Anyone seen this used to prove CD?

[twinstead]

I think that is a good question, who on earth would think about a CD that day. Of course if the experts that day think it was due to fire that is a temporarily theory. If we then go to the later FEMA report we see that it is incomplete and does not give an explanation. Now NIST is still working on it. What is the value of the first impression of deeply shocked people then who have to do it with half-baked and incomplete information that day ?

You have a low opinion of experts. So you don't think it's possible for professionals to think rationally in a crisis? You carefully craft an image of these experts running around gnashing their teeth and reporting all sorts of things that weren't true.

Why?

 

[Belz...]

I think that is a good question, who on earth would think about a CD that day. Of course if the experts that day think it was due to fire that is a temporarily theory. If we then go to the later FEMA report we see that it is incomplete and does not give an explanation. Now NIST is still working on it. What is the value of the first impression of deeply shocked people then who have to do it with half-baked and incomplete information that day ?

Irrelevant.

 

[einsteen]

DD was indeed negative and a little bit insulting, but I liked it of course as a CT'er

Seismic analysis, you mean that no explosive peaks etc appeared ? Of course I believe them

 

[einsteen]

Wrong, because on the other hand there were also highly skilled experts who thought about bombs in the twin towers and they rejected that a few days later. btw. it depends on the kind of experts, crisis experts (I don't know the English word but I mean people that have to keep their head cool) are in general no structural engineers and vice versa

 

[ref]

I think that is a good question, who on earth would think about a CD that day. Of course if the experts that day think it was due to fire that is a temporarily theory. If we then go to the later FEMA report we see that it is incomplete and does not give an explanation. Now NIST is still working on it. What is the value of the first impression of deeply shocked people then who have to do it with half-baked and incomplete information that day ?

But don't you think, that even on that day these experts would pick up the signs of a demolition, for example the sounds of the demolition charges? That is their profession after all.

 

[twinstead]

Wrong, because on the other hand there were also highly skilled experts who thought about bombs in the twin towers and they rejected that a few days later. btw. it depends on the kind of experts, crisis experts are in general no structural engineers and vice versa

Because after consideration, there was no evidence of bombs. Any skilled expert in building collapses would know that there are many things that sound like bombs in a situation like that.

But, none of these highly-skilled experts at the scene who reported the building ready to fail 'rejected that a few days later' and decided it had to be CD.

Also, other highly-skilled experts later studied the same collapse and AGAIN came to the conclusion that CD was not involved.

 

[Spins]

When DD was asked these two questions...

Welcome, DD.

Is there anything about the collapses of the 3 buildings that indicates to you, the usage of RDX or HMX as initiators of the events?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2316604#post2316604

so, in your experience as a Controlled Demolitionist, you can say without a doubt that Thermite (or any derivative) is never used in CD?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2316606#post2316606

...he replied...

No, nothing indicates to me that RDX or HMX initiated the collapse. The only thing you see when a shaped charge initiates in a building demolition are small flashes of fire.
I can only speak from my own expperience and that is the only time I have ever used thermite was to cut through heavily reinforced concrete (a bank vault) and to modify the legs of a blast furnace to accomodate the placing of shaped charges. Both were slow laborious processes. It's really nasty work. If the gases don't get you the red hot pieces of molten concrete usually do.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2316640#post2316640

...is he correct in your opinion? It's particularly interesting how DD describes using thermite, and Dr. Steven Jones would have us believe thermite was applied and initiated simultaneously on hundreds of columns in 3 buildings totally undetected and under such extreme conditions.

 

[einsteen]

Thanks Spins, haven't seen that.

 

[Miragememories]

Why do you choose not to belive the experts on the scene and the implosionworld PDF Gumboot linked, but instead choose to believe your countryman who was never there and is alone with his opinions?

"...alone with his opinions?"

Please don't make statements of fact that are clearly cannot be substantiated as such.

MM

 

[ref]

"...alone with his opinions?"

Please don't make statements of fact that are clearly cannot be substantiated as such.

MM

I didn't mean you followers. I meant demolition experts.

 

[Miragememories]

You have a low opinion of experts. So you don't think it's possible for professionals to think rationally in a crisis? You carefully craft an image of these experts running around gnashing their teeth and reporting all sorts of things that weren't true.

Why?

At what point does a labeled expert qualify as an expert?

Does a diploma make you an expert?

Colleges and universities graduate engineering 'experts' by the thousands every year and companies swallow them up. Certainly the cream of this group will indeed eventually deserve the status of a proven expert. Many will not rise beyond basic competency, many will be mediocre and of course some will be poor. Backed by engineering diplomas, few will doubt the expertise they feel these diplomas entitle them to.

Are there no incompetent experts?

Do companies not hire 'experts' to reinforce legal positions (tobacco companies, oil companies etc.) while those challenging those positions hire their own experts to take an opposing position?

This whole our experts are better and outnumber your experts kind of reasoning borders on the absurd at times.

The only experts with real currency, are those with not only the relevant academic and practical credentials, but those with proven integrity.

I'll give far more currency to a well educated, solid thinking, expert with known intellectual integrity in a non-related field, than an expert directly related to the field in question whose integrity is a question mark.

Dr. Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin are two men that I feel have great integrity. Because neither are structural engineers, and in David Ray Griffin's case, he suffers the extra prejudice imposed by skeptics due to his religious associations, skeptics refuse to acknowledge that in spite of; proven academic accomplishments, many years of accumulated experience, acquired wisdom, extensive research and balanced judgment, individuals such as these men are quite qualified to make valuable comment, especially after having prepared themselves for the aspects of the 9/11 subjects they are addressing.

MM

 

[Beleth]

It's been more than a month so I guess it's time to re-post this.

A statement of the form:

• "Controlled demolitions look like this.
• The WTC collapses look like this.
• Therefore the WTS collapses were a controlled demoition."

is a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent". Its general form is:

• If P, then Q.
• Q.
• Therefore P.

An example of how it is a fallacy is this statement:

• Cats have four legs. (i.e. "If it's a cat, it has four legs.")
• This table has four legs.
• Therefore this table is a cat.

It isn't enough to show that the WTC collapses looked like CDs. It has to be shown that they didn't look like un-controlled demolitions.

 

[ref]

Dr. Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin are two men that I feel have great integrity. Because neither are structural engineers, and in David Ray Griffin's case, he suffers the extra prejudice imposed by skeptics due to his religious associations, skeptics refuse to acknowledge that in spite of; proven academic accomplishments, many years of accumulated experience, acquired wisdom, extensive research and balanced judgment, individuals such as these men are quite qualified to make valuable comment, especially after having prepared themselves for the aspects of the 9/11 subjects they are addressing.

MM

And yet, Griffin states there were no airphones on flight 77. Only to be later corrected by a fellow truther after we had also proven that there were airphones. He hadn't even researched that himself. He had taken the word of another person for it. Does that make a person a well prepared researcher?

 

[JimBenArm]

At what point does a labeled expert qualify as an expert?

Does a diploma make you an expert?

Colleges and universities graduate engineering 'experts' by the thousands every year and companies swallow them up. Certainly the cream of this group will indeed eventually deserve the status of a proven expert. Many will not rise beyond basic competency, many will be mediocre and of course some will be poor. Backed by engineering diplomas, few will doubt the expertise they feel these diplomas entitle them to.

Are there no incompetent experts?

Do companies not hire 'experts' to reinforce legal positions (tobacco companies, oil companies etc.) while those challenging those positions hire their own experts to take an opposing position?

This whole our experts are better and outnumber your experts kind of reasoning borders on the absurd at times.

The only experts with real currency, are those with not only the relevant academic and practical credentials, but those with proven integrity.

I'll give far more currency to a well educated, solid thinking, expert with known intellectual integrity in a non-related field, than an expert directly related to the field in question whose integrity is a question mark.

Dr. Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin are two men that I feel have great integrity. Because neither are structural engineers, and in David Ray Griffin's case, he suffers the extra prejudice imposed by skeptics due to his religious associations, skeptics refuse to acknowledge that in spite of; proven academic accomplishments, many years of accumulated experience, acquired wisdom, extensive research and balanced judgment, individuals such as these men are quite qualified to make valuable comment, especially after having prepared themselves for the aspects of the 9/11 subjects they are addressing.

MM

"Well, sure, you have experts in the field, but I have experts with no relevent expertise or training, but they're really swell guys I like to party with, so I choose to believe them. Besides, some corporations with vested interests fudged data at some time in the past, so now the truth is subjective, and anyway you guys are just big meanies!"
Or words to that effect.

 

[Spins]

Dr. Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin are two men that I feel have great integrity. Because neither are structural engineers, and in David Ray Griffin's case, he suffers the extra prejudice imposed by skeptics due to his religious associations, skeptics refuse to acknowledge that in spite of; proven academic accomplishments, many years of accumulated experience, acquired wisdom, extensive research and balanced judgment, individuals such as these men are quite qualified to make valuable comment, especially after having prepared themselves for the aspects of the 9/11 subjects they are addressing.

Dr. Steven Jones's research is flawed and has not been properly peer reviewed by the academic community and Ray 'still stuck in a 2002 9/11 CT time warp' Griffin's research skills are poor to say the least!

 

[twinstead]

Dr. Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin are two men that I feel have great integrity. Because neither are structural engineers, and in David Ray Griffin's case, he suffers the extra prejudice imposed by skeptics due to his religious associations, skeptics refuse to acknowledge that in spite of; proven academic accomplishments, many years of accumulated experience, acquired wisdom, extensive research and balanced judgment, individuals such as these men are quite qualified to make valuable comment, especially after having prepared themselves for the aspects of the 9/11 subjects they are addressing.
MM

You are no different than what you accuse us of. I theorize that the biggest reason you support Jones and Griffin is simply that you agree with them. IMO, their evidence has been discredited, and it has been shown that neither of them can answer the hard questions that REAL experts in the fields they are commenting on have about their theories.

Perhaps you see it differently. So, who then should we both rely on to double check Jones and Griffin's work? In other words, how do YOU personally decide if they are on to something, or if they are spouting nonsense? You, like I, are certainly not an expert in the relevant fields.

 

[D'rok]

It's been more than a month so I guess it's time to re-post this.

A statement of the form:

• "Controlled demolitions look like this.
• The WTC collapses look like this.
• Therefore the WTS collapses were a controlled demoition."

is a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent". Its general form is:

• If P, then Q.
• Q.
• Therefore P.

An example of how it is a fallacy is this statement:

• Cats have four legs. (i.e. "If it's a cat, it has four legs.")
• This table has four legs.
• Therefore this table is a cat.

It isn't enough to show that the WTC collapses looked like CDs. It has to be shown that they didn't look like un-controlled demolitions.

This is true but incomplete. There is a certain amount of Affirming the Consequent in the scientific method as well. Something like this:

If H (hypothesis) then C (predicted consequences).
C (observed consequences).
Therefore H.

All this really means is that hypotheses require a preponderance of independently verified evidence evaluated by relevant experts before they are accepted. This is where CT's go off the rails. The difference is that the official hypothesis that plane and fire damage was enough to bring down the buildings has been massively confirmed by evidence. Not so for the loons and their alternate hypotheses.


ETA: Also, the official hypothesis has been confirmed by the dis-confirmation of the alternate hypotheses. Go go gadget debunkers.

 

[Beleth]

This is true but incomplete. There is a certain amount of Affirming the Consequent in the scientific method as well. Something like this:

If H (hypothesis) then C (predicted consequences).
C (observed consequences).
Therefore H.

All this really means is that hypotheses require a preponderance of independently verified evidence evaluated by relevant experts before they are accepted.

Not exactly. As I alluded to in the last sentence, if you can phrase it in a "not-" form:

If not-H, then not-C.
C.
Therefore H.

... then there's no fallacy. And that's what scientists strive for.

In some sciences (medicine), you're right; the best one can do is a preponderance of evidence. But in the case of simpler physics such as are involved in building demolition, one can do better.

 

[D'rok]

Not exactly. As I alluded to in the last sentence, if you can phrase it in a "not-" form:

If not-H, then not-C.
C.
Therefore H.

Actually, your conclusion should be not-not-H. But I'm just being a pedantic jackass. I agree that this is a requirement in the case of most scientific hypotheses. The point I was trying to make is that CT's are committing a logical fallacy that is allowed if they would just follow it up with evidence and authoritative dis-confirmation of competing hypotheses.

 

[rwguinn]

When will all you people--twoofers and "critical thinkers" get it through your heads:
There is absolutely nothing magical or unique about Controlled Demolition as opposed to accidental demolition by structural collapse!!!!!
(5 exclamation points--it must be true, and is written by a madman)
The entire purpose of CD is to damage the structure sufficiently for the structure's Potential Energy (Energy due to position) to be converted to Kinetic energy (due to motion), by allowing gravity to do its work.
The "C" refers to control. Controlled means you decide when, and with a bit of calculation and experience, where. Conventional CD does the control with explosives.
They could do it with hacksaws, hammers and chisels, crashing fully-laden airliners into them, or other means, but explosives are the safest.