Debunk-liners

[ref]

Questions that they just don't have an answer to.

- If they could fake the planes in live TV feeds with almost no delay, why haven't they been able to fake a plane into Pentagon footage in 6 years?

- If there were no planes, why haven't we seen a single TV or amateur video, or heard an eyewitness testimony of a tower suddenly exploding without any plane approaching?

- How did the NWO know beforehand, that the north tower would collapse into WTC7, so the debris could be blamed for the damage and starting fires?

- If the Pentagon FDR data is faked, why did they fake it to show a fly-over and not a hit?

- If fire does nothing to steel, why do they fireproof steel?

- If NWO kills enemies and takes away freedom of speech, why are the truthers allowed to exist, publish books, movies and arrange events?

There are many many more. Feel free to add any that come to mind. Questions that kill their theories.

[Digest]

-why did Larry Silverstien (who was in on it) agree to LOSE millions of dollars in the whole destroying and then rebuilding the WTC complex

- why didnt they just blame it on Saddam

- why do they all keep getting fired or resigning?

- not create WMD in Iraq (why subject themselves to that blunder?)

- why are people all not on trial with the "evidence" they have?

[qarnos]

Excellent points. I've been thinking of putting together a debunking video which takes this approach and these are points I could make use of. Rather than pointing out the many factual errors, I plan to point out the simple logical inconsistencies of the various theories. Even if their facts are right (which, obviously, they are not) the theories just don't gel together!

[sleahead]

Yes, good points. The question I want an answer to is why WTC7 was demolished. Or, more accurately, I want an answer that isn't patently ludicrous.

[qarnos]

Yes, good points. The question I want an answer to is why WTC7 was demolished. Or, more accurately, I want an answer that isn't patently ludicrous.

Well, if you don't want ludicrous answers, then I guess we can discount the possibility that Larry Silverstein commanded FDNY cheif, Daniel Nigro, to demolish WTC7 so he could embark on an insurance scam which would see him lose millions (billions?) of dollars.

Perhaps you could explain what your criteria for a "patently ludicrous" theory are?

[sleahead]

Perhaps you could explain what your criteria for a "patently ludicrous" theory are?

No set criteria, I'll judge each on it's merits. Yes, the insurance scam is discounted, as is the destruction of secret papers in government offices. These are the only two I've heard and they are ludicrous, imo.

[ref]

No set criteria, I'll judge each on it's merits. Yes, the insurance scam is discounted, as is the destruction of secret papers in government offices. These are the only two I've heard and they are ludicrous, imo.

Remember, that the destruction of the twin towers was an asbestos removal operation :rolleyes: They have never extended this claim to WTC7 though.

[Big Les]

Nice, fighting fire with fire. They JAQ off, we JAQ off more vigorously.

There is that feeling of guilt afterwards though...

[ref]

(Phone rings)

Bad Agent #1: "We have this terrible problem. The twin towers are an enormous architectural white elephant filled with asbestos and with far too few tenants."

Bad Agent #2: "Let's fly remote controlled planes into them and then demolish them. That'll take care of it."

Bad Agent #1: "Ok. Thanks for the advice!"

(Pause)

Bad Agent #1: "Then there is this $2,3 Trillion missing.. you know.."

Bad Agent #2: "Let's fly a plane into Pentagon, then demolish the Wedge. Or we can use a missile. Your choise."

Bad Agent #1: "Ok. Maybe a missile then.."

(Pause)

Bad Agent #1: "One more thing.. We have these secret papers and hard drives stored in WTC7. It's just around the corner from twin towers, and..."

Bad Agent #2: "Look. We are starting to run out of remote controlled planes. Let's just demolish the building. That'll take care of it. But remember to wait 7 hours until you demolish the last building. Otherwise it would look too suspicious!"

Bad Agent #1: "That's great. I'll call Silverstein!"

(Click)

[Brainache]

Not one of mine, but definitely a favourite:

How come the only people who can discover the plans of the sinister secret world controlling evil genius cabal are a bunch of stoned highschool dropouts and kooky old professors?

[Sabrina]

Where are the marches in the streets of thousands of people all shouting for the impeachment of Cheney and Bush based on the fact that they planned 9/11 and there's available proof?

Might want to word it better, but that's what immediately came to mind when I saw this thread.

[TheRedWorm]

Do you have any evidence of this claim that isn't from prison planet or infowars?

[Anti-sophist]

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere.


I think it's a rather trivial step to formulate this brilliant point into an unanswerable question for truthers.

[Reality Believer]

What about the demolition of Bldgs. 3,4,5 & 6? They weren't hit by planes either.

[Minadin]

What about the demolition of Bldgs. 3,4,5 & 6? They weren't hit by planes either.

They aren't on YouTube.

[Totovader]

Why shoot down 93? Why say it wasn't if it was?

[Myriad]

Evidence of controlled demolition of the towers and/or WTC7 would make a strong case that the insurance claims on the buildings were fraudulent.

The insurance companies underwriting the WTC:

- Were willing to spend fortunes litigating other issues to attempt to reduce their liability.
- Had the resources and expertise at their disposal to mount their own independent investigations.
- Had billions of dollars of their own money at stake.

So why did they not collect this CD evidence and bring it to court?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Nice, fighting fire with fire. They JAQ off, we JAQ off more vigorously.

There is that feeling of guilt afterwards though...


Yes, but most of those questions are banable offenses on the LCF. How DARE anyone question the questioners!

I think I'll make a bunch of bumper stickers that say "Question Questioners" and slap it over any "Question Authority" sticker... :D

[Dr Harry Rein]

Why did Rumsfeld 'blow it' by admitting that a 'missile' hit the Pentagon?

Why did Silverstein 'blow it' when he said 'Pull it'?

Why were none of the hijackers Iraqi?

How is it that none of the 50,000+ people who worked at the WTC noticed that the buildings were wired to explode? Even if they were not discovered, how could the conspiracists assume that they would not be? How could they take such a dangerous risk?

If Operation Northwoods is such a smoking gun, why was it de-classified?

How, and by whom, were the human remains and other physical evidence of AA77 and UA93 planted, if the planes didn't really crash there?

How could the voice-morphing technology fool even relatives of the passengers?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

How could the voice-morphing technology fool even relatives of the passengers?

Q. How did the voice morpher know that one lady's combination to her home safe?

A. That passenger was In On It!™

[Swing Dangler]

I will have to add:

"Explosions heard in the buildings could be from anything...anything except explosives or bombs."

[beachnut]

I will have to add:

"Explosions heard in the buildings could be from anything...anything except explosives or bombs."
There you go, using sounds like, to say it is.
Do you ever research anything correctly?

[TerryUK]

How could the voice-morphing technology fool even relatives of the passengers?

In other words, you're suggesting that because the voice-morphing idea here is ludicrous, therefor WTC7 was not CD.

You must be real smart... (or not)

[Par]

In other words, you're suggesting that because the voice-morphing idea here is ludicrous, therefor WTC7 was not CD.

You must be real smart... (or not)


Straw man fallacy.

[defaultdotxbe]

if all these witnesses could be bribed/intimidated/paid off/agents how much would it take to bribe/intimidate/pay off/hire you?

[maccy]

Before 9/11 Bush's approval rating was averaging at about 55%, since the beginning of 2004 it has tended to be below 50% (only a single Gallup poll sonce 2004 puts him above 55%). Why hasn't there been another 9/11 to boost his ratings?

source: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm (http://www.hist.umn.edu/%7Eruggles/Approval.htm)

It's also interesting to note that his approval rating was back down to 55% just before the Iraq War, and was boosted by it. To me that suggests:

1. the 9/11 approval boost had worn off by then; and
2. he would have invaded Iraq if 9/11 hadn't happened.

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

If all Al Qaeda attacks are actually NWO false flag attacks, how does the Madrid bombing fit into that? A quick recap: 1. Madrid bombing; 2. Bush-supporting Government incorrectly blames Basque separatists, loses election; 3. new government withdraws Spanish troops from Iraq.

[Alferd_Packer]

If 7-11 convienece stores are open 24/7, 365 days a year, why are there locks on the front door?

[Gravy]

Nice, fighting fire with fire. They JAQ off, we JAQ off more vigorously.

There is that feeling of guilt afterwards though...So that's what Simon Pegg is doing in your avatar....

[Dr Harry Rein]

In other words, you're suggesting that because the voice-morphing idea here is ludicrous, therefor WTC7 was not CD.

You must be real smart... (or not)

I never said that...

Two different issues:

1) Many truthers believe that plane hijackings never occurred, and that the calls from passengers were faked via voice-morphing devices. I think that this is ludricous to believe that this device could fool the passenger's relatives, especially since the conspirators would have no way of knowing in advance who would be on the plane, and no opportunity to collect samples of the passenger's voices.

2) Most truthers believe that WTC7 was a CD. I think that this idea is equally ludicrous, but not because of 1) above. I believe it's ludicrous because I don't think it was possible to wire up the building for a CD without any of the occupants of the building noticing. There is no audio evidence of a CD (have you ever heard a real one? The explosions are loud and distinctive, even from a great distance, and they immediately preceed the collapse of the building). There is a much simpler, more logical explanation for the collapse of WTC7: it suffered very heavy damage from the collapse of the north tower, and there was an unfought fire raging in the building for several hours.

1) and 2) are unrelated, I never said they were. They are both, however, logical fallacies in the arguments of truthers.

[parky76]

Why do people insist on calling it "fireproofing" for steel? Isn't it really thermal insulation?

Steel will not burn..but it will lose strength, warp, and melt under the right temperatures.

[defaultdotxbe]

Why do people insist on calling it "fireproofing" for steel? Isn't it really thermal insulation?

Steel will not burn..but it will lose strength, warp, and melt under the right temperatures.
why do people insist on calling a cable/dsl modem a modem?

[Mince]

How did the explosives used to initiate collapse survive the aircraft impact and subsequent fires?

Why did they not just demolish WTC7 in the considerable dust cloud of either of the other building's collapse? Why wait 7 hours when they knew it would be seen and filmed?

Why shoot down Flight 93 when they (presumably) hijacked it to fly into a building?

Why use a missle instead of an already hijacked aircraft to hit The Pentagon?

Why fly over (snicker) The Pentagon and construct a ridiculously complex, inaccurate and unnecessary scenario when the aircraft was right there (literally feet away--according to LyteTrip's scenario) and could have flown into The Pentagon itself.

If so many people heard bombs that were used to demolish the building, how did they survive that demolition. Why did so many bombs go off way ahead of the collapse if those bombs were used to cause the collapse?

Why did so many claim there was a NORAD stand-down order and now have to reverse themselves when the audio recordings were released? They had proof of a stand-down order, right?

Why is Avery making a video (and taking an extremely long time to do it) using evidence that should be reported to appropriate law enforcement authorities?

Why were there so few squibs seen in all of the videos of the collapse?

If the movement is so huge, why have I only one time seen a member outside the internet?

I'd like to iterate one snip from the OP:


- How did the NWO know beforehand, that the north tower would collapse into WTC7, so the debris could be blamed for the damage and starting fires?



Without damage or fires, there is no way WTC7 could have been demolished. So was it miraculous serendipity that debris did hit WTC7, damage it and start fires, giving the Overlords a reason to demolish WTC7? Perhaps the Overlords remote-controlled the debris into WTC7?

Why does Danny Jowenko not think WTC 1 and 2 was demolished in a controlled fashion? Why do so many of the movement believe him when he thinks WTC7 was a controlled demolition but disbelieve him when he says that WTC 1 and 2 were not? If Avery is still keeping score, that's 2-1 in favor of non-contolled demolition. Which is a perfect segue for my last question:

Why do so many in the movement claim to be winning (actually tallying points, like Avery) or claim that others are losing? Is this a football game to them, or something?

[Alferd_Packer]

Why do people insist on calling it "fireproofing" for steel? Isn't it really thermal insulation?

Steel will not burn..but it will lose strength, warp, and melt under the right temperatures.

I suspect because "fireproof" is an established term within the insurance industry.

[Mince]

I will have to add:

"Explosions heard in the buildings could be from anything...anything except explosives or bombs."


See my post above.

Why did so many people hear bombs way before the building collapsed? Presumably it was bombs immediately followed by collapse right?

But as to the logic of your statement:

Sure, the explosions could have been explosives or bombs. Care to prove they were actually explosives or bombs?

[TerryUK]

I never said that...

Two different issues:

1) Many truthers believe that plane hijackings never occurred, and that the calls from passengers were faked via voice-morphing devices.

2) Most truthers believe that WTC7 was a CD. I think that this idea is equally ludicrous,





You say you think # 1) and # 2) above, are "equally ludicrous"

You see, this is where you go wrong - no reasonable person would think that those two hypothesis are equally ludicrous.

[Drudgewire]

You say you think # 1) and # 2) above, are "equally ludicrous"

You see, this is where you go wrong - no reasonable person would think that those two hypothesis are equally ludicrous.
You're right, #1 is at least twice as ludicrous.

Of course, that's like saying believing in sasquatch is twice as ludicrous as believing in the loch ness monster, but still... :p

[Mince]

Where are the marches in the streets of thousands of people all shouting for the impeachment of Cheney and Bush based on the fact that they planned 9/11 and there's available proof?

Might want to word it better, but that's what immediately came to mind when I saw this thread.


I have a parallel question:

If so many of them fear for their lives and liberty, why are they not only not revolting, but, in the case of Americans, giving 1/3 to 1/2 of their salary to fund a criminal government they think is trying to kill or enslave them? Are they afraid of prison? How do they expect to win a revolution against the evil government if they are afraid of prison sentences? If they are so fearful of their lives and liberties, why do most of them only fight the evil government from their computer chair in the convenience of off-work hours? If I feared for my life or liberty so, I guarantee I wouldn't be typing about it on message boards.

[TerryUK]

How did the explosives used to initiate collapse survive the aircraft impact and subsequent fires?

Why did they not just demolish WTC7 in the considerable dust cloud of either of the other building's collapse? Why wait 7 hours when they knew it would be seen and filmed?

Why shoot down Flight 93 when they (presumably) hijacked it to fly into a building?

Why use a missle instead of an already hijacked aircraft to hit The Pentagon?

Why fly over (snicker) The Pentagon and construct a ridiculously complex, inaccurate and unnecessary scenario when the aircraft was right there (literally feet away--according to LyteTrip's scenario) and could have flown into The Pentagon itself.

If so many people heard bombs that were used to demolish the building, how did they survive that demolition. Why did so many bombs go off way ahead of the collapse if those bombs were used to cause the collapse?

Why did so many claim there was a NORAD stand-down order and now have to reverse themselves when the audio recordings were released? They had proof of a stand-down order, right?

Why is Avery making a video (and taking an extremely long time to do it) using evidence that should be reported to appropriate law enforcement authorities?

Why were there so few squibs seen in all of the videos of the collapse?

If the movement is so huge, why have I only one time seen a member outside the internet?

I'd like to iterate one snip from the OP:



Without damage or fires, there is no way WTC7 could have been demolished. So was it miraculous serendipity that debris did hit WTC7, damage it and start fires, giving the Overlords a reason to demolish WTC7? Perhaps the Overlords remote-controlled the debris into WTC7?

Why does Danny Jowenko not think WTC 1 and 2 was demolished in a controlled fashion? Why do so many of the movement believe him when he thinks WTC7 was a controlled demolition but disbelieve him when he says that WTC 1 and 2 were not? If Avery is still keeping score, that's 2-1 in favor of non-contolled demolition. Which is a perfect segue for my last question:

Why do so many in the movement claim to be winning (actually tallying points, like Avery) or claim that others are losing? Is this a football game to them, or something?

Your questions don't ALL need to be answered in order for CD to be true...

Not everything always 'goes to plan' ...
Remember that if just one item you mention is true, the rest don't matter.

[TerryUK]

You're right, #1 is at least twice as ludicrous.

Of course, that's like saying believing in sasquatch is twice as ludicrous as believing in the loch ness monster, but still... :p

Would you say that WTC7 looked like a CD?

Any reasonable person would say YES - but OT JREFers say NO

Boneheads ?

[Minadin]

I have a parallel question:

If so many of them fear for their lives and liberty, why are they not only not revolting, but, in the case of Americans, giving 1/3 to 1/2 of their salary to fund a criminal government they think is trying to kill or enslave them?

But they are revolting.

[Dr Harry Rein]

You're right, #1 is at least twice as ludicrous.

Of course, that's like saying believing in sasquatch is twice as ludicrous as believing in the loch ness monster, but still... :p

I did not know that ludicrousness could be quantified.

Is there a scale of ludicrousness?

If so, which is more ludicrous:

1) JFK was killed by a massive, military-industrial complex-sponsored, conspiracy

2) We never went to the moon

3) 9/11 was an inside job

4) The Holocaust never occurred

5) Hitler is alive and living in Argentina

6) Mark Roberts is really a CIA disinformation agent :)

[defaultdotxbe]

Would you say that WTC7 looked like a CD?

Any reasonable person would say YES - but OT JREFers say NO

Boneheads ?
i never said 7 didnt look like a demolition, but a question the CTers never seem to want to answer is "is that appearance chracteristic of a CD or of a building falling down"

remember, the same force does all the work in both cases

[Drudgewire]

Would you say that WTC7 looked like a CD?

Any reasonable person would say YES
Oh, so we've changed it from "was" to "looked like" now?

Stupid JREFers, actually looking the evidence and science behind things. No wonder the aliens never probe us, we keep denying their existence even though there are pictures that look like UFOs out there. :rolleyes:

[TerryUK]

but a question the CTers never seem to want to answer is "is that appearance chracteristic of a CD or of a building falling down"



It looks like a CD. It does not look like a building falling down without CD.
It you can come up with evidence showing a "building falling down" which looks like that but without CD, you will have a new convert.

[The Pig]

Would you say that WTC7 looked like a CD?

Any reasonable person would say YES - but OT JREFers say NO

Boneheads ?I don't see explosions before the collapse started and part of the penthouse fell before the rest of the building. I'll answer no.

Back to the OP; why did Silverstein confess under light questioning?

[Drudgewire]

It looks like a CD. It does not look like a building falling down without CD.
It you can come up with evidence showing a "building falling down" which looks like that but without CD, you will have a new convert.
Sorry, computer's running slow. I'll get back to you when google search finds matches for "building" "skyscraper falling on" "plane falling on" "fires."

[Par]

It looks like a CD. It does not look like a building falling down without CD.
It you can come up with evidence showing a "building falling down" which looks like that but without CD, you will have a new convert.


Affirming the consequent fallacy. Further, find me an example of a similar kind of building collapsing due to widespread fires and severe debris damage that didn’t look like WTC7. The burden of proof is on you, after all.

[defaultdotxbe]

It looks like a CD. It does not look like a building falling down without CD.
It you can come up with evidence showing a "building falling down" which looks like that but without CD, you will have a new convert.
no buildings that large have collapsed save for the ones on 9/11 (and before you make the obvious reply, no buildings that large have ever been demo'd either)

which is why i ask, is it chrateristic of demolition, or chracteristic of the building faslling down? you seem to have answered the question based on nothing at all

[Drudgewire]

I did not know that ludicrousness could be quantified.

Is there a scale of ludicrousness?

If so, which is more ludicrous:

1) JFK was killed by a massive, military-industrial complex-sponsored, conspiracy

2) We never went to the moon

3) 9/11 was an inside job

4) The Holocaust never occurred

5) Hitler is alive and living in Argentina

6) Mark Roberts is really a CIA disinformation agent :)

All are pretty equally ludicrous except #5, which is true because Mad Magazine referenced it in an All In the Family parody once. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/eng101.gif

[TerryUK]

Affirming the consequent fallacy.

Rubbish.

As for the WTC7, there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism , except CD.
If you know of one, write to NIST, because they don't know of one that has any more than a 'low probabitity'

[defaultdotxbe]

Rubbish.

As for the WTC7, there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism , except CD.
If you know of one, write to NIST, because they don't know of one that has any more than a 'low probabitity'
too bad CD has no credibility

BTW, while NIST says their best hypothesis has low probability of occurance, NIST also said they took explosive demolition into consideration for their hypothesis, which means it must have an ever LOWER probability (otherwise it would be the best hypothesis) so youve just debunked yourself there buddy

[Par]

It looks like a CD. It does not look like a building falling down without CD.
It you can come up with evidence showing a "building falling down" which looks like that but without CD, you will have a new convert.
Affirming the consequent fallacy.
Rubbish.

No, you commited the affirming the consequent fallacy.

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P

If it was a controlled demolition, it would have looked like a controlled demotion.
It looked like a controlled demolition.
Therefore it was a controlled demolition.

Further, the burden of proof is still on you.

[Par]

As for the WTC7, there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism , except CD.
If you know of one, write to NIST, because they don't know of one that has any more than a 'low probabitity'


So, you want to change the subject. Sure. Show me where NIST said this.

[Drudgewire]

Rubbish.

As for the WTC7, there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism , except CD.
And yet the world's top CD experts can and have explained exactly why it wasn't and couldn't have possibly been one.

Granted they wouldn't know as much as someone with a PhD in Theology or college kids, but hey, that's all our side has. :(









...well, except the top physicists, structural engineers, and the other elite smarties in the private and public sectors whose only explanation for CD is "paranoid delusion."

[Crungy]

Rubbish.

As for the WTC7, there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism, except CD.


I'm absolutely speechless. Could you please lay out your theory and evidence of a CD rather then a simple argument from personal incredulity. Is that a fair request?

All of the structural engineers in my company do not see anything wrong with the combination of the debri damage and fires theory being plausible, but what do they know, they only design skyscrapers? They are eagerly waiting for the NIST report. Once they are availble to digest this I will report back if they believe the reported collapse mechanism is rubbish.

As an avid skier, I've seen many an avalanche and to this day I can never tell which have occured naturally and which have occured intentionally from explosives. They have all looked the same to me. Once gravity acts......

[maccy]

Would you say that WTC7 looked like a CD?

Any reasonable person would say YES - but OT JREFers say NO

Boneheads ?

It looks bit like a CD if you start the clip from after the Penthouses collapse into the building. However there are none of explosive flashes that you would expect to see. Also the fact that you can only see the top half of the building in the clip is somewhat confusing. The building certainly didn't fall into its own footprint - so it wasn't a controlled demolition in the controlled sense.

It certainly doesn't sound like a CD (no loud bangs immediately before the collapse) and there were no seismic readings to indicate explosives.

Neither were there any remnants of explosives found in the wreckage.

As far as the plausibility of hypotheses go, the NIST working hypothesis makes sense and explains how the building could have fallen in the way it did. The conspiracy hypothesis, by contrast, doesn't come up with a plausible explanation for:

1. why there were no sounds of explosions;
2. why there is no seismic data to indicate explosions;
3. why the penthouses collapsed before the rest of the building;
4. how the building was rigged without anybody noticing;
5. how the conspirators knew it would be hit by debris and set on fire;
6. how the explosive survived several hours of fire;
7. why the building needed to be demolished at all;
8. why so many members of the FDNY insist that building was going to fall due to the fires; and
9. why the conspirators didn't wait until it was dark before demolishing the building.

The most important thing is the evidence: and there is none to suggest a CD. But, on top of that, it doesn't make sense even as a hypothesis.

[Hokulele]

It looks like a CD. It does not look like a building falling down without CD.
It you can come up with evidence showing a "building falling down" which looks like that but without CD, you will have a new convert.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4322614.stm

http://www.ibctoday.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=29596&rootVideoPanelType=1

http://nuvu.tv/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?rootVideoPanelType=1&newsItemId=31773

[Drudgewire]

It you can come up with evidence showing a "building falling down" which looks like that but without CD, you will have a new convert.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4322614.stm

http://www.ibctoday.com/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?newsItemId=29596&rootVideoPanelType=1

http://nuvu.tv/News/ViewNewsItem.aspx?rootVideoPanelType=1&newsItemId=31773
Welcome to the dark side Terry. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/hfive.gif

[Dr Harry Rein]

Two of the link units are shattered. The buildings either side are still standing, which is quite peculiar structurally. Were the collapsed units properly integrated into the main structure?

Hmm...sounds suspiciously like another conspiracy

[jaydeehess]

why do people insist on calling a cable/dsl modem a modem?

modem = moulator-demodulator

Even in the cable/dsl world it still does change the incoming signal(demod) into something it can use, and change the outgoing data (modulator) into something that can be transmitted over a long distance.

My question (if not asked yet)
-if the whole idea was to get the USA into invading Afghanistan and Iraq then why were none of the hijackers 'discovered' to be Afghani or Iraqi, and instead most of them are Saudi(a country ostensibly friendly to the USA and which was not invaded)?

[maccy]

modem = moulator-demodulator

Even in the cable/dsl world it still does change the incoming signal(demod) into something it can use, and change the outgoing data (modulator) into something that can be transmitted over a long distance.

No it doesn't. A modem modulates a digital signal into an analogue one so that it can be sent over an ordinary phone line and via an analogue exchange (and demodulates the analogue signal it receives). Cable and DSL connections are entirely digital.

However, because the function is the same (ie it's a box that connects you to The Internet) the name has carried over to the newer devices. Technically most of them are routers, but the distinction isn't really important.

[slyjoe]

No it doesn't. A modem modulates a digital signal into an analogue one so that it can be sent over an ordinary phone line and via an analogue exchange (and demodulates the analogue signal it receives). Cable and DSL connections are entirely digital.

However, because the function is the same (ie it's a box that connects you to The Internet) the name has carried over to the newer devices. Technically most of them are routers, but the distinction isn't really important.

This is incorrect - previous post is correct. Do a little research on DSL Modulation and you will see why.

There aren't 1s and 0s going out your DSL modem.

[Hokulele]

Welcome to the dark side Terry. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/hfive.gif


Did he leave? Dammit, I am never going to make my monthly quota by tomorrow! :mad:

[slyjoe]

Did he leave? Dammit, I am never going to make my monthly quota by tomorrow! :mad:

Noted in the NWO logbook.

[CHF]

Lots of good twoofer-stumping questions here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79989)

[Corsair 115]

Would you say that WTC7 looked like a CD?

Any reasonable person would say YES...That really should depend on how many controlled demolitions the person has seen, either in person or on video. It also depends on how much similiarity one wants to establish as being the threshold for "looking like a CD."

I would argue that, given the lack on any videos of the WTC7 collapse of the distinctive and very loud sounds and the bright flashes of light which occur when demolition chargers are detonated, this makes WTC7 rather different from a CD.

[maccy]

This is incorrect - previous post is correct. Do a little research on DSL Modulation and you will see why.

There aren't 1s and 0s going out your DSL modem.

I stand corrected.

I didn't realise there was digital as well as analogue modulation.

Which is probably far enough off topic...

[slyjoe]

Start a thread up in another subforum if you want to continue maccy. Or not. :)

We are a bit off topic.

[Drudgewire]

Did he leave? Dammit, I am never going to make my monthly quota by tomorrow! :mad:
I should have mentioned the free pie. :(

[maccy]

Start a thread up in another subforum if you want to continue maccy. Or not. :)

We are a bit off topic.

I may well do, but I'm going to bed now - so it'll have to wait for another time.

[LashL]

Rubbish.

As for the WTC7, there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism , except CD.
If you know of one, write to NIST, because they don't know of one that has any more than a 'low probabitity'

This is incorrect.

<snip>The "low order of probability" comment comes from the FEMA investigation of WTC 7. NIST has never said any such thing. The FEMA report was completed years ago, and is quite cursory. The NIST report, as most are aware, has been repeatedly delayed as its scope has grown, and is now anticipated towards the end of this year.

FEMA did indeed state that their proposed collapse hypothesis was of "a low probability of occurrence." However, the report needs to be read in order to understand what that statement means. FEMA's words, in context, are as follows:


Please see the complete post by R.Mackey (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2910359&postcount=46) where he explains this in terrific detail.

[TerryUK]

No, you commited the affirming the consequent fallacy.

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P

If it was a controlled demolition, it would have looked like a controlled demotion.
It looked like a controlled demolition.
Therefore it was a controlled demolition.

Further, the burden of proof is still on you.



No, I have not "commited the affirming the consequent fallacy" as you put it.

How about :
all known P are Q
therefor P is probably Q

IOW, all known collapses that look like the WTC7 collapse are CDs, therefor WTC7 was probably a CD, OK?

I believe that if there's a chance that it could have been caused by something else, it certainly wasn't fire and debris damage.

Why don't you try to make 'reasonable' arguments Par, instead of being preoccupied by P, Q, and this or that fallacy?

[johnny karate]

Terry, you might want to inquire about a beginner's logic course at your local university to find out why you can't do what you just did.

ETA: To help illuminate your logical fallacy, allow me the following illustration:

Suppose every dog you ever saw was brown.
Suppose I have a dog that you have never seen.
Based on those two suppositions, my dog is probably what color?

[TerryUK]

So, you want to change the subject. Sure. Show me where NIST said this.

FEMA said that.

NIST has obviously not yet been able to come up with an answer, at least not one that will pass the simplest examination.
Give them more time, it's only what, nearly 6 years?

[TerryUK]

And yet the world's top CD experts can and have explained exactly why it wasn't and couldn't have possibly been one.

<snide remarks snipped>



Please show the evidence for this.

I don't believe anyone could prove "it couldn't possibly have been a CD" , as you put it.

[johnny karate]

FEMA said that.

NIST has obviously not yet been able to come up with an answer, at least not one that will pass the simplest examination.
Give them more time, it's only what, nearly 6 years?

You realize, of course, that the collapse of WTC7 holds absolutely no significance or mystery to anyone other than conspiracy fantasists, right? There is no rush to determine the cause of a relatively mundane phenomenon.

[defaultdotxbe]

FEMA said that.

NIST has obviously not yet been able to come up with an answer, at least not one that will pass the simplest examination.
Give them more time, it's only what, nearly 6 years?
theyve been working on WTC7 less than 2 years, they started working on it after the final report for WTC1+2 was published

[GT/CS]

Would you say that WTC7 looked like a CD?

Any reasonable person would say YES - but OT JREFers say NO

Boneheads ?

There is no other way for such a building to fall.

Please post a video of a similarly constructed building that fell in a manner that did not look like a cd, or at the very least, please describe how, in your expert opinion, it should have looked as it fell.

Or is it easier to just call us boneheads and get yourself banned?

[johnny karate]

Please show the evidence for this.

I don't believe anyone could prove "it couldn't possibly have been a CD" , as you put it.

Actually maccy provided this list of proofs against a CD theory in an earlier post:

1. why there were no sounds of explosions;
2. why there is no seismic data to indicate explosions;
3. why the penthouses collapsed before the rest of the building;
4. how the building was rigged without anybody noticing;
5. how the conspirators knew it would be hit by debris and set on fire;
6. how the explosive survived several hours of fire;
7. why the building needed to be demolished at all;
8. why so many members of the FDNY insist that building was going to fall due to the fires; and
9. why the conspirators didn't wait until it was dark before demolishing the building.

[TerryUK]

Terry, you might want to inquire about a beginner's logic course at your local university to find out why you can't do what you just did.

ETA: To help illuminate your logical fallacy, allow me the following illustration:

Suppose every dog you ever saw was brown.
Suppose I have a dog that you have never seen.
Based on those two suppositions, my dog is probably what color?

Brown, obviously :D

If every dog I'd ever seen was brown, the probability of your dog being brown is very high...
Assuming I've seen a lot of dogs, and also everyone I know has never seen any dog other than a brown dog, your dog is very probably brown, OK

[Jonnyclueless]

I believe that if there's a chance that it could have been caused by something else, it certainly wasn't fire and debris damage.

Why don't you try to make 'reasonable' arguments Par, instead of being preoccupied by P, Q, and this or that fallacy?

It certainly wasn't fire and debris? Please explain how this could not have been the cause. And what are your credentials and experience in engineering and/or demolition?

[DGM]

Actually maccy provided this list of proofs against a CD theory in an earlier post:

1. why there were no sounds of explosions;
2. why there is no seismic data to indicate explosions;
3. why the penthouses collapsed before the rest of the building;
4. how the building was rigged without anybody noticing;
5. how the conspirators knew it would be hit by debris and set on fire;
6. how the explosive survived several hours of fire;
7. why the building needed to be demolished at all;
8. why so many members of the FDNY insist that building was going to fall due to the fires; and
9. why the conspirators didn't wait until it was dark before demolishing the building.
Just to add:
Why did no one see the unmistakable signs of explosive cut steel. I'm in construction and have witnessed this and it's unmistakable and obvious.

[LashL]

No, I have not "commited the affirming the consequent fallacy" as you put it.

How about :
all known P are Q
therefor P is probably Q

IOW, all known collapses that look like the WTC7 collapse are CDs, therefor WTC7 was probably a CD, OK?

No, that is not okay.

What you are saying is, "All Ps that I personally know of look to me like Qs, therefore this P is probably a Q."

That is so wrong on so many levels, it isn't even funny.

[TerryUK]

theyve been working on WTC7 less than 2 years, they started working on it after the final report for WTC1+2 was published

Yes I know that, but if it was obviously caused by fire and debris damage, they wouldn't need two years to come up with something that can pass simple scrutiny.

[TerryUK]

No, that is not okay.

What you are saying is, "All Ps that I personally know of look to me like Qs, therefore this P is probably a Q."

That is so wrong on so many levels, it isn't even funny.

No it's not wrong.

All examples of 'P' that any reasonable person knows of, just happen to be 'Q'

Therefor P is probably Q

OK?

[Par]

Rubbish. As for the WTC7, there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism , except CD. If you know of one, write to NIST, because they don't know of one that has any more than a 'low probabitity'
Show me where NIST said this.
FEMA said that.

Oh, so it was FEMA and not NIST – just as you said all along.

NIST has obviously not yet been able to come up with an answer, at least not one that will pass the simplest examination.

Why don’t you explain what NIST get wrong.

[DGM]

Yes I know that, but if it was obviously caused by fire and debris damage, they wouldn't need two years to come up with something that can pass simple scrutiny.
Either that or they're doing their job and trying to revise building codes to prevent similar collapses. For that they need to know the exact progression. A little more difficult than disproving silly CT theories.

[Foolmewunz]

Brown, obviously :D

If every dog I'd ever seen was brown, the probability of your dog being brown is very high...
Assuming I've seen a lot of dogs, and also everyone I know has never seen any dog other than a brown dog, your dog is very probably brown, OK

So nice when they debunk themselves.

Ergo, you've seen a lot of massive buildings collapse - all by CD - and thus the probability of this one being CD is very high, correct?

Just how many dogs have you seen? And how many buildings of this size have you seen collapse?

The problem with troofers and the CD theory is that you're looking at video of the RESULT of the CD, and ignoring the CD itself. Show me the footage of WTC 7 (or 1 or 2) collapsing and all the horrendously loud explosions. Show me the seismograph data. What's on those videos is a building falling. You haven't seen a building fall that wasn't CD (because when a building falls there are generally not a lot of cameras around - it happens kind of unexpected like in most cases, e.g. Pakistan, e.g. South Korea).

BTW if every dog you've ever seen is brown, the natural conclusion to any "thinking person" (troofers fave terminology) is that you haven't seen many dogs or that you have blinded yourself to reality because we've all seen many many dogs of many different colors.

[GT/CS]

No it's not wrong.

All examples of 'P' that any reasonable person knows of, just happen to be 'Q'

Therefor P is probably Q

OK?

Terry, Terry, Terry.

I guess you need it explained to you directly.

All buildings of this design collapse in a manner that resembles cds. There is no other way for them to collapse. Please let me know what part of that you do not understand so I can clarify it.

[Par]

How about :
all known P are Q
therefor P is probably Q

IOW, all known collapses that look like the WTC7 collapse are CDs, therefor WTC7 was probably a CD, OK?

No, that doesn’t work either. It doesn’t make even a lick of sense. We do not have an example of a similar kind of building collapsing due to widespread fires and severe debris damage to compare it to. You cannot, for instance, point to a red and spherical object and say “That is a red ball and not an X” before knowing whether or not X’s are red and spherical.

I believe that if there's a chance that it could have been caused by something else, it certainly wasn't fire and debris damage.

Argument from incredulity fallacy.

Why don't you try to make 'reasonable' arguments Par, instead of being preoccupied by P, Q, and this or that fallacy?

So, you want me to make “reasonable” arguments – something that includes ignoring your straightforward errors of logic. Regardless, as I’ve already pointed out, the burden of proof is on you.

[TerryUK]

There is no other way for such a building to fall.

Please post a video of a similarly constructed building that fell in a manner that did not look like a cd, or at the very least, please describe how, in your expert opinion, it should have looked as it fell.

Or is it easier to just call us boneheads and get yourself banned?

It fell symetrically, i.e. no separating or shearing vertically - you know like when a building falls due to some non-CD structural failure, you'll see the facade break unevenly. This WTC7 collapse was very symetric.
It means that all the supports failed ~ simultaneously
...

[Foolmewunz]

It fell symetrically, i.e. no separating or shearing vertically - you know like when a building falls due to some non-CD structural failure, you'll see the facade break unevenly. This WTC7 collapse was very symetric.
It means that all the supports failed ~ simultaneously
...


Nope.

[DGM]

It fell symetrically, i.e. no separating or shearing vertically - you know like when a building falls due to some non-CD structural failure, you'll see the facade break unevenly. This WTC7 collapse was very symetric.
It means that all the supports failed ~ simultaneously
...
Do you know what "curtain wall" construction is? By your statement I believe you don't.

[TerryUK]

It certainly wasn't fire and debris? Please explain how this could not have been the cause. And what are your credentials and experience in engineering and/or demolition?

If it was fire/debris damage, common sense tells you the fire and damage would not weaken all supports the full length and breadth of the building.
It would be localised to a smaller area.
The idea that the fire managed to weaken the entire support structure to the same degree, simultaneously doesn't make sense.

[Par]

If it was fire/debris damage, common sense tells you the fire and damage would not weaken all supports the full length and breadth of the building.
It would be localised to a smaller area.
The idea that the fire managed to weaken the entire support structure to the same degree, simultaneously doesn't make sense.

Argument from incredulity fallacy. Straw man fallacy.

Evidence?

[DGM]

If it was fire/debris damage, common sense tells you the fire and damage would not weaken all supports the full length and breadth of the building.
It would be localised to a smaller area.
The idea that the fire managed to weaken the entire support structure to the same degree, simultaneously doesn't make sense.
You don't understand how buildings distribute and transfer loads do you?

[TerryUK]

No, that doesn’t work either. It doesn’t make even a lick of sense. We do not have an example of a similar kind of building collapsing due to widespread fires and severe debris damage to compare it to. You cannot, for instance, point to a red and spherical object and say “That is a red ball and not an X” before knowing whether or not X’s are red and spherical.

You're not making sense.





So, you want me to make “reasonable” arguments – something that includes ignoring your straightforward errors of logic.

I've not made any "errors of logic". Show me one if you can.
( make it simple)

[~enigma~]

Everybody seems to be missing the extraodinary question at the pentagon. How does an FDR from flight 77 found in the pentagon serve as proof flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon? This question is really for CIT and their sister group Guides Who Lie™.

[TerryUK]

You don't understand how buildings distribute and transfer loads do you?

Tell me, then I'll understand.

[Par]

You're not making sense.


You don’t wish to understand.

[TerryUK]

Argument from incredulity fallacy. Straw man fallacy.

Evidence?

Please stop talking about "straw man" fallacies and such.

It's very unlikely that the weakening was present all across the entire support structure at the same time. Steel regains it's strength when it cool down below, what, 300C. Fire moves.

Any heating was local.

[Brainache]

If it was fire/debris damage, common sense tells you the fire and damage would not weaken all supports the full length and breadth of the building.
Well then I guess all those people who go to university to study engineering for years are wasting their time if all you need is common sense to solve engineering questions.


It would be localised to a smaller area.
The idea that the fire managed to weaken the entire support structure to the same degree, simultaneously doesn't make sense.

So your common sense doesn't tell you how one collumn after another can fail until the remaining collumns are no longer able to support the building?

I've seen people use the example of jenga blocks and other things like stretching a rubber band until it snaps, but it never seems to sink in. I would try to think up another demonstration, but I'm no engineer, so I'll leave it to the experts...

[Par]

Please stop talking about "straw man" fallacies and such.

It's very unlikely that the weakening was present all across the entire support structure at the same time. Steel regains it's strength when it cool down below, what, 300C. Fire moves.



Perhaps you should simply learn what the term means.

PS: Do you know a guy called Malcolm Kirkman?

[TerryUK]

Do you know what "curtain wall" construction is? By your statement I believe you don't.

I think I know what "curtain wall" construction is.

I think you going to say what we 'saw' wasn't what was happening internally right?

[TerryUK]

Perhaps you should simply learn what the term means.

PS: Do you know a guy called Malcolm Kirkman?

I guess I'm more familiar with people like Eric Clapton :)

[GT/CS]

It fell symetrically, i.e. no separating or shearing vertically - you know like when a building falls due to some non-CD structural failure, you'll see the facade break unevenly. This WTC7 collapse was very symetric.
It means that all the supports failed ~ simultaneously
...

Tell you what; in 3 years or so, when you decide to go to college how about getting a degree in either architecture or structural engineering, then get back to us so we can have an intelligent conversation.

[Par]

I guess I'm more familiar with people like Eric Clapton :)

In the White Room, with black curtain... wall contruction.

[NYCEMT86]

Any heating was local.

PLEASE STOP!


STOP WITH YOUR THEORY OF FIRE BACKED BY YOUR OBVIOUS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON FIRE BEHAVIOR!

[DGM]

Tell me, then I'll understand.
I wouldn't know where to start. Try the NIST interim report and maybe your local university engineering department. I'm a builder not a teacher.

[Gravy]

It means that all the supports failed ~ simultaneously Oh. My. FSM.

:dl:

[LashL]

No it's not wrong.

All examples of 'P' that any reasonable person knows of, just happen to be 'Q'

Therefor P is probably Q

OK?

No, it is not okay.

Because it is untrue in these circumstances to say "all examples of P that any reasonable person know of just happen to be Q".

Thus your poor attempt to construct a logical argument is based upon a faulty premise from the beginning. Therefore, it fails.

And on the point about "the low probability" and the fact that NIST never said that, I really wanted you to read the entire post that I linked to, not to simply take that one line out of it. You really should read it, as R. Mackey did a great job of explaining it. It isn't that long and it won't take you too long to read it, so please do. Once again, you can find it here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2910359&postcount=46).

[DGM]

I think I know what "curtain wall" construction is.

I think you going to say what we 'saw' wasn't what was happening internally right?
As a matter of fact. Where did the east penthouse go? (120'x140')

[Corsair 115]

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how the demolition charges which allegedly brought down WTC7 made no discernable noises nor discernable flashes of light...

[TerryUK]

PLEASE STOP!


STOP WITH YOUR THEORY OF FIRE BACKED BY YOUR OBVIOUS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ON FIRE BEHAVIOR!

Hey, it's OK... I don't pretend to have any special knowledge about fire.
Don't get upset.
( and before you mention it - no, I'm not implicating any firefighters in anything at all, ok? )

[Jonnyclueless]

If it was fire/debris damage, common sense tells you the fire and damage would not weaken all supports the full length and breadth of the building.
It would be localised to a smaller area.
The idea that the fire managed to weaken the entire support structure to the same degree, simultaneously doesn't make sense.

So you are saying that pretty much the world body of structural engineers have no common sense. Again, how is it these guys are professionals when someone with no expertise in the field says that everything they know goes against common sense?

Perhaps you would care to teach structural engineering so that structural engineers can learn common sense instead of the laws of physics and engineering?

[TerryUK]

No, it is not okay.

Because it is untrue in these circumstances to say "all examples of P that any reasonable person know of just happen to be Q".

Yes but, it no good just saying "it's untrue" - you OT JREFers always demand evidence from "truthers" don't you?

[twinstead]

Yes but, it no good just saying "it's untrue" - you OT JREFers always demand evidence from "truthers" don't you?

:confused:

[beachnut]

Yes but, it no good just saying "it's untrue" - you OT JREFers always demand evidence from "truthers" don't you?
And you have no facts to support the ideas of 9/11 truth. Thank you

[twinstead]

And you have no facts to support the ideas of 9/11 truth. Thank you

And it appears that we have some nerve requiring those facts.

[Par]

Only in truther-ville do you get someone cheerfully admitting to a total ignorance of the requisite science whilst equally cheerfully making absolute claims about how building collapses must have and can’t have happened.

[TerryUK]

So you are saying that pretty much the world body of structural engineers have no common sense. ?

I agree they must have more common sense than me, obviously...
they 'keep their heads down', they don't start talking about controversial stuff like CD at 9/11. No percentage in that, eh? :)

[Par]

I agree they must have more common sense than me, obviously...
they 'keep their heads down', they don't start talking about controversial stuff like CD at 9/11. No percentage in that, eh? :)

Question beg fallacy. Further:

While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

[LashL]

Yes but, it no good just saying "it's untrue" - you OT JREFers always demand evidence from "truthers" don't you?

It certainly is in these circumstances. You are claiming, by way of your faulty argument, that every building that has ever fallen down that any reasonable person knows of just happens to be a controlled demolition. This is patently false on its face.

Look, it's not my fault that you keep making arguments from faulty logic, and it's not my fault that you keep changing your faulty arguments; I am simply demonstrating how and why your faulty arguments are faulty.

Now, read my post again - for comprehension this time - and, on the other point about the "low probability" read the post that I linked you to. For ease of reference, here is the post and the link:

No, it is not okay.

Because it is untrue in these circumstances to say "all examples of P that any reasonable person know of just happen to be Q".

Thus your poor attempt to construct a logical argument is based upon a faulty premise from the beginning. Therefore, it fails.

And on the point about "the low probability" and the fact that NIST never said that, I really wanted you to read the entire post that I linked to, not to simply take that one line out of it. You really should read it, as R. Mackey did a great job of explaining it. It isn't that long and it won't take you too long to read it, so please do. Once again, you can find it here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2910359&postcount=46).

[Brainache]

I agree they must have more common sense than me, obviously...
they 'keep their heads down', they don't start talking about controversial stuff like CD at 9/11. No percentage in that, eh? :)

Not only do they have more common sense, they also have extensive education and experience in the relavent fields.

No percentage in inventing childish fantasy scenarios involving subjects of which you are totally ignorant? I agree.

[Apollo20]

When Mackey says: "If one really wants to understand, I suggest one go to the Source."

That if I go to my local electronics store, formally known as Radio Shack, I will understand?

[NYCEMT86]

Hey, it's OK... I don't pretend to have any special knowledge about fire.
Don't get upset.
( and before you mention it - no, I'm not implicating any firefighters in anything at all, ok? )

Sorry to go off on you, but you shouldn't make assumptions especially since you say "I don't pretend to have any special knowledge about fire". I have heard a lot of BS when it comes to fire. Like the guy at Ground Zero saying he could determine the heat the fire just from a picture.


Okay, you said the heat was localized. Heat is never localized and it can be transfered in 4 forms.


Method of Heat Transfer.

Direct Flame Contact, which is self explanatory fire touching an object.

Convection, which is when heat is transfered through air or liquid.

Conduction, heat transfered through one body to another by direct contact or by a medium, such as lets just say a piece of steel.

Radiation, the transfer of heat through waves (number one cause of any exposure fire...oh for those who don't know an exposure is a building, floor, or area that is close to the fire and is in danger of catching fire as well) Quoted from my thread on Fire Behavior listed in my signature.

Not only that, the pure energy of the office contents being burned off can cause serious heat.



Approximate Power Usage/Peak Heat Release Rate

Burning cigarette: 5W

Standard “A” Light Bulbs: 15 to 200 W

Burning match: 80 W

Coffee maker, hair dryer, toaster: 500 to 1500 W or 0.5 to 1.5 kW

Burning Coffee Maker: 40 kW

Small Trash Can, Trash Bag Fires: 50 to 300 kW

Burning Upholstered Chair: 80 kW to 2.5 MW

Burning Upholstered Sofa: 3,000 kW or 3 MW

Burning Christmas Tree: 1.6 MW to 5.2 MW

Base Design Fire: 5.3 MW

Taken from my Thread between "Smoldering Fires vs Diffusion Flames" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91360) This was also sourced from James G Quintiere's "Principles of Fire Behavior"


So even IF a truss member has suffered minimum dislodging of fire proofing, it is more than likely that truss will fail from exposure from fire.

Under real world conditions, fire proofing has been proven to be unreliable. The fire department has adopted Murphy's Law "Anything that can go wrong will go wrong." That is the truth.


And I was never going to implicate that you said the firefighters had anything to do with it.

[bje]

Yes but, it no good just saying "it's untrue" - you OT JREFers always demand evidence from "truthers" don't you?


We understand that evidence has little meaning to you, Terry, but if we depended on your elevation of "common sense" to being a substitute for thinking and evidence, we wouldn't need law, courts, juries, or even a democratic society. Whim would do just fine.

Fortunately, the majority of us still believe in critical thinking. We are skeptics of claims made by anyone, including you. We ask questions.

In just the several comments you have made in this one thread alone you have made a series of assertions without any supporting evidence. Like your claim that a fire in WTC 7 would have to weaken a whole series of structural supports fairly evenly in order for WTC 7 to collapse and to collapse symmetrically.

Is this assertion made from your "common sense" or did you bother to look for evidence which you refuse to reveal to us given your aversion to evidence?

Sorry if this offends your sensibilities and belief that you shouldn't have to answer questions as a 9/11 Truther, but if you don't want to answer inconvenient questions then it would be best for you not to venture into the real world.

Any questions?

[TerryUK]

It certainly is in these circumstances. You are claiming, by way of your faulty argument, that every building that has ever fallen down that any reasonable person knows of just happens to be a controlled demolition. This is patently false on its face.

Look, it's not my fault that you keep making arguments from faulty logic, and it's not my fault that you keep changing your faulty arguments; I am simply demonstrating how and why your faulty arguments are faulty.

Now, read my post again - for comprehension this time - and, on the other point about the "low probability" read the post that I linked you to. For ease of reference, here is the post and the link:

Look, I don't personally know much about CD, and I don't pretend to be a structural engineer.

I do believe that WTC7 looked like a CD and I don't believe anyone has - so far - shown any other building of [similar constuction type] collapsing like #7 did , unless it was by means of CD.
Also, the Dutch CD expert that people here have quoted is adamant that it was CD...
WTC7 is the main 'sticking point' for me in the whole 9/11 thing

[TerryUK]

When Mackey says: "If one really wants to understand, I suggest one go to the Source."

That if I go to my local electronics store, formally known as Radio Shack, I will understand?

Poeple do tend to make assumptions about someone else's knowledge and abilities. It's foolish

[bje]

Look, I don't personally know much about CD, and I don't pretend to be a structural engineer.

So, do you want to learn something or continue to make unfounded assertions?

I do believe that WTC7 looked like a CD and I don't believe anyone has - so far - shown any other building of [similar constuction type] collapsing like #7 did , unless it was by means of CD.
No one has to provide evidence except YOU!. We see no evidence for CD. CD's rely on gravity. WTC 7 fell because of gravity. If you have evidence for CD that initiated the collapse from gravity, by all means, don't keep us in suspense - provide it!

Also, the Dutch CD expert that people here have quoted is adamant that it was CD...WTC7 is the main 'sticking point' for me in the whole 9/11 thingMany MORE dispute CD. Now.... where's you evidence for CD, TerryUK... or will you revert to claiming it's just "common sense"?

[TerryUK]

We understand that evidence has little meaning to you, Terry, but if we depended on your elevation of "common sense" to being a substitute for thinking and evidence, we wouldn't need law, courts, juries, or even a democratic society. Whim would do just fine.

Fortunately, the majority of us still believe in critical thinking. We are skeptics of claims made by anyone, including you. We ask questions.

In just the several comments you have made in this one thread alone you have made a series of assertions without any supporting evidence. Like your claim that a fire in WTC 7 would have to weaken a whole series of structural supports fairly evenly in order for WTC 7 to collapse and to collapse symmetrically.

Is this assertion made from your "common sense" or did you bother to look for evidence which you refuse to reveal to us given your aversion to evidence?

Sorry if this offends your sensibilities and belief that you shouldn't have to answer questions as a 9/11 Truther, but if you don't want to answer inconvenient questions then it would be best for you not to venture into the real world.

Any questions?

No questions.

I think I can stand by anything I've written here - I don't think I have to read it back.

It might be you are reading something else into what I actually said.
If you disagree with anything, just point it out.
If I'm wrong, I'll accept that

[johnny karate]

Look, I don't personally know much about CD, and I don't pretend to be a structural engineer.

I do believe that WTC7 looked like a CD and I don't believe anyone has - so far - shown any other building of [similar constuction type] collapsing like #7 did , unless it was by means of CD.You can't be serious.


Also, the Dutch CD expert that people here have quoted is adamant that it was CD...
WTC7 is the main 'sticking point' for me in the whole 9/11 thingThat same Dutch CD expert (whose entire analysis is based on a single viewing of a video that failed to show the damaged side of WTC7, by the way) also maintains that WTC1 and WTC2 were not brought down by CD. Kind of puts a big hole in the CT, doesn't it?

[GT/CS]

Look, I don't personally know much about CD.......

I do believe that WTC7 looked like a CD...


Do you ever read what you write?

Edit, Too Slow, JK beat me to it.

[ZENSMACK89]

I'll give it a shot though I don't subscribe to much of this strawman NWO crap.

- If they could fake the planes in live TV feeds with almost no delay, why haven't they been able to fake a plane into Pentagon footage in 6 years?

I'm not much for the no plane theories I just don't know without the transponder code except for process of elimination how did they ID the planes that hit the towers? Plus the only multiple footage they would need to have is the 2nd WTC hit. There wouldn’t be any need for a bunch of cameras catching the first hit of anything.

- If there were no planes, why haven't we seen a single TV or amateur video, or heard an eyewitness testimony of a tower suddenly exploding without any plane approaching?

On google video I think the guys name is bregistration has two videos from the same camera or same angle but different stations at the same time with one showing the plane and the other just showing something you can barely see come in and make the second WTC hit. I don't necessarily know that fake video means no plane. Couldn't it just mean some news stations embellished the shot they had just to have an exclusive video?

- How did the NWO know beforehand, that the north tower would collapse into WTC7, so the debris could be blamed for the damage and starting fires?

How about WTC7 wasn't part of the original plan but once it was damaged it was an unsecured building that house agencies like the Secret Service thus a security breach and had to be destroyed? Or maybe it was suppose to be hit by the third plane flying around the city that the emergency responders were warned about but never came in. How about everything didn’t go exactly as planned?

- If the Pentagon FDR data is faked, why did they fake it to show a fly-over and not a hit?

I don't know what the official line is on the FDR.

- If fire does nothing to steel, why do they fireproof steel?

So fire doesn't spread or compromise the steel as fast. Some fires go for hour’s even whole days. The trade centers fell in about an hour.

- If NWO kills enemies and takes away freedom of speech, why are the truthers allowed to exist, publish books, movies and arrange events?

They can't kill everyone besides they have the Government Counter-Misinformation Team to combat that stuff.

[Jonnyclueless]

I agree they must have more common sense than me, obviously...
they 'keep their heads down', they don't start talking about controversial stuff like CD at 9/11. No percentage in that, eh? :)

What is your evidence to back up that claim?

[Digest]

It fell symetrically, i.e. no separating or shearing vertically - you know like when a building falls due to some non-CD structural failure, you'll see the facade break unevenly. This WTC7 collapse was very symetric.
It means that all the supports failed ~ simultaneously
...

this can be solved very easily -just provide us a video of a building collapsing - not as a result of CD- and we can compare the massive differences.

[Jonnyclueless]

Look, I don't personally know much about CD, and I don't pretend to be a structural engineer.

I do believe that WTC7 looked like a CD and I don't believe anyone has - so far - shown any other building of [similar constuction type] collapsing like #7 did , unless it was by means of CD.
Also, the Dutch CD expert that people here have quoted is adamant that it was CD...
WTC7 is the main 'sticking point' for me in the whole 9/11 thing

Show us a building of that design that has collapsed and doesn't look like a CD.

It's like you're saying you have proof of a zerba because you hear the sound of hooves. Congratulations, you have seen the result of gravity. The CD is not the building falling, that's simply gravity. A CD is simply taking out key supports and letting gravity bring the building down. You have not seen the cause of gravity bringing the building down and are making invalid assumptions as to the cause simply by looking at the result.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes I know that, but if it was obviously caused by fire and debris damage, they wouldn't need two years to come up with something that can pass simple scrutiny.
and if it was obviously demolition, same thing

[NYCEMT86]

So fire doesn't spread or compromise the steel as fast. Some fires go for hour’s even whole days. The trade centers fell in about an hour.


How many of those buildings were tubed design or struck by an aircraft?

[ZENSMACK89]

-why did Larry Silverstien (who was in on it) agree to LOSE millions of dollars in the whole destroying and then rebuilding the WTC complex

Is Silverstein now indebt?

- why didnt they just blame it on Saddam

Did they need to? They probably didn't have a stockpile of Iraqi patsies either.

- why do they all keep getting fired or resigning?

Or promoted to the World bank or given a medal.

- not create WMD in Iraq (why subject themselves to that blunder?)

They tried but they screwed it up. http://100777.com/node/433

- why are people all not on trial with the "evidence" they have?

When does UBL's trial start and with what evidence?

[beachnut]

I don't know what the official line is on the FDR.

So fire doesn't spread or compromise the steel as fast. Some fires go for hour’s even whole days. The trade centers fell in about an hour.
The FDR was even decoded by idiot truthers, who found all 24-25 hours of flight on the plane known as flight 77. Oops, proof it is flight 77. FDR is easy stuff, you should know this, what is your problem doing research?

Fire destroys the strength of steel very quickly. There are many dead firemen because steel fails quickly in fire. Sorry, but if this is your best or your worse research showing, you are not going to do well in school.

So far you are just asking questions that make you look research challenged.

[TerryUK]

this can be solved very easily -just provide us a video of a building collapsing - not as a result of CD- and we can compare the massive differences.
If only it was that easy... I guess most of them are CDs
I've seen videos of a building falling over, I've seen one which collapsed in a non symertic fashion, i.e. with some 'shearing' - meaning one part is trying to fall, but the ajacent parts stay up.

[fezzic]

Look, I don't personally know much about CD, and I don't pretend to be a structural engineer.

I do believe that WTC7 looked like a CD and I don't believe anyone has - so far - shown any other building of [similar constuction type] collapsing like #7 did , unless it was by means of CD.
Also, the Dutch CD expert that people here have quoted is adamant that it was CD...
WTC7 is the main 'sticking point' for me in the whole 9/11 thing

Certainly 7 WTC "looked" a lot like a CD especially when viewed casually, like when I first saw that. I thought to myself, now THAT is what I would think a CD would look like. Certainly much more like a CD than the collapses of the two towers.

I have read, though skimpily, about the analysis that has been done on 7 WTC which postulated where the initiating event was and one thing you can say is that the engineers were making a guess about exactly what happened based on external characteristics of the collapse. That's what experts are expected to do when something is not subject to direct observation -- like what is happening to the interior.

Mr. Jowenko is certainly entitled to his opinion. Since he's not been required to testify (in a court or under oath) or has not presented a paper in a peer-reviewed journal on the collapse, he does not have to back up with calculations or a line of reasoning what he concluded. Despite his apparent confidence in his conclusion, if he were to be required to back up his opinion, it might change or at least lose a lot of certainty.

[ZENSMACK89]

How many of those buildings were tubed design or struck by an aircraft?
The question was about fire-proofing not design. So if it fell in just an hour with the fire-proofing supposedly sheared off just a few floors how long would it have taken with the fire-proofing intact? Is it the fire-proofing or the design?

[johnny karate]

I'm not much for the no plane theories I just don't know without the transponder code except for process of elimination how did they ID the planes that hit the towers? Plus the only multiple footage they would need to have is the 2nd WTC hit. There wouldn’t be any need for a bunch of cameras catching the first hit of anything.You didn't answer the question


On google video I think the guys name is bregistration has two videos from the same camera or same angle but different stations at the same time with one showing the plane and the other just showing something you can barely see come in and make the second WTC hit. I don't necessarily know that fake video means no plane. Couldn't it just mean some news stations embellished the shot they had just to have an exclusive video?You didn't answer the question.


How about WTC7 wasn't part of the original plan but once it was damaged it was an unsecured building that house agencies like the Secret Service thus a security breach and had to be destroyed? Or maybe it was suppose to be hit by the third plane flying around the city that the emergency responders were warned about but never came in. How about everything didn’t go exactly as planned?Well, if you maintain that WTC7 was brought down with CD, then the above statement means it would have to have been set up on the fly that very same morning without a single person witnessing anything suspicious. Please explain how that is even remotely possible.



So fire doesn't spread or compromise the steel as fast. Some fires go for hour’s even whole days. The trade centers fell in about an hour after being struck by giant airplanes traveling at 500 mph.Fixed


They can't kill everyone besides they have the Government Counter-Misinformation Team to combat that stuff.So wait, this imaginary agency you just made up... they counter misinformation? That's kind of confusing. In the future, please name your imaginary government agencies something a little more straight forward. KTHX!

[TerryUK]

and if it was obviously demolition, same thing

Please!
You must know that if it was CD, they can't actually publish that conclusion...

[NYCEMT86]

The question was about fire-proofing not design. So if it fell in just an hour with the fire-proofing supposedly sheared off just a few floors how long would it have taken with the fire-proofing intact? Is it the fire-proofing or the design?

Well the design and fire proofing. As I quote James Quintiere from the email I have received from him, though it was not much here you go:

From: "James Quintiere" <jimq@umd.edu>
Subject: Re: Question about NIST WTC Report

I believe the trusses were to blame and they did not have sufficient
insulation.
---
James G. Quintiere
The John L. Bryan Professor
Fire Protection Engineering
University of Maryland
1137D Glenn L. Martin Hall
College Park, MD 20742-3031
301 405 3993 fax 9383
cell 240 472 2016
New Book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0470091134/ref=sib_rdr_dp/102-2324172-8000954?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books


Now even if there was sufficient fire proofing and only a small amount was removed from the steel would have been weakened and failed.


ETA: "how long would it have taken with the fire-proofing intact?"

I can only speculate because no fire is ever the same. The Sight and Sound Theater's steel members were sprayed with fire resistance material and still collapsed. That building was not damaged prior the fire, so it can range. Thats real world conditions.

[Brainache]

Please!
You must know that if it was CD, they can't actually publish that conclusion...

Why not? Because it would void Larry's insurance policy? Because it would reveal the existence of supersonic invisible demolition ninjas? Why?

[defaultdotxbe]

Please!
You must know that if it was CD, they can't actually publish that conclusion...
and why not? just because they are associated with the government means everyone must automatically be "in on it"

do you know how many engineers names are on the NIST report? do yo uknow how many more had input? are you saying that ALL of these people are covering up for the government?

besides, if its obviously a demolition why does only 1 CD expert in the entire world say so? what reason do all these people have to cover up for the US governmetn?

[TerryUK]

What is your evidence to back up that claim?

I've seen the same thing in several institutions in various fields.

For example, even recently, an investigation into abuse in 'old folks homes' (care homes) - More than 50% of staff admitted they didn't report abuse when they witnessed it, saying they didn't want to risk repercussions..

[defaultdotxbe]

I've seen the same thing in several institutions in various fields.

For example, even recently, an investigation into abuse in 'old folks homes' (care homes) - More than 50% of staff admitted they didn't report abuse when they witnessed it, saying they didn't want to risk repercussions..
more than 50% eh, so what about the other less than 50%? do they report it? wouldnt that mean we should see just under half of all engineers siding with the truthers?

[TerryUK]

Why not? Because it would void Larry's insurance policy? Because it would reveal the existence of supersonic invisible demolition ninjas? Why?

I don't have any opinion about any involvement of Larry S.

[Brainache]

I don't have any opinion about any involvemen of Larry S.

So I guess this means you suspect invisible super-sonic demolition ninjas?

[TerryUK]

more than 50% eh, so what about the other less than 50%? do they report it? wouldnt that mean we should see just under half of all engineers siding with the truthers?

Following your logic, yes of course exactly 50% - so you must have a strange logic.

[TerryUK]

So I guess this means you suspect invisible super-sonic demolition ninjas?

Just because you think there are only two choices?

[defaultdotxbe]

Following your logic, yes of course exactly 50% - so you must have a strange logic.
well, you said that over 50% of healthcare workers (lets call it 60%) dont report abuse, this must mean that 40% of them DO report abuse

to apply these same number to the engineering community, we shoudl expect to see 40% of engineers to be speaking out against the NIST report, correct?

or was that not your point? if not, WTH is your point?

[Brainache]

Just because you think there are only two choices?

I did ask you why they couldn't report a CD and offered two silly suggestions. You chose to mention one of them in your reply, but you still haven't said why NIST couldn't report CD if that was what the evidence suggested.

[twinstead]

I've seen the same thing in several institutions in various fields.

For example, even recently, an investigation into abuse in 'old folks homes' (care homes) - More than 50% of staff admitted they didn't report abuse when they witnessed it, saying they didn't want to risk repercussions..

And of course that's the same thing as people who witness what is tantamount to complicity in murder of 3000 innocent people, right?

[ZENSMACK89]

Well the design and fire proofing. As I quote James Quintiere from the email I have received from him, though it was not much here you go:

From: "James Quintiere" <jimq@umd.edu>
Subject: Re: Question about NIST WTC Report

I believe the trusses were to blame and they did not have sufficient
insulation.
---
James G. Quintiere
The John L. Bryan Professor
Fire Protection Engineering
University of Maryland
1137D Glenn L. Martin Hall
College Park, MD 20742-3031
301 405 3993 fax 9383
cell 240 472 2016
New Book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0470091134/ref=sib_rdr_dp/102-2324172-8000954?%5Fencoding=UTF8&no=283155&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER&st=books


Now even if there was sufficient fire proofing and only a small amount was removed from the steel would have been weakened and failed.


ETA: "how long would it have taken with the fire-proofing intact?"

I can only speculate because no fire is ever the same. The Sight and Sound Theater's steel members were sprayed with fire resistance material and still collapsed. That building was not damaged prior the fire, so it can range. Thats real world conditions.

So I gather from this Quintiere feels the trusses failed because of insufficient fireproofing not from the plane crash but just insufficient to begin with as in when it was installed? And if it was sufficient you believe its possible it would have collapse anyway eventually? What about if it had the same asbestos fire-proofing of the lower floors what do you think then?

[TerryUK]

<<Originally Posted by ref:
- How did the NWO know beforehand, that the north tower would collapse into WTC7, so the debris could be blamed for the damage and starting fires?>>



How about WTC7 wasn't part of the original plan but once it was damaged it was an unsecured building that house agencies like the Secret Service thus a security breach and had to be destroyed? Or maybe it was suppose to be hit by the third plane flying around the city that the emergency responders were warned about but never came in. How about everything didn’t go exactly as planned?

Maybe WTC7 was part of the plan, i.e. to destroy all the buildings, so it was 'rigged' beforehand like 1 & 2.

The third plane was supposed to hit #7 but didn't make it.

Things don't always go as planned. :)

[defaultdotxbe]

And of course that's the same thing as people who witness what is tantamount to complicity in murder of 3000 innocent people, right?
and of course "more than 50%" is at least 99.999%

[ZENSMACK89]

You didn't answer the question


You didn't answer the question.


Well, if you maintain that WTC7 was brought down with CD, then the above statement means it would have to have been set up on the fly that very same morning without a single person witnessing anything suspicious. Please explain how that is even remotely possible.


Fixed


So wait, this imaginary agency you just made up... they counter misinformation? That's kind of confusing. In the future, please name your imaginary government agencies something a little more straight forward. KTHX!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter_Misinformation_Team

[defaultdotxbe]

<<Originally Posted by ref:
- How did the NWO know beforehand, that the north tower would collapse into WTC7, so the debris could be blamed for the damage and starting fires?>>


Maybe WTC7 was part of the plan, i.e. to destroy all the buildings, so it was 'rigged' beforehand like 1 & 2.

The third plane was supposed to hit #7 but didn't make it.

Things don't always go as planned. :)
so the plane didnt make it, they decide to blow it up anyway, instead of, oh i dont know, cordoning off the area and removing the demo charges

i mean, if they could get them in there while people were in and out of th ebuilding every day certainly they could get them back out, no?

[TerryUK]

I did ask you why they couldn't report a CD and offered two silly suggestions. You chose to mention one of them in your reply, but you still haven't said why NIST couldn't report CD if that was what the evidence suggested.

I mentioned Larry S. because he's a player in some "truthers" theories.

As to why NIST couldn't report CD, let's just say it would be quite a 'bombshell' to say the least, so I assume there would be some pressure brought to bear, although I don't believe it would even get to that stage...

[bje]

No questions.

I think I can stand by anything I've written here - I don't think I have to read it back.

I am not surprised you didn't understand what I wrote. I'm asking you to back up what you have written with evidence.



It might be you are reading something else into what I actually said.No, I noticed right off that you provided no evidence for your assertions but made reference to your "common sense" as apparently the sole thing you need.

If you disagree with anything, just point it out.
If I'm wrong, I'll accept thatI want your evidence for your claims. Simple, no?


"It looks like a CD. It does not look like a building falling down without CD. It you can come up with evidence showing a "building falling down" which looks like that but without CD, you will have a new convert."Where is your evidence that CD brought down WTC7?



"As for the WTC7, there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism , except CD."Says who? Where is your evidence?

"IOW, all known collapses that look like the WTC7 collapse are CDs, therefor WTC7 was probably a CD, OK?"Says who? Where is your evidence?


"I believe that if there's a chance that it could have been caused by something else, it certainly wasn't fire and debris damage."Who says it could not have been from the fire and damage? Who is your authority for your unsupported claim?

"NIST has obviously not yet been able to come up with an answer, at least not one that will pass the simplest examination."
It hasn't completed the report but you haven't bothered to refute its working hypothesis much less support any claim that it has not passed the simplest examination. Where is your evidence for your claim?

"I don't believe anyone could prove "it couldn't possibly have been a CD" , as you put it."Then you would agree that no one could prove that it was a CD. Your logic just bit you on the derriere.


"If every dog I'd ever seen was brown, the probability of your dog being brown is very high... Assuming I've seen a lot of dogs, and also everyone I know has never seen any dog other than a brown dog, your dog is very probably brown, OK"Do you also believe there are no black swans (http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/dp/1400063515/)? In the Middle Ages people had only seen white swans. They, like you, believed there were no black swans. Therefore, there must have been no black swans, correct? Even though black swans have been seen since, you would continue to assert there are no black swans because YOU haven't seen one.



"...but if it was obviously caused by fire and debris damage, they wouldn't need two years to come up with something that can pass simple scrutiny."Says who? Are you an expert in conducting investigations? Please explain.


"If it was fire/debris damage, common sense tells you the fire and damage would not weaken all supports the full length and breadth of the building. It would be localised to a smaller area. The idea that the fire managed to weaken the entire support structure to the same degree, simultaneously doesn't make sense."Tell us in detail the source for your assertion and all evidence that fire and damage weakened "all supports the full length and breadth of the building" as well as your assertion that "the fire managed to weaken the entire support structure to the same degree, simultaneously."

Obviously, since you are not an expert in any of the relevant fields, you need to provide evidence and not just your imagined "common sense."

"It's very unlikely that the weakening was present all across the entire support structure at the same time."Please supply evidence that weakening across the entire structure is a necessary condition for the collapse. What and who is the source for your assertion?



Now do you understand why we ask questions?

[TerryUK]

so the plane didnt make it, they decide to blow it up anyway, instead of, oh i dont know, cordoning off the area and removing the demo charges

i mean, if they could get them in there while people were in and out of th ebuilding every day certainly they could get them back out, no?

You'll have to ask 'them', how woud I know?

All I'm saying is it's one theory amongst others.

[NYCEMT86]

So I gather from this Quintiere feels the trusses failed because of insufficient fireproofing not from the plane crash but just insufficient to begin with as in when it was installed? And if it was sufficient you believe its possible it would have collapse anyway eventually? What about if it had the same asbestos fire-proofing of the lower floors what do you think then?

I don't disagree with Quintiere's statement, though it is very brief I am trying get his thoughts about behind it. It is very possible that the fire proofing could have been insufficient, but it is very possible that the plane removed the fire proofing whether it was sufficient or not. Either situation would have resulted in failure of the trusses.

It may have been the same fire-proofing as the lower floor, but it may have not have been sufficient throughout the whole building, but there was no fire in the lower floors so it wouldn't have mattered.

[The Almond]

I mentioned Larry S. because he's a player in some "truthers" theories.

As to why NIST couldn't report CD, let's just say it would be quite a 'bombshell' to say the least, so I assume there would be some pressure brought to bear, although I don't believe it would even get to that stage...


So, as a scientist, you discover government complicity in the greatest act of domestic terrorism in the US, and you decide that because your boss does not want you to publish it, you'll just keep your mouth shut?

I think your opinions are based upon an extremely low opinion on the moral fiber of a group of researchers and people whom you've never met. Do you not find that logic a bit self serving?

[ZENSMACK89]

so the plane didnt make it, they decide to blow it up anyway, instead of, oh i dont know, cordoning off the area and removing the demo charges

i mean, if they could get them in there while people were in and out of th ebuilding every day certainly they could get them back out, no?

The fires were already going and they weren’t going to be able to secure the building sufficiently any longer.

[TerryUK]

I'm asking you to back up what you have written with evidence.




I don't have written evidence.

But I think I said that WTC7 "looks like a CD" - do you disagree?

Look at the visual evidence (video)

I think I said that it appears that nobody has come up with examples of building collapse looking like CD but which were not CD.
Maybe there is such evidence - I can't prove the non-existence of something like that.

Just like your black swans/ brown dogs - I never said they did/didn't exist.

I said certain things are improbable, OK?

[ZENSMACK89]

I don't disagree with Quintiere's statement, though it is very brief I am trying get his thoughts about behind it. It is very possible that the fire proofing could have been insufficient, but it is very possible that the plane removed the fire proofing whether it was sufficient or not. Either situation would have resulted in failure of the trusses.

It may have been the same fire-proofing as the lower floor, but it may have not have been sufficient throughout the whole building, but there was no fire in the lower floors so it wouldn't have mattered.
The first building while it was being built had different fire-proofing on the first 38 floors. Then they were told they had to switch to something that wasn't asbestos. Some have claimed this original fire-proofing would have faired better.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244698,00.html

[TerryUK]

So, as a scientist, you discover government complicity in the greatest act of domestic terrorism in the US, and you decide that because your boss does not want you to publish it, you'll just keep your mouth shut?

I think your opinions are based upon an extremely low opinion on the moral fiber of a group of researchers and people whom you've never met. Do you not find that logic a bit self serving?

I don't know who is involved, I don't know the way the organisation is structured, I don't know who's been given control etc.

In an ideal world, everyone would do the 'right' thing, but unfortunately we don't have that luxury... I'm not passing moral judgement on anybody, I just know by experience that people - understandably - do not necessarily do the morally 'right' thing.

Evidently, the 19 hijackers/terrorists were human beings with no "moral fibre"
but that's perfectly acceptable to us, is it not?
In their own culture, they may be considered as 'heroes' , which of course is reprehensible to us.

[defaultdotxbe]

The fires were already going and they weren’t going to be able to secure the building sufficiently any longer.
fires seem a pretty good way to keep prying eyes away from your demo charges

[Jonnyclueless]

I've seen the same thing in several institutions in various fields.

For example, even recently, an investigation into abuse in 'old folks homes' (care homes) - More than 50% of staff admitted they didn't report abuse when they witnessed it, saying they didn't want to risk repercussions..


So your evidence that all the worlds experts are all keeping quit because they are being paid off or afraid is that you have seen some abuse in an old folks home? Just how well do you think that would hold up in a court of law.

ARE YOU SERIOUS?

[Jonnyclueless]

I don't have written evidence.

But I think I said that WTC7 "looks like a CD" - do you disagree?

Look at the visual evidence (video)

I think I said that it appears that nobody has come up with examples of building collapse looking like CD but which were not CD.
Maybe there is such evidence - I can't prove the non-existence of something like that.

Just like your black swans/ brown dogs - I never said they did/didn't exist.

I said certain things are improbable, OK?

You know people used to think the earth was flat because when ships ailed far enough they would disappear. They would ask "did the ship disappear or not?" to which the only answer could be 'yes'.

Luckily science came along and explained this phenomenon by showing the world was round and that simply because it looked like the ships fell of the edge didn't mean they really did. So just because to your uneducated eyes it looks like a CD is not evidence o a CD.

Try using that in court. "Your honor, we would like to bring in expert testimony from someone who has no expertise who says it looks like a controlled demolition".

If I said I thought it looked like a giant dildo, would that make it true too?

And the reason no one can provide you with an example of what you want is because never before in the history of man has such an incident occurred. And what you are arguing is that if something has never happened before, it's impossible. Which means that a building burning is impossible because at some point it had never happened before.

This is simply ignorance at it's best.

[maccy]

I don't know who is involved, I don't know the way the organisation is structured, I don't know who's been given control etc.

In an ideal world, everyone would do the 'right' thing, but unfortunately we don't have that luxury... I'm not passing moral judgement on anybody, I just know by experience that people - understandably - do not necessarily do the morally 'right' thing.

Evidently, the 19 hijackers/terrorists were human beings with no "moral fibre"
but that's perfectly acceptable to us, is it not?
In their own culture, they may be considered as 'heroes' , which of course is reprehensible to us.

The thing is I can understand why an Islamist terrorist would feel motivated to launch a suicide attack. I don't think they're right, but I can see how it would make sense to them.

I don't see how it is plausible for the NIST scientists to cover up evidence and then for the whole scientific community of the world to not say anything. Are you saying that all these people are scared and/or paid off?

Here are some engineers that you would assume are in no way beholden to the US government:

The Engineering Faculty of the Central University of Venezuela (http://www.ing.ucv.ve/)
The Iran University of Science and Technology College of Civil Engineering (http://civil.iust.ac.ir/index.php)

And that's just a couple of Universities among many in those countries. And that's without mentioning France, Germany, Russia, I could go on...

Here's a TV station that would love to have a story that incriminated the US Government in a cover up:

http://english.aljazeera.net

although every news outlet in the world would love to break the story, if there was evidence.

So, why is almost everybody in the world silent about this?

Why is it only a few people on the Internet pointing at a video clip and telling us its obvious?

[NYCEMT86]

The first building while it was being built had different fire-proofing on the first 38 floors. Then they were told they had to switch to something that wasn't asbestos. Some have claimed this original fire-proofing would have faired better.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244698,00.html

Thank you for the article.



This actually brings Quintiere's statement into a better light. I am not going to assume anything until I receive his answer on what he feels insufficient.

[maccy]

But I think I said that WTC7 "looks like a CD" - do you disagree?

Yes I disagree, things that don't look like a CD:

1. No flashes
2. The collapse of the penthouses
3. The debris pile.

That's before you get onto the lack of audio and seismic evidence.

[NYCEMT86]

I don't know who is involved, I don't know the way the organisation is structured, I don't know who's been given control etc.

In an ideal world, everyone would do the 'right' thing, but unfortunately we don't have that luxury... I'm not passing moral judgement on anybody, I just know by experience that people - understandably - do not necessarily do the morally 'right' thing.

Evidently, the 19 hijackers/terrorists were human beings with no "moral fibre"
but that's perfectly acceptable to us, is it not?
In their own culture, they may be considered as 'heroes' , which of course is reprehensible to us.

Actually their beliefs were different from ours. We are considered the enemy in the jihad and becoming a martyr for your religion gives 70 or so virgins. Thats why there were so many Suicide Bombers in Israel.


To our beliefs they had no "moral fiber", to them that was the most Holy thing they could have done.

[TerryUK]

... And what you are arguing is that if something has never happened before, it's impossible....

This is simply ignorance at it's best.

See, this is where you go wrong... I have not said "impossible" at all - I think you'll find that I said "improbable" which would be appropriate.

So please learn to differentiate between 'impossible' and 'improbable' - there's a big difference.

As to "experts" and in a court of law you said "Try using that in court. "Your honor, we would like to bring in expert testimony from someone who has no expertise who says it looks like a controlled demolition".
I believe I mentioned earlier the Dutch guy who's a pofessional in the field of CD - well he says it was "definitely" a CD... (he's even more definite than me - I only say it's most likely)
So how would he do in court?

As for me being 'uneducated' - if that's what you think, too bad... nobody is forcing you to post.

Anyway, I must log off for now.

[Jonnyclueless]

Actually there's nothing in Islam that promises 70 Virgins. That's actually taken from something Mohammad had said.

But when you live in a world were you have no future and a world that is pretty much hell and the only promise of hope is to kill your enemies in the name of God, thus allowing you to completely skip judgment and go directly into heaven where you will spend eternity in paradise, it's not much of a stretch to get someone to kill themselves.

[TerryUK]

Actually their beliefs were different from ours. We are considered the enemy in the jihad and becoming a martyr for your religion gives 70 or so virgins. Thats why there were so many Suicide Bombers in Israel.


To our beliefs they had no "moral fiber", to them that was the most Holy thing they could have done.

Yes, it makes you wonder how people can be so misguided...
they must really hate us to kill themselves in order to kill what they call the infidel.

[Jonnyclueless]

See, this is where you go wrong... I have not said "impossible" at all - I think you'll find that I said "improbable" which would be appropriate.

So please learn to differentiate between 'impossible' and 'improbable' - there's a big difference.

As to "experts" and in a court of law you said "Try using that in court. "Your honor, we would like to bring in expert testimony from someone who has no expertise who says it looks like a controlled demolition".
I believe I mentioned earlier the Dutch guy who's a pofessional in the field of CD - well he says it was "definitely" a CD... (he's even more definite than me - I only say it's most likely)
So how would he do in court?

As for me being 'uneducated' - if that's what you think, too bad... nobody is forcing you to post.

Anyway, I must log off for now.

It's still the same argument. You can't weaasel out of it by using the word improbable. But that's kind of how the woo movement works. Thinking that you can get around issues by syntax. It doesn't work that way, you only sit that and pretend everyone around you is stupid.

Fine, replace every instance of the word "impossible" in my reply, and replace it with "improbable". Does that make you feel better? So please learn you are still making the same argument regardless. And it's still ignorant.

Your dutch expert was given restricted information such as limited video footage. Do you think it's fair to ask an expert something and withold the most important information needed to make a proper determination/ of course not, it's outright dishonest and unscientific. I would call it fraud. And that same demolitionists does not think WTC 1 or 2 were in any way a CD and looked nothing like a CD.

So you are educated in this field? Where did you study structural engineering? What are your credentials and where have you worked as a structural engineer? If you are actually educated in this, then you should just list your education. Perhaps you studied engineering at Stanford?

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, it makes you wonder how people can be so misguided...
they must really hate us to kill themselves in order to kill what they call the infidel.


Perhaps if you took the time to learn about their culture it wouldn't seem so strange to you. Perhaps if you understood what it is like to live the life they live it would not be so surprising. You should also maybe study the Japanese WWII kamakazi pilots as well.

[NYCEMT86]

Yes, it makes you wonder how people can be so misguided...
they must really hate us to kill themselves in order to kill what they call the infidel.


It's a religious war on the western culture.


Oh did you read my threads on fire and my post?

[CJOKUSAP]

1. why there were no sounds of explosions;
2. why there is no seismic data to indicate explosions;
3. why the penthouses collapsed before the rest of the building;
4. how the building was rigged without anybody noticing;
5. how the conspirators knew it would be hit by debris and set on fire;
6. how the explosive survived several hours of fire;
7. why the building needed to be demolished at all;
8. why so many members of the FDNY insist that building was going to fall due to the fires; and
9. why the conspirators didn't wait until it was dark before demolishing the building.
Go on then, I'll give you a laugh and have a go at this quiz then. What's the prize again? Oh, that was it...the future of democracy!

1.You've got me on this one, unless they used some kind of muffling device.
2.Was there seismic data for the impacts of the planes, or just the towers collapsing? If they didn't register the planes, would they register the explosions? I doubt it.
3.Haven't got a clue.
4.They worked there. How difficult do you think it's gonna be then?
5.Erm... because they knew the towers were coming down, and the debris actually did?
6.So, there are no containers that could resist a fire, but would not be bomb-proof?
7.No idea!
8.The power of suggestion.
9.They obviously wanted maximum effect.

This should be fun.


The most important thing is the evidence: and there is none to suggest a CD. But, on top of that, it doesn't make sense even as a hypothesis.


To you.

[Totovader]

Holy derailment.

People, seriously.

[CJOKUSAP]

So, who's marking the papers this week? I hope I don't get another F!

[Foolmewunz]

Go on then, I'll give you a laugh and have a go at this quiz then. What's the prize again? Oh, that was it...the future of democracy!

1.You've got me on this one, unless they used some kind of muffling device.
2.Was there seismic data for the impacts of the planes, or just the towers collapsing? If they didn't register the planes, would they register the explosions? I doubt it.
3.Haven't got a clue.
4.They worked there. How difficult do you think it's gonna be then?
5.Erm... because they knew the towers were coming down, and the debris actually did?
6.So, there are no containers that could resist a fire, but would not be bomb-proof?
7.No idea!
8.The power of suggestion.
9.They obviously wanted maximum effect.

This should be fun.




To you.

MC: Wonderful! We have a contestant! CJOKUSAP, Come on Down! Are you ready to play Troofer Consequences!


MC: So Seejockoosap, Here's a summary of your responses to the nine questions, let's see how you did:

1,3, & 7 - you haven't even a guess. Ohhhh, Sorry! That's already -33

2. Wrong! There is seismic data, not just from geology smart guys but from commercial firms who were involved in construction in and around Manhattan. There is seismic data of the crashes and the buildings coming down. There is no seismic data of any of the many many explosions that 3 different CDs or 3 different large buildings would have required.
Cumulative score -44

4. "They" worked there? Who are "they". Demolition crews worked in WTC7. We here at Troofer Consequences have a list of the tenants in the building. Please indicate the one that was in the demolition field.
Hmm? No response? Wrong!!!!
Cumulative score -56
(even if they worked there they still would have been seen!)

5. Ewww, Circular logic. Wrong! Cumulative score - 67

6. Buzzzzzz! You're not allowed to invent new devices for your answers! Do you get those fireproof explosive containers from Acme, the source for Wile Coyote?
Cumulative score -78

8. Mass hypnosis? Are you saying Kreskin was there? Gong!
Cumulative score -89

9. Ridiculous conjecture.
So that brings you cumulative score to..... Minus 100! That would mean ZERO.
Cumulative score -100

Audience: Awwwww!

MC: But that's okay, we have some lovely parting gifts for you. Tell him what he's won Don!

Announcer: We have a year's supply of Reynolds Wrap, the troofer tin foil of choice since 1963, two tickets to Troofstock the riotously funny new lower Manhattan hit, and a map and a flashlight... Hey! You know what they're for!
And thanks for playing....

Announcer, MC, Audience: Troofer Consequences!!

Cue end credits.....

[CJOKUSAP]

MC: Wonderful! We have a contestant! CJOKUSAP, Come on Down! Are you ready to play Troofer Consequences!
Let's play the game!
[QUOTE=Foolmewunz;2924081]

MC: So Seejockoosap, Here's a summary of your responses to the nine questions, let's see how you did:

1,3, & 7 - you haven't even a guess. Ohhhh, Sorry! That's already -33

Are you not even going to consider my muffler in #1.? You tight bastard.


2. Wrong! There is seismic data, not just from geology smart guys but from commercial firms who were involved in construction in and around Manhattan. There is seismic data of the crashes and the buildings coming down. There is no seismic data of any of the many many explosions that 3 different CDs or 3 different large buildings would have required.
Cumulative score -44
Got any links for that claim?

4. "They" worked there? Who are "they". Demolition crews worked in WTC7. We here at Troofer Consequences have a list of the tenants in the building. Please indicate the one that was in the demolition field.
Hmm? No response? Wrong!!!!
Cumulative score -56
(even if they worked there they still would have been seen!)
Do you work on the door there, or something? You seem to know a lot about the ins and outs of the place. You might be the inside man, for all I know.

5. Ewww, Circular logic. Wrong! Cumulative score - 67
What, and you lot never use that tactic? I'll bet!

6. Buzzzzzz! You're not allowed to invent new devices for your answers! Do you get those fireproof explosive containers from Acme, the source for Wile Coyote?
Cumulative score -78
If it's within known technological capabilities, how do you know it doesn't exist? Just because you've not seen one?


8. Mass hypnosis? Are you saying Kreskin was there? Gong!
Cumulative score -89
No, Derren Brown. Are you denying that's possible as well?

9. Ridiculous conjecture.
Ridiculous quiz!

So that brings you cumulative score to..... Minus 100! That would mean ZERO.
Cumulative score -100

Audience: Awwwww!

[Foolmewunz]

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Check the crash times.

Thanks for playing!

Will the next Troofer, Come on Down???

[Corsair 115]

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how the demolition charges which allegedly brought down WTC7 made no discernable noises nor discernable flashes of light...I'm quoting myself in the hopes that TerryUK might actually acknowledge the question and attempt to answer it in some meaningful way...

[CJOKUSAP]

I'm quoting myself in the hopes that TerryUK might actually acknowledge the question and attempt to answer it in some meaningful way...

So, in all the chaos and disruption going on that day, who was actually monitoring the building for loud noises, etc...?

[Mobyseven]

Your questions don't ALL need to be answered in order for CD to be true...

Not everything always 'goes to plan' ...
Remember that if just one item you mention is true, the rest don't matter.

Call me 'coherent', but how can a series of questions be true or false?

Me: Can I call Dubai from here?
Moron: True.
Me: *slaps moron*

[Brainache]

So, in all the chaos and disruption going on that day, who was actually monitoring the building for loud noises, etc...?

Umm isn't there video of the damn thing falling down? See the telltale series of loud bright demolition charges going off just before it collapses? No? Well there's your answer... no CD.

[Mobyseven]

Just like your black swans/ brown dogs - I never said they did/didn't exist.

Until about age 10, I didn't know that white swans existed.

[ref]

The fires were already going and they weren’t going to be able to secure the building sufficiently any longer.

This is interesting. So they had a third plane coming in towards WTC7 and they had the building already rigged up, ready to be demolished. Somehow, the third plane didn't make it (Where did it go? Remember, there were no more than 4 hijackings. Was the pilot just going to fly it into WTC7 himself?). Ok, so the plane didn't make it. They are like, damn, we still got these charges in place. But they got lucky, some debris from the towers damaged the building. So they waited 7 hours and decided, what the hell, let's demolish this one as well?

Did I get something wrong?

[sleahead]

Did I get something wrong?

No, except I believe there are some who claim that WTC7 was rigged for demolition on the day:rolleyes:. All they have done is take the question back one step. Now they must answer why the alledged conspirators are attempting to fly a plane into WTC7, which would have been an extremely difficult target.

[ref]

Now they must answer why the alledged conspirators are attempting to fly a plane into WTC7, which would have been an extremely difficult target.

Exactly. Reports of the third approaching aircraft came in around 9:30 am.

The towers were still standing, so the plane would have had to come in from north.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1363946d93665326b3.jpg

This is what it would have looked like. Good luck with that plane. Not exactly, what I would call a foolproof plan.

[bje]

I don't have written evidence.


Let's try again. You wrote:
I think I can stand by anything I've written here.I'm asking you to back up what you have written with evidence.

But I think I said that WTC7 "looks like a CD" - do you disagree?Here is what you wrote:
"As for the WTC7, there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism , except CD."Please provide your evidence for your claim.

Look at the visual evidence (video)I'm asking for your physical evidence that "there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism." It's YOUR claim - support it.


I think I said that it appears that nobody has come up with examples of building collapse looking like CD but which were not CD.
Maybe there is such evidence - I can't prove the non-existence of something like that.We are concerned here with your own written claims and assertions. In addition to the above you wrote:

"If it was fire/debris damage, common sense tells you the fire and damage would not weaken all supports the full length and breadth of the building. It would be localised to a smaller area. The idea that the fire managed to weaken the entire support structure to the same degree, simultaneously doesn't make sense."This is your claim and your claim alone. Please provide the evidence for your claim.

Just like your black swans/ brown dogs - I never said they did/didn't exist.We are concerned with everything you claimed. I am asking for your evidence to support your claims.

I said certain things are improbable, OK?You said certain things are fact:
"As for the WTC7, there's no credible explanation for the collapse mechanism , except CD."Please provide the evidence for your claims, TerryUK.

[Par]

So, there’s still no evidence of a controlled demolition, funnily enough.

[Drudgewire]

So, there’s still no evidence of a controlled demolition, funnily enough.
Well, there is the whole "common sense" thing.
















:dl:

[Jonnyclueless]

I saw a poll that said 1/4 of americans are stupid but think they are the only ones with common sense. I don't think that's how the poll was presented though.

[ZENSMACK89]

This is interesting. So they had a third plane coming in towards WTC7 and they had the building already rigged up, ready to be demolished. Somehow, the third plane didn't make it (Where did it go? Remember, there were no more than 4 hijackings. Was the pilot just going to fly it into WTC7 himself?). Ok, so the plane didn't make it. They are like, damn, we still got these charges in place. But they got lucky, some debris from the towers damaged the building. So they waited 7 hours and decided, what the hell, let's demolish this one as well?

Did I get something wrong?
Where did it go? They don't even know what flight it was. There were other reports of planes in trouble that day. There was flight Delta 1989 detained and isolated area of the Cleveland airport where flight 93 was reported to have landed.

[Par]

Where did it go? They don't even know what flight it was. There were other reports of planes in trouble that day. There was flight Delta 1989 detained and isolated area of the Cleveland airport where flight 93 was reported to have landed.


Delta 1989 was never hijacked. Other than the four that were lost, all other flights that day were accounted for. So, the question stands – where did it go?

[Jonnyclueless]

Flight 1989 was mistaken for Flight 93. The two planes simply got mixed up. Not unusual with all the confusion going on.

[CJOKUSAP]

Delta 1989 was never hijacked. Other than the four that were lost, all other flights that day were accounted for. So, the question stands – where did it go?

So nothing that Condoleeza Rice said about the days events aroused your suspicions? Gulp. We ARE all *****.

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.

[Par]

So nothing that Condoleeza Rice said about the days events aroused your suspicions? Gulp. We ARE all *****!


Well, I suppose I should be flattered that you evidently think that if I’m credulous, then we’re all… in trouble. Regardless, what did she have to say about a fifth hijacking?

[Drudgewire]

We ARE all *.*.*.*.*.*!
:eek:

No, but I'm betting you are. :p

E: That was fast.

[ZENSMACK89]

Delta 1989 was never hijacked. Other than the four that were lost, all other flights that day were accounted for. So, the question stands – where did it go?
I didn't claim Delta 1989 was hijacked. Just that it was landed because of a suspected bomb and they were detained in a remote part of the airport for hours. The same airport flight 93 was reported to have landed. I'm only saying if a third plane did crash into say WTC7 it could have been claimed it was Delta 1989 and those passengers could have been the reported victims.

[Par]

I didn't claim Delta 1989 was hijacked. Just that it was landed because of a suspected bomb and they were detained in a remote part of the airport for hours. The same airport flight 93 was reported to have landed. I'm only saying if a third plane did crash into say WTC7 it could have been claimed it was Delta 1989 and those passengers could have been the reported victims.


Well yes, I suppose that could have happened, but, as it turned out, it did not. The information that Delta 1989 had a bomb on board turned out to be false.

[Jonnyclueless]

I didn't claim Delta 1989 was hijacked. Just that it was landed because of a suspected bomb and they were detained in a remote part of the airport for hours. The same airport flight 93 was reported to have landed. I'm only saying if a third plane did crash into say WTC7 it could have been claimed it was Delta 1989 and those passengers could have been the reported victims.

Not that's completely untrue. They couldn't have claimed it was Delta 1989 because the passengers might present a problem in that they would confirm they are alive and well.

And again, it wasn't that they thought 1989 was a separate incident of that flight 93 supposedly landed at that air port, people just got the flights reversed. They are very similar and were in the same area.

[Par]

It seems that a lot of conspiracy theorists think that if they can render their theories internally consistent, then they have succeeded – then they have arrived at the truth. It’s as if empirical truth can be determined via a priori means – via armchair theorising regardless of evidence. However, whether or not a theory is internally constant has no bearing on its truth value.

[CptColumbo]

It seems that a lot of conspiracy theorists think that if they can render their theories internally consistent, then they have succeeded – then they have arrived at the truth. It’s as if empirical truth can be determined via a priori means – via armchair theorising regardless of evidence. However, whether or not a theory is internally constant has no bearing on its truth value.I dislike when they use an unproven piece of evidence to prove something else, and then use the thing they just "proved" to prove the original evidence.

[Corsair 115]

So, in all the chaos and disruption going on that day, who was actually monitoring the building for loud noises, etc...?Demolitions charges are LOUD.

They are easily distinguishable and would be clearly heard for blocks and blocks around the building. Every video camera with a working microphone would have heard any such charges, and every person in the area would have heard such charges. The sounds are unmistakable.

[ZENSMACK89]

Not that's completely untrue. They couldn't have claimed it was Delta 1989 because the passengers might present a problem in that they would confirm they are alive and well.

And again, it wasn't that they thought 1989 was a separate incident of that flight 93 supposedly landed at that air port, people just got the flights reversed. They are very similar and were in the same area.
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/delta_flight_1989_9_11/travel.shtml

Traveling on Delta Flight 1989 on 9/11

[Elizabeth I]

I didn't claim Delta 1989 was hijacked. Just that it was landed because of a suspected bomb and they were detained in a remote part of the airport for hours. The same airport flight 93 was reported to have landed. I'm only saying if a third plane did crash into say WTC7 it could have been claimed it was Delta 1989 and those passengers could have been the reported victims.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[bje]

Elizabeth I,

I smell a disinfo pancake bunny. Be forewarned: we are ready to defend the truth.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1593946da161a0a122.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=8075)

[Jonnyclueless]

http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/delta_flight_1989_9_11/travel.shtml

Traveling on Delta Flight 1989 on 9/11

Thank you for clarifying my point.

"the Delta flight 1989 she was on was initially thought to be flight 93 since they were very close in the sky at the time that 93 was hijacked"

[Par]

http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/delta_flight_1989_9_11/travel.shtml

Traveling on Delta Flight 1989 on 9/11


So, do you have any evidence that Delta 1989 was destined for World Trade Center 7?

[ZENSMACK89]

So, do you have any evidence that Delta 1989 was destined for World Trade Center 7?

I didn't say it was. I said it was landed in Cleveland just as 93 was reported to have landed. The passengers were held for hours. The pilot let them make brief phone calls right when they landed. When they were taken off the plane they were then not allowed to make anymore phone calls for I think two hours. Again with the transponders turned off how were the planes that were tracked into the targets they hit identified?

There were also other planes reported in trouble that morning...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-12-hijacker-daytwo_x.htm

One, a TWA flight, refuses to land in Pittsburgh and wants to fly on toward Washington. Another, a Midwest Express flight, disappears from radar over West Virginia. And three jets over the Atlantic Ocean are sending out distress signals, the Coast Guard reports.

[ref]

I didn't say it was. I said it was landed in Cleveland just as 93 was reported to have landed. The passengers were held for hours. The pilot let them make brief phone calls right when they landed. When they were taken off the plane they were then not allowed to make anymore phone calls for I think two hours. Again with the transponders turned off how were the planes that were tracked into the targets they hit identified?

There were also other planes reported in trouble that morning...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-12-hijacker-daytwo_x.htm

One, a TWA flight, refuses to land in Pittsburgh and wants to fly on toward Washington. Another, a Midwest Express flight, disappears from radar over West Virginia. And three jets over the Atlantic Ocean are sending out distress signals, the Coast Guard reports.

But you have one problem. There were no more hijackings. All the planes were accounted for and landed. So my questions is, who would have piloted the third plane into WTC7, the pilot all by him/herself? Because there were no more hijackings!

[De_Bunk]

I say...

Let us all march on Washington...Demand the truth from Bush...(Thats if everyone can get their mom to wake them up in time...)

DB

[ZENSMACK89]

But you have one problem. There were no more hijackings. All the planes were accounted for and landed. So my questions is, who would have piloted the third plane into WTC7, the pilot all by him/herself? Because there were no more hijackings!
Accounted for how? For instance which flights were sending out distress signals over the Atlantic?

[Par]

Accounted for how? For instance which flights were sending out distress signals over the Atlantic?


You seem to keep forgetting, but the burden of proof is on you, remember. If you are suggesting that more than four aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, then you need to provide evidence to support that idea.

[ZENSMACK89]

You seem to keep forgetting, but the burden of proof is on you, remember. If you are suggesting that more than four aircraft were hijacked on 9/11, then you need to provide evidence to support that idea.
I didn't say more planes were hijacked just that more were suspected of being hijacked. How with the transponders turned off did they ID the planes that hit the targets? It was claimed all planes were accounted for. I asked how?

Do you know?

[Jonnyclueless]

Pretty simple really. The airlines are aware of their own planes and if any of them showed up as missing, then they would report that they can't account for them. Also, the family members of the passengers on any missing flights might start to take notice.

[ZENSMACK89]

Pretty simple really. The airlines are aware of their own planes and if any of them showed up as missing, then they would report that they can't account for them. Also, the family members of the passengers on any missing flights might start to take notice.
I'm asking how the four planes that were lost were accounted for with the transponder off on three and code changed on the forth?

[beachnut]

I'm asking how the four planes that were lost were accounted for with the transponder off on three and code changed on the forth?
The radars are taped. After 9/11 they took the radar tapes and tracked each plane to the target area! Simple stuff any grade school kid could look up, you may not be college material.

Next, flight 93 and 77 FDRs were found, each one shows all the flights stored for the past 24 hours in the FDR. Wow. Flight 11 and 175 were hijacked, they found the DNA of some of the people at the WTC which matched the passengers, ah..

They found the DNA of the passengers and crews on 77 and 93 in the Pentagon and in PA in a hole in the ground that a plane makes when it hits at 600 mph.

Sorry, but there are over 1000 ways to confirm the planes with their targets. You missed them all. (why are you so reserach challenged and why the questions any kid could answer?)

Accounted for how? For instance which flights were sending out distress signals over the Atlantic?Why not look this up on your own and try to keep on topic.

One liners????

Please do not cite PrisonPlanet or Infowars!

[Drudgewire]

It looks like a CD. It does not look like a building falling down without CD.
It you can come up with evidence showing a "building falling down" which looks like that but without CD, you will have a new convert.

Ok, I searched and searched and searched... and can't believe no one else has found this yet.

You want PROOF? I've got your PROOF!! In this video, you can CLEARLY see how massive structural damage at the top of the building set off a chain reaction that weakened the foundation throughout.

Furthermore, you'll see that as the top floors collapse, the speed in which subsequent floors give way is increased, destroying what has been referred to as the "clunkity clunk smoking gun." And if all that isn't enough, we even get to see the events that lead directly up to the collapse, once and for all shattering any and all dispersions about so-called controlled demoltions.

Finally, not only is the video from the mainstream media... but from a source I'm sure most in the movement consider beyond reproach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JkCP42hkKc

Sorry twoofers, but this case is CHA-LOSED!! :cool:

[ZENSMACK89]

The radars are taped. After 9/11 they took the radar tapes and tracked each plane to the target area! Simple stuff any grade school kid could look up, you may not be college material.

Next, flight 93 and 77 FDRs were found, each one shows all the flights stored for the past 24 hours in the FDR. Wow. Flight 11 and 175 were hijacked, they found the DNA of some of the people at the WTC which matched the passengers, ah..

They found the DNA of the passengers and crews on 77 and 93 in the Pentagon and in PA in a hole in the ground that a plane makes when it hits at 600 mph.

Sorry, but there are over 1000 ways to confirm the planes with their targets. You missed them all. (why are you so reserach challenged and why the questions any kid could answer?)

Why not look this up on your own and try to keep on topic.

One liners????

Please do not cite PrisonPlanet or Infowars!
You're not answering.

I didn't say they didn't track anything into the targets I asked how they identified it. What's a transponder code for? Why would it be turned off or changed?

[Par]

You're not answering.

You cannot have read Beachnut’s post.

I didn't say they didn't track anything into the targets I asked how they identified it.

Further, tracking the planes was a way of identifying them.

What's a transponder code for? Why would it be turned off or changed?

The hijackers deactivated the transponders to impede efforts to locate and track the planes.

[ZENSMACK89]

The hijackers deactivated the transponders to impede efforts to locate and track the planes.

Thank you. So how is anyone sure they did locate and track the right plane?

[Par]

Thank you. So how is anyone sure they did locate and track the right plane?


When reviewing the radar tapes, the secondary returns could be tracked until such time as the transponders were deactivated. From then on, the primary returns could be tracked until the planes reached their targets. That’s one way.

[Mancman]

How about WTC7 wasn't part of the original plan but once it was damaged it was an unsecured building that house agencies like the Secret Service thus a security breach and had to be destroyed? Or maybe it was suppose to be hit by the third plane flying around the city that the emergency responders were warned about but never came in. How about everything didn’t go exactly as planned?




Maybe WTC7 was part of the plan, i.e. to destroy all the buildings, so it was 'rigged' beforehand like 1 & 2.

The third plane was supposed to hit #7 but didn't make it.

Things don't always go as planned. :)

It's hard not to laugh when this desperate argument is dregded up from the logical abyss it resides in.

Why on earth would the US govt. concoct a plan targeting high profile, world famous landmark targets - the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the Capitol Building, and then throw in....World Trade Centre 7? WTC7 was anonymous prior to 9/11.

It would not at all be credible that terrorists would pilot a third plane into Manhattan and ignore some of the most famous structures in the world such as the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, the U.N complex or the Brooklyn Bridge. Even the Statue of Liberty would be a more believable target than WTC7!

Imagine those terrorists ignoring all of those, instead performing a far more difficult strike on an unknown building. It would be highly perplexing to everyone. It would be insane. It's a desperate, awful argument, nothing more.

I somehow doubt the average American would think: "Man, the Twin Towers collapsing and the Pentagon exploding is one thing, but World Trade 7? NOW I'm pissed!"

[beachnut]

You're not answering.

I didn't say they didn't track anything into the targets I asked how they identified it. What's a transponder code for? Why would it be turned off or changed?
You do not really know much about 9/11 do you? (you did not know 3 of the planes turned of the transponder?)

You can look up transponders. Why do you ask, and what is the purpose of derailing this tread with stupid question you can look up yourself? http://www.public-action.com/911/transpon/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_%28aviation%29

What is your problem? Post to the thread or start you own, I do not know anything about 9/11 thread and ask for help.

This thread is about one-liners that debunkers would say. "Exactly what frequency is the Beam weapon on?"

Try it.

[Civilized Worm]

This thread is about one-liners that debunkers would say. "Exactly what frequency is the Beam weapon on?"


Easy, it's set to "dustify".

[Mobyseven]

Thank you. So how is anyone sure they did locate and track the right plane?

A few ways. For example, when they checked the remains of the planes that had crashed, it turned out that - bingo! - they had the right planes.

The planes didn't need locating or tracking once they had crashed, ZENSMACK89.

[ZENSMACK89]

It's hard not to laugh when this desperate argument is dregded up from the logical abyss it resides in.

Why on earth would the US govt. concoct a plan targeting high profile, world famous landmark targets - the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, the Capitol Building, and then throw in....World Trade Centre 7? WTC7 was anonymous prior to 9/11.

It would not at all be credible that terrorists would pilot a third plane into Manhattan and ignore some of the most famous structures in the world such as the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, the U.N complex or the Brooklyn Bridge. Even the Statue of Liberty would be a more believable target than WTC7!

Imagine those terrorists ignoring all of those, instead performing a far more difficult strike on an unknown building. It would be highly perplexing to everyone. It would be insane. It's a desperate, awful argument, nothing more.

I somehow doubt the average American would think: "Man, the Twin Towers collapsing and the Pentagon exploding is one thing, but World Trade 7? NOW I'm pissed!"
Yeah I think I covered that.

[ZENSMACK89]

A few ways. For example, when they checked the remains of the planes that had crashed, it turned out that - bingo! - they had the right planes.

The planes didn't need locating or tracking once they had crashed, ZENSMACK89.
Show me where.

[ZENSMACK89]

You do not really know much about 9/11 do you? (you did not know 3 of the planes turned of the transponder?)

You can look up transponders. Why do you ask, and what is the purpose of derailing this tread with stupid question you can look up yourself? http://www.public-action.com/911/transpon/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_%28aviation%29

What is your problem? Post to the thread or start you own, I do not know anything about 9/11 thread and ask for help.

This thread is about one-liners that debunkers would say. "Exactly what frequency is the Beam weapon on?"

Try it.
The question was rhetorical. In fact I brought up the transponder.

[ZENSMACK89]

When reviewing the radar tapes, the secondary returns could be tracked until such time as the transponders were deactivated. From then on, the primary returns could be tracked until the planes reached their targets. That’s one way.

Show me where it's claimed they could and did do that. Also if it's true then why did the hijackers bother to turn them off?

Does this guy not know what he's talking about? Compared to you that is.

Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707 and 727. Retired Civil Engineer. Retired Naval aviator. Aircraft flown: Grumman E-1 Tracer and E-2 Hawkeye.

"And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ..."

[Corsair 115]

There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ..."I would refer you to the case of FedEx Flight 705 (http://www.tailstrike.com/070494.htm) for an example of an attempted hijacking where the crew had no chance to inform ATC what was happening until several minutes after the incident had started.

[technoextreme]

It looks like a CD. It does not look like a building falling down without CD.
It you can come up with evidence showing a "building falling down" which looks like that but without CD, you will have a new convert.
Buildings that are demolished with explovies can be brought down right within the buildings footbrint without any damage being brought upon buildings even if they are a block away. You really haven't watched that much controlled demolitions if you think that 9/11 had any sense of control.

[Par]

Show me where it's claimed they could and did do that. Also if it's true then why did the hijackers bother to turn them off?


Please do not try to move the goal-posts. You asked me how investigators could have made sure that they had located and tracked the right plane. I explained a way in which they could have done so. The hijackers, as I’ve already pointed out, deactivated the transponders to impede efforts to locate and track the planes. If you’ll recall, their only concern was reaching their targets without being intercepted. Whether or not they could be successfully tracked appreciably after the fact by investigators with practically unlimited time to examine the radar tapes probably didn’t concern them all that much.

Does this guy not know what he's talking about? Compared to you that is.


The quotation in question is not in contradiction with anything that I have said.

[ZENSMACK89]

Please do not try to move the goal-posts. You asked me how investigators could have made sure that they had located and tracked the right plane. I explained a way in which they could have done so. The hijackers, as I’ve already pointed out, deactivated the transponders to impede efforts to locate and track the planes. If you’ll recall, their only concern was reaching their targets without being intercepted. Whether or not they could be successfully tracked appreciably after the fact by investigators with practically unlimited time to examine the radar tapes probably didn’t concern them all that much.

I'm not moving anything it's all part of the same thing. What I've been saying all along is if the transponders were turned off to impede identification maybe they did just that and what was really tracked was a different aircraft. If they have proof that they don't need the transponder then where is it and why have it in the first place and why turn it off?

The quotation in question is not in contradiction with anything that I have said.

It's in relation to the transponder and how they seemed to go off or were changed exactly at the time the pilot should have switched to hijack mode. Four times.

[ZENSMACK89]

I would refer you to the case of FedEx Flight 705 (http://www.tailstrike.com/070494.htm) for an example of an attempted hijacking where the crew had no chance to inform ATC what was happening until several minutes after the incident had started.
Did it happen four times in an hour?

[Par]

What I've been saying all along is if the transponders were turned off to impede identification maybe they did just that and what was really tracked was a different aircraft. If they have proof that they don't need the transponder then where is it and why have it in the first place and why turn it off?


They do not have proof that they didn’t need to turn the transponders off. As I have already said, the deactivation of the transponders successfully impeded efforts to locate and track the planes while the attacks took place. Via careful examination of the radar tapes after the fact, however, they could be successfully located and tracked.

It's in relation to the transponder and how they seemed to go off or were changed exactly at the time the pilot should have switched to hijack mode. Four times.


I know what it is in relation to. However, you sardonically asked me if I thought I knew more than this Ted Muga. Yet nothing in his statement is in contradiction with anything that I have said.

[beachnut]

Show me where it's claimed they could and did do that. Also if it's true then why did the hijackers bother to turn them off?

Does this guy not know what he's talking about? Compared to you that is.

Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707 and 727. Retired Civil Engineer. Retired Naval aviator. Aircraft flown: Grumman E-1 Tracer and E-2 Hawkeye.

"And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ..."
You have no idea what the thread is about. Do you?

The pilots were killed before they were able to put in the code. Go ahead try to put the code in with your throat cut. Come on big strong pilot, put the code in while the warm blood runs down your neck. You can squawk emergency with a quick button but since your throat is cut you did not have time. Did you hear the one tape where the pilots are being killed? Do you even try to look up stuff on your own. I find your lack of knowledge and posting stupid question most disrespectful. The pilots would squawk the hijack code or emergency code if they had time. They had to be killed or they would have take the plane back. This is very sore subject, anyone can cut your or my throat without us able to stop it. Unless you are prepared, you are lost, what are you prepared for, not discussing 9/11.

The scope on 9/11 were all unusually in secondary mode. It takes more work to track the primary target, ask our experts who worked the scopes. It is harder to track the primary targets, that is why we have code and transponders. The target now has lost its altitude unless the system is set up to calculate the attitude but I think they had to do that after 9/11 with the tape.

The terrorist should have squawk the hijack code, and then ATC would think they were going back to land! This would have delayed the NORAD response. But no hijacked code and turning off the transponder made every think they crashed until they were found on primary, and the changing code made it seem even more suspicious. But then I am just and old pilot. What makes you ask so many questions, you are beginning to sound like the fact less Dylan Avery, or JDX.

Go ahead try to set the hijack code as your throat is cut.

[TjW]

I'm not moving anything it's all part of the same thing. What I've been saying all along is if the transponders were turned off to impede identification maybe they did just that and what was really tracked was a different aircraft. If they have proof that they don't need the transponder then where is it and why have it in the first place and why turn it off?



It's in relation to the transponder and how they seemed to go off or were changed exactly at the time the pilot should have switched to hijack mode. Four times.

Assume for the moment that the transponders had been left on. Since a pilot can set the transponder to identify as any of the 4096 codes, what would that prove? Transponders are not unique identifiers of an aircraft. Many, many aircraft are squawking 1200 even as I type this.
If, on the other hand, you go back through a tape and correlate skin-tracking data with the transponder data recorded, then continue to track that target using only skin-tracking after the transponder is disabled, then it's a unique identifier in the sense that the aircraft that launched as Flight xx was the same aircraft that crashed.