• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST Petition Demands Corrections

ERichardson said:
I agree with him on both. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, WTC 1 and 2 were uncontrolled demolitions.
Click to expand...
......except that he doesn't believe the Towers were demolished in any fashion.

Therefore you do not agree with Jowenko. Agree?
 
ERichardson said:
Yes, I do, and more specifically it is an appeal to authority fallacy because of this

If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.
Click to expand...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Click to expand...
"ignificant amount of legitimate dispute"? One demolitions expert out of tens of thousands equals "significant"?
 
ERichardson said:
No need, no planes hit 7 to have to create a top down demolition.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is essentially that the perps brilliantly tailored the Towers demolition to simulate a top down collapse, but couldn't make WTC 7 resemble a normal collapse? They demo'ed it as if it were undergoing a normal CD? That's called doublethink.

Or are you implying that you think the demolition of 7 sufficiently resembles a normal collapse? If that's the case, how can you tell it's not a collapse?
 
well that huge penthouse that was on the top of the building fell first 6 seconds before the entire building collapsed from the bottom. So your saying it was a top down bottom up controlled demolition?
 
T.A.M. said:
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:)
Click to expand...
TAM,
I do not believe the Demolition theory. I am merely responding to Gravys challenge that Loose Change does not have 1 single material claim correct. Loose Change put forth a claim about experience of explosions from people within the towers. This is true.

I believe reports of explosions (from people such as Mr Rodriguez) obviously supports the notion that maybe explosives were within the towers. However, due to the reasons you mentioned amongst many others, i disagree with Loose Changes conclusion from such evidence. Regardless, this claim of reported explosions is true.

EDIT : Gravy, i do not think your distinction is accurate. Should your challenge be "Name 1 conclusion Loose Change draws which is correct" - now that would be different. However, the challenge is based on claims or "material claim" as you put it. The claim loose change put forth about reports of explosions was not very well known to the majority of americans (obviously is it well heard of now, of course) and the claim does have merit. It is true. Now are you asking to take that further than just a simple claim (which is the challenge) into a correct hypothesis. Essentially i feel you aren't playing fair here. You are suggesting Loose Change doesnt get anything right. When i gave a claim which is true, you state that this does not qualify to pass your challenge as straight facts are not allowed. This is misleading. You are basically asking Loose Change to reach a conclusion which cannot be challenged or refuted. This is nigh on impossible. Even the official story isnt 100% irrefutable. To some the official story is far more probable, and to the CTers their explanation is improbable.
 
Last edited:
TraitorBasher said:
I agree with him on both. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, WTC 1 and 2 were uncontrolled demolitions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No, you're lying again. You don't agree with him that the collapses of the twin towers do not resemble controlled demolitions. You pretend (or perhaps you are sincere and merely unintelligent) that the collapses resulting from the impact of the planes, the dislodging of the fireproofing (what, by the way, was the function of the fireproofing?), and the extensive fires were caused by imaginary explosives planted by some means unknown to the demolition industry.

Again, what is the source of your secret knowledge of demolition that enables you dismiss the opinions of experts in the field? Your pathetically feeble attempt to ignore Brent Blanchard's straightforward refutations of your side's fabrications and falsehoods would embarrass anyone with a modicum of intellectual integrity.
 
Last edited:
Hyperviolet said:
TAM,
I do not believe the Demolition theory. I am merely responding to Gravys challenge that Loose Change does not have 1 single material claim correct. Loose Change put forth a claim about experience of explosions from people within the towers. This is true.

I believe reports of explosions (from people such as Mr Rodriguez) obviously supports the notion that maybe explosives were within the towers. However, due to the reasons you mentioned amongst many others, i disagree with Loose Changes conclusion from such evidence. Regardless, this claim of reported explosions is true.

EDIT : Gravy, i do not think your distinction is accurate. Should your challenge be "Name 1 conclusion Loose Change draws which is correct" - now that would be different. However, the challenge is based on claims or "material claim" as you put it. The claim loose change put forth about reports of explosions was not very well known to the majority of americans (obviously is it well heard of now, of course) and the claim does have merit. It is true. Now are you asking to take that further than just a simple claim (which is the challenge) into a correct hypothesis. Essentially i feel you aren't playing fair here. You are suggesting Loose Change doesnt get anything right. When i gave a claim which is true, you state that this does not qualify to pass your challenge as straight facts are not allowed. This is misleading. You are basically asking Loose Change to reach a conclusion which cannot be challenged or refuted. This is nigh on impossible. Even the official story isnt 100% irrefutable. To some the official story is far more probably, and to the CTers their explanation is improbable.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Everyone understands that explosions will be heard in a large building ravaged by extensive fires. This is not a controversial claim advanced by the film. We do not deny that Avery and Co. got the date of the jihadist attacks right.
 
pomeroo said:
Everyone understands that explosions will be heard in a large building ravaged by extensive fires. This is not a controversial claim advanced by the film. We do not deny that Avery and Co. got the date of the jihadist attacks right.
Click to expand...

Come on now, many reports of massive explosions was not a well known fact to many americans. If you asked the average american 4 or so years ago "did you think people experienced explosions before the towers collapsed" - they likely would not have heard such a claim. Besides, like it or not... such a claim is evidence for explosives. It might be weak or strong, but it issupporting evidence. It nothing like simply getting the date right.

Regardless, the challenge is not exclusively about controversial claims. Besides reports of explosions are not a set fact like "9/11 happened on September 11th"
 
Last edited:
Hyperviolet said:
Come on now, many reports of massive explosions was not a well known fact to many americans. If you asked the average american 4 or so years ago "did you think people experienced explosions before the towers collapsed" - they likely would not have heard such a claim. Besides, like it or not... such a claim is evidence for explosives. It might be weak or strong, but it issupporting evidence. It nothing like simply getting the date right.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You're simply wrong. It is inevitable that things will blow up in a fire. It is inconceivable that fires could rage on several floors of a huge office building without producing explosions. Most sane people take this for granted. What was impossible to predict was that a group of agenda-driven cranks would fabricate fantastic and wildly implausible explanations for an event that was witnessed and, more importantly, LIVED THROUGH by thousands.
 
pomeroo said:
You're simply wrong. It is inevitable that things will blow up in a fire. It is inconceivable that fires could rage on several floors of a huge office building without producing explosions. Most sane people take this for granted. What was impossible to predict was that a group of agenda-driven cranks would fabricate fantastic and wildly implausible explanations for an event that was witnessed and, more importantly, LIVED THROUGH by thousands.
Click to expand...

This is madness. Absolute madness. When Loose Change get something wrong its a wrong claim, when they get a claim right its downgraded to an "obvious fact" and does not qualify for the challenge.

EDIT: Also i'd like to add is a report of a basement explosion (put forth in Loose Change via Mr Rodriguez's account) also expected in a high rise fire? Is this just another obvious/expected consequence of a fire and merely another straight fact, ineligible for the challange ? Yes?
 
Last edited:
Hyperviolet, Avery and co. are using the reports from some people who heard what they thought were explosions (fact) to prove their theory that there were explosives used to demolish the towers (claim).

Do you see the difference now?
 
Hyperviolet said:
This is madness. Absolute madness. When Loose Change get something wrong its a wrong claim, when they get a claim right its downgraded to an "obvious fact" and does not qualify for the challenge.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Stop sputtering. You continue to ignore what I wrote. I stated that I have been unable to discover a controversial claim advanced by Loose Change that can stand scrutiny. Now, if you want to argue that it is controversial to claim that explosions were heard while extensive fires raged on multiple floors of an office building, well, we can wrap up this debate and I will cheerfully concede defeat.
 
pomeroo said:
Stop sputtering. You continue to ignore what I wrote. I stated that I have been unable to discover a controversial claim advanced by Loose Change that can stand scrutiny. Now, if you want to argue that it is controversial to claim that explosions were heard while extensive fires raged on multiple floors of an office building, well, we can wrap up this debate and I will cheerfully concede defeat.
Click to expand...

When did Gravys challenge become about exclusivelycontroversial claims?

Anyway - see my EDIT.
A basement explosion claim put forth in loose change supported by Mr Rodriguez. That just yet another expected/obvious straight fact of consequence too, ineligble for challange aswell?
 
Pardalis said:
Hyperviolet, Avery and co. are using the reports from some people who heard what they thought were explosions (fact) to prove their theory that there were explosives used to demolish the towers (claim).

Do you see the difference now?
Click to expand...

Pardalis, i know difference. My point is that Gravys wording of the challenge is misleading as it gives the impression that everything in Loose Change is wrong. Everything. This is obviously not true as the facts i am putting forth for the challenge are being rejected because they are accurate. In essense, the challange is about conclusions based on evidence not about singular claims.

Im sorry i definetely feel this is clever wordplay and is misleading. I bow out, this challange cannot be won. Anything that is submitted is put down as "fact" .....and using facts in Loose Change to argue against the suggestion that loose change is completely accurate is not allowed. Rather, you want people to submit the parts where Loose Change merely speculates and obviously debunkings or alterative explantions are in abundance.
 
Last edited:
I think, if I read the wording correctly, is to choose a CLAIM made by the LC documentary and then prove to the readers here that their claim is true.

I guess to make the wording more clear, one could say choose a CLAIM that contradicts the official version of the 9/11 attacks, and prove to the readers that said claim is true.

TAM:)
 
ERichardson wrote that "most" of the claims in Loose Change are true. Typically, he has vanished without providing an example. Mark drew up a list of specific claims made by the creators of that dishonest film.

Well?
 
I just think the challange is worded very cleverly to give something to the effect of:
"Just try give me one fact in that entire film - i bet you cant! Thats really how off mark it is!"
That is the effect i get when i read such a statement.

When in reality the challenge is much harder to fulfill, asking for a working conclusion which doesn't have an alternative explantion to refute with. That is the only thing that could pass this challenge, and Loose Change does not have anything that is totally free of alternative explantion. In fact, almost anything can have an alternative explantion. Hence the reason conspiracy theories are so common.
It is up to the person studying to the subject to come to the decision which explanation holds more weight.
Loose Change does have facts, it is not completely inaccurate in everything as Marks challenge suggest. Loose Change also has errors, and some wacky conclusions. However, to suggest that it gets nothing correct at all is misleading i think.

I am bowing out of this thread now before you all start throwing pots and pans at me.
*ducks*
:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom