9/11 Why?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by DrDanH View Post
    Modeling is hardly an exact science.
    True. But it's the best tool we have for that sort of investigation. NIST ran their model but the girder did not fall off its seat until they removed the shear studs - the floor slabs restricted the beams from expanding enough to get the results they were looking for. (Yes, I know what I just said.) UofA engineers simply reviewed the NIST model, noticed the fudging, and ran it with the correct inputs, and the girder did not fall. I'm not saying models are infallible, I'm saying that cooking the inputs to match desired outputs is worthy of questioning at best, and completely bogus at worst. If the correct model didn't give the expected results, they should keep looking for the answers, not cook the model inputs.

    "Garbage in, garbage out" is a cliche for a reason.

    Originally posted by DrDanH View Post
    I am sure that their conclusions were not accepted by other, equally reputable investigators.
    I honestly have no way to independently gauge the reputation of any of the investigators, at least without more research than I'm willing to put in. But in my personal experience, many, many engineers fall far short of the competence and honesty that they like to claim as a profession. I'd rather listen to the arguments than place my trust in someone's reputation.

    Originally posted by DrDanH View Post
    If the theory is that WTC 7 was brought down by explosives, how was this was arranged without anyone seeing it? It would have taken weeks of noisy, easily observable preparation and thousands of pounds of explosives and wiring - and steps to intentionally weaken the support structure- in order for the building to be leveled completely "on cue."

    And while it is concerning that so much valuable evidence was lost in the building collapse, it is hardly surprising that people or agencies could be so convinced of their infallibility that they failed to secure it against loss.
    It is a logical fallacy to imply that, for me to believe the NIST's analysis and conclusions are bullshit, I must explain exactly how and by whom the building was demolished. If your user name implies your education, you know this. But my observation is simply that the NIST knew their conclusions before they did their study, that they needed to find that it was fire, and they did so, by ignoring much evidence, and twisting the rest beyond reason. I also know that their report reveals their flawed work.

    I also know that a blind man, watching the many videos of the collapse, recognizes a building demolition when he sees one. And that blows the official 9-11 conspiracy apart, and that can't be, hence the NIST's bald-faced efforts.

    Comment


    • #32
      And while I'm rattling on, remember the standard for evaluating truth ; the preponderance of the evidence. Some things just make you go Hmmmmm...

      Click image for larger version

Name:	1630968386768.jpg
Views:	65
Size:	646.5 KB
ID:	136365

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by V_Thirteen View Post
        And while I'm rattling on, remember the standard for evaluating truth ; the preponderance of the evidence.
        “Preponderance of the evidence is one type of evidentiary standard used in a burden of proof analysis. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.”

        Source:https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prep...f_the_evidence

        A set of “facts” cherry-picked to suit a conspiracy theory hardly meets the standard of “preponderance of evidence.”

        One would have to present *all* the evidence, for and against the theory, to allow the “fact finder” to determine if the burden of proof was met. And would it not be more appropriate to demand a higher burden of proof, e.g., “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

        You still have not offered a reasonable explanation of how the building was demolished, which better explains the outcome than the prevailing theory (fire). Conjecture about who would benefit from the results does not address the (lack of) feasibility of the purported means of destruction central to the conspiracy theory.


        DrDanH
        2006 McKee Craft 196CC / Honda 150
        "Anchor Management"

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DrDanH View Post
          A set of “facts” cherry-picked to suit a conspiracy theory hardly meets the standard of “preponderance of evidence.”

          One would have to present *all* the evidence, for and against the theory, to allow the “fact finder” to determine if the burden of proof was met. And would it not be more appropriate to demand a higher burden of proof, e.g., “beyond a reasonable doubt”?
          That's exactly my issue with the NIST report. it is, exactly, "a set of “facts” cherry-picked to suit a conspiracy theory."

          Originally posted by DrDanH View Post
          You still have not offered a reasonable explanation of how the building was demolished, which better explains the outcome than the prevailing theory (fire). Conjecture about who would benefit from the results does not address the (lack of) feasibility of the purported means of destruction central to the conspiracy theory.
          I repeat: you state that I must explain exactly how and by whom the building was demolished, in order that I may believe that the NIST's analysis and conclusions are bullshit. You are stating a logical fallacy, specifically an appeal to ignorance. I don't have that responsibility. If you are truly interested, many credentialed people have posted their opinions. If you're not interested, please stop trolling bait.

          If you don't understand that, then I require that you explain to me why the building fell at free fall acceleration, despite the presence of intervening structural mass and resistance. If you cannot, then the NIST theory is clearly faulty.

          The question of "who benefits" is unrelated to the means of destruction, whatever it was. It's a straw man argument. Again, not biting. Lucky Larry made out like a bandit, and one could easily believe he had foreknowledge of the plan.

          Comment


          • LFBB
            LFBB commented
            Editing a comment
            They will never admit our govt was complicit in the murder of thousands of America's and foreign born people alike

        • #35
          Originally posted by V_Thirteen View Post
          And while I'm rattling on, remember the standard for evaluating truth ; the preponderance of the evidence. Some things just make you go Hmmmmm...
          Larry needed a new Bote.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.JPG
Views:	59
Size:	152.5 KB
ID:	136380
          Engine Sales and Service
          Ph +1 954.463.1515
          Fx +1
          954.463.4904
          Toll Free: 800.622.6747

          [email protected]
          www.parkeryacht.com

          Comment


          • #36
            There's a special spot in hell for guys like Larry and Bush and Bush and............................

            Comment


            • #37
              Originally posted by V_Thirteen View Post

              I must explain exactly how and by whom the building was demolished….
              I would settle for a plausible explanation. How did the building explode?

              Originally posted by V_Thirteen View Post
              The question of "who benefits" is unrelated to the means of destruction, whatever it was. It's a straw man argument.
              Then why do you keep offering such info?

              You are padding your argument for a conspiracy by offering the financials as if they are the “smoking gun” proof of something that evidently has no reasonable means of occurring.

              The term that would apply to the argument you have made is “specious reasoning.”

              Specious reasoning is any argument or analysis which has the apparent ring of truth or plausibility but is actually incomplete, deceptive, or even altogether fallacious. Such arguments are attractive because they are seemingly well-reasoned or factual. They can be deceptively persuasive. When an argumentation style is based on specious reasoning, it is called "Sophistry."

              Source:
              https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/202104/specious-reasoning-how-spot-it-and-stop-it

              You accuse me of trolling, but engage in sophistry and divert attention from the logical fallacies of your argument by inserting the “who benefits” info repeatedly to support your assertions.

              What is your agenda?



              DrDanH
              2006 McKee Craft 196CC / Honda 150
              "Anchor Management"

              Comment


              • #38
                Originally posted by DrDanH View Post

                I would settle for a plausible explanation. How did the building explode?



                Then why do you keep offering such info?

                You are padding your argument for a conspiracy by offering the financials as if they are the “smoking gun” proof of something that evidently has no reasonable means of occurring.

                The term that would apply to the argument you have made is “specious reasoning.”

                Specious reasoning is any argument or analysis which has the apparent ring of truth or plausibility but is actually incomplete, deceptive, or even altogether fallacious. Such arguments are attractive because they are seemingly well-reasoned or factual. They can be deceptively persuasive. When an argumentation style is based on specious reasoning, it is called "Sophistry."

                Source:
                https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/202104/specious-reasoning-how-spot-it-and-stop-it

                You accuse me of trolling, but engage in sophistry and divert attention from the logical fallacies of your argument by inserting the “who benefits” info repeatedly to support your assertions.

                What is your agenda?


                You have proven to be a master of cut and paste, but I'm tired of your game. Have a good evening.

                Comment


                • #39
                  Guess I’m just naive, gullible and too much of an optimist.
                  Never knew so much behind the scenes stuff until this thread popped up.
                  I haven’t been a conspiracy theory guy but y’all have opened my eyes to some interesting comments
                  Suppose we’ll never know the real answer.
                  34’ Fountain w/ trip 300’s

                  Fairhope & Orange Beach, AL

                  Comment


                  • #40
                    Two key points:

                    - we'll never know the truth
                    ​​​​​- my vocabulary isn't nearly as advanced as I thought

                    bonus:

                    - Epstein didn't kill himself

                    Comment


                    • #41
                      Originally posted by NCSUboater View Post
                      Two key points:

                      - we'll never know the truth
                      ​​​​​- my vocabulary isn't nearly as advanced as I thought

                      bonus:

                      - Epstein didn't kill himself
                      It's fascinating reading people more educated and smarter than myself. Sometimes I even understand them.

                      Link on Epstein or is that in this thread?
                      Engine Sales and Service
                      Ph +1 954.463.1515
                      Fx +1
                      954.463.4904
                      Toll Free: 800.622.6747

                      [email protected]
                      www.parkeryacht.com

                      Comment


                      • NCSUboater
                        NCSUboater commented
                        Editing a comment
                        Completely unrelated to this thread lol.

                    • #42
                      Originally posted by V_Thirteen View Post

                      Yeah, the official conspiracy theory (NIST) works as long as your calculations neglect the thousands and thousands of shear studs connecting the concrete slabs to the steel beams. The official NIST theory has been debunked.

                      Steel framed skyscrapers do not fall down from fire. Unless they're helped to do so. Now, this is a fire:

                      Click image for larger version Name:	beijing_torch.jpg Views:	1 Size:	19.7 KB ID:	136188

                      When it was over the building still stood. As have all other similar building fires in steel framed high-rises.

                      On the other hand, this is a building demolition. Building 7, WTC, September 11, 2001. The plane never arrived, but the building came down anyway. "Pull it!"

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU

                      Inside job. They just declassified the Saudi government involvement, still sitting on the other two governments responsible.

                      Pretty sure FDNY wasn't part of any conspiracy, glad they were able to get out when Lucky Larry gave the order.
                      I am pretty uneducated as a structural engineer. But in looking at that video, I would be hard pressed to see that a fire bought it down.
                      Engine Sales and Service
                      Ph +1 954.463.1515
                      Fx +1
                      954.463.4904
                      Toll Free: 800.622.6747

                      [email protected]
                      www.parkeryacht.com

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X