands of engineers who have read the reports in the first place to call whoever out on it if it's wrong.

And I seem to think that over a thousand of them have called out on the NIST report, you know that AE911TRUTH movement.

When you bring up a list of a thousand engineers who support the NIST version of events (Not including those who were wrote or were directly involved in the reports) then you really have no counter argument.

View Postaquatus1, on 07 July 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

Well, I'll let the readers decide which poster has a better grip on logic.
Fine by me.  :tu:

View Postaquatus1, on 07 July 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

In the meantime, you keep believing that silence doesn't equal compliance.
You think silence = tacit agreement?? hahahahaha!! This is not a court of law!

So by that logic, if 1500 musicians form a group who think that The Beatles are the worlds best band, then every other musician in the world by their silence think that The Beatles are tosh??

You had better tell Mothers Against Violence to give up there campaign, they have less than 0.25% of mothers joining and supporting their group. That must mean that the other 99.75% plus who are silent must be Mothers For Violence?

Yes, please let the readers decide who has a better grip on logic.

View Postaquatus1, on 07 July 2011 - 06:27 AM, said:

I'll stick to teaching what every behavioralist knows and what all of us foreign business teachers incorporate into the lessons we are paid good money to teach to foreign business people.
Lets hope that you do not teach them the False Consensus Effect.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Edited by Stundie, 07 July 2011 - 02:29 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#427    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 July 2011 - 02:35 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 07 July 2011 - 09:02 AM, said:

Amazing, you quote all the instances that demonstrate my point, "pull" always used with a direction (in, away, forward), "shoot" without a direction, like Silverstein's "pull it", and yet you still can't see the distinction.
What is more amazing is that you continue to use the word "Shoot" when she doesn't use the word "Shoot" once.

And even more amazing than that is that I posted all the "Shooting" quotes and you STILL haven't shown us which one you are using to support your claim?

Maybe I can't see the distinction because there is no distinction as it only exists inside your mind, hence the reason you can't point it out?  :yes:

Edited by Stundie, 07 July 2011 - 02:41 PM.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#428    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 July 2011 - 05:42 PM

View PostStundie, on 07 July 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

What is more amazing is that you continue to use the word "Shoot" when she doesn't use the word "Shoot" once.

And even more amazing than that is that I posted all the "Shooting" quotes and you STILL haven't shown us which one you are using to support your claim?
That pointless quibble puts you back on ignore.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#429    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 July 2011 - 05:50 PM

View PostQ24, on 07 July 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:

Oh thank you, there’s the laugh I was looking for.

What is it still the 19th century?  Perhaps they were sending news by horseback or carrier pigeon.

Sorry, news these days is pretty much instantaneous, reporters on scene have live-links to the studio and the 9/11 event was covered as breaking news.
Yeah, sure, the reporter on the street is the same guy who puts the captions on the screen, how could I have thought otherwise?

Quote

You are using the early fire fighter precautionary assessment as excuse to ignore the following certainty, the timing, the terminology and desire surrounding collapse … all of which you continually fail to address (given the excuses you are coming out with I can see why… ‘inducing urgency’ and ‘21st century news lag’, tsk haha).

Basically you are cherry-picking one set of evidence to the exclusion of other evidence.
That's rich coming from someone who who thinks that if a collapse looks like a demolition, that's what it was, but if it doesn't look like a demolition, that proves it was a covert demolition.

Quote

  • Silverstein’s phone call requesting authorisation of controlled demolition.
  • Also from the Fox News article, “Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible [demolition] option.”
  • John Kerry’s understanding that the building was brought down for safety reasons.
  • FDNY Lieutenant Rastuccio’s statement, “We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down…
  • EMT Indra Singh’s who quotes being told, “we’re gonna have to bring it down”.
I see, people expressing a desire to bring down a dangerous building is proof that the building had to have beeen demolished before it could collapse on its own.

Quote

The admittance that we must delve into “probabilities” proves my point.
Just proves your lack of understanding again.  An engineer works with probabilities all the time.  That's why there are such things as safety factors.  If a structure is predicted to fail at very close to the actual loads it is carrying, then a collapse is probable.

Edited by flyingswan, 07 July 2011 - 05:51 PM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#430    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 07 July 2011 - 08:33 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 07 July 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

That pointless quibble puts you back on ignore.
In other words, there is no distinction between "Shoot"ing and "pull" and you fantasised that there was, hence the reason you can't point it out, so I'm on ignore.

Hilarious stuff!  :w00t:

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#431    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 08 July 2011 - 12:48 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 04 July 2011 - 07:28 PM, said:

Maybe he followed exactly the same steps of reasoning as you did in your post #388.
if sisson had followed reason he would have done two experiments.
(1) find out at what temperature gypsum gave off so2 and how much.
(2) find out how steel behaves at high temperatures in the sulphur dioxide environment he created in (1)
but instead he used the circular argument fallacy by heating iron sulphide powder to show sulphidation in iron.

Quote

Just read that paper again.  All they show is that SO2 doesn't penetrate solid oxide.
they show that the so2 reaction with steel causes oxidation after one hour, which prevents further sulphidation because the oxidation barrier prevents further so2 diffusion into the steel.
http://www.journalar...rom=jnlabstract

Quote

FeS always appeared at the metal/scale interface, and its existence promoted the falling of scale...
What happens when scale falls?  You get a fresh surface and the erosion process continues.
you need to show how steel is reduced from inches to razor sharp thinness.
what you'll find in my opinion is that the process of reducing inches thick steel to razor sharpness by exposure to so2 is a process that takes many years if not decades of fluctuating heating and cooling cycles, but I would be prepared to accept the judgement of any legitimate experiment. do you have an experiment or a documented experiment from the literature to support your assertion?

Edited by Little Fish, 08 July 2011 - 12:49 AM.


#432    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 July 2011 - 09:18 AM

View PostQ24, on 07 July 2011 - 09:18 AM, said:

Do you pride yourself on being deceptive..

Oh, most definitely.  Not that I need to exert any of my skills as such on this forum.

Quote

or do you really not understand the logical fallacy of your statement?

I understand that talking to you about logic is largely a waste of time.  As I said before, I'll let the readers decide.

Quote

I have identified three groups amongst your 99.75% that make the figure irrelevant and/or false: -

Wow, in one fell swoop, you dismiss the actions of 99.75% of the world's engineers and architects as irrelevant.  That is some high-end level arrogance right there.

Quote

  • Those who do not have an interest/time for the detail.
  • Those who do not have a mentality to challenge.
  • Those who disagree with official reports but will not speak out.
Do you accept that these three groups exist or not?

I do not.  I consider them to be designed by you for the sole purpose of pretending that the ridiculously, ludicrously, infintessimally overwhelming majority of architects and engineers who won't give you the time of day should not be considered significant.

I will, however, say this:

There is a group who have read the details throughly and accepted them to be valid (not TRUTH, not even necessarily "correct", but simply valid).  These are the ones who read the details thoroughly, and they are the minority of the majority.

There is another group who has read the details enough to get a reasonable understanding of the report and are satisfied with the opinions of their colleagues and their own experience that the report is valid.  They are, basically, the ones who are only concerned to the extent that it will affect their behaviours.  These are the bulk of the 99.75%

There are those who disagree with the report due to a certain instinct, or gut feeling.  They cannot actually find anything that invalidates the report, but there is something about it that strikes them as wrong.  They are the other end of the bell curve from the ones who studied it intensively.  This is not to say they necessarily think it is invalid (although some do), but more that there is missing information that needs to be accounted for prior to attempting a conclusion.

Quote

Do you understand you are taking architects and engineers who have not critiqued the official studies or who actually doubt/disagree with the official studies and including them in the 99.75% supposedly supporting your view?

Yeah, I know you don't have numbers or anything, but heck, since we are making stuff up as we go along anyway, tell me, what percentage are you thinking about here?

Out of the 99.75% of the world's architects and engineers, how many of them are you willing to claim are either 1) indifferent, 2) blinded, or 3) cowards (or all of the above)?

Please answer that.  Just a rough number is fine.

View PostStundie, on 07 July 2011 - 02:26 PM, said:

WOW! What a spectacular way to miss the point of my post.  :blink:
It has nothing to do with faith, knowledge or even experience. It's to do with you skewing the numbers in your favour in a desperate attempt to maintain credibility by suggesting that because 0.25% of architects and engineers have signed up for 9/11 truth that the other 99.75% don't agree with them.

Utter rubbish and you know it.

Quite the contrary.  I considered your post to be an intentional attempt to equate a belief based on faith with one based on actual experience and education.  As Q24 pointed out, I am well-versed in deception, and can spot it a mile away.

Quote

You have not asked the other 99.75% what they think and therefore you can't assume to know what they think or speak for them.

I can, however, take note of their actions.

Ten years after 9/11, 99.75% of the world's engineers and architects make no effort to support the conspiracy claims.

Quote

Unless of course, you have asked all 99.75% what they think? Have you done that to support your claim??

I didn't think so!  :w00t:

Of course not.  See, as a business person, I was too busy going to every single house in America and asking the mother, father, and individual children their specific opinion on matters so that we could determine how we are going to spend billions of dollars marketing sales.

What?  Didn't you know that's how we determine how people are thinking?  By asking each individual one?

Quote

You think silence = tacit agreement?? hahahahaha!! This is not a court of law!

Good, because in a court of law, that argument would fail miserably.  But we aren't talking about laws, which people tend to follow at their convenience (heck, isn't the entire conspiracy argument that all these people were breaking laws?);  Rather, it is a behavioral pattern (Hey, I just gave you a BIG clue as to the weakness of my argument!  See if you can follow it up!)

It is amazing how the CT crowd can chant about "Silence is Compliance" all day and night, until it works against them.  Ultimately, it really doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not.  It is a simple truth, one that is taught in business schools around the world (hint hint, there's that weakness again, I dare you to find it).  Heck, even in formal discussion and debate it is considered a rule that a dropped argument is considered to have been true by default.

Tell you what:  google "Silence is Compliance", and see how many scholarly sites you get explaining the subject (note that they won't actually be justifying it, or supporting it, or whatever; they will simply be explaining it as an existing and evident behaviour).  Then, google "Silence is not compliance", and see what you get.  See if you can actually find any academic arguments claiming that this is not the case.

Really...it isn't an argument you can win.  It's like trying to contest that humans are innately selfish.

Quote

So by that logic, if 1500 musicians form a group who think that The Beatles are the worlds best band, then every other musician in the world by their silence think that The Beatles are tosh??

Again, you are attempting to equate a belief with a matter of experience and education.  Your example would only be relevant if there was a stadardized "physics" (for lack of a better word) that governed music, in the way thinking that the Beatles are the world's best band would lead to the music industry loosing lives, or perhaps resulting in specifically defined very good or very bad music (the example really is too awkward to fit well with engineering) because musicians around the world failed to incorporate lessons learned into their practice.  Otherwise, you can't compare the two.  There is no standard practice in music that people can look at and determine if someone did something that was valid or invalid.  There is such a standard in engineering.

Quote

You had better tell Mothers Against Violence to give up there campaign, they have less than 0.25% of mothers joining and supporting their group. That must mean that the other 99.75% plus who are silent must be Mothers For Violence?

Same problem.  Pretending that belief system is the same as a system requiring consistency through education and experience is only going to emphasize how illogical your argument is.  One is a matter of emotional content.  The other is a matter of experienced professionals crunching existing numbers and shared experiences to come up with similar conclusions.

Quote

Yes, please let the readers decide who has a better grip on logic.
Lets hope that you do not teach them the False Consensus Effect.
Cheers
Stundie :)

Teach it to them?

I teach them how to use it as a weapon against consumers.

Edited by aquatus1, 08 July 2011 - 09:46 AM.


#433    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 July 2011 - 09:58 AM

From what I can see, Q24 is putting forward evidence while flyingswan is attempting to shut his eyes and drown it out with noise 'blah bllaah blaaah' style

Aquatus what do you teach again? I thought you were an MP!? You must be very skilled! :)


#434    SolarPlexus

SolarPlexus

    Warrior of Light

  • Banned
  • 4,200 posts
  • Joined:28 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Serbia

  • .....This moment contains all moments.....

    ...You dont have a Soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.....

Posted 08 July 2011 - 11:20 AM

Professionals speak out...


link - Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth

link - Scholars For 9/11 Truth

link - Pilots For 9/11 Truth

link - Firefighters For 9/11 Truth

link - Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth

link - Lawyers For 9/11 Truth


Wake up America

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Galileo Galilei
Posted Image
"Who never walks save where he sees men's tracks makes no discoveries."J.G. Holland


#435    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 08 July 2011 - 02:15 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 08 July 2011 - 12:48 AM, said:

if sisson had followed reason he would have done two experiments.
(1) find out at what temperature gypsum gave off so2 and how much.
(2) find out how steel behaves at high temperatures in the sulphur dioxide environment he created in (1)
but instead he used the circular argument fallacy by heating iron sulphide powder to show sulphidation in iron.
I love the way you now require that I prove your very own claims are correct before you will accept them.  However, here's evidence that molten aluminium and gypsum react:
George Long pioneered the research for studying explosions involving reaction of aluminium with water and steam. Long determined that on certain surfaces such as rusted steel, gypsum, and lime, violent explosions could be initiated.
http://www.nfmsib.co.../2010/part7.pdf
or, going back a bit:
Reaction between a mixture of gypsum (CaS04) and aluminium in a paper tube; the temperature of reaction is here very high. First the paper tube is set on fire by a match, but the temperature so produced not being high enough to start the reaction, it cartridge is applied, and then the mixture goes off like a rocket.
http://www.pyrobin.com/files/thermit(e)%20journal.pdf
or from the Scientific American article:
Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. "Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius.
http://www.scientifi...ers-fell&page=3

All these suggest a violent reaction that could release SO2 from gypsum.  However, I'm not a chemist and I am merely repeating Greening's claims for molten aluminium and finely-divided gypsum producing SO2.  Perhaps you would like to take up the argument with him?  I'm sure he could be reached via 911myths, which hosts some of his work.

Quote

they show that the so2 reaction with steel causes oxidation after one hour, which prevents further sulphidation because the oxidation barrier prevents further so2 diffusion into the steel.
http://www.journalar...rom=jnlabstract
That paper you link to claims that sulphur dioxide corrosion is a severe problem, yet you think it says such corrosion stops after an hour.  Do you think there might be the slightest possibility that you are misinterpreting the paper?

Quote

you need to show how steel is reduced from inches to razor sharp thinness.
what you'll find in my opinion is that the process of reducing inches thick steel to razor sharpness by exposure to so2 is a process that takes many years if not decades of fluctuating heating and cooling cycles, but I would be prepared to accept the judgement of any legitimate experiment. do you have an experiment or a documented experiment from the literature to support your assertion?
The WPI results showed the same surface corrrosion effects after twelve hours that the WTC sample showed after long exposure in the hot debris pile.  Rather suggests two stages in the same corrrosion process to me.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users