Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grizzly Bear said:
Poisoning the well eh?


Guilt by association eh?
Click to expand...
Moving the goal posts eh?[/QUOTE]

According to your view of things... if we were to use an analogy here... you could have a mob boss and his goons on trial and you would claim that the mob boss and his goons are valid character witnesses for the mob boss and his goons.

You are trying to claim that all engineers everywhere support the "Official" story yet the only "experts" you seem to claim are all the ones who actually worked on the report.

As for "moving the goal posts", go back and look at my initial quesion where I said "independent", no one who worked on the report in question is independent
 
TexasJack said:
So are you calling him a liar when he states that he doesn't know anybody, of his thousands of contacts, that believes in the truther rubbish?
Click to expand...

If I were to say to you that no one in all of my thousands of contacts believes in the OCT rubbish, would you accept that?
 
BigAl said:
You don't look very hard, or you don't have enough relevant education to be able to judge.

There are a bunch here. Below are two presentations I have bookmarked.I know that by default, any Twoofer assertion is probably wrong. I know this based on my university engineering education, what I saw in Manhattan on 9/11 and afterwords, my relevant lifetime avocational interests and my decades of running large 24x7 operations in large Manhattan buildings, including working with security and the construction trades. Given all that, many Twoofer claims are silly and wrong on their face. The rest don't hold water when examined in detail and cited sources are read in full.

If one travels in the right circles, people with relevant expertise express support for the standard story and show how the k00k claims are stupid all the time, at least they did while 9/11 was in any way "news". People with relevant expertise can explain how and why and respond to questions and go into more depth if asked.

It appears that no "expert" that parrots "Truth Movement" assertions can speak in public and address polite relevant questions and elaborate on their theories. The listener either believes in "inside job" or he doesn't.
Click to expand...

"How to debunk just about anything...

* Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment
needed: one armchair.

* Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that
suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith
and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such
as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have
the full force of scientific authority.

Edited by Gaspode: 
Breach of Rule 4 removed. Please don't copy large sections of text from a copyrighted source. As a guideline, quote a paragraph or two and provide a link to the original.


;)

Edit: Seems Dave does not like this light shining on him so he has to make the accusation of plagiarism...as if I could plagiarise this list that has been around and quite popular for 15 years now...

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/debnk.htm

and originally from :
How To Debunk Just About Anything From "The McDaniel Report" by Stanley V. McDaniel (North Atlantic Books: 1993),
ISBN 1-55643-088-4

Is that better Dave?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SteveAustin said:
That is called circular reasoning
Click to expand...

Please explain how, without misrepresenting anything I have said.

and if you think it is a good reason to believe the "Official" story then I can see why you are so easily fooled.
Click to expand...

It would be a terrible reason to believe the "Official" (which does not exist by the way, there is no "Official" story) story. I believe the prevailing narrative of the events of 9/11 because the material conclusions of said narrative are supported logically and scientifically by the preponderance of evidence examined in multiple government and non-government investigations. Every alternative hypothesis that has been proposed has failed to be even remotely consistent, logically and scientifically, with the evidence. When such a competing hypothesis better explains the evidence, I will adjust my beliefs accordingly.

Factually challenged? This coming from the guy using circular reasoning?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that you do not have a good reason to dispute that WRH is not a good source of information?
 
SteveAustin said:
This sounds like a good explanation but it really explains nothing, because the sound of an explosion could still be an explosion ;)
Click to expand...

There was no explosion that imediatly preceded the collapse of a tower that was loud enough to be consistent with man-made demolition.

Were there such an explosion, it would be on the sound track of every video camera in use. There were lots of cameras filming the towers from all angles on 9/11.

There are lots of people that heard the South tower fall while they were inside the North tower or WTC7 and that certainly sounded like an explosion to them.

It wasn't man-made.
 
GStan said:
I don't know. But I do think it would have been rather impractical for them to take testimony from all of the several thousand ground zero workers.
Click to expand...

This was the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever. There is no "impractical" when something like this happens. You do a complete, full, thorough and open investigation and you follow all leads and all evidence no matter how irrelevant it may seem. To do anything less is an insult to those that died and the surviving familly members
 
SteveAustin said:
According to your view of things... if we were to use an analogy here... you could have a mob boss and his goons on trial and you would claim that the mob boss and his goons are valid character witnesses for the mob boss and his goons.
Click to expand...

And according to your view of things, at the start of the trial you declare the defendants to be a mob boss and his goons, and anyone giving evidence in their favour not only has their evidence dismissed on the grounds that they're a supporter of organised crime, but automatically becomes a co-defendant.

Dave
 
SteveAustin said:
How to debunk just about anything...

* Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment
needed: one armchair.
Click to expand...


First get a university education is something relevant. For much of the basic discussion, a High School physics education will allow you to judge the various claims for yourself.

Short of that, being an eyewitness to some aspect to the events of 9/11 goes a long way. There are no eyewitnesses to WTC claim man-made demolition.

There is no "Eyewitnesses for Truth" group. I wonder why. 100s of thousands of people were to some aspect of the events of 9/11.
 
Last edited:
X said:
IIRC, that one of glowing stuff in the claw is thought by some to be glass, reflecting the work lights.
Click to expand...

Tnx;

I've seen that picture many times and it always bothers me much like the one with the firefighters around a hole looking at "molten" metal did. That turned out to be fake and I'm wondering about this one since I don't remember ever seeing a provenance of the pic.
 
GStan said:
Factually challenged? This coming from the guy using circular reasoning?
Click to expand...

So you're saying that you do not have a good reason to dispute that WRH is not a good source of information?
Click to expand...

Hmmm see what I mean by your thinking process. You have somehow managed to arrive at "you do not have a good reason to dispute that WRH is not a good source..." from what I said? How did you do that?

But are you going to continue trying to smear the source instead of actually arguing the facts?
 
SteveAustin said:
This was the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever. There is no "impractical" when something like this happens. You do a complete, full, thorough and open investigation and you follow all leads and all evidence no matter how irrelevant it may seem. To do anything less is an insult to those that died and the surviving familly members
Click to expand...

Appeal to emotion. And hogwash to boot. There is no reason to take testimony from 10,000 people to understand that which can be adequately understood by taking the testimony of an adequate sample of those people.

Get back on topic please.
 
SteveAustin said:
So if "you recall correctly" .... what if you do not?

and it is "thought to be"

So no one can say that it is glass, but it is enough simply to say that to cast doubt in the minds of some
Click to expand...

So you don't know where the picture came from either?
 
BigAl said:
There was no explosion that imediatly preceded the collapse of a tower that was loud enough to be consistent with man-made demolition.

Were there such an explosion, it would be on the sound track of every video camera in use. There were lots of cameras filming the towers from all angles on 9/11.

There are lots of people that heard the South tower fall while they were inside the North tower or WTC7 and that certainly sounded like an explosion to them.

It wasn't man-made.
Click to expand...

I thought we went over this already. There are "Noise Abatement" techniques that can muffle the sound of explosions. That report I linked to on this only talks about a few (7 I think it was) methods and of course only those methods that would not be considered a "military secret" or "secret military technology"

Also did you not read that article that talks about the difference between the types of explosions people are used to seeing in hollywood movies and real life explosions? If you are expecting a real life muffled explosion to sound like a hollywood explosion then you are deluding yourself.
 
SteveAustin said:
This was the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever. There is no "impractical" when something like this happens. You do a complete, full, thorough and open investigation and you follow all leads and all evidence no matter how irrelevant it may seem. To do anything less is an insult to those that died and the surviving familly members
Click to expand...

Your exploitation of the victims and the families is noted.

I know two people that worked on the pile. I meet countless other first responders and family members in my day-to-day travels. They have lots to gripe about but most of it is about survivor's benefits and getting medial care for the air they breathed.

None of them seem to question the fact that 19 Islamists hijacked 4 commercial jets and crashed them, causing all the death and destruction on 9/11.

Of those people, those that know of the "Truth Movement" claims say the claims are silly.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
And according to your view of things, at the start of the trial you declare the defendants to be a mob boss and his goons, and anyone giving evidence in their favour not only has their evidence dismissed on the grounds that they're a supporter of organised crime, but automatically becomes a co-defendant.

Dave
Click to expand...

No that is a false interpretation of what I said and what I meant and you know it.

Those people on trial cannot be their own "character witness"

Let's use a different analogy...

An astronomer puts out a new theory on black holes. It is a controversial theory and people ask him "well do you have anyone that agrees with you?", and to this he replies "Yes, Jack Black here agrees with me for one", but Jack Black is a co-author of the theory.

Anyone who worked on the NIST report is part of said report and cannot be included in an independent supporter of the "Official" report
 
SteveAustin said:
I thought we went over this already. There are "Noise Abatement" techniques that can muffle the sound of explosions. That report I linked to on this only talks about a few (7 I think it was) methods and of course only those methods that would not be considered a "military secret" or "secret military technology"

Also did you not read that article that talks about the difference between the types of explosions people are used to seeing in hollywood movies and real life explosions? If you are expecting a real life muffled explosion to sound like a hollywood explosion then you are deluding yourself.
Click to expand...

Which proved that you did not understand the decibel scale. It is also off topic, so start a new one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom