Let us have a fact check.

[Without Rights]

A little reverse-psychology never hurt. Thanks for the response, it was quite revealing..

What have I revealed to you oh enlightened one?

 

[Arus808]

Ok so your whole argument boils down to the WTC being built shotty, building 7 being made of pick up sticks and building 5 being the only structurally sound building in the whole complex.

\

that isn't what is being said either; you purposefully obtuse troll.

 

[Disbelief]

Ok so your whole argument boils down to the WTC being built shotty, building 7 being made of pick up sticks and building 5 being the only structurally sound building in the whole complex.

I think the argument would be that WTC1 & 2 were hit by planes (and resultant fores), WTC 7 was a tall structure hit by tons of falling debris (and a resultant fire) and that WTC 5 was different construction and specifically much shorter and wider.

 

[apathoid]

Ok so your whole argument boils down to the WTC being built shotty, building 7 being made of pick up sticks and building 5 being the only structurally sound building in the whole complex.

No genius, the argument is: If the Windsor had a steel core, it likely it would have failed, just as the steel superstructure failed. Seeing as to how concrete and steel perform differently in fires, your statement "notice how the core never collapsed" was ignorant, at best.

 

[Without Rights]

explosions <> explosives


Evidence "give(s)" nothing of the sort. false positive^WP

Everybody in prison is guilty?
Nobody ever got off scott free even though they did commit a crime. No, it is "evidence" that determined OJ to be innocent.

 

[T.A.M.]

WR:

Try to include who you are quoting, either by typing it or by using the proper quote function...I almost missed your reply to me, as I did not see my Username in your post. Thanks...

It's funny because that's what everybody asks the truthers to do.

I agree, but it is ye, as non-investigative individuals with no experience or knowledge in these areas who are making extraordinary claims contrary to those who do have said experiences and knowledge, so it is up to you to prove your claims.

But something that shoud be looked in to at the request of the people. The FBI did give bombs to the terrorists. Since you have to pay to access the story I'll just post it;

I am not sure what point you are making here. That the FBI was involved in tracing these guys, but F'ed up during the case...please explain your point a little further...thanks.

Do you have a link to the manifest? and the DNA analysis?

As I said at the beginning of the post you replied to...because you cannot access such evidence via "googling" it or via "da web" does not mean it does not exist, nor does it deminish its validity. I trust the FBI, and they say they have said things, and it has not been proven they do not.

Not in a US court of law, in a military tribunal created by GWB and cronies through the military commission act, which passed as a result of the attacks, where he is denied council, denied access to evidence against him and tortured before hand at least by the CIA.

Denied council? So who is the "Defense" that they keep referring to in documents on the matter? That sounds like council to me.

Yet the people who heard bombs and saw flashes and the lobby being torn apart (How?) A guys face melted off in the sub-level his testimony don't count. You all know the maintainence man, his testimony don't count.

I didn't say discount Rodriguez testimony. I say analyze it, corroborate it. Hearing "Explosions" is not hearing a bomb. Saying it "sounded like a bomb" is a simile, not fact. Flashes can come from cameras, fires, electrical shorts.

Every time I call my mom I say "Hi mom, it's Firstname Lastname" No I say My name and she knows. That is suspicious to me. I don't contend that it was voice technology but such technology does exist
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905E5D91E3DF932A05754C0A9679C8B63

Funny in 5-6 years, given the rate at which technology advances, we should have such things on our PC now, easily available to all.

As for the "official" tone to Mark Bingham's words, Alice Hoglan has gone on record on this manner. Off hand I cannot find the video interview where she explains this, but I am sure someone can help me out.

evidence can give false positives and false negatives, it happens everyday in our court system. Evidence does not = truth, all it can help you do is come to a resonable solution.

I agree.

TAM

 

[Without Rights]

No genius, The argument is: If the Windsor had a steel core, it's likely it would have failed, just as the steel superstructure failed.

Is that a fact or is that just what you think because it supports your theories? If it is a fact can I please have that link, genius.

 

[DavidJames]

Ok so your whole argument boils down to the WTC being built shotty, building 7 being made of pick up sticks and building 5 being the only structurally sound building in the whole complex.

Now you're just trolling.

Turns out WR, you are just a garden variety CTist. Single sourced your entire brain with CT sites, ignore or misconstrue anything that doesn't fit your CT brain.

I will drop out of this discussion since you are now using the number of people posting as an excuse to cherry pick which questions you choose to bless a response.

 

[beachnut]

Ok so your whole argument boils down to the WTC being built shotty, building 7 being made of pick up sticks and building 5 being the only structurally sound building in the whole complex.

OOPS, WTC5 had floor failures due to fire! OOPS. Steel fails in fire. Proved over and over again by Without Rights, right here on his own, first fact thread. Will he find a fact here?

 

[apathoid]

Is that a fact or is that just what you think because it supports your theories? If it is a fact can I please have that link, genius.

The steel superstructure collapsed. Are you getting this yet?
Steel. All of it collapsed.

 

[Without Rights]

WR:

Try to include who you are quoting, either by typing it or by using the proper quote function...I almost missed your reply to me, as I did not see my Username in your post. Thanks...



I agree, but it is ye, as non-investigative individuals with no experience or knowledge in these areas who are making extraordinary claims contrary to those who do have said experiences and knowledge, so it is up to you to prove your claims.



I am not sure what point you are making here. That the FBI was involved in tracing these guys, but F'ed up during the case...please explain your point a little further...thanks.



As I said at the beginning of the post you replied to...because you cannot access such evidence via "googling" it or via "da web" does not mean it does not exist, nor does it deminish its validity. I trust the FBI, and they say they have said things, and it has not been proven they do not.



Denied council? So who is the "Defense" that they keep referring to in documents on the matter? That sounds like council to me.



I didn't say discount Rodriguez testimony. I say analyze it, corroborate it. Hearing "Explosions" is not hearing a bomb. Saying it "sounded like a bomb" is a simile, not fact. Flashes can come from cameras, fires, electrical shorts.



Funny in 5-6 years, given the rate at which technology advances, we should have such things on our PC now, easily available to all.

As for the "official" tone to Mark Bingham's words, Alice Hoglan has gone on record on this manner. Off hand I cannot find the video interview where she explains this, but I am sure someone can help me out.



I agree.

TAM

I am going home now but I would like everyone to know that you could learn alot from him. Thank you for consistently rebutting my arguments in an intelligent way and not attacking. It builds respect and adds validity to your argument. Until tommorrow.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Everybody in prison is guilty?
Nobody ever got off scott free even though they did commit a crime. No, it is "evidence" that determined OJ to be innocent.

READ what I post, I'm not just putting it there to use up bandwidth.

False positive and false negative deal specifically with the results of test. Evidence is the input in to the test. If the RESULT of the test is wrong, it is because the TEST is set up wrong, not because the EVIDENCE is wrong.

 

[Without Rights]

The steel superstructure collapsed. Are you getting this yet?
Steel. All of it collapsed.

No it did not. the upper portion of the building collapsed on the lower portion held strong. Steel and all.

It looks like the top 9 floors to me, looks like the steel at the bottom is intact.

 

[apathoid]

What have I revealed to you oh enlightened one?

Just in case others missed it:

Without Rights on Mark Binghams Mom:

"No, she believes in the official story, she recieved lots of money and make her son a hero at the same time. "

You have revealed that you are very sick...please get help.

 

[Without Rights]

READ what I post, I'm not just putting it there to use up bandwidth.

False positive and false negative deal specifically with the results of test. Evidence is the input in to the test. If the RESULT of the test is wrong, it is because the TEST is set up wrong, not because the EVIDENCE is wrong.

Lets not confuse scientific process with judicial process ok. Scientists do not look for evidence prosecutors do.

 

[332nd]

Lets not confuse scientific process with judicial process ok. Scientists do not look for evidence prosecutors do.

What?

 

[Without Rights]

Just in case others missed it:

Without Rights on Mark Binghams Mom:

"No, she believes in the official story, she recieved lots of money and make her son a hero at the same time. "

You have revealed that you are very sick...please get help.

Nobody would do that huh? You are very naive. You obviously have a narrow view of morality. I guess nobody has ever used deseased love ones to profit for themselves, or put the deseased in a heroic light, that never happens either. I bet if you grew up in the 20's-40's you would be one saying that the mafia doesn't exist. That is just a bunch a crazy nonsense is what a majority of Americans thought back then. You are no different.

 

[apathoid]

No it did not. the upper portion of the building collapsed on the lower portion held strong. Steel and all.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_15017460aaed6e1ea9.jpg[/qimg]
It looks like the top 9 floors to me, looks like the steel at the bottom is intact.

"Dr. Pal Chana of the British Cement Association demonstrated the relative likelihood of floor collapse in a steel versus concrete framed building, using the vivid example of the Madrid Windsor Tower fire which raged over 26 hours on 14-15 February 2005. This former landmark office block of 30 storeys featured a concrete core throughout, but with concrete columns up to the 21st floor and steel columns between the 22nd and 30th floors. Remarkably, despite the intensity and duration of the fire, the concrete floors and columns remained intact however, the steel supported floors above the 21st floor collapsed, leaving the concrete core in-situ and exposed."

http://www.concretefireforum.org.uk/main.asp?page=0

 

[Without Rights]

What?

Yeah scientist don't look for evidence, unless they are forensic, which in that case they provide evidence. Scientist has a method and none say collect evidence. Science is used to test theories and create evidence.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Lets not confuse scientific process with judicial process ok.

Then don't use the terminology out of context.

Scientists do not look for evidence prosecutors do.

Aside from the sheer inanity of that statement, you are still making the same mistake.

Look:
[evidence]->[blackbox]=>[result]

False positives/negatives lie in the [result], not in the [evidence]. Put another way, f(evidence)=result

Now, in your courtroom analogy, the [blackbox] is equivelant to the prosecutor presenting the evidence to the jury in a given context. Now, as with any function/blackbox, if the [evidence] is bad then GIGO; and if the f()/[blackbox] is bad then it doesn't matter what [evidence] is, the output will be GO.