Harry Bosch
Contributor
So you believe some conspiracies, but not others? How do you decide which are true?
-
Features
Derail from PD: rehash on 911 conspiracy.
- Thread starter empty
- Start date
empty
New member
by that standard you are disqualified as well. argumentation, logic, and science are open to all who can play by the rules. as the link and others show, mohr and other proponents ov the official story cannot. on the flipside, the sources i use to debate are all qualified to comment on the topic. are you conceding the debate?
empty
New member
dystopian
Veteran Member
Unfortunately, people have a tendency to assume they're playing by the rules even when they're clearly off-side.
Poorly shot and rambling youtube videos do not a convincing argument make.
In my country we have a modern saying; "Wij, van WC-eend."; this translates to "We, of toilet-duck". This saying is derived from the fact that many many years ago, the cleaning company WC-eend ran ads in which a supposed scientific expert used said phrase before extolling the virtues of the product. The saying essentially means that people who have a vested interest in a particular position, are not as a rule; the most reliable source of information on said position.
See what I'm saying?
empty
New member
as is the case with the proponents ov the official story, but its an ad hominem when applied to me
point in case. another ad hominem. there is an immense amount ov information in the videos which you cannot hand wave away. and you didnt address the articles im sure you havent read
the independent researchers ov 9/11 have no vested interest in anything but the truth, as all scientists and researchers are are supposed to. on the other hand, govts, the media, and proponents ov the official story, controlled by rich 'elites' with ties to the MIC, oil companies, and otherwise the current paradigm we live in, do
youre projecting
Last edited:
dystopian
Veteran Member
That's not actually an ad hominem you know; throwing that word around by itself doesn't impress anyone around here.
/waves
Right. For the same reason that I don't read articles on the 'faked' moon landing anymore.
Someone with a pet theory they have absolute faith in most certainly have a vested interest in promoting that theory at all cost. They're emotionally invested in the theory, and the prospect of it being torn down, or worse; ignored; causes too much cognitive dissonance for that someone.
The idea that a handful of supposed experts; most with shoddy credentials; could point out what the entire planet's scientific community could not; is absurd. Do you *honestly* think that if a third tier physics teacher could come up with a reason to doubt the official story, there wouldn't be a vast outcry of engineers and physicists around the world who could and would do the same? Or do you honestly expect us to be gullible enough to think they're all controlled by 'the elite'?
Obviously. Google even slipped up and admitted it a while back. The original version of Google Moon showed the truth--the moon is made of cheese. Since Apollo supposedly brought back rocks they obviously didn't actually go there!
empty
New member
it is
thus further confirming my point
ad hominem
do you not have absolute faith that if you jump off a building you will fall? thats what were dealing with here. everything else is, surprise, more ad hominem
more ad hominem, and you sound like a flat-earther
dystopian
Veteran Member
Repeating the statement does not make it so. Ad hominem fallacies come in a number of flavors. You may be thinking of the one where the fallacy lies in equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument. Pointing out that the youtube videos brought forward as supposed authorities to be listened are poorly shot and rambling in tone, does not fall under this form of fallacy.
That too, was not an ad hominem, but a mere statement of fact. If I were to argue that your theory is wrong because it sounds similar to another theory; then that *would* be an ad hominem fallacy; however, I made no such argument. I merely stated that the reason I didn't read your articles is the same reason I don't read moon landing hoax websites anymore. One only needs to listen to the arguments for and against a certain number of times before one has to draw their conclusions; we can't be expected to slog through arguments exactly the same as what we've already heard dozens of times before just worded slightly differently. That is not an ad hom.
No, it's not. Though you saying that does establish my point.
Again; those aren't ad homs. It would be, if I were arguing that the theory is wrong because the only people supporting it have shoddy credentials. That, however, is clearly not my argument. My argument is that if the theory is correct, we would expect a majority of the scientific community to agree with the theory, or at least call the official version of events in doubt. That is not the case. One shouldn't believe what a few self-professed experts claim when there is a deafening silence from the expert community at large.
...lol wut?
Oh I see; you're trying to be cute by arguing that my position that the majority scientific view is what matters rather than that of the dissenting minority means I would've argued against a round earth back in the day...
...except you'd be wrong, since we've known the world was round since before the birth of science, and popular myth to the contrary, the scientific/academic consensus has NEVER been that the world is flat.
empty
New member
same goes to you
actually, you were referring to the notion that those who may think they are playing by the rules ov argumentation are in fact not, implying that you wouldnt commit to a debate on that basis, with no proof ov that being the case, thus an ad hom
it is an ad hominem due to the fact that according to one ov your peers discussion occurs 'if we find x,' which we have, as i stated before
to put it another way, you are arguing against data nist themselves have provided, such as admission ov freefall for 2.25 seconds in the case ov wtc7, disproving the natural collapse theory, as even the nist lead said, "freefall cannot occur in a natural collapse."
nist also found and documented molten metal under appendix c ov their wtc7 report, something also which cannot happen during normal office fires
nasa, the usgs, and many other rescue and clean up workers also documented molten metal and extreme temperatures in your reputable sources
furthermore, nist was found to have falsified their model for collapse ov wtc7, omitting supports which were present, and altering other data points to try and make natural collapse seem plausible. this is all in my original post
i can point you to the correct links and time if you cant find them
yes, it is. there are laws ov physics such as newtons third law and the law ov conservation ov motion which were violated during the collapses ov the three towers, again disproving the official story
you denying it, doesnt make it so, as you are fond ov saying
the 'expert' community at large which has been vetted by the rich 'elites' such as in the case ov the media and other historical examples. your experts are nothing but yes men. and too bad for your pet theory, the experts supporting controlled demolition are all at the top ov their fields, giving them more credibility than your 'third rate' sources, in your terms
you are wrong ov course, the flat earth concept was widely held among many cultures. if the majority ov the scientific community never held that belief, why then were they ignored? are you thus proving my point in saying the minority view was correct among the majority? but either way, my point still stands, as there are many other examples which could prove my point, such as galileo (and those yes men again)
there are many more examples such as patented and improvised cutter charges which prove that thermite can cut through steel, despite your reputable sources claims to the contrary
and the documented nanothermite, developed by the u.s military only a few years prior to 9/11
the official story is bullshit, no matter how many times you deny it
thief of fire
Member
If nanothermite was found how do those who believe the official story explain that?
Empty, something to understand: Before your time there were a lot of long 9/11 threads. We saw the same laughable "evidence" presented over and over. We saw a fanatic attempt to seize on anything that could be interpreted as an attack on the orthodox story as evidence it was a conspiracy.
At one point I worked out the energy in the falling buildings and compared it to that of a backpack nuke (it's reasonably close.) I forget the exact details but it was matter of showing the energy in the collapse far exceeded anything that could reasonably be obtained by explosives. Some of the truthers seized on this as evidence the buildings were brought down by nukes.
Again and again we pointed out specific flaws in arguments, just to see them again in the next thread or even later in the same thread. For a while the truthers were crowing about a picture of "molten steel" fished out of the wreckage weeks later. The fact that you can't pick up a liquid by gripping the top of it was going in one ear and out the other. Never mind that in broad daylight you can't see something glowing at a red heat in the first place.
If you have something solid explain it in a simple fashion, don't give us a flood of links. If it's going to take half an hour to figure out I doubt any of us will bother--we've seen too much crap, we aren't inclined to engage in a lot of effort to prove something new (which is unlikely in the first place, we see the same things over and over) isn't just more crap.
At one point I worked out the energy in the falling buildings and compared it to that of a backpack nuke (it's reasonably close.) I forget the exact details but it was matter of showing the energy in the collapse far exceeded anything that could reasonably be obtained by explosives. Some of the truthers seized on this as evidence the buildings were brought down by nukes.
Again and again we pointed out specific flaws in arguments, just to see them again in the next thread or even later in the same thread. For a while the truthers were crowing about a picture of "molten steel" fished out of the wreckage weeks later. The fact that you can't pick up a liquid by gripping the top of it was going in one ear and out the other. Never mind that in broad daylight you can't see something glowing at a red heat in the first place.
If you have something solid explain it in a simple fashion, don't give us a flood of links. If it's going to take half an hour to figure out I doubt any of us will bother--we've seen too much crap, we aren't inclined to engage in a lot of effort to prove something new (which is unlikely in the first place, we see the same things over and over) isn't just more crap.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 39,190
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
1) What is nanothermite? The only thing that makes any sense to me is an especially fine-grained thermite. It would react faster than traditional thermite but that's all.
2) And how in the world do you detect residue of it? Within 10' of me I can find every component of thermite in quantities vastly above what a lab can detect. Saying they detected thermite residue is like saying they found traces of water in a garden.
3) Thermite is going to have a very hard time cutting a vertical column. When it's fired the result is very hot but it's molten--it's going to behave like any other liquid and flow down. Consider Chernobyl--they had the start of a China-syndrome accident but did it cut the reactor walls? No. It only burned through the floor. (The roof was blown off, the walls were a bit damaged in the blast but they're basically still there.) That only happened because it had no place to go--given a place to go it flowed in preference to burning through things. (Which is why it was only the start of a China-syndrome accident. As soon as it got into the basement it could spread out and did and dropped subcritical. It did not burn through those basement walls.)
4) Thermite suffers the same problem as the explosive scenarios: What happens when a charge fails? There would be no way to predict *EXACTLY* where the plane would hit, yet the failure point is very close by. How do you deadman all your charges so they neither go early nor fail to go? Finding one unused charge in the rubble would give away the game.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Maybe, but I'm not the one making a positive claim (ie; 'x' *is* an ad hominem argument); you are. Which means we ought to expect you to back said claim up with a little more than "is too".
Except, like I explained, that is not an ad hominem. First of all, a supposed lack of proof is irrelevant to whether a particular argument counts as an ad hominem argument. Second, please don't assume to know what I'm implying. Thirdly, questioning the notion that the people who proudly and loudly proclaim themselves to be following the rules are in fact following them, is not an ad hominem; nor would it be if that were my reason for not committing to a debate.
Incidentally, as someone who seems to like to shout ad hom to everyone who disagrees with you; I should probably point out that it is itself a fallacy to assert that the use of ad hominem arguments makes that person wrong. Ad hom arguments are NOT automatically fallacious; and in fact are perfectly applicable when used to question the credibility of statements of 'fact' and appeals to authority; as is the case here.
This may be a bit hard for you to understand, but what one of my "peers" has stated in the past has absolutely no relevance to me or the things *I* say. You can not point to something someone else has said, and use that to argue that something I said is an ad hom. I am under no obligation to agree with my supposed 'peers'.
It is dishonest to appeal to an authority to strengthen your position when that same authority rules out your pet theory. It's called quote-mining. The NIST has ruled out controlled demolition.
NIST did not find and document molten steel. What it reported was distorted metal. Directly from their website:
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
This is getting awkward guy; first you try to use the NIST as an authority to prove that natural collapse is impossible, then you claim they found something they themselves deny they found, and then you turn to just accuse them of fraud and mass deception. Why on earth would you expect anyone to listen to you when you burn your own sources that much?
And I'll take the silence of the entire physics community as far better evidence than the word of a handful of high-school level physics teachers with a chip on their shoulder.
You obviously don't know the first thing about the scientific community if you genuinely believe it's vetted by rich elites.
...lol wut?
And our culture apparently widely holds that the antics of celebrities are newsworthy; what the fuck does this have to do with what scientists think?
Really? Okay let's see:
- The overwhelming majority of people were illiterate, thus depriving them of the only means of even *knowing* what the scientific community was discussing amongst itself.
- Even if one was literate, that was no guarantee that one would come into contact with scientific literature on this (or any subject). This was true especially prior to the invention of the printing press, but also often true afterwards for reasons listed below.
- Education was prohibitively expensive for most people; thus preventing them from coming into contact with academic ideas.
- In most places, organized religion acted with hostility to scientific notions; and scientific literature was routinely censored or outright burned throughout much of the world, right into the modern era.
- That said, even within theologian circles, around the time of Columbus the idea that the earth was in fact round appeared to hold a majority view; as evidenced by many letters and treatises of the time. The disagreement was not so much that people believed a ship sailing far enough west would fall of the world, but that there was considerable debate about the actual circumference of the earth; with many believing it to be at least twice as big as it was in reality. While there were a few voices in that community who genuinely thought the world was flat, the majority of them knew otherwise on account of the ancient Greeks, who conclusively proved the world to be round. Eratotsthenes was the first (that we know of) to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did in 240BC with remarkable accuracy.
- They were not, in fact, "ignored"; and in fact it was known even by many of the scientifically illiterate peasants that the world was not flat. One can not believe in a flat Earth when one sees the sails of a ship pass below the horizon, only for that same ship to return unharmed a season later.
The idea that there used to be consensus that the world was flat is actually a 19th century fiction. It can actually be traced to the evolution debates taking place during that time; with the argument appearing that we shouldn't listen to what the scientists are saying about how god isn't necessary to create the animals, because scientists were supposedly wrong about the earth not being flat before. This is also when we first see that famous woodprint of a medieval man opening a door in the sky to look out and see the edge of the world; an image that became how we popularly imagine how medieval people saw the world; this wood print is a 19th century invention.
...are you seriously calling Galileo a yes man? Or are you claiming that he was persecuted by *scientists*, when he clearly wasn't?
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,418
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
I guess this was inevitable. A few things to note:
- A ton of debate has already taken place at IIDB / FRDB. So the idea of people here just handwaving stuff aside is bunk.
- Molten metal is such a bogus argument. You can't have it both ways. If themite was used, the location and amounts used would have been limited. It would have cut through the beams and caused the collapse. It would not have stuck around to continue melting the beams and keep the beams melted.
- The collapses of all three towers were different modes of failure, yet you claim that they were all staged.
- The "yes" men are called structural engineers. The same people that designed major structures across the globe. You can not just hand wave their testimony aside because it is inconvenient.
- There are no civil engineers that support the Truther movement. In fact, there are few people with science degrees that support it.
- The Official version has hardly been debunked.
And lets take another one: One of the engineers that actually designed the twin towers tried to sound the alarm--he realized, just from his knowledge of how it was built, without needing to run numbers, that they were going to fall. Unfortunately he didn't manage to convince the authorities in time to save the emergency crews.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,418
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Actually, if I remember a documentary correctly, he stated he didn't know. But certainly there was a threat of collapse. Honestly, with Cooper Union among a half dozen other great universities in the five Burroughs, someone should have made contacts and see where they stood structurally. The answer most likely would have been "We don't fucking know, but they could collapse."
empty
New member
firstly, i didnt know chris mohr was the rev. chris mohr --- the foundation ov frdbs and the 'debunkers' 'science' relies on this mans 'expertise'
i would have replied sooner, but like capt. haddock here, ive been pursuing the more intellectually invigorating activity ov getting my drink on
secondly, the millette paper has already been refuted, having many issues which prevent it from being acceptable evidence, such as:
- millette is not an independent source, as he crafted many ov the concepts for the official conspiracy theory
- it has not been submitted for peer review
- the source materials used by millette do not match those used by harrit et al.
- millette did not replicate the harrit et al. experiment
Last edited:
empty
New member
yes you are fond ov saying so. i thought we were all adults here, but apparently loren needs to realize that the world keeps on turning whether or not he is searching, and that some evidence was either not available until after such times, or was not known to those at the time, or as i have suggested, those you were debating were in fact disinfo agents themselves
sure you did. considering what this forum has already seen ov your reasoning skills, there is no reason to give them credence. anyway, that theory has already been refuted as well. but are you saying there were nukes in the towers, and that nist should in fact have looked for explosives as per national fire codes, before they came to conclusion that 'we didnt look, because we didnt think we would find any'? you avoided this question on the last board, mind you, but you dont have to answer, its rhetorical
there is indeed much evidence for molten steel, as i posted originally, even found and documented by fema themselves
here is a picture ov it
more evidence can been found in this video, from about 1:35:00 to the end. you can even see your supposedly not visible molten steel in broad daylight dripping from the tower in the minutes before the towers destruction
what i find funny is some evidence is even on public display at the 9/11 memorial; the cross made ov steel fused together
i organized all my links under simple headings giving an overview ov the evidence contained. besides, i already told you (which you probably didnt read) i am familiar with the links and can pinpoint times to save yours, in the interest ov science and debate, which are trying so hard to avoid. dont be angry at me that there is so much evidence that disproves the official conspiracy theory, instead direct your feelings on your own mind which prohibits you from objectively looking at the facts
