Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

tmd2_1 said:
Ok...I've let this go far enough. You see I do like to do things by experiment. I realized, I may have been taken the slightly wrong approach here. Then I remembered a post by Dr. Greening...you know who he is right? He had a hypothesis..(well he didn't call it one but it can easily be made into one) of what JREFs are like. So I wanted to test it. And get it in a nice place. That is just what I have done here. What do you think the results are?

Dr. Greening on JREF's

... And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?

To be clear I am not Dr. Greening nor do I have anything to do with him.
Click to expand...
Dr. Greening would not post NIST can't figure out WTC 7 after the report was released. You messed up, you posted stuff from over 4 years ago to support your failed fantasy.

This is funny. You pick Greening who does not agree with you, and he failed to calculate how long the fires in the debris pile could burn correctly. You picked someone who does not support your claims. Do you check anything before posting it?

Plus, you post something Greening wrote before WTC 7 report came out. Are you trying to make Greening look stupid?

What is Dr. G conclusion, what is his theory?
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
But there are members of AEcfor 911 truth with the same credentials as NIST..I assume that's who you mean by experts right?
Click to expand...
Can you link to any of their published works? Of course you can't, they have no published works on 9/11. Only craptastic youtube videos.

Hint: real scientists publish their findings in peer-reviewed science journals. They don't do it on internet forums, dvd sales, and youtube.

Why don't they have any published works on 9/11? Because their work is a complete and utter joke. It's nonsense. And we have shown you why it's nonsense, yet you refuse to learn. If you want to be pig ignorant about the science of 9/11, then pig ignorant you will be.
 
tmd2_1 said:
In correct..burden of proof is always on the prosecution. They have to prove the case, I only have to cast doubt on it...i think it's clearly been done.
Click to expand...

I guess Zacharias Moussaoui spending 23 hours a day in a tiny concrete box for the rest of his life must be our imaginations, then?
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
Can you be more clear? You're saying their means of delivering there message is not as good as NIST's? Just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.
Click to expand...
Science is not about "delivering the message". That's what salesmen do. And Richard Gage is a salesman, he sells snake oil to gullible fools.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years
Click to expand...
Can't possibly be true. But then again every day someone becomes mentally ill.

tmd2_1 said:
but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority,
Click to expand...
You don't even now what an "appeal to authority" fallacy is. Look at ae911truth for an example of that. All they do is scream "trust us, we're architects and engineers" and then spew the same crap David Ray Griffin wrote about years ago. They have no work of their own. It's pathetic.
 
dafydd said:
We'll all be on ignore if he takes your advice.
Click to expand...

I don't know why "feature" turned into "lift" when I posted that but I'm sure there's some cryptic message in there somewhere unconsciously...
 
dafydd said:
I suppose that it's hard to formulate one if you lost the plot a long time ago. The mental processes of truthers are a mystery to me.
Click to expand...
It's not a mental process so much as stimulus-response.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Here it is right from NIST...molten steel is a big deal.

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
Click to expand...
So if there was molten steel...it is a big problem for the official story
Click to expand...

Non Sequitur Logical Fallacy. Try to avid it.

The text you quoted in no way addresses what the presence or absence of molten steel in the rubble pile weeks later would mean with regards to the collapse mechanism.



Additionally, your reply does not address my long post which you replied to in any way. Major dodge. It becomse clearer with every new page in this thread that you realize more and more how colossally you lost.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
I've written letters to Congressman...but that's it...got nothing. I will start to do more though I think. I don't say I have it figured out...it may be impossible to figure out...but I just hope there can be more of an effort to try. This reminds me of a video I could have put it in the evidence..in my OP...but I just didn't...it's Bob Kerry...911 commissioner saying some of the same things I just did...you may find it interesting.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDfm3NroVG8
Click to expand...

Can you copy and paste the content of these letter, please? I believe you are lying. Your research skil probably don't even suffice to determine who your Congressman is, let alone what his mail address is.
 
tmd2_1 said:
What makes someone an expert over someone else? I mean their credentials are the same, same type of degree, experience...etc etc.
Click to expand...

Who is "they"? Care to be more specific? Name the people who you are comparing here! Steven Jones, Richard Gage vs. the lead investigators at NIST? Then no, their credentials are not the same, not even close. The NIST folks have vastly superior credentials in the required fields of knowledge and experience.


tmd2_1 said:
There is evidence that suggest something other then the official story is there not?
Click to expand...

Can you be more specific and tell us this "something other"? But please make sure it is supported by ALL the evidence, including the loads of evidence that 19 AQ men boarded and hijacked 4 planes (ATC voice recordings, security cam images from airports, the money trail, the fact that on each plane there was an Arab who had just recently taken flight training, the video showing Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah, the pilots of AA11 and UA93, visiting Osama Bin Laden in his mansion - not a cave! - in Kandahar, Afghanistan, etc.)!
 
tmd2_1 said:
Would the evidence not be the same? I mean the evidence is the evidence...is it not?
Click to expand...

You can't even explain coherently what your supposed evidence is evidence for, and how that relates to or even negates the accusations against AQ! Remember your OP? You framed this thread as a criminal trial against AQ in which you play defense. Remember what the allegation against AQ is? In case you forgot: They are accused of hijacking and crashing four planes. You say you have evidence for molten steel, for Gross lying, for Lloyd lying, for Aziz tampering with evidence and doing things you can't believe, etc.
How is any of that evidence for the claim that AQ did not hijack and crash four planes? Answer: It isn't!
 
tmd2_1 said:
But there are members of AEcfor 911 truth with the same credentials as NIST..I assume that's who you mean by experts right?
Click to expand...

Who? How many of these? Are they a significant portion of all those with similar credentials? Do you even have an idea of what the proportions may be here - how many people with (on paper) actually relevant degrees (but often not the required experience) signed and how many more in the USA did not sign?

For example, do you know how many active and licensed civil or structural engineers there are in the state of New York alone, and how many signed the AE911T "petition"? I pick New York because we can assume that a) New Yorkers would be the most interested in what happened in their home state, home city even b) possibly, more New York civil and structural engineers have experience with high rises than engineers from most other states.
I bet you have no clue.
So let me tell you:
There are more than 10,000 active and registered civil or structural engineers in New York state.
Zero (0) of them signed that petition (the one registered civ.eng. is well over 70 years old and not practicing any longer)

On the other hand, the Structural Engineers Association of New York contributed to the NIST report on WTC1+2. As did Leslie E. Robertson Associates. As did the National Fire Protection Agency. As did Underwriters Laboratories (Kevin Ryans former company; Kevin was in charge of water testing, nothing to do with buildings, fires or explosives). As did the Universities of Chicago, Colorado, Michigan and NY state at Buffalo. As did the FDNY. Of the 13 named NIST project leaders for 1+2, no less than 8 have doctoral degrees and thus beat pretty much everybody on AE911T. On top of that, each and every one of them has the required job experience. Therse guys far and away outcredential your "experts".
 
tmd2_1 said:
Have all members of AE911(or any one who opposed the official story) made in correct claims?
Click to expand...

Argumentum ad Populum Logical Fallacy. I told you before to please avoid that.
Appeal to False Authority Logical Fallacy (most AE911T signers (they are not members) don't have the relevant credentials, almost all of them are insufficiently or even erroneously informed about the event, which is little wonder, given the fact that the front page of ae911truth.org has always and still contains lies and distortions).

Oh and yes, all signers of AE911T who do make claims along the line suggested by Richard Gage make false claims, or irrelevant claims. Many however merely display their ignorance by just asking irrelevant questions.
 
tmd2_1 said:
What scientific facts has NIST stuck to, that AE fir 911 truth not?
Click to expand...

More to the point: Which lies does AE911T tell that NIST does not tell?
For example, go to the ae911truth.org homepage. In the right column, they list "signs for classical demolition of WTC7" (sorry I can't quote the English version verbatim, I am in Germany and get automatically redirected to a German language version; I assume both language versions make the same claims). This list contains a number of lies:

1. "Sounds of explosions one second before collapse initiation" - no such sounds were recorded that are consistent in loudness, timing and brisance with conventional explosive CD
2. "Symmetrical Structural Failure" - WTC7 did not fail symmetrically
3. "Symmetrical Structural Failure" - symmetrical failure is not a classical sign of CD
4. "Collapsed into its footprint" - WTC7 did not even come close to collapsing in its footprint, or even only its own premises. Instead, it hit the faces of several buildings across the street, and even hit Fiterman Hall on the roof. This lie is so blatant, obvious and crass, and has been pointed out to Gage so many times, that it must be called a conscious, deliberate lie
5. "Collapsed into its footprint" - collapse into footprint is not a classical sign of CD
6. "pyroclastic dust clouds" - the word "pyroclastic" means something very differently. Again, this has been pointed out to Gage too many times to be counted as a slip
7. "Agreement by leading European demolition expert" - he is talking about Danny Jowenko, who did in fact conclude that WTC7 was a CD - at a time when he had never ever studied that event at all. He did not even know the day it collapsed, and did not know it was burning. When told both facts, he was very confused and immediately doubted his conclusion. So Danny was not an expert on WTC7 at all, and most certainly not a "leading" European expert. On the other hand, in the same interview, Jowenko opined that WTC1+2 were not CD. This fact is omitted from AE911T's site - no doubt deliberately
8. "Media, police and fire fighters knew of coming collapse" - this is not a classical sign of CD per se, but simply a good, expertly judgement call.
9. "Intergranular melting" - this is not at all a sign of explosive CD, very far from it. Maybe the most ridiculous lie of all: Explosions happen in a matter of milliseconds, intergranular melting in a matter of hours, days and weeks.
10. "Several tons of molten metal were observed by highly qualified witnesses" - none of the witnesses were qualified to make that call
11. "Several tons of molten metal were observed by highly qualified witnesses" - no corroboration exists for this
12. "Several tons of molten metal were observed by highly qualified witnesses" - this is in no way a sign of "classical CD". Explosives do not melt metal, they break it. No classical sign of explosives breaking steel was observed
13. "The chemical signature of thermite was found" - No. This refers to the crap paper by Harrit e.al. at Bentham. Their data clearly shows that whatever they tested cannot possibly be thermite, and is very likely just red paint.
14. "The chemical signature of thermite was found" - Thermite is never used in classical CD
15. "The chemical signature of thermite was found" - Thermite is not an explosive
Then they list signes of destruction by fire that supposedly were not observed. The list contains more lies:
16. "No slow onset with visible large deformation" - Femr2 in this forum has shown that WTC7 moved visibly minutes before release. Significant deformations were observed hours earlier and measured precisely with an instrument called "transit". Look up what that is!
17. "No collapse along the path of least resistance" - a building structure is neither a liquid that flows along gradients towars local minima, nor an interlligent agent that chooses its path. It moves whereever forces pull and push it. In the case of gravitational collapse, that is mostly straight down, with some lateral deflections. This holds equally for fire-induced collapses and explosive-lead collapses. In both cases, most of the energy and forces that destroy the structure come from gravity.
18. "No signs of temperatures that could soften steel" - obvious nonsense: There were fires in the building. Every fire comes with temperatures that soften steel. Increase temps by 1°F, and steel gets softer already.
19. "No signs of temperatures that could soften steel" - Strawman; NIST does not say that softened steel caused the collapse of building 7. Rather, thermal expansion of long floor spans caused the initiation

So Gage manages to pack at least 19 different lies in a list of only 14 "signs" that he pretends are evidence for his (never really spelled out) theory of explosive demolition. Impressive, eh?

Now your list of NIST lies, please!
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
Some AE for truth have degrees from some of the best schools in the country, do they not? The same schools members of NIST have?
Click to expand...

Don't ask us. It's your argument!
List their degrees! Both sides!
 
tmd2_1 said:
Isn't the term respected subjective? Perhaps there are none...that's considered respected..I don't know. But I would like to know the facts NIST got right and AE (and others) got wrong?
Click to expand...

You don't know. Again. But you can find out for yourself.

Go to the University Library nearest to you.
Go to their physics, structural engineering and/or chemistry sections.
Ask them for a list of the 20, or 100, most respected scientific journals in those fields.
Check if any journal published by Bentham Publishers is among them.

My prediction: No-one would mention any Bentham Published journal as among the respected.
But that is where the most-cited (among truthers, that is, not among scientists or engineers) truther paper was published.
Go figure!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom