Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Belz...]

hahahahha - it that right?

Yes, that it right.

new theory: tell me. when was the progressive global collapse theory first invented? pre or post 911?

It must've been invented pretty much at the same time we started to build stuff. That was a long time ago.

the fact that previous to 911 no steel framed skyscrappers exhibted a progressive global collapse - this "new theory" was aptly invented.

Oh, so now it's steel-framed skyscrapers. So, according to you, concrete-core skyscrapers can collapse, bridges can collapse, houses can collapse, and all other forms can, and have, collapsed, but not steel towers because we build them well enough for them not to have collapsed before 9/11 ??

claim: once intial collapse occured total collapse was inevitable. was this claim - some would say bold claim - ever proven? no

Yes. That YOU don't accept the conclusion doesn't make it false. Again, with the burden of proof.

Galileo was right, but he had to prove it.

 

[thewholesoul]

Exactly, which counters your implied argument that because some doubt it, it should be put to the test again.

Please, quote me, when did i argue that because some people disagree with the official hypothesis that it should be proven???

To repeat, again, the reason why the official hypothesis remains unproven is because the official hypothesis in relation to the total collapse has not been tested.

That's a non sequitur. The sentence you quoted: "That [the 'official' theory] is not accepted by some does not mean it isn't proven", does not mean that I believe it IS proven. That I believe it is of no consequence.

So do you beleive the official hypotehsis is proven? Or do you beleive it is of no consequence?

Well, isn't that ANOTHER non sequitur? When most professionals in a given field accept a given theory, it's not like an argument from popularity. It may not be proof that something is true, but it's sure better than a popular poll.

Great – progress has been made. Finally you accept that even when the majority of professionals agree on a particular hypothesis that in itself does not prove that something is true. My thoughts exactly.

To give a side example – all priests accept the existence of god but they cannot prove god exists. Conversly however the majority of experts believe that total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse – currently NIST claims that it cannot be proven either by scale model or computer model.

I said

total collapse was never tested – that you could perhaps withdraw this statement

You replied

I think I'll stick with it, in fact. You have not, nor has anyone, provided an alternative theory that holds under scrutiny. We KNOW that things fall down, and, aside from twoofers, most people know that when something that big falls down, no man-made structure will withstand it. That's why skyscrapers are usually built to hold a STATIC mass, not a moving one.

Now instead of withdrawing your false statement – that total collapse was tested – you say you’ll stick with it. Eventhough it is a known fact that it has never been tested?? So why do you continue to stick to a statement that is factual wrong?

The first reason you provide as to why you will stick to a factually incoorect statement is because no-one has provided an alternative theory that you find rationally satisfying. But what, may i ask, has that got to do with your factually incorrect claim that total collapse was tested?

The next reason you provide as to why you will stick to a factually incorrect statement is because, you say, “we know that things fall down” – really, i ahd no idea – then you make a claim, in effect, that total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse which was the reason i asked that you withdraw the factually incorrect statement in the first place!! BECAUSE THAT CLAIM WAS NEVER TESTED.

So let me get this straight – the reason you refuse to withdraw a factual incorrect statement – total collapse has been tested - is because you dont agree with alternative hypothesis, you know that things fall, and because you repeat the claim that total collapse was inevitable – which was precisely the subject of the statement that needs to be withdrawn. Way to go.

The only logical way you can maintain your position and statement – the only logical way – is if you can provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse has been tested. merely saying, claiming and assuming that it is inevitable DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR YOU.

Moving on,
Because the primary reason (apart from earthquakes, missiles and nuclear bombs) a steel-framed skyscrapper totally collapsed in the history of such buildings was due to controlled demolition. I thought this was a petty good reason or plausible explanation for why we observed three such skyscappers totally collapsing on sept 11th – but i have made a fallacy!!

1.) Some A’s are B’s
2.) X is an A
3.) Therefore X is a B!!

So what Belz is suggesting here is that i am asserting that because “some” total collapses (A’s) were caused by controlled demolition (B’s) that the total collapse on sept 11th (X) “must therefore be” a controlled demolition (B)

First error: “some” is a rather cautious expression or remarkable understatement once we consider that every, or the vast majority, of steel framed skyscrappers in the history of steel framed skyscrappers exhibited total collapse resulting from controlled demolition. “some” have been caused by earthquakes, missiles etc. ( i have no exact numbers but i assuming that the majority of total collapses did result from controlled demolition). And “none” prior to 911 resulted from fire and gravity.

Second error: “must therefore be controlled demolition” – no, i think i suggested that controlled demolition must be “a plausible explanation” for what we observed. It should of at least been investigated and included among the working hypotheses.

Third: let us examine Belz reasoning. Prior and since 911 there HAS BEEN NO EXAMPLES OF TOTAL COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE AND GRAVITY. So...

1)prior to 911 NOT ONE A’s (total collapse of skyscrapper) were B’s (were caused by fire and gravity)
2)X (total collapse of wtc on sept 11th) is an A (total collapse of skyscrapper)
3)Therefore X is B (therefore the total collapse of the wtc skyscrapper resulted from something that never happened in the history of steel framed skyscrappers!!!)

By reasoning from experience – on a posteriori grounds – the controlled demolition hypothesis is far stronger than the fire and gravity hypothesis yet it was ignored and never investigated.

to be clear i am not sugegsting that because the majority of total collapse of steel framed skyscrappers prior to 911 were caused by controlled demolition means that the total collapse of wtc was controlled demolition. i am making a weaker claim that it is a more plausible explanation or hypothesis based on our experinece of total collapse of steel framed skyscrappers.

complete lack of evidence

There is no lack of evidence – there is an abundance of evidence – this evidence however is disputed. go to any 911 truth website for all the evidence they claim supports the controlled demolition hypothesis.

you will get you chance to dispute such evidence when i present my argument.

 

[thewholesoul]

Sarcasm is not an argument.

Claiming that total collapse was tested when the terrorists hijacked planes and hit the towers is not an experiment.

I said

now your saying that no experiment is required

You reply

Now ? I've been telling you this for ages.

Are most likely your going to continue saying it. But what your not telling me is how the bold claim - total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse – is somehow proven without experimentation??? That is my point you continue to ignore.

Sure, it would be, but it's be a pretty expensive test for something we already know is true, by experience. YOU're the one asking for an investigation. Why don't YOU fund the test ?

So according to you it would be easy to demonstrate - a total collapse post initial collapse – yet NIST or anyone else for that matter has been unable to demostrate or test this bold claim.

Yes it would be expensive. no i dont have to pay for the official hypothesis to be proven. The burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis to prove their hypothesis, the burden of proof rests on defenders of controlled demolition to prove their hypothesis. see post #1047.

“Something we already know is true” – really how did you arrive at this conclusion? Through “experience”!!! so you are claiming that fire and gravity caused the total collapse of wtc and you know this to be true because never – not once – in the history of steel framed skyscrappers was total collapse caused by fire and gravity!!
Eventhough you or anyone else has never “experienced” this phenomena before you believe it to be true because you “experienced” it through observation despite the fact that this observation has never been tested. wow.

Man if i was a magician i would love to have you in my audience – hey Belz i am going to make this rabbit dissappear and eventhough this is the first time ever you have experienced a rabbit dissapearing into tin air – and eventhough their is no other example of rabbits dissappearing into tin air – you will believe that it truly happened.
I will believe the official hypothesis is true by “experimentation” when their bold claim that total colalpse is inevitable post initial collapse is tested either through experimentation or demonstarted by computer model.

You have no idea what "burden of proof" is, then. If you think I have to prove the Earth is round every time a flat earther comes along, you're mistaken.

So you are saying that those who endorse a particualr hypothesis are not responsible to prove their own theory. I think it is you who needs to understand what the burden of proof is – see post #1047

“If you think I have to prove the Earth is round every time a flat earther comes along” - dont be absurd.

First of all the claim that Earth is round has already been proven to be true by experimentation. Once it was proven it does not have to proven over and over again.
Second – the claim that total collapse is inevitable post initial collapse has not been proven to be true by experimentation – get it???? Now just who do you think is responsible for proving this claim? I would say the burden of proof rests on those who make this claim!!!!!!!

Soul, you have NO IDEA how science works.

Belz i am arguing for the scientific method. You are arguing that it is not necessary, that the scientific method is not applicable to the official hypothesis. You are mistaken when you confuse the observation of a phenomena (total collapse of twin towers) with experimentation of that phenomena!! You sir, have no idea what your talking about much less how science works.

 

[funk de fino]

there is evidence and i will be presenting an argument from steven jones at a later date.
there is proof that thermite reactions can be a source of ignition when in contact with fuel in the youtube video i posted previously
there is confirmation by explosives experts that incendary devices can be an ignition source for jet fuel.
I will stcik to evidence, proof and confirmation and the fire triangle

there is no evidence of thermite at WTC, dont lie, leave steven jones out of it, he is a liar

We must assume that the correct fuel/air ratio was present in the B2-3 level because it was never proven that jet fuel falling the height of 90+ floors will be sufficiently or excessively oxygenated when it reaches the B2-3 level likewise for the south tower where the jet fuel fell from a lower height and shorter distance.
Now i could be wrong, may be there is calculations out there that suggest the rate of oxygenation of a droplet of fuel falling at a certain speed – but i have not read anything like that or heard NIST presenting anything as such.
However the rate of oxygenation of descending fuel seems to me an irrelevant none issue for you – and i can admit that you would know better on this subject.

Again you display your ignorance. i will discuss this no further

Good question, what was in the B2-3 levels? I think many described it as the mechanical rooms. What these machines were responsible for i have no idea. But if you are trying to suggest that the machines were the ignition source then you would have to make the argument that the machines were somehow in the elevator shaft.

Machines? electricity? sparks? They need not be in the elevator shaft

But maybe the jet fuel vapor did seep through the doors into the B2-3 level? But i heard on loose change that the elevator shaft was airtight thus it would not permit escaping gas or vapour into the floors below unless there was some kind of local damage to the structure.

Astonishing display of ignorance. If an elevator shaft is airtight the lift could not move up and down. The occupants would have no air to breathe. The fuel can easily slip past the lift and escape as a vapour at the bottom.

Please tell me you understand that elevator shafts are not hermetically sealed

I have no idea what a UEL is. If you are trying to answer the question by highlighting my lack of knowledge in a subject that you teach then you have succeeded. but if you could be so kind as to explain in laymans terms “what is the range of fuel/air ratio in terms of being flammable?” because the little i do know about the fire triangle is that you need air, fuel and heat source. If there is no air then there will be no explosion, if there is no fuel there will be no explosion. And if there is no heat source then it is unlikely there will an explosion unless the fuel self-ignites.

Maybe you should have thought about your lack of knowledge on this subject before you started railing on here about ignition sources, fuel vapours etc

LEL = Lower Explosive Limit
UEL = Upper Explosive Limit

between these levels you have an explosive atmosphere that could be ignited with heat or spark. this is your ratio. look it up online if you want to know jet fuels, it will feel good to do your own research instread of stealing hoffmans

Why would it be implausible in you opinion? Am i and EDL incorrect when we say that a thermite reaction or incendray devices can be an ignition source for jet fuel? If you are saying they cannot be used as an ignition source then present your reasons.

Implausible due to lack of evidence. Not due to the fact they cannot be used.

Well one way to make an exact replica is to do just that – make an exact replica. But we both know that is not feasible.
The sources of ignition you outlined i.e. switch, lamp, relay could be easily tested in isolation you do not have to test every switch to discover that it could be a source of ignition. However it is important that in such an experiment the identical kind of switch etc be tested and that the switch be in the identical position it was located in the twin towers relative to the descending jet fuel. It is importnat to replicate the conditions as closely as possible.

Again this is a fantasy scenario and there is no need. Switches can and do cause ignition. The systems I work with have special safeguards in place for use in explosive atmospheres. The ones in the Towers did not

If your only reason against experimentations of possible ignition sources is that we cannot build a scale strcuture then what is your objection to building a partial structure or testing the identcial ignition sources in isolation with jet fuel?

See above

First of all NIST – never even tried to find the ignition source in the basement eventhough a mid-air, non-local ignition of descending jet fuel occured in the same location of both towers in the backdrop of witnesses claiming that this explosion in the basement was in fact a “bomb”!!
Second – i was aware that EDL did not come up with a definite source of ignition from flight TWA 800 and that NIST likewise did not find a defintie source of ignition – but may be you could help me explain that to others in this room who beleive that NIST has proven that the explosion in the basment was caused by falling debris, light bulbs etc.
Yes EDL did not find a definite source of ignition but they did at least try to discover what is was. After they tested through lab experiments, simulations and ¼ scale models they arrived at the most probable causes. Name one lab test simulation or scale model NIST has conducted in order to determine what caused the “explosion” in the basment B2-3 that somehow were actually there considered a “bomb”?? let me tell you how many – zero!!
Third – once an extensive amount of tests has been carried out and after such exhaustive and thorough investigation a definite source of ignition has not been discovered only then do we arrive at the “most probable cause” explanation behind the explosion in the basment. then we have to address the question why incendary devices or a thermite rection could not possibly be an ignition source of jet fuel – or probable causal explanation behind the explosion in the basement.

They do not have to find an ignition source there are literally thousands of them all around everyone of us everyday. There were even more in the Towers due to the plane crash.

I did find lots of documents about the flight path of the hijacked planes and air trafficn control recordings as listed below But i found nothing – no information – about tests or experiments carried out by the NTSB concerning the explosion of jet fuel in the basement. NTSB is required by Congressional mandate to investigate airline disasters, but, due to the fact that a crime was committed, the usual independent investigative work resulting from an airline disaster was preempted by the FBI, leaving NTSB as a mere "technical advisor". http:www.justice for911.org
If there is a public report on the aviation diaster in the wtc perhaps you could direct me to a link.

Do you believe everything NTSB report about what happened that day?

If not why not?

As for the FAA they too have been rather secretive and they continue to withhold pre-911 ID confrming aircraft serial number data of 911 planes.

Source? Reason?

So you think the shotgun with the fireproof in a wooden box was a good idea??? Tell me why you believe that NIST’s shotgun experiment was better than the proposals i made to experiment on jet fuel. Please tell me why you think my proposals are bad ideas – not feasible – and how they show my lack of knowledge in the subject area in question.

I am not judging NIST, you are. They are better at what they do than you or me. Deal with it.

I agree i suspect they would not conduct “full scale or small scale mock up tests of every plane crash to prove the failure” – but I fail to see how testing a lamp, relay motor, or burning debris cannot be recontructed. I want to see – have it demonstrated to me – that jet fuel vapor will be ignited by these sources. These ignition sources must be identical models, in the identical location relative to the elevators design parameters. The elevator itself could be a scale model of two storeys high. If not a partial model of the elevator could be made.
I would like to know the exact design parameters inside the elevator shaft, whether for example, these sources were actually exposed to the descending jet fuel.
NIST or anyone else for that matter has not tested or demonstrated what could have been the source of ignition in the basement. They have speculated.

They speculated based on previous knowledge. EDL speculated on TWA800 yet you crow about them? What is the difference? You know you know it?

I am not doubting your credentials. I know you know more about this subject than myself. If you are saying that simple experiments cannot be achieved you have to provide convincing reasons. So far all you have provided is scaling problems which i dont actually believe is a major obstacle in terms of testing ignition sources of jet fuel.

Again, you have no idea. You do not need scaling to know that an electrical switch will cause the correct explosive atmosphere to ignite.

I'll give you a little clue here. The systems I use are IS circuits. The power is limited in the circuit to have insufficient power in the electrical circuit so that if there is an explosive atmosphere present it cannot ignite it.

These circuits operate on 4 to 20 mA current and 24 VDC. Do you understand how low this is?

Now tell me what most mains voltages are in lighting and mains rings in the USA. These also would not have been by anyway near the highest voltages or power ranges in the building.

Any single spark from any circuit in the towers will cause the fuel/air vapour to ignite. This is discounting the plane debris. Do you know how filaments in lamps work? Do you know how switches work? Do you know how hot some machinery in the towers can run at? Do you know how high the voltage is of Static Electricity discharge is when you can feel it?

You can doubt whoever you like – thats your right. I have a sneeky suspicion you even doubt me!! Doubt is healthy and i wish more people in this room would share my doubt in the official hypothesis.

Show some real evidence you may get some doubters.

Yes i thought it was a joke.

911 is no joke

It was a fixed question.

No, its not. You have many variables you could have named as to be the cause of the ignition of the esplosive atmosphere

First – your already telling me what the cause was and then you ask me what i think it was eventhough you already made it perfectly obvious that it was caused by gas!!

No, I did not tell you what the cause was. I said there was a gas explosion. This gives you two of the ingredients. Gas and oxygen. I asked what could have caused the ignition.

Second – i object to the context or setting of the question. Why dont you use a skyscrapper building that was previously attacked and has a history of terrorist bombs instead of a nice little neighbourly house where gas explosions are not unheard of.

Object all you like. I am asking a simple question about a simple situation. It needs no context. All I am looking for is what you think may have caused the ignition of the explosive atmosphere.

Third – your question ignores the fire triangle that you teach your students about. Yes we have the gas (fuel), yes have the air (oxygen), but what was the ignition source? You seem to sugegst in your question that the gas – was the ignition source – which is in violation of the fire triangle unless it somehow self-ignited. So to answer your question what was the ignition source of the gas – it could have been a thermite reaction or an incendary device. It is a fact that prior to 911 thermite has been used in arson http://www.journalof911studies.com/...a-paper-by-wood-&-reynolds-by-frank-legge.pdf

No it does not ignore the fire triangle. It only shows you up to know even less and be worse with your english than I already imagined. I gave you two sides of the fire triangle and asked you for a 3rd yet you are too limited to comprehend a simple question.

Do you think thermite is the most likely cause of the ignition in the house?

In truth what was the ignition source in the house example could have been a variety of possible to probable causes. Without an investigation it is impossible to prove anything

Correct, it could be a multitude of things, now you are getting somewhere.

What do you think is the most likely third leg of the triangle in this situation?

One last thing. Why the dishonest stealing of Hoffmans work? Did you think we were too stupid not to see your deception?

 

[funk de fino]

regarding progressive collapse of buildings and when it was "invented"

Even before the September 11 attacks, an American government working party stated that "Progressive structural collapse is a primary, if not the leading, cause of injury and death in building failures, regardless of the source of loading...For this reason, predicting and designing to prevent progressive collapse of a building under a specified attack scenario is (and should be) a primary objective..." The same report noted that "...guidance on building collapse and building code requirements would be valuable. The phenomenon of progressive collapse is not well understood, despite the widespread recognition that most building failures include building collapse.

Source - http://gow.epsrc.ac.uk/ViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/F002599/1

 

[thewholesoul]

so lets start off with what YOU said post #970 #1015

doesn’t the fact that no explosion can be seen or heard on any of the videos...mean nothing to you

Not a single explosion is heard

I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all

Now i thought that when Belz made a non-factual statements such as the ones above he would retract them – i was wrong.

The reason we all know that explosions were heard that day are twofold:
1)there is an abundance of eyewtiness testimony we can read
2)there is several videos and media clips that we can hear explosions for ourselves and hear reporters reporting about explosions

the testimony can be found in gravvy’s extensive and well researched paper “william rodriguez: escape artist”

and below are the video links you can hear explosions for yourself
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=rwhU15UY3Fc
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=HBaqG4xtyl0
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=2mtLpWYQ7Wk
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

now below i will just skip through Belz’s failure to withdraw a factually incorrect statement and his continued resistance in doing so.

Well, that's the crux of your problem, isn't it ? How do you distinguish an explosion from any other, loud, sudden noise ?

My problem is your inability to withdraw a factually incorrect statement. In relation to the eyewitness testimony i do not have to distinguih between a loud noise and an explosion – because the people who experienced the event do that for me as they described the events as explosions.

In relation to the video links because the eyewitnesses described hearing explosions that day – i assume – that the loud noises i hear on the video links of that day are the explosions that the eyewitnesses are talking about.

People claim to have heard explosions. Did they ? Did they hear a very loud noise and they think it was an explosion ? Did they hear someone say there was an explosion and are retrofitting their memories ? I don't know. That's why I can't say that any explosions were heard. Please learn to read.

Maybe you should read the testimony in gravy’s well researched paper “william rodriguez: the escape artist”. There you will find plenty of testimony. In that TESTIMONY are people who claimed to have heard explosions.

Now earlier Belz makes a distinction. When I said

it is a FACT that explosions were heard by witnesses we know this by reading their testimony

He replied

No, what's a FACT is that they CLAIM to have heard explosions.

Being sarcastic i tried to present Belz’s reasoning in relation to witnesses who saw the planes hitting the towers. I said

it is a fact that planes were seen hitting the towers by witnesses and we know this by reading their testimony or by watching the event on tv, but according to you

No, whats a FACT is that they CLAIM to have seen planes hitting the towers as if to say it is NOT A FACT that the planes hit the buildings!!!

Belz replied

Precisely. The people who saw planes hitting the towers CLAIM that they saw planes hit the towers. Of course, we have an insurmountable mountain of evidence showing that those same planes DID hit the towers. Case closed.

What Belz obviously fails to recognise is that testimony is a form of evidence, that the official theory does not deny that explosions were heard and that his distinction between “claiming” that you “experience” an event is pointless if that person is telling the truth. I tried to explain this to him

Your simply wrong my friend – the FACT was the EVENT that they were describing through their TESTIMONY which is also a FACT.

Belz replied

Then you must believe in UFOs, fairies and multiple omnipotent gods.

.....speechless at this juncture

It is a fact that explosions were heard. It is also a fact that they claimed to have heard explosions.

I don't play games, Soul. If you can't understand English, logic and evidence, that isn't my problem

I continue to explain why he is wrong

So if they are not lying that they heard an explosion then they DID HEAR AN EXPLOSION

False dichotomy. I explained other possibilities above.

Why is it a false dichotomy? What are you talking about my friend? Do the other possibilites such as a loud noise, or bang suddenly remove the fact the people claimed to have heard explosions. Does other possibilities remove the fact that you said on numerous occassions that no explosions-were-heard???

I continue to explain why he is wrong

that is WHY, dont you think, THEY WOULD CLAIM TO HAVE HEARD AN EXPLOSION. So if they are not lying that they heard and claimed to have heard an explosion you should consider withdrawing the statements below

Non sequitur.

Why is it non-sequiter? What are you talking about my friend?

He the quotes me saying

Because you admit they are not lying that means the experience of the explosion DID HAPPEN.

He then replies

Bolding mine.

Yes. You got THAT right.

So what part did i get right then? The part that they were telling the truth that they experienced an explosion which means that they did actually “hear an explosion” – correct????

Before closing let us recall his statements earlier that he refues to withdraw. i bold the relevant portions

doesn’t the fact that no explosion can be seen or heard on any of the videos”...mean nothing to you

Not a single explosion is heard

I have no idea if ANY explosions were heard at all

Look belz if you dont want to withdraw a clearly, obviously, patantly, plainly non factual statement – thats perfectly fine with me. But this will be the last time i could be arsed to return a post in relation to this non-sensical-no-explosions-heard hypothesis.

p.s. when your wrong and dont admit it, that looks bad. But when your wrong and continue to insult me for trying to explain to you why you are wrong, well thats just...

 

[Mobyseven]

thewholesoul:

Prior to 9/11, how many skyscrapers had been hit by large fuel laden commercial aeroplanes? How many remained standing? Prior to 9/11, how many buildings had had a 110 floor skyscraper collapse on top of them? How many remained standing?

 

[thewholesoul]

regarding progressive collapse of buildings and when it was "invented"

i chose my words specifically and purposefully.

i said progressive-global-collapse. why? becasue progressive collapse was documeted before, as was global collapse. but progressive global collapse to my knowledge is a new term not before used. i will look into a bit more.

however, and this point is more important. the burden of proof is not just for proponents "a new theory" it also covers - (bold) "claims". those who claim that the world is round must prove it. those who make scientific claims - must prove their claims.

in order to refute the argumnet that the burden of proof does not also apply to defenders of the official hypothesis you will have to explain why the claim - total collapse is inevitable post initial collpase - is (a) not a claim or (b) it has already been proven by experiment or computer modelling.

i await your response

 

[thewholesoul]

thewholesoul:

Prior to 9/11, how many skyscrapers had been hit by large fuel laden commercial aeroplanes? How many remained standing? Prior to 9/11, how many buildings had had a 110 floor skyscraper collapse on top of them? How many remained standing?

let me be clear the "large fuel laden commercial aeroplanes" is responsible up to and not beyond the point of initial collapse. it is not presented as the reason why we observed total collapse according to the official story.

"Prior to 9/11, how many buildings had had a 110 floor skyscraper collapse on top of them"

partially collapse on top of them. and if you are refering to tower 7 then the collapse mechanism has still not been presented by NIST so with respect i doubt you know what was the causal mechanism was behind the total collapse of that building.

i am not sure how many remained standing. but if memory serves correctly tower 7 was the only tower in wtc to have collapsed "totally" from the onset of the twin tower destruction or demolition. eventhough other buildings suffered more damage. kinda starnge, to me at least

 

[WildCat]

let me be clear

Ah, there you are! I've created a thread just for you to present an alternative hypothesis of what happened on 9/11. Just go here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102615

 

[A W Smith]

hahahahha - it that right?

lets see that quote again



ok i understand you did not bother to read the whole post# 1047 but instead opted for a liitle dig - and a weak one at that. But let us examine the above quote in relation to the official hypothesis.

new theory: tell me. when was the progressive global collapse theory first invented? pre or post 911? the fact that previous to 911 no steel framed skyscrappers exhibted a progressive global collapse - this "new theory" was aptly invented. was it ever proven? - no.

claim: once intial collapse occured total collapse was inevitable. was this claim - some would say bold claim - ever proven? no

so, like i said and the quote that you used above says the burdern of proof means the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. Therefore the burden of proof rests on defenders of the official hypothesis AND advocates of alternative hypothesis. if the bold claim - once intial collapse occured total collapse was inevitable – has been proven then who proved it and did they use the scientific method? It wasnt....

moreover, you kindly made the predictable and unacceptable “double-standard” which i discussed in my post#1047 which basically asserts that advocates of controlled demolition must prove how the towers could survive the initial collapse but advocates of the official hypothesis do not have to prove how the towers could not survive the initial collapse. It seems to me in both our interests if we could prove this bold claim one way or another. Those who resist or object to this claim ever being proven cannot be said to respect the scientific method.

So next time you want to make a little dig – and least put your back into it.

http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html

In December 1985, a catastrophic accident occurred in Los Angeles during construction of a 21-story steel-frame building. Eighty tons of structural steel sections were stockpiled on one bay on the fifth floor, loading the bay to twice its designed capacity. Three beams failed suddenly at their temporary connections, precipitating a progressive collapse of 10 bays all the way to the ground floor. Three construction workers were killed in the accident

 

[thewholesoul]

Actually, let's not say that. Let's not use a false dilemma fallacy. Let's say you take some time to learn about critical thinking, come back and try again.

false dillema eh.

two hypotheses. 1. contolled demolition 2. fire and gravity

if controlled demolition therefore false flag therefore governemnt lied

if fire + gravity therefore terrorist attack therefore givernment not lying

where is this false dilemma your talking about?

 

[DGM]

false dillema eh.

two hypotheses. 1. contolled demolition 2. fire and gravity

if controlled demolition therefore false flag therefore governemnt lied

if fire + gravity therefore terrorist attack therefore givernment not lying

where is this false dilemma your talking about?

Technically controlled demolition does not necessarily mean the government lied. It could have been done by terrorists.

 

[Totovader]

Technically controlled demolition does not necessarily mean the government lied. It could have been done by terrorists.

The subsequent cover-up by all levels of government, however, would be the lie.

Why the government would lie about something like that- as in, what purpose would it serve- is beyond me, though... and TWS can't explain it.

 

[DGM]

The subsequent cover-up by all levels of government, however, would be the lie.

Why the government would lie about something like that- as in, what purpose would it serve- is beyond me, though... and TWS can't explain it.

If it was done well enough (hypothetical speaking) and not discovered. What's to cover up?

Wouldn't that piss the "truthers" off. A CD that the government had nothing to do with.

 

[Totovader]

If it was done well enough (hypothetical speaking) and not discovered. What's to cover up?

Wouldn't that piss the "truthers" off. A CD that the government had nothing to do with.

I suppose it's possible- but I would think it's highly unlikely to be done and leave no noticeable trace. Early news reports in the confusion speculated as to an "inside job" (misquoted throughout LC:FC) meaning one of the workers may have helped... As to how this could be done without leaving any trace- or being successful... I just can't comprehend it.

Regardless- any CD would be the governments doing, whether it was or not. Conspiracists blame the government for things without evidence as it is now, that probably wouldn't change.

 

[DavidJames]

false dillema eh.

two hypotheses. 1. contolled demolition 2. fire and gravity

if controlled demolition therefore false flag therefore governemnt lied

if fire + gravity therefore terrorist attack therefore givernment not lying

where is this false dilemma your talking about?

In the future, let me suggest you actually read the entire post you replying to before you reply. That way you won't look silly.

Here is the quote I said was a false dilemma, I've highlighted the key pieces.

let us just say that there are two kinds of folk. those that believe that the government tells the truth and those that do not. those that believe governemnts do not perform false flag operations and those that do.

I'm not sure what your reply was in reference to.

So, to review. You need to read for comprehension before you reply. I think if you are able master that technique, you may find your way out of the mess you're in.

Good luck.

Edit to help a little. The false dilemma is stating that people must either believe the government or not believe. It's quite possible for people to believe some things but not others.

 

[thewholesoul]

Technically controlled demolition does not necessarily mean the government lied. It could have been done by terrorists.

your right.

there is another angle of course. there was no CD and no terrorists either. but the government attacked the buildings with the planes.

CD - False flag - govt lies
no CD - false flag - govt lies

CD - terrorist attack - govt true
no CD - terrorist attack - govt true

 

[thewholesoul]

The false dilemma is stating that people must either believe the government or not believe. It's quite possible for people to believe some things but not others.

point taken.

but i think on this issue and the topic of the thread we are discussing whether there were explosives in the buildings or not. in other words whether the government is lying or not. so there is and must be an either/or dichotomy in this debate.

if there were explosives that means (a) govt did it (b) or terrorists did it

if there were no explosives in the building that means (a) govt flew the planes (b) or terrorists flew the planes (c) or govt knew terrorists would fly the planes and nothing to prevent it

if the govt planted explosives or flew the planes or knew the terrorists would fly the planes into towers it is an inside job or false flag operation and the government lied

if the terrorists planted explosives or flew the planes into towers it was not an inside job or a false flag operation and the governemnt did not lie.

it seems to be the governemnt is lying or not.

 

[funk de fino]

i chose my words specifically and purposefully.

i said progressive-global-collapse. why? becasue progressive collapse was documeted before, as was global collapse. but progressive global collapse to my knowledge is a new term not before used. i will look into a bit more.

however, and this point is more important. the burden of proof is not just for proponents "a new theory" it also covers - (bold) "claims". those who claim that the world is round must prove it. those who make scientific claims - must prove their claims.

in order to refute the argumnet that the burden of proof does not also apply to defenders of the official hypothesis you will have to explain why the claim - total collapse is inevitable post initial collpase - is (a) not a claim or (b) it has already been proven by experiment or computer modelling.

i await your response

maths, physics, gravity, calculations, momentum, force, observation

if you want to try to disprove any of these you are more than welcome

BTW your video links from an earlier post do not show explosions, you've been fooled by liars and morons