Anyone seen this used to prove CD?

rwguinn said:
When will all you people--twoofers and "critical thinkers" get it through your heads:
There is absolutely nothing magical or unique about Controlled Demolition as opposed to accidental demolition by structural collapse!!!!!
(5 exclamation points--it must be true, and is written by a madman)
The entire purpose of CD is to damage the structure sufficiently for the structure's Potential Energy (Energy due to position) to be converted to Kinetic energy (due to motion), by allowing gravity to do its work.
The "C" refers to control. Controlled means you decide when, and with a bit of calculation and experience, where. Conventional CD does the control with explosives.
They could do it with hacksaws, hammers and chisels, crashing fully-laden airliners into them, or other means, but explosives are the safest.
Click to expand...
Was it something I said?
 
Miragememories said:
At what point does a labeled expert qualify as an expert?

Does a diploma make you an expert?
Click to expand...
A diploma makes you educated and capable of having far more requisite knowledge in a given area than those who did not spend 4-6 years acquiring such knowledge.
Colleges and universities graduate engineering 'experts' by the thousands every year and companies swallow them up. Certainly the cream of this group will indeed eventually deserve the status of a proven expert. Many will not rise beyond basic competency, many will be mediocre and of course some will be poor. Backed by engineering diplomas, few will doubt the expertise they feel these diplomas entitle them to.
Click to expand...
This, of course, is your opinion as a non-engineer. In the engineering community, we have a rather brutal way of culling the herd, as it were. The failure/attrition rate in colleges for most ABET accredited engineering programs is about 60%. The minority that makes it through college then faces another 2 years of practical work. It is not uncommon for engineers to work 60 hour weeks and return home to read regulations and documentation for several hours. Many engineers leave engineering for other career opportunities after about 18 months. Those who survive have now passed two very grueling tests in addition to an 8 hour Fundamentals of Engineering exam and an 8 hour Professional Engineering exam.

My point is that judging engineers between themselves is a meaningless exercise. Any engineer is smarter and more qualified than any non-engineer to make judgments and opinions based on professional experience.
Are there no incompetent experts?

Do companies not hire 'experts' to reinforce legal positions (tobacco companies, oil companies etc.) while those challenging those positions hire their own experts to take an opposing position?
Click to expand...
Note that experts disagree all the time, but still have the relevant education and experience to call themselves as such. No court would allow a medical doctor's opinion to stand with equal weight against a theologian's regarding the health effects of smoking.
This whole our experts are better and outnumber your experts kind of reasoning borders on the absurd at times.
Click to expand...
Straw man. Our argument has been that your side has produced no relevant experts, and that the group whom you cling to as experts routinely make absurd, irrelevant, false and irrational conclusions. The annals of this forum are packed with the lies, errors and omissions of Jones, Wood, Fetzer and the like.
The only experts with real currency, are those with not only the relevant academic and practical credentials, but those with proven integrity.
Click to expand...
Proven integrity? You mean, like an entire career spent producing valid, peer reviewed research, international recognition by professional societies for contributions to knowledge and understanding in their fields and a diverse career spent in private industry, academia and government research? Sorry, we've got you beaten in spades with that one too.
I'll give far more currency to a well educated, solid thinking, expert with known intellectual integrity in a non-related field, than an expert directly related to the field in question whose integrity is a question mark.
Click to expand...
So you're the one who gets to decide who has integrity and who doesn't? How is that not confirmation bias in its highest form?
Dr. Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin are two men that I feel have great integrity. Because neither are structural engineers, and in David Ray Griffin's case, he suffers the extra prejudice imposed by skeptics due to his religious associations, skeptics refuse to acknowledge that in spite of; proven academic accomplishments, many years of accumulated experience, acquired wisdom, extensive research and balanced judgment, individuals such as these men are quite qualified to make valuable comment, especially after having prepared themselves for the aspects of the 9/11 subjects they are addressing.
Click to expand...
Straw man. Skeptics do not refuse to believe them because they have no requisite education. Note that we believe Gravy, but that the difference between the two sides is remarkably different.

Jones makes statements and draws conclusions that he validates by his degree and position. Those statements are demonstrably false, and can be shown as such by both experts and non experts. For instance, Jones presents hyperspectral X-Ray maps in his presentations on the WTC steel. He misidentifies fluorine in said maps, and proceeds to use the presence of fluorine to prove the existence of thermite detonators. Any materials scientist can tell you that the X-Ray lines for fluorine and iron overlap, but Jones is completely unaware of this problem.

In summation, Jones is too uneducated to know what he doesn't know. This is the problem with people in non-relevant fields. It is not simply a matter of reading literature and using the same techniques as the experts. Such knowledge requires time and effort to acquire, and should be taken long before any research in the area is undertaken. Had Jones truly been interested in WTC research, he would have gone back to school, learned the engineering and the science, and then he would have begun to research. Rather, Jones thinks he knows more than the engineers, and it is this hubris that destroys his academic integrity.

And what about Gravy? It turns out that the position of the debunker is radically different from the position of the researcher. The researcher is supposed to present new evidence and research, and the debunker finds out if any of it is true. Gravy's work relies largely on determining errors, distortions and omissions, and it is backed up by sources with relevant knowledge and expertise. What's more, we can go to the source and verify Gravy's claims one by one. Errors in fact and beautifully documented in his Loose Change Guide, and his references are there for the whole world to see.

That's the difference. We will take anyone who can provide referenced, verifiable data on any subject, and we will accept research that is beyond our purview to replicate, as long as it has been peer reviewed in an accredited journal of science or engineering.
 
einsteen said:
I really like this logic. Do you think an wtc7 implosion would be impossible if you don't clear up the building ?
Click to expand...
If only the 9/11 truth movement had the very real sound of RDX going off to cut the columns of WTC7. Instead they have a fire that burned all day because the fire was not fought. It is sad and pathetic the 9/11 truth movement can not even figure out what fire does to steel after more than 2 to 4 hours of fire. Not one truther understands or has looked up the thousands of steel structures that have failed from fire. Not one truther has brought up the fact that some structural wood can hold up longer under fire conditions than steel which guide fire fighting efforts of the more informed Firemen. Anyone can believe false information, there is just a 100 participation by 9/11 truth movement members. Why?

As for destroying a building, all you have to do is start a portion of a building and gravity does the rest. I have not yet figured out why the truth movement does not understand why WTC 1, 2, and 7 look like some sort of CD. It is because the primary workhorse that brought done the WTC is the same as CD, Gravity, it is why things fall.

I do not think I have seen one 9/11 truth movement site get CD right, and since they think WTC 1, 2, and 7 were CD, they are not smart on this subject. Why are most members of 9/11 truth movement unable to get on single thing right about 9/11?
 
Miragememories said:
Does a diploma make you an expert?

Dr. Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin are two men that I feel have great integrity. Because neither are structural engineers, and in David Ray Griffin's case, he suffers the extra prejudice imposed by skeptics due to his religious associations, skeptics refuse to acknowledge that in spite of; proven academic accomplishments, many years of accumulated experience, acquired wisdom, extensive research and balanced judgment, individuals such as these men are quite qualified to make valuable comment, especially after having prepared themselves for the aspects of the 9/11 subjects they are addressing.

MM
Click to expand...
You mention the two most incompetent 9/11 truth movement guys there are.

Jones lies by showing columns cut after 9/11 as proof for his thermite theory, which changed to thermate, all without one piece of evidence, all based on lie he manufactured all by himself years after 9/11. Jones' work on 9/11 is so bad he was fired, and they let him retire. He embarrassed his department at his school. He started a snake oil on line "peer" reviewed journal. Sorry but if you want to change my view of Jones, you must present facts and evidence. Jones has to know he is a liar on 9/11, if not his degree was a waste of time as was his fusion research.

Griffin, you must not of read any of his books on 9/11. They are all complete hearsay. Not one idea on 9/11 CT can be proven with facts or evidence, he only has hearsay. Show me some of his stuff you think is correct. Good luck, but again you must present facts and evidence.

I think a diploma would help those who can not learn with out help. But a diploma is not needed to think critically, and that edge a diploma may have is not supported when you find idiots like Fetzer who actually make claims of teaching critically thinking. When you listen to Fetzer the only why he could teach critical thinking is by anti-example, those he taught must of picked up the fact, to be a critical thinker you must not be like Fetzer.

I think the blind fools following the 9/11 truth movement could cure their terminal stupidity by pursuing a degree. Do you have a degree?
 
rwguinn said:
Hotbutton.:D
people of all types keep saying "it looks like..." or "It looks nothing like..."
Dadburn it!!!!! once the thing starts moving, they absolutely have to look alike! There's no choice!! Gravity makes it go!!!
Click to expand...

That proves you know nothing about CDs. It is the vacuum from explosions that sucks the entire building down!!:jaw-dropp
 
Just to be pedantic, an "explosive demolition" is not a "conventional demolition". A "conventional demolition" involves tearing a structure down with machinery, wreaking balls, etc.

-Gumboot
 
Despite the anticipation, my heart still skipped a beat as the unmistakable crackle of the detonating cord broke the silence. The next few seconds played out in slow motion in my head. One by one, bright flashes from the cord triggered the blasting caps attached to the dynamite.
Click to expand...

From firestone's link - bolding mine.
 
gumboot said:
Just to be pedantic, an "explosive demolition" is not a "conventional demolition". A "conventional demolition" involves tearing a structure down with machinery, wreaking balls, etc.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

And I said "Conventional CD", which as any right-thinking NWO Operative would know means "Conventional Controlled Demolition using explosives to make lots of dustification to allow the space-based beam weapons to work unseen":p
so there!:p
 
einsteen said:
Wrong, because on the other hand there were also highly skilled experts who thought about bombs in the twin towers and they rejected that a few days later. btw. it depends on the kind of experts, crisis experts (I don't know the English word but I mean people that have to keep their head cool) are in general no structural engineers and vice versa
Click to expand...

So to you, the fact that they rejected the hypothesis is less significant than the fact that they considered it ??
 
rwguinn said:
Hotbutton.:D
people of all types keep saying "it looks like..." or "It looks nothing like..."
Dadburn it!!!!! once the thing starts moving, they absolutely have to look alike! There's no choice!! Gravity makes it go!!!
Click to expand...
Well, I'll have to disagree with you somewhat, rwguinn. I think a typical controlled demolition of an office tower type of building looks considerably different from that of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses. Here are two differences I find, based on the demolition videos of office tower type buildings I've seen:

The first difference is that in a controlled demolition all the floors of the building begin moving downwards almost simultaneously. This is most unlike the WTC tower collapses, where the floors below the collapse front were completely stationary.

The second difference is that in controlled demolitions the building falls within its own footprint with little besides smoke and dust going beyond that. In the WTC tower collapses, the debris was falling far and wide, well beyond the footprint of the buildings.

Put these two things together and the visual look of the WTC tower collapses is quite dissimilar from that of a typical controlled demolition. Indeed, the visual appearance is so different I can't understand how CTers say they look similar...
 
Corsair 115 said:
Well, I'll have to disagree with you somewhat, rwguinn. I think a typical controlled demolition of an office tower type of building looks considerably different from that of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses. Here are two differences I find, based on the demolition videos of office tower type buildings I've seen:

The first difference is that in a controlled demolition all the floors of the building begin moving downwards almost simultaneously. This is most unlike the WTC tower collapses, where the floors below the collapse front were completely stationary.

The second difference is that in controlled demolitions the building falls within its own footprint with little besides smoke and dust going beyond that. In the WTC tower collapses, the debris was falling far and wide, well beyond the footprint of the buildings.

Put these two things together and the visual look of the WTC tower collapses is quite dissimilar from that of a typical controlled demolition. Indeed, the visual appearance is so different I can't understand how CTers say they look similar...
Click to expand...

may I recommend a reading comprehension class? It will help immensely in your search for the truth.
Please note that I said:"once the thing starts moving"
The events leading up to the "starts moving" part are what make the difference between a "Controlled" and uncontrolled demolition.

Appearances caan cause fatal mistakes. Never bet the farm on just what something "looks like"
 
Miragememories said:
At what point does a labeled expert qualify as an expert?

Does a diploma make you an expert?
Click to expand...

No, but writing a paper on the subject that has been reviewed by other EXPERTS in said field helps...

being acclaimed as, by others in the given field, an expert helps.

In the end, I don't care what any experts says, if they have not analyzed the data, or the investigation, their opinion is useless. I do not believe Jowenko has read in detail the NIST report on WTC7. If he claims so, I supsect he is not telling the truth. If he has, then why doesn't the truth movement hire him to put out a paper that shows us where the NIST paper is wrong, and what the "real truth" is, based on his own analysis and calculations. Certainly between Dylan and book tycoon Griffin can afford to pay him to do so.

Miragememories said:
Colleges and universities graduate engineering 'experts' by the thousands every year and companies swallow them up. Certainly the cream of this group will indeed eventually deserve the status of a proven expert. Many will not rise beyond basic competency, many will be mediocre and of course some will be poor. Backed by engineering diplomas, few will doubt the expertise they feel these diplomas entitle them to.

Are there no incompetent experts?
Click to expand...

There are lots of incompetent experts...I am sure the 9/11 scholars ranks are full of them.

Miragememories said:
Do companies not hire 'experts' to reinforce legal positions (tobacco companies, oil companies etc.) while those challenging those positions hire their own experts to take an opposing position?
Click to expand...

There are some subtle differences between an expert witness and an Expert in a given field.

Miragememories said:
This whole our experts are better and outnumber your experts kind of reasoning borders on the absurd at times.
Click to expand...

Says someone on the side with the smaller number and more insane and incompetent scientists and engineers.

Miragememories said:
The only experts with real currency, are those with not only the relevant academic and practical credentials, but those with proven integrity.

I'll give far more currency to a well educated, solid thinking, expert with known intellectual integrity in a non-related field, than an expert directly related to the field in question whose integrity is a question mark.
Click to expand...

what crap. The only ones questioning the integrity of the MIT group, NIST, or FEMA scientists and engineers, are the truthers...big surprise. If anyone has a bias, it is those profiting through book sales (DRG - #1806 on Amazon list).

Miragememories said:
Dr. Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin are two men that I feel have great integrity. Because neither are structural engineers, and in David Ray Griffin's case, he suffers the extra prejudice imposed by skeptics due to his religious associations, skeptics refuse to acknowledge that in spite of; proven academic accomplishments, many years of accumulated experience, acquired wisdom, extensive research and balanced judgment, individuals such as these men are quite qualified to make valuable comment, especially after having prepared themselves for the aspects of the 9/11 subjects they are addressing.

MM
Click to expand...

David Griffin spews the same tired, long ago debunked crap. What segments I have read from his new book, which are scattered as I refuse to contribute to his next car or vacation, appear to be more of the same...he is a more articulate version of Jim Fetzer...nothing more. "No Airfones" ring any bells???

Jones is out of his area of expertese in much of what he says, and I would take the words of the MIT Civil and Structural Engineers who wrote on the collapses, over him, any day.

TAM:)
 
You have to understand that MirageMemories thinks it advisable to consider today's experts in the field of structural engineering with the same skepticism that one would consider Nazi era eugenicists.

Edited by Darat: 
Moderator warning reversed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rwguinn said:
may I recommend a reading comprehension class? It will help immensely in your search for the truth.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you are so testy. Perhaps you confused my initial reply as condoning and supporting the CT position vis-a-vis the WTC collapses? (It's exactly the opposite in fact.)

rwguinn said:
Please note that I said:"once the thing starts moving" The events leading up to the "starts moving" part are what make the difference between a "Controlled" and uncontrolled demolition.
Click to expand...
No disagreement from me on that point.

Let me try this again:

rwguinn said:
Hotbutton.:D
people of all types keep saying "it looks like..." or "It looks nothing like..."
Dadburn it!!!!! once the thing starts moving, they absolutely have to look alike! There's no choice!! Gravity makes it go!!!
Click to expand...
I was specifically responding to the bolded portions. Even after things get going, the typical controlled demolition using explosives still does not look similar to the WTC tower collapses, for the reasons I mentioned previously.

Yes, both are buildings falling under the effect of gravity, and within that overall, general framework they are similar. But the details of the motions between the two are what's different, and it's those details I was pointing out. To me, the differences in those details are significant. And it's those differences which make the CT belief that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives self-evidently false and ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom