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

TJM · Aug 30, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
One last, and this is the last attempt.

triforcharity · Aug 30, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
One last, and this is the last attempt. Let's go back to the beginning you said this question "Why, if they are the ones covering everything up, were independent experts from SEAoNY, ASCE and Dr Astaneh-Asl allowed on the site at all?" Was not answered by me.

To which I replied.
"They were certainly denied documents. http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...ee_charter.htm...."

Ok. Denied documents. Point?

tmd2_1 said:
The whole line of discussion had nothing to do with BPAT.

Then I tried to explain it here it all is again.

Point?

tmd2_1 said:
The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns

Yes, agreed.

tmd2_1 said:
and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access – to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns."

Yes, agreed, as I have ALREADY SAID.

tmd2_1 said:
Let me try Boolean logic with you. The AND would mean both statements have to evaluate to true for the whole statement to be true. Meaning both the independent investigators were prevented AND BPAT was delayed. They both happened, two different events.

What part of "I agree with you" do you not understand?

tmd2_1 said:
Please tell me you understand now? If you don't there's really not much more I can do.

Do you understand "I agree with you"? Are there too many word in the sentence for you? Is there a word you don't understand in that sentence that I can clarify for you?

tmd2_1 said:
I do, you can clearly see Cole melts steel with only a few pounds, and Nat Geo couldn't do it with 175 pounds. What would you go with?

Not using thermite to bring down a building. But hey, that's just me.

tmd2_1 said:
As far as spray painting thermite, I have not looked into it, and do not think it matters. I'm saying based on history of shows like that I would be wary. But that's your decision.

I think I'll go with "you don't understand my point, and you shifted the goalposts".

tmd2_1 said:
This brings us back to the original question. What was planned (as I see it he could only be talking about a downed lightpole, and hole in his winshield), and who came on the highway with lloyde? They were talking about a "world" event.

How do you know? Have you seen the raw footage that CIT promised to release, but never did?

Imagine that. You're putting your trust/faith in LIARS again.

Are you ok with putting your trust in liars?

Sunstealer · Aug 30, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
I do, you can clearly see Cole melts steel with only a few pounds, and Nat Geo couldn't do it with 175 pounds. What would you go with?

How many grams or kilograms of steel did Cole melt? Did he measure the effect of his device? You do realise that the calculations for how much thermite is required to melt steel from a thermodynamic and chemical pov has been calculated? You do realise that this was actually done by a truther and the math and assumptions are correct? Do you know the results?

tmd2_1 said:
As far as spray painting thermite, I have not looked into it, and do not think it matters. I'm saying based on history of shows like that I would be wary. But that's your decision.

Of course it matters. Harrit and Jones claim to have found it in the dust. Their "samples" are only 20µm thick. There were no great big chunks of unreacted material found. How is a layer 20µm thick going to destroy an inch of steel? It can't and calculations by Dr Greening have shown that. So it does matter.

In order for you to claim thermite demolition you must first make an effort to calculate how much was needed and how it was applied. No truther to date has ever done so. They won't make the effort.

tfk · Aug 30, 2011

tmd,

tmd2_1 said:
This is probably the longest appeal to authority I have ever seen. Try addressing what is in the article.

Surely you're joking, right..

This is an an appeal that you should listen to people with the proper background, expertise & proven track record of knowing what they are talking about, rather than some wet-behind-the-ears, clueless teenager.

Please explain to me what you find inappropriate about that.

Please tell me why this is your ONLY comment about the difference between their backgrounds, and the weight that their opinion should carry.

It ain't an "appeal to authority logical failure" if the guy is a real authority (he is), and the opinion isn't contrary to the consensus of experts in the same field (it ain't).

You think that it's appropriate to ask the plumber about brain surgery?

tmd2_1 said:
That article wasn't a "science" paper at least in a classical type of way. It is more of a newspaper article.

Who cares about the format?

Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

This kid hasn't the slightest clue what he is talking about. The only good thing that one can say about his nonsense is that it is expressed is acceptable English for a change.

tmd2_1 said:
He cites other steel frame collapses, and the known structural problems with them. What is so wrong with that?

What is wrong is exactly what I've told you repeatedly is wrong: he hasn't the slightest clue what he is talking about. Neither do ANY of his "cited experts". Every single paragraph, almost every sentence, is one example of "wrong" after another.

Adam Taylor said:
Of course, this argument obviously must take other factors into consideration, including the construction of other buildings and the behavior of the fires themselves. However, these factors have already been examined and dealt with accordingly [3].

Let's see who he cites as proof that "these factors have already been examined and dealt with accordingly", shall we.

From the reference section:
[3] Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings, http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/08/debunking-joseph-nobles-other-buildings.html

Another "article" from a truther website, written by …

… Adam Taylor.

Note that Mr. Taylor attempts to hide the circularity of his nonsense by not including himself as the author of that article in the citation.

In the next paragraph, he claims:

Adam Taylor said:
Jim Hoffman has examined the partial collapse of the Windsor Tower [4], and notes that all this incident proves is ...

Wikipedia said:
... was a firefighter in New York City for 42 years, rising in rank to Commander of Division 3 (Midtown Manhattan). A contributing editor to Firehouse Magazine, he is the author of four books on firefighting. Two were written prior to his 1999 retirement from New York City Fire Department: 1988 - "Collapse of Burning Buildings: A Guide to Fireground Safety"; 1992 - "Safety and Survival on the Fireground". Two were written after retirement: 2000 - "Command and Control of Fires and Emergencies"; 2007 - "Strategy of Firefighting".

Dunn is a nationally recognized expert on high-rise firefighting, rescue, and building collapse. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency within the United States Department of Commerce, selected him to serve as a consultant in its investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center. [3]

[Image that. NIST actually selected an expert and used him in the field of his expertise. What a concept.]

Vincent Dunn said:
When buildings are constructed beyond the reach of a fire department's highest ladder, two important firefighting strategies are taken away from firefighters. First, life-saving victim removals using ladders are eliminated. Searches and rescues can be accomplished only from inside stairways. People trapped at windows, when flames are between them and a stairway will have to jump or bum to death. The second firefighting strategy a high-rise building takes away in many cases is the ability to extinguish a fire with an outside master stream. The only strategy for a high-rise fire beyond the reach of an aerial ladder is an interior attack. Firefighters must extinguish the fire using handheld hose streams advanced through heat and smoke from an inside stairway. If this method fails, there is no alternate plan. An outside attack is not an option.

FIREFIGHTING EXTINGUISHMENT

The best-kept secret in America's fire service is that firefighters cannot extinguish a fire in a 20- or 30-thousand-square-foot open floor area in a high-rise building. A fire company advancing a 2 1/2-inch hoseline with a I 1/4-inch nozzle discharges only 300 gallons per minute and can extinguish only about 2,500 square feet of fire. The reach of the streams is only 50 feet. A modern open-floor office design, with cubicle work stations and dwarf partitions that do not extend to the ceiling, allows fire to spread throughout an entire 100- x 200-foot floor area. A fully involved, free burning 20,000-square-foot floor area cannot be extinguished by a couple of firefighters spraying a hose stream from a stairway. City managers and department chiefs will not admit this to the public if they want to keep their jobs. But every fireground commander knows this is a fact. What really happens at a serious high-rise fire involving an entire floor or more of the building is what we call "controlled burning." Firefighters operating the hose stream maintain a defensive position in the stairway for as long as it takes for all the combustible contents to be consumed by flames. To successfully contain a high-rise fire to one floor and not kill large numbers of occupants attempting to escape, it takes 40 to 50 firefighters using a rapid-response, blitz attack. If this fails, it will take another 100 to 200 additional firefighters to control the fire and keep it from spreading to adjoining buildings. If a community does not have such a large number of firefighters available, then every high-rise building must be fully protected with an automatic sprinkler system.
…

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION.

Most high-rise buildings are classified as "fire-resistive" structures, but from an operational perspective, they are not. The goal of a fire-resistive building should be to confine fire to one floor, barring an explosion or collapse that would destroy part of the compartmentation. The walls, floors, and ceilings of a fire-resistive building are supposed to contain the fire. This is not true today. There is no fire-resistive building.

Paints a different picture than "fire can't hurt high rises", don't it?

Well, that's what a little expertise will do for ya, tmd.

Tell me again, the weight of the teenager's opinion versus Mr. Dunn's ...

dafydd · Aug 30, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
This is probably the longest appeal to authority I have ever seen. Try addressing what is in the article.

That article wasn't a "science" paper at least in a classical type of way. It is more of a newspaper article. He cites other steel frame collapses, and the known structural problems with them. What is so wrong with that?

What do you know about science? Where and for how long did you study the subject? Or haven't you got as far as joined-up writing yet?

sheeplesnshills · Aug 30, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
I'm not suggesting it. Lloyde is. Ask him.

A stranger helped him remove the pole, thats all. Something I showed below would have been easy to do as the poles are not that heavy (they are aluminium not steel)

Some think the silence of the stranger was strange.......but I think its likely that Lloyd was simply temporarily deafened by the planes passing , the impact and perhaps shock (he had missed death by inches and just watched an airliner crash close by)

sheeplesnshills · Aug 30, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
One last, and this is the last attempt.

Please, please, dog make it so......you are surely the densest twoofer since Jammo (you're not Jammo are you????)

This brings us back to the original question. What was planned

The events of 911? he is talking many years after it happened.

(as I see it he could only be talking about a downed lightpole, and hole in his winshield),

why? 4 airliner crashed and 3000 people were killed. why do you think he is still talking about trivial details?

and who came on the highway with lloyde?

why could it matter who helped him remove the pole? I would have if I had been there.....so would anyone.

They were talking about a "world" event.

no kidding! what do you think 911 was??????

tfk · Aug 30, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
I'm not suggesting it. Lloyde is. Ask him.

Please don't lie to me, kid.

Yes you ARE suggesting it. You've suggested it repeatedly. Now you are, in a cowardly fashion, denying that you've suggested it.

You suggested it, explicitly, in the post to which I replied:

tmd2_1 said:
If what Lloyde England said is true, meaning whoever it was came on the highway with him Helped knock down the lightpole, and make the hole in his car. Because that's all he could have meant by what was planned. If that is true, the whole official story is false. Simple as that.

You've not only suggested it, you added your own unique interpretations (in bold) into the mix.

jaydeehess · Aug 30, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
This is probably the longest appeal to authority I have ever seen. Try addressing what is in the article.

That article wasn't a "science" paper at least in a classical type of way. It is more of a newspaper article. He cites other steel frame collapses, and the known structural problems with them. What is so wrong with that?

Really? What's wrong with this guy's article compared to one done by someone with demonstrated authority in the specific field in question?

Yes, its an appeal to authority but you still do not seem to understand when such is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy when the authority appealed to cannot be shown to be a legitimate authority. Your Poli-sci student cannot be shown to be a legitimate authority, Bazant can and thus we must defer to the legitimate authority.

Try again tmd.

jaydeehess · Aug 30, 2011

post number 1831

"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.

WildCat · Aug 30, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
If what Lloyde England said is true, meaning whoever it was came on the highway with him Helped knock down the lightpole, and make the hole in his car. Because that's all he could have meant by what was planned. If that is true, the whole official story is false. Simple as that.

England never said he was a co-conspirator. That's a wildly wrong way to interpret what he said. Not only can you not read with comprehension, you cannot even listen with comprehension. In fact, you appear to have no ability whatsoever to comprehend anything in any form. Not even the HD slide show which showed beyond any doubt whatsoever that the nose of the plane strikes before the flash is seen.

Something is wrong with the way your brain processes information, beyond reasonable doubt.

WildCat · Aug 30, 2011

tfk said:
"Hmmmm, who to believe on the issue of structural collapse ...??

or

...???

That was pure awesomeness. And he's got 1500 more where Taylor came from!

WildCat · Aug 31, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
This is probably the longest appeal to authority I have ever seen. Try addressing what is in the article.

That was all addressed by page 2 of this thread. The rest has been you ignoring the overwhelming expert opinion (published in peer-reviewed science and engineering journals) as well as handwaving away all the evidence that falsifies your claims.

Edx · Aug 31, 2011

WildCat said:
England never said he was a co-conspirator. That's a wildly wrong way to interpret what he said. Not only can you not read with comprehension, you cannot even listen with comprehension. In fact, you appear to have no ability whatsoever to comprehend anything in any form. Not even the HD slide show which showed beyond any doubt whatsoever that the nose of the plane strikes before the flash is seen.

Something is wrong with the way your brain processes information, beyond reasonable doubt.

As I have a few moments I really wanted to add that Lloyd is a conspiracy theorist.

CIT even had him on camera with a David Icke book and he said he and some friends have discussions about conspiracy theories. Of course he is going to think conspiracies are going on and so why he may even say things that sound odd, only thing is he is too old and senile to realise he is being claimed to have been involved personally with 911 but these CIT fools interviewing him. Bless his cotten socks.

tmd2_1 · Aug 31, 2011

tfk said:
tmd,

Surely you're joking, right..

This is an an appeal that you should listen to people with the proper background, expertise & proven track record of knowing what they are talking about, rather than some wet-behind-the-ears, clueless teenager.

Please explain to me what you find inappropriate about that.

Please tell me why this is your ONLY comment about the difference between their backgrounds, and the weight that their opinion should carry.

It ain't an "appeal to authority logical failure" if the guy is a real authority (he is), and the opinion isn't contrary to the consensus of experts in the same field (it ain't).

You think that it's appropriate to ask the plumber about brain surgery?

Who cares about the format?

Right is right. Wrong is wrong.

This kid hasn't the slightest clue what he is talking about. The only good thing that one can say about his nonsense is that it is expressed is acceptable English for a change.

What is wrong is exactly what I've told you repeatedly is wrong: he hasn't the slightest clue what he is talking about. Neither do ANY of his "cited experts". Every single paragraph, almost every sentence, is one example of "wrong" after another.

Let's see who he cites as proof that "these factors have already been examined and dealt with accordingly", shall we.

From the reference section:
[3] Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings, http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/08/debunking-joseph-nobles-other-buildings.html

Another "article" from a truther website, written by …

… Adam Taylor.

Note that Mr. Taylor attempts to hide the circularity of his nonsense by not including himself as the author of that article in the citation.

In the next paragraph, he claims:

Have you bothered to look up the credentials of Jim Hoffman? His field is video simulation. He don't know squat about structural analysis.

Another friggin' amateur.

Here's the complete list of Mr. Taylor's citations:

References:

[1] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KKc5vqGHDA

[3] http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/08/debunking-joseph-nobles-other-buildings.html

[4] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

[5] http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/mccormick.html

[6] http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

[7] http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.html

[8] http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/big_fires1.html

[9] http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-9index.htm

[10] http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory_fire

[12] http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/
structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/Other/default.htm

[13] http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/010507ludicrousfreeway.htm

[14] http://stopthelie.com/freeway_collapse.html

[15] http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6987/cr6987.pdf

[16] http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/
index.html#exaggeration

[17] http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/fema_wtc/
fema403_ch4.pdf

[18] http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

[19] http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

[20] http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Falsifiability.pdf

[21] http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/NIST_WTC7.html

[22] http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/GreeningComments
NCSTAR1-9.pdf

[23] http://www.opednews.com/Diary/NIST-fraud--WTC-7-Shear-S-by-Chris-Sarns-081109-134.html

[24] http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-135.pdf

[25] www.brandweerkennisnet.nl/publish/pages/3777/sfpe_lund_conference
_paper_final_meacham.pdf

[26] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NrASZxGu_o#t=2m41s

[27] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2buiDg7mrE

[28] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcEm9wLR3N0

[29] http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/VisualizationAidsWTCTowers.pdf

[30] http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/FentonWTCInitiationFloors.pdf

[31] http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

[32] http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf

[33] http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#altering

[34] http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_jom/eagar_0112.html

[35] NIST Final Report, page xxxviii

[36] http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

[37] http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html#FireInitiatedCollapse
___

Get the picture yet?

One troofer website citation after another.

"The incompetent leading the clueless."
___

BTW, iklim (ref 7 & 8) is a Turkish HVAC company. But their information seems pretty good, on first read.

[ETA: On further digging, this is actually an often quoted comment (unattributed) by Vincent Dunn, who (according to Wikipedia)

[Image that. NIST actually selected an expert and used him in the field of his expertise. What a concept.]

Paints a different picture than "fire can't hurt high rises", don't it?

Well, that's what a little expertise will do for ya, tmd.

Tell me again, the weight of the teenager's opinion versus Mr. Dunn's ...

So you're saying the NIST report is a "twoofer" website? Good to know. Anyway you go on and on, I'm not sure what you think is wrong with the article. He simply gives examples of steel frame collapses, cites what was wrong with them and compares them to the WTC He wasn't really doing much analysis. I'm not sure what the problem is. But you go on believing what you want to believe.

tmd2_1 · Aug 31, 2011

tfk said:
Please don't lie to me, kid.

Yes you ARE suggesting it. You've suggested it repeatedly. Now you are, in a cowardly fashion, denying that you've suggested it.

You suggested it, explicitly, in the post to which I replied:

You've not only suggested it, you added your own unique interpretations (in bold) into the mix.

Sure he was. There is nothing else he could have meant. They were talking about a "world" event. They came on the highway together, and it was planned, what else could they be referring to? So you want to say I'm suggesting it fine....that is the reason why. Because I know of nothing else Lloyde could be talking about.

tmd2_1 · Aug 31, 2011

jaydeehess said:
Really? What's wrong with this guy's article compared to one done by someone with demonstrated authority in the specific field in question?

Yes, its an appeal to authority but you still do not seem to understand when such is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy when the authority appealed to cannot be shown to be a legitimate authority. Your Poli-sci student cannot be shown to be a legitimate authority, Bazant can and thus we must defer to the legitimate authority.

Try again tmd.

As I said he really is writing more of a newspaper article. Saying other steel frame collapses happened, when there appeared to be something wrong with the building, and comparing it to the WTC I don't know what's wrong with that.

tmd2_1 · Aug 31, 2011

Sunstealer said:
How many grams or kilograms of steel did Cole melt? Did he measure the effect of his device? You do realise that the calculations for how much thermite is required to melt steel from a thermodynamic and chemical pov has been calculated? You do realise that this was actually done by a truther and the math and assumptions are correct? Do you know the results?

Of course it matters. Harrit and Jones claim to have found it in the dust. Their "samples" are only 20µm thick. There were no great big chunks of unreacted material found. How is a layer 20µm thick going to destroy an inch of steel? It can't and calculations by Dr Greening have shown that. So it does matter.

In order for you to claim thermite demolition you must first make an effort to calculate how much was needed and how it was applied. No truther to date has ever done so. They won't make the effort.

Thermite matters, I just don't think whether it could be painted on or not really matters.

beachnut · Aug 31, 2011

tmd2_1 said:
Sure he was. There is nothing else he could have meant. They were talking about a "world" event. They came on the highway together, and it was planned, what else could they be referring to? So you want to say I'm suggesting it fine....that is the reason why. Because I know of nothing else Lloyde could be talking about.

Have you found those alive terrorists yet? No? What is wrong with your claims? They are all nonsense. Good luck with Lloyde, you don't do physics so you have no clue how a breakaway lamppost can land in a car after being hit by a 757 near the ground. Is this all you have? Nonsense?

The stock trading is another silly claim you posted. Better ask Martha Stewart about trading stocks when it is not legal, or tied to illegal activity and why she went to jail. Why are you easily fooled by lies made up out of ignorance by 911 truth?

You failed to provide evidence for any of your claims (I don't think you understand that fact). What will you do now?

tmd2_1 · Aug 31, 2011

triforcharity said:
I've already briefly gone through and shown whats wrong with it.

Perhaps you'll address it now?

Dogwood theater you forgot to mention this

"Dogwood Elementary School, as well as other schools of similar construction in Fairfax County, was not subject to current code regulations since it was built in 1974."

Sight and Sound theater: How would "The building was under construction and fire doors were not yet installed, allowing the fires to pass through these openings freely" possibly apply to building 7?

Building 5 didn't completely collapse.

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

Potsing Whiled Runk

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

NWO Master Conspirator

NWO Master Conspirator

NWO Master Conspirator

Philosopher

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster