Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Apollyon]

I know the towers core was concrete, why should I doubt it or be reluctant to use even though it is not the best documention?

Maybe you should doubt it because many more - and far more reliable - sources claim the core is not concrete? And we've shown you multiple pictures that show there was no concrete core while the pictures and information you keep linking over and over and over, ad naseum, primarily come from your own website and are inconclusive, at best.

Just a thought.

 

[CptColumbo]

Perhaps you should gain an better education in journalism, research, and logic.

 

[Christophera]

Truth and the Principles Of America

HOW DARE YOU. You come here, with your crap, your logical fallacies, your close-mindedness, and dare talk down to people who don't share your demented view?

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. Don't you know that you are pathetic? You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.

Okay, so you do not know the GREATER meaning of free speech. Do you even want to know?

I'd expect you should keep your narrow minded views of Texans to yourself. A dear friend, a Texan, just died (smoked Pall Malls) and he had a phd in psychology, and he knew how important these principles are and how truth supports them.

The indigenous people of this continent imparted this GREATER meaning of free speech to the founding fathers. They had to dilute, or simplify it to get in into the Amendments, but here it is,

The greater meaning of free speech is found in the understanding that can come from it. That understanding can create; foregiveness, tolerence, acceptance, respect, trust, freindship and love; protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Okay, so you do not know the GREATER meaning of free speech. Do you even want to know?

I'd expect you should keep your narrow minded views of Texans to yourself. A dear friend, a Texan, just died (smoked Pall Malls) and he had a phd in psychology, and he knew how important these principles are and how truth supports them.

The indigenous people of this continent imparted this GREATER meaning of free speech to the founding fathers. They had to dilute, or simplify it to get in into the Amendments, but here it is,

The greater meaning of free speech is found in the understanding that can come from it. That understanding can create; foregiveness, tolerence, acceptance, respect, trust, freindship and love; protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Ah, so in addition to being denser than lead, you're also a hypocrite and lack reading comprehension. Truly, you'd make Oswald, Koresh, and Manson proud with your utter lack of thought process.

 

[Christophera]

Maybe you should doubt it because many more - and far more reliable - sources claim the core is not concrete? And we've shown you multiple pictures that show there was no concrete core while the pictures and information you keep linking over and over and over, ad naseum, primarily come from your own website and are inconclusive, at best.

Just a thought.

Firstly, I know the core was concrete.

Second, the images of the demolition support that there was no steel core columns.

The WTC 2 core shows what must be concrete. The concrete shear wall is visible while NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS are.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, used on my site, is not on my server. many are not on my server.

 

[Pardalis]

Okay, so you do not know the GREATER meaning of free speech. Do you even want to know?

I'd expect you should keep your narrow minded views of Texans to yourself. A dear friend, a Texan, just died (smoked Pall Malls) and he had a phd in psychology, and he knew how important these principles are and how truth supports them.

The indigenous people of this continent imparted this GREATER meaning of free speech to the founding fathers. They had to dilute, or simplify it to get in into the Amendments, but here it is,

The greater meaning of free speech is found in the understanding that can come from it. That understanding can create; foregiveness, tolerence, acceptance, respect, trust, freindship and love; protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

B.S.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Firstly, I know the core was concrete.

Second, the images of the demolition support that there was no steel core columns.

The WTC 2 core shows what must be concrete. The concrete shear wall is visible while NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS are.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, used on my site, is not on my server. many are not on my server.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad nauseam

 

[Gravy]

Sure I've looked at them and I've told you the core is below the top of the tower by 7 floors. I've told you that light passes through the hallways.

How come the multiple steel columns are not silhouetted? If such existed there would be a phase where one could look through the floors and see them in the core area.

The Concrete cores had hallways, WTC 2 more than 1. WTC 1 was hard to rent out because access thru the core was so bad.

How many hallways run at how many different angles on each floor, Christophera?

For the third time, please provide a diagram of the hallway system you describe, which is clearly not the one indicated in your graphic. Your diagram must account for all of the openings in the photo below.

 

[Christophera]

Ah, so in addition to being denser than lead, you're also a hypocrite and lack reading comprehension. Truly, you'd make Oswald, Koresh, and Manson proud with your utter lack of thought process.

Cetainly entitled to your opinion but do you believe in enough to do any thing notable with it besides diminish or dismiss evidence that can be used to protect our Constitution?

 

[Christophera]

How many hallways run at how many different angles on each floor, Christophera?

For the third time, please provide a diagram of the hallway system you describe, which is clearly not the one indicated in your graphic. Your diagram must account for all of the openings in the photo below.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/87904495b5c1ae08b.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/87904496fe0a6fa6e.jpg[/qimg]​

No diagram. I'm too busy. I only know specifics about WTC 1 as that was the tower shown in the 1990 documentary.

Your zoomed image helps. The solid areas are concrete forms being constructed or assembled. The concrete core would be symetrical.

 

[CptColumbo]

Cetainly entitled to your opinion but do you believe in enough to do any thing notable with it besides diminish or dismiss evidence that can be used to protect our Constitution?

So you are protecting "our" Constitution (keep in mind that this forum has members from around the world) by posting your opinions, that have no evidence to back them up, on an internet forum? You're quite the freedom fighter.

 

[Pardalis]

Christophera, even IF there had been a "concrete core", you're a million light-years away from proving that there were demolition charges embeded in it, as I believe you are suggesting

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Cetainly entitled to your opinion but do you believe in enough to do any thing notable with it besides diminish or dismiss evidence that can be used to protect our Constitution?

False dichotomy. Plus, your unsubstantiated claptrap you insist on regurgitating like a dog eating its own vomit only to choke it back up, does nothing to further the principles of the US Constitution.

 

[Stellafane]

Cetainly entitled to your opinion but do you believe in enough to do any thing notable with it besides diminish or dismiss evidence that can be used to protect our Constitution?

The best evidence that our Constitution, and the rights it protects, are alive and well is the fact that you and your fellow scum-spewers are free to continue promoting your rancid ideas, without fear of being imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or worse, as would probably happen in the vast majority of countries in this world.

So I guess your presence here does serve some small purpose, by reminding us of that fact. Oh, and to make us all feel a bit better about ourselves for not being you.

 

[Christophera]

I Do Not Watch TV

Perhaps you should stop talking out of your ass like some smacktard that has spent too many hours watching the X-files.

Apparently you do. Remember this?

 

[Gravy]

Firstly, I know the core was concrete.

Second, the images of the demolition support that there was no steel core columns.

The WTC 2 core shows what must be concrete. The concrete shear wall is visible while NO STEEL CORE COLUMNS are.

The 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS, used on my site, is not on my server. many are not on my server.

Every one of those points has been explained to you. Many of the explanations have been illustrated with photos that prove you wrong. You continue to say we have not provided evidence, when we have, EVERY TIME.

Christophera, it's important to understand that beliefs often do not correspond to reality. You haven't shown a single way in which your belief corresponds to reality. Instead, you hammer away with the same nonsensical, discredited claims, while ignoring all of the evidence that's placed before you, evidence that you could easily have found yourself if you had bothered looking.

Christophera, that's how children behave, not men. Please get help.

 

[Christophera]

Finally; Labeling, Name Calling and Distortions Galore

Wow, you are a talented distorter. You could mate with wolfie and the result would scorch satans ass, be sure!

The best evidence that our Constitution, and the rights it protects, are alive and well is the fact that you and your fellow scum-spewers are free to continue promoting your rancid ideas, without fear of being imprisoned, institutionalized, deported, or worse, as would probably happen in the vast majority of countries in this world.

So I guess your presence here does serve some small purpose, by reminding us of that fact. Oh, and to make us all feel a bit better about ourselves for not being you.

yea' we gottum' rights, we use 'em. We know what for too. How about you?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Apparently you do. Remember this?

I certainly do remember that day, and it is the grave pissing upons that you and your fellow nutcases do is what keeps my invigorated to provide verifiable, objective facts to people who may not have resources readily available and might be swayed by your evangelical fantasy trips.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wow, you are a talented distorter. You could mate with wolfie and the result would scorch satans ass, be sure!



yea' we gottum' rights, we use 'em. We know what for too. How about you?

No true Scotsman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

Some elements or actions are exclusively contradictory to the subject, and therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian:" Eating meat, by definition, disqualifies a (present-tense) categorization among vegetarians, and the further value judgement between a "true vegetarian" and the implied "false vegetarian" cannot likewise be categorized as a fallacy, given the clear disjunction. In logic, the mutually exclusive contradiction is called a logical disjunction.

Using the context of culture, individuals of any particular religion, for example, may tend to employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing is often a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the definition must be understood in context, or defined in the initial argument for the discussion at hand.

It is also a common fallacy in politics, in which critics may condemn their colleagues as not being "true" liberals or conservatives because they occasionally disagree on certain matters of policy. It comes in many other forms - "No decent person would" - it is argued "support hanging/watch pornography/smoke in public", etc. Often the speaker seems unaware that he/she is, in fact, coercively (re)defining what the phrase "decent person" means to include/exclude what he/she wants and NOT simply following what the phrase is already accepted as meaning. The argument shifts the debate from being about hanging/pornography/smoking and tries to make it seem that anyone disagreeing with the speaker is arguing for the "indecent".
[edit]

See also

* Loaded language
* Equivocation
* Power word
* Euphemism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[Gravy]

No diagram. I'm too busy. I only know specifics about WTC 1 as that was the tower shown in the 1990 documentary.

Your zoomed image helps. The solid areas are concrete forms being constructed or assembled. The concrete core would be symetrical.

Christophera, please, please, please come on back when you have that diagram ready! I can't wait to see it!

(You might want to take my advice and watch that Ric Burns video first, though. You've made enough of a fool of yourself as is.)