Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[beachnut]

Well Readers I leave it to you...

... readers say, you have a solid record - 8 years moronic delusions - not getting better. You are not skeptical of your idiotic delusions on 911, and can't figure out 911, given the answers. 8 years of failure, you keep posting idiotic lies and fantasy.

 

[Dog Town]

Well Readers I leave it to you...

Sadly, you don't mean this.

 

[RedIbis]

I took this out of the source thread to avoid making it a consistent derail.



You're hold a contradictory position which makes absolutely no sense.

I'm merely pointing out that what could happen is not necessarily what did happen.

As you said to me:


The NIST cannot manipulate this information and get away with it so easily.

Don't be so sure, but even still, there's some very stiff criticism of the report.

This is the kind of literature available to both architects and engineers who work on design on a daily basis.

Yeah, but they don't necessarily read the NIST report on a daily basis.

If you have this and the structural plans of a building you can pretty accurately gauge how the loss of any structural member will affect the parts, or whole, of the building.

Sure, it can teach us something. But when NIST claims, without physical evidence, that the loss of a single column precipitated global collapse, they need more than speculation. As well, they have to prove that temperatures were generated that could even cause the necessary thermal expansion of the floor system. They present no proof the fires ever got hot enough. That's a double dose of speculation.

Why would using these in the absence of a physical sample of the building itself be nothing more than speculation?

You know the mantra, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[TheRedWorm]

By what mechanism, Red, would thermal expansion NOT occur?

 

[funk de fino]

You know the mantra, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The irony in this post is astonishing.

 

[RedIbis]

By what mechanism, Red, would thermal expansion NOT occur?

Let me clarify, that thermal expansion did what NIST claims to the floor system, not that it occurred.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Ok, the question remains: by what mechanism would thermal expansion not lead to the results on 9/11?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Sure, it can teach us something. But when NIST claims, without physical evidence, that the loss of a single column precipitated global collapse, they need more than speculation.

NIST only needs two sources of info to determine the effect of a "single lost column" or for that matter the response to the loss of any group of them. These two are easily accessible from construction drawings of the building and the existing documentation on the grades of materials used in the building's construction. That's it. I'm amused at the idea that you think this can be considered speculation. If that's case we've got a serious problem, considering this same literature is used in real practice. Afterall speculation is not engineering.... right? :rolleyes

As well, they have to prove that temperatures were generated that could even cause the necessary thermal expansion of the floor system. They present no proof the fires ever got hot enough.

Every material that is combustible has either flash point or autoignition temperature required for the materials to burn. This temperature varies from material to material but there's a minimum temp. required for combustion to take place. I guess you want us to prove there was paper in an office building too [autoignition of Paper: 450 °C (842 °F) or 218°-246°C (424-474°F)]. Oh, and Failure doesn't always require fire

 

[triforcharity]

Well Readers I leave it to you...

No, I challenged you to post some quotes and cite your source. However, you only did one of the things. You posted some quotes. Too bad they were quote mined and taken out of context, as I have proven, and cited my sources.

Now, why did you not cite your source? Why is it that I found it with just 30 seconds of googling? Embarassed?

Now, care to address my points that I have made?

A simple "I was wrong" will do just fine......

 

[bill smith]

No, I challenged you to post some quotes and cite your source. However, you only did one of the things. You posted some quotes. Too bad they were quote mined and taken out of context, as I have proven, and cited my sources.

Now, why did you not cite your source? Why is it that I found it with just 30 seconds of googling? Embarassed?

Now, care to address my points that I have made?

A simple "I was wrong" will do just fine......

I'm afraid that I can't do that for you Tri. I actually claim that I did show my sources in full with the exact source attached after every statement. (Readers can check this in the attached hyperlink)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6109650&postcount=2629 hyperlink

I will be more than happy for eaders to carefully assess ehether your points make a realistic difference to the meaning of what was said. I submit that they do not. The Readers will make up their own minds especially if you try to persuade them some more.

 

[triforcharity]

No Bill, YOU did not cite your source. You NEVER said ANYTHING about "History Commons" at all. YOU tried to pass it off as YOUR OWN WORK. You did NOT cite your source at all.

Now, how about this last one Bill?

Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio: “It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion.” [City of New York, 10/12/2001]

Here is a doozie. The blatent dishonesty is made VERY clear with this one.

Here is his entire quote.

"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.[\QUOTE]

Care to address JUST THAT ONE?? Don't run away Bill, don't change the subject. It's ok to say that you were duped....

 

[bill smith]

No Bill, YOU did not cite your source. You NEVER said ANYTHING about "History Commons" at all. YOU tried to pass it off as YOUR OWN WORK. You did NOT cite your source at all.

Now, how about this last one Bill?

Here is a doozie. The blatent dishonesty is made VERY clear with this one.

Here is his entire quote.

"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.[\QUOTE]

Care to address JUST THAT ONE?? Don't run away Bill, don't change the subject. It's ok to say that you were duped....

In the context of the rest of the statements nobody in their right mind would find that significant at all . Sometimes I worry about the remaining sanity of debunkers that you can even think otherwise.

I question the remaining sanity of debunkers still further in that you can insist that I have not shown the sources of the quotes - Readers can clearly see that each quote , the publication it appeared in , and the date of publication is mentioned in almost every case. It's easily checked in the last hyperlink I posted just above.

 

[triforcharity]

No Bill, YOU did not cite your source. You NEVER said ANYTHING about "History Commons" at all. YOU tried to pass it off as YOUR OWN WORK. You did NOT cite your source at all.

Now, how about this last one Bill?




In the context of the rest of the statements nobody in their right mind would find that significant at all . Sometimes I worry about the remaining sanity of debunkers that you can even think otherwise.

I question the remaining sanity of debunkers still further in that you can insist that I have not shown the sources of the quotes - Readers can clearly see that each quote , the publication it appeared in , and the date of publication is mentioned in almost every case. It's easily checked in the last hyperlink I posted just above.

And yet again, you did not post the History Commons link did you Bill? Why did you try to pass it off as your own?

Now, would you like to address the statement Bill?

Oh, and you NEVER CITED THE HISTORY COMMONS link did you Bill?

 

[Bell]

18th-Century Ship Found at Trade Center Site

In the middle of tomorrow, a great ribbed ghost has emerged from a distant yesterday.

On Tuesday morning, workers excavating the site of the underground vehicle security center for the future World Trade Center hit a row of sturdy, upright wood timbers, regularly spaced, sticking out of a briny gray muck flecked with oyster shells.

Obviously, these were more than just remnants of the wooden cribbing used in the late 18th and early 19th centuries to extend the shoreline of Manhattan Island ever farther into the Hudson River. (Lower Manhattan real estate was a precious commodity even then.)

Source: The New York Times

 

[BigAl]

What was the name of the largest building ever demolished by explosive demolition? I know it gets mentioned here from time to time but I never bookmarked it.

 

[Toke]

What was the name of the largest building ever demolished by explosive demolition? I know it gets mentioned here from time to time but I never bookmarked it.

Maybe a hotel in Beirut, at least it was pretty big.

 

[BigAl]

Maybe a hotel in Beirut, at least it was pretty big.

Good point. There were a couple embassies that were blown up good in 1998(?), too. Neither is what I have in mind.

It was in the mid-west and as I recall, a big retail store of some sort.

 

[Toke]

Here it is.

LARGEST EXPLOSIVELY DEMOLISHED BUILDING
Sears Merchandise Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA


ETA: I were thinking of this one, Beirut Hilton[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[bill smith]

Why, don't you know where the "cherry picked" quotes you posted actually came from?

Bill, It's been 9 years, everyone already knows.

I am posting this so that those who support the government lies on 9/11 can run back over the facts.

'' The following is a 40 minute edit of recently released videos from the AE911Truth San Fransisco press conference, the recent Fire Fighters for 911 Truth presentation with Mr. Lawyer and Mr. Gage, and the lecture recently given by David Ray Griffin at a Harvard church.''


http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-14/recent-video-compilation-controlled-demolition-evidence

 

[DGM]

I am posting this so that those who support the government lies on 9/11 can run back over the facts.

'' The following is a 40 minute edit of recently released videos from the AE911Truth San Fransisco press conference, the recent Fire Fighters for 911 Truth presentation with Mr. Lawyer and Mr. Gage, and the lecture recently given by David Ray Griffin at a Harvard church.''


http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-14/recent-video-compilation-controlled-demolition-evidence

It's interesting to note that Bill posted this in response to my asking him to post the un-edited testimonies of the NY firefighters. He again posts a "truther" edit.

Bill; Is there something in the original un-edited transcripts you don't want the readers to see? It looks like your trying to hide something, Bill.



What's that word for when someone just shows one side of the story while actively hiding the rest?