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.


Collapse of the WTC Towers - Official Story..


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

#16    Magikman

Magikman

    Most Exalted member of the first 15

  • Member
  • 6,280 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur"

Posted 01 May 2006 - 05:56 PM

Gmac, this is a formal debate, please keep your comments to yourself.

Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. ~ Carl Sagan

"...man has an irrepressible tendency to read meaning into the buzzing confusion of sights and sounds impinging on his senses; and where no agreed meaning can be found, he will provide it out of his own imagination." ~ Arthur Koestler

#17    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 02 May 2006 - 12:38 AM

Sunofone this is a formal debate, you are allowed an intro, 5 bodily posts and a conclusion, you cannot have a "split post". If you cannot fit all you want into one of your posts then it will have to be included in your next bodily post.

I will be removing the above post within 48 hours, that will give you enough time to either edit the original post which I am giving you permission to do or to just copy the information so you can include it in your next post.

Edit: Thank you Sunofone your post has been deleted, I look forward to seeing the rest of your argument. thumbsup.gif

Edited by AztecInca, 05 May 2006 - 01:34 AM.


#18    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 08 May 2006 - 05:20 PM

Quote

Aquatus1 we are awaiting your reply! thumbsup.gif

  
Never fear, I have not yet, nor do I intend to, miss the 7-day deadline.  Lest our judges make an error in scoring points, please allow me to point out that I will always be responding on the Monday of the following week.
  

Quote

obviously i presented multiple images that DO NOT cooberate with the official theory-- to someone with common sense of course each one at face value IS enough to determine the official story is completely bogus


As I said, It would be nice if a single piece of evidence would ever "alone be enough", but it simply isn't the case.  Using the same tactic twice in a row does not make it any more effective.  Please notice how, instead of actually addressing the counter made to his claim, he instead tries to focus on shaming you into siding with him.  The simple fact of the matter is that, when Sunofone made that statement he was referring to one specific picture, and that once again, in this very sentence in which he is trying to qualify it, he makes the exact same statement again, speaking again of single pieces of evidence, and this time throwing in how anyone who doesn't see things exactly how he claims they are must be lacking in common sense.  Again, it's a common conspiracy tactic, one in which the actual evidence about the physical destruction of the towers is sidelined by wordplay.

Quote

i do not even have to respond to this as the "time it took for the buildings to fall" is all that is needed to determine that there are FATAL flaws within the reasoning behing the "pancake" hoax-- nist,and therefore you,do not offer an explanation for exactly what caused the collpase as you have admitted the fires did not cause the main structural supports to fail-- these supports had just endured the impacts of aircraft yet some failing trusses are supposed to bring them down in a manner that defies "resistance"?? no.gif


I believe that I already pointed out the conspiracy theorists, in general, and my opponent's, in particular, obsession with the structural supports.  This is fairly typical, this focus on a single detail, because the attempt is being made to hinge absolutely the entire argument on one single premise, and then attempt to invalidate it by showing that premise incorrect.  The thing is though, that they are trying to fool you into accepting that there is actually more than merely one premise at work, here.  What is truly a bit frightening, however, is the extend to which some will go to ignore anything not related to what they are obsessing one.  Case in point, my opponent here claims that I do not offer any explanation for what caused the collapse, as I just claimed that the fires did not cause their failure.  Asides from the explanation that I made in the very first post, I made it again in the second, and my opponent even included half of it in his quote!

"What failed due to the fire were the floor trusses, which lead to the pancaking of eight floors, the combined total of which caused the main structural supports to fail when they crashed down. "
  
Since my opponent does not seem to understand it, I will expand on it again.  When something falls, it picks up a lot of energy.  Building structural supports, vertical ones, are meant to withstand a static force, not a dynamic force.  What that means is that a chair may well be designed to support a 180 pound person, and will do so with little problem (a person sitting on a chair would be a static force, since the weight (force) is consistently being applied without change), however, if that person were to jump off a table onto the chair, the chair might well break, because the original weight of the person has been magnified exponentially by the pull of gravity (that's the 32 feet per second per second).  When the falling person reaches the chair, he no longer weights 180 pounds, but more (how much more depends on how long he fell), and on top of that, the force is no longer statically sitting on the chair, but rather has the added force of momentum striking the surface of the chair dynamically, which the structural members were never designed to support, even without taking into consideration the damage they took when they were hit by a passenger jetliner and the weakening they endured during the subsequent fire.

I haven't seen any (deep voice) FATAL flaws in this version other than my opponent's incredulity.  Considering that he shows the same level of disbelief to anyone who suggest the government is not evil, I can't really consider that a valid counter.  Whether my opponent believes it or not, dynamic force will easily destroy a force designed to hold a much smaller static load.

Quote

so because you can shear a match with your finger we are supposed to accept the notion that the stell column in question actually sheared because of the load it was designed to support--  w00t.gif
  
  
No, you are supposed to understand what shear forces are, but apparently you missed that.  You can avoid countering the data with the cute little smilies, but don't think that anyone is falling for the feint.

The argument my opponent raised concerned how a thick structural beam could possibly have an angled cut on it.  The answer is because, when shear forces break beams, they do so in very specific ways, one of which is an angled shear as shown on the picture.  If you look at the picture again, you will notice that the top section of the beam is not cleanly cut, as it would have been with a shaped charge, but rather it is ripped, as if a massive force tore it away.  
  

Quote

ever heard of a "shape" charge? its a little different than the force of tons of debri but would easily explain what was witnessed

  
Yes, it would...if and only if it were placed on the window itself pointing outwards.  Why would that happen?  More to the point, why would a shaped charged of such broad effect as that one (by comparing it to the size of the windows, I'd say it was a barricade clearer, like the old fashioned Bangalors used on gates) be present in the tower?  No demolition cutter charge would act like that.  Shaped charges used in demolitions are very exactly designed for the purpose of cleanly cutting through a given length of beam; they do not possessive the explosive 'blast' one associates with dynamite and such.  Let's be absolutely clear here:, yes, the window exploding could have been caused by a shaped charge, but, it would not have been a shaped charge that was in any way, shape, or form associated with demolition work.  He might as well have said that someone left a suitcase of dynamite by the window.  Any explosive charge that strong would have still sent a shockwave through the nearby area and it still would have blown out the windows nearby.
  
QUOTE
ok so i raise more than a "single" issue and am accused of jumping from point to point-- is there a term for this technique??

  
Yes.  It is called "Dodging".  It refers to making a claim in on given context and then, when countered, pretending that it concerned an entirely different context than before.  For instance, when you present a video showing the WTC7 collapse and demanding to know where the fire is, and then have it pointed out to you that the fire is not only on the lower floors (which cannot be seen on the video you provided), but is also on the other side of the building, you 'dodge' by pretending that you were talking about the building free-falling into it's own footprint.

QUOTE
ok so there is "intense" heat-- please show an image where "fire" may have been the culprit for the INTENSE heat you account to it


Ahh...are you serious?

Eighty feet of the tower were engulfed in 1800 degree flames, and you want a picture of how fire 'may' have been the source of the INTENSE heat?

What, do you think all that heat just vanished during the collapse of the tower?  Everything that was burning, that was melted, that was smoldering and ready to go, all of that was what was generating the heat.  When the tower collapsed, all these thing got buried and the heat began focusing, just like in a kiln, very efficiently and retaining a great deal of it's energy.  Just because you no longer see flames does not mean the heat has disappeared.  The heat remained, gathered, and continued radiating until it had a way out, which the firemen provided by raking it open and letting it cool.

A better question would be how you would justify a claim that all this heat came from anywhere else.  It's a little bit like putting a kettle with water on a burner, and then claiming that the water was boiling from some source of heat other than the burner.  You would need to be able to show not only where the other heat was coming from, but also why the heat from the burner wasn't responsible for the effects on the water.
  
QUOTE
ok you did not read the paper-- they go as far as to demonstrate that all metals are not equal by melting aluminum and showing that it could not have been the metal in the image by showing how it liquifies way before it reaches the color of the metal in the image-- then he illustrates a graph that shows a precise indication of the temperature within the image as well as explaining how lower grades of steel could not have achieved the color within the image as it would have liquified-- the only misleading in this thread comes from you trying to insinuate that the metal in the image is "sheet" material and not the obvious "chunk" of structural column--


I'm not insinuating anything.  I'm saying it outright.  I look at the picture and I see right through the glowing sheet.  I see the shadowy outline of the bar behind it.  That is no 'chunk' of material; whatever it is, it is a sheet.  
  
And my explanation from before stands as strong as ever.  The color chart is great if you know what it is you are melting, in the professor's example, a piece of aluminum.  You can definitely remove aluminum from the list of suspects.  Only several dozen more possible suspects to go.  Unless you know exactly what temperature that glowing sheet is at, there is no way that you can match it to the chart.

QUOTE
w00t.gif  no.gif  
now back to the evidence-- the next logic step after examining the many irregularities is to look to the eye witnesses and listen to their testimonies in order to determine what may have occurred-- here are the most telling--


Ah, of course...sooner or later, it comes down to what conspiracy theorists call evidence and what real researchers refer to as testimony.

But wait, you ask, I thought this debate was about the physical aspects of the WTC collapse?  Besides, what's wrong with testimony?  Surely, not everyone is a liar?

No, of course not.  The problem with testimony, and why it cannot be considered anything other than circumstantial evidence, is because testimony, by its very nature, is based solely on perception, and in most cases, particularly this one, it is based on a perception that was drawn during adverse circumstances, to say the least.

So, when all is said and done, what do we have here?  We have a bunch of people who claim to have heard and felt explosions during the fire.  Is this really all that surprising?  Not in the slightest.  Any experienced firefighter will tell you that, in a fire, things blow up.  Fire extinguishers particularly, due to their steel containers, are particularly notorious for their ability to mimic bombs.  It is entirely possible, in fact, even probable, that these people heard explosions.  That does not, however, mean that these explosions had anything to do with a demolition.  Why?  Simply because if they were in the building when the demolition charges went off, they would not be around telling the story.

Asides from that basic logic, are there any other problems with testimony?  Well, yes.  If we accept that several dozen people heard explosions, should we not also accept the testimony that several thousands did not?  How about the timing of these explosions?  Just how many were there, and how would a demolition possibly take place so haphazardly?  People are reporting explosions right and left; frankly, that sounds more like the random destruction of a fire than any sort of controlled demolition.

QUOTE
there may be alot of information to review but i implore you that we "OWE" it to the victims of that day to reveal the truth about their murder


Thank you, Elmer Gantry.  Ladies and gentlemen, please don't forget to tip the dancing bear on your way out.  Thanks for coming to the show.

Note the use of shame, of guilt, note the call for justice for an imagined crime, and the assumption that what we have the 'Truth', and it is up only us to act on it.  Everything included in one little package except for...well, an honest to goodness case.

This is the meat and potatoes of conspiracy theorist.  Assumptions of guilt are made.  Accusations against a vague 'government' are thrown.  A blitzkrieg wave of supposed 'evidence' is presented.  Emotions run high, and are fanned by the conspiracy theorists.

But, when all is said and done, where is the argument?  The assumption is made that the buildings were demolished, and, honestly, there is nothing wrong with making an assumption about the conclusion if and only if you eventually show that your assumption can be derived from the evidence that has been presented.  If your conclusion cannot be independently derived by following the evidence presented, then you have nothing.  If the only way to see the evidence as leading to a guilty verdict is by first assuming that the accused is guilty, then you have a big problem.


#19    BurnSide

BurnSide

    Through the Looking Glass

  • Member
  • 25,390 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Everywhere.

Posted 08 May 2006 - 07:04 PM

Reincarnated, i have deleted your post. Only the debaters themselves, as well as Debate Organisors, are allowed to comment on formal debates.


#20    Sunofone

Sunofone

    Libertus Invictus

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.Tx

  • "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

Posted 09 May 2006 - 04:16 AM

Quote


As I said, It would be nice if a single piece of evidence would ever "alone be enough", but it simply isn't the case.  Using the same tactic twice in a row does not make it any more effective.

this is a blatant attempt at downplaying evidence-- the image in question is equivalent to the dna evidence in a paternity suit-- it is 99.99% conclusive-- there is no way fire and "shear force" created what is captured in that image-- to even suggest it speaks volumes concerning the integrity of your reasoning

Quote


This is fairly typical, this focus on a single detail, because the attempt is being made to hinge absolutely the entire argument on one single premise, and then attempt to invalidate it by showing that premise incorrect.  The thing is though, that they are trying to fool you into accepting that there is actually more than merely one premise at work,
  

i demonstrated multiple images that cannot be accounted to fire and witness testimony collaborating the most logical theory-- now let me remind you about the FACT that members of bush's own administration have come forward denouncing the official theory and proclaim their beliefs in the use of explosives in the collapse and 737's in the cover up of the demolition in karl schwartz and dr morgan reynolds --


Quote


"What failed due to the fire were the floor trusses, which lead to the pancaking of eight floors, the combined total of which caused the main structural supports to fail when they crashed down. "
  

this argument falls apart when you take into account the fact that the buildings sustained the impacts and initial explosions-- this also fails to explain bldg 7 which had no airplane strike it and yet your theory alledges that "small and insignificant" fires were enough to instigate the sudden simultaneous "melting" of all its structural supports and subsequent collapse into its own footprint--

Quote


Since my opponent does not seem to understand it, I will expand on it again.  When something falls, it picks up a lot of energy.  Building structural supports, vertical ones, are meant to withstand a static force, not a dynamic force.  

to think that the wtc was under engineered goes against the recorded testimony of both the architect minoru yamasaki and the construction manager frank de martini-- both exclaimed their unwaivering resolution that the buildings could easily widthstand "multiple" impacts from commercial aircraft and related it to throwing a pencil through a screen mesh

Quote


Yes, it would...if and only if it were placed on the window itself pointing outwards.  
  

the squib in the image did NOT come from a window it was clearly ejected from a corner support column  

  
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ May 8 2006, 12:20 PM) View Post
  
Yes.  It is called "Dodging".  It refers to making a claim in on given context and then, when countered, pretending that it concerned an entirely different context than before.  For instance, when you present a video showing the WTC7 collapse and demanding to know where the fire is, and then have it pointed out to you that the fire is not only on the lower floors (which cannot be seen on the video you provided), but is also on the other side of the building, you 'dodge' by pretending that you were talking about the building free-falling into it's own footprint.

fire does not melt concrete and steel structures into their own footprint-- i was the one that included an example of a much more intense fire clealry uncomprimising the integrity of the concrete and steel building it consumed

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ May 8 2006, 12:20 PM) View Post

Eighty feet of the tower were engulfed in 1800 degree flames, and you want a picture of how fire 'may' have been the source of the INTENSE heat?

What, do you think all that heat just vanished during the collapse of the tower?  Everything that was burning, that was melted, that was smoldering and ready to go, all of that was what was generating the heat.  When the tower collapsed, all these thing got buried and the heat began focusing, just like in a kiln, very efficiently and retaining a great deal of it's energy.  Just because you no longer see flames does not mean the heat has disappeared.  The heat remained, gathered, and continued radiating until it had a way out, which the firemen provided by raking it open and letting it cool.

A better question would be how you would justify a claim that all this heat came from anywhere else.  It's a little bit like putting a kettle with water on a burner, and then claiming that the water was boiling from some source of heat other than the burner.  You would need to be able to show not only where the other heat was coming from, but also why the heat from the burner wasn't responsible for the effects on the water.

please reference an image that supports the notion that 80 feet of the builing was exposed to an 1800 degree fire-- another red flag concerning the integrity of your reasoning is exemplified in the belief that office furniture and jet fuel could have created literal molten pools of steel(as detailed by peter tully and mark louirixeu of cdi controled demolition inc) in the sub level basement uncovered 8 WEEKS after the collapse

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ May 8 2006, 12:20 PM) View Post

I'm not insinuating anything.  I'm saying it outright.  I look at the picture and I see right through the glowing sheet.  I see the shadowy outline of the bar behind it.  That is no 'chunk' of material; whatever it is, it is a sheet.  
  
And my explanation from before stands as strong as ever.  The color chart is great if you know what it is you are melting, in the professor's example, a piece of aluminum.  You can definitely remove aluminum from the list of suspects.  Only several dozen more possible suspects to go.  Unless you know exactly what temperature that glowing sheet is at, there is no way that you can match it to the chart.

ok and all this before or after your "read" the paper containing the details of the materials in question-- there was never a doubt concerning where they found that slag or what it was composed of as an analysis had been conducted and the results had already been examined and plainly explained in the article by the proffessor of physics from byu--

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ May 8 2006, 12:20 PM) View Post

So, when all is said and done, what do we have here?  We have a bunch of people who claim to have heard and felt explosions during the fire.  Is this really all that surprising?  Not in the slightest.  Any experienced firefighter will tell you that
  

this is hardly a vague description by unexperienced bystanders

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ May 8 2006, 12:20 PM) View Post

Thank you, Elmer Gantry.  Ladies and gentlemen, please don't forget to tip the dancing bear on your way out.  Thanks for coming to the show.

Note the use of shame, of guilt, note the call for justice for an imagined crime, and the assumption that what we have the 'Truth', and it is up only us to act on it.  Everything included in one little package except for...well, an honest to goodness case.

This is the meat and potatoes of conspiracy theorist.  Assumptions of guilt are made.  Accusations against a vague 'government' are thrown.  A blitzkrieg wave of supposed 'evidence' is presented.  Emotions run high, and are fanned by the conspiracy theorists.

clearly a spin as it defines your very own tactics and nothing else

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ May 8 2006, 12:20 PM) View Post

But, when all is said and done, where is the argument?

ah ha where is it indeed?  
my conclusion will be definitive and will expose the facts you avoided as well as the equations you failed to present and thoroughly detail the history and motives of the individuals that "PROFITTED"

War is just a racket. I wouldnt go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket
Maj Gen S Butler
"the man that votes controls nothing-the man that counts the votes controls everything"
J Stalin
“The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."
A Hitler

#21    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 15 May 2006 - 07:54 PM

Damn!  With the wrong click of a mouse button, I erased an hours worth of typing!  Pardon if I seem a bit short, but I am rather annoyed at myself just now.  

Quote


this is a blatant attempt at downplaying evidence-- the image in question is equivalent to the dna evidence in a paternity suit-- it is 99.99% conclusive-- there is no way fire and "shear force" created what is captured in that  image-- to even suggest it speaks volumes concerning the integrity of your reasoning

  
Integrity...

You showed a picture of a sheared beam and claimed that it could not have occurred that way naturally.  You offered absolutely nothing else.  I explained that not only can an angled shear occur in a demolition, it is expected to, due to the forces involved in a collapse.  In addition to that, I pointed out that the torn section at the top of the beam and the melted slag on the angle did not match the effects of a demo charge, which would have left a clean cut and little to no melt).

Please explain why "there is no way fire and "shear force" created what is captured in that image" before you start talking about integrity.

Good thing you aren't a paternity lawyer.



Quote

this argument falls apart when you take into account the fact that the buildings sustained the impacts and initial explosions-- this also fails to explain bldg 7 which had no airplane strike it and yet your theory alledges that "small and insignificant" fires were enough to instigate the sudden simultaneous "melting" of all its structural supports and subsequent collapse into its own footprint--


Not at all.  After all, the towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707, and they stood strong against an impact of even greater mass.  True, they were severely damaged, but they remained standing, and had there not been a fire, they might well still be standing today.  The fire, unfortunately, raged full force for a good hour and a half, and the damage from that is what precipitated the collapse.

"Small and Insignificant" are words that I have not used.  Even if the fires in the WTC7 were small and insignificant to start with, after being allowed to grow without any attempt to contain them in any way for over 7 hours, they would most certainly not have been anymore.

Also, to correct yet again another attempt by my opponent to lead you astray, I did not say that WTC7 (or any tower) collapsed due to the "sudden simultaneous "melting" of all its structural supports".  The south tower collapsed due to the sagging (which is melting, of a sort, but not really) of the floor trusses caused by the fire, which collapsed and pancacked 8 times, finally accruing sufficient force to shear the weakened structural beams.  WTC7, on the other hand, was not constructed in exactly the same way as the other towers.  WTC7 had, on one side, a massive structural beam which bore the entire load of that side.  Remember that the fire-proofing on these beams is designed with the pre-supposition that that it only needs to last long enough for the fire to be brought under control, but in this case, the firefighters pulled out an let it burn uncontrolled.  Fed by several hundred thousand gallons of diesel (unlike the the other towers, who only had about fifteen minutes worth), this fire remained strong and hot directly under the beam.  Over the course of seven hours of directly applied heat, the beam lost its integrity and failed.  Meanwhile, the fire had spread to the rest of the building, weakening it in its turn, and when the beam on the one side failed, the rest followed suit. It was not, as my opponent alleges, a sudden and simultaneous collapse.  I will be including an attachment showing the WTC7 collapse, from the damaged side this time, at the bottom
of this post (I still haven't quite mastered the Image command).

Quote

to think that the wtc was under engineered goes against the recorded testimony of both the architect minoru yamasaki and the construction manager frank de martini-- both exclaimed their unwaivering resolution that the buildings could easily widthstand "multiple" impacts from commercial aircraft and related it to throwing a pencil through a screen mesh


From Yamasaki and Co.:

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."
Reflections on the WTC

The 'multiple aircrafts' thing was merely what they thought.  The actual design was to withstand one impact, and it did that quite excellently.  In this very quote, Yamasaki is explaining that it was the fire, not the impact, that caused the eventual downfall.
  

Quote

the squib in the image did NOT come from a window it was clearly ejected from a corner support column  

  
Your definition of "clearly" is of a lower standard than mine.  If you want us to believe that this is proof of a demolition charge destroying the corner support column, you will have to explain why, just as I have explained why it could be a variety of other things.  Please begin by telling us why a charge designed to destroy a corner column has utterly failed to show any sort of breakage on the visible side, and why the charge is pointing out away from the column, and not into it.
  

Quote

fire does not melt concrete and steel structures into their own footprint-- i was the one that included an example of a much more intense fire clealry uncomprimising the integrity of the concrete and steel building it consumed


You are mistaken.  The Windsor Building was most certainly compromised by the fire.  It had to be torn down.  The part that you left out was that the building was under continuous barrage of water and the temperatures never got higher than 800 degrees.

And no, fire does not melt concrete and steel structures into their own footprint, and only conspiracy theorists claim that anyone has said so.  Fire does melt a variety of metal furniture and building materials, however, and the towers had many tons available of it for the melting.

  
QUOTE
please reference an image that supports the notion that 80 feet of the builing was exposed to an 1800 degree fire-- another red flag concerning the integrity of your reasoning is exemplified in the belief that office furniture and jet fuel could have created literal molten pools of steel(as detailed by peter tully and mark louirixeu of cdi controled demolition inc) in the sub level basement uncovered 8 WEEKS after the collapse


Well, I can reference the picture (down below), but you will have to take the word of the source that the temperature was there.  Unfortunately, there is little way to tell from a picture what the temperature in a given fire is at without knowing a lot more variables.

In regards to the molten steel..what are you asking?  Are you saying that structural members can melt into a puddle of fire, but metal furniture can't?  Are you questioning the amount of office furniture in what was one the largest office building in the world?  I once worked in the equiptment room of a corporation, and we had over 3000 pieces of metal furniture for the 6-story building, that together would have easily filled a swimming pool with molten metal.

Perhaps you are wondering at the amount of time they stayed molten?  Well, if you are going to claim that a pool of molten metal is not going to stay molten, then would you be so kind as to give us something other than you "I don't believe it." as a reason?  Can you tell us how long a pool of molten metal will remain molten when buried, or are you just kind of hoping no one is going to ask?  
  
QUOTE
ok and all this before or after your "read" the paper containing the details of the materials in question-- there was never a doubt concerning where they found that slag or what it was composed of as an analysis had been conducted and the results had already been examined and plainly explained in the article by the proffessor of physics from byu--


Then stop dodging and post the explanation.  I read the paper, and I did not see what you claim is so plainly explained.  I would be most interested in seeing how this particular picture, which has no name, date, or source, is nonetheless tied into the paper.  By all means, post the explanation.  We can't just take your word that it is given.
  
QUOTE
this is hardly a vague description by unexperienced bystanders


Seems pretty vague to me.  What was it you said earlier?

"A1 how can you expect to sustain any credibility when your attention to detail is so flawed?
  
I have already pointed out the problems with using witness testimony.  For starters, they are often confused, since the people involved where smack-dab in an extremely high-stress situation.  Secondly, they could be right, but not in the way others think, such as in hearing explosions, and having other people interpret them as demolition charges.

Another reason is that people, on occassion, LIE.

Karl Schwartz, is indeed the president of I-Nets Security Systems.  He is also 1 of 3 employees.  If you search the web, you will find his (unfinished) website, which claims that they are on the leading edge of Carbon Nanotube technology (must be 3 really hard-working people!).  The phone number is invalid.  The other companies that were under Karl Schwartz's name have had their charter revoked by the state (a quick glance through his practices will reveal why).  He will not be buying out Global Enterprises for 815 mill.  He will not be running for president in 2008 (yes, he made both claims).
Who is Karl Schwartz?

I will admit a little bias concerning Morgan Reynolds, because, well...the man gave me a D in the statistics class I took with him.  True, I earned the grade, and he was no doubt brilliant...on the subject of economics...but as a third year architecture student, I knew more about engineering than he did.  Frankly, his arguments and my opponents are nearly identical, and share many of the same faults, mostly that they center on pretty much the vague accusations on sees all over the internet, and that they generally really on the argument "I don't believe it could happen that way." with no further explanation.
Morgan Reynold's Trojan Horse
  
At this point, many CT's begin whining about how the evil skeptic is attacking the person and not the argument.  Well, they are going to have to deal with it.  It's called "Credibility of the Witness", and there isn't a lawyer on the Bar who wouldn't be laughed out of court if he failed to question the witness to make sure they knew what they were talking about.  If a known liar tells you that someone stole your car, I would caution against accepting his testimony at face value.  If a mathematician tells you your ulcer is caused by indigestions, I reccomend a second opinion.  Sure, they may be right, but testimonies should never be considered proof positive.  

QUOTE
clearly a spin as it defines your very own tactics and nothing else


No, it would only be a spin if I had pretended to be serious, instead of telling the audience, in my very first paragraph, what to expect.  These tactics describe Conspiracy Theorists to a T.  You will find them repeated over and over again, and when this debate is through, you will see absolutely no change whatsoever.  CT's will insist that Sunofone provided all the evidence and theories, I provided nothing.  He rebutted all my explanations easily and with great eloquence, while I sat in the corner and sucked my thumb.  Anyone who thinks I may have done a better job must be a panting lap-sheet of the government, deaf and dumb to anything except the rosy little world that all of us except for the CT's believe in.
  
QUOTE
ah ha where is it indeed?  
my conclusion will be definitive and will expose the facts you avoided as well as the equations you failed to present and thoroughly detail the history and motives of the individuals that "PROFITTED"


Right, because the purpose of the debate isn't to actually argue the validity of the argument, but rather to win at all costs.  That explains why you haven't actually done anything other than accuse so far.  I recommend you provide explanations for your accusations a bit sooner than the conclusion though.  I really don't think that the avoidance tactic is being seen so much as a clever move as much as an a lack of ability.

Edited forgot the pictures, sorry!):

  3 Pages of WTC fires (note the floor numbers)

Attached Thumbnails

  • wtc7pile.jpg

Edited by aquatus1, 15 May 2006 - 08:08 PM.


#22    Sunofone

Sunofone

    Libertus Invictus

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.Tx

  • "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

Posted 16 May 2006 - 04:15 AM

Quote



Integrity...

You showed a picture of a sheared beam and claimed that it could not have occurred that way naturally.  You offered absolutely nothing else.  I explained that not only can an angled shear occur in a demolition,it is expected to,...

Please explain why "there is no way fire and "shear force" created what is captured in that image" before you start talking about integrity.

are you admitting it was demolished?-- im sorry but in this case reason is all that is needed to determine the absolute lunacy in your hypothesis-- if my friend falls off his skateboard and breaks his leg bad enough to expose the bone it does not take a doctor to determine he has a "compound fracture"-- that solid steel box column could not have been sheared at that angle without the slightest bit of distortion without the use of some sort of chemical reaction involving the most likely culprit in thermite--


Quote



Not at all.  After all, the towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707, and they stood strong against an impact of even greater mass.  True, they were severely damaged, but they remained standing, and had there not been a fire, they might well still be standing today.  The fire, unfortunately, raged full force for a good hour and a half, and the damage from that is what precipitated the collapse.

"Small and Insignificant" are words that I have not used.  Even if the fires in the WTC7 were small and insignificant to start with, after being allowed to grow without any attempt to contain them in any way for over 7 hours, they would most certainly not have been anymore.

Also, to correct yet again another attempt by my opponent to lead you astray, I did not say that WTC7 (or any tower) collapsed due to the "sudden simultaneous "melting" of all its structural supports". ...WTC7 had, on one side, a massive structural beam which bore the entire load of that side.  Remember that the fire-proofing on these beams is designed with the pre-supposition that that it only needs to last long enough for the fire to be brought under control, but in this case, the firefighters pulled out an let it burn uncontrolled.


From Yamasaki and Co.:

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."
Reflections on the WTC

The 'multiple aircrafts' thing was merely what they thought.  The actual design was to withstand one impact, and it did that quite excellently.  In this very quote, Yamasaki is explaining that it was the fire, not the impact, that caused the eventual downfall.

no doubt the adjectives small and insignificant were my description-- did you offer any type of image to counter the one i included that demonstrated exactly what i described-- as far as yamasaki goes you are truly mistaken-- yamasaki died in 1976 and could not have made the quotes attributed to him by you-- the examples put forth by me concerning the windsor building and the 24 hour fire that raged there is a testament to the absolute ridiculous notion that a hydrocarbon fire could have comprimised the integrity of steel much less been responsible for the angled "cut" in the box column-- again i stress there was no need to bring fire into the equation of integrity concerning the high grade steel that was used as well as the design of the towers themselves which included hypoberically sealed segments within the core to eliminate any kind of chimney effect--
  

  

Quote


Your definition of "clearly" is of a lower standard than mine.  If you want us to believe that this is proof of a demolition charge destroying the corner support column, you will have to explain why, just as I have explained why it could be a variety of other things.  Please begin by telling us why a charge designed to destroy a corner column has utterly failed to show any sort of breakage on the visible side, and why the charge is pointing out away from the column, and not into it.

you explained scenarios that defy physics and expect me to accept them as justified no.gif -- as far as the squib goes it is really a simple example of a "shaped charge" with more velocity than necessary to cut that corner-- here is a link to a video that i implore you to view-- it demonstrates the all the arguments discussed here and shows the squib in question followed by more and explains the absence of resistance in the time it took the building to fall and how it prooves the supports were removed simultaneously--
MUST SEE VIDEO  
  

  

Quote


You are mistaken.  The Windsor Building was most certainly compromised by the fire.  It had to be torn down.  The part that you left out was that the building was under continuous barrage of water and the temperatures never got higher than 800 degrees.

And no, fire does not melt concrete and steel structures into their own footprint, and only conspiracy theorists claim that anyone has said so.  Fire does melt a variety of metal furniture and building materials, however, and the towers had many tons available of it for the melting.

yes it did need demolition after the fire-- but it certainly did not collpase within its own footprint like bldg 7-- which you claim(or the govt) was the cause for the collpase-- of course you will conclude you 5 bodily posts with out referencing any govt experts or explanations-- but i do not blame you as to actually put it into print would force you to re examine the absolute impossibility of their hypothsis-- of course it was in your best interest to not include their ridiculous theories for true scrutiny
  

    

Quote


Well, I can reference the picture (down below), but you will have to take the word of the source that the temperature was there.  Unfortunately, there is little way to tell from a picture what the temperature in a given fire is at without knowing a lot more variables.

ok the image you included was nothing more than a pile of rubble and the link you referenced lead to three pages of "black smoke" which is in itself a testament to the lack of fire and oxygen necessary to fuel a fire at all
  
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ May 15 2006, 02:54 PM) View Post

Seems pretty vague to me.  What was it you said earlier?

"A1 how can you expect to sustain any credibility when your attention to detail is so flawed?
  
I have already pointed out the problems with using witness testimony.  For starters, they are often confused, since the people involved where smack-dab in an extremely high-stress situation.  Secondly, they could be right, but not in the way others think, such as in hearing explosions, and having other people interpret them as demolition charges.

the exact quote from that clip was as follows  "yeah detonaters planted,the kind you would use to bring down a building with,boom,boom,boom,boom,boom,boom"

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ May 15 2006, 02:54 PM) View Post

Another reason is that people, on occassion, LIE.

Karl Schwartz, is indeed the president of I-Nets Security Systems.
  
At this point, many CT's begin whining about how the evil skeptic is attacking the person and not the argument.

oh now they are liars-- the fact is he is not alone-- besides morgan reynolds there is stephen jones,stanly hilton and many more -- here are a few references to who is saying what and who profitted and the connections that are not included in the fox reports--
QUOTE

9/11, Iraq & PNAC

- The Connection is Clear & Undeniable - THE COMMON SENSE CONNECTION: THESE MEN LIED IN ORDER TO START A WAR AND IN THE PROCESS THEY SACRIFICED THE LIVES OF OVER 2000 AMERICAN SOLDIERS. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT THEY DID NOT SACRIFICE 3000 TOTAL STRANGERS ON 9/11/2001 FOR THE SAME PURPOSE?
    *

Scroll down for in depth 9/11 info.

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Dick Cheney was running several war games in the north eastern portion of the United States. These drills included many hijacking scenarios, where hijacked commercial jets were hijacked and flown into buildings. At the same time Cheney had arranged for a drill involving a bio attack on NY. This resulted in FEMA setting up a command post on pier 29 in New York on September 10th.

The war games involved live fly exercises, and electronic drills where fake blips were placed on radar screens. Cheney was in charge of a communications system that superseded those of the FAA, NORAD and NEADS. Some of the drills possibly included remote control planes.

Cheney was in a position to have the air defense agencies stand down.

From from September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched. You may remember this happening when Payne Stewart and his crew died in flight. On September 11th, 2001, when Dick Cheney was running his war games, 4 jet airliners were supposedly hijacked, and all our systems that have worked flawlessly 67 times that year, failed. Coincidence?

While these facts seem to incriminate Cheney, all you can do within reason is ask these questions:

    *
      Was Cheney in a position to have the defense systems stand down?
    *
      Did Cheney, a member of PNAC, a group who expressed the fact that their agenda would be better accepted if we had a “new Pearl Harbor”, have a motive? Did he benefit from the events?
    *
      Could the events have been an accident? Could the drills have gone bad?
    *
      Why did the 9/11 Commission Report omit the information about the drills, making only 1 mention of them in a single footnote. The report only mentioned 1 drill, and falsely described it as a drill to defend against Russian Bombers. In the age of ICBMs, are we to believe that we have to practice defending the nation against Russian bombers in the north eastern portion of the US?
    *
      Why have the news media neglected to inform the public of Cheney’s actions that day?
    *
      Why did Bush and Cheney insist on being questioned by the commission together, without being taped, without taking an oath and with no records kept?
    *
      If you did not know this information, you have to ask yourself why it is not common knowledge? You also have to ask what else don’t you know?
    *
      In the years following the event, have you ever heard from the people who you were told committed these acts? Or, have you only been told why this happened by the people who want you to believe their story.

Use your common sense. Do you think the global intelligence powers failed this badly? Do you think men who could barely pilot a 2 seat plane can navigate across several states and find their target? Are you that gullible? Have some self respect, and think before you believe what you are told.


QUOTE

The Bush Family and 9/11

Jeb Bush was a PNAC signatory and he signed Executive Order 01-261 September 7, 2001 which allowed martial law to be declared in his state. His was the first state to declare a state of emergency on 9/11.

Marvin Bush was a principal in a company which provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport. He was in New York on 9/11.

Whilst the entire world was transfixed by the unfolding horror at the World Trade Center President George W. Bush did nothing when he was told America was under attack. He found reading a book about a pet goat more important.

The Bush family are huge beneficiaries of the 'War on Terror' thanks to their connections to the Carlyle Group, and it just so happens that Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama, was at a Carlyle Group conference in Washington on 9/11:
On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama. [Guardian]

The morning of the attack George Bush Sr. is meets with members of the Carlyle Group in Washington. Bin Laden's own brother is at the meeting. [CBC]

Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W., was an investor in the Nazi 'War on Terror':
Declassified US government documents, unearthed last October [2003] by investigative journalist John Buchanan at the New Hampshire Gazette, reveal that Prescott Bush's involvement in financing and arming the Nazis was more extensive than previously known.
Not only was Bush managing director of the Union Banking Corporation, the American branch of Hitler's chief financier's banking network; but among the other companies where Bush was a director—and which were seized by the American government in 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act—were a shipping line which imported German spies; an energy company that supplied the Luftwaffe with high-ethyl fuel; and a steel company that employed Jewish slave labor from the Auschwitz concentration camp. [Online Journal]


QUOTE

Government Insider Says Bush Authorized 911 Attacks

From Thomas Buyea
9-17-4


Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no two-bit internet conspiracy buff.

Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole ® and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people.

The following is from his latest visit to Alex Jones' radio show.

Forwarded with Compliments of Free Voice of America (FVOA): Accurate News and Interesting Commentary for Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free.

Note: All honor to Stanley Hilton for risking his life so that we may know the truth of 9/11.

The Bush Junta Unmasked

"This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder." --Stanley Hilton

Alex Jones interview of Stanley Hilton, attorney for 911 taxpayers' lawsuit

Alex Jones Radio Show September 10, 2004 Transcription by 'RatCat'

AJ: He is back with us. He is former Bob Dole's chief of staff, very successful counselor, lawyer. He represents hundreds of the victims families of 9/11. He is suing Bush for involvement in 9/11. Now a major Zogby poll out - half of New Yorkers think the government was involved in 9/11. And joining us for the next 35 minutes, into the next hour, is Stanley Hilton. Stanley, it's great to have you on with us.

SH: Glad to be on.

AJ: We'll have to recap this when we start the next hour, but just in a nutshell, you have a lawsuit going, you've deposed a lot of military officers. You know the truth of 9/11. Just in a nutshell, what is your case alleging?

SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not only in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda on behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.

AJ: That's right. They were all Straussian followers of a Nazi-like professor. And now they are setting it up here in America. Stanley, I know you deposed a lot of people and you've got your $7 million dollar lawsuit with hundreds of the victim's families involved.

SH: 7 billion, 7 billion

AJ: Yeah, 7 billion. Can you go over some of the new and incriminating evidence you've got of them ordering the attack?

SH: Yes, let me just say that this is a taxpayers' class action lawsuit as well as a suit on behalf of the families and the basic three arguments are they violated the Constitution by ordering this event. And secondly that they [garbled] fraudulent Federal Claims Act, Title 31 of the U.S. Code in which Bush presented false and fraudulent evidence to Congress to get the Iraq war authorization. And, of course, he related it to 9/11 and claimed that Saddam was involved with that, and all these lies.


ok now we have the northwoods documents from 1962 where plans to kill american citizens and blame it on political adversaries is documented-- then we have the "project for a new american century" where our current leaders in 2000 authored a strategy that included a footnote detailing how the transition from a debt based economy to a defense based one would be slow and cumbersome absent some catalyzing event like a "new pearl harbour"-- we have bush signing executive order w199i in early 01 ordering the fbi to desist their investigation of bin laden-- the stand down of norad and intentional distractions-- the inability of the secret service to protect bush for 18 minutes after we knew there was a terrorist attack in progress while an uknown numbers of hijcaked planes threatened bush and the children as the visit was announced days in advance-- in conclusion there is  ample evidence "beyond" the obvious ipossibility of the official theory which was thoroughly detailed to conclude that 9/11 was a military industrial complex operation in collusion with oil pirates that have taken control of the american government and turned it on us for profit-- please consider this wake up call a sign of your moment of change-- too long have americans sat idle while evil plunders in their name-- silence IS complicity in these harrowing times-- sound the trumpet and prepare for the struggle-- thanks for taking the time to follow this thread and please consider my call for action in spreading the WORD of TRUTH

Edited by Sunofone, 16 May 2006 - 04:59 AM.

War is just a racket. I wouldnt go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket
Maj Gen S Butler
"the man that votes controls nothing-the man that counts the votes controls everything"
J Stalin
“The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."
A Hitler

#23    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 22 May 2006 - 01:47 AM

I was going to counter some of my opponents claims...but really, there is very little left to counter that has not already been done.  I can really not go further more in depth into some of the explanations that I have given, and frankly, it is somewhat irritating to take the time to explain the reasoning behind my claims, and then return to find a counter that consists of little more than "Yeah, right, whatever; I say it happened this way..." and find no explanation at all.

Was the WTC demolished?  Of course it was; we all saw it get demolished.  Did it happen intentionally?  Unlikely.  Pretty much everyone, from terrorists to engineers, were caught by surprise when it occured.  Was it done by explosives?  There is certainly no reason to think so.

My opponent points at a sheared column and claims that there is no way that it could have been sheared with a torch.  He insinuates that it must have been cut with shaped charges.  I say that is not the case.  A sheared column can occur naturally, through shear force, and I have already explained how several times.  If my opponent wishes us to believe that there is no possible way that this column could have broken through shear force, then it is up to him to demostrate how he came to that conclusion.  Simply saying "reason is all that is needed to determine the absolute lunacy in your hypothesis" is not sufficient.

Incidentally, simply because shear force is one way in which this beam could have been severed, it is hardly the only way.  Despite what my opponent claimed, a torch (more specifically, a thermal lance, which is essentially a tube of magnesium with oxygen pumped through it) cut have cut through it quite readily.  This would have also left behind tell-tale slage meltings, and also the burn marks, of high-temp cutting.  If my opponent wishes to claim that, out of the multiple ways that a sheared beam could have occured, it occured due solely to shaped charges, then it is up to him to explain how we can narrow it down solely to that.

My opponent wishes that his word be unquestioned.  He would like us to believe that if he claims something, it is so.  Unfortunately for him, formal debates do not work in that manner (which is why Conspiracy Theoriest generally try to avoid them).  Another example beyond the one above, of a Conspiracy Theoriest trying to pass of his opinion as fact is the following:

"the examples put forth by me concerning the windsor building and the 24 hour fire that raged there is a testament to the absolute ridiculous notion that a hydrocarbon fire could have comprimised the integrity of steel"

Again, though, we cannot simply take him at his word.  What is needed is an actual explanation, not simply a claim.  In this statement, my opponent is making several assumptions that simply are not so.  The first is the notion that the Windsor Building fire was comparable to the WTC fire.  I have already explained how the Windsor fire was a standard fire, which began small in one area, grew, then spread gradually through the entire building.  The entire time, it was being doused with water from the fire-trucks.  At no time did the temperature go above 800 degrees.  In short, it behaved in exactly the manner that engineers and architects assume that a fire is going to behave in a high-rise, and consequently, the building remained stading, even though it had to be condemned.  The WTC, on the other hand, did not start small, nor did it spread gradually.  At the crash site, multiple levels were suddenly inundated with jet fuel.  The conflagration exploded throughout the entire floor instantaneously.  The temperature, lacking anything that might have cooled it off, soared.  All the fire safety measures that had been put into place were useless, as no one had expected an event that would have taken out all the essential components nestled safely in the core.  If my opponent wishes to compare the two building, he is going to have to show why they should be considered the same.  As it is, virtually the only thing the have in common is that they were both on fire.

He also, in the same paragraph, says "again i stress there was no need to bring fire into the equation of integrity concerning the high grade steel that was used as well as the design of the towers themselves".  Now, I cannot recall him mentioning this before, but it seems like he is saying that the fire would not have comprimised the integrity of the steel.  This is blatantly wrong.  A simple search on the internet will turn up hundreds of charts concerning fire-resistance charts.  What these are are charts that outline specifically, for every single sort of building material, exactly what the limits of it's fire-resistance are, and exactly how much fire-resistancy they should have, for any given use.  Beyond the technical number crunching, what this means is that not only is fire an major issue regarding integrity of any sort of building material, but it is an issue that is so important that every single piece structural component has been tested to find its exact failing point, and those failing points are recorded and set into print so that engineers can design around those known failing points.  In other words, We know that fire comprimises the strength of structural material, and we have to work around it.  There is absolutely nothing that cannot be eventually brought down by fire.

My opponent accuses me of breaking the laws of physics and enforces the point with an amusing little smiley, and yet, again, is unable to explain his point of view with anything other than "This is what I believe."  In this case, he believes that a shaped charge is blowing out one corner of the building.  He does not explain why we do not see any failure in the column (despite the entire building falling down around it!), and points to the jet of smoke as signs of a sahaped charge.

But what is a shaped charge?  Essentially, a shaped charge is an explosve that cuts instead of blows up.  Think of a steel box packed with plastic explosives.  Now, on the top part of the box, imagine replacing the steel with a copper "V" imbedded into the plastic.  What you have now are exposives surrounding the soft "V" metal.  When this is set off, what happens is that the eplosive force, tamped by the   steel box, is directed onto the copper "V".  The sides of the "V" slap together from the force, and this single blade of copper is now jetted forward at incredible speeds, literally melting and cutting anything in front of it.  When one places this shaped charge, let's say to cut a beam, the "V" would be flat on the beam surface, so that when it was activated, the metal blade formed by the explosion would cut through the surface of the beam like a knife.  This, ruthlessly compressed, is how a shaped charge acts.

Due to its nature, the range is not very much.  It is designed to work within the iommediate area.  Now, getting back to my opponents claims, he would have you believe that this shaped charge not only has the power to cut through the corner of the building, it also has the power to continue outwards several dozen feet beyond.  All this while not affecting the rest of the corner in any way.  I simply cannot think of how this could be accomplished.  If the shaped charge is so powerful that it would send a jet several dozen feet out the other side of the beam it was cutting, then we would, at a minimum, see a few shattered panes from the shockwave.  This doesn't even begin to address how something so absurdly powerful was put into place, either, not what its purpose would be.  Why cut the corners of the building?  They were not designed, nor were they capable of, holding the building up by themselves.  My opponent truly seems to be grasping at straws here, invoking explosives that do not work in the manner that he wants them to, doing a job that there is no explantion for, and resulting in physical reactions that are completly absent.

Now, we have heard several times, about how the "government" or official, explanation lacks so much credibility.  Obviously, since my opponent is unable to answer even the most basic of the layman questions posed here, the lack of credibility is not due to the actual arguments themselves.  Let's think about this:  NIST, what is it?  The NIST is a federal technology agency that works with industry to develop and apply technologies to the engineering and architectural field.  What does this mean?  This means that the NIST is the central gathering point for every single professional who works in this field.  Everyone.  The Journal of Research of NIST is considered a scientific journal, in that it is peer-reviewed and follows all the protocals of scientific methodology in the confirmation of the data it presents.  In was in this journal that the results of the studies of the WTC investigation was presented.  That means that, throughout the world, over 500,000 subscribers to the journal had full-access to the numbers, the data, the arguments, and the reasoning, that was presented as leading to the fall of the towers.  Subscribers ranged from the professional architects and engineers to the freshman students at universities.  All with the knowledge and training to understand and follow what was presented.  Conspiracy Theorists seem to thinnk that there is some sort of conspiracy occuring here, that there is something that the government has done to lie to the common people, but they simply refuse to address this very pertinent point:  the overwhelming vast majority of the people who actually work in the field, who are trained in how structures react, who can not only smell a lie in the field that they studied and trained in, but also rely on the information that NIST provides to be accurate so that they may do their job properly, somehow, Conspiracy Theorists wish for us to believe that the vast majority of these 500,000+ professionals have somehow been duped.  All of them.

This is what Conspiracy Theorists fear most of all:  They fear knowledge.  Their entire argument rests on the premise that no one will ask too many questions.  They specialize in seeding doubt, in asking questions, and claiming that they never receive answers, and yet, as we see here in this debate, it is the exact opposite that is true.  My opponent has made the exact same claims that are always made, except this time there is no ddenying that they have been addressed.  What is the response?  Nothing more than the claim that I am wrong, and he is right.  No explanation.  No reasoning.  Because my opponent does not believe it, he assumes that is sufficient counter.  Unable to hide the lack of argument, he attempts to change the subject and starts throwing in testimony.  That doesn't work in a formal debate.  It is abundantly clear that no answers will be forthcoming, simply more baseless accusations.  I invite my opponent to actually explain any of his claims, not simply hide behind the same old, rather pompous, "reason is all that is needed to determine the absolute lunacy in your hypothesis"


#24    Sunofone

Sunofone

    Libertus Invictus

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.Tx

  • "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

Posted 23 May 2006 - 05:26 AM

in conclusion i would just like to thank A1 for his participation and the mods for their time-- i feel that my presentation of particular video and still images and the referencing of a highly respected scholar clearly detailing the physics and a multitude of eye witness colaboration concerning the evidence demonstrates the impossibility of the "official" theory-- i dont think that the official theory holds any water and if images of black smoke is evidence of a raging 1200-1500 degree fire and a computer simulated hypothetical with fatal omissions is all that can be offered then i dont think there is much of an argument here-- also layed out was the motive,means and the history of its conception-- one last MESSAGE of truth concerning the WTC-- see you in the conspiracy forum thumbsup.gif

Edited by Sunofone, 23 May 2006 - 05:42 AM.

War is just a racket. I wouldnt go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket
Maj Gen S Butler
"the man that votes controls nothing-the man that counts the votes controls everything"
J Stalin
“The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."
A Hitler

#25    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 30 May 2006 - 12:37 AM

Allow me to ask a question:

Which is heavier:  A pound of gold, or a pound of feathers?

Think about it.  Really, think about it, and lock on to an answer before continuing.

...
...
...

We have, to this simple question, three possible arguments.  Arguments?  I thought we were looking for answers?  Well, yes, we are looking for answers, but in order to find the correct answer, it is first essential to have a correct argument.  So, what arguments do we have here?  

Well, the first would be that, since gold is heavier then feathers, the bag of gold must be the correct answer.  At face value, and to those who didn't wish to invest more than a few moments of thought on the matter, this seems to make sense.  Unfortunately, though the answer might well be correct, the argument is not valid.  Another moment's worth of thought brings us to the realization that the actual weight of the items is irrelevant, since we are not referring to quantity, but rather to a fixed weight, in this case a pound.  Because of that, it does not matter if gold is heavier than feathers, and therefore the argument, regardless of weather we got a right answer out of it or not, is invalid.

If we know that the weight is one pound for each bag, then the answer becomes clear, doesn't it?  If we have one pound of gold, and one pound of feathers, then both must weigh the same, ergo "Which is heavier?"  is answered with "Neither.  They are both equal".  The argument certainly seems valid, which would indicate that the answer should be correct.

So we have two answers to "Which is heavier?" so far:  1) The bag of gold, and 2) Neither.  Did any of you pick any of these two answers?

The correct answer is 3) The bag of feathers.

What have I done here?  I have submitted a claim that goes against any of the curently existing arguments, one of which isn't very strong, and the other which seems quite strong indeed.  My answer is currently little more than an opinion without an argument of its own backing it up.  So, here it is:

When weighing a bag of feathers, one uses the US system of measurement units.  A pound of feathers, therefore, weighs sixteen ounces, because one pound is the equivalent of sixteen ounces, regardless of which sundry material you are weighing.  Gold, on the other hand, is a precious metal, and precious metals are not measured as sundry items, but rather they are measured using Troy Measurements, and in one Troy pound of Gold, there are only fourteen ounces.  Suddenly, we have a new answer:  If a bag of feathers weights 16 ounces, and a bag of gold weighs 14 ounces, then the answer to the question of "Which is heaviest?" is "The bag of feathers.".

What was the big difference between the final argument and the first two arguments?  It was this:  The first argument contained knowledge, but not logic.  The second argument contained logic, but not knowledge.  The third argument contained both logic and knowledge.

Facts are simple things:  You can quite accurately claim that gold is heavier than feathers, but facts alone will not lead you to a correct answer.  Logic is a powerful guide, but one must be careful not to forsake knowledge in pursuit of logic.  Only when both knowledge and logic are used together can we come to the most likely answer to our questions, not merely about this hypothetical situation, but also in those that we encounter in the real world.

My opponent has presented many facts, such as a video of WTC7 collapsing, but has not followed through with the logic behind his claim.  A picture presented to him showing that the building did not fall straight down, as was implied, but rather as a domino, with the back walls neatly lying on top of the wreckage, like a blanket, got nothing more than a contemptuous snort (this from a person who claimed that I had a mental block that prevented me from seeing the information in a given picture).

My opponent has presented logic, but not facts, such as his attempts to describe demolition works.  Yes, a shaped charge could have created the puff of smoke he indicated, however the manner in which charges are created and the manner in which they are applied do not correspond with how demolition charges work, and therefore the same claim can be made with any sort of explosive device.  My opponent might as well have said that a cannon placed at the window qould have caused the puff; factually true, but lacking in the logic needed for it to exist in the first place.

What my opponent has not done, however, is apply both knowledge and logic at the same time.  Every single time, without exception, he has dodged the issue, and attempted to escape notice by calling on higher authority.  He has dropped the name of a single PhD who has published a paper, but didn't actually link the paper itself, but rather to some similar claims to his own that are not addressed in the formal paper.  Similarly, he does not mention that the paper deals solely with physics, not with erchitecture and engineering, and that at the very same university, their very own college of engineering has made the statement that they do not consider the physics paper to reflect the reality of engineering and construction.

Be very wary of people demanding that you look for truth, for more often then not, they are more interested in you believing what they are claiming then in any search for truth.  In the course of this debate, the physical collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, as described by the NIST, a worldwide group of architects and engineers, has not generated a whisper of opposition from the professionals who not only understand the machanics of building collapse, but rely on the NIST to be correct, in order to continue building high-rises safely.  The only opposition you hear stems from those without the knowledge to make their arguments.

I thank you for your time, and I bid you adieu as you leave the tent.  Please take with you a bag of gold, and a bag of feathers, as you weigh what has been presented to you, and have a wonderful summer.


#26    AztecInca

AztecInca

    Martian

  • Member
  • 9,013 posts
  • Joined:13 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

  • All it takes for evil to triumph, is for good people to do nothing.

Posted 03 June 2006 - 01:59 AM

Thank-you to both our debaters, you both did a fantastic job!

I shall now hand this debate over to the debate judges. thumbsup.gif


#27    TooFarGone

TooFarGone

    Blissfully Chaotic

  • Member
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2004

  • I am chaos at its finest


Posted 03 June 2006 - 12:55 PM

Debater 1: aquatus1
Relevancy: 9
Countering: 8
Style: 10
Persuasiveness: 10
Total: 37

Debater 2: Sunofone
Relevancy: 8
Countering: 5
Style: 5
Persuasiveness: 6
Total: 24

EDIT: Forgot to comment tongue.gif

Great job to both. Sunofone, for future debates please try to capitalize, and use spell check. These are just simple things, and make a world of difference in the score you receive

Edited by TooFarGone, 03 June 2006 - 12:58 PM.

Too / FarGone
TooFar_Gone
TooFa/ rGone
TooFarG_one
T_oo/FarGone
Too/Far_Gone
Too_Far_Gone

#28    Sunofone

Sunofone

    Libertus Invictus

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,039 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.Tx

  • "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

Posted 03 June 2006 - 04:52 PM

congrats to A1-- i guess that flowery mental imagery thing worked out for you-- i guess "the truth" is irrelavent

War is just a racket. I wouldnt go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket
Maj Gen S Butler
"the man that votes controls nothing-the man that counts the votes controls everything"
J Stalin
“The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."
A Hitler

#29    TooFarGone

TooFarGone

    Blissfully Chaotic

  • Member
  • 3,682 posts
  • Joined:21 Sep 2004

  • I am chaos at its finest


Posted 03 June 2006 - 04:58 PM

The judging isnt over......

Edited by TooFarGone, 03 June 2006 - 04:58 PM.

Too / FarGone
TooFar_Gone
TooFa/ rGone
TooFarG_one
T_oo/FarGone
Too/Far_Gone
Too_Far_Gone

#30    __Kratos__

__Kratos__

    -Staring-

  • Member
  • 25,876 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside the moon

Posted 03 June 2006 - 07:42 PM

Debater 1: aquatus1

Relevancy: 9
Countering: 10
Style: 9
Persuasiveness: 10
Total: 38

Debater 2: Sunofone

Relevancy: 9
Countering: 10
Style: 7
Persuasiveness: 8
Total: 34

Great debate the both of you. Lots of information from both sides and a wealth of personal knowledge thrown in to your posts. I hope to see both of you sometime in the future for other debates. thumbsup.gif

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to PM AztecInca or tiddlyjen.



"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ~Philip K. Dick




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users