I agree.
New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis
- Thread starter Sizzler
- Start date
I agree.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Keep watching (and check other threads) and I think you'll find otherwise. He/she appears to b e just another twoofer with an agenda... SSDD.
Last edited:
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
Whether one new individual member is honest or not, a CTist or not, is completely irrelevant.
Every discussion in the forum should be held in a civil manner, and without personalisation of the topic, or resorting to personal attacks.
Perhaps (regardless of how often the same thing has been discussed) we could stay focussed on the points at hand, and the discussion, and try harder not to second guess motives, or make assumptions about the poster. If it is an often discussed topic, point them to the original threads (reminding them of the search function) and then wait for anything additional they have to ask after reading it.
It's very disappointing to see how these discussions are so often derailed by trying to determine the motives of the poster. It's irrelevant - discuss the issues instead. That way the information is available to all readers, including unregistered viewers from all sides of the debate. We may gain more members this way by not intimidating people out of coming to ask.
Every discussion in the forum should be held in a civil manner, and without personalisation of the topic, or resorting to personal attacks.
Perhaps (regardless of how often the same thing has been discussed) we could stay focussed on the points at hand, and the discussion, and try harder not to second guess motives, or make assumptions about the poster. If it is an often discussed topic, point them to the original threads (reminding them of the search function) and then wait for anything additional they have to ask after reading it.
It's very disappointing to see how these discussions are so often derailed by trying to determine the motives of the poster. It's irrelevant - discuss the issues instead. That way the information is available to all readers, including unregistered viewers from all sides of the debate. We may gain more members this way by not intimidating people out of coming to ask.
I would agree, and I am often one of the first people calling for this type of reasoning.
That said, the problem for many is they actually want to help people, who legitimately want to LEARN, actually learn something.
The people we are talking about, the type we get annoyed by, are those who come in with an agenda, an idea that if they "only show us the way" they can convince us, but in order to "get on our good side" or to avoid the "flaming", they POSE as an innocent newcomer "Just asking questions".
You are right, ultimately where they stand on the issue is not the most important thing, but for some, it allows them to "not waste their breath", their typing, THEIR TIME, if they know they are dealing with a truther, who they will not convince, and is just here to antagonize, versus a LEGITIMATE inquirer, who really does have questions that they do not have the answers to.
just my 2c.
TAM
if that were the case, there would be no truth movement to deal with in the first place.
TAM
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
I would agree, and I am often one of the first people calling for this type of reasoning.
That said, the problem for many is they actually want to help people, who legitimately want to LEARN, actually learn something.
The people we are talking about, the type we get annoyed by, are those who come in with an agenda, an idea that if they "only show us the way" they can convince us, but in order to "get on our good side" or to avoid the "flaming", they POSE as an innocent newcomer "Just asking questions".
You are right, ultimately where they stand on the issue is not the most important thing, but for some, it allows them to "not waste their breath", their typing, THEIR TIME, if they know they are dealing with a truther, who they will not convince, and is just here to antagonize, versus a LEGITIMATE inquirer, who really does have questions that they do not have the answers to.
just my 2c.
TAM
There's also the technique of pretending to come along with an open mind, asking the questions, and then claiming that the CT arguments are better. It's using a fictitious open mind to create a propaganda piece.
That said, the correct response is always to address the issues. The 911 Physics For Dummies thread is an example of the dangers of the hair trigger approach.
Almo
Masterblazer
Wow. Just finished reading through this whole mess. I remain undecided about Sizzler's motives, but I'm not sure they're terribly relevant. The course of this discussion has at least shown that the CT theories are untenable, and require nitpicking in the extreme to cling to.
If Sizzler is genuine, then I think he's just been very careful not to give in to appeals to authority. Too careful, in my opinion, but that's really up to him.
If he's a CTist, his inability to gain ground for the CTs might be instructive to other potential CTists.
In my opinion, there were a few too many childish insults thrown around, but on the whole this discussion maintained its focus much better than most CT discussions do.
Maybe nobody cares what I think about this, but I don't care what they think about that.
If Sizzler is genuine, then I think he's just been very careful not to give in to appeals to authority. Too careful, in my opinion, but that's really up to him.
If he's a CTist, his inability to gain ground for the CTs might be instructive to other potential CTists.
In my opinion, there were a few too many childish insults thrown around, but on the whole this discussion maintained its focus much better than most CT discussions do.
Maybe nobody cares what I think about this, but I don't care what they think about that.
FactCheck
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2007
- Messages
- 619
Well, I gave up on the circular arguments. I spent a lot of time on my replies and then he dismisses the questions while pointing to Gordos conspiracy powerpoint. Typical conspiracy theorist if you ask me. Did he answer if the north perimeter face was already inside the foot print? No... Did he acknowledge the massive amount of column trees still connected to each other with no sign of floors connected to them on ground zero? No... Or the massive wall which leaned out to hit the winter garden? No... It seems to me that if it doesn't fit his conspiracy story he just ignores it. The fact that my evidence explains the missing perimeter columns outside the dust cloud seems to confuse him. A fact that he has to know because that's the crush up argument in a nutshell. The botton of the top disapears which he thinks is being crushed. By what? he floors and much weaker connections??? The columns are over the floors! Amazing...
Last edited:
Almo
Masterblazer
Good point.
I'm sorry. I will address you now. I thought the power point gave a better view. At the end of the day, our discussions about dust clouds and hidden perimeter columns were based on 3 photos from afar.
Your analysis has merit. How can crush up occur when the perimeter columns of the upper section do not fall off? Well, as you pointed out, one explanation is that they fell into the inside and crushed down, giving the effect of "crush up " but all the while actually "crushing down'.
After looking at the power point, I think we may both be right to a certain degree.
What I see.
Floors 92-97/98 = impact area: they crush up first when impacting floor 91 -->perimeter columns do not go inside the building such that they break connections between lower perimeter columns and floors (not yet anyway). if that were the case, the front of the collapse would be lower because we would see those lower perimeter columns being pushed out. we don't see any of that powerful air pushing perimeter columns out until later.
your superimposed photo from before cannot be true because it doesn't match the observed crushing front. the powerfull air would have been pushing those perimeter columns out at that moment but they aren't. I'm not saying this doesn't happen later, in fact it does and can be seen on video. thus your pictures of rubble don't demonstrate anything for this matter of discussion.
Floor 98 = first floor to cause collapse of floor 92
Floors 98-110 are the "crush down" block.
The upper section was hot and damaged (floors 92-97/98), thus crush up before crush down seems rather logical.
Someone mentioned this way back and now I think I'd have to agree with them after seeing G. ulrich power point.
This changes things for bazants theory and suggests that the upper block may not have remained together for much longer. too bad we can't see what really happens.
darn dust cloud.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Thanks for the quickie!
It takes two to communicate since you will not listen communication is not possible.
Really glad you are concerned about my welfare. Almost brings a tear to my eye. Sniff, sniff
I have three yes-or-no questions for you to answer. Please do.
1. The first floor to collapse was 97/98, not 92. If in doubt, check the edge of the building. Do you agree with this? Yes or no?
2. The division between the top section and the bottom section is at the first floor that collapses. Specifically, it's not at the lowest floor of the impact area, or any other arbitrary boundary. Anything up from the first floor that collapses is the top section, and anything down from it is the bottom section. Do you understand this? Yes or no?
3. Only floors of the top section can crush up. Only floors of the bottom section can crush down. Floors of the bottom section cannot crush up, as a matter of principle. Do you understand this? Yes or no?
If you answer yes to all three questions, you now understand why floors 92-97/98 did not and could not crush up.
If you answer no to one or more of the three questions, we should focus on those particular points in the following debate.
Last edited:
Thanks that clears things up perfectly.
i answered yes to all 3. that made me realize the upper section is only 12 floors.
why did i always think it was 16 floors?
i tried to look at the bazant paper from 2002 to see how many floors were used to calculate the mass of the upper section but all the link didn't work.
i then looked at faq sheet by nist and they have 12.
what the f?
where did this magical number of 16 come from?
thanks again.