If their case is so strong.....

Redtail said:
I know. It's just that they act as if the buildings caught on fire by some mysterious... fire breathing chipmunks.
Click to expand...

You were saying...?

firebreathing_chipmunk.jpg
 
T.A.M. said:
Yurebiz:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/CollapseoftheWorldTradeCenterTowersRev1.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/STRUCTURE/gene_corley.pdf

For starters. Not saying everything in all the papers is right, but we use a fair bit more than just NIST.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Most conspiracy thinking can be debunked by anyone who has a reasonable level of intelligence and the ability to think clearly.

When Godsend, for example, claims that WTC7 was an obvious controlled demolition because the building fell down, most people can see the flaws in his argument. They don't need to battle his "ideas" with detailed physical analysis because they don't require that level of investigation. That's where the vast majority of conspiracy thinking comes from. "This sorta looks like..." "No way could..." I just don't believe..."
 
Explain to me why hasn't congress bothered to assemble all the paperwork in a single report properly.
Explain to me why, instead, they give away a partial summary of what could be the official story.

Explain to me why you people choose to defend such story at all costs even though the main report released by the USG is admittedly biased.

If I could earn 1 cent for each circular argument I read in this forum, I'd be quite rich. Um. About a dozen dollars richer at least.

You agree with me the 9/11 Commission Report is flawed? Well, then why don't I see you people pushing for a new commission? No one at all.

All I see here is smearing the truth movement, while keeping yourselves in the high horse. Whenever it's time for accountability, or to consider alternative possibilities, you hide behind whatever disjunct report you consider to be the truth. Of course, because if specialists or an agency said so, it must be true.

Of course, since NORAD was wrong 3 times, their last timeline must be true.
Of course, Dick Cheney was proven wrong and contradicted himself, but he did his job alright.
Of course, After so many different explanations for the collapse of the towers, the NIST must be right, especially since they don't explain molten steel, nor the actual collapse, plus extrapolating temperature inputs in their computer simulations.
Of course, the 9/11 Commission omitted some things, but it's all irrelevant.
That's irrelevant, you say.
The 9/11 Commission report is irrelevant.
Ooooookey dokey.

I'm getting more and more disgusted of this.
 
gumboot said:
Yeah but consider when they say "high rise" they mean "skyscraper". And how many of those 7,300 fires were in buildings with 100% steel frames (no concrete) and were office buildings (from my understanding the vast majority of high-rise fires are apartment buildings).

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Okay, I've some information. It's not perfect because the report I found doesn't give the hard numbers, only percentages, but I think it will give us an idea.

The NFPA report (High Rise Building Fires, NFPA 8/05) has four classes of buildings they study: Apartments, Hotel/Motels, Hospitals and Offices (there are some structures that don't fall in these categories, obviously). The approximate numbers are below (I had to work backwards from the percentages):

USA 1999-2002 Fire Statistics

Total Fires (for the four classes)
Apartment = 31,900
Hotel/Motel = 3,300
Hospital = 2,200
Office = 1,700
Total = 39,100

High-Rise (7+ stories)
Apartment = ~2,770
Hotel = ~625
Hospital = ~515
Office = ~160
Total = 4000

Skyscraper (31+ stories)
Apartment = ~220
Hotel = ~45
Hospital = ~90
Office = ~25
Total = 380

FYI: The total number of fires for 1999-2002 is listed as 50,800 so there are approximately 11,700 fires in this period that do not fall in any of the four categories listed.


We can see from this that you were indeed correct - apartment fires make up the vast majority of both high rise and skyscraper fires (69% and 58% respectively).
 
Yurebiz said:
Explain to me why hasn't congress bothered to assemble all the paperwork in a single report properly.
Explain to me why, instead, they give away a partial summary of what could be the official story.

Explain to me why you people choose to defend such story at all costs even though the main report released by the USG is admittedly biased.

If I could earn 1 cent for each circular argument I read in this forum, I'd be quite rich. Um. About a dozen dollars richer at least.

You agree with me the 9/11 Commission Report is flawed? Well, then why don't I see you people pushing for a new commission? No one at all.

All I see here is smearing the truth movement, while keeping yourselves in the high horse. Whenever it's time for accountability, or to consider alternative possibilities, you hide behind whatever disjunct report you consider to be the truth. Of course, because if specialists or an agency said so, it must be true.

Of course, since NORAD was wrong 3 times, their last timeline must be true.
Of course, Dick Cheney was proven wrong and contradicted himself, but he did his job alright.
Of course, After so many different explanations for the collapse of the towers, the NIST must be right, especially since they don't explain molten steel, nor the actual collapse, plus extrapolating temperature inputs in their computer simulations.
Of course, the 9/11 Commission omitted some things, but it's all irrelevant.
That's irrelevant, you say.
The 9/11 Commission report is irrelevant.
Ooooookey dokey.

I'm getting more and more disgusted of this.
Click to expand...

1. The 9/11 Commission Report has errors in it. They are not Fundamental errors with regards to the events of that day. They are for the most part minor, technical errors of little relevence to the overall story of that day.

2. Please provide one example of a circular argument here, along with your explanation of why it is circular.

3. If you expect to get a perfect report, or even a near perfect one, from any source, the commission, a group of foreign investigators/scientists...you are sadly mistaken.

4. the truth movement deserves to be smeared and here is why.
(i)The movement refuses to clean up its own house, allowing insane, totally unreasonable theories and arguements to represent it to the public.
(ii) It accuses without evidence or fact, people, hundreds of them, of murdr, either directly through their actions, or indirectly through "covering up".
(iii) It does so without remorse, without compassion, hating the USG so much that it will do what ever it takes, at all costs, to spread the lies.

5. The timelines were CORRECTED on a number of occasions. In general, that is the way things work. You have a timeline, you correct anomoles or mistakes, and come up with a more accurate version.

6. Where was Dick Cheney PROVEN WRONG? If he did contradict himself, than he sits with the majority of human beings who do so in their lifetime.

7. I am not going to go over the NIST issue again. If you don't like it, stomp on the floor stick out your tongue, and whine some more.

8. The 9/11 commission did ommit many things, none of which are relevent to anyone but the paranoid truthers who think it was an "inside job". The answers you seek, I can assure you, will not please you, because they do not indicate an inside job.

Now, why don't you stop whining and complaining like a child and Shaite or get off the pot. If you feel you have enough evidence to make a case, go do something with it. We'll be here waiting to see.

You think you are sick of the way we get on...you have no idea of how sick I am, and we are, of the insane, evidenceless, factless, illogical speculations and lies the truth movement brings up, over and over again.

TAM:mad:
 
gumboot said:
Their theories are full of things like that, where they totally ignore huge gaping aspects of reality and present a cardboard cut out version, then present their claims against this fake backdrop.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's almost as if the CTs construct their own easy-to-defeat version of their nemesis, the official version, then rip that up and think they've accomplished something. Almost like making your own dummy out of something flimsy, say, straw, then claiming victory when you rip that "straw man" apart. Maybe we should even name this logical fallacy!
 
T.A.M. said:
1. The 9/11 Commission Report has errors in it. They are not Fundamental errors with regards to the events of that day. They are for the most part minor, technical errors of little relevence to the overall story of that day.

2. Please provide one example of a circular argument here, along with your explanation of why it is circular.

3. If you expect to get a perfect report, or even a near perfect one, from any source, the commission, a group of foreign investigators/scientists...you are sadly mistaken.

4. the truth movement deserves to be smeared and here is why.
(i)The movement refuses to clean up its own house, allowing insane, totally unreasonable theories and arguements to represent it to the public.
(ii) It accuses without evidence or fact, people, hundreds of them, of murdr, either directly through their actions, or indirectly through "covering up".
(iii) It does so without remorse, without compassion, hating the USG so much that it will do what ever it takes, at all costs, to spread the lies.

5. The timelines were CORRECTED on a number of occasions. In general, that is the way things work. You have a timeline, you correct anomoles or mistakes, and come up with a more accurate version.

6. Where was Dick Cheney PROVEN WRONG? If he did contradict himself, than he sits with the majority of human beings who do so in their lifetime.

7. I am not going to go over the NIST issue again. If you don't like it, stomp on the floor stick out your tongue, and whine some more.

8. The 9/11 commission did ommit many things, none of which are relevent to anyone but the paranoid truthers who think it was an "inside job". The answers you seek, I can assure you, will not please you, because they do not indicate an inside job.

Now, why don't you stop whining and complaining like a child and Shaite or get off the pot. If you feel you have enough evidence to make a case, go do something with it. We'll be here waiting to see.

You think you are sick of the way we get on...you have no idea of how sick I am, and we are, of the insane, evidenceless, factless, illogical speculations and lies the truth movement brings up, over and over again.

TAM:mad:
Click to expand...


Agreed. We can make a unified document, and in time, perhapse professors will to make it easier on history students. But that is more a subject of history.
 
CurtC said:
Yes, it's almost as if the CTs construct their own easy-to-defeat version of their nemesis, the official version, then rip that up and think they've accomplished something. Almost like making your own dummy out of something flimsy, say, straw, then claiming victory when you rip that "straw man" apart. Maybe we should even name this logical fallacy!
Click to expand...
I know! The "Surrender Dorothy" fallacy!

No, that's not quite right...
 
CurtC said:
Yes, it's almost as if the CTs construct their own easy-to-defeat version of their nemesis, the official version, then rip that up and think they've accomplished something. Almost like making your own dummy out of something flimsy, say, straw, then claiming victory when you rip that "straw man" apart. Maybe we should even name this logical fallacy!
Click to expand...

:p

-Gumboot
 
Just as a comparison, I looked for information on New Zealand fires, but while your fire service (www.fire.org.nz) has a wealth of information on annual fires in New Zealand, it does not break down the data between high-rise and other fires.
 
It's up to each one of us to consider how irrelevant those mistakes are TAM as I've always said.
Former members of the commission itself say it was an outrage.
If you think the omissions and lack of further investigations was really nothing, I beg to differ, but I can't ever change your mind.
I can't make you people see what you don't want to see.

There was a cover-up. One can say it was ignorance. One can say it was on purpose.
What can you bring to the table that may trump my opinion?

Nothing.

There was no follow up to the commission report.

There was no follow up for the investigations

Dick Cheney was not further investigated

NORAD was not further investigated

Are we to take their words at face value? And refuse a new investigation? I find this ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is this stance to bash us as conspiracy theorists. Simply ridiculous.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Go on that website, look into the quotes, and figure out by yourself yet again if the problems in the 9/11 Commission reports are really irrelevant.

TAM I respect you truthfully. But in the case of believing conspiracy on 9/11, I'm far beyond the point of recovery, if congress doesn't promote a new investigation. If a real criminal investigation on 9/11 won't ever be engaged and fully disclosed.

I don't get it how it came to this point in here, where questioning an impartial investigation is considered foolishness. Sheesh.
 
Yurebiz said:
It's up to each one of us to consider how irrelevant those mistakes are TAM as I've always said.
Former members of the commission itself say it was an outrage.
If you think the omissions and lack of further investigations was really nothing, I beg to differ, but I can't ever change your mind.
I can't make you people see what you don't want to see.

There was a cover-up. One can say it was ignorance. One can say it was on purpose.
What can you bring to the table that may trump my opinion?

Nothing.

There was no follow up to the commission report.

There was no follow up for the investigations

Dick Cheney was not further investigated

NORAD was not further investigated

Are we to take their words at face value? And refuse a new investigation? I find this ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is this stance to bash us as conspiracy theorists. Simply ridiculous.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Go on that website, look into the quotes, and figure out by yourself yet again if the problems in the 9/11 Commission reports are really irrelevant.

TAM I respect you truthfully. But in the case of believing conspiracy on 9/11, I'm far beyond the point of recovery, if congress doesn't promote a new investigation. If a real criminal investigation on 9/11 won't ever be engaged and fully disclosed.

I don't get it how it came to this point in here, where questioning an impartial investigation is considered foolishness. Sheesh.
Click to expand...


Here is what I think about a new investigation:

1. If I felt that a new investigation would end this stupid, silly debate over what happened, and would allow your country, and the rest of the world to focus on the real enemies, the fundamentalist/extremists, whether they are christian or islam, I would likely agree it would be worth it. Unfortunately, based on how the truth movement responds to any evidence that does not agree with the inside job, I'd have to say that a new investigation would not convince a single truther of anything, and if fact would probably make them cry foul even louder.

2. If I thought there would be a lot more info gained, alot of questions gaining new answers(believe it or not, most of Griffins 115 ommissions, while perhaps not in the commission report, have been answered), I would likely agree another investigation is warranted. In my opinion, the questions posed by Griffin and others, have been answered, at least the important ones. Those that havent, for the most part, are not answered to the TRUTHERS SATISFACTION, and that is the key difference.

In the end, if you gain your new "investigation" (doubtful, as the only people the truthers would trust to do it dont exist), great...it is all about the REAL TRUTH...if it happens, I'll just wait for you all to come crying foul AGAIN.

TAM:)
 
AZCat said:
Just as a comparison, I looked for information on New Zealand fires, but while your fire service (www.fire.org.nz) has a wealth of information on annual fires in New Zealand, it does not break down the data between high-rise and other fires.
Click to expand...

That's because in New Zealand, anything over three stories is a skyscrapper. ;)
 
AZCat said:
Just as a comparison, I looked for information on New Zealand fires, but while your fire service (www.fire.org.nz) has a wealth of information on annual fires in New Zealand, it does not break down the data between high-rise and other fires.
Click to expand...



The Statistics NZ website may or may not have more statistics...

Although as PhantomWolf points out... the tallest building in New Zealand (excluding the Sky Tower which is 50% aerial) is only 38 stories... so we don't have many Skyscrapers using the +31 storey definition. :)

You may also find the incidents are too low to make it worth it. There's only 4 million people, and our building safety codes are legendary.

Also we don't have the mentality of an open public government in the same way that the USA does (FOIA etc...). Just as an example, all federal copyright material in the US is open source where as crown copyright in New Zealand is upheld and using government owned copyright material without permission is illegal.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
The Statistics NZ website may or may not have more statistics...

Although as PhantomWolf points out... the tallest building in New Zealand (excluding the Sky Tower which is 50% aerial) is only 38 stories... so we don't have many Skyscrapers using the +31 storey definition. :)

You may also find the incidents are too low to make it worth it. There's only 4 million people, and our building safety codes are legendary.

Also we don't have the mentality of an open public government in the same way that the USA does (FOIA etc...). Just as an example, all federal copyright material in the US is open source where as crown copyright in New Zealand is upheld and using government owned copyright material without permission is illegal.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


Okay. Probably no point, anyway - it's mostly an issue in the U.S. because of the pre-1975 non-sprinklered high rises (and the events of September 11th, of course). As the city of Chicago noted in their recent study of high rise building fire safety, we don't usually pay attention to these sort of things until something goes dreadfully wrong, then it's "chickens with their heads cut off" time.
 
Yurebiz said:
It's up to each one of us to consider how irrelevant those mistakes are TAM as I've always said.
Former members of the commission itself say it was an outrage.
If you think the omissions and lack of further investigations was really nothing, I beg to differ, but I can't ever change your mind.
I can't make you people see what you don't want to see.

There was a cover-up. One can say it was ignorance. One can say it was on purpose.
What can you bring to the table that may trump my opinion?

Nothing.

There was no follow up to the commission report.

There was no follow up for the investigations

Dick Cheney was not further investigated

NORAD was not further investigated

Are we to take their words at face value? And refuse a new investigation? I find this ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is this stance to bash us as conspiracy theorists. Simply ridiculous.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Go on that website, look into the quotes, and figure out by yourself yet again if the problems in the 9/11 Commission reports are really irrelevant.

TAM I respect you truthfully. But in the case of believing conspiracy on 9/11, I'm far beyond the point of recovery, if congress doesn't promote a new investigation. If a real criminal investigation on 9/11 won't ever be engaged and fully disclosed.

I don't get it how it came to this point in here, where questioning an impartial investigation is considered foolishness. Sheesh.
Click to expand...

That's because they have iether been answered or other sources back up the report. In the case of NORAD and Cheney, gumboot can talk about NORAD, and if the reports are true, then investigating them is off little use unless a major piece of evidence comes to light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom