Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Viral

Why People Believe in Conspiracies

145 posts in this topic

Hmm, Afghanistan subservient? I'd say the jury was still out on that. :hmm:

There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan right now.

The current President is a guy who worked with the U.S. even before 9/11.

I don’t think anything else needs be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan right now.

The current President is a guy who worked with the U.S. even before 9/11.

I don’t think anything else needs be said.

Well, exactly. Those 100,000 who are tied up in Afghanistan aren't going to be able to be used to do much else expand the American empire, are they? It's just a drain on manpower and resources, without very much in the way of benefits for the US in return (yes, people can say that they control a pipeline, or the poppy trade or so on, but really, how much of a return is that for all the effort?) It's hardly as if they can use it as a secure base for further expansionism, since they've got their hands quite full enough already. It reminds me rather of Napoleon's adventure in Spain.

Actually, I'm not even necessarily arguing that this proves that it was not engineered by the Neo-Cons; just that, if it was, then I'm really not sure how successful it really has been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an answer but I don't care whether you think I have one or not. lol

There, there, sure you do, and you'll tell the world real soon now.

Maybe you should re-read again because I never argued anything remotely like what you are suggesting. :rolleyes:

You mean that post #43 wasn't yours?

What I said and will point out again is that if you believe that a plane can hit the towers and destroy them. i.e. Collapse without any explosives.

Then any argument that a demolition theory would require tons of explosives, many men to prepare or that it would take weeks etc etc is a logical fallacy because you believe it was achieved without any explosives.

Therefore any argument that it would require x amount of explosives, or require x amount of men, or x amount of weeks is instantly invalid unless you somehow believe that by adding explosives, it would somehow make the towers less likely to collapse. lol

hahahahaha!! Talk about the wrong end of the stick!

I don't recall ever claiming that a single small charge would be all that is required because frankly I do not think the planes did a very good job on either tower and especially on WTC7. Hence the reason I support the possibility of a demolition theory because frankly without it, all 3 of those towers would have possibly stood.

Oh yeah because the reasons against a controlled demolition theory logically do not make any sense.

The total lack of logic lies in your confusing what is required for the official story and what is required for the "inside job", and the above does nothing to convince me that you even understand that there is a difference.

If the planes and fires are enough, per the official story, you do not need a controlled demolition.

If they are not, per the "inside job" theory, then you need all the extra people involved in planning and setting up that demolition. If the planes and fires are not just short of good enough, then you need a big set-up.

And to answer your question, because the NIST conspiracy theories are perfectly normal even without any evidence to support their theory apparently!! lol

I love the way that in consecutive posts you deny that an "inside job" would require more conspirators than the official story, and also claim that an "inside job" requires NIST to be in on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There, there, sure you do, and you'll tell the world real soon now.
It's no secret Swanny, I've made the same argument for over 6 years sonshine. lol
You mean that post #43 wasn't yours?
Yes, post 43 was mine but you obviously got it all wrapped around your head and created an argument that I never made in that post or any other.

But then creating arguments is something of a speciality of yours? An imagination far wilder than any conspiracy theorists I've ever met. lol

The total lack of logic lies in your confusing what is required for the official story and what is required for the "inside job", and the above does nothing to convince me that you even understand that there is a difference.
hahahahahaha!! I notice you think there is a difference in what is required for official story and an inside job but that just highlights that you not a critical thinker and that you are pseudo skeptic.

Both require the same standards although your bias says otherwise.

If the planes and fires are enough, per the official story, you do not need a controlled demolition.
I know, but that is if you believe that planes and fires are all that are needed.

But that isn't what I believe.......lol

And you forget that in the case of WTC 7, no planes were needed!! :w00t:

If they are not, per the "inside job" theory, then you need all the extra people involved in planning and setting up that demolition.
Yes, I know....but if you believe that no CD theory is needed, then one person could plant a small bomb and still achieve the same result.

Making your argument that all the extra people needed planning and setting up irrelevant because it can be done without it. lol

If the planes and fires are not just short of good enough, then you need a big set-up.
But I don't need a big set up by your own logic, you say that the planes and fires are enough, so if you believe that then no big set up is needed.
I love the way that in consecutive posts you deny that an "inside job" would require more conspirators than the official story, and also claim that an "inside job" requires NIST to be in on it.
Fricking hell........ :w00t:

I don't deny that an inside job would require more conspirators, but what I do deny is that it requires 10's, 100's or 1000's of people when all it could take is one person in the correct position to allow it to happen.

And where the ****ing hell did I EVER argue or even suggest that the NIST be in on it?? hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

WOW your imagination is amazing, cause I don't recall ever claiming anything of a sort but somehow that is what you have pulled out from your imagination.

Maybe the NIST did the best job they could with the available evidence they had? Like 2% of the steel, none of which was from the plane/fire effected areas and 0% steel for WTC7.

However, you keep bringing these strawmen up because it points out clearly to the forum readers that you are not arguing with me, but arguing with yourself. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no secret Swanny, I've made the same argument for over 6 years sonshine. lol

Must be getting depressing, all that time and you can't convince anyone. Perhaps I'm right that you don't have that "smoking gun".

Yes, post 43 was mine but you obviously got it all wrapped around your head and created an argument that I never made in that post or any other.

You said in post #43:

I got to say I love the argument I often hear from fake-pseudo debunkers who claim that for 9/11 to be an inside job, it would require hundreds/thousands of people, yet in the same breath think that it was the mastermind of 1 man in a cave, given instruction to 19 of his men.

and you say now:

I don't deny that an inside job would require more conspirators, but what I do deny is that it requires 10's, 100's or 1000's of people when all it could take is one person in the correct position to allow it to happen.

There are obviously different versions of the conspiracy theory, because conspiracists can't agree on the details. The "one person allowed it to happen" version is somewhat more plausible than most other versions, but it is these other versions that you and others support on this forum. These other versions need conspirators for controlled demolition of three very large buildings, remote-control aircraft, spiriting away the evidence and covering it all up. You argue for these other versions right here:

And you forget that in the case of WTC 7, no planes were needed!!

and here:

Maybe the NIST did the best job they could with the available evidence they had? Like 2% of the steel, none of which was from the plane/fire effected areas and 0% steel for WTC7.

By your own quotes, I am not making strawman arguments. Your argument in post #43 is contradicted by your own arguments on controlled demolition and removal of evidence. This is the point I made when I first responded to post #43, and you have been trying to wriggle out of the ludicrous position of arguing with yourself ever since.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Must be getting depressing, all that time and you can't convince anyone.
Depressing?? lol Why would I be depressed when you provide so many laughs for me as you continue on your path of self deception in the belief you are debunking. lol
Perhaps I'm right that you don't have that "smoking gun".
I'm sure if I showed you a smoking gun, you would claim it's a smoking kipper! lol
There are obviously different versions of the conspiracy theory, because conspiracists can't agree on the details.
That's because the people you group and label as conspiracists are individuals.

And even the official story worshippers can't agree on the details either, I mean how did the towers collapse exactly?

Pancakes, Pile Driver, truss failure - Take your pick? lol

The "one person allowed it to happen" version is somewhat more plausible than most other versions, but it is these other versions that you and others support on this forum.
Why is the "one person allowed it to happen" more plausible than the "two persons allowed it to happen"? lol

And you haven't got a clue what I or others think? Remember you claimed that we conspiracist can't agree on the details. lol

These other versions need conspirators for controlled demolition of three very large buildings, remote-control aircraft, spiriting away the evidence and covering it all up.
No they don't....lol

People can be fooled or duped into doing something covertly that they are not aware of, so they don't have to be conspirators at all.

By your own quotes, I am not making strawman arguments.
Yes you are....lol
Your argument in post #43 is contradicted by your own arguments on controlled demolition and removal of evidence.
How so?? lol
This is the point I made when I first responded to post #43, and you have been trying to wriggle out of the ludicrous position of arguing with yourself ever since.
You are not getting this are you?? lol

It was never my position, do you understand this?? lol

The point was to highlight the ridiculous assertions made by people like you who claim a demolition is not possible because of the reasons I gave in various posts, you know...It requires x amount of men, x amount of explosives, x amount of time to plant them.......

Your theory requires no explosives making any reason why it's not possible a logical fallacy because 1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute could destroy the towers by your own logic.

Not mine!! hahahahahahahaha!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahahahaha!!

hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

lol

hahahahahahahaha!!!

I'm sorry, have you been possessed by the spirit of Dr. Evil?

By the eloquence of your argument, you're making a lot of converts to your cause, I must say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, have you been possessed by the spirit of Dr. Evil?
No, I am actually Dr Evil. lol
By the eloquence of your argument, you're making a lot of converts to your cause, I must say.
Why thank you 747400, although eloquence is not something I'm reknown for and I do not know what my cause is suppose to be?? lol

Naturally, you are focusing on the lol's and the hahaha's which is quite easy to do with my posts but it appears you have missed the whole point of the argument.

This reminds me of a fable about a man who was looking at a girl with her breasts out, he liked the look of the breasts and gave out the usual phwoar noise, then stop to take a look at the girl when he realised that the girl with her breast exposed was in fact his daughter.

And the moral of the story is......stop focusing on the breasts. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure if I showed you a smoking gun, you would claim it's a smoking kipper! lol

Try me.

And even the official story worshippers can't agree on the details either, I mean how did the towers collapse exactly?

Pancakes, Pile Driver, truss failure - Take your pick? lol

Try two detailed engineering failure reports.

Why is the "one person allowed it to happen" more plausible than the "two persons allowed it to happen"? lol

Because the fewer people involved, the easier to keep a secret.

And you haven't got a clue what I or others think?

I can only go by your posts, which I quoted.

People can be fooled or duped into doing something covertly that they are not aware of, so they don't have to be conspirators at all.

Very plausible. "All you people engaged in the clean-up, make sure that if you find anything that looks like wires and detonators, put it in this box here."

Yes you are....lol

How can I possibly counter such an argument?

The point was to highlight the ridiculous assertions made by people like you who claim a demolition is not possible because of the reasons I gave in various posts, you know...It requires x amount of men, x amount of explosives, x amount of time to plant them.......

Your theory requires no explosives making any reason why it's not possible a logical fallacy because 1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute could destroy the towers by your own logic.

There you go again, completely failing to see the difference between the two scenarios.

In your theory, the impacts and fires cannot bring down the buildings, so you need a big demolition set-up. These are very large buildings. This is where the "x amount of men, x amount of explosives, x amount of time to plant them......." comes from. Your suggesting "1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute" is part of your theory, not mine, in the special case where the impacts/fires are just not quite sufficient to bring down a building, and you say you are not claiming that.

In my theory, the impacts and fires bring down the buildings, so I don't need any explosives. This is the theory that just requires 19 hijackers and maybe a few helpers. In my theory, "1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute" would not bring the buildings down, because very large buildings that are not damaged by fires or impacts are not that vulnerable.

Not mine!! hahahahahahahaha!!!

Another unbeatable argument, I don't know how you think them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try me.

No thanks, for someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to accept the possibility that Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC before the commission claims is always going suggest it's a kipper, not a gun. lol
Try two detailed engineering failure reports.
So which collapse theory does these 2 details failure reports support?

Pancake Collapse?

Truss Failure Collapse?

Pile Driver Collapse?

I can only go by your posts, which I quoted.
But you get my posts all wrapped around your head and argue point that I have never made! lol
Very plausible. "All you people engaged in the clean-up, make sure that if you find anything that looks like wires and detonators, put it in this box here."
And why would people in the clean up be looking for wires and detonators? lol

You assume that in all the tons of rubble that these things would be found and that those in the clean up would know exactly what to look for.

Forgetting that those involved in the clean up were doing just that, cleaning up and not examining everything they picked up in the quick clean up operation.

And there were missing bodies that were never recovered or found either making your entire point moot.

How can I possibly counter such an argument?
By actually providing answers to the questions you are dodging.

It's very simple. lol

here you go again, completely failing to see the difference between the two scenarios.
I see the difference, the problem is you do not see the logical fallacy of your theory.
In your theory, the impacts and fires cannot bring down the buildings, so you need a big demolition set-up.
No, it doesn't necessarily need a big demolition setup, it needs a setup that would do the job.

That could be big, that could be small, that could be done in multiple ways as well.

And you prove my point in that you believe planes and fires or in the case of WTC7 fire alone can do the job, but somehow it needs a big demolition.

Maybe demolition companies should start using fires. Much quicker than setting up all those demolition charges. lol

These are very large buildings.
No ****.
This is where the "x amount of men, x amount of explosives, x amount of time to plant them......." comes from. Your suggesting "1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute" is part of your theory, not mine, in the special case where the impacts/fires are just not quite sufficient to bring down a building, and you say you are not claiming that.
Are you special?? lol

I'm sure I have claimed time and time again that this is not my position, infact I'm sure I posted that this is not my theory but somehow you want to conclude it is when all it serves is to point out the hypocrisy of your argumemt.

I don't think it would only require 1 man, 1 explosive or 1 hour to cause the building to collapse. Do you understand this?? :w00t:

The point is you believe that no explosives were needed, therefore any rejection that a demolition is not possible because of x amount of men, x amount of explosive and x amount of time is not a vliad argument because by your own theory, none is needed.

Therefore a logical fallacy.

I think it would take more than one man, one explosive and more than an hour to demolish the buildings because I do not believe that the planes and fire alone could do it, especially in the case of WTC7.

So there is no logically fallacy on my part and neither am I arguing that point.

Of course this goes flying above your head like the swan your name suggests....yet again!! lol

In my theory, the impacts and fires bring down the buildings, so I don't need any explosives.

Here we go, stating the obvious in the belief you have a point.

I know you don't need explosives, that's the point.

If you believe that a demoltion theory is not possible because it would require x mem, x amount of time and x amount of explosives, then you are employing a logical fallacy because you have admitted that none are needed, so the reasons why it's not possible in your own theory are possible because one only of each would be needed.

In my theory, "1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute" would not bring the buildings down, because very large buildings that are not damaged by fires or impacts are not that vulnerable.

So if 1 man, with 1 explosive in just 1 minute would not bring down the buildings, then how do you explain that no men, with no explosives in no minutes would still bring the very large building down?? lol

In others words, if no explosives are needed to bring the buildings down, then are you suggest that by adding explosives this would somehow make the building not collapse?? lol

Another unbeatable argument, I don't know how you think them up.

Well how is it my theory when I've stated many times this is not what I believe or what I am proposing, but to serve a purpose and highlight the logical fallacy of official story worshippers such as yourself...lol

Plane & Fire Damage & No explosives = Building Collapse

Plane & Fire Damage & Explosives = Building Doesn't Collapse

Do you not see how stupid your argument is?? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks, for someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to accept the possibility that Dick Cheney arrived at the PEOC before the commission claims is always going suggest it's a kipper, not a gun. lol

You haven't got a smoking gun. If you had, you would produce it.

So which collapse theory does these 2 details failure reports support?

Pancake Collapse?

Truss Failure Collapse?

Pile Driver Collapse?

Why should a complex sequence of events be summed up in two or three words of your choosing? The simplest summaries I can think of are:

Towers: Impacts damage structure, fires further weaken structural elements, truss sagging causes walls to bow and thus weaken. Combination of these factors exceeds building safety margin, structural failure at impact level, top of building drops, dynamic loads too great for lower part to withstand leading to progressive collapse.

WTC7: Fires cause differential thermal expansion which breaks joints between beams and columns, one column becomes so unsupported by beams that it fails a few floors above ground level leading to progressive failure of remaining columns. Most of internal structure is gone by time failure progresses to outer walls, which being now unsupported over several floors give way rapidly causing upper walls to drop without significant resistance.

And why would people in the clean up be looking for wires and detonators? lol

You assume that in all the tons of rubble that these things would be found and that those in the clean up would know exactly what to look for.

Forgetting that those involved in the clean up were doing just that, cleaning up and not examining everything they picked up in the quick clean up operation.

You forget that the local engineering bodies had teams on site early in the clean-up looking for evidence of the collapse mechanism, and these people would know evidence of a demolition when they saw it.

And there were missing bodies that were never recovered or found either making your entire point moot.

So not finding some bodies means you wont find any demolition evidence? That's logic?

I see the difference, the problem is you do not see the logical fallacy of your theory.

No, it doesn't necessarily need a big demolition setup, it needs a setup that would do the job.

That could be big, that could be small, that could be done in multiple ways as well.

Big buildings need big set-ups.

And you prove my point in that you believe planes and fires or in the case of WTC7 fire alone can do the job, but somehow it needs a big demolition.

No, you believe it needs a big demolition, unless you believe that the impacts and fires were just not enough.

I'm sure I have claimed time and time again that this is not my position, infact I'm sure I posted that this is not my theory but somehow you want to conclude it is when all it serves is to point out the hypocrisy of your argumemt.

Perhaps it would help if you explained exactly what your theory is.

I don't think it would only require 1 man, 1 explosive or 1 hour to cause the building to collapse. Do you understand this?? :w00t:

So do you believe it would need a bigger effort?

The point is you believe that no explosives were needed, therefore any rejection that a demolition is not possible because of x amount of men, x amount of explosive and x amount of time is not a vliad argument because by your own theory, none is needed.

Therefore a logical fallacy.

I don't believe explosives were needed, but the question is: "Do you believe they were?"

I think it would take more than one man, one explosive and more than an hour to demolish the buildings because I do not believe that the planes and fire alone could do it, especially in the case of WTC7.

So you admit that in your theory it would take a big effort? But at the same time you claim it would be no bigger than 19 hijackers?

Well how is it my theory when I've stated many times this is not what I believe or what I am proposing, but to serve a purpose and highlight the logical fallacy of official story worshippers such as yourself...lol

It defies belief that you can tie yourself up in knots like that and still think you have logic on your side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of internal structure is gone by time failure progresses to outer walls

so what was supporting the roof then, during this time when "most of internal structure is gone".

...and how can the external walls fall down for 100 feet without any energy?

it fell at freefall speed, at freefall ALL the available energy (potential energy) is converted to kinetic energy (freefall motion). there's no energy left for crush damage or buckling.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what was supporting the roof then, during this time when "most of internal structure is gone".

Nothing, that's why the penthouses disappear into the building a few seconds before the walls move.

...and how can the external walls fall down for 100 feet without any energy?

it fell at freefall speed, at freefall ALL the available energy (potential energy) is converted to kinetic energy (freefall motion). there's no energy left for crush damage or buckling.

The energy lost in that way is too small to measure. If you recall, I recently provided the numbers for you on another thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=195587&st=0&p=3677317entry3677317

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing, that's why the penthouses disappear into the building a few seconds before the walls move.

the small east penthouse fell, the much larger west penthouse and the rest of the roof didn't fall, so what supported that when "most of internal structure is gone", the answer is obvious - most of the internal structure is not gone prior to global collapse of the building.
The energy lost in that way is too small to measure. If you recall, I recently provided the numbers for you on another thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=195587&st=0&p=3677317entry3677317

firstly you have used erroneous NIST analysis which times the collapse 2 seconds before actual collapse as pointed out and measured by David Chandler.

you mention scatter of individual data measurements giving an average of 32.196 ft/s/s (freefall) as if that somehow means it did not fall at freefall. you are comparing error in a single individual measurement to a supposed (and false) accumulated error in final velocity after 2.25 seconds.

things cannot fall faster than freefall, with summation of measurements+scatter over 2.25 seconds it comes to exactly freefall of 32 feet per second, so there is no resistance to buckling within the average of measurements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the small east penthouse fell, the much larger west penthouse and the rest of the roof didn't fall, so what supported that when "most of internal structure is gone", the answer is obvious - most of the internal structure is not gone prior to global collapse of the building.

Look at the videos again. The west penthouse definitely collapses before the main walls, the east end has gone before any significant movement of the walls and only the far west corner is visible by the time the fall is really in progress.

firstly you have used erroneous NIST analysis which times the collapse 2 seconds before actual collapse as pointed out and measured by David Chandler.

Which alters my argument how? What difference does the selection of the origin time make to the measured acceleration? Does Chandler claim the scatter in measured velocity is smaller?

you mention scatter of individual data measurements giving an average of 32.196 ft/s/s (freefall) as if that somehow means it did not fall at freefall. you are comparing error in a single individual measurement to a supposed (and false) accumulated error in final velocity after 2.25 seconds.

things cannot fall faster than freefall, with summation of measurements+scatter over 2.25 seconds it comes to exactly freefall of 32 feet per second, so there is no resistance to buckling within the average of measurements.

I didn't say it could go faster than free-fall, I said the residual resistance would not make a measurable difference to the acceleration. It would only change the final velocity by less than 1 ft/s, which is a lot smaller than the velocity scatter in either the NIST or the Chandler analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the videos again. The west penthouse definitely collapses before the main walls, the east end has gone before any significant movement of the walls and only the far west corner is visible by the time the fall is really in progress.

a fraction of a second before, you were claiming that the internal structure was gone before the external walls fell, are you now saying that the internal structure was collapsing a fraction of a second before the external walls buckled? that would mean that the external walls and the internal structure were collapsing at the same time. your argument has been that the internal structure collapsed to the ground before the external walls buckled.

I said the residual resistance would not make a measurable difference to the acceleration. It would only change the final velocity by less than 1 ft/s, which is a lot smaller than the velocity scatter in either the NIST or the Chandler analysis.

you did not show how acceleration would be reduced by 2.6%, you just stated it with circular reasoning. when averaging measurements with measurement error the final result will converge to its true value, errors will not compound the final result. The more data you have, the more precise the result. the average of measurements comes out at precisely freefall. if buckling reduced the acceleration by 2.6%, then the averaged measurement would have come out 2.6% below freefall. you cannot compare a single snapshot measurement with an averaged measurement.

its like throwing a six sided D6 dice for the measurement error, summation and average of 28.5 + D6 will converge to 32 the more measurements are taken. its a fallacy to say you rolled a one, therefore the true value will be between 29.5 and 32, and therefore a fallacy to say buckling is contained within the range (29.5 - 32.0)

if there was buckling or deformation of steel, then the final averaged measurement would be less than freefall, but the averaged measurement came out at precisely freefall.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You haven't got a smoking gun. If you had, you would produce it.
Why produce a smoking gun to someone who will claim it's a smoking kipper!! lol

You are not exactly honest are you?? lol

Why should a complex sequence of events be summed up in two or three words of your choosing?
They are not words of my choosing, they are well known building failures models.

So take your pick.

The simplest summaries I can think of are:

Towers: Impacts damage structure, fires further weaken structural elements, truss sagging causes walls to bow and thus weaken. Combination of these factors exceeds building safety margin, structural failure at impact level, top of building drops, dynamic loads too great for lower part to withstand leading to progressive collapse.

So what is that? A pancake or truss failure? lol
WTC7: Fires cause differential thermal expansion which breaks joints between beams and columns, one column becomes so unsupported by beams that it fails a few floors above ground level leading to progressive failure of remaining columns. Most of internal structure is gone by time failure progresses to outer walls, which being now unsupported over several floors give way rapidly causing upper walls to drop without significant resistance.
And what kind of collapse is that, the single column fire induced collapse theory?? lol
You forget that the local engineering bodies had teams on site early in the clean-up looking for evidence of the collapse mechanism, and these people would know evidence of a demolition when they saw it.
How would they know evidence of a demolition if they never tested for it.

And if it's that obvious, why do tests for explosives?? lol

So not finding some bodies means you wont find any demolition evidence? That's logic?
No, finding anything within the rubble when you are not searching but clearing up doesn't mean you will find much of anything, either detonators, wires or bodies.
Big buildings need big set-ups.
Not any more they don't, they just need to cut the same columns the plane damaged caused and start a fire.

Or in the case of WTC7, just start a fire.

No explosives needed for your theory, yet my theory requires a big setup? lol

Nice to see you employing the logical fallacy even after I pointed it out to you!! lol

No, you believe it needs a big demolition, unless you believe that the impacts and fires were just not enough.
Where have I said it needs a big demolition?? lol

Are you going off to fantasy land and creating arguments I've never made again?? lol Sure looks like it too me.

And yes I believe impacts and fires were not enough or in the case of WTC7, the fires were not enough, but that doesn't automatically mean it must be a big demolition.

Funny that you think it needs a big demolition, yet in the same breath are arguing the logical fallacy that it's only requires a plane hitting a small percentage of the building and subsequent fires to do the same trick. Or just fires alone in the case of WTC7.

Pathetic!! lol

Perhaps it would help if you explained exactly what your theory is.
My theory is that it was a demolition, how it was done, how much explosives were needed, god knows!
So do you believe it would need a bigger effort?
Of course!! lol
I don't believe explosives were needed, but the question is: "Do you believe they were?"
Yes.
So you admit that in your theory it would take a big effort?
No, not really.
But at the same time you claim it would be no bigger than 19 hijackers?
What the ****?? lol Where did I claim it would be no bigger than 19 hijackers?? lol

Talk about misinterpreting an argument, but it's something you appear to do to make it look like you are debunking. lol

It defies belief that you can tie yourself up in knots like that and still think you have logic on your side.
I'm not the one tied up in knots. lol

And logic is on my side as you are pointing out, in your theory no explosives are needed, yet in a demolition under the same conditions, lots of explosives are needed.

So unless by planting lots and lots of explosives as in a big set up in a demolition theory would be required to make the towers collapse, I find it highly amusing that you think none are needed for the towers to collapse.

The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you think that by adding explosives would make the building more stable unless of course it was a big set up?? lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a fraction of a second before, you were claiming that the internal structure was gone before the external walls fell, are you now saying that the internal structure was collapsing a fraction of a second before the external walls buckled? that would mean that the external walls and the internal structure were collapsing at the same time. your argument has been that the internal structure collapsed to the ground before the external walls buckled.

You seem to misunderstand my arguments, possibly my use of the word "gone" to indicate failed didn't help. I didn't say that the internal structure collapsed to the ground before the walls moved. I said that the internal structure failed first, with a progressive failure that eventually reached the walls. The minimum condition for the walls to be effectively unsupported is that the beams linking the walls to the interior columns must no longer be attached at one or other end. Note that the east penthouse goes before the west one, just as the walls start to go first towards the east end of the building, indicating the direction that the failures progress.

you did not show how acceleration would be reduced by 2.6%, you just stated it with circular reasoning. when averaging measurements with measurement error the final result will converge to its true value, errors will not compound the final result. The more data you have, the more precise the result. the average of measurements comes out at precisely freefall. if buckling reduced the acceleration by 2.6%, then the averaged measurement would have come out 2.6% below freefall. you cannot compare a single snapshot measurement with an averaged measurement.

You claimed that nothing could weaken the structure enough for it to collapse with no apparent resistance. I showed using a standard engineering calculation for buckling failure that if the wall was unsupported over eight floors, it would only have 2.6% of the strength required to support itself. I showed that this much resistance, even ignoring the further loss of strength once buckling starts, was too small to be measured.

You seem to expect that the average value of something will come out correct even if the individual values are in error. This is not the case, there is always a margin of error in the average that depends on the errors in the individual values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**Stundie, cut the term "lol" out of your posts. Using it 15 times at one go can easily be construed as baiting. See if you can argue your position without using such a childish tactic every other sentence**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
**Stundie, cut the term "lol" out of your posts. Using it 15 times at one go can easily be construed as baiting. See if you can argue your position without using such a childish tactic every other sentence**
I'm sorry if you think I am using a childish tactic by using the term "lol" but it's only a response to the childish and very comical fantasised arguments, blatant misrepresentation, deceit and wilful ignorance that comes from the other side of the debate.

I think it's tragic that you think the term "lol" could be construed as baiting, when all I am doing by using it is to express my feelings as I write. Typed words on an internet screen don't always convey the authors thoughts, tone, or the context of what they are writing which can lose meaning or be lost in translation. My use of the term is just expressing the laughter I am expressing as I respond.

Now I agree you and others might find it annoying that I am constantly laughing or "lol"ing but put the shoe on the other foot for a moment and take a look at what I am dealing with here.

Here is just an example....

Flyingswan said to me.

"In your theory, the impacts and fires cannot bring down the buildings, so you need a big demolition set-up."

Then in the next post I responded with.

"No, it doesn't necessarily need a big demolition setup, it needs a setup that would do the job. That could be big, that could be small, that could be done in multiple ways as well."

Flyingswan then responds with this.

"No, you believe it needs a big demolition, unless you believe that the impacts and fires were just not enough."

And I respond with.

"Where have I said it needs a big demolition?? lol"

How else am I to respond? Keep repeating myself in the hope he eventually gets what I am saying? Please don't tell me to take his argument seriously?? Unless of course, I am missing something here....

Flyingswan is blatantly and evidently misrepresenting my position which is not classed or even construed as baiting, but my response to him is? Because I dare to laugh at him while asking him to show me "Where have I said it needs a big demolition??" which he claims that I believe in. :o

As I said, I understand that you might find my "lol" annoying or childish or whatever, but I find that my opponents debate is all of these things too.

Rather than get angry or annoyed, I laugh.....Someone once said "Life's a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel!"

So rather than feel angry or annoyed, I think about it and laugh about it.

Now of course, you are a mod on the forum, so I will respect the rules of the forum and your request.

But please don't try and attribute what you think my "lol"ing is about by construing it childish or baiting when they are nothing more than a reaction to the childish baiting that I am on the receiving end of.

Cheers

Stundie :)

p.s. Is there a quota or is it an outright ban on my use of "lol"??

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.