Discussion in '9/11' started by LaDairis, May 24, 2016.
Have you read my thread "Basic Logic" ?
Yes, and I was appalled at the lack of it in the thread. I'm very good at logic and have studied it in philosophy. Thanks for ignoring the points in my post. I'll bear that in mind when I reply to you in future.
Oh I'm so sorry you don't like the facts. All anyone needs to do is read most of your posts, in this very thread for example.
Do you always resort to logical fallacies for your defense?
So all you're going to do is troll throughout the thread? How typical.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes, he does.
"The collapse was NOT symmetrical internally. " To quote from a previous attempt to support the unsupportable,
How is it that anyone could know for certain what was going on internally for WTC7? and additionally, what can be seen,
is very clearly 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration and during that time, the building falls straight down, that is CD, you do
NOT get that sort of result from "office fires".
No-one does, I hope you understand that the NIST was charged with 'modelling' the collapse initiations. The modelling process was produced from the observed external features, and that showed that the interior collapsed before the movement wall. Revise the NIST report for clarification on the methodology.
Free fall for 2.25 seconds at the 12.5 second mark means nothing, and the fact that g was exceeded in that period confirms the NIST's hypothesis.
Correction: Unfought office fires and structural damage. CD is irrational and illogical. Show me a CD that resembles the collapse of 7WTC.
Very interesting about the NIST, they allegedly did a "simulation" to show how WTC7 fell, and then when asked for the source data
for their simulation, they declared the information SECRET so as to not "endanger public safety"
despots hide behind alleged necessary secrecy in order to cloak their criminal activities.
Any simulation without source data is useless, because nobody can know the parameters used to create said simulation.
So the bit from the NIST is as much as if they had published nothing.
also, you may say that the 2.25 sec of free fall is insignificant, however, do you get what conditions are necessary to have free fall?
and the fact that the building was observed descending straight down during that 2.25 sec, and this ( at least to you ... ) is not relevant?
What conditions do you think are necessary to have free fall?
No, as I already told you, the NIST was restrained with a court order from the NSA. Take it up with the judge.
Prove the NIST wrong instead of just attacking the institution. Anyone can lob unfounded accusations against the NIST and truthers generally do. We've heard that crap for years and you still cannot demonstrate that any omissions, whether intentional or not, affected the outcome of the report.
Are you even reading my replies? I keep stating the same thing endlessly.
Free fall was only noted for 2.25 seconds, 12.5 seconds into the collapse sequence. It wasn't universal or sustained, therefore it could be attributed to a sub assembly breaking off during the irregular collapse of the interior.
I know you don't like answering questions, but how do you account for g being exceeded during the same period?
The alleged exceeded g condition can be accounted for by knowing that there will always be data anomalies
bits that are outside what is a true representation of what actually happened and caused by various things
such as camera vibration, and errors in data collection, logging, and these things are not to be taken as some sort
of indication that the fall actually exceeded g at any time. The fact is that the fall for that 2.25 sec is properly described
as being indistinguishable from the acceleration of gravity. The ONLY way that is accomplished is to have ALL of the
resistance cleared away out from under the falling bit, and in the case of WTC7 seeing the falling bit descend straight down
clearly indicates that the resistance was removed all at once, instantly, this was NOT the result of a "progressive collapse"
it had to have been engineered to have all the resistance just disappear all at once.
One also needs to consider what the NSA is hiding because the source data for the simulation should benefit public safety if anything
what is BIG BROTHER hiding?
What a convenient and prosaic rebuttal. So, you can't answer my question, but the over g was recorded with the free fall, so one is anomalous, but the half is correct?
That's poor methodology.
Argument from ignorance fallacy. It was only recorded for a short time in a single position and unrelated to the collapse initiation. The collapse of the movement, or curtain wall is well into the sequence, therefore CD cannot be the cause.
I don't usually 'do' idle speculation, especially when dealing with extreme confirmation bias, but perhaps it is not a good idea to circulate the weakness in a certain design? At least that makes sense. Controlled demolition was illogical, impractical, unnecessary and irrational.
What is an illogical fallacy about the truth? It is what it is, the proof is in this thread and many others of course. Are you his attorney?
Agreed. Religiously defending the OCT on a regular basis and questioning none of it is the standard MO.
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
and I suppose that being constantly misquoted and misinterpreted is supposed to indicate that the opposition faction
is only interested in supporting the TRUTH .....
Ya, right ......
Jay Windley is the webmaster of the Clavius Apollo-hoax damage-control site.
Jay Windley is a paid sophist. I've debated with him about the faking of the Apollo moon missions.
Look how Jay Windley behaved like a typical checkmated sophist on this page.
Nothing he says is to be taken seriously.
It isn't misquoted and misrepresented, and it relates the tactics I'm only to familiar with from 9/11 truth (albeit the original quote pertained to Apollo hoaxers, but I don't see a difference). The evidence to support my claim is in every truther post.
9/11 truth: But the firefighters said this!
A realist: Have you checked with the firemen to clarify their quotes?
9/11 truth: No. But it's an inside job!
= no solution, and no intention of 9/11 truth checking their claims, therefore, the argument goes around in a circle for fifteen years.
9/11 truth: 7WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition! The evidence is all there!
A realist: What evidence?
9/11 truth: The NIST committed fraud! It's a cover-up.
= no solution, and no proof, therefore the argument goes around in a circle for eight years.
I could provide examples of my point all day. I'm defending the quote to a no-planer that denies reality in favour of his own flawed maths. How is that logical? Many other truthers think the no-plane argument is a distraction and deliberate misinformation.
There will be no solution to your no-planer threads despite the mountain of evidence against your claims, and you will undoubtedly continue to shill this banality wherever you post.
9/11 truth is definitely NOT interested in the truth.
again you misrepresent .... Note that the PROOF that WTC7 was blown up is in the 2.25 sec of free fall descent
the people attempting to support the official story will do anything to nay-say this fact, but it is a fact that the observed
fall of WTC7 includes 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration and at that time, the descent was straight down,
just exactly how is a single point of failure caused by "office fires" going to produce this result?
911 truth has building 7 falling at two different speeds, one faster than gravity. Chew on that.
This just goes to show that some people do not understand how scientific data is collected and used.
Fact is, there will be anomalies in any data collection system, and the people who have the job of sorting it out understand the math behind creating trend lines ( etc... ) and its all good, the descent of WTC7 for that 2.25 sec is indistinguishable from free fall.
BTW: how is it ( do you think ) that any descent such as that of WTC7 should exceed the acceleration of gravity?
Because 91 truth is full of idiot conspiracy theorists.
insult does not constitute rebuttal.
That's the best you can expect from most of these rabid OCT defenders when they have nothing left to defend, insults, name calling and ridicule.
OK, insecure conspiracy theorists.
and again, a non-rebuttal!
Did you know that Dov Zakheim went to work in the pentagon during the Reagan administration?
Is it possible that the US government is completely infested with members of AIPAC and other Israeli interests? Slightly off topic, but Sibel Edmonds makes it very clear how infested the FBI, and likely other parts of the government, are with Turkish interests and moles. Why not Israel?
Considering the roles of Ptech and MITRE corp in the aviation events of the day, there is a very good chance that Israel was involved up to their eyeballs in what happened that day.
And IMO, that DOES matter, somehow.
Separate names with a comma.