What inconsistencies are you referring to?
NIST admits freefall speed
- Thread starter gillywibble
- Start date
What inconsistencies are you referring to?
No ones saying don't question it. but when people keep coming out with theories that don't hold any water and keep misrepresenting quotes but still believe it after they have been show why it can't happen. Then that is not based on logic or sound reasoning.
No, it is not. Logic is governed by valid demonstration and inference. Anything which is merely governed by opinion, is not logic.
Yes, it is. Or at least, it should be, if they actually know what it means.
This merely proves that people arrive at different conclusions. It does not prove that they arrived at these conclusions by logical means.
Please go away and take a first year university course in philosophy and/or logic. Alternatively, look up the definition of this word in a reputable dictionary or encyclopaedia and learn what it actually means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Criticisms_of_logic
there are about 9 diff logics on there
I like the Tolerating the impossible
Closely related to questions arising from the paradoxes of implication comes the suggestion
that logic ought to tolerate inconsistency. Relevance logic
and paraconsistent logic are the most important approaches here,
though the concerns are different: a key consequence of classical logic
I don't see anything that factually denies there being another explanation, even if that would appear based on the evidence we have to be the most logical explanation, just because its the most logical doesn't mean it has to be that way...
Personally I think your as deluded as the conspiracy theorists just to the other extreme... while I admire your adherence to fact, I think its unwise to be that closed minded.
theorys can be ruled out though, like thermite, conventional explosives and such like. I haven't seen one other theory portrayed yet, which isn't blown out the water.
if someone puts a theory froward and it holds true to examination, then I'll change my mind or at least admit it is a possibility, I am not closed minded at all. I just don't have time for all these theorys that not only don't have evidence, but actually have evidence on why that theory is wrong.
WTC exploded; it did not implode, as a controlled detonation does.
Damage occurred near the top and the resulting forces pushed the upper floors down to the bottom; a controlled detonation occurs at the base of a building and pulls the upper floors down by collapsing the ones below them.
Debris was flung all over the place as the building collapsed, instead of being centralised and controlled.
It just doesn't fit the profile. No way in hell was this a controlled detonation.
Damage occurred near the top and the resulting forces pushed the upper floors down to the bottom; a controlled detonation occurs at the base of a building and pulls the upper floors down by collapsing the ones below them.
Debris was flung all over the place as the building collapsed, instead of being centralised and controlled.
It just doesn't fit the profile. No way in hell was this a controlled detonation.
fixed
do you not listen? you keep repeating yourself liek a parrot and offer no evidence or meaning behind it. Using conventional explosion or otherwise the floors do not fall from teh top up or in a combination of other ways. they simply fall from top down.
LOL?
OK, lets play your game. Show me examples of controlled demolitions that match this "profile". Geez, there must be hundreds out there, right?
Fact: controlled detonations - whether "conventional" or otherwise - simply do not result in the type of destruction that we saw on 11.09.01. Controlled detonations behave in an entirely different way, and cause their targets to implode (not explode) in a manner that was strikingly absent when the WTC went down.
Fact: two large commercial aircraft flew into the WTC towers.
Question: what was the purpose of the alleged explosives, considering that two large commercial aircraft had just struck the buildings and initiated its certain destruction?
Which proves you missed my point completely. You're using what you deem to be logic to come to those conclusions. The fact that the human mind works so differently with different people shows that logic in the way people try and use it, is massively flawed.
What you posted just shows your opinion of what logic is.
Logic is just word given to a thought process that humans go through, and as I have said, is used to give authority to an idea.
All you have done is prove what I said in my last post. Thanks for that
evidence of what? I'm not putting forward a theory that there was non conventional controlled demolition, only that the evidence that we have doesn't rule out the posibility.
It wouldn't be that hard if you were dedicated to making the appearance of a horrific terrorist attack to crash the plane into a specific floor (or at worst within a floor or 2) then weaken the structure enough for the weight of the floors above to bring the building down.
If you watch all the videos closely you will notice that the first effects of the collapse occur 2-3 floors below the impact point with both WTC1 and 2, a horizontal billow of fire that would have to have started happening about half a second before the collapse for them to be in the position they are when the top starts to move, and in the case of the second collapse the ejection of debris from lower floors goes in a sequence skipping floors and about 2 seconds ahead of the air pressure. Theres quite straight forward logical explanations that gives us the most likely reason but theres enough irregularity in the timings to raise the possibility of another reason.
It wouldn't be that hard if you were dedicated to making the appearance of a horrific terrorist attack to crash the plane into a specific floor (or at worst within a floor or 2) then weaken the structure enough for the weight of the floors above to bring the building down.
If you watch all the videos closely you will notice that the first effects of the collapse occur 2-3 floors below the impact point with both WTC1 and 2, a horizontal billow of fire that would have to have started happening about half a second before the collapse for them to be in the position they are when the top starts to move, and in the case of the second collapse the ejection of debris from lower floors goes in a sequence skipping floors and about 2 seconds ahead of the air pressure. Theres quite straight forward logical explanations that gives us the most likely reason but theres enough irregularity in the timings to raise the possibility of another reason.
No, it doesn't. It simply demonstrates that you don't even understand the meaning of the word "logic", let alone how it is used.
No, I am using the universally accepted definition of the word. "Logic" is not an infinitely redefinable term. It's not subject to redefinition at will.
Er, what? This doesn't even make sense. You are talking complete gibberish.
No, I am using the universally accepted definition of the word.
See my previous post. You have no idea what you're talking about.
All you have done is prove what I said in my last post. Thanks for that
No, I have completely demolished everything you said. Now you've just proved me right again.
Please, please try to learn what words mean before you use them. It's important. I don't mind if you spew illogical nonsense in the privacy of your own home, but if you want to do it on this forum, you must accept that other people will come along and take you apart.
LOL?
OK, lets play your game. Show me examples of controlled demolitions that match this "profile". Geez, there must be hundreds out there, right?
Fact: controlled detonations - whether "conventional" or otherwise - simply do not result in the type of destruction that we saw on 11.09.01. Controlled detonations behave in an entirely different way, and cause their targets to implode (not explode) in a manner that was strikingly absent when the WTC went down.
Fact: two large commercial aircraft flew into the WTC towers.
Question: what was the purpose of the alleged explosives, considering that two large commercial aircraft had just struck the buildings and initiated its certain destruction?
You know of every type of non conventional method of bringing down a building? even those not normally even considered due to being too dangerous, etc?
Its possible, tho arguably the logistics are difficult to pull off in context, to demolish a building like WTC without implosion or explosion, as the jet fuel if we assume its what caused it, demonstrates. While pulling it off would be a major challenge it would be possible to use custom plasma cutters or bespoke EFP* solutions to attain this amongst I'm sure many other possibilities.
If they _had_ (and I'm not saying they did) planned to bring the buildings down, they couldn't guarantee the planes crashing into it would have that effect.
* When I was with 1st para I saw EFPs that were designed to be almost silent in operation and deffinatly wouldn't register on siesmic equipment except that attached directly to the towers.
No, if you watch the top of the tower leans over before the floors below give way from the unbalanced weight. you are putting a theory forward and the evidence makes it so unlikely.
Little invisible aliens could have used a dimension ray and teleported parts of the structure with no visual clues to another dimension and the only way to disprove it by weighing the structure and all dust to find the missing weight. It's a possibility but I'm not going to give it any weight.
You don't even have a theory and are ignoring the video evidence and making these claims.
And you're also now saying some how they triggered the demolition as the top of the tower tipped over, new how fast it was going to fall and planted explosives at pre-set timers to go off in an ordered fashion..
Last edited:
If you watch the closeup videos in both cases there are events immediatly before the top starts to topple located very slightly below the impacted floors. Sure they could just be caused by things happening inside the structure that we can't see as part of a "normal" collapse.
Its absurbed to even suggest pre-set timers in the context of this if it was a demolition, as you demonstratably have little imagination and can only see this in black and white I'm done debating the point.
I'm not ignoring any evidence, I just don't see the evidence is exclusively tied to just one specific path.
So how would YOU account for the 2-3 secs of free fall that NIST said there was?
and please dont say fire because it never got that hot 500c says NIST
and the fireman(RIP) said they can contain the small fires on the lower floors.