Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[daws101]

dodge ?...are you incapable of reading ?

so your theory is nano thermite.
enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.

nice dodge..first we conclude NIST failed in determine the cause of the collapse, then we look at the most reasonable explanation for the collapse which is some form of explosives and do the appropriate testing on any renaming materials..once the form of explosives is positively determined...the how and who would follow

from that statement you've just proven you know nothing about the scientific method.
it's obvious you dissagree with the nist findings.that being so ,once again I ask :how who when and why.

 

[daws101]

Towers Collapse - Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and controlled demolition

Silverstein said he "pulled" building 7. Pull is demolition terminology for blowing up the building

"Pull" is not demolition terminology for blowing up buildings.
Building 6 was literally pulled with cables which is why they said "We're about to pull building 6" in a PBS special.
Silverstein say "they" made the decision and not Silverstein
They made the decision to pull the rescue operation out.
The fire commander's statements agree with Silverstein's statement
Many firefighters said they were pulled away from building 7 because they feared the building would collapse
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

Building 7 only had a few small fires.

Building 7's south side was covered by smoke for most of the event.
Firefighters said the building's south side showed fires on multiple floors
Firemen said the building was "fully involved"
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

Building 7 had no or little structural damage

The firefighters put a transit on the building and concluded the building was going to collapse
There was a very large gash in the building which ran from the top floor to at least the tenth floor
Firemen said there was a 10 story hole in the middle of the building
Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7

 

[eots]

so your theory is nano thermite.
enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.

nice dodge..first we conclude NIST failed in determine the cause of the collapse, then we look at the most reasonable explanation for the collapse which is some form of explosives and do the appropriate testing on any renaming materials..once the form of explosives is positively determined...the how and who would follow

from that statement you've just proven you know nothing about the scientific method.
it's obvious you dissagree with the nist findings.that being so ,once again I ask :how who when and why.

but you clearly reject NISTs findings ????

 

[eots]

so your theory is nano thermite.
enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.

nice dodge..first we conclude NIST failed in determine the cause of the collapse, then we look at the most reasonable explanation for the collapse which is some form of explosives and do the appropriate testing on any renaming materials..once the form of explosives is positively determined...the how and who would follow

from that statement you've just proven you know nothing about the scientific method.
it's obvious you dissagree with the nist findings.that being so ,once again I ask :how who when and why.

really...please do elaborate

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og&NR=1]‪Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

nice dodge..first we conclude NIST failed in determine the cause of the collapse, then we look at the most reasonable explanation for the collapse which is some form of explosives and do the appropriate testing on any renaming materials..once the form of explosives is positively determined...the how and who would follow

from that statement you've just proven you know nothing about the scientific method.
it's obvious you dissagree with the nist findings.that being so ,once again I ask :how who when and why.

really...please do elaborate

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og&NR=1]‪Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

LOL...if you had any personal or working knowledge of the scientific method you woul not need a utube clip to explain it.
BYW what you are doing is called "appealing to authority"....weak!

A & e for troof you gotta be fucking kidding!

 

[daws101]

PublicEye.org - The Website of Political Research Associates

 

[eots]

from that statement you've just proven you know nothing about the scientific method.
it's obvious you dissagree with the nist findings.that being so ,once again I ask :how who when and why.

really...please do elaborate

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og&NR=1]‪Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

LOL...if you had any personal or working knowledge of the scientific method you woul not need a utube clip to explain it.
BYW what you are doing is called "appealing to authority"....weak!

A & e for troof you gotta be fucking kidding!

another dodge...please elaborate...this "youtube clip"...is one the most highly honored scientist in the country explaining basic scientific procedure..but if feel you can explain it better than her and with more credibility.... please do...and you clearly do not know the real definition of appeal to authority either...dumbass

 

[Mr. Jones]

another dodge! answer the question

dodge ?...are you incapable of reading ?

so your theory is nano thermite.
enlighting me on how, who and when it was planted.

So without you being "enlightened" on these things, the collapse of WTC 7 as theorized by NIST, is fully legitimate??

There is a mountain of evidence that any rational person would admit helps to show that many parts of the official story are outright blatant lies. So with this point in mind I have to question why anyone would consider, say for example... 20 areas of concern, and then use only one, or a few areas of concern, to discount the remaining 19 items of disclosure.

Just because the who, when, and how, isn't able to be properly explained, does not mean that the other facts of the unlikely collapse of WTC 7 are meaningless, or that the NIST report is at all correct, or that the NIST report is indisputable. And because the who, how , and why is not clear at this time does not take away from the facts that on 9-11, this building collapsed neatly, almost into its own footprint through the path of greatest resistance at virtually "free fall" acceleration.

Bringing up distractions like you have, is just a way of not dealing with these glaring discrepancies and facts about the WTC 7 collapse, that NIST also avoids.

The points is that NIST would have us believe that once steel loses some of its strength, it loses all of its strength, and that once the steel weakens to the point where it can no longer hold up the building, it turns to spaghetti, or linguini,or your favorite pasta!

That's wrong, steel buildings are not held up by steel cables that snap when they are overloaded.
A better analogy would be springs, like the springs in your car. Springs compress and give way when overloaded, but do not lose all their strength because we put too much weight on them.

The springs in my Explorer can't support an elephant, but they would not disappear if an elephant climbed in it! The only way a building can fall to the ground in free fall acceleration is if all of its potential gravitational energy is converted to kinetic energy.
If some of the gravitational potential energy is used to do other work such as crushing steel or concrete, then the object can not drop at free fall acceleration.

NISTs model shows only buckling occuring on the west side of the building, however the free fall occurs over the entire width of the building. We can know this because we already established the roof line of the building remains essentially straight for the first 4-5 secs. of the collapse.

Aside from the slight kink, the roof line remains essentially straight and falls in uniform motion until the last couple of secs. of the collapse when the NW corner bows inward.

If you watch the video, the roof certainly remains straight all the way through the period of free fall.
NIST hasn't solved shit, nearly 10 years and we have even more mystery about the official explanation.

The rate of fall of the building is an embarrassment to the official theory, free fall is a small detail in the whole complex analysis, but it is NOT a minor issue, buildings can not fall at free fall acceleration through themselves, because even a weakened building requires energy to break up the pieces and crush concrete, and push things around. When a falling building pushes things, free fall is not FREE , the things push back, and the reaction forces will measurably slow the descent of the building. This is why one would reasonably expect crumbling structures to come down in a tumbling, halting, irregular manner. In short the evidence is clear, we are witnessing NOT the collapse of a building, but its demolition, and we have received NOT a report from and independent, scientific investigation, but a cover up by a government agency.

But you want all the particulars, and the who, how, and whys, when you should be just as, if not more inquisitive in regards to NIST, and the BS they are feeding you, and all the things they disregard, leave out, or out and out lie to your ass about.

You are of the position that, if no one can explain how a CD, or the collapses were "helped" along, and the components to deliver and make it happen, to you occurred, you are more then willing to to ignore all the glaring discrepancies of a report by a government agency enlisted and trusted to explain how unprecedented, first time in history, caused by fires, and achieving free fall acceleration collapses, fucking happened!!

NIST DOES NOT support scientific proof by virtue of its secret computer modeling. To be scientifically correct, they would have to supply others with this model to be proven by repeatability.
But YOU DEMAND a full and concise explanation of how a CD could have been used to destroy the buildings, but do not hold the entrusted party that was supposed to explain these things to the same standard??

You are FOS.

 

[eots]

the first known instance a hi-rise steel framed building collapsing primarily due to fire is not a non -event

‪9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim‬‏ - YouTube

So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means

 

[Mr. Jones]

‪9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim‬‏ - YouTube

So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means

Yes and strangely similar to waiting for Patriot911 to provide his definition of "evidence". Smells like sock....

 

[daws101]

‪9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim‬‏ - YouTube

So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means

the scientific method for dummies

as far as I can tell you folks have done none of these, we can dicuss the one at a time if you like?

 

[daws101]

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
[edit] Fallacious appeals to authorityFallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] In this event, the argument is a non sequitur

anything else?

 

[daws101]

So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means

Yes and strangely similar to waiting for Patriot911 to provide his definition of "evidence". Smells like sock....

evidence is either hard (forensic) or soft ( eye witness/ear witness aka hear say.
your hard evidence is nonexistent.
your soft evidence is questionable at best and does not stand up to close analytical scrutiny!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

really...please do elaborate

‪Lynn Margulis, PhD - Scientist‬‏ - YouTube

LOL...if you had any personal or working knowledge of the scientific method you woul not need a utube clip to explain it.
BYW what you are doing is called "appealing to authority"....weak!

A & e for troof you gotta be fucking kidding!

another dodge...please elaborate...this "youtube clip"...is one the most highly honored scientist in the country explaining basic scientific procedure..but if feel you can explain it better than her and with more credibility.... please do...and you clearly do not know the real definition of appeal to authority either...dumbass

this retarded troll does the exact same thing in the kennedy assassination thread as well like many of the trolls on that thread.dodges evidence when you show him proof and evidence oswald did not do it.doesnt even bother to address the points you bring up.
he is scared to death of the truth about the kennedy assassination,so you get anywhere with this troll on 9/11 either.

 

[eots]

So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means

the scientific method for dummies

as far as I can tell you folks have done none of these, we can dicuss the one at a time if you like?

you are a joke...

 

[eots]

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
[edit] Fallacious appeals to authorityFallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] In this event, the argument is a non sequitur

anything else?

your cut and paste does not apply....she is an expert in scientific procedure
and is explaining that procedure....

 

[eots]

So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means

the scientific method for dummies

as far as I can tell you folks have done none of these, we can dicuss the one at a time if you like?

this coming from some loon that did not even know the findings of NIST.. until I told him...lol

 

[eots]

Yes and strangely similar to waiting for Patriot911 to provide his definition of "evidence". Smells like sock....

evidence is either hard (forensic) or soft ( eye witness/ear witness aka hear say.
your hard evidence is nonexistent.
your soft evidence is questionable at best and does not stand up to close analytical scrutiny!

what hard evidence do you have that supports the NIST theory ???

 

[Mr. Jones]

evidence is either hard (forensic) or soft ( eye witness/ear witness aka hear say.
your hard evidence is nonexistent.
your soft evidence is questionable at best and does not stand up to close analytical scrutiny!

what hard evidence do you have that supports the NIST theory ???

Or that can't be debunked as BS speculation or lies for that matter. Why are they so secretive about their computer simulation program?
Many things about the NIST theory and report have been disputed, and shown to be bad science in various forms.
The machine needed to achieve certain goals, 9-11 was a way to attain those goals, and scaring the shit out of us to install a police state to stifle opposition is only one of them.
Learn about the world and the systems within it designed to control you.

 

[daws101]

The appeal to authority may take several forms. As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]

Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]

The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
We may also simply incorporate these conditions into the structure of the argument itself, in which case the form may look like this:[2]

X holds that A is true
X is a legitimate expert on the subject.
The consensus of experts agrees with X.
Therefore, there's a presumption that A is true.
[edit] Fallacious appeals to authorityFallacious arguments from authority are often the result of failing to meet either of the two conditions from the previous section.[1][2] Specifically, when the inference fails to meet the first condition, this is sometimes called an "appeal to inappropriate authority".[3] This occurs when an inference relies on individuals or groups without relevant expertise or knowledge.[3]

Because the argument is inductive (i.e. because the truth of the conclusion cannot be guaranteed by the truth of the premises), it is also fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[2] In this event, the argument is a non sequitur

anything else?

your cut and paste does not apply....she is an expert in scientific procedure
and is explaining that procedure....

ah ...the old twoofer two step, this response is to post#1669 where you ask :"So I am still waiting to hear your description of scientific method and your understanding of what appeal to authority means"
ask and answered! I understand the post and the meaning of appeal to authority ,you however,seemed baffled and you've yet if ever shown any working knowledge of the scientific method instead you show a clip of someone who does, that is not first hand experience (working knowledge)or in other words "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who once met a scientist.

__________________