[Split]Debris piles at GZ- split from: UL Moves For Sanctions Against Morgan Reynold

Have you visited drjudywood.uk.com?

ktesibios said:
Spot on. Working backwards from effects to infer possible causes and then to test those inferences is exactly how I have earned my living these nine-and-twenty years.

Knowing the specifics of the effect, the specific cause which it implies and the mechanism by which A causes B are a sine qua non of that kind of reasoning.

As long as jammonius and Judy provide nothing but vague claims about the "aftereffects of DEW", leaving out all details about what is relevant about the available observations and exactly how they are consistent with what, they will remain trapped in an infinite loop of circular reasoning, unable even to rise to the conspiracist's favorite fallacy of affirming the consequent. Such a whirlpool of handwaving isn't worth any attention at all.
Click to expand...

Then you must be absolutely beyond outrage at the way NIST conducted its investigation, right?

That, by the way, is a factor in the lawsuit that Dr. Wood has brought against the NIST contractors, I do believe.
 
Either a DEW thread will be opened or it won't. I don't care one way or another. If posters are interested in discussing DEW, then open a thread.
 
I use this only as a means of signaling when I have to leave the thread for a time in order to go make a living, or whatever, not for purposes of discussing DEW :D

12541.jpg
 
why are we outraged at the investigation NIST did? they did the most comprehensive, most detailed, and most involved report that has ever been done in history. care to explain how a 10,000 page report, written by over 200 scientists and engineers, would give us reason to be outraged?
 
jammonius said:
Either a DEW thread will be opened or it won't. I don't care one way or another. If posters are interested in discussing DEW, then open a thread.
Click to expand...
you're the only person here advocating it. Most of us are not interested in fairy tales.

If you want to discuss DEW, then you make a thread on it, and see if anyone is interested in participating.
 
http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/cortlandt.html

Most of the subway between Park Place and Cedar Street was severely damaged in the collapse of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. This portion, originally under Greenwich St, ran through the middle of the World Trade Center property. Part of the two plaza buildings, but not the Twin Towers, stood directly over the line, and so did the indoor mall or concourse at ground level. Deeper underground levels were located below the grade of the subway with the subway crossing over them like a bridge. The wide escalator bank going down to the PATH World Trade Center station crossed under the subway station. It was the only place where a subway line ran effectively through a large building, but nothing was done to open it up and make this a point of interest.
Click to expand...
 
jammonius said:
You khow, the ones showing no signficant damage.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Your pictures show no significant damage... to maybe 1% of the underground structure that's visible in your pictures. How can you possibly use that as evidence that there was no collapse below ground?
 
This is close to being the best post in the thread -- close second, like Hillary

ktesibios said:
Spot on. Working backwards from effects to infer possible causes and then to test those inferences is exactly how I have earned my living these nine-and-twenty years.

Knowing the specifics of the effect, the specific cause which it implies and the mechanism by which A causes B are a sine qua non of that kind of reasoning.

As long as jammonius and Judy provide nothing but vague claims about the "aftereffects of DEW", leaving out all details about what is relevant about the available observations and exactly how they are consistent with what, they will remain trapped in an infinite loop of circular reasoning, unable even to rise to the conspiracist's favorite fallacy of affirming the consequent. Such a whirlpool of handwaving isn't worth any attention at all.
Click to expand...

The above is an excellent post that adds greatly to this thread. I can tell you that I highly value it and might just frame it. Its content is consistent with the claim that NIST and its contractors committed fraud.

Posters agree?

Thank you, ktes, for posting it.

Sincerely,

jammonius
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Nah, I'd say it's more like something that ARA and/or DARPA are known to be manufacturing, deploying and developing:

...

Some videos from the events of 9/11 show strange minature flying objects that look like birds, but are thought by some researchers to be weapons.
Click to expand...

I make the most stupid and outlandish statement and you think its truth???
:eek:
 
phunk said:
Are you serious?

Your pictures show no significant damage... to maybe 1% of the underground structure that's visible in your pictures. How can you possibly use that as evidence that there was no collapse below ground?
Click to expand...

We are awaiting photos, any photo, showing damage underground. We are also awaiting edmundo's research of the witness statements attesting to damage underground.

The 1%, as you claim it to be, is 100% more than has been shown that attests to damage underground, phunk.

Of course, we now know that posting pictures, statements, charts, you name it, is next to useless in any event as people do not believe their own eyes in connection with the events of 9/11.

In a certain sense, there's no real mystery here, you know. The standard explanation is so hopelessly outrageous that it simply cannot be believed, absent, that is, the consequences of coming to grips with its falsity.

People see height at a flat GZ.

If any of you lived in NYC in late 2001 and, by chance, went to GZ, what did you see? I'll tell you what you saw: The sky and a shrouded fence. There was no elevation to the debris field whatsoever. Of course, people don't believe their own eyes, so this observation is not going to be met with much favor. I know that.
 
jammonius said:
Nah, I'd say it's more like something that ARA and/or DARPA are known to be manufacturing, deploying and developing:

http://www.ara.com/images/defens1.jpg

Some videos from the events of 9/11 show strange minature flying objects that look like birds, but are thought by some researchers to be weapons.
Click to expand...
You think those things look more like a miniature robotic helicopter than the Yamaha RMAX???

To each his own, I suppose.
 
BenBurch said:
I make the most stupid and outlandish statement and you think its truth???
:eek:
Click to expand...

No, BenBurch, I do not think the "most stupid and outlandish statement(s)" you make are true at all.

But, thanks for your acknowledgment, nonetheless.

Truth is freeing, isn't it?:D

ps

I think I'm going save your post, too. It could come in handy.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Skinny said:
You think those things look more like a miniature robotic helicopter than the Yamaha RMAX???

To each his own, I suppose.
Click to expand...

No, my analysis of that ARA minature looks more like a little airplane, not helicopter. However, that said, ARA also is thought to make those minature weapons in all sorts of configurations, including birds and including helicopters.

You might want to research that, if you're interested. See also, DARPA.
 
Arus808 said:
you're the only person here advocating it. Most of us are not interested in fairy tales.

If you want to discuss DEW, then you make a thread on it, and see if anyone is interested in participating.
Click to expand...

No, I do not have any interest in opening a DEW thread here, as I've said before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom