An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106:433]

[Buck Ewer]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Sometimes I think some people just like to post pics of 9/11. Their whole conspiracy routine could just be an excuse to do so.

I like to post pictures of glowing fireplace pokers.
It reminds me of sipping hot brandy and rum drinks, heated with the fireplace poker at my sister's log cabin in the woods in southern Maine.:mrgreen:

 

[ecofarm]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

I like to post pictures of glowing fireplace pokers.

Lots of people like to post pics of hot pokers.

 

[Mark F]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Reference from Forensics 101
anything completely destroyed is considered suspicious
because things very seldom ( VERY SELDOM ) are completely destroyed
unless there was a plan to destroy the object in the first place.

Given that its a complex operation,
that is the controlled demolition of a building.
Not getting it right results in incomplete demolition.

Note that in "normal" CD, the company doing it must do a
cost effective job of it, and use only as much of the expensive
explosives as needed to do it right ( without waste of course )

in the case of creating a false flag attack, the perpetrators obviously
have a very large "budget" for this and can use as much explosive as
necessary to make very certain that the job got done, and done well!

The fact of total destruction of the WTC towers & 7 is quite significant
because it can be said that the effect of unfocused energy from fires
is equivalent to a very well planned & executed CD.

I invite discussion on this subject.

Build an evidence-backed case for an inside job using explosives - naming the suspects, telling is when it was done, with what was it done, how was it done, how was it so completely covered up and most importantly WHY.

Then there is something to discuss.

As of right now there is no case for CD or an inside job. Other than hand-waved accusations neither you or anyone else has presented a prima facie case for an inside job or CD worthy of serious discussion. The time for this hypothetical nonsense and vague innuendo is long over. It really is time to put up or move on.

 

[Jango]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Build an evidence-backed case for an inside job using explosives - naming the suspects, telling is when it was done, with what was it done, how was it done, how was it so completely covered up and most importantly WHY.

Then there is something to discuss.

As of right now there is no case for CD or an inside job. Other than hand-waved accusations neither you or anyone else has presented a prima facie case for an inside job or CD worthy of serious discussion. The time for this hypothetical nonsense and vague innuendo is long over. It really is time to put up or move on.

Koko isn't Secret Squirrel. He won't be able to give a complete answer to your questions. You know this and he knows this. That's why it's nonsensical and farcical to demand proof about a conspiracy theory. If there was irrefutable proof, there wouldn't be a conspiracy. What the so-called debunkers do at every message board that has a conspiracy section is the equivalent of standing on the sidewalk in NYC arguing with the homeless guy holding the "End is Nigh" sign.

 

[Quag]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Koko isn't Secret Squirrel. He won't be able to give a complete answer to your questions. You know this and he knows this. That's why it's nonsensical and farcical to demand proof about a conspiracy theory. If there was irrefutable proof, there wouldn't be a conspiracy. What the so-called debunkers do at every message board that has a conspiracy section is the equivalent of standing on the sidewalk in NYC arguing with the homeless guy holding the "End is Nigh" sign.

You seem to be under the misguided impression that Koko is a truther. He isnt he just likes to troll. he gets his kicks from laughing at truthers liking his nonsensical posts

 

[Mark F]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Koko isn't Secret Squirrel. He won't be able to give a complete answer to your questions. You know this and he knows this. That's why it's nonsensical and farcical to demand proof about a conspiracy theory. If there was irrefutable proof, there wouldn't be a conspiracy. What the so-called debunkers do at every message board that has a conspiracy section is the equivalent of standing on the sidewalk in NYC arguing with the homeless guy holding the "End is Nigh" sign.

That is why Koko is on ignore.

I was addressing CATIwampus from whom an answer of any sort of substance is probably even less likely. I know that none of them can explain what they think actually happened and they will run or duck from every attempt to do so. I also know THEY DON'T KNOW THAT. By definition people can not see their own blind spots. I am merely trying - with little hope for success mind you - to expose the blind spots. On average about once a year someone actually gets it.

 

[Jango]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

You seem to be under the misguided impression that Koko is a truther. He isnt he just likes to troll. he gets his kicks from laughing at truthers liking his nonsensical posts

No, he is a truther. He posts at other message boards, not just this one.

 

[Jango]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

That is why Koko is on ignore.

I was addressing CATIwampus from whom an answer of any sort of substance is probably even less likely. I know that none of them can explain what they think actually happened and they will run or duck from every attempt to do so. I also know THEY DON'T KNOW THAT. By definition people can not see their own blind spots. I am merely trying - with little hope for success mind you - to expose the blind spots. On average about once a year someone actually gets it.

I don't know where you live, but would you engage in corrective dialogue with the homeless man holding the "End is Nigh" sign?

 

[Quag]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

No, he is a truther. He posts at other message boards, not just this one.

And he is laughing at the truthers on those boards as well.

 

[Mark F]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

No, he is a truther. He posts at other message boards, not just this one.

That doesn't make him a Truther and certainly not a genuine Truther.

 

[Mark F]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

I don't know where you live, but would you engage in corrective dialogue with the homeless man holding the "End is Nigh" sign?

Are you saying our friends on the other side are all crazy homeless people?

I'm guess I'm more of a glass-half-full kind of guy myself (please don't confuse that with optimism) - willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (to a point). I can honestly say there is only one semi-regular contributor here that would qualify for that description.

The only individual I am still engaging in any regular discussion with is CATIwampus. While I may disagree with him fundamentally and get frustrated at the fact there seems to be no progression in his level of understanding he is at least civil and courteous. He's probably the only Truther in here who genuinely believes in the inside jobby-job and isn't just in it for the ego-trip, even if he can't explain why he believes it. I am not particularly interested in changing his mind but I would like to see him at least progress to the level of being able to explain the why.

 

[Jango]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

That doesn't make him a Truther and certainly not a genuine Truther.

No planes (they're CGI), controlled demolition, U.S. government will murder officials who speak out, al Qaeda is a C.I.A. creation… to top it off, he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.

Pretty trutherish.

 

[Quag]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

No planes (they're CGI), controlled demolition, U.S. government will murder officials who speak out, al Qaeda is a C.I.A. creation… to top it off, he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.

Pretty trutherish.

Koko doesnt believe any of that stuff he just posts over the top beyond insane nonsense to see how many truthers will agfree with him and like his posts.

 

[Mark F]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

No planes (they're CGI), controlled demolition, U.S. government will murder officials who speak out, al Qaeda is a C.I.A. creation… to top it off, he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.

Pretty trutherish.

Your missing the point. He likes to be contrary. He likes the attention he gets from being contrary. He's like the kid in school who acts out to get attention - any kind of attention including negative attention. I don't think he truly cares about any of it. These are means to an end.

 

[MaggieD]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

citation please

I cite sources all the time for my posts. But this one? Well, it's my opinion. The video is from Youtube. I think it's a "compilation." The only other thing about my opinion I see might need a cite is the my opinion about the structural integrity of steel. This is what I read before I made the post:

Steel's melting point is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit (1510 Celsius). Yet jet fuel only burns between 800 and 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (426.7 and 815.5 Celsius) [source: Popular Mechanics]. So what happened on that September morning that caused the towers to collapse?

The steel bent.

Even though the girders that comprised the twin towers wouldn't turn to molten steel in the jet fuel fire, they would certainly have weakened in the heat. In fact, one estimate says that they would have lost half of their strength at 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit (593.3 Celsius) [source: Popular Mechanics]. It's important to also note that other items would have caught on fire in the buildings in addition to the jet fuel, and could have contributed to higher burning temperatures.

HowStuffWorks "What grade of steel was used in the World Trade Center?"

 

[Thoreau72]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

I prefer this logic:

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I positively love Occam's Razor, and the events at WTC are very easy to apply his principle to. The most simple explanation usually applies.

The reason that the events at WTC resemble a nuclear event is because it WAS a nuclear event.

Or the obverse, the reason the forensics at WTC do NOT resemble the results of burning office furniture is because they WERE NOT caused by burning office furniture.

 

[Thoreau72]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

I don't know jack about physics. But I do know that it makes sense that jetliner fuel burns at a temperature high enough to melt (or at least severely compromise) steel beams. Once the beams on one floor were compromised "enough," that floor fell. When that floor hit the next one, its weight exceeded the load-bearing capacity of that floor's support, so that one failed and so on until, I don't know, maybe it was falling at terminal velocity for all I know. (Okay, I know I probably sound foolish.)

I think the point in recognizing that I sound (and probably am) foolish about "the mechanics of what happened" is something the conspiracy buffs need to recognize. Most people are like me.

Go to 2:57: (Yeah, like nobody's seen that before.)

Jetfuel fires DO NOT burn hot enough to melt or even weaken structural steel.

Steel also conducts heat AWAY FROM the source.

Simple fires CANNOT cause the damage observed.

 

[MaggieD]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Jetfuel fires DO NOT burn hot enough to melt or even weaken structural steel.

Steel also conducts heat AWAY FROM the source.

Simple fires CANNOT cause the damage observed.

Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

This was no "simple fire."

 

[Thoreau72]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

This was no "simple fire."

Aside from the airplane strikes, and according to the NIST report, it WAS a simple fire. Burning office furniture fires, we are told, weakened the steel to the point of failure.

How much simpler can it get?

But you are right in that the actual observed results were not simple fires, no ma'am, not at all.

Simple fires cannot propel huge structural pieces horizontally with enough force to impale on buildings hundreds of feet away.

Simple fires cannot cause boiling soil and iron for more than 90 days. Simple fires do not leave residual thorium and other radioactive elements. Simple fires do not cause humans who worked on the pile to come down with radiation poisoning.

 

[MaggieD]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Aside from the airplane strikes, and according to the NIST report, it WAS a simple fire. Burning office furniture fires, we are told, weakened the steel to the point of failure.

How much simpler can it get?

But you are right in that the actual observed results were not simple fires, no ma'am, not at all.

Simple fires cannot propel huge structural pieces horizontally with enough force to impale on buildings hundreds of feet away.

Simple fires cannot cause boiling soil and iron for more than 90 days. Simple fires do not leave residual thorium and other radioactive elements. Simple fires do not cause humans who worked on the pile to come down with radiation poisoning.

In 1988, American physicist Robert L. Parker wrote that in the worst- case scenario, the crash of a Boeing 747 could affect the health of 250,000 people through exposure to uranium oxide particles. "Extended tests by the Navy and NASA showed that the temperature of the fireball in a plane crash can reach 1,200 degrees Celsius. Such temperatures are high enough to cause very rapid oxidation of depleted uranium," he wrote.

Radiation & Another One Of Those Endless 911 'Coincidences'...

There are answers to all of it. Conspiracy theorists have their answers. Those who don't subscribe to the black flag theory have theirs. Yours is an exercise in futility:

If it's true, you'll never prove it. If it's not, you've wasted your time. We'll never know either way. But commonly accepted principles can explain every single 911 event. Your choosing not to believe that doesn't mean they're not true.

 

[Quag]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

I positively love Occam's Razor, and the events at WTC are very easy to apply his principle to. The most simple explanation usually applies.

The reason that the events at WTC resemble a nuclear event is because it WAS a nuclear event.

Or the obverse, the reason the forensics at WTC do NOT resemble the results of burning office furniture is because they WERE NOT caused by burning office furniture.

Lol truthers say the craziest things

 

[CATiwampus]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Radiation & Another One Of Those Endless 911 'Coincidences'...

There are answers to all of it. Conspiracy theorists have their answers. Those who don't subscribe to the black flag theory have theirs. Yours is an exercise in futility:

If it's true, you'll never prove it. If it's not, you've wasted your time. We'll never know either way. But commonly accepted principles can explain every single 911 event. Your choosing not to believe that doesn't mean they're not true.

alright, I'll byte, just exactly how does "depleted uranium" come into the picture?

 

[Helix]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Moderator's Warning:

The topic of this thread is not other posters. If you would like to avoid infractions, please keep that in mind.

 

[MaggieD]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

alright, I'll byte, just exactly how does "depleted uranium" come into the picture?

Boeing for sure used depleted uranium in their 747's. The source I quoted projects that the 767 may have contained as much as 1,500 pounds of it which accounts for the quote I picked up. I cannot find a reliable source (which would be Boeing) saying whether or not those particular 767s contained depleted uranium.

But then I can't find anything reliable indicating the site was radioactive either. Or any reliable source that workers were subject to radiation poisoning.

 

[psikeyhackr]

re: An Exercise in Logic[W:48, W:106]

Note that in "normal" CD, the company doing it must do a
cost effective job of it, and use only as much of the expensive
explosives as needed to do it right ( without waste of course )

Are explosives all that expensive?

Is the real cost all of the time figuring out the right place to put it so that collateral damage is minimized if other buildings are close by. The building has to be analysed to determine how things will fall depending on when which explosives destroy what.

I presume everything is triple checked. The difference with the twin towers is that they didn't give a damn about collateral damage.

psik