Stundie's NIST vs Popular Mechanics Thread

[maccy]

Americans would never accept invading another country.

I'm guessing, from the way you phrased this, that you aren't an American.

What makes you think you know what Americans would or wouldn't accept?

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Why bother planting WMD, a little too much trouble when you can just lie about it, even though UN weapons inspector are telling you there are none!!

So it's too much trouble to plant WMDs but it isn't too much trouble to stage a false flag scheme by controlled demolition of 3 builinings, the staged hijacking of 4 planes, te staged attack on the pentagon and the faked crash of flight 93?

Also, what does the US gain from invading Afghanistan?

stundie, do you understand how absolutely backwards this seems? Do you have any idea of the time/manpower/money/luck that would have to be involved in successfully destroying the WTC buildings by controlled demolition?

And they couldn't be bothered to drop off a few WMD in a country that they already had full control over the airfields? Remember, not finding WMDs turned the tide of public opinion over the war, which arguably has led to the huge Democratic win in the mid-term elections, and a possible Democratic presidential victory in 2008. But they couldn't be bothered?

Do you not find this strange?

 

[maccy]

stundie did actually reply to some of the points raised here, only s/he did it in a completely different thread. Here are the relevant parts of the post:

Well a few days have passed since I was last on here. More comments have come on here and I have to laugh at the rabid sceptics who ask for proof and so called debunking. The original thread started with me showing you the GLARINGLY obvious contradictions!

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. but……

Popular Mechanics 'Debunking 9/11 Myths', p. 44:
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, the floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process pancaking.

Obvioulsly I’m wrong because there is NO CONTRADICTION…..hahahaha!! As these comedians point out.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69197
NIST and Popular Mechanics didn’t contradict themselves as I stated in an earlier post because you sceptics have said that NIST were talking about the initial collapse and PM was talking about the actual collapse!

So, I see no conflict between NIST and PM (Despite PM being an agent of moloch etc etc) because NIST is describing the initial event, and pancaking describes the subsequent events.

(d) NIST was dealing with collapse initiation and PM was dealing with the collapse post initiation.

No, they are both right. The towers "pancake collapsed" as PM states but the inititiation of collapse wasn't the pancaking of the floors, it was the inward bowing of the exterior collumns as NIST states. PM isn't talking about the initiation but the collapse itself.

So what you sceptics believe is that NIST and PM did collaboration on the WTC collapse. Like when Tarrantino and Rodriguez produced the 1st & 2nd parts (Respectively) of that great mobster/vampire film From Dusk Til Dawn…………..Yeah!!

So using Skeptic logic theory NIST explain the initial collapse (The 1st Part) and PM explained the actual collapse(2nd Part)!!

Even though NIST CONTRADICTS the PM version of the collapse and THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PANCAKE THEORY AT ALL!!

I’m laughing as I type this because no doubt you Skeptics will still be trying to defend the following contradiction with plenty of double-speak!

Yet another sceptics says….

for my view on PM v Nist i think that you will always have conflict of opinion on what was a startlingly chaotic and highly complex event on 9/11. the time i would be possibly be worried is if ALL of those qualified experts agreed on the minutiae of what happened. i believe disagreement is healthy, it's only one of the avenues that lead to an honest conclusion.

So Bonavada agrees there is a difference of opinion? Yet all you other Skeptics think there is no contradiction. hahahaha!

I could laugh at you lot falling all over yourselves.

Then another one says…

When NIST is talking about pancaking in their faq, they are talking about the initation of collapse. The initation wasn't a pancake collapse. The sagging trusses pulled on the columns eventually causing them to snap.

Now then while the building were falling during the collapse, there was pancaking of floors. We know floors pancaking as we reports and seen large pieces of crushed floors sandwiched together.

So he agrees with NIST Pancaking theory, which they state they don’t agree with the Pancake theory…

More debunking and contradiction comes from.

I would also like to point out that "A) NIST is correct - and the "meticulous and scientific analysis" of PM is wrong after their pomposity about how careful and thorough they are in their "debunking". So can we trust them? " is a form of argumentum ad logicam, in that, even if PM is completely wrong on that one point, it does not automagically invalidate the rest of their points.

So PM can be wrong and we can still trust them, yet all the people mentioned in the list can be wrong, but we can’t trust them? (See Link!)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69198

Scroll through the posts to find plenty of debunkers telling me that such & such got this information wrong and so can’t be trusted, but Arkan_Wolfshade thinks that PM (A Hearst publication who are considered the founder of Yellow Journalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism can be trusted still.

I'm going to wet myself here...

Waiting for someone to now debunk PM Yellow Journalism links now lol. PM can lie or get info wrong and yet we are still to trust them…hahahahaha!! I hope you guys see the irony in all of this.

The conclusion…

I was expecting intelligent debate instead, yet all I’ve received are smart alex answers and people telling me things, then providing no proof to back up there claims.

So that’s lies & misquoting to try and discredit me. Excellent work JREFers, I’m sure James Randi would be proud!

And of course there is nothing suspicious at all….As South Parks finest Officer Barbrady would say “There is nothing to see here!”

 

[maccy]

Some discussion relating to stundie's post:

That is not what I said. I clearly stated that if PM was proven wrong on one point of fact in their article, that it does not automatically invalidate any other point of facts in their article. Since PM is not dealing with a chain of evidence or logic, A->B->C->D, then you can not invalidate A, C, or D just by invalidating B. A, B, C, and D are all discrete elements and are not dependent upon each other.

I did not say they should be "trusted". Each point of fact needs to be looked at individually and supported, or debunked, as the evidence shows. Your attempts at discrediting PM by going back to Hearst, without demonstrating that the current PM is committing "yellow journalism" amount to nothing more than argumentum ad hominem.

Please deal with the facts.

And, for the love of Ed, please try to keep focused on one topic at a time.

Contradiction
In logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other.

So NIST and PM do not fall under these catergories...lol

Your right science is process....Shame you don't follow it!!

Rather than posting empty, condescending messages, perhaps you should elaborate on why you feel the NIST report and the PM article are incompatible.

OK, so how does PM and NIST contradict themselves in this way? How are their conlcusions "logical inversions of eatch other"?

You want PM comitting Yellow Journalism....Listen to Davin Coburn of said magazine getting pushed getting into a flap with questions he can't answer.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2064011173678536575

Funniest part is, David asking Charles Goyette to reframe the quesrtion!!

Its called logical incompatibility not inversions. This is not rocket science!

PM use the Panacke Theory. NIST Do not support it.<---Contradiction!! U

Do you see where the contradiction lies? Unless you wanna go down the 2 part road that you debunkers seem hooked on!! lol

I can't watch that video from work right now. Can you please quote the specific parts that meet with the definition of yellow journalism?

"Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or individual journalists."

I do not feel they are anything. The statements are incompatible. Please read and tell which part you do not understand.

PM Support the Pancake Theory.

NIST Doesn't!

Its that simple!

Maybe we're a little slow. Perhaps you could lay it out with a little more detail, and little less personal attack?

I could go onto a minute by minute report of what it is said, but it will be a lot easier if you listen too this when you get home and you'll hear all the references you are talking about that refer to Yellow Journalism!

"Obvioulsly I’m wrong because there is NO CONTRADICTION…..hahahaha!! As these comedians point out.
So what you sceptics believe is that NIST and PM did collaboration on the WTC collapse. Like when Tarrantino and Rodriguez produced the 1st & 2nd parts (Respectively) of that great mobster/vampire film From Dusk Til Dawn…………..Yeah!!
So using Skeptic logic theory NIST explain the initial collapse (The 1st Part) and PM explained the actual collapse(2nd Part)!!
Even though NIST CONTRADICTS the PM version of the collapse and THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PANCAKE THEORY AT ALL!!
I’m laughing as I type this because no doubt you Skeptics will still be trying to defend the following contradiction with plenty of double-speak!
So he agrees with NIST Pancaking theory, which they state they don’t agree with the Pancake theory…"


I see nothing supporting your claim regarding NIST about post initaition.
Of cource again we have clear evidence of pancaking (sandwiched floor pieces)
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5484916

Also compare PM and NIST

PM
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, the floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction."

NIST FAQ
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Again no disagreement.

 

[stundie]

So it's too much trouble to plant WMDs but it isn't too much trouble to stage a false flag scheme by controlled demolition of 3 builinings, the staged hijacking of 4 planes, te staged attack on the pentagon and the faked crash of flight 93?

Of course it is, you have to have WMD in the 1st place, then you have get it too Iraq of course to plant it, then you have investigate it.

As for a flase flag operation, I'm not sure if the goverment has full complancey in these attacks, maybe they knew they were happening and let or assisted in order to push there agenda. I do not know hence the reason I fully support a new investigation because the 9/11 Commission is full of gaping holes and omissions.

Then when you add up the facts like the Bush family were involved in the security at both WTC, Silversteins insurance. Scott Forbes and William Rodriguez who both worked at WTC gave strange accounts things happen in the weeks leading upto 9/11, plus lots of other evidence I could point too but it would be going of the thread...lol.....I think there is pretty strong case for a false flag operation, some of the people involved do not have to be aware they are involved. Until we get a full independent investigation, we will never truly know.

Also, what does the US gain from invading Afghanistan?

Some say it was to stop Russia, Iran and China to control their own resources and their pipelines. Some say The Bush-Cheney administration was 'advised' by the USA oil industry and industrial military complex to make a long war to militarise the area, and therefore always have an excuse to fight whomever it arms! But these are just theories and again I do not want to get into a discussion because we are going off the thread.

 

[stundie]

I'm guessing, from the way you phrased this, that you aren't an American.

I'm British, not that this should make an ounce of difference.

What makes you think you know what Americans would or wouldn't accept?

Because if you start a war and risk the lives of your country men for a war without justification, then the people will not support it. People would be dying on both sides?? For what exactly?? Nothing...Would you give your life to your country for nothing??

Besides, fighting a country for no justifcation unless you are defending yourselves could be classed as either an invasion (If you occupy) or an cleasning program (because you are killing people from another country for no justification)

I'm not an american, but I know that anyone from a Western country who believes in peace (Which most people do) would not support a war, unless there was some reason for it? i.e America being attacked, defending another nation etc..etc.

 

[Mashuna]

Of course it is, you have to have WMD in the 1st place, then you have get it too Iraq of course to plant it, then you have investigate it.

Hold on, you're seriously saying that demolishing the towers, killing thousands of your own citizens and then covering up a massive consipiricy is harder than just dropping off a few nukes in Iraq for the inspectors to find? Your own inspectors (by that time) at that?

Really?

 

[stundie]

Hold on, you're seriously saying that demolishing the towers, killing thousands of your own citizens and then covering up a massive consipiricy is harder than just dropping off a few nukes in Iraq for the inspectors to find? Your own inspectors (by that time) at that?

Really?

Yes, but I'm not going to go into the reasons why as we will lose track of this thread which is NIST V PM.

Where do you get the WMD from to plant in Iraq. WMD doesn't grow on trees.

Iraq airspace was being watched by USA, France and the UK, (Maybe others but I'm not sure) So they would have to sneak it past these countries too.

Then other questions would be asked like where did Saddam get his WMD from? How do you just plant WMD and say he has got it without finding out HOW he got it? I suppose they could use the Niger Yellow Cake claim that Joe Wilson debunked.

Not sure if you are aware but WMD take years to build especially Nuclear ones which require enriched uranium, so it's not something you can do overnight.

The attacks on 9/11 were used as a justification for war, which the Bush/Cheney admin wanted for reasons I could go into but I'll be going off the thread again.

 

[Mashuna]

Yes, but I'm not going to go into the reasons why as we will lose track of this thread which is NIST V PM.

Where do you get the WMD from to plant in Iraq. WMD doesn't grow on trees.

Iraq airspace was being watched by USA, France and the UK, (Maybe others but I'm not sure) So they would have to sneak it past these countries too.

Then other questions would be asked like where did Saddam get his WMD from? How do you just plant WMD and say he has got it without finding out HOW he got it? I suppose they could use the Niger Yellow Cake claim that Joe Wilson debunked.

Not sure if you are aware but WMD take years to build especially Nuclear ones which require enriched uranium, so it's not something you can do overnight.

The attacks on 9/11 were used as a justification for war, which the Bush/Cheney admin wanted for reasons I could go into but I'll be going off the thread again.

Sure, I understand it's not especially easy to do. But I don't know how you can argue that they didn't plant WMD because it was a bit tricky whilst simultaneously arguing for 9/11 as an inside job.

 

[uk_dave]

9/11 was never the original reason for going to war, it was a CYA excuse used only by some in the bush admin and certain sections of the right wing media (namely fox news) after the debacle of finding that the claims about wmd were incorrect.

And even then they failed to prove any reliable link between the saddam regime and AQ.

So it was then left to jokers such as santorum to trumpet the finding of some ancient mustard gas shells a few months a go. A find which was already known about and which was roundly ignored by the mainstream news media because they knew it to be what it was: crap

And the woowoos then wonder why the mainstream media doesn't give airtime to their claims.

Think about it.

 

[maccy]

Of course it is, you have to have WMD in the 1st place, then you have get it too Iraq of course to plant it, then you have investigate it.

As for a flase flag operation, I'm not sure if the goverment has full complancey in these attacks, maybe they knew they were happening and let or assisted in order to push there agenda. I do not know hence the reason I fully support a new investigation because the 9/11 Commission is full of gaping holes and omissions.

Then when you add up the facts like the Bush family were involved in the security at both WTC, Silversteins insurance. Scott Forbes and William Rodriguez who both worked at WTC gave strange accounts things happen in the weeks leading upto 9/11, plus lots of other evidence I could point too but it would be going of the thread...lol.....I think there is pretty strong case for a false flag operation, some of the people involved do not have to be aware they are involved. Until we get a full independent investigation, we will never truly know.


Some say it was to stop Russia, Iran and China to control their own resources and their pipelines. Some say The Bush-Cheney administration was 'advised' by the USA oil industry and industrial military complex to make a long war to militarise the area, and therefore always have an excuse to fight whomever it arms! But these are just theories and again I do not want to get into a discussion because we are going off the thread.

I'm British, not that this should make an ounce of difference.



Because if you start a war and risk the lives of your country men for a war without justification, then the people will not support it. People would be dying on both sides?? For what exactly?? Nothing...Would you give your life to your country for nothing??

Besides, fighting a country for no justifcation unless you are defending yourselves could be classed as either an invasion (If you occupy) or an cleasning program (because you are killing people from another country for no justification)

I'm not an american, but I know that anyone from a Western country who believes in peace (Which most people do) would not support a war, unless there was some reason for it? i.e America being attacked, defending another nation etc..etc.

I agree that we're distracted this thread to talk about these issue more here, if you want to expand your argument I suggest this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69261

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Argument from personal incredulity.

Maccy was pointing out what Chainsaw and Neil were talking about, I was letting him know I knew what they were talking about.
Agrument from peronal incredulity....Hardly considering I'm not arguing anything at all.

"I'm not a scientist I have always thought this was a ridiculous claim because no plane hit WTC 7, yet there is molten metal underneath there" is making an argument, and one based upon personal incredulity at that.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam ; unless you care to provide a better substantiation of your claim that it is "an absurd theory".

Substaniate my claim....Quite simple!! NO PLANE HIT WTC7, yet there are pools of molten metal found like in the other WTC.

False choice fallacy, aka false dichotemy, aka bifurcation; you claim that there can not be molten metal in the WTC 7 rubble unless a plane hit it. This is patently false. There were fires at the time of the collapse; a plane was not required to be a source of heat.

Maccy's quote made no accusations against you, Neil, or CC; it was a clarification.

So whats this then....

Originally Posted by maccy
I don't think either chainsaw or neil believe that thermite was planted in the towers in order to cut through the core columns.

A clarification? If you interpret it differently, then elucidate as to why.

Straw man

I love making straw man comments.

That certainly seems to be the case.

Then present it in a manner that can be debated clearly; because your opinion doesn't mean squat.

If I argued my points on WTC Collapses it would require another thread and we would be going off the subject and I like to keep to the subject.

Then don't bring it up to begin with.

That is exactly what they are saying; if it can be shown that a nanothermite reaction is a possible explanation, then the onus is on Jones to defend his assertion and in doing so must show evidence that precludes a nanothermite reaction, or how a nanothermite reaction could not have occurred.

Whoever thought a Nano Thermite Reaction could occur, then it is upto them to present the facts. No Prof Jones!

Go reread what I wrote. QED.

Evidence?

Again no plane hit WTC 7, Neils post arguing how it could not have been possible. Sightings of a thermite reaction before the towers collapsed!! Is that good enough for you.

Reread my comments above regarding your plane/wtc7 argument. Additionally, you have failed to prove that your claims of thermite reaction prior to collapse are, in fact, what you claim they are.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade
Specific example where Jones has done so?

Is he not the proponent of a Thermite reaction being used. Something which NIST Ignored. Not sure what you don't understand about that statement.

That is not a glaring mistake or contradiction. He is making an assertion and must substantiate it.

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade
You are either failing to understand the answers being provided to you, or you are committing Straw man fallacies. Either way, your list is erroneous.

No I am not failing to understand the answers. These are the answers being given. Argumentum ad ignorantiam!!

Do you even understand what an argumentum ad ignoratium fallacy is?

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade
I'll defer to those more knowledgeable in the relevant areas than I to comment on the veracity of Neil's statements.

Good, lets leave them too it then, but no ones refuted Neils post yet and his argument seem very plausable & water tight, although of course he could be wrong.

You admit to not having sufficient knowledge in the area in question to make a contribution to the thread, yet you also claim that Neil's argument is watertight? Do you see the contradiction here?

 

[uruk]

A good post by Perry Logan

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2131251&postcount=95

 

[Peephole]

So, Stundie are you finally ready to admit you were wrong and NIST and PM do not contradict each other?

 

[maccy]

So, Stundie are you finally ready to admit you were wrong and NIST and PM do not contradict each other?

stundie is no longer here to admit anything - it was just pdoherty, again, using a sock puppet to troll.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69567

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

stundie is no longer here to admit anything - it was just pdoherty, again, using a sock puppet to troll.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69567

Hey, the guy's persistant, I'll give him that. If only he used all of that energy to do real investigation...

 

[Peephole]

stundie is no longer here to admit anything - it was just pdoherty, again, using a sock puppet to troll.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69567

Ah, ok. I suspected something like that as he never contributed a single constructive thing.