9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

RedIbis said:
Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.
Click to expand...

You dont say.....

People who are going through a traumatic event might EXAGGERATE? Really? They might make some misleading comments? Say it ain't so....

I wonder if some of these "people" might also use things like simile, hyperbole, or metaphor in addition to exaggeration while going through a traumatic event....

I just wonder....
 
RedIbis said:
Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...


And yet in a thread discussing the possiblity of the presence of explosives in the WTC buildings, you made the following statement after being told repeatedly that no one there explicitly stated they experienced explosives:
RedIbis said:
Now, this is just a shameless and transparent attempt to minimize any eyewitness account which might not support your side of the argument.
Click to expand...

So after hanging an entire argument on eyewitness testimony, you suddenly think its important to properly contextualize it.


RedIbis said:
People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.
Click to expand...

Which is a complete 180 from this statement:
RedIbis said:
Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.
Click to expand...

You said this when arguing that eyewitness testimony possibly supports a controlled demolition theory.

So Red, please explain why you hold a different standard for eyewitness testimony that might support your arguments from that which doesn't?

Because from where I'm sitting, you appear to be an intellectually dishonest hypocrite and a fraud.
 
RedIbis said:
Ok, first show me a photo of smoke pouring from every floor of WTC 7. Next explain how "severe structural damage" contributed to the collapse of the bldg. Be forewarned, NIST will not support your explanation.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
Sure, but according to NIST,the fire never burned out of control on more than six lower floors.

And even more importantly, NIST admits that the fires weren't extraordinarily hot, but the collapse occurs because floor-span systems thermally expanded at temps “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."

In short, WTC 7 was never the raging, completely involved inferno that has often been claimed here.
Click to expand...

RedIbis said:
Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

I don't fault them, but NIST simply does not agree with their assessment. The bldg was not fully involved, all 47 stories were not on fire.
Click to expand...

ahem...
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I try not to indulge false analogies, but as it appears your only defense left, I encourage you to read this interesting article about the Columbia shuttle disaster. Consider how the two events (WTC 7 collapse and subsequent investigation and the Columbia) are similar and how they are different and why you should abandon this as a tactic defending NIST's evidence bereft report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2004/jan/11/features.magazine67
Click to expand...


You have yet to explain why you are qualified to invalidate the computer simulations produced by people who are much smarter than you and who know much, much more. There is a clear disagreement here. One the one hand, real structural engineers, physicists, and fire safety experts rely on computer simulations. On the other, poorly educated, agenda-driven cranks argue that such simulations are worthless. What do the fools know that the experts don't?
 
RedIbis said:
Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

I don't fault them, but NIST simply does not agree with their assessment. The bldg was not fully involved, all 47 stories were not on fire.
Click to expand...

Firefighter's don't make it a habbit of lying under oath. Its called Ethics, dignity, honor, respect, and most of all, responsibility. We aren't going to lie when it comes to something like this. Nor anything else for that matter.

When we pull up to a building, it is typically considered "fully involved" if there are flame coming out of more than 10 windows on a certain floor. Or maybe even 5 windows over 2 floors. Whatever the case may be, you obviously have not the first clue of firefighting. Please stop pretending that you do.
 
Originally Posted by RedIbis
Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

So, they should have been seperating people from each other and taking statements that VERY day?? That seems kinda silly. And unreasonable to even expect that. We sat around while taking breaks and the only topics were:

Who's missing
What happened
When can we bomb the ever living (Rule12) out of them for doing this.


So, as you can tell, we spent many hours talking to each other about our experiences that day. So, are you sure that you waanna stick to your opinion???
 
FineWine said:
You have yet to explain why you are qualified to invalidate the computer simulations produced by people who are much smarter than you and who know much, much more. There is a clear disagreement here. One the one hand, real structural engineers, physicists, and fire safety experts rely on computer simulations. On the other, poorly educated, agenda-driven cranks argue that such simulations are worthless. What do the fools know that the experts don't?
Click to expand...


Great point. When I took some remiedial (sp?) classes on fire science, the simulators we used to learn more about the effects of fire were quite complex. I loved working with these systems. They are quite cool, and very accurate.

Now, would RedIbis like to explain how they know that unfought fire, in a steel framed building would be safe from collapse?? Even almost 15 years ago, when I went through fire school, we knew that fire + steel framed building= not safe, possible failure of building. Were we taught something that wasn't true???
 
triforcharity said:
Firefighter's don't make it a habbit of lying under oath. Its called Ethics, dignity, honor, respect, and most of all, responsibility. We aren't going to lie when it comes to something like this. Nor anything else for that matter.

When we pull up to a building, it is typically considered "fully involved" if there are flame coming out of more than 10 windows on a certain floor. Or maybe even 5 windows over 2 floors. Whatever the case may be, you obviously have not the first clue of firefighting. Please stop pretending that you do.
Click to expand...

I think your avatar should have an asterisk next to it.
 
Meaning???? You cannot refute what I have posted?? How much of that did you or did you not understand.

Too many big words for you??
 
triforcharity said:
Now, would RedIbis like to explain how they know that unfought fire, in a steel framed building would be safe from collapse?? Even almost 15 years ago, when I went through fire school, we knew that fire + steel framed building= not safe, possible failure of building. Were we taught something that wasn't true???
Click to expand...

Redibis is a bit of a mysterious guy... When he talked about the Columbia incident -- despite it being the first ever incident of a foam impact setting the seeds for a fatal atmosphere reentry he thought it possible by precedents which had before then never been fatal:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4244663#post4244663
Columbia - from a link on wikipedia: "Incidents of debris strikes from ice and foam causing damage during take-off were already well known, and had actually damaged orbiters, most noticeably during STS-45, STS-27, and STS-87.[21]"
Click to expand...

But god forbid if it's fire in a building... oh no... even though steel has been significantly damaged or failed in previous fires it's absolutely not possible for it to result in the complete collapse of a building. Even when he complains about thermal expansion which caused a bridge to collapse


Redibis ignores this sample of his hypocrisy and intentional distortion like the plague... like he does every other sample people spot...
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
In short, WTC 7 was never the raging, completely involved inferno that has often been claimed here.
Click to expand...



So the firefighters are in on it? I know you never want to be specific in saying they are lying, but you as essentially saying they are all lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom