Metatheory and the NIST report

[R.Mackey]

I am asking about video showing the perimeter columns bowing minutes before the collapses.

The link you provided only showed photos with times claimed.

I am saying there are no videos which are shown which would verify that the columns were bowing for minutes before collapse. In other words one should be able to watch the videos for minutes with the columns being obviously bowed as in the photos. Videos would prove it and I am wondering why there aren't any available.

What makes you think videos are any more reliable than stills? Both are susceptible to incorrect timing. I take it, therefore, that you won't accept a video showing bowing unless it runs, uninterrupted, up to the collapses, and even then you might squawk...

Request denied. Photos with times are given. Unless you have some reason to doubt them, you're simply in denial.

 

[stateofgrace]

Why don't you let Beachnut defend himself. He says he is a big boy.

Why do you wish to see this thread derailed by irrelevance?

I am interested in the subject being discussed and wish to learn from it. I do not wish to see, people derail this subject by bringing totally irrelevant and personnel vendettas into it.

Have you a problem with this?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So. Are you suggesting that bowing didn't take place, and the images of bowing are falsified?

I am saying that is possible. Video would convince, especially if the columns are viewed in the bowed condition for several minutes.

The fact that video exists yet isn't used for this purpose is a concern.

 

[beachnut]

Beechnut considering you're, supposedely, an engineer. I'm going too ask you a few questions.

Do you believe the NIST report is accurate and was released without any political corruption?

Given the ammount of classfied data from the events of 911, Do you believe an outside opinion can be made given the lack of facts?

Do you believe all of our Politicians and members of the government are saints, and there is no such thing as corruption?

Do you believe in the Constitution?

Do you believe wire tapping is un-constitutional?

I have a question for you. Why are you posting so far off topic to me about something you did not even address?

Why are you unable to understand the OP and comment?

Is your book done on how people using facts make you look like a kid who works in a mall?

You sound like a Tim McVeigh kind of guy, why is that?

Take your political rant and go to the political forum.

Everyone is correct but you. You are not even close to the OP topic. Strike out.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Why do you wish to see this thread derailed by irrelevance?

I am interested in the subject being discussed and wish to learn from it. I do not wish to see, people derail this subject by bring totally irrelevant and personnel vendettas into it.

Have you a problem with this?

No, I just hope you would make these type of comments in an even fashion.

 

[T.A.M.]

What's with the ad hominem? Are you claiming the video is not real?

You should address the subject. If it is proven wrong then you can address the individual. Less than that makes these type of comments unworthy of further discussion.

Was I arguing a point, or stating his was useless because he is Woo, or an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER? No, I was making a comment on who he was.

If you are going to accuse me of a fallacy, make sure you get it right.

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey realcddeal, it is smoke not pulverized building that first comes out. And it is not coming out due to explosions. Wow, your video supports gravity only collapse. Watch it, I have.

Are you able to find some facts? Pulverization? What are you talking about? The energy of the WTC collapse was based on gravity. You have no explosives, no thermite, and no clue. I have read your paper, you can not even get the impact design correct, there is no hope for the rest. Slow moving short distance, I love it. Seems like ordinary houses that fall have dust. BTW, most of the dust was insulation at the WTC. Research could cure your inability to find the truth.

Plague Puppy? Have to love your sources, got some more tin foil hat web sites? lol

If that is smoke it turned real white real fast. It isn't smoke.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Was I arguing a point, or stating his was useless because he is Woo, or an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER? No, I was making a comment on who he was.

If you are going to accuse me of a fallacy, make sure you get it right.

TAM

If you had discussed the video I would have given you partial credit. Since you didn't your F for using ad-hominem stands on that post.

 

[Gravy]

I am saying that is possible. Video would convince, especially if the columns are viewed in the bowed condition for several minutes.

The fact that video exists yet isn't used for this purpose is a concern.

What happened to your FOIA request for the video? Was it denied? If so, what reasons were given?

 

[twinstead]

realcddeal was the bowing faked?

 

[A W Smith]

I am asking about video showing the perimeter columns bowing minutes before the collapses.

The link you provided only showed photos with times claimed.

I am saying there are no videos which are shown which would verify that the columns were bowing for minutes before collapse. In other words one should be able to watch the videos for minutes with the columns being obviously bowed as in the photos. Videos would prove it and I am wondering why there aren't any available.

All you need to do is compare the fire progression and damage to the facade in the PDF document photos to videos you are familiar with and compare. Then you will have your time stamp. Simple enough?

 

[T.A.M.]

ad hominem:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

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

Like I said, I was not responding or REPLYING to your arguement, but merely pointing out who PLAGUE PUPPY is, and what his stance is on 9/11 CTs. As well I pointed out one of his educational backgrounds.

if I had said,

"your point is ridiculous, because your source, PLAGUE PUPPY is WOO, and is ONLY an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER." then it would have been an Ad Hominem.

So are you going to continue to INCORRECTLY label things???

TAM

 

[stateofgrace]

No, I just hope you would make these type of comments in an even fashion.

Yes I do, now please continue on topic.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

What makes you think videos are any more reliable than stills? Both are susceptible to incorrect timing. I take it, therefore, that you won't accept a video showing bowing unless it runs, uninterrupted, up to the collapses, and even then you might squawk...

Request denied. Photos with times are given. Unless you have some reason to doubt them, you're simply in denial.

No, I won't squak if you or anyone else can produce a video which shows the perimeter column bowing occurring for several minutes uninterrupted.

My doubt is based on logic. This thread is about falsifiability and video has a place in the bowing column issue, where it is claimed it occurred for minutes prior to collapse. Video exists of the tower walls for an hour or more, of the fire affected areas of the towers, and it is the best evidence. Why isn't it used? Refusal is not a good answer if the videos exist.

 

[rwguinn]

No, I won't squak if you or anyone else can produce a video which shows the perimeter column bowing occurring for several minutes uninterrupted.

My doubt is based on logic. This thread is about falsifiability and video has a place in the bowing column issue, where it is claimed it occurred for minutes prior to collapse. Video exists of the tower walls for an hour or more, of the fire affected areas of the towers, and it is the best evidence. Why isn't it used? Refusal is not a good answer if the videos exist.

Typical twoofer logic.
1. Video trumps reality, always
2. When your arguments fail under logic, change the subject or derail.
Repeat ad infinitum

 

[beachnut]

try to read the OP

Why don't you let Beachnut defend himself. He says he is a big boy.

Off topic too. But your video does not show CD, it shows gravity collapse. And your source of the video is now very good set of web pages if you are looking for the truth. But as you have proven, the contents of his web site debunk his web site. Just information that your source is full of 9/11 truth stuff that is not backed by facts. No big deal, just a lousy source for information as you labeled it. Classic stuff, like your paper full of errors and false information. What does this all have to do with the OP. WE need to stop derailing this thread.

I do not think you or oldschool understand the OP yet, and have posted to me in error.

 

[rwguinn]

ad hominem:



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

Like I said, I was not responding or REPLYING to your arguement, but merely pointing out who PLAGUE PUPPY is, and what his stance is on 9/11 CTs. As well I pointed out one of his educational backgrounds.

if I had said,

"your point is ridiculous, because your source, PLAGUE PUPPY is WOO, and is ONLY an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER." then it would have been an Ad Hominem.

So are you going to continue to INCORRECTLY label things???

TAM

Actually, wouldn't that be "Poisoning the Well"?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

All you need to do is compare the fire progression and damage to the facade in the PDF document photos to videos you are familiar with and compare. Then you will have your time stamp. Simple enough?

Your suggestion is appropriate and would be fair enough if NIST would release the videos they took these stills from.

I do not see any bowing in any of the videos, other than just prior to collapse, that I have had access to. I have repeatedly asked people here if they know of any which do show it.

 

[R.Mackey]

No, I won't squak if you or anyone else can produce a video which shows the perimeter column bowing occurring for several minutes uninterrupted.

My doubt is based on logic. This thread is about falsifiability and video has a place in the bowing column issue, where it is claimed it occurred for minutes prior to collapse. Video exists of the tower walls for an hour or more, of the fire affected areas of the towers, and it is the best evidence. Why isn't it used? Refusal is not a good answer if the videos exist.

False dilemma logical fallacy.

There are plenty of possible good reasons why you don't have the video:

• It actually has been released, you're just too lazy to find it
• It's personal property and not releasable for free
• It contains private information that would have to be edited out (at cost)
• It is being used in an ongoing criminal investigation

Probably many more.

"NIST Is Lying" doesn't even show up on the list.

Stop being a denier. It's disgusting.

 

[T.A.M.]

Actually, wouldn't that be "Poisoning the Well"?

No, only if I were to bring up PP as Woo and a nut first, then if someone brought up an argument by him, and I then, stated,

"well as I said, he is Woo anyway."

That is "poisoning the well"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

TAM