Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
What is the picture of? Is it associated with 9/11?
Click to expand...

[facepalm]

It is office steel which has weakened during an OFFICE fire... the fire didn't destroy the wooden supports even though they were burned, but the steel weakened and bent...

incredulity rocks
 
Craig4 said:
Then where is the residue? It shouldn't be hard to find.
Click to expand...

Remember, when you destroy buildings with explosives, all of the following cannot possibly be avoided:
  1. Preparatory work directly on the structural members that you are going to attack
  2. Incredibly loud BANGs
  3. Structural members (pieces of steel) that show peculiar failure modes which are not shear, bending, buckling
  4. Chemical residued that some of the sniffing dogs who worked the piles could have detected
  5. Residues of demolition equipment (det cords...) that the demolition professionals of at least 4 different demolition companies could have identified

None of 1. was observed
None of 2. was observed. All explosion sounds that anybody reported or even recorded were not of the kind, brisance, loudness and timing one could expect from demo charges. Not a single one.
None of 3. was observed.
None of 4. was observed.
None of 5. was observed.

There is precisely ZERO evidence for the use of explosives to demo any of the three towers. Not just the the lack of residues.
 
Oystein said:
Remember, when you destroy buildings with explosives, all of the following cannot possibly be avoided:
  1. Preparatory work directly on the structural members that you are going to attack
  2. Incredibly loud BANGs
  3. Structural members (pieces of steel) that show peculiar failure modes which are not shear, bending, buckling
  4. Chemical residued that some of the sniffing dogs who worked the piles could have detected
  5. Residues of demolition equipment (det cords...) that the demolition professionals of at least 4 different demolition companies could have identified

None of 1. was observed
None of 2. was observed. All explosion sounds that anybody reported or even recorded were not of the kind, brisance, loudness and timing one could expect from demo charges. Not a single one.
None of 3. was observed.
None of 4. was observed.
None of 5. was observed.

There is precisely ZERO evidence for the use of explosives to demo any of the three towers. Not just the the lack of residues.
Click to expand...

Change all of the "observed"s to "reported" to move a small step closer to reality.
 
RedIbis said:
Change all of the "observed"s to "reported" to move a small step closer to reality.
Click to expand...

What's the difference? Do you have any evidence that things were observed but not reported, or is this just your way of hand waving away the lack of observations?
 
000063 said:
Argument from ignorance, right out of the textbook.
Click to expand...

Not really, somehow the opposite: RedIbis seems to assume here that some observations exist that have not been reported. Next step would be to use non-reported observations to argue some truther point. That would be argument from more information than exists. Somehow.

What is the epistemological difference between an non-reported observation and a non-reported non-observation? Either way, we know of no observation and no report of an observation. Can we deduce anything from the assumption that an observation may have been made, when we just don't know about it? Maybe RedIbis hopes that this salvages his pet delusions (whatever they are). A form of "absence of evidence = evidence of presence".
 
Oystein said:
Not really, somehow the opposite: RedIbis seems to assume here that some observations exist that have not been reported. Next step would be to use non-reported observations to argue some truther point. That would be argument from more information than exists. Somehow.

What is the epistemological difference between an non-reported observation and a non-reported non-observation? Either way, we know of no observation and no report of an observation. Can we deduce anything from the assumption that an observation may have been made, when we just don't know about it? Maybe RedIbis hopes that this salvages his pet delusions (whatever they are). A form of "absence of evidence = evidence of presence".
Click to expand...

I was simply pointing out your poor choice of wording. You could say that x was not reported, but if you say x was not observed, that begs the obvious question, what if x was observed but not reported?
 
RedIbis said:
I was simply pointing out your poor choice of wording. You could say that x was not reported, but if you say x was not observed, that begs the obvious question, what if x was observed but not reported?
Click to expand...

Please explain how this makes any difference at all towards the topic at hand, which is arguing whether or not explosives were used to destroy the towers!

ETA: I would submit that focussing on reports would be misleading as well, since sometimes things are reported that have NOT been observed. The observation is what counts. Or more precisely, the reported observation. In this best wording, "observation" is the noun, the operatiive word, while "reported" is secondary, a qualifier.
 
Last edited:
Ah that classic philosophical conundrum: "If a tree falls in a forest, and someone hears it but doesn't tell anyone else, was it an inside job?"

All the inside job traitors might have already been tried and hanged for treason for faking 9/11, if that action was simply not reported. Is that sufficient to convince RedIbis that justice has been done?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Oystein said:
Remember, when you destroy buildings with explosives, all of the following cannot possibly be avoided:
  1. Preparatory work directly on the structural members that you are going to attack
  2. Incredibly loud BANGs
  3. Structural members (pieces of steel) that show peculiar failure modes which are not shear, bending, buckling
  4. Chemical residued that some of the sniffing dogs who worked the piles could have detected
  5. Residues of demolition equipment (det cords...) that the demolition professionals of at least 4 different demolition companies could have identified
    [*] No barotrauma injury of any classification due to close proximity to loud explosions
    [*] No injuries consistent with high velocity shrapnel

None of 1. was observed
None of 2. was observed. All explosion sounds that anybody reported or even recorded were not of the kind, brisance, loudness and timing one could expect from demo charges. Not a single one.
None of 3. was observed.
None of 4. was observed.
None of 5. was observed.
None of 6. was observed.
None of 7. was observed.



There is precisely ZERO evidence for the use of explosives to demo any of the three towers. Not just the the lack of residues.
Click to expand...
fixed
 
Clayton Moore said:
So you're saying if someone had a box-cutter on their person or in their carry on nothing would have been said in 2001?

That's funny.
Click to expand...

Dude, you REALLY need to research.

And yes, something most definitely would have been said to him. Probably something along the lines of "Would you like a beer or a soda"?
 
RedIbis said:
Change all of the "observed"s to "reported" to move a small step closer to reality.
Click to expand...

So each and every person in and around the trade centers after the collapse, EVERY PERSON involved in search and rescue, and cleanup, were in on it?

That's exactly what would have to happen for #1 to go "unreported".

Firefighters who the previous night were playing cards in the firehouse with their brothers, knew full well that the next day they'd be complicit in some way with their brother's death?

Firefighters were, and still are, OK with the fact that the first fireman killed was a chaplain?

Not a single one has come forward in a crisis of conscience? Not one?
 
Clayton Moore said:
So you're saying if someone had a box-cutter on their person or in their carry on nothing would have been said in 2001?

That's funny.
Click to expand...

No what is funny is your incredulity and ignorance.

I routinely carried a 4 inch folding buck knife with me on numerous flights pre 9/11.

I told you I once carried 4 full length swords as carry ons on an international flight.

So what would have been said aobut box cutters? They were not "officially" allowed, but if people could carry a 4 inch folding knife, then who gives a flying **** about a box cutter?

And if the hijackers went through different security gates, then different folks checked their stuff... But I guess you aren't as smart as a terrorist.... Go figure.

Someone might have stated "what is this? this isn't allowed" and then taken it away... no problem. All they needed was a belt and a folding knife... problem taken care of. Oopsie.
 
NoahFence said:
Dude, you REALLY need to research.

And yes, something most definitely would have been said to him. Probably something along the lines of "Would you like a beer or a soda"?
Click to expand...

The adamance with which it is agreed that because the object was not on " a no no list" the carrier would not have been questioned and the box cutter confiscated is telling. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that trusters don't bother to think things through and are slaves to authority.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The adamance with which it is agreed that because the object was not on " a no no list" the carrier would not have been questioned and the box cutter confiscated is telling. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that trusters don't bother to think things through and are slaves to authority.
Click to expand...

No...your statement though proves you have absolutely no ****** clue what you're talking about.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The adamance with which it is agreed that because the object was not on " a no no list" the carrier would not have been questioned and the box cutter confiscated is telling. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that trusters don't bother to think things through and are slaves to authority.
Click to expand...

[facepalm]

Having stated this repeatedly, I won't continue...
Your arguments from ignorance and incredulity are really amusing.
 
Clayton Moore said:
The adamance with which it is agreed that because the object was not on " a no no list" the carrier would not have been questioned and the box cutter confiscated is telling. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that trusters don't bother to think things through and are slaves to authority.
Click to expand...
So now your saying they can take any of your property without reason? The worst they would do at the time was ask you to put it in checked baggage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom