What is a conspiracy theorist?

[Dave Rogers]

Ok, so how does this law apply to the fact that I can prove you can demolish a building with explosives and it will fall at freefall speed? This is the most obsured time wasting argument I have ever been in. I can absolutely, without a doubt prove that bombs can take a building down at freefall speed. This is not proving a negative per se. It is proving a positive, I can prove that I can destroy a building with demolition and it will fall at freefall speed.

OK. Let's see your proof that you can destroy a building with demolition and it will fall at freefall speed. We can take the first part of the statement as proven - what's your proof for freefall speed?

Dave

 

[Without Rights]

Yes, it is.

Please, read a logical textbook. Universal affirmation does not imply exclusive causality. Universal affirmation is simply a statement of class. All hematite contains iron, all monazite contains cerium. The iron does not cause the class to be hematite, but rather is indicative of it.

Don't need to, I already know what universal affirmation is, and my statement is not. Even if it was I don't get your point. Arguments have universal affirmations in them. But anyway let's review;

A of every B
B of every C
A of every C

This is a universal affirmation. Please fit my statement into these perimeters and prove it as a UA. Ooops, you can't do it can you? I guess because my statement is actually a particular proposition. Time for you to study again.

Backpedaling must be tiring. You were asked to prove that explosives brought down the towers, and you applied two statements: the affirmative and the conversion. Your statement implied the use of universal class identification because you can prove nothing otherwise.

Did you just jump in without reading anything? I never said that buildings were brought down with explosives, I said it is POSSIBLE. Do you know the difference? I guess repeating the same statement over again is called backpedaling in your logical textbook that keeps steering you wrong.

Furthermore, you did not even prove that a controlled demolition is possible through your argument. For you to prove a statistical possibility, both of your statements must assign a statistical value that is non-unity. If you start with a universal affirmative, you cannot prove a non-unity event.

First prove my statement was universal affirmation.



Why does something have to happen more than once for you to believe it is possible?[/quote]
It don't. Once again I didn't say it was impossible, I said both theories are possible so the childish name calling is ignorant because the truthers have a basis for their beliefs.

 

[Without Rights]

OK. Let's see your proof that you can destroy a building with demolition and it will fall at freefall speed. We can take the first part of the statement as proven - what's your proof for freefall speed?

Dave

I can't believe thius argument is continuing. Do you think perhaps that if I blast out supports from a building that it will float down like a balloon? If there is nothing between the ground and the structure then guess what?

 

[JimBenArm]

I can't believe thius argument is continuing. Do you think perhaps that if I blast out supports from a building that it will float down like a balloon? If there is nothing between the ground and the structure then guess what?

What?
I guessed it!

 

[Without Rights]

No it would stand out lie a sore thumb. So would the set up.

According to you, I think that it can be done.

These devices would be harder to use than regular CD for a lot of reasons. Why not tell us why you have no clue how these could be used to destroy the WTC.

Enlighten me.

How many can you order? Or can only the government get these things. How many were ordered before 9/11? You know one way they knew McVeigh did OKC. He bought the fertilizer! If the miltitary was in on 9/11 it would have never happened; you are now making up lies and spreading false ideas.

What lie is this suppose to expose exactly? You are making alot of assumptions.

But there was only aircraft impacts, fire, and the buildings fell. Fire destorys buildings, fires not fought destroy buildings faster.

Not steel buildings. If so show me one.

So who bought all the thermite devices. I have seen one work, but it was small. Large compared to the column to cut, but small. I wonder who invented these things. Did a CTer luck out like LC guys and make money off of nut case ideas? IT happens sometimes.

What?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I can't believe thius argument is continuing. Do you think perhaps that if I blast out supports from a building that it will float down like a balloon? If there is nothing between the ground and the structure then guess what?

OK, I'll try the over-simplified version, to see if you can find a way to misunderstand that.

In a conventional controlled demolition, most of the charges are typically set in the lowest one or two storeys of the building to be demolished. Some charges are set higher in the structure to condition the fall, but in general the structure of the building is not disrupted by charges above the lowest two storeys. When the charges detonate, the supports of the lowest one or two storeys are blown out. The building then falls, in free-fall, until the supports of the first undamaged storey hit the ground. The fall is then slowed at that point because some of the kinetic energy of the falling building has to be converted into fracture energy to break the next set of supports. This process continues with every additional storey of the building until it has completely collapsed. Since kinetic energy is lost during the fall due to the breaking of the structure of the building, a building brought down by a conventional controlled demolition falls significantly slower than an object falling in free fall from the same height as the top of the building.

Please point out any logical or factual errors in the above paragraph, and explain, in the light of those errors, why a building demolished by a conventional controlled explosive demolition falls "at freefall speed". For extra credit, demonstrate logically how the fall of a demolished building, where the lower supports are broken by explosives, differs from the fall of a building which has collapsed due to the lower supports breaking from a combination of fire and impact damage, at times after the initiating event.

Dave

 

[Without Rights]

Evidence, Without Rights, the word is evidence. And yes, we do. This the JREF Forum. Those who assert without evidence are soon revealed.

Unless of course you are on the "skeptics" side then you can make all the assumption you want. Follow that with some good old fashion insults to try and impress your fellow skeptics and viola, we got a forum.

Paul Isaac Jr. met poster Gravy in real life at Ground Zero. In this post, Sentinel identifies himself in footage taken by the Loose Change crew, and this identification is consistent with those personal meetings.

I am Arnold Swartzenager, I can prove it by identifing him in some footage.

Fireman Lou Cacchioli complained about being quoted out of context by People magazine, and also did express some anger at the 9/11 Commission. This was reported by the dubious Arctic Beacon, but that article is not working at present. It is reprinted in its entirety here.

Nonetheless, what you said as follows, is incorrect:



It's incorrect because it's a seemingly mild exaggeration. This is inconsistent with the rest of your statement, where you quoted him accurately:

That's "trying." Not "did."

He further stated:


Since his story was never mentioned, it was not "twisted."

You are right, this is a nitpick.

This may seem like a nitpick. However, I claim it is a valid criticism because it is precisely this sort of nitpick that angered him to begin with -- namely taking his comments about how things "sounded like bombs," and altering them into "were bombs."

That is false. The 911 commission was not trying to turn his words "sounded like bombs" into "there were bombs". they didn't want to hear anything about bombs.

I've read them, and I see nothing there inconsistent with the Official Theory.

Except his eyewitness, professional testimony that he heard bombs. It could have been other things but that does not warrant discounting him completely like they did. A real investigation would have included his testimony and considered bombs as a possibility and investigated . That is how you discount evidence, you investigate it, if it went nowhere then you can discount it. To discount it with no investigation and not even include it in the report is completely ass backwards and only fuels alternative theories.

 

[gumboot]

Not steel buildings. If so show me one.

Here.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I am Arnold Swartzenager, I can prove it by identifing him in some footage.

You must have missed the bit where a poster on this forum MET HIM IN PERSON.

-Gumboot

 

[ZouPrime]

I've only be skimming the thread so maybe someone else made the point but...

For some reason, conspiracy theorists seem to have equated free fall or near free fall speed with controlled demolition.

Has it ever occured to them that ALL significantly large buildings are going to fall at free fall or near free-fall speed the moment their structural integrity is compromised?

I mean, sure, existing support beam can slow down the fall, but they won't ever stop them (and that's why NIST never bothered to analyse the fall after structural failure). The inertia of the falling mass is simply to great compared to the support specification, by many order of magnitude.

 

[ZouPrime]

Except his eyewitness, professional testimony that he heard bombs.

Maybe I missed that too, but you got any source for that? Because I've read plenty of testimonies about explosions (which are pretty common in large scale fires), but not actual bombs.

 

[Without Rights]

Here.

-Gumboot

The Kader building where most of the deaths occurred was illegally constructed. It was made with cheap steel, not the UL standard steel used in modern steel structures like WTC.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The Kader building where most of the deaths occurred was illegally constructed. It was made with cheap steel, not the UL standard steel used in modern steel structures like WTC.

Source? It's clear the steel wasn't fireproofed, but what information do you have on the grade of steel used, and on what construction laws were broken?

Dave

 

[gumboot]

The Kader building where most of the deaths occurred was illegally constructed. It was made with cheap steel, not the UL standard steel used in modern steel structures like WTC.

It was a modern structure. In fact the WTC towers were TEN TIMES as old as the Kader Toy Factory. There was nothing wrong with the steel structure of the Kader Toy Factory. The deaths were not a result of the collapse - they were a result of smoke inhalation. The building failed to meet fire safety codes because steel was not fire-proofed, there were no automatic sprinklers, and occupant emergency egress was poor. The quality of the steel used in the construction was not a factor.

This fire is an excellent example of what happens to steel that is not fireproofed or has its fireproofing removed (such as occured at the WTC).

-Gumboot

 

[rwguinn]

The Kader building where most of the deaths occurred was illegally constructed. It was made with cheap steel, not the UL standard steel used in modern steel structures like WTC.

Still stupid as ever, I see. Refusal to learn is not ignorance, which is curable.
UL does not, will not, and never has, set the standards for steel or any building material.
For proper and legal definitions, look up ASTM, ANSI, or MIL-HDBK-5J.
ASME, ASCE, AIAA, SAE, and the archetects bunch all use them to define materials
UL does qualify fireproofing, however.

 

[beachnut]

According to you, I think that it can be done.

Enlighten me.

What lie is this suppose to expose exactly? You are making alot of assumptions.

Not steel buildings. If so show me one. (((there are hundreds but it seems CTers are too challenged to find ONE, LOL, there are hundreds, go find them great Without Rights, with out facts, with out logic, without Reason, Without…)))

What?

Many steel buildings have failed due to fire. Research Challenged CTers are unable to find ONE! Am I right or What? .

Many steel buildings have been destroyed, never to be used again only held up by parts not damaged by fire! Windsor Madrid building destroyed by fire. One Meridian Plaza destroyed by fire, not around now. WTC5, 6 destroyed by fire, many floors failed due to fire. WTC7 damage and fire. WTC1,2 impacts of 1300 to 2200 pounds of TNT, enough energy at impact to destroy all the steel columns. Fire, WTC1,2 destroyed. I have named more buildings in one day than you can name in 100 years it appears.

You seem to be seriously research challenged. There are hundreds of buildings, made from structural steel that feel and were totaled by fire. I have named:
Windsor in Madrid
One Meridian Plaza in PA
WTC 5, 6
WTC7
WTC 1, 2

Did you not read NIST, many floor in WTC5/6 failed due to fire alone. You can see photos but then in your non answering rant mode of challenged research I expect you will never invest anytime in finding 9/11 truth, or have the ability to understand anything about 9/11 ever. You may never prove this simple fact wrong. What do you think? Since you are so great at research and believe you are right I doubt if you will ever find a building that has been destroyed, or damaged due to fire. You will travel though this issue with blinders and blindly follow others without ever learning how to use that brain filled with 9/11 lies and junk for the nuts and dolts of the 9/11 truth movement. Relax you do not even know you do not have facts! Why is that?

No you enlighten me, tell me what happen on 9/11. Show me, tell me what happen on 9/11. Can you even do that? Can you present simple facts on 9/11? You already are wrong about fire; have you ever read facts of fire and steel? Books from the experts on structures? Why are CTers void of facts? 170 posts with zero facts and evidence to support your ideas you are too afraid to tell us what they are and expose your secret evidence.

Why do you turn all the questions back to us with your great facts filled "
Enlighten me"? You only prove you will never ever have a fact on 9/11. I have yet to see one fact posted by you.

What are you a LCF clone with the play book just ask the question back? You have failed to answer any questions or problems with your junk yet. Zero facts, zero answers. I must assume you will never have anything since you have presented nothing. Why are you so challenged with 9/11 facts, not able to produce on single piece of evidence to support what ever lame ideas you may have on 9/11?

What are your smoking gun stuff on 9/11 that we do not have yet?

Look at your reply! Zero facts or any ideas what happen on 9/11. Zip.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Still stupid as ever, I see. Refusal to learn is not ignorance, which is curable.
UL does not, will not, and never has, set the standards for steel or any building material.
For proper and legal definitions, look up ASTM, ANSI, or MIL-HDBK-5J.
ASME, ASCE, AIAA, SAE, and the archetects bunch all use them to define materials
UL does qualify fireproofing, however.

Normally, I think it's overly insulting when someone calls another poster "stupid", but in this case I can't think of a more appropriate word. The whole UL issue has been covered so thoroughly in so many different places that it would be almost impossible not to stumble across it by accident during the course of even the most lax "research". WR is displaying willful ignorance at its finest.

 

[uk_dave]

The Kader building where most of the deaths occurred was illegally constructed. It was made with cheap steel, not the UL standard steel used in modern steel structures like WTC.

That is the most amazing piece of spin I have seen so far from you.

Do you make it up yourself, or do you get your 'information' from somewhere/someone else?

If the latter, don't you think you should start being a bit suspicious about the information they are providing to you?

 

[Without Rights]

Kader Toy Factory

http://www.amrc.org.hk/4712.htm
"The Kader building where most of the deaths occurred was illegally constructed. Overhead walkways linking the four buildings that composed the factory complex had not been approved under the Building Control Act."

Another thing I would like to mention. NIST built a small scale structure to simulate WTC and started fires around it to see if warping would occur and they found that it did. The structure warped 3 inches. In the computer model also put out by NIST to prove a progressive collapse the variable used to represent the warping was 42". They don't explain how they got this number. Their own experiment produced only a minimal fraction of warping compared to what they show in the computer model. Why would they do this? Why not use the variables that the experiment showed they should use.

Also the sequence of failed trusses leading to the "pull-in" of the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained by simulation.

Collapse theory relies on the assumption that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse" which need not be the case.

Also NIST says;

For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.
(p xxxvii/39)

They only practice brevity when they try to explain the collapse. As outlined by Kevin Barrett

Plane crash modeling: 50,000+ words
Fire simulations: 100,000+ words
Column bowing, instability: ~50 words
Downward movement: ~20 words
Mechanism of total collapse: 0 words

Probable is the keyword, not certain but probable. And they admit they have no data to conclude that once collapse initiation has occured that global collapse is inevitable.

NIST starts with a presumption and attempts to prove that assumption. They hide the fact that they cannot prove a global collapse senario by doing no tests to prove the theory but only stating that global failure is inevitable.

They don't mention or try to explain steel sulfidation evidence procurred by FEMA.

They refuse to publish computer models, they only explain the results.

They say the sagging trusses pulled the exterior columns in, but video shows verticle columns being blown outward in excess of 500ft.

FEMA's report blamed fire weakened truss supports for the collapse, while NIST assumes they held strong to the point where they could pull in the exterior columns.

NIST asserts that fires raged in WTC 1 & 2 without any evidence to support it. Evidence exists that says different, such as the pictures of people standing in the gash waving for help.

The effect of thermal conductivity is ignored.

The upper section of floors falling on the lower section of floors is said to create the downward force that initiated the collapse sequence but the upper floors initially leaned over. This leaning contradicts the downward force (piledriver) theory, clearly some of the force was lost in the lateral movement of the upper floors.

Natural events produce random results. Tall buildings are more likely to fall over like a tree than to collapse straight down.

The NIST report has a lack of reproducibility, claims are made that WTC is a special case because of the unique construction.

Outright lies are told such as

"Next to an atomic weapon, this is the most [energy] that you can pack in one punch."

Is the force of gravity so powerful that it can only be trumped by a nuclear bomb?

Structural steel removed very quickly instead of intense analysis that it deserved. Small steel samples obtained by FEMA show High sulpher and iron in the samples. Dr Jones obtained a sample and found the same elements as well. Sulpher and iron are byproducts of a thermate reaction. Any other explainations are welcomed, I can't find this explained in the NIST report using the search function.

Now, I am not saying any of this proves demolition so nobody quote me as saying that. I am saying that there is enough doubt to warrant critism of NIST's report. Therefore it is unfair to use terms such as woo-woo when describing people who question it.

I think that no matter what, people who imply that conspiracy theories do exist will automatically be labelled insane and ridiculed. It is the ultimate weapon of the people on this site and of the media and government agencies.

When reading the intro to a FR Greening paper he says that the collapse of the towers are unusual and appear to have been demolished. Then he shows his bias by stating that this caused "conspiracy minded people" to question whether bombs were used. He discounts demolition from the start because basically he is not a "conspiracy minded" person. He acknowledges the anomalies that would naturally warrant suspicion and then discounts the suspicion as being held only by conspiracy theorists. That is a contradiction born out of the bias belief that conspiracies are fictional.

 

[rwguinn]

http://www.amrc.org.hk/4712.htm
"The Kader building where most of the deaths occurred was illegally constructed. Overhead walkways linking the four buildings that composed the factory complex had not been approved under the Building Control Act."

Another thing I would like to mention. NIST built a small scale structure to simulate WTC and started fires around it to see if warping would occur and they found that it did. The structure warped 3 inches. In the computer model also put out by NIST to prove a progressive collapse the variable used to represent the warping was 42". They don't explain how they got this number. Their own experiment produced only a minimal fraction of warping compared to what they show in the computer model. Why would they do this? Why not use the variables that the experiment showed they should use.

Quit trying to explain technical things when an equation frightens you int abandoning a thread.
They did. See "Scale Model" above. What part do you not understand?
Thermal expansion is a function of length. It is measured in
(in/(in*degree)) Length is the one dimension that is linear betwen a scale model and the real thing.
So, if a scale model give a thermal expansion of 3 inches, than the real thing will have 3" times the scale factor. In this case, their scale model would have been 1/14 the actual size.
The rest of your post is just a re-hash of the recycled alfalfa we whave been over a few dozen times, but which the cter always hopes we have forgotten. Look it up in this sub forum.