NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[Gravy]

What exact number do they stop the stopwatch on?

The scene fades out at 10.23 seconds.

 

[TraitorBasher]

This is a classic appeal to emotion.

No matter how bad he feels, the simple fact is that the petition itself is nonsense.

I'm not excusing bad behavior on either side of the aisle, just pointing out the facts. If Bob McIlvaine doesn't like the response he's getting, then he should ally himself with more reliable scientists. The choice is entirely up to him.

It is no more an appeal to emotion than the "disrespecting victims" line used here every day by skeptics.

Please listen to the audio.

 

[TraitorBasher]

The scene fades out at 10.23 seconds.

Yes it fades out. The stopwatch is never stopped and at no point do they try and pin the collapse on an exact number like 10.23 seconds. The stopwatch is simply a visual aid.

They say approximately 10 seconds just as the 911 commission report does.

 

[R.Mackey]

It is no more an appeal to emotion than the "disrespecting victims" line used here every day by skeptics.

Please listen to the audio.

But I didn't use that line. I used the fact that their claims are baseless.

My use of emotion is motivational, not the argument itself. It is, therefore, not a logical fallacy.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy, I wasn't asked about material claims, just claims. The goalposts shift again.

"The twin towers were 1362 and 1368 feet tall" is a statement of fact, not a material claim. "Without damaging either the wings or the light poles" is a material claim. Do you understand the difference?

There are dozens of claims that they get right and more that are not proven either way.

Then you won't have any problem naming one, although Dylan Avery can't.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It is no more an appeal to emotion than the "disrespecting victims" line used here every day by skeptics.

Please listen to the audio.

Argumentum ad hominem tu quoque

 

[Gravy]

Yes it fades out. The stopwatch is never stopped and at no point do they try and pin the collapse on an exact number like 10.23 seconds. The stopwatch is simply a visual aid.

They say approximately 10 seconds just as the 911 commission report does.

You didn't read my previous posts carefully. They started the stopwatch from 0:00 more than two seconds after the collapse had commenced.

 

[TraitorBasher]

You didn't read my previous posts carefully. They started the stopwatch from 0:00 more than two seconds after the collapse had commenced.

An unfortunate mistake, if true. If I had made the film I wouldnt have used the stopwatch atall, I would have simply quoted the 911 commission report.

If you think LC are wrong to say approximately 10 seconds then you must accept the commission is wrong also.

 

[Gravy]

It is no more an appeal to emotion than the "disrespecting victims" line used here every day by skeptics.

Please listen to the audio.

1) That line is not used here every day. I'll give you $5,000 dollars if you can demonstrate otherwise.

2) When we do use it, we back it up. Please see my Loose Change Creators Speak as an example.

 

[Gravy]

An unfortunate mistake, if true. If I had made the film I wouldnt have used the stopwatch atall, I would have simply quoted the 911 commission report.

Not a mistake. They edited the video clip to make it work that way. The original clip shows the whole event.

If you think LC are wrong to say approximately 10 seconds then you must accept the commission is wrong also.

The 9/11 Commission report was not an engineering report. It made no attempt to establish exact collapse times, and its statement had absolutely no bearing on any collapse analyses. On the other hand, Dylan Avery tried to deceive his audience with creative editing, as he does dozens of times in the video. See the difference?

 

[TraitorBasher]

The 9/11 Commission report was not an engineering report.

Nor is LC.

It made no attempt to establish exact collapse times,

Nor did LC.

On the other hand, Dylan Avery tried to deceive his audience with creative editing

You can prove intent?

 

[Gravy]

Nor is LC.

But they tried to pin an exact time on the collapse.

Nor did LC.

No? They didn't put a stopwatch on the collapse? Don't take my word for it. Watch the video.

You can prove intent?

This was not a passive act. By editing a video clip to fit their statements, what else would their intent be, if not to deceive?

That's all for me on this subject.

 

[beachnut]

Gravy, I wasn't asked about material claims, just claims. The goalposts shift again.

There are dozens of claims that they get right and more that are not proven either way. They also add a disclaimer at the end saying not to accept the preceding film as fact and to research yourself.

The film is full of lies. Anyone who believes them is incapable of simple research. Anyone who believes in 9/11 CTs is unable to think for themselves and research 9/11 to understand what happen. LC tells lies the truth movement is made of lies. It all works out! Not one factual based conclusion in the entire film, just idiot questions and junk.

Does Dylan do it for money or is he one of those who can not understand 9/11? Simple question which will get anyone banned at LCF. Truthers must be too immature to find facts. It is a knowledge problem and some argument complex or learning disability; those who suffer from CT on the brain. How can we help them learn how to think for themselves.

Dylan has no clue how explosives could be used or how they were used on 9/11. I think cutting throats is too simple for most to understand so they make up stories about 9/11.

9/11,
kill pilots
fly planes into buildings

Two steps, too simple, way to easy; want more details? BTW steel is weakened by fire. BTW the impact energy of each plane was between 1300 to 2000 pounds of TNT energy! FACTS, just the simple FACTS prove 9/11 CTs to be lies.

I am a pilot, I would have been dead on 9/11, my 757/767 would have been too easy to fly, no training is required to fly into large targets.

9/11 CTs are hog wash to the nth degree. Truthers need to find some facts so they can join the rational thinking; Truthers need to stop with the biased political induces terminal stupidly on 9/11! Argument of time, which is explained and you can see a building as it would fail due to impact, fire, failure. NIST petition is dumb too.

If they only had some facts…

 

[Hyperviolet]

No. It's one thing to say "approximate," quite another to put a stopwatch on an event, purporting to time it completely to the hundredth of a second, but to leave out the start of the event.

That's dishonest.

Feel free to let me know if you find any material claims that Loose Change gets right. No one has done so since I issued that challenge a year ago.

How about the claim that inside the towers people did hear/feel explosions?

That is definetely true. The cause of the explosions is not irrefutable of course. Loose Change suggests such evidence supports their theory of a controlled demolition. However, the claim that explosions were actually heard and felt by people inside the towers, regardless of the cause is true.

 

[Pardalis]

How about the claim that inside the towers people did hear/feel explosions?

That is definetely true. The cause of the explosions is not irrefutable of course. Loose Change suggests such evidence supports their theory of a controlled demolition. However, the claim that explosions were actually heard and felt by people inside the towers, regardless of the cause is true.

You're right, but remember that in the Loose Change movie, they use these reports to advance their controlled demolition theory, and that is dishonest and kooky.

 

[Disbelief]

Give me the link and I'll try and explain my response.

I don't recall having ever replied to you.

MM

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71744


Your answer to me is post 1683.

 

[TraitorBasher]

How about the claim that inside the towers people did hear/feel explosions?

That is definetely true. The cause of the explosions is not irrefutable of course. Loose Change suggests such evidence supports their theory of a controlled demolition. However, the claim that explosions were actually heard and felt by people inside the towers, regardless of the cause is true.

Most claims in LC are true. The viewer is left to ponder the significance of them and is encouraged to do further research.

How many documentaries supporting the official story encourage viewers to look into things?

 

[T.A.M.]

How about the claim that inside the towers people did hear/feel explosions?

That is definetely true. The cause of the explosions is not irrefutable of course. Loose Change suggests such evidence supports their theory of a controlled demolition. However, the claim that explosions were actually heard and felt by people inside the towers, regardless of the cause is true.

Watch the demolition of the Landmark Tower in Texas. It was a controlled demolition. Now how much time after the long sequence of explosions does the building start to fall...within a second or two. The people who heard explosions in the towers, had enough time to not only hear them, but exit the building safely, as you said, they heard them while in the buildings.

So how does the hearing of "explosions" help prove controlled demolition?

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Most claims in LC are true. The viewer is left to ponder the significance of them and is encouraged to do further research.

How many documentaries supporting the official story encourage viewers to look into things?

All the claims in LC are false, lies, and misinformation. You have to research more and stop believing people who are selling lies.

Point out one claim that is true to support the conclusions you may make. I found zero claims to be true and could not find one single piece of evidence to support the crazy ideas they are trying to get fools to believe.

Go ahead an list the claims true in LC. Please do not hold your breath while you look.

 

[Gravy]

How about the claim that inside the towers people did hear/feel explosions?

Please see my explanation of the difference between stating a fact and making a claim about that fact.

Most claims in LC are true.

Here's a list of LC's major claims. If you can demonstrate that any of them are true, please start a new thread and have at it. You will be the first.

1. U.S. air defenses were ordered to “stand down” on 9/11 in order to allow the attacks to succeed.
2. Prior to 9/11 the rules of engagement were changed to require permission from the Secretary of Defense before shooting down a threatening aircraft.
3. An unusual number of war games were deliberately held on 9/11 to occupy and confuse potential defenders.
4. Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 wreckage or human remains were recovered and identified there. It disappeared and no one knows the whereabouts of the plane or its passengers. The Pentagon was probably struck by a smaller military plane or a missile.
5. Flight 93 did not crash in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after its passengers tried to storm the cockpit. No aircraft wreckage and human remains were recovered and identified there. Instead, flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland where its passengers were removed and presumably killed. That plane may have contained not only flight 93’s passengers, but all the passengers from the other three planes as well. The actual plane, tail number N591UA, was still in use as of 2003.
6. None of the many phone calls made by passengers and crew on the hijacked aircraft were real. All the calls were perfectly faked by the conspirators using “voice-morphing” technology. The fakes occurred in real time as events unfolded, and were good enough to fool all the relatives of the “alleged” callers.
7. If the black boxes from the WTC planes could be located, they would prove that those were not flights 11 and 175.
8. At least 9 of the alleged hijackers were still alive after 9/11.
9. Al Qaeda had no role in the attacks. A video of bin Laden admitting his involvement was faked.
10. World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed by pre-planted explosive devices. Additional explosive devices blew up in the Twin Towers prior to the demolition charges going off. The towers did not collapse due to structural damage and fire caused by the aircraft striking them. Fires were not severe in the towers. WTC 7 sustained slight structural damage and fires.
11. One of the cleanup contractors at the WTC, Controlled Demolitions Inc., may have been involved in the WTC’s destruction, as well as in the bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City in 1995. CDI executed an “unexplained” demolition of two 400-foot gas tanks in NYC in June, 2001.
12. No inspection was allowed of WTC debris. New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ordered all potential evidence to be removed from the site.
13. Investors with advance knowledge of 9/11 made millions in the stock market.
14. A document produced by prominent Neocons in 2000 called for a “New Pearl Harbor.”
15. Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the World Trade Center, profited by over-insuring his buildings.
16. George W. Bush’s brother Marvin ran WTC security operations.
17. A large amount of gold was stolen from the vaults beneath the World Trade Center.
18. No real investigation of the causes of the attacks was done.

Those are huge claims. In the past year, no one – and especially not Avery – has been able to demonstrate that any of them are true. Perhaps you can do better. Start a new thread.