Can you explain how the building could fall straight down?
WTC Building 7 on 9/11
- Thread starter battig1370
- Start date
Can you explain how the building could fall straight down?
Eyewitness evidence doesn't mean shit unless they've got some physical proof to back it up. How many times have you seen someone convicted of murder just because an eyewitness said, 'That looks like the guy who killed them'. *In the recent US*
You guys need to start coming up with some videotaped explosions in WTC7 or stop trying to argue your case. There are plenty of videos of it's collapse, I'm sure if it was a controlled demo then someone had to videotape some explosions. Explosions constitute fire and smoke (fireballs basically), smoke alone proves nothing, when you sandwich two flat things together, all the air goes out through the side, so it is to be expected for smoke to come out as it's falling.
You guys need to start coming up with some videotaped explosions in WTC7 or stop trying to argue your case. There are plenty of videos of it's collapse, I'm sure if it was a controlled demo then someone had to videotape some explosions. Explosions constitute fire and smoke (fireballs basically), smoke alone proves nothing, when you sandwich two flat things together, all the air goes out through the side, so it is to be expected for smoke to come out as it's falling.
B
BlueMoose
Guest
-why the fuck people are forced to testify in courts if it doesnt mean shit ?!?
Hundreds of eyewitness are just stupid, drunk, on drugs, hallucinating or otherwise just not reliable. Trust nofuckinbody ! Who is paranoid now ?
If the main supports of a building are inside the walls why would we necessarily see the explosions? Furthermore, how hard could it be to get to these areas using ducts and elevator shafts with a good set of blueprints? I'd think a crack team of commandos would do the work of a bunch of teamsters in a fraction of the time. Especially as it pertains to wiring up a building to be taken down. If the security of the building is government or government contractor, Haliburton anyone?, it would be a snap to get this done both discreetly and expediently.
Yeah, if WTC 7 hadn't fallen, no Americans would have gotten riled up. The towers, nobody really noticed. But when that empty WTC7 came down, that's what pissed us off. I heard they used alien explosives from Area 51.
Name the last time that happened, please.
BTW, you haven't responded to the other two posts before that one^.
Modern buildings don't just fall into nothing like that from fire. Name one that has if you can. It just doesn't happen.
The two world trade centers going down like that from the planes was weird enough, but a building with a fire on a few floors going down like that looked like a boxer taking a dive before getting hit.
falling rubble and fire could do it
You somehow forgot to mention the hole that took out one entire corner of the building, not to mention the severe structural damage that accompanied the formation of that hole.
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Dark520
No flashes, however it is undeniable that you saw huge plumes of smoke billow out from every ~3 floors up the entire building, you wanna show those to me on WTC7?
-Remember, in controlled demolition buildings are usually stripped down, no windows and most internal walls uninstalled, so the dust clouds has much less resistance within building. WTCs wasnt stripped any.
Dust clouds WTC7
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/demolition.html
This video, compelling as it may be to those who are already convinced and don't scrutinize it, has quite a few flaws.
The first clip doesn't show where they are or what time, nor no visual evidence as to explosions. I think that those might be some nice things to know to know whether or not the firefighters are even near WTC7.
-The fact that HBO has used it in documentary (and later clipping out the explosion part, why?) give us reason to believe that it has been made 9/11. Also notice the dust and debris in the streets, that indicates that they are nearby area and that it had been shot after first collapse of twin towers.
So the timewindow is 10.00am to dawn. The guy who is in telephone has a wristwatch in hes arm, if somebody who has the technology to utilize that footage I would be intrested what it would reveal.
Here is sounds from distance with video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWFVzBdM5s
Visual evidence of explosion
1. That guy's voice is fucking creepy.
2. An explosion does not create a vacuum, it creates a high-pressure wave that spreads out from the point of explosion outwards in all directions. In the video, it claims that the explosion happened 9.5 seconds before the actual collapse. In 9.5 seconds after an explosion, the air pressure would have had adequate time to stabilize within the building, and thus bring it back to the same conditions as there would have been in a normal collapse, therefore, the case they are presenting is absolute bullshit, because the conditions are the same in either case.
1. Yes, an excellent point.
2. When explosives has blown away all the materia in its perimeter, what is there left ? Somekind of a vacuum perhaps ? Are you denianing the freefall or what ?
I have tried answered your every question, how about if you try to answer some of my questions for a change ? Only piece of evidence you try to offer us is The Screw Loose Change. Lets look what it has to say about WTC7...(debunkers comments with red)
"This part personally annoys me because it goes against simple logic. We are going to talk about WTC7 because Loose Change doesnt get into great detail about it."
"The firefighters also knew it was going to collapse."
Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]
Captain Chris Boyle recalls,"On the south side of there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
-This is the only evidence about that "huge fucking hole" and in your standards it doesnt mean shit since it is testimony of eyewitness. Your one eyewitness against my hundreds.
"Not a single demolition firm in the world agrees with the 9/11 Deniars".
-This is outrage lie or at least twisting reality, I mean using term like firm.
"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished.
Hugo Bachmann, PhD, Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of
Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Author and co-author of Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures (1990), Vibration
Problems in Structures (1992): Practical Guidelines (1995), Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete
Beams (1998), Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction (2001),
Earthquake-proofing Buildings (2002)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEoKhyXKWxQ&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExUTAbUCYL0&mode=related&search=
No seismic readings show any explosive devices."
-Open issue to me. I´ve been trying to make some sense of all those seismic studies in the net, but really confused by them by both sides. Could somebody provide a link where those seismic events are studied reliable and so that I can understand them too
"As for the building falling speed, that is still under NIST investigation. Mainly due to the fact that no test have been done where nearly half the building is gone in one corner and fuel continues to burn unfought fires."
-How is this accured science ? So one corner has damaged, the only photos in fact of WtC7 where some damage is to see.
It easy to see that the damage in soutwest corner couldnt cause the collapse since all the supporting colums are far away from outer walls.
Still the building is collapsing inwards to the middle. Also notice which way he presented it, nearly half of the building gone in one corner.
-Also notice that NIST doesnt still have a clue what happened, under investugation. Incompetent they are if they cant draw somekind of conclusion after all these years I say. All they offer is speculations.
-Also presenting that fires been unfought, not true, they were figthing against it earliar in a day.
-How this video can be used as an evidence regarding WTC7 is beyond me
I have tried to answer your questions at least with some links and backups, for a change, could you answer my questions with some evidence since the only evidence you offer is the Screw Loose Change video which has nothing to offer to case WTC7. Thanks.
And remember the words your debunker uses...
"Speculation is not evidence."
-You think that the WTC7 collapsing by fire and damage by debris of twintowers is not a speculative theory... ?
If you dont bring some evidence to backup your claims the case is closed
for me. The evidence is overwhelming for demolition theory vs Collapsed By Fire.
No flashes, however it is undeniable that you saw huge plumes of smoke billow out from every ~3 floors up the entire building, you wanna show those to me on WTC7?
-Remember, in controlled demolition buildings are usually stripped down, no windows and most internal walls uninstalled, so the dust clouds has much less resistance within building. WTCs wasnt stripped any.
Dust clouds WTC7
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/demolition.html
This video, compelling as it may be to those who are already convinced and don't scrutinize it, has quite a few flaws.
The first clip doesn't show where they are or what time, nor no visual evidence as to explosions. I think that those might be some nice things to know to know whether or not the firefighters are even near WTC7.
-The fact that HBO has used it in documentary (and later clipping out the explosion part, why?) give us reason to believe that it has been made 9/11. Also notice the dust and debris in the streets, that indicates that they are nearby area and that it had been shot after first collapse of twin towers.
So the timewindow is 10.00am to dawn. The guy who is in telephone has a wristwatch in hes arm, if somebody who has the technology to utilize that footage I would be intrested what it would reveal.
Here is sounds from distance with video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qWFVzBdM5s
Visual evidence of explosion
1. That guy's voice is fucking creepy.
2. An explosion does not create a vacuum, it creates a high-pressure wave that spreads out from the point of explosion outwards in all directions. In the video, it claims that the explosion happened 9.5 seconds before the actual collapse. In 9.5 seconds after an explosion, the air pressure would have had adequate time to stabilize within the building, and thus bring it back to the same conditions as there would have been in a normal collapse, therefore, the case they are presenting is absolute bullshit, because the conditions are the same in either case.
1. Yes, an excellent point.
2. When explosives has blown away all the materia in its perimeter, what is there left ? Somekind of a vacuum perhaps ? Are you denianing the freefall or what ?
I have tried answered your every question, how about if you try to answer some of my questions for a change ? Only piece of evidence you try to offer us is The Screw Loose Change. Lets look what it has to say about WTC7...(debunkers comments with red)
"This part personally annoys me because it goes against simple logic. We are going to talk about WTC7 because Loose Change doesnt get into great detail about it."
"The firefighters also knew it was going to collapse."
Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]
Captain Chris Boyle recalls,"On the south side of there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
-This is the only evidence about that "huge fucking hole" and in your standards it doesnt mean shit since it is testimony of eyewitness. Your one eyewitness against my hundreds.
"Not a single demolition firm in the world agrees with the 9/11 Deniars".
-This is outrage lie or at least twisting reality, I mean using term like firm.
"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished.
Hugo Bachmann, PhD, Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of
Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Author and co-author of Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures (1990), Vibration
Problems in Structures (1992): Practical Guidelines (1995), Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete
Beams (1998), Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction (2001),
Earthquake-proofing Buildings (2002)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEoKhyXKWxQ&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExUTAbUCYL0&mode=related&search=
No seismic readings show any explosive devices."
-Open issue to me. I´ve been trying to make some sense of all those seismic studies in the net, but really confused by them by both sides. Could somebody provide a link where those seismic events are studied reliable and so that I can understand them too
"As for the building falling speed, that is still under NIST investigation. Mainly due to the fact that no test have been done where nearly half the building is gone in one corner and fuel continues to burn unfought fires."
-How is this accured science ? So one corner has damaged, the only photos in fact of WtC7 where some damage is to see.
It easy to see that the damage in soutwest corner couldnt cause the collapse since all the supporting colums are far away from outer walls.
Still the building is collapsing inwards to the middle. Also notice which way he presented it, nearly half of the building gone in one corner.
-Also notice that NIST doesnt still have a clue what happened, under investugation. Incompetent they are if they cant draw somekind of conclusion after all these years I say. All they offer is speculations.
-Also presenting that fires been unfought, not true, they were figthing against it earliar in a day.
-How this video can be used as an evidence regarding WTC7 is beyond me
I have tried to answer your questions at least with some links and backups, for a change, could you answer my questions with some evidence since the only evidence you offer is the Screw Loose Change video which has nothing to offer to case WTC7. Thanks.
And remember the words your debunker uses...
"Speculation is not evidence."
-You think that the WTC7 collapsing by fire and damage by debris of twintowers is not a speculative theory... ?
If you dont bring some evidence to backup your claims the case is closed
for me. The evidence is overwhelming for demolition theory vs Collapsed By Fire.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ill only respond to this one because I'm pressed for time and this one I can immediately think of a response to: No, I'm not denying it, I'm using common sense to debunk that fact that just because a building had explosives in it, doesn't automatically make a vacuum and change the conditions when the building falls.
Anyway, I'll be gone for the next two weeks, so if you must continue debating with someone, then find someone else until I get back.
B
BlueMoose
Guest
-Ok, have a nice two weeks.
Simple proof that there was no conspiracy involving Silverstien:
Axioms:
1. Insurance companies don't want to have to pay out money
2. Insurance companies only insure the value of the building, thus it's loss is of no actual gain to Silverstien (If you get 20,000$ for your 20,000$ car that was stolen, you didnt gain anything.)
3.In case of fraud involving Silverstien: ie they were planning on the building being destroyed, insurance companies would not have to pay.
4.These huge insurance corporations have VERY GOOD lawyers, who will find any way they can to not pay.
Thus, if there is a tone of evidence, the lawyers would have realised this, found it, uprooted it, and the insurance companies wouldnt have had to reimburse Silverstien. Simple as that. So why didnt that happen? Because theres no proof of conspiracy, It's all in your under-educated, overactive mind.
The only other posibility is the those companies were in on it too.
So tell me, why would a bunch of insurance companies, who have been the loosers of this ordeal, decide to go in on a conspiracy?
Or tell me then why have they not have uncovered all of this 'evidence' hmm? And if your answer is: "Because they didnt have it at the time." Then, why arent they filling lawsuits as we speak, why arent they supporting these CT's?
There is only one realistic answer: There is no conspiracy.
This matter is "blown away" because the high pressure of the gases is causing them to expand outwards untill there is an equal amount of preassure, not a vaccuum.
What its by 'imploding a building' is that the building falls in on itself, and creates a mess only inside its own perimeter, as opposed to the Twin Towers which exploded debris in all directions (like that which made the hole in tower 7.) It does not reffer to the preassures inside the building.
Now, throw chaos, panic, disorder, and lack of education, rumours, peoples own opinions and comments, etc, into the mix...
Sorry, but Adrenaline does not exactly enhance ones ability to gather reliable information.
Also, howcome the windows didnt burst outwards with the alleged explosive detonations, or how come they didnt burst inwards with the alleged implosion? Perhaps because it wasnt rigged with bombs?
The first scentances also bring a good point: Notice how no CT video footage that you posted were of the south side? (Of course I may have forgotton some, but you can correct me.)
hence, they burned on unfought.
Finaly I'd like to state somethings:
First, the explosives could not have been inserted in between the time of the attack, and the time of the collapse. There simply wasnt eanough time (not to mention, lack of detcord carrying people.)
Thus if they existed, they would have had to been placed in advance. Impossible stealthy logistics for this put aside, let's say they were planted and ready to be blown.
A plane crashed into a tower, the tower collapsed and it's debris smashed a nice big hole in building 7. How what? Our explosives are screwed up. The debris, and fires, have no doubt ruined detcord, and several of the bombs. The perfectly crafted demolishion plan is scrwed. It is doubtfull they would have actualy been able to detonate most of, if any, of these bombs. Furthurmore if the building's neat collapse can only be attributed to a well thought out controled demolision, it would not have happened. Our demolishion wasnt controlled anymore!
Thus you see, the shrapnal from the twin towers would have ruined any thought of a controlled demolishion.
Now let's factor in the fires, think they might cause any to go off? Think they could burn up detcord? Think they might ruin any radio-operated detonation circuits?
I think so.
A controlled demolishion idea whent out the window when the twin towers collapsed.
-Andrew
Axioms:
1. Insurance companies don't want to have to pay out money
2. Insurance companies only insure the value of the building, thus it's loss is of no actual gain to Silverstien (If you get 20,000$ for your 20,000$ car that was stolen, you didnt gain anything.)
3.In case of fraud involving Silverstien: ie they were planning on the building being destroyed, insurance companies would not have to pay.
4.These huge insurance corporations have VERY GOOD lawyers, who will find any way they can to not pay.
Thus, if there is a tone of evidence, the lawyers would have realised this, found it, uprooted it, and the insurance companies wouldnt have had to reimburse Silverstien. Simple as that. So why didnt that happen? Because theres no proof of conspiracy, It's all in your under-educated, overactive mind.
The only other posibility is the those companies were in on it too.
So tell me, why would a bunch of insurance companies, who have been the loosers of this ordeal, decide to go in on a conspiracy?
Or tell me then why have they not have uncovered all of this 'evidence' hmm? And if your answer is: "Because they didnt have it at the time." Then, why arent they filling lawsuits as we speak, why arent they supporting these CT's?
There is only one realistic answer: There is no conspiracy.
No more than lighting a match makes the room colder.
This matter is "blown away" because the high pressure of the gases is causing them to expand outwards untill there is an equal amount of preassure, not a vaccuum.
What its by 'imploding a building' is that the building falls in on itself, and creates a mess only inside its own perimeter, as opposed to the Twin Towers which exploded debris in all directions (like that which made the hole in tower 7.) It does not reffer to the preassures inside the building.
If even as little as 1% of eyewitnesses are unreliable, in a crowd of tens of thousands of people, I would expect nothing less from a few hundred.
Now, throw chaos, panic, disorder, and lack of education, rumours, peoples own opinions and comments, etc, into the mix...
Sorry, but Adrenaline does not exactly enhance ones ability to gather reliable information.
I didnt see anything that resembled an explosion. I also didnt hear anything meaningfull.
Also, howcome the windows didnt burst outwards with the alleged explosive detonations, or how come they didnt burst inwards with the alleged implosion? Perhaps because it wasnt rigged with bombs?
Either that or they take the time necessary to figure out what happened, rather than jumping to conclusion based off a 3 minut low resolution video, which doesnt actualy show why the tower collapsed, just that it did infact collapse. They also kinda had their hands full these passed few years, or did you forget about the twin towers and the pentagon? Oh, and no they dont "havnt a clue" They have a very good clue, and plan to have a draft report ready before '08. You see a report of the destruction contains a very large amount of detail, it is fairly specific, and they must have proof for their claims. It also requires a long time to gather specialists (you know, those guys who atualy know what they are talking about, not the layman CT's) and do thourough research.
Thats great, except Confirmation Bias isnt proof of a theory. My "Im Feeling Lucky" Google search offered much better evidance of the hole: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm Take a look at the multitudes of images there, it was clearly damaged.
The first scentances also bring a good point: Notice how no CT video footage that you posted were of the south side? (Of course I may have forgotton some, but you can correct me.)
No, that's out of context, they stopped fighting the fires (remeber that "Pull It" line? Guess what it was reffering to?)
hence, they burned on unfought.
Finaly I'd like to state somethings:
First, the explosives could not have been inserted in between the time of the attack, and the time of the collapse. There simply wasnt eanough time (not to mention, lack of detcord carrying people.)
Thus if they existed, they would have had to been placed in advance. Impossible stealthy logistics for this put aside, let's say they were planted and ready to be blown.
A plane crashed into a tower, the tower collapsed and it's debris smashed a nice big hole in building 7. How what? Our explosives are screwed up. The debris, and fires, have no doubt ruined detcord, and several of the bombs. The perfectly crafted demolishion plan is scrwed. It is doubtfull they would have actualy been able to detonate most of, if any, of these bombs. Furthurmore if the building's neat collapse can only be attributed to a well thought out controled demolision, it would not have happened. Our demolishion wasnt controlled anymore!
Thus you see, the shrapnal from the twin towers would have ruined any thought of a controlled demolishion.
Now let's factor in the fires, think they might cause any to go off? Think they could burn up detcord? Think they might ruin any radio-operated detonation circuits?
I think so.
A controlled demolishion idea whent out the window when the twin towers collapsed.
So then, the real question is what are you going to do about it?
-Andrew
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Hi. I´ve time just for one thing tonight, rest is for tomorrow.
andbna
My "Im Feeling Lucky" Google search offered much better evidance of the hole: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm Take a look at the multitudes of images there, it was clearly damaged.
The first scentances also bring a good point: Notice how no CT video footage that you posted were of the south side? (Of course I may have forgotton some, but you can correct me.)
-You know what, I was on the same pages yesterday.
Ofcourse there isnt any video footage from close, the area was evacuated, firemans knew it going to collapse, the best and only footages that I´ve been able to find so far was on that site.
Some quotes from the site you offered.
As I highlighted above, the NIST said the locations of the damage are not written in stone. Look at the legend below. They use the words "Possible", "Less likely" and "Least likely". Yet conspiracy theorists ignore these qualifiers and try to paint the scientist of the NIST as purposefully lying and supporting a mass murderer because the graphic below may not be exactly what the photo shows.
-Notice how he brings emotions to the frame - "supporting a mass murderer"
Just a sidenote.
We really don't know how much of the graphic below is right or wrong because the image only shows a small portion of the south side. Most of the building is covered by smoke, the WTC 6 mezzanine and the camera angle. It's blatantly dishonest to use this image to conclude their is less damage than on the graphic below. We just CAN'T KNOW from the image. We also don't know what other evidence the NIST has which support the graphic.
"It's blatantly dishonest to use this image to conclude their is less damage than on the graphic below" -But its okey if he use it to draw such conclusions from that same picture as:
" I suspect the hole became much larger at ground level given the collection of debris we see in the photo below."
" I'm arguing that the damage to building 7 is MUCH worse than conspiracy theorist would have you believe."
Conspiracy theorists seem to think one dimensionally. They think if there was light damage immediately after the collapse then it must have been that way throughout the event. This super simplistic thinking is the Achilles heel of the conspiracy story. They take photos of a part of a building and quotes from one moment in time and try to apply it to the whole event or building.
"They take photos of a part of a building and quotes from one moment in time and try to apply it to the whole event or building."
-Isnt that same technic in hes camp too...no ?
And what goes for one dimensional way of thinking...collapse by fire ! How,
dont ask, they are still working on it, but it sure was collapse by fire !
Another problem with the conspiracy story is the fireman's quotes. Why would they lie? Why would they say their was a hole which never existed. 360 of their brothers perished that day.
-Only quote if have been able to find so far...
Captain Chris Boyle recalls,"On the south side of there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.
-That shows in the picture too, in some way I guess, but there is no way knowing how far it reached in to the building, to the centre where the supporting colums were.
-And again, emotions to the frame - "360 of their brothers perished that day".
Just a sidenote.
And now a NEW photo shows the rip is not part of the corner damage. It goes higher, if anything, the rip may connect with the corner at some point but it is NOT ONLY the corner as conspiracy theorists suggest. Evidence is growing that there is more damage than even FEMA originally thought.
-Okey, I will take hes word for that (red) and I will indeed wait for better photos. Couldnt see much about those fotos, mainly due to heavy smoke, the same goes for the videos.
Cheers
andbna
My "Im Feeling Lucky" Google search offered much better evidance of the hole: http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm Take a look at the multitudes of images there, it was clearly damaged.
The first scentances also bring a good point: Notice how no CT video footage that you posted were of the south side? (Of course I may have forgotton some, but you can correct me.)
-You know what, I was on the same pages yesterday.
Ofcourse there isnt any video footage from close, the area was evacuated, firemans knew it going to collapse, the best and only footages that I´ve been able to find so far was on that site.
Some quotes from the site you offered.
As I highlighted above, the NIST said the locations of the damage are not written in stone. Look at the legend below. They use the words "Possible", "Less likely" and "Least likely". Yet conspiracy theorists ignore these qualifiers and try to paint the scientist of the NIST as purposefully lying and supporting a mass murderer because the graphic below may not be exactly what the photo shows.
-Notice how he brings emotions to the frame - "supporting a mass murderer"
Just a sidenote.
We really don't know how much of the graphic below is right or wrong because the image only shows a small portion of the south side. Most of the building is covered by smoke, the WTC 6 mezzanine and the camera angle. It's blatantly dishonest to use this image to conclude their is less damage than on the graphic below. We just CAN'T KNOW from the image. We also don't know what other evidence the NIST has which support the graphic.
"It's blatantly dishonest to use this image to conclude their is less damage than on the graphic below" -But its okey if he use it to draw such conclusions from that same picture as:
" I suspect the hole became much larger at ground level given the collection of debris we see in the photo below."
" I'm arguing that the damage to building 7 is MUCH worse than conspiracy theorist would have you believe."
Conspiracy theorists seem to think one dimensionally. They think if there was light damage immediately after the collapse then it must have been that way throughout the event. This super simplistic thinking is the Achilles heel of the conspiracy story. They take photos of a part of a building and quotes from one moment in time and try to apply it to the whole event or building.
"They take photos of a part of a building and quotes from one moment in time and try to apply it to the whole event or building."
-Isnt that same technic in hes camp too...no ?
And what goes for one dimensional way of thinking...collapse by fire ! How,
dont ask, they are still working on it, but it sure was collapse by fire !
Another problem with the conspiracy story is the fireman's quotes. Why would they lie? Why would they say their was a hole which never existed. 360 of their brothers perished that day.
-Only quote if have been able to find so far...
Captain Chris Boyle recalls,"On the south side of there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.
-That shows in the picture too, in some way I guess, but there is no way knowing how far it reached in to the building, to the centre where the supporting colums were.
-And again, emotions to the frame - "360 of their brothers perished that day".
Just a sidenote.
And now a NEW photo shows the rip is not part of the corner damage. It goes higher, if anything, the rip may connect with the corner at some point but it is NOT ONLY the corner as conspiracy theorists suggest. Evidence is growing that there is more damage than even FEMA originally thought.
-Okey, I will take hes word for that (red) and I will indeed wait for better photos. Couldnt see much about those fotos, mainly due to heavy smoke, the same goes for the videos.
Cheers
Last edited by a moderator:
Except that it is what they are claiming, thus it is a valid point. In fact, it demonstrates the use of the Ad Hominem fallacy that the CT's use thouroughly to make their arguments.
Except thats a fairly valid reason not to lie, and thus supports his idea.
In neither case is theerean example of an Appeal to Emotions, these kinds of arguments take a different form, namely: becaus x is undesirable, it must be false or because x is desirable it must be true (or something similar). His argument is not that the CT's are wrong because the gouvornment being a mass murderer is a bad thing, neither is his argument that because 360 firefirghters died, which is bad, the CT's are wrong.
If you expect an article devoid of any sort of emotions, sorry, you simply wont find one. Not to mention, loose change was full of emotional appeal (starting with the 'spooky' music in the background.)
No, they state it was collapesed by the debris from the twin towers causing structural damaged, furthured by fire. If I light a tree that is currently standing, it is well within reason it shall fall down.
See a fire will worsen the damage untill it collapses, and im not sure how one can answer 'how.' Seems intuitivly obviouse. However, that is why they are working on a report. What your are doing is akin to accusing a student for getting the wrong answer on a test question they are still writing.
Note: I dont quite know what he means by 'one dimensional' however.
Yep. you see, both arguments are reasoned. Why should there be more damaged than shown, because there is lots of debris on the ground: debris comes from buildings, thus in order for their to be that much, it must be more damaged than what we can see. Logical.
Second quote: he's stated his argument. He doesnt even need the picture to do that, so I dont see how that's relevant.
So it seems we wil have to wait for the NIST's report for some real evidance, rather than the simple hypothoses that can be derrived from a crappy image. Given one is innocent untill proven guilty, there is nothing for the CT's (It woul be a logical fallacy to say it is guilty from a lack of proof of innocence.)
-Andrew
B
BlueMoose
Guest
andbna
Except that it is what they are claiming, thus it is a valid point. In fact, it demonstrates the use of the Ad Hominem fallacy that the CT's use thouroughly to make their arguments.
As I highlighted above, the NIST said the locations of the damage are not written in stone. Look at the legend below. They use the words "Possible", "Less likely" and "Least likely". Yet conspiracy theorists ignore these qualifiers and try to paint the scientist of the NIST as purposefully lying and supporting a mass murderer because the graphic below may not be exactly what the photo shows.
-Hey, it was just a sidenote...
-Hes not pointing out who is using such terms, all of them, me to ? He is just ranting and categoriazing that all the "CTs" are like one. And the massmurderer part, he suggest that all the "CTs" are pointing the blame one direction only, assumptions all together.
Except thats a fairly valid reason not to lie, and thus supports his idea.
Another problem with the conspiracy story is the fireman's quotes. Why would they lie? Why would they say their was a hole which never existed. 360 of their brothers perished that day.
-He is presenting problem with no backup, where are all the quotes, I´ve able to find a one:
Captain Chris Boyle recalls,"On the south side of there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.
-This could descbribe the southwest corner damage as well,
since it is in southside of that building. Just one quote.
When tens of firemans are talking bombs in the building and secondary devices in there that doesnt count as much as this one quote ?
-If that wasnt appealing to emotions at least it was meaningless reasoning regarding what happened in WTC7 IMO.
No, they state it was collapesed by the debris from the twin towers causing structural damaged, furthured by fire. If I light a tree that is currently standing, it is well within reason it shall fall down.
See a fire will worsen the damage untill it collapses, and im not sure how one can answer 'how.' Seems intuitivly obviouse. However, that is why they are working on a report. What your are doing is akin to accusing a student for getting the wrong answer on a test question they are still writing.
Note: I dont quite know what he means by 'one dimensional' however.
-Go ahead, light the tree in fire and then watch it to collapse in freefall speed.
-You know, the debunker is talking about this as an "CTs" achilles heel in that theory: They think if there was light damage immediately after the collapse then it must have been that way throughout the event. This super simplistic thinking is the Achilles heel of the conspiracy story
-Again, categoryazing.
-Nevermind the achilles heel on their fire theory, they still seeking answer to question that how could the building collapse in freefall speed, talking about achilles heels.
Yep. you see, both arguments are reasoned. Why should there be more damaged than shown, because there is lots of debris on the ground: debris comes from buildings, thus in order for their to be that much, it must be more damaged than what we can see. Logical.
Second quote: he's stated his argument. He doesnt even need the picture to do that, so I dont see how that's relevant.
-He doesnt prove where the debris come from, there is lot more damaged building in the right in that picture.
-He just stated hes opinion as fact with no reasoning behind it. Assumptions alltogether.
So it seems we wil have to wait for the NIST's report for some real evidance, rather than the simple hypothoses that can be derrived from a crappy image. Given one is innocent untill proven guilty, there is nothing for the CT's (It woul be a logical fallacy to say it is guilty from a lack of proof of innocence.)
-This is the fun thing, I didnt bring that picture here and still in earlier post you asked why...because it has nothing to offer.
Even the debuker says it, many times.
-In this point let the jury decide...
Except that it is what they are claiming, thus it is a valid point. In fact, it demonstrates the use of the Ad Hominem fallacy that the CT's use thouroughly to make their arguments.
As I highlighted above, the NIST said the locations of the damage are not written in stone. Look at the legend below. They use the words "Possible", "Less likely" and "Least likely". Yet conspiracy theorists ignore these qualifiers and try to paint the scientist of the NIST as purposefully lying and supporting a mass murderer because the graphic below may not be exactly what the photo shows.
-Hey, it was just a sidenote...
-Hes not pointing out who is using such terms, all of them, me to ? He is just ranting and categoriazing that all the "CTs" are like one. And the massmurderer part, he suggest that all the "CTs" are pointing the blame one direction only, assumptions all together.
Except thats a fairly valid reason not to lie, and thus supports his idea.
Another problem with the conspiracy story is the fireman's quotes. Why would they lie? Why would they say their was a hole which never existed. 360 of their brothers perished that day.
-He is presenting problem with no backup, where are all the quotes, I´ve able to find a one:
Captain Chris Boyle recalls,"On the south side of there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.
-This could descbribe the southwest corner damage as well,
since it is in southside of that building. Just one quote.
When tens of firemans are talking bombs in the building and secondary devices in there that doesnt count as much as this one quote ?
-If that wasnt appealing to emotions at least it was meaningless reasoning regarding what happened in WTC7 IMO.
No, they state it was collapesed by the debris from the twin towers causing structural damaged, furthured by fire. If I light a tree that is currently standing, it is well within reason it shall fall down.
See a fire will worsen the damage untill it collapses, and im not sure how one can answer 'how.' Seems intuitivly obviouse. However, that is why they are working on a report. What your are doing is akin to accusing a student for getting the wrong answer on a test question they are still writing.
Note: I dont quite know what he means by 'one dimensional' however.
-Go ahead, light the tree in fire and then watch it to collapse in freefall speed.
-You know, the debunker is talking about this as an "CTs" achilles heel in that theory: They think if there was light damage immediately after the collapse then it must have been that way throughout the event. This super simplistic thinking is the Achilles heel of the conspiracy story
-Again, categoryazing.
-Nevermind the achilles heel on their fire theory, they still seeking answer to question that how could the building collapse in freefall speed, talking about achilles heels.
Yep. you see, both arguments are reasoned. Why should there be more damaged than shown, because there is lots of debris on the ground: debris comes from buildings, thus in order for their to be that much, it must be more damaged than what we can see. Logical.
Second quote: he's stated his argument. He doesnt even need the picture to do that, so I dont see how that's relevant.
-He doesnt prove where the debris come from, there is lot more damaged building in the right in that picture.
-He just stated hes opinion as fact with no reasoning behind it. Assumptions alltogether.
So it seems we wil have to wait for the NIST's report for some real evidance, rather than the simple hypothoses that can be derrived from a crappy image. Given one is innocent untill proven guilty, there is nothing for the CT's (It woul be a logical fallacy to say it is guilty from a lack of proof of innocence.)
-This is the fun thing, I didnt bring that picture here and still in earlier post you asked why...because it has nothing to offer.
Even the debuker says it, many times.
-In this point let the jury decide...
Last edited by a moderator:
B
BlueMoose
Guest
andbna
If even as little as 1%of eyewitnesses are unreliable, in a crowd of tens of thousands of people, I would expect nothing less from a few hundred.
-This one I couldnt let slip by. Probability mathematics and logic.
1% of 50 0000 = 500 unreliable witness among 50 000 people in the area.
Lets say 200 eyewitness are picked to interview.
Probability that they all are unreliable
0.01(1%)^200 = 0 %
Now, throw chaos, panic, disorder, and lack of education, rumours, peoples own opinions and comments, etc, into the mix...
Sorry, but Adrenaline does not exactly enhance ones ability to gather reliable information.
-If one is arguing that he heard/saw big explosion how fuckin dumb and
in panic he had to be if he was just imagining or misjudge something to be like it ? I mean explosions are quite a phenomena.
Cheers
If even as little as 1%of eyewitnesses are unreliable, in a crowd of tens of thousands of people, I would expect nothing less from a few hundred.
-This one I couldnt let slip by. Probability mathematics and logic.
1% of 50 0000 = 500 unreliable witness among 50 000 people in the area.
Lets say 200 eyewitness are picked to interview.
Probability that they all are unreliable
0.01(1%)^200 = 0 %
Now, throw chaos, panic, disorder, and lack of education, rumours, peoples own opinions and comments, etc, into the mix...
Sorry, but Adrenaline does not exactly enhance ones ability to gather reliable information.
-If one is arguing that he heard/saw big explosion how fuckin dumb and
in panic he had to be if he was just imagining or misjudge something to be like it ? I mean explosions are quite a phenomena.
Cheers
We all saw thousands of fabricated newscasts and subliminal movies about 9-11, which have imprinted our memories. The towers were quietly taken down one night piece-by-piece, while we all watched American Idol and the Military Channel. Oh, and the SciFi Channel. Some of you nutbars obviously have spent way too much time there.
B
BlueMoose
Guest
Whats your problem ?