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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peabody's Distortion "I am entitled"

Regnad Kcin said:
- Wouldn't you like to pick up where we left off with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim?
Click to expand...

You were attacked because you have never supported your claim that the towers fell in proper sequence. Your distortions are juvenile and you have no evidence.
 
Christophera said:
You were attacked because you have never supported your claim that the towers fell in proper sequence. Your distortions are juvenile and you have no evidence.
Click to expand...

But the towers did fall in "proper" sequence. Given the relatively lower position in which the second plane hit, the greater mass above the damaged floor(s) dictated that it would be the first to collapse.

Greater mass = greater force upon the damaged section. This effectively cancelled out any common-sensical expectation as to which tower would would fail first. The second tower hit became the first to fail because of where (and how) it got hit. Pure and simple.

F=ma

Of course, this is yet another ridiculous argument, given the notion that buildings were deliberately brought down by CD. It raises the question (and the quandry) for CT'ers:

If the destruction of the buildings was planned and "controlled" by the Smiths/Norsefire, then why didn't they bring them down in the expected "sequence" which was dictated by the order in which they were hit by the planes? Why did they purposefully contribute minutae to the cottage industry which is known as the 9/11 "truth" movement?


"They're just questions, Leon. In answer to you're query, they're written down for me."
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
You were attacked because you have never supported your claim that the towers fell in proper sequence. Your distortions are juvenile and you have no evidence.
Click to expand...

Proper sequence ?

So, if I shoot a man in the gut, and another in the heart, the first victim should die first ? Is that your argument ? That the north tower should've fell first because it was hit first ?

I'm tempted to ask another question, that I believe was asked to you several times before: at which floor, respectively, was each tower hit ?
 
Christophera said:
Dud photo for making your point. My image of the core actually shows the core.
Click to expand...

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!"
 
Christophera said:
Dud photo for making your point.
Click to expand...
Really? Okay, please explain. You say the columns shown in this photo are surrounding the core. You also say the core at its base had 17-foot thick walls. Please describe where in this photo the core would be, and what would be inside it. Sorry, but I don't see room for all the elevator banks, storage rooms, restrooms, etc, considering that 34 feet of this core section would be solid concrete,and that's just in one direction. And how does the stairwell fit into your plan? And where's the room for all those hallways?

Again, we await your diagrams, which you promised months ago. Present them now, or admit that you cannot.
879044f189f149bdd.jpg
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
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. ....
Click to expand...

I've also seen this called the "Bellman's Fallacy," from the Lewis Carroll poem "The Hunting of the Snark," in which the Bellman insists, "What I tell you three times is true."

Unfortunately, the characters in the poem lose count.
 
Errors, Distortions And Lies From Gravy

Gravy said:
Really? Okay, please explain. You say the columns shown in this photo are surrounding the core. You also say the core at its base had 17-foot thick walls. Please describe where in this photo the core would be, and what would be inside it. Sorry, but I don't see room for all the elevator banks, storage rooms, restrooms, etc, considering that 34 feet of this core section would be solid concrete,and that's just in one direction. And how does the stairwell fit into your plan? And where's the room for all those hallways?

Again, we await your diagrams, which you promised months ago. Present them now, or admit that you cannot.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879044f189f149bdd.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I have promised no diagrams. What you say is a lie.

Your notation on the columns is correct, they are not inside the core. The end of the concrete wall may be visible to the right of the stairwell.

It is definitely visible in the below image, which I feel may be an image of the same corner of the core from the other side after some clean up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2838&stc=1&d=1156786209
 

Attachments

  • core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
    core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
    58.2 KB · Views: 11
jhunter, it's not 1 Liberty Plaza, but dark smoke that was drawn down with the collapse. 1 Liberty Plaza would be well to the right.
 
Christophera said:
I have promised no diagrams. What you say is a lie.
Click to expand...
Do it today or admit you cannot. Fair enough? You've had since June to do it. You said you know the layout of the North tower. Both the "see through" photo I've provided 40 times and the photo above are of the north tower. Provide your diagram that explains the features seen. Stop running like a little baby and do it.
 
Christophera said:
I have promised no diagrams. What you say is a lie.

Your notation on the columns is correct, they are not inside the core. The end of the concrete wall may be visible to the right of the stairwell.

It is definitely visible in the below image, which I feel may be an image of the same corner of the core from the other side after some clean up.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2838&stc=1&d=1156786209
Click to expand...

Argumentum Ad Nauseam

Definition

Repeating the same argument over and over again, without supporting it or repeating the same arguments without adding new ones. Note that the assertion can be correctly supported but that the fallacy resides in the perpetual repeating.

Explanation

This fallacy is based on the incorrect belief that people will finally accept an assertion as true because they hear it repeatedly. Brain-washing is expected. Works better on prisoners than on free citizens.

Examples

"Delenda est Carthago". (Carthage must be destroyed)
Caton the Elder ended all of his speeches by these words, whatever the subject was.

Counter-examples

None.

Advices

This fallacy is a two-edged sword: some people will get sick of hearing the same thing over and over again, and will react by believing the opposite of what you say.
If your opponent becomes repetitive, point it out after having refuted his arguments a few times.
Click to expand...
source
 
Christophera said:
Your notation on the columns is correct, they are not inside the core. The end of the concrete wall may be visible to the right of the stairwell.

It is definitely visible in the below image, which I feel may be an image of the same corner of the core from the other side after some clean up.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. You know I'm not very bright. Can you describe to me where that concrete core is again, keeping in mind the stairwell I pointed out in the view from the east? And are you sticking with your claim that the bent metal at the top is 3" rebar?

879044f3352a86873.jpg
 
Also, for the fourth time:

Would you care to post your own diagram of the hallway configuration for all to see ? This would surely help me understand, as well as others, how this whole thing works.
 
Christophera said:
Peabody's Distortion "I am entitled"
Click to expand...
Regnad Kcin said:
- Wouldn't you like to pick up where we left off with your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim?
Click to expand...
Christophera said:
You were attacked because you have never supported your claim that the towers fell in proper sequence. Your distortions are juvenile and you have no evidence.
Click to expand...
You certainly are a curious individual, Mr. Brown.

First, nowhere have I said "I am entitled" to anything; you may retract that immediately, though I strongly suspect you will not. This is a discussion board where I have attempted, with little cooperation from you, to discuss one aspect of your numerous claims, that being the towers fell in the wrong sequence.

You say I "have never supported" my claim, which is misleading at best. I was slowly managing, even with your reluctance, to draw answers from you vis-a-vis where each tower was impacted, what floors were damaged, and what number of undamaged floors remained above each impact. I was building toward a conclusion when you were suspended, not banned, from this forum. Since your return, I've repeatedly asked if you'd care to pick up from where we left off. It's nice that you've finally responded, but insults, false quotes, and misleading information do not make for fair, reasoned debate.

Also, what "distortions" of mine are "juvenile?" Please provide quotes.

In any event, I will assume that the towers-fell-in-the-wrong-sequence claim is one you maintain to be valid, and I'll restart that discussion momentarily (schedule depending).

Also, in finally responding, you neglected to address these unresolved questions:

- Will you retract your claim (made on another board) that you were banned from this forum?
- What are your plans for presenting your evidence to one or more scientific journals?
- Will you apologize for your unprovoked attack on me?
 
Gravy said:
I'm sorry. You know I'm not very bright. Can you describe to me where that concrete core is again, keeping in mind the stairwell I pointed out in the view from the east? And are you sticking with your claim that the bent metal at the top is 3" rebar?
Click to expand...

In your earlier posted image it would be above th "s" in "somebody" in your lower notation. Notice it is tapered. Notice the vertical lines in it from form boards. Do you have the integrity to provide me with the original url of that image?

879044f189f149bdd.jpg


The notated rebar here below, yes.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2841&stc=1&d=1156800866
 

Attachments

  • core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
    core.corner.arrow.col.jpg
    58.2 KB · Views: 2
For the love of all construction workers, they don't make 3" diameter rebar!
Code: 
[U]Bar Size
Designation[/U] [U]Nominal Area cm2 [inch2][/U] [U]Nominal Weight kg/m [lb/ft][/U] [U]Nominal Diameter cm [inch][/U] 
 #3                  0.71 [0.11]                 .52 [ 0.376]         0.95 [0.375] 
 #4 (most common)    1.29 [0.20]                0.994 [0.668]         1.27 [0.500]  
 #5                  2.00 [0.31]                1.55 [1.043]          1.59 [0.625]   
 #6                  2.84 [0.44]                2.24 [1.502]          1.91 [0.75] 
 #7                  3.87 [0.6]                3.041 [2.044]          2.22 [0.875] 
 #8                  5.10 [0.79]                3.97 [2.67]           2.54 [1] 
 #9                  6.45  [1]                  5.06 [3.4]            2.87 [1.128] 
 #10                 8.19 [1.27]                6.40 [4.303]          3.23 [1.27] 
 #11                10.06 [1.56]                7.90 [5.313]          3.58 [1.41] 
 #14                14.52 [2.25]                11.4 [7.65]           4.30 [1.693] 
 #18                25.81 [4]                   20.2 [13.6]           5.73 [2.257]
source
corroborating source
another corroborating source
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom