• 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

jaydeehess said:
Your characterization of them being damn good reporters is not spin?
I have shown you several pictures of a 767 in which the pod's identity is quite apparent. Pictures of 767s certainly existed in 2003 when they wrote the article. In fact there were already many debunking articles on it as well IIRC.
But these intrepid reporters did not bother with any of that. Instead they sat transfixed with the pictures of the 911 Boeing 767. They did no research of their own about 767s. They have one anonymous aviation expert who looked again at nothing other than these 911 pictures.

That's plain lazy.
Click to expand...

You act like they didn't look at pictures. I'm sure they did. I look at it and I see something strange. It only appears on one side. The fairings are on both. They weren't sure after their own analysis and asked the best source for clarification. They got a puzzling answer so they ran with it. Seems good to me.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Amazing all this time to do that, and no time to do any experiments to back your conclusions.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're probably right.

I need to do a whole passel of 'sperimentin' to show that a Barcelona paper, or a New York City paper, or a Boston paper, or a San Francisco paper, etc. might print something that is overly sensational. Or wrong.

Why, they'd NEVER do that...!!

:rolleyes:
 
tmd2_1 said:
My God there's just no getting through to some of you. All metal when initially heated will have that glow for the shortest amount of time. It quickly cools and will go back to silver (in this case) Why do you think NIST said you would expect pure aluminum to melt silver. Probably because it would.
Click to expand...
No, in the actual video from the day, there is at least one bit of this glowing metal that falls and fades to silver as it cools in freefall.
 
tfk said:
Yeah, you're probably right.

I need to do a whole passel of 'sperimentin' to show that a Barcelona paper, or a New York City paper, or a Boston paper, or a San Francisco paper, etc. might print something that is overly sensational. Or wrong.

Why, they'd NEVER do that...!!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No I mean one's like Cole did. Prove where that sulfur came from. Should be problem, I mean you're both engineers, and you have more experience than him. Plus all the science is in your side right?
 
tmd2_1 said:
F I try to gather as much information as I can from all sources evaluate it and than come to a conclusion.
Click to expand...

So how was The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright? Did you enjoy it?

How would you characterize the 9/11 Commission Report?

The NIST reports - were they too technical, or did the non-technical summaries do it for you?

What about the sites referenced in the sticky note at the top of this subforum, especially Gravy's work?
 
tmd2_1 said:
No I mean one's like Cole did. Prove where that sulfur came from. Should be problem, I mean you're both engineers, and you have more experience than him. Plus all the science is in your side right?
Click to expand...


Cole did zero experiments.

He did a stunt.

He appears to not know the meaning of the word "experiment".

Let's see if you do.

Do you think that his "experiment's" duration matched the duration of the GZ fires?

Do you believe that the materials & conditions at the bottom of his pile of wood matched those at the bottom of the rubble pile?

Let's offer a simple test, shall we. Do you think that Cole's local fire department could have put out his fire if they dumped a couple million gallons of water on it? For a point of comparison, the FDNY could not put out the GZ fires by doing the same.

Still think he "ran an experiment"?

Let me know when he publishes his methods & results in JOM.

A bit of warning: they don't publish stunts.

Till Cole publishes, it doesn't exist.
 
carlitos said:
So how was The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright? Did you enjoy it?

How would you characterize the 9/11 Commission Report?

The NIST reports - were they too technical, or did the non-technical summaries do it for you?

What about the sites referenced in the sticky note at the top of this subforum, especially Gravy's work?
Click to expand...

Never read looming tower.

9/11 commission was set up to fail, as a few members have said. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#cite_note-17

NIST report is best summed up by this exchange.

ABEL: ... what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?

NEWMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

NEWMAN: If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time....

Most of the Gravy sites debunking has a plausible explanation (though in some cases that's stretching it) but just because something is plausible, doesn't mean it happened that way. For example WTC 7 early reporting. By in large the "debunking" is something like there was a lot of confusion, everyone knew it was going to come down, it was just a mistake. But if you look at it logically, it doesn't make a lot of sense. First it's hard to get something like that wrong, it either fell or it didn't. There was a report of 50 stories falling at 11:07 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_sNl7l6tOU. If everyone knew it was going to collapse, why was NIST initially stumped? Then it took 7 years to release anything. When they do the numbers are hidden.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Cole did zero experiments.

He did a stunt.

He appears to not know the meaning of the word "experiment".

Let's see if you do.

Do you think that his "experiment's" duration matched the duration of the GZ fires?

Do you believe that the materials & conditions at the bottom of his pile of wood matched those at the bottom of the rubble pile?

Let's offer a simple test, shall we. Do you think that Cole's local fire department could have put out his fire if they dumped a couple million gallons of water on it? For a point of comparison, the FDNY could not put out the GZ fires by doing the same.

Still think he "ran an experiment"?

Let me know when he publishes his methods & results in JOM.

A bit of warning: they don't publish stunts.

Till Cole publishes, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
QFT
Points made to him numerous times. Fact is, even if there were an outlandish conspiracy to reveal, Cole's "stunts" would still be little more than incompetently handled "experiments" that make no attempt at all to approximate the conditions it's supposed to model. I'm not sure where people get a high from bashing another report and not scrutinizing their own sources
 
tmd2_1 said:
Never read looming tower.

9/11 commission was set up to fail, as a few members have said. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#cite_note-17
Click to expand...

Stop relying on truthers to give you quotes, because their dishonesty will make you look foolish.

No 911 Commissioner said that it was set up fail, or at least not in the way you truthers try and claim they said it.

Lee Hamilton was talking initially about getting enough time and money. He said that that they needed more and they got more, but it took them a while to get it

Why do you trust people who quote people out of context?

for example WTC 7 early reporting.
Click to expand...

Ever time you say that I read.... "the firefighters are liars"
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
No I mean one's like Cole did. Prove where that sulfur came from. Should be problem, I mean you're both engineers, and you have more experience than him. Plus all the science is in your side right?
Click to expand...
Didn't the same scientist who first discovered the sulfidized steel for FEMA say in an email to Chris Mohr that, if he had to guess, it was likely caused by acid rain or something prosaic? I know you don't want to hear that, though.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
You act like they didn't look at pictures. I'm sure they did. I look at it and I see something strange. It only appears on one side. The fairings are on both. They weren't sure after their own analysis and asked the best source for clarification. They got a puzzling answer so they ran with it. Seems good to me.
Click to expand...

Let's see some proof that whatever you saw that you thought was strange was in anyway connected to a remote control device.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Never read looming tower.

9/11 commission was set up to fail, as a few members have said. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#cite_note-17

NIST report is best summed up by this exchange.

ABEL: ... what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?

NEWMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?

NEWMAN: If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time....

Most of the Gravy sites debunking has a plausible explanation (though in some cases that's stretching it) but just because something is plausible, doesn't mean it happened that way. For example WTC 7 early reporting. By in large the "debunking" is something like there was a lot of confusion, everyone knew it was going to come down, it was just a mistake. But if you look at it logically, it doesn't make a lot of sense. First it's hard to get something like that wrong, it either fell or it didn't. There was a report of 50 stories falling at 11:07 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_sNl7l6tOU. If everyone knew it was going to collapse, why was NIST initially stumped? Then it took 7 years to release anything. When they do the numbers are hidden.
Click to expand...

If there's no evidence of an explosion why look for explosives? No one has ever produced any evidence for damage unrelated to the aircraft being flown into the buildings as cause of the collapses.
 
Edx said:
Stop relying on truthers to give you quotes, because their dishonesty will make you look foolish.

No 911 Commissioner said that it was set up fail, or at least not in the way you truthers try and claim they said it.

Lee Hamilton was talking initially about getting enough time and money. He said that that they needed more and they got more, but it took them a while to get it

Why do you trust people who quote people out of context?



Ever time you say that I read.... "the firefighters are liars"
Click to expand...

If you noticed that link is wikipedia. Hardly a "truther" website.

Next I'm not sure why you say that about fire fighters in building 7. You are aware there's a whole group called firefighters for 9/11 truth right?

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
 
tmd2_1 said:
If you noticed that link is wikipedia. Hardly a "truther" website.
Click to expand...

Please, do yourself a favour and pay attention. Its certainly true that this forum is hostile to truthers and any truthers coming here is going to get a beating, but you don't make it easy on yourself intentionally acting like a stubborn idiot with a learning difficulty just to piss everyone off.

No one says he didn't say those words, only that he didn't mean what truthers claim he meant.

As I said before, Lee Hamilton was talking initially about getting enough time and money. He said that that they needed more and they got more, but it took them a while to get it

Next I'm not sure why you say that about fire fighters in building 7. You are aware there's a whole group called firefighters for 9/11 truth right?

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
Click to expand...

How many of them in that group are NYC firefighters that were there on 911? What percentage of firefighters is there compared to the rest in the US, or the World?

Once again, please pay attention:

We have dozens and dozens and dozens of firefighters that were there on 911 that have spoken about WTC7 and they report Building 7 had huge unfought fires, major damage to its south face, that it was leaning, creaking, bulging, groaning and things were cracking and falling and they say that they all knew it would going to collapse hours before it did.


THERE IS A REASON NO TRUTHER WILL QUOTE A FIREFIGHTER ON 911 ABOUT BUILDING 7.


Quite importantly, there have been no dissenting opinions expressed by any firefighters to these facts in nearly 10 years. Absolutely no 911 firefighters have ever said there were small fires, that the damage wasn't that bad, that they disagreed with the decisions made about the buildings state from their higherups or that they disagreed that the building would probably collapse.

Therefore if you continue to claim that "prior knowledge" of WTC7's collapse proves the BBC must be in on it then you just implicated the FDNY firefighters in a massive coverup to suppress the "truth" of WTC7. There is no other explanation for it.

This is what i explained before, like with Boeing which you initially claimed had nothing to do with the conspiracy a few pages later and you had managed to implicate them in covering up a "pod" on the underside of the planes. You so casucally implicate hundreds, thousands and even tens of thousands and more people you don't even realise you do it. You still don't know just how ridiculous it is to rationalise away how insignificant and fringe your little group is in the scientific and engineering community without making everyone else idiots or in on it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom