• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

tmd2_1 said:
I implicated people as potenital suspects. If this were a criminal trial, as it relates to my client, who actually did it is not important. I do not like giving suspects or theories here, I quickly found out a couple of things. You have to account for every little thing...I mean I wouldn't be surprised if I'm asked about bathroom breaks. No evidence is good enough, it's not real evidence. Whatever you say turns into...so you're accusing all of the FDNY, or NYPD. (I've never said one thing about them by the way). It's not worth it, so I've focused on points that cast doubt on the official story. You can see by the lack of reply to most of them, they do indeed cast a lot of doubt.

Everyone has seen that molten flow from the South tower. I think I put on a strong case that it is steel. Steve jones ran an analysis, showing it was not aluminum. If you look at that previous video it's around the 1:30 mark. I mean when do the excuses end?
Click to expand...

That's what happens in a court of law tmd - and that's why your construct wouldn't make it past a preliminary hearing in the real world - you've got smoke coming out of your ass but no facts to back it up.

You'll have to revert to the old attorney's advice:

If you've got the facts on your side, pound on the facts.

If you've got the law on your side, pound on the law.

If you've got nothing on your side, pond on the table.

You've beaten the hell out of the table here for no good effect.
 
tmd2_1 said:
You want to talk about bad engineering? Look at NIST. NIST admitted Building 7 was free fall. It's completley impossible to have freefall without CD. This isn't even high school physics. In fact watch these 3 videos, you don't have to need to know anything about physics. NIST issues a final draft gets asked about free fall says it's impossible. Final report comes out and they admit free fall. This is good engineering? That's crazy, how can anyone believe this? They won't release how they got their numbers. This is not science. Science welcomes the opportunity for all to view and comment, and expand upon. Their model collapse time is 5.4 seconds the observed collapse time is 5.4 seconds (which isn't even right) I mean they nailed it right on the head...how many times do you think that happens. These are your great engineers? These are the guys you look to for answers?
But I know Chandler is the quack. I mean being a good engineer is saying something is impossible and then issuing a report saying that very same thing happened right? It's a joke that's what it is. Also in this video chanler points out several other fundamental things they got wrong.

But I know I'm not understanding things correctly, there is some reason for this. Always some excuse, I can be sure of that right?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw
Click to expand...

Got any videos of a building being demoed that is in free fall?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Yet you're whole post here was nothing but one big appeal to authority. An authority that at best gives incomplete answers.
Click to expand...
That hilited phrase doesn't mean what you think it does.

Which is par for the course for you, the sum of your posts here is nothing but an argument from ignorance, from your own personal incredulity. Fed to you by charlatans, frauds, and liars who likewise have no understnding of the processes involved, physics and math included.

And this, not some ridiculously vast conspiracy, is why no reputable science or engineering jounal publishes truther nonsense. It's why no district attorney pursues a ciminal investigation from the myriad truther "smoking guns" they've touted over the years. It's why no truther lawsuit in civil court has ever been remotely successul, despite an even lower burden of proof than for a criminal case.

The most "prestigious" truther group out there is Gage's ae911truth, touting a membership of "1500 architects and engineers". And what has this group, either singularly or collectively done? Nothing Zip. Nada. Squat. They parrot the same debunked nonsense and lies David Ray Griffin has been pimping since 2003. The only original work Richard Gage, the world's most qualified truther, has done is consruct a model of the WTC and its collapse... consisting of 2 cardboard boxes.

It is truly amazng to me that anyone capable of turning on a computer and registering at an internet forum can believe charlatans like Richard Gage while dismissing the opinions of the world' pre-eminent experts on structural and fire engineering. The cognitie dissonance is astounding!
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
I implicated people as potenital suspects. If this were a criminal trial, as it relates to my client, who actually did it is not important. I do not like giving suspects or theories here, I quickly found out a couple of things. You have to account for every little thing...I mean I wouldn't be surprised if I'm asked about bathroom breaks. No evidence is good enough, it's not real evidence. Whatever you say turns into...so you're accusing all of the FDNY, or NYPD. (I've never said one thing about them by the way). It's not worth it, so I've focused on points that cast doubt on the official story. You can see by the lack of reply to most of them, they do indeed cast a lot of doubt.

Everyone has seen that molten flow from the South tower. I think I put on a strong case that it is steel. Steve jones ran an analysis, showing it was not aluminum. If you look at that previous video it's around the 1:30 mark. I mean when do the excuses end?
Click to expand...

That's what happens in a court of law tmd - and that's why your construct wouldn't make it past a preliminary hearing in the real world - you've got smoke coming out of your ass but no facts to back it up.

You'll have to revert to the old attorney's advice:

If you've got the facts on your side, pound on the facts.

If you've got the law on your side, pound on the law.

If you've got nothing on your side, poUnd on the table.

You've beaten the hell out of the table here for no good effect.
 
How hard does it have to hit to accept the fact that freefall = CD isn't even an analogy used by any profession in the building industry? It was in fact, only used by 9/11 conspiracy theorists after the conspiracies themselves began populating the net.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
How hard does it have to hit to accept the fact that freefall = CD isn't even an analogy used by any profession in the building industry? It was in fact, only used by 9/11 conspiracy theorists after the conspiracies themselves began populating the net.
Click to expand...

They think using such words and terms makes them sound intelligent and knowledgeable. And unfortunately with the terribly stupid people, it sometimes works.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
How hard does it have to hit to accept the fact that freefall = CD isn't even an analogy used by any profession in the building industry? It was in fact, only used by 9/11 conspiracy theorists after the conspiracies themselves began populating the net.
Click to expand...
Freefall, that's like fizziks man, sounds sciency and stuff.
 
paperboy05 said:
Still haven't figured that one out yet, huh?

Little help: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Click to expand...


Well how can you possibly expect him to figure out a logical fallacy when...

Oystein said:
This thread is simply amazing. Every time I come to this subforum, which is several times a day, you guys have piled up another few pages. When I spend an evening with my girl friend, and then sleep a good night's sleep, the next morning I find 160 new posts or so. Near impossible to just read it all, totally impossible if I were to also watch all the stupid videos I am supposed to watch, without the help of timestamps.

And yet, page after page after page after page after page it's the same routine: tmd displaying the many things he has no clue about, and near everybody else besting him.



Here is the picture that emerges: it's a tag team fight: Team JREF features Hulk Hogan, Rocky Balboa, Leonidas, Hellboy and Obelix the Gaul. Team TM features 5-year-old kindergarden kid tmd2_1, and ... well, only the kid. Every few seconds, the kid receives an upper cut, a full body slam, or is boxed right out of his shoes. The kid has already lost all teeth, one eye, broke all his fingers, is bleeding from a dozend wounds, and the big guys keep beating and kicking and slamming him. And little tmd yells: "Hey, you cowardf, we ain't finiffed yet! I win, you loooofe!"

tmd2_1 said:
That argument (or whatever you want to call it) is so 2006...LOL
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

...he can't even tell the difference between an observation and an argument?
 
tmd2_1 said:
I implicated people as potenital suspects. ............ I do not like giving suspects or theories here, I quickly found out a couple of things.
Click to expand...
Those are mutually exclusive statements.
However you certainly have not cast doubt on the guilt of your 'client'.
As I said simply stating contrary scenarios does not make them viable and in order for them to be viable they would have to fit into the larger series of events known to have occured.
For instance your contention that the material flowing from ONE corner of ONE floor of One tower being evidence of the use of thermite does not fit with the fact that there is no other flow of material or with Jones' claim of the use of an explosive thermite compound. xtherm[]ix[/i]te is a fabrication used by the so called truthmovement. It is a substance that they simplt bestow properties upon as required for any particular point they want to make.

No explosive sounds - thermite is quiet
thermite cannot be timed accuratly enough to use for large structure demolitions the way the TM wants it to - super thermite is explosive

BUT any explosive powerful enough to quickly sever a large steel column would HAVE to create a fast expanding gas which would result in a very big boom.


Everyone has seen that molten flow from the South tower. I think I put on a strong case that it is steel. Steve jones ran an analysis, showing it was not aluminum. If you look at that previous video it's around the 1:30 mark. I mean when do the excuses end?
Click to expand...

I have asked YOU how Jones determined that a sample of the substance would have been from the flowing material seen comning from the south tower. If Jones analysis is based soley upon what the material looks like I am sorry but that is not even close to a definitive identification. It would not be good enough for me nor any impartial judge or jury.

Next, even if you were to prove that the material is molten steel that will not get your 'client' off the hook for conspiracy to commit mass murder. First of all it would not cast any significant doubt as to what caused the destruction of the towers since it is ONE flow from ONE floor of ONE tower. Secondly, there were 4 hijacked aircraft on which there were about 200 people all of whom died as a result of the hijacking and deliberate crashing of the aircraft.
You have tried to cast doubt by saying that it was not the commercial flights that crashed and saying that it was could have been remotely controlled 767-200 tankers. However you would have to show some evidence that this was the case. One way to bolster this claim would be to illustrate what the final disposition of the actual commercial flights was. Another way would be to somehow positively identify the aircraft that did hit the towers as 767-200 tankers. Since you cannot do this your scenario is no better than a work of fiction.
Even if you change this to say it was a remote control takeover of the actual commercial flights you lose. You cannot show any evidence whatsoever that these aircraft were remotely controlled, none. Again all you have is the fictious scenario born of an over active imagination.

Like I said simply coming up with another scenario with nothing to back it is not good enough in a court of law, otherwise every single defendant that pleads 'not guilty' would be set free.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
It's all explained previously. Brief Summary:

Really only 3 possibilites. Lead very unlikely, would need to be the UPS, doesn't seem like it would melt that much. Lead melts silver.

Aluminum: Melts silver, however NIST claims when mixed with office supplies will turn it orange. Experiments have shown these office supplies will fall off so NIST is not correct. The color would still be silver.

Steel: It looks like it, seems to be the last of the 3 that is possible. Steve Jones analyzed a sample from somewhere at GZ, showed it was not aluminum. You can look up all the references in this thread.
Click to expand...

How did Jones determine that the steel sample he examined was from the material that was flowing from 80 floors above ground on the south tower prior to collapse? I have asked this several times now. Perhaps with all of the people asking you questions you missed it. Thus I put it in larger type in the hopes that you will address this. If you are going to post a youtube link I would ask that YOU write a short summary in your own words on how Jones made such a determination.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
How hard does it have to hit to accept the fact that freefall = CD isn't even an analogy used by any profession in the building industry? It was in fact, only used by 9/11 conspiracy theorists after the conspiracies themselves began populating the net.
Click to expand...

One more time...you don't have to listen to me, or to any CTer. Forget about CD = Free fall Just watch that NIST video, he says...meaning NIST says, free fall is impossible (paraphrasing) and then in their final report they say their is free fall (again I don't mean the whole building, and the question was asked not meaning the whole building) with no explanation for it. But you go on believing what you want to believe.
 
EventHorizon said:
Well how can you possibly expect him to figure out a logical fallacy when...



...he can't even tell the difference between an observation and an argument?
Click to expand...

LOL you are funny guy. His statement can easily be inferred as an argument. He's arguing that this debate was easily won by him and others. An idea that is completely laughable.
 
paperboy05 said:
Still haven't figured that one out yet, huh?

Little help: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
Actually we have been asking you to show us anything that has some authoritative backing. That is not an appeal to authority logical fallacy which is the appeal to inappropriate authority or non sequitor.

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam) is a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although it is possible for the argument from authority to constitute a strong inductive argument, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.

Appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
Fallacious appeals to authority/Fallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section. Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority". This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.

Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true. In this event, the argument is a non sequitur
"

Showing that an author is a legitimate authority can be determined by several factors, education and training of the individual, past publications and experience of the individual and the quality and respectibility of the publications in which the author's papers have been published.
If the author can be shown to be la legitimate authority then the inductive arguement using his/their work can be considered valid. OTOH if the person or organization cannot be shown to have this legit authority or if a greater authority refutes a lesser authority then one cannot legitmately claim that this is an authoritative source.

As an example we have AE911T in which members can, and are from diverse backgrounds most of which are not engineers or architects even though a few are.
Sf911T, same applies.
PfT, similar
So something with the brand of approval from these orgs cannot be automatically accepted as authoritative. How about the individual authors of papers from enginers or architects belonging to AE911T? Well none has published in anything other than their own , self serving 'journal' or in pay-for-publish journals, which again cannot be shown to have legitimate authority.

I find it odd that the 911 conspiracy crowd will complain that engineering organizations are self serving, gov't backed and therefore illegitimate sources with a conflict of interest but no such hubris is attached to the Journal for 911 Studies.

What about Gage? Well he is in this case speaking authoritatively about 110 and 47 storey buildings. Does he have any experience with tall buildings? No!
Does he have credentials from an accredited university? No!
Has he published in any respected architectual or engineering journal? No!

What about the people who worked on the NIST reports?
yes, yes, and yes.
Bazant?
yes, yes and yes.

How about the ASCE? Is it a legitimate authority? Well it has been for many decades so one can infer that it still is.
What respected publications have published any papers or articles in any way supporting technical arguements made by the 911 conspiracy groups?
Scientific American? - no
Nature - no
Spectrum - no
Physics review - no

Shall I go on?

What publications have published such articles?
Jornal for 911 Studies and Bentham (pay-to-publish)

Can said articles then be shown to have legitimate authority, no.

Is there anything more to be said?
Click to expand...

Not even when actually spelled out
 
jaydeehess said:
Those are mutually exclusive statements.
However you certainly have not cast doubt on the guilt of your 'client'.
As I said simply stating contrary scenarios does not make them viable and in order for them to be viable they would have to fit into the larger series of events known to have occured.
For instance your contention that the material flowing from ONE corner of ONE floor of One tower being evidence of the use of thermite does not fit with the fact that there is no other flow of material or with Jones' claim of the use of an explosive thermite compound. xtherm[]ix[/i]te is a fabrication used by the so called truthmovement. It is a substance that they simplt bestow properties upon as required for any particular point they want to make.

No explosive sounds - thermite is quiet
thermite cannot be timed accuratly enough to use for large structure demolitions the way the TM wants it to - super thermite is explosive

BUT any explosive powerful enough to quickly sever a large steel column would HAVE to create a fast expanding gas which would result in a very big boom.




I have asked YOU how Jones determined that a sample of the substance would have been from the flowing material seen comning from the south tower. If Jones analysis is based soley upon what the material looks like I am sorry but that is not even close to a definitive identification. It would not be good enough for me nor any impartial judge or jury.

Next, even if you were to prove that the material is molten steel that will not get your 'client' off the hook for conspiracy to commit mass murder. First of all it would not cast any significant doubt as to what caused the destruction of the towers since it is ONE flow from ONE floor of ONE tower. Secondly, there were 4 hijacked aircraft on which there were about 200 people all of whom died as a result of the hijacking and deliberate crashing of the aircraft.
You have tried to cast doubt by saying that it was not the commercial flights that crashed and saying that it was could have been remotely controlled 767-200 tankers. However you would have to show some evidence that this was the case. One way to bolster this claim would be to illustrate what the final disposition of the actual commercial flights was. Another way would be to somehow positively identify the aircraft that did hit the towers as 767-200 tankers. Since you cannot do this your scenario is no better than a work of fiction.
Even if you change this to say it was a remote control takeover of the actual commercial flights you lose. You cannot show any evidence whatsoever that these aircraft were remotely controlled, none. Again all you have is the fictious scenario born of an over active imagination.

Like I said simply coming up with another scenario with nothing to back it is not good enough in a court of law, otherwise every single defendant that pleads 'not guilty' would be set free.
Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:
How did Jones determine that the steel sample he examined was from the material that was flowing from 80 floors above ground on the south tower prior to collapse? I have asked this several times now. Perhaps with all of the people asking you questions you missed it. Thus I put it in larger type in the hopes that you will address this. If you are going to post a youtube link I would ask that YOU write a short summary in your own words on how Jones made such a determination.
Click to expand...

Jet fuel office fires do not get hot enough to melt steel. Molten steel means something else is in there (thermite?) How would AQ have gotten access to the buildings?

Stating contrary scenarios with evidence is more than enough. Whether you believe it or not there is evidence out there.

Also I find it strange you mentioned tankers. In this thread I don't believe I mentioned the word tanker...it's strange you would say that. I know I never mentioned 767-200 tankers. Maybe someone else did. Either way there is a strange POD underneath, that does not appear to be a reflection or photo distortion. What it is I don't know. But it doesn't appear to belong there.

How Jones made that determination I don't know you would have to ask him. I'm simply saying he did..I can't add anymore to it.

You are wrong about the amount of steel melted without an explosion. You clearly did not watch any of the Cole videos. He melts an awful lot of steel with just a few pounds.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
Jet fuel office fires do not get hot enough to melt steel. Molten steel means something else is in there (thermite?) How would AQ have gotten access to the buildings?

Stating contrary scenarios with evidence is more than enough. Whether you believe it or not there is evidence out there.

Also I find it strange you mentioned tankers. In this thread I don't believe I mentioned the word tanker...it's strange you would say that. I know I never mentioned 767-200 tankers. Maybe someone else did. Either way there is a strange POD underneath, that does not appear to be a reflection or photo distortion. What it is I don't know. But it doesn't appear to belong there.

How Jones made that determination I don't know you would have to ask him. I'm simply saying he did..I can't add anymore to it.

You are wrong about the amount of steel melted without an explosion. You clearly did not watch any of the Cole videos. He melts an awful lot of steel with just a few pounds.
Click to expand...

steel has not to melt in order for the towers to collapse
 
DC said:
steel has not to melt in order for the towers to collapse
Click to expand...

Perhaps...but whether that's true or not is irrelevant. If there was molten steel that casts a huge amount of doubt on the official story.
 
tmd2_1 said:
LOL you are funny guy. His statement can easily be inferred as an argument. He's arguing that this debate was easily won by him and others. An idea that is completely laughable.[/QUOTE]

Laughter being the best medicine, keep taking your meds.
Click to expand...
 
tmd2_1 said:
Either way there is a strange POD underneath, that does not appear to be a reflection or photo distortion. What it is I don't know. But it doesn't appear to belong there.
Click to expand...

POD PLANES NOW????

Omg... he believes anything. :eye-poppi

Hey tmd, even truthers think that claim is so wrong they call it hoax promoting:

http://911review.com/errors/phantom/st_plane.html
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

In fact, they claim it was cooked up by the government to make truthers look stupid. What does that make you in their eyes you think?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom