Popular Mechanics: 500,000 scholars?

[triforcharity]

The short version: AE911Truth says the twin towers were brought down by Controlled Demolition (CD) because they fell outside their footprint (in an overly symmetrical manner), while Building 7 was brought down by CD because it fell inside its own footprint.

Yeah, I made a comic about that.

That has always baffled me......

 

[jaydeehess]

Nope. The fires spread because of a lack of water supply not debris damage. You should know this.

Actually I note that DGM said that the debris damage "contributed" to the spread of the fire. It should be noted as well that the lack of water also "contributed" to the spread of the fire, as did the fact that there were 300+ fewer firefighters available than there had been at 8 am that morning.

 

[RedIbis]

Actually if you read for comprehension you would note that DGM said that the debris damage "contributed" to the spread of the fire. It should be noted as well that the lack of water also "contributed" to the spread of the fire, as did the fact that there were 300+ fewer firefighters available than there had been at 8 am that morning.

Then again you knew all of that.

Appeal to pathos noted.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yeah, I made a comic about that.

[qimg]http://s3.amazonaws.com/stripgenerator/strip/64/58/42/00/00/full.png[/qimg]

That has always baffled me......

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"the towers fell straight down, obviously accomplished only by explosive demolitions"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,, "sections of WTC 1 flew 600 feet and hit WTC 7 obviously accomplished only by explosive demolitions"



BTW was there not a poster here who argued that 'footprint' would include anything within a radius equal to the height of the building or some such?

 

[jaydeehess]

Appeal to pathos noted.

Noted and removed.
Better?

 

[Oystein]

Is there any explanatory or convincing value in it that is epistemologically valid, and not fallacious in the sense of your Post #7? Yes or no?

Bumped for RedIbis

 

[jaydeehess]

Noted and removed.
Better?

Bumped for RedIbis

Me too.

 

[RedIbis]

Bumped for RedIbis

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[RedIbis]

Me too.

Congratulations, you waited all of 18 mins to be obnoxious.

 

[jaydeehess]

What the hell are you talking about?

This:

This is the same fallacy that is used on this sub forum all the time. There are X amount of structural engineers. Only Y have signed a petition for a new investigation; therefore, the remainder do not support the petition.

This fallacious thinking does not take into consideration that the remainded have not investigated the details or are even aware of any such petition.

We could note though that the remainder DO know about the collapses of the twin towers and the official explanation of how that came to be even if they do not know the details of that explanation. For instance they would know that the impact damage coupled with the heat of the resultant fires did the structures in, even if they do not know the details of the NIST report or the papers of Bazant.

We can also assume that a significant percentage of these technically trained persons would be able to discern what we are told, by the 9/11 conspiracy believers, is OBVIOUS. That the structures fell too quickly, too symmetrically and/or into their own footprint and that they would then seek to inform others or garner support for their viewpoint.

Alas though, if we take the numbers used in this thread we have 1400 out of 500,000 who have done so. That is 0.28%. If it is that OBVIOUS I certainly would have expected a more significant percentage.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually I note that DGM said that the debris damage "contributed" to the spread of the fire. It should be noted as well that the lack of water also "contributed" to the spread of the fire, as did the fact that there were 300+ fewer firefighters available than there had been at 8 am that morning.

Noted and removed.
Better?

Me too.

Congratulations, you waited all of 18 mins to be obnoxious.

Obnoxious? I simply would like you to see that DGM said that the debris damage 'contributed' to the spread of the fire as did the other two factors listed.
It was you that erroneously depicted DGM as saying that the debris damaged 'caused' the spread of the fire. I am pointing out hyperbole on your part. Your only responses so far have completely skirted the issue. You objected to the tone of my first post on the matter so I edited it and asked if that suited you better.
No response.
Admittedly I then rather quickly asked for a response to the edited post.
Your response though was to the quickness of my asking for your response rather than actually responding to the issue.
Would you now care to try again?


ETA: I see RedI's offline and alas I must bid adieu as well.

 

[triforcharity]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"the towers fell straight down, obviously accomplished only by explosive demolitions"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,, "sections of WTC 1 flew 600 feet and hit WTC 7 obviously accomplished only by explosive demolitions"



BTW was there not a poster here who argued that 'footprint' would include anything within a radius equal to the height of the building or some such?

Yeah, I do recall that. I don't remember who it was though. I think it was one of HI's socks.

I'll look and see if I can find it.

 

[WildCat]

I thought it would be a waste of time if I had to explain the difference between a petition a scientific inquiry.

I thought my time would be better spent if I pointed out yet again that debris damage did not contribute to WTC 7's collapse.

So you agree with NIST?

Or are you just cherry picking bits and pieces so you can pretend there's actual evidence to support whatever loony CD theory you have but are too embarrassed to flesh out for us?

 

[Oystein]

What the hell are you talking about?

If you need help with any of the words I used, try a thesaurus. If you can't figure out the meaning of sentences, then... I don't know.


Maybe I can put it in simpler English:
Do you think that a list of 1400 people who have filled out a form on the internet adds in any way whatsoever to our quest to figure out what happened on 9/11? Would that list of names trump any arguments that are strung from physical reality or actual witness testimony? Would that list be in anyway more or less convincing if it contained 2400 or 400 names? Would it be any more or less convincing if the professions of those on the list were more or less narrowly defined? Do the 1400 that signed trump the 500,000 that didn't, given the fact that we have no idea what 99% of the 1400 or of the 500,000 actually know, think and have done about the issue?

In short: Do you think that list is of any value at all? If so, what is that value?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Other than ignite the fires, what did the collapses of the Towers have to do with the collapse of WTC 7?

Damage its structure, blow out a lot of its windows, remove the water supply for the sprinklers, and last but not least knock the NYFD out of the tall tower fire fighting business for the day.

That not enough for you?

 

[RedIbis]

If you need help with any of the words I used, try a thesaurus. If you can't figure out the meaning of sentences, then... I don't know.


Maybe I can put it in simpler English:
Do you think that a list of 1400 people who have filled out a form on the internet adds in any way whatsoever to our quest to figure out what happened on 9/11? Would that list of names trump any arguments that are strung from physical reality or actual witness testimony? Would that list be in anyway more or less convincing if it contained 2400 or 400 names? Would it be any more or less convincing if the professions of those on the list were more or less narrowly defined? Do the 1400 that signed trump the 500,000 that didn't, given the fact that we have no idea what 99% of the 1400 or of the 500,000 actually know, think and have done about the issue?

In short: Do you think that list is of any value at all? If so, what is that value?

What a convoluted mess. You seem like one of the more rational posters, and perhaps the only so-called debunker who takes your cohorts to task for illogical arguments, but this is a series of ridiculous questions.

I already answered the basic question on post #36. It's simply a list of professionals who doubt the official story. That in itself doesn't prove anything.

And although I've re-explained this dozens of times, I'll try again to explain what's wrong with this type of thinking by hilighting this one sentence of yours:

Would that list of names trump any arguments that are strung from physical reality or actual witness testimony?

Please do not assume that arguments from physical evidence rest solely with your position. They do not. You know very well, for instance that the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis does not rely on physical evidence, and that's just one example.

Secondly, similar to arguments that assume support from physical evidence, eyewitnesses report a very wide range of events for nearly all aspects of 9/11, yet you assume they only support your position. They do not.

 

[twinstead]

Secondly, similar to arguments that assume support from physical evidence, eyewitnesses report a very wide range of events for nearly all aspects of 9/11, yet you assume they only support your position. They do not.

The ENTIRE body of evidence when taken as a whole supports his position. It's why the commonly-held narrative of that day is you know, commonly-held. Commonly-held by people who matter. Please don't forget that you represent a tiny dissenting minority and not even really a blip on the real world radar.

I think you folks forget that often.

 

[jaydeehess]

Please do not assume that arguments from physical evidence rest solely with your position. They do not. You know very well, for instance that the NIST WTC 7 hypothesis does not rely on physical evidence, and that's just one example.

Actually you are incorrect on this Red. The WTC 7 report relies heavily on the physical evidence of the video docuementation of the fires and the collapse. It also uses the physical evidence of the effects of heat on steel garnered from decades of fire research and a few specific examples of actual office structure fires, and , of course, the known construction of the building in question.

On the other hand the 9/11 conspiracy theories rely on purely speculative explosives or incindiaries with scant to non-existant evidentiary support.

Secondly, similar to arguments that assume support from physical evidence, eyewitnesses report a very wide range of events for nearly all aspects of 9/11, yet you assume they only support your position. They do not.

Indeed , eyewitness testimony is always trumped by scientific research and investigation. The reports of the south side impact damage therefore resulted in the diagrams where the damage is often described as 'possible'. Only that damage that was seen in photos and on video is considered fact.

There are, though, no instances of any eyewitness reporting that they saw something explode, no instances of any eyewitness reports of anyone entering the building after the first FF searches were done and certainly none of items that could be explosives being carried in. In fact there are no eyewitness accounts of explosives detonating or being carried into any WTC structure on or before 9/11.

There are reports of the sounds of 'explosives' but none that would fit that of the power required to sever large steel columns, much less recorded.

In fact other than a highly questionable study that reports thermite residue the 9/11 conspiracy contentions have next to nothing or nothing at all other than the most subjective form of evidence, eyewitness testimony.

 

[jaydeehess]

The ENTIRE body of evidence when taken as a whole supports his position. It's why the commonly-held narrative of that day is you know, commonly-held. Commonly-held by people who matter. Please don't forget that you represent a tiny dissenting minority and not even really a blip on the real world radar.

I think you folks forget that often.

As an aside I note that 'commonly held' and 'common sense' have a common word.

 

[twinstead]

As an aside I note that 'commonly held' and 'common sense' have a common word.

indeed