Common Sense

[switchtech]

Isn't psychology fascinating? I made a very keen observation some time back... about how I didn't think all of you were acting like real skeptics because you weren't skeptical of the official story when it has a million holes in it.

I love when I have an original idea or notion that is beautifully echoed with other research and analysis. Pseudoskeptics - yes, what a perfect nomenclature for this bunch of habitual debunkers.

So far I haven't found a million holes in the official explanation. There are faults with it, and pretty much everyone acknowledges there are things we don't know about the collapse, but the details as provided by the NIST do fit the observations and reality of what happened to a sufficient degree and the alternative explanations don't come close to providing a better or even reasonable explanation.

Do the math - it works.

 

[switchtech]

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture. You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.

See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginning

Here's what you don't understand ... real evidence that 9/11 was an inside job would convince us, none has been presented. We have pieced together the evidence to view the big picture, evidence that has been gathering since before the Crusades, and the big picture is there are some people (hmm, that's an understatement!) in the world that think the US is a pawn of Satan and any damage done to the nation and its citizens and allies is the work of God. To that end they are willing to sacrifice their own lives and those of otherwise innocent people.

We take each piece of information presented as evidence and weigh it - if it proves to be false evidence we debunk it, sure. I have often noted that much of what passes for evidence presented and debunked is more akin to hypothesis and conjecture. As such we don't need to treat it as a fact. And you are completely mistaken if you believe nothing ever adds up for us. We do the math - when it adds up, we fit the piece into the puzzle. That's how we build a big picture.

 

[switchtech]

i counted right watching this:-



but the outcome is still a big surprise and defies common sense....
gender differences........HAH!

:-]

BV

My brain is wired wrong. I counted correctly and evaded being surprised.

 

[switchtech]

The point about common sense here perfectly demonstrated. 28th uses "common sense" to tell us that his hand can't pass through a steel door. I've actually seen a truther video which used someone walking through a door as some kind of illustration of how it's "impossible" to be on the other side of the door without opening it. Somehow both the movie makers and 28th have forgotten that with sufficient force, his hand could easily pass through the door. There wouldn't be anything left of his hand, but there doesn't need to be.

I was think that I could show 28thKingdom how to pass his hand through the door - but would be pretty sure he wouldn't like the result. Of course I had in mind heating a section with a plasma torch first then hitting the heated area as hard as he could just before the metal was molten enough to fall off. The timing would be tricky.... But I'm sure a sufficiently imaginative person could do it.

 

[switchtech]

What commonly known information are you applying to this situation - that would lead you to believe this?

What pertinent common knowledge about the world are you applying to this event? i.e. If a is like b...than a must be like c.

Common Sense is not about believing what your eyes tell you. Common Sense is a sense beyond your five senses... although it uses certain information from those (5) senses in order to form a higher intuitive-like sense.

What are you applying to this scenario? The common belief that humans need oxygen to live, thus everything must need oxygen to live? But, fish aren't human...and neither are deep-sea creatures. Humans, can't breathe underwater, but we know fish can... You are so far from reality.

Do huh? Dude, get yer head out of Uranus.

Oh boy...

Common sense ideas tend to relate to events within human experience, and thus commensurate with human scale. Thus there is no commonsense intuition of, for example, the behavior of the universe at subatomic distances or speeds approaching that of light.

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

You must have misunderstood the original post you quote - you missed, perhaps on purpose, the obvious. These "common sense" thoughts were in fact once considered common sense, they are historical and are examples of when common sense was wrong - we know better today and have generally incorporated the new datum into our modern version of common sense.

And since when is the collapse of a pair of 100 story buildings actually a "human scale" event. We typically run about 1.5 meters tall - these buildings were a few hundred times (and two orders of magnitude) out of scale. We had no trial and error expectations of what happens when you dumped tens of thousands of gallons of Jet-A into a flammable mess of material and heat steel support structures for a while after puncturing and destroying several vertical support pieces and defeating the fire resistant protections of all the above. Common Sense, in this case, could be considered neither common nor sensible. And the math proves it. You just need some basic, OK, advanced understanding of mathematics.

 

[switchtech]

Has a false flag operation ever happened in the world? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
Has a country ever killed it's own people as a pretext to fight an external enemy? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_incident
Has Israel ever engaged in any false-flag operations? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_Bombing
Any of those against the US? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
Has the US ever been involved in any false-flag operations? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladio
Has the US ever considered engaging in false-flag operations against its own people? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Now, does everyone (CTist and/or Gov Shills) believe that planted explosives could have brought down the towers? Yes. Had explosives ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? Yes. Had a plane impact ever brought down a steel structured high-rise pre 9/11? No. Had a fire ever brought down a steel-structured high-rise pre 9/11? No. Had hurricane-like (debris) exterior damage ever made a steel-structured high-rise totally collapse in a symmetrical fashion at quasi-free fall speeds? No.

How about this: Has any government ever come to the aid of its people? Has any government ever told the truth about something? Has any government ever done exactly what it said it was doing? Has any building ever collapsed with out the aid of controlled demolition? Has any building ever collapsed due to fire? Has any of this made sense?

What are the odds that 19 amateur pilots with box cutters and plastic knives could have hijacked four commercial airliners with a 100% success rate, and then proceeded to maneuver these aircraft (past the world's most elite and advanced military defense system) to three exact destinations while hitting 100% of their targets? 1 in an inconceivable number

Apparently you shouldn't worry so much about odds... How likely is it for anyone to actually win a lotto? You underrate the hijackers. Calling them amateur pilots is missing the point that they were highly trained professional terrorists. Your imagination concerning the ability of a box cutter to inflict grievous injury and scare the wits out of innocent civilians is sorely lacking. Either that or you haven't seen some of my box cutters.

What are the odds that Israel, backed with the fourth largest funded military in the world, could have had some agents plant explosives in a privately owned building complex, that is owned by a Zionist? 1 in 1

What are the odds that Osama and crew would attack the World Trade Center? Oh, that's right, 1:1 - they already did it once before.

What are the odds that elements (the highest ranking officials) within the USG government could hand down orders that effectively disarm NORAD? 1 in 1

Straw man. NORAD was designed to defend against external threats, not civilian airliners taking off from US airports. NORAD was effectively disarmed from day 1 against such internal flights.

What are the odds that a commercial size airliner can be hijacked via remote control and flown to exact locations. 1 in 1

Irrelevant since we have plenty of evidence supporting the 19 hijackers. Chances are there were a dozen or so more that failed to pass security or missed their opportunity or chickened out (OK, that last may actually be unlikely).

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

Global Hawk isn't a technology for flying huge aircraft. Global Hawk is a remote controlled drone - it has no provisions for flight by an on-board pilot. And since we have the evidence that 19 men hijacked the planes we don't need the robots of dawn to come along and do the deed.

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'

http://www.911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html

Now... start piecing everything together... and then tell me which theory is more far fetched.

Your reference article is wrong concerning the inclusion of remote control in production 757 aircraft. Even a google of remote control 757 only turns up CT based web pages (and a couple pages of R/C hobby aircraft). And these all reference the same contestable source.

Now piecing everything together - the NIST report is reasonable and the most likely of the given options.

 

[ktesibios]

Dear Worthless Aging Hippie,

Is it possible to have a belief that differs from what the government says is true and not be a crazy person?

In your world... is there any such thing as a credible (non-crazy) whistleblower? And, if so... what are the credentials one must possess in order to qualify as a sane and reliable whistleblower?

Thank you.

No, dear. The reason that the thought of devotees of conspiracist "reasoning" such as yourself serving on a jury horrifies me is the thought that you would use the same thought processes to evaluate the evidence. Such thought processes as:

Black/white thinking, e.g. "either you accept this unsupported assertion about a massive government conspiracy or you uncritically accept the government version". Life isn't an endless series of false dilemmas.

The inability or unwillingness to distinguish between "could have been" and "actually was".

The inability or unwillingness to grasp the concept of burden of proof and where it lies.

The belief that once you've convinced yourself that a target, e.g. the gummint, the Israelis, the Zionists or whoever the enemy-of-the-people-of-the-month is are bad people, they must be guilty of whatever you choose to accuse them of. That's also coupled with the massive fallacies of composition and non sequitur you have to indulge in to get from specific incidents like the Liberty to generalizing about "the Israelis" and then to concluding that these incidents are somehow relevant evidence about 9/11.

The thought of anyone having to face a jury composed of devotees of the conspiracist method of starting with an ideologically predetermined conclusion and then trying to hammer and file the evidence to fit it is genuinely horrifying.

OTOH, I have derived some amusement by considering what would happen if I approached my job with the conspiracist method of thinking. I suspect I'd get to satisfy my curiousity about just what a million dollars worth of bluish-white smoke looks like.

 

[slingblade]

Who will you be calling first, 28th? The New York Times? Bill O'? Rush? Somebody? Anybody?

Come on, man, you can't just sit on this. You know something, and you gotta tell.

 

[R.Mackey]

What are the odds that Israel, backed with the fourth largest funded military in the world, could have had some agents plant explosives in a privately owned building complex, that is owned by a Zionist? 1 in 1

What are the odds that elements (the highest ranking officials) within the USG government could hand down orders that effectively disarm NORAD? 1 in 1

What are the odds that a commercial size airliner can be hijacked via remote control and flown to exact locations. 1 in 1

Umm.. "What are the odds that X could have happened??"

Excuse me?

Probability is all about "what are the odds that X will happen" or "what were the odds that X would happen," not "what are the odds that X is possible." What you've said here is just double stupid all over.

 

[beachnut]

Here's what you don't understand. There is no evidence that will convince you 9/11 is an inside job... because in order to espy the truth about 9/11 you need the ability to piece together information in a way that forms a big picture. You all like to take things (evidence) one by one in a linear fashion, proceed to "debunk" them, which in your pseudo world really just means "deny" them (burden of proof - who needs that) and then move along to the next thing.

See, nothing ever adds up with you guys, because you are constantly working from ground zero i.e. square one, the beginning

Facts would help your case.

You will never have them.

See. That is a fact. You do not have facts.

Common Sense is also lacking in your ability to see 9/11 clearly!

Knowledge, judgement, and other critical things you lack. The short list.

Common Sense? Not in your case.

 

[switchtech]

So what makes the - 9/11 is an Inside Job Belief - such an unbelievable one? Tell me... logistically - why it was impossible for Israel and the US to pull off 9/11.

It isn't that it is impossible - it's that there isn't any evidence they did.

We're not talking about the specifics of the execution of operation 9/11 i.e. star wars beams and holographic wings.

I am asking what makes it impossible for professionally trained military agents to plant explosives in buildings...

Absolutely no one saw them do this - a job that would take a few months of daily (er, nightly) effort and leave a great deal of evidence it was happening (wiring being strung, protective cladding removed, entire walls missing, the building on the verge of collapse (well, no one might notice this last one).

What makes it impossible for explosives to bring down high-rise buildings...

Nothing makes the general principle impossible - except in this specific example we see no evidence (think bright flashes - on every floor - not just a couple random "squibs" - but every floor at every support position).

What makes it impossible for corrupt entities to pull off false-flag attacks...

The part where they actually pull it off - it appears that they're likely to get caught - and the bigger the operation the more likely.

What makes it impossible for the US to fly commercial size airliners... either by remote or with (hired) suicide pilots....

Answered elsewhere, but - a 757 is a hydraulic and cable system with redundant fault tolerance. Odd "take over control" systems would be inherently obvious to maintenance and flight crews.

Please, shed yer ego and remove that red, white and blue war paint from yer face - and tell me specifically why it was impossible for 9/11 to be an inside job.

Because it would leave evidence that would prove it - and the evidence doesn't exist. There were no real symptoms of a controlled demolition other than a building fell (watch a real demolition - witness literally hundreds of explosions, a dozen or more for every floor with bright flashes - not one or two odd compression events). Because we need to account for four flight crews and passengers. Because Al Queda did conspire to destroy US symbols and trained for years, practiced and actually attacked many times, before finally succeeding beyond their expectations on 9/11 and the evidence they did is manifest, their own documentation, in the security video tapes of the airports and on ATC radio recordings and the flight data recorders. The NIST report makes more sense and require less credulity.

 

[maccy]

What somebody may choose to describe as their common sense may lead them to assume that plastic knives can only look like this.

In fact, they can also look like this.

 

[switchtech]

UK dave said,
funny, when I do the math I keep coming up with a whole lot more than twelve seconds....a whole lot more!!!

you must have a really good imagination to have no questions about the world trade center collapses.

One, when I do the math, it's closer and under 10 seconds. Two, watching the CNN video - I count about 17 seconds per collapse (which initiate several floors below top which I based my calculations on).

That doesn't really seem like free fall speeds.

 

[natureboy]

JimBenArm said,

"So, how did you time the collapse? Seriously, what did you use as the start point, and end point? How long did it take?Let's see your calculations."

gravy said,

"Let's see your calculations. And wash your socks, please. They're stinky"

Ok here goes, and lets keep it simple and I will tilt it strongly in your favor.

What we got is a 100 story building.....
lets eliminate thousands of welded steel brackets that support the floor trusses and instead.....

.....every floor is suspended by glass brackets or wires..something that will break or snap if slightly overloaded....in your favor...fragile as you want it to be!

Now for the floors,hmmm..... lets use something that wont break up into little dust particles everytime it contacts the floor below,it will simplify our calculations by eliminating the quite considerable loss of momentum tranfer that is involved in turning the concrete to dust. plus not having any dust will add to the falling mass which is again in your favor....

and we can put contact cement on the floors so they will stick together when they come into contact.(less calculating)

One thing I will not give you though..... is the top twelve floors lumped together into one solid mass...no way man, the NIST may be attempting to do that but....no way!

I certainly observed that a large block of 12 floors on tower #2 (more on #1) somehow just separated from 98 storys below but,....

The lowest floor of the upper 12 storys (#99)is Not gonna be any "stronger"than highest floor (#98)of the lower 98 storys. in other words,..when floor 99 comes into contact with 98, they will BOTH break loose from the core and perimeter columns.....remember our glass brackets? problem wit dat? I didnt think so...

Ok so, its up to the top (imagine a dunking machine, naked chick throwing..)I will sit on my rubber floor,you on yours.

I have 98 rubber floors (each 12 feet apart) between me and the ground

you have 1 rubber floor and a (lot of hot) air between you and the ground

she throws!.. BAM!!! we begin falling....and thusly through observation we finally begin our calculations.

we both proceed down at the same rate,as we both knew we would... for twelve feet its a dead heat!(even though you are probably fatter than me), then BAM!! I'll be dipped in ****!!! it seems I have hit something!... another floor! #97 of course!....my downward acceleration has slowed! while you have continued on... and although I now have TWO floors falling with me, my velocity downward has been cut in half!(you are traveling 32 feet per second and I am going only 16 feet per second) and that is because mass at rest has resistance! even only held in place by fragile clips! get the picture yet? are you doing the math? No?

well lets go another twelve feet....Bam!!!! Damn its floor 96!!....damn those things get in the way! (as you continue on your merry unimpeded way) because I have two floors with me and we are slamming down onto one, my downward velocity is reduced by?.....you guessed it! one third or 33.333333333...% do you see where we are going yet? now do you get the picture? no?

OK, lets review. floor by floor

I'm on floor 98

I fall 12 feet and reach a speed of 32 ft per/sec

I hit floor 97 and slow down by 1/2 to 16 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 16fps.=48fps

I hit floor 96 and slow down by 1/3 to 32 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 32fps.=64fps

I hit floor 95 and slow down by 1/4 to 48 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 48fps.=80fps

I hit floor 94 and slow down by 1/5 to 64 fps and continue...

I fall 12 feet...I have gained another 32 fps to add to my 64fps.=96fps

I hit floor 93 and slow down by 1/6 to 80 fps and continue...

I fall and just before I hit floor 92 I am going at 112 feet per sec...

You on the other hand...gain 32 fps every 12 feet!

your on floor 98

you fall 12 feet=32fps @ floor 97

you fall 12 feet=64fps @ floor 96

you fall 12 feet=96fps @ floor 95

you fall 12 feet=128fps@ floor 94

you fall 12 feet=160fps@ floor 93

you fall 12 feet=192fps@ floor 92

results @ floor 92= me! 112 feet per sec!!!
you! 192 feet per sec!!!

need I go on?

Keep in mind I gave this to you on a silver platter with fragile truss clips and solid floors that dont break up...all in your favor...and we still cant get anything near a 12-13 second collapse....JREFFERS are stupid...

 

[beachnut]

I want you one on one in our own thread... and if you choose to decline my challenge, than you concede defeat by virtue of cowardice.

I need not qualify to debate you by answering any one particular question. If you want something addressed, than bring it into the thread.

My 600+ posts, speak for themselves.

I agree! Your 688 posts do speak for themselves; they say:

We are devoid of facts, logic, knowledge, judgement, on anything doing with 9/11!

That is a fact Jack! How do CTers debunk themselves so well?

 

[R.Mackey]

I deeply pity the teacher that has to grade your papers, nature boy.

 

[Architect]

Deeply suspicious that he doesn't use the quote function.

Natureboy, if you don't by your next post then I'm going to call "Remove Bush Sock Puppet" and - realistically - so will everyone else, leading to a ban.

Fix it or prepare to depart.

 

[natureboy]

Please forgive me the "Quote message in reply" chekbox is not working for me. maybe cuz i'm a new member?

 

[Architect]

Nope.

The alternative is to type as normal then hit the wee box next to the smiley, just above where you're typing.

 

[maccy]

we both proceed down at the same rate,as we both knew we would... for twelve feet its a dead heat!(even though you are probably fatter than me), then BAM!! I'll be dipped in ****!!! it seems I have hit something!... another floor! #97 of course!....my downward acceleration has slowed! while you have continued on... and although I now have TWO floors falling with me, my velocity downward has been cut in half!(you are traveling 32 feet per second and I am going only 16 feet per second) and that is because mass at rest has resistance! even only held in place by fragile clips! get the picture yet? are you doing the math? No?

Please explain why the velocity would be halved and show your calculations.

Also, please use the quote function of the forum, it makes things much clearer.

Finally, if it obviously runs counter to laws of physics for the building to have fallen the way it did why is the world scientific community so silent on the matter? Surely they can't all have been bought off? Why don't you send your hypothesis, as outlined above, to engineering and physics professors across the world? Send it to some architects as well, while you're at it. Maybe you can persuade one of them to co-author a peer-reviewed paper with you. Failing that, why not try the vast number of science correspondents who work for the worlds newspapers, radio and television stations?

Or are all of these people just stupid because they don't see things the way you do?