29 Engineers ....

[wildbilln864]

:hi: pdf link

a snip/
The FEMA 403 report17 was “incomplete at best
and a cover-up at worst,” says structural engineer
Michael Donly of New Jersey,
noting that a metallurgical study in
Appendix C.2 found “evidence of
severe high temperature corrosion
attack on the steel ... with subsequent
intergranular melting” forming a
sulfur-rich liquid” that “severely
weaken” the structural steel.
FEMA scientists later state in
Appendix C.6 that “no clear explanation for the source
the sulfur has been identified.” Donly finds that
unacceptable. “The report has uncovered an
unexplainable phenomenon official story] that may have led to the collapse of the
3 WTC buildings,” he
writes, “and has stated
that further study is
needed, but FEMA has
not proceeded with
further research.”
Evidence was not
just ignored; it was
destroyed. Firemen rioted
at Ground Zero,18 protesting the desecration of the
dead in a hasty “scoop and dump” clean-up of the
structural steel debris. “The destruction of the crime
scene evidence is inexcusable,” Huebner writes.

[procopia]

1. Great article--definitive "truther logic"

I'm not letting this thread die. Everyone should read it in its entirety. One of my favorite excerpts:

"Symmetrical collapse requires
simultaneous failure of all
supporting columns, notes
Charles Pegelow. “How could all 47
core columns fail at the same
instant?” Pegelow has performed
design work on offshore oil rigs and
tall buildings. His opinion: “Fires
could not do that.”

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Pegelow's funny. He thinks nukes brought the towers down. n/t

[procopia]

3. OCTists are funny

They think small random fires can cause total symmetrical collapse.

[Bolo Boffin]

4. I don't think that at all

"Small and random" isn't an accurate assessment of the fires in those buildings.

"Total symmetrical" isn't a description of the collapses, either.

Please check your straw men at the door.

[Ghost in the Machine]

6. Produce ONE picture of WTC 7 'engulfed in flames'.....

isn't that the claim made by the OCTers?


*waits patiently*

[hack89]

9. Here's a good analysis of the fires

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

Here is an excellent analysis of the smoke plume and fires reacquired to produce it.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

[procopia]

10. How do you know it's a good analysis?

Does it include the WTC 7 fires?

[hack89]

11. Lets see ...

1. A respected and well published professor at a prestigious university

http://www.hindawi.com/82797086.html

2. A paper comprehensively referenced with studies from other similar credentialed scholars.

It is a paper that is clearly with in the mainstream of fire science. Moreover, it is hard to imagine that either Professor Ghoniem or MIT would deliberately damage their reputations in support of some cover up. The fact that no one has challenged the paper leads credence to that notion.

Unfortunately for you, the Truth movement as failed you again by not doing the actual science that actually supports the idea that the fires were weak. The choice between Professor Ghoniem's paper and your personal disbelief is not a hard one.

[procopia]

13. Again, does this paper apply to WTC 7?

:shrug:

[hack89]

14. My mistake - the OP is about the WTC and I thought your post 3 was also.

I missed your change of direction.

Slides 22 and 23 have some good pictures of WTC7. And of course any internal fires can't be seen.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

And of course there's this:

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

[procopia]

17. That's right

The OP was about the WTC, including building 7. In fact, the title is: 29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11

No change of direction here.

[victordrazen]

15. Your "prestigious" professors weren't there

Workers leaving wtc7 experienced explosions before the towers were demolished. A NYPD first responder is on tape saying there were fires in the wtc7 , but not enough to bring it down.
MIT receives an enormous amount of Pentagon/DARPA funding, our military is a primary suspect in 9-11.

[hack89]

16. I see you have your CT buzz words down pat

Your personal disbelief is irrelevant. Please get back to me when all those truther "scientists" actually do some real research on the fires.

As for the firefighters, how do you account for all the others that say they knew the building was going to collapse?

[procopia]

19. See this:

The truth movement includes a number of "respected and well published professor(s) at a prestigious university," but you don't seem agree with their analyses. One fire analysis, that you claim hasn't been done, is here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

Ghoniem's theory is based on this description:

"It is argued that the WTC fires, while unprecedented in form, magnitude
and extent, resembled massive compartments fires in which the primary fuel, the jet fuel, spilled over a large area, ignited almost immediately, supported the formation of huge fireballs that extended outside the crash zones, and triggered very large-scale secondary fires that engulfed all available combustibles contained within the floors surrounding the impact area."

Members of the truth movement (and witnesses) would disagree with that description, particularly of the south tower:

"At least 18 survivors evacuated from above the crash zone of the South Tower through a stairwell that passed through the crash zone, and many more would have were it not for confusion in the evacuation process. None of the survivors reported great heat around the crash zone. An audiotape of firefighter communications revealed that firefighters had reached the 78th floor sky lobby of the South Tower and were enacting a plan to evacuate people and put out the "two pockets of fire" they found, just before the Tower was destroyed."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html

Furthermore, none of the physical evidence indicates the fires were that hot.

"The fact that no one has challenged the paper leads credence to that notion."

The fact that no one has (directly) challenged the article more likely indicates no one thought it was significant.

[wildbilln864]

31. Ow!

That hada hurt! :spank:

[hack89]

33. Nice strawman - even NIST says that the jet fuel burned off in abut 10 minutes

the only role the jet fuel play was as an accelerant to ignite the contents of the buildings and to jump start the ensuing fires to a phase 4 fire almost immediately. You need to read my link again. Your link addresses something that no one actually says happened in the WTC - why do you think they failed to calculate the energy released by contents of the buildings?

Only four people from above the South tower impact zone survived - the others were in the impact zone and escaped before the fires spread. There were no survivors from above the impact zone in the North Tower - what stopped them from escaping?

How do you explain the massive smoke plumes? They represent tons of particulate matter being lifted miles into the sky - it takes an enormous amount of energy to do that. Smoke plume analysis is an established scientific practice - read my link again: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

Only in Truther land could someone see two massive smoke plumes on the horizon and think "wow - those are weak fires.".

[procopia]

37. If you would read

the link, you would see it addresses the office contents. That is what the article is about--how much the jet fuel increased the temperature of the office fires:

"...So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed...

"...Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse...

"...It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media."

Only in Truther land could someone see two massive smoke plumes on the horizon and think "wow - those are weak fires."

No one in "truther land" has ever suggested the fires were "weak", just not as massive as claimed. None of the evidence indicates the office fire temperatures were high enough to weaken the steel and cause the total and nearly symmetrical, nearly free fall collapse of 3 skyscrapers for the first time ever in history.

[hack89]

38. Notice how he never mentions the temperature of a typical office fire?

Why do you think that is?

And the temperature to weaken steel is way too low:

All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel. However, in practice this is a very conservative assumption; low loads, the insulating effects of concrete slabs, the restraining effects of connections etc. mean that real failure temperatures can be as high as 750ºC or even higher for partially exposed members.

http://www.azobuild.com/details.asp?ArticleID=3621

[hack89]

39. Megawatts of energy is not a huge fire? OK?

[procopia]

53. south tower: is this your massive smoke plume?

[hack89]

64. You call these weak ?

[procopia]

65. Again, when did I

say the fires were weak? When you have to lie or exaggerate to make a point, then you don't have one. Most of the smoke is coming from the north tower, as there obviously isn't a "massive smoke plume" from the south tower:



Two pockets of fire, according to firefighters at the impact area.

[hack89]

66. The fires were hot enough and large enough

to weaken the structural steel sufficiently enough to cause the collapse. That is a reasonable conclusion from the two studies I posted - studies that are firmly within the mainstream of fire science. Papers that you have no rebuttals for.

Now as to your "case":

1. Two pictures that depict a tiny segment of long event from a single perspective. What about 10 minutes before? 25 after? Get the idea? Your pictures are insufficient to draw any conclusion about the entire event.

2. Your fire fighter point as the same problem as your picture - a single perspective on a tiny part the event in a single point in time. No one has ever said that every single inch of the impact zone was on fire - that is a strawman that you seem to be leaning on to give this firefighter report some importance. It makes perfect sense that the fire boundary would not be clean and neat - fires do not spread evenly. But the fire fighters did not penetrate up into the impact zone. What they saw in their tiny corner of the 78th floor says absolutely nothing about the 79th, 80th, 81st floors. It doesn't even tell you any significant about the 78th floor considering it was over 120K square feet and they didn't investigate all of it. The fact of the matter is the fires and damage were extensive enough that no one in the North Tower escaped through those "pockets of fire". Only four escaped from the South.

[procopia]

71. According to your source,

WTC fires caused steel to melt. Do you still think it's a good analysis? "Mainstream science"?

[wildbilln864]

74. That hada hurt! nt

:hi:

[hack89]

81. Would you care to show me where it says that? nt

[procopia]

83. You didn't read it?

page 68: "(evidence of some melting of steel has been reported from
careful analysis of the video footage)."

p. 72: "The contribution of this fireball to the heating of the steel elements on the outside lattice structure can not be ignored, as evidence of some steel melting was suggested by the photographs."

[hack89]

80. I think you need to read closer

Show me where it says that. It does say that the highest potential temperatures were hot enough to cause melting but nowhere does it say that in the WTC those temperatures were there long enough to actually melt structural steel. Lets look at the conclusion instead of cherry picking a single fact out of context:

Preliminary results, based on approximate estimates of the
fire conditions following the crash of the planes into the WTC Towers and the initial damage caused by the impact, shows that the fires generated very significant heat release rates and the fire temperatures were likely to have exceeded 1000° C. Given the amount of fuel available at the moment of the crash, such temperatures are likely to have lasted long enough to raise the temperature of the building material to dangerously high levels, and hence for the fires to have contributed significantly to the weakening of the towers structures and their collapse,

[hack89]

84. I see now what you are talking about

It was more likely they saw melted aluminum since the WTC was clad with, but even it if was steel, it certainly confirms just how hot the fires were. 1300 C is pretty hot.

I have never said that melted steel was impossible - I am the one arguing that the fires were massive and hot after all. I just said that the jet fuel alone didn't melt steel. I also said that thermate doesn't explain it.

I am not sure the truth movement can criticize mainstream science until they actually do an analysis of the fires - don't you agree?

[wildbilln864]

93. so you actually think...

that hydrocarbon fires reached 2400 degrees F.!? :eyes:

[hack89]

97. Well, you can feel free to rebute the paper I posted, nt

[procopia]

96. Define mainstream science

Do you think government issued science is "mainstream"? Do you realize the Bush administration was notorious for distorted science? Do you remember that thousands of 9/11 first responders are sick and dying after EPA ruled ground zero air safe? Why do you think government commissioned 9/11 reports are any different?

The melting point of steel is 1500 degrees C. That's why NIST has vehemently denied the existence of melted steel at the WTC. OCTists are walking a fine line, trying to prove the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel, but not hot enough to melt steel, because neither jet fuel nor office contents burn hot enough to melt steel. This could easily be resolved by analyzing the WTC debris for explosives. NIST refuses to do that.

[hack89]

98. Why not analysis the dust that was spread inches thick all over NYC?

Be honest - you never needed the steel to test for explosives. A shovel, a garbage sack and access to a testing lab is all the truth movement needed to test for explosives. I bet you can still find dust to test on some rooftop if you looked carefully. So what happened? Are the truther scientist lazy? Incompetent? Or did they test and didn't get the results they wanted so they covered it up?


Here is a dust analysis that was actually done - notice no trace of explosives.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

[procopia]

99. Again, define "mainstream science"

The dust analysis study you linked to was conducted "to oversee and investigate the presence, type, amount, and extent of environmental contaminants in the building located at 130 Liberty Street, New York, NY (the “Building”) and to recommend remediation strategies," and not to investigate the presence of explosives.

The peer reviewed dust analysis by Jones, Harrit, et al is here:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

Or did they test and didn't get the results they wanted so they covered it up?

You know, that's a really ironic statement considering how truth scientists have been begging NIST to test for explosives. NIST refuses. Who is covering up?

[hack89]

107. So Jones didn't find any high explosives.

why didn't he test the dust instead of the red paint chips he mistakes for thermite?

Google Bentham open access and see for your self their shady reputation as a vanity journal that will publish anything if you cough up $800.

[procopia]

108. Who tested

the chips and found them to be red paint?

[hack89]

110. We discussed this paper in this forum in great detail

there are multiple threads - go back an read them and it becomes clear that there is much less to this smoking gun then you think.

Answer this question if you can - since Jones found no trace of conventional high explosives, is the truth movement moving away from conventional CD to explain the WTC collapse? Or is it a mistake to even assume that Jones or any truther has ever tested the dust for conventional high explosives?

[procopia]

111. Do you ever answer simple questions?

Who tested the chips and found them to be paint?

[hack89]

112. I get tired of truthers that dig up old topics without first doing some research

I know that truthers are pathologically incapable of taking the time to research their endless questions and smoking guns - it get tiresome that 7 years after the fact they are still asking the same questions time and time again even though a quick search using the DU search tool would show that their questions have been answered time and time again.

[procopia]

114. LOL, because you know the answer is

"No, no one ever tested the chips and proved they were paint--OCTists just make that baseless claim to see if it sticks, because they have no other defense."

Your tactics are so transparent.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Tell me something

Wood burns at the same temperature, right?

So why is it that you can sit around a nice little campfire, but you can't get 40 feet near a huge roaring bonfire? It's all wood, isn't it?

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whatchamacallit]

5. As long as the OCT can rely on esoteric hypotheses to explain what the rational mind rejects

they will cling to the lie.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. What a lovely Sunday today is!

Well, here in Dallas. The sun is shining and it's a little hot, but good weather to get out and do something in the yard.

[TheWatcher]

35. Probably a good idea.

Since your failed acting career isn't doing so well, and your failure as a government shill isn't really convincing anyone to take you seriously either. :rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

12. "Truther Logic"

Science = esoteric hypothesis

[whatchamacallit]

20. There are "scientific" theories postulated on both sides of the 9/11 divide

An annoying flaw in the reasoning of OCT adherents is that they *own* science. No matter how much of a stretch an OCT theory is, your guys are always right and everyone else is a crackpot. Your confirmation bias has you buying totally improbable - no, make that impossible - shit, and proclaiming it science. Weak.

[SDuderstadt]

21. If the ''truth movement'' is on the right path...

why aren't scientists and professionals flocking to it? It should be an overwhelming mass movement. Why do you think it isn't?

[whatchamacallit]

22. Dunno

Maybe like many, they appeal to authority. Things "official" always have gravitas, no matter how often history proves the establishment view wrong. Maybe it's because they don't want their jobs or lives fucked with. Think about it, if you believed your government could commit such a horrendous crime against it's own people, would you be willing to take on such an entity? Even though, at first, anti-war protests were large, the vast majority of people opposed to the war did not participate for one reason or another. Their lack of activism does not amount to tacit support for the war. I think this "why aren't all the scientists marching in the streets?" question is pretty meaningless.

[SDuderstadt]

24. I never asked why scientists aren't ''marching in the streets''...

I asked why they aren't flocking to the ''truth movement''. All I get is paranoid conjecture about ''fear for their lives'' and retribution. I have an idea: how about the utter lack of concrete evidence?

I absolutely despised the Bush administration so I should be an ideal recruit. So why aren't I? Please don't give me the usual bullshit that I ''crave authority'' and other nonsense.

If evidence that '' 9/11 was an inside job'' actually existed, it would be nearly impossible to ''suppress''' and would be such a bombshell, journalists like Sy Hersh would be ALL over it. Instead, nearly 8 years later, the ''truth movement'' has nearly zero visibility. Surely with an Obama administration the thing should bust wide open. Shouldn't it?

ETA: Although I am responding to Whatchamacallit, I should have written more clearly so the reader doesn't think some of my points are directed at him, rather than the ''truth movement'' in general.

[whatchamacallit]

25. Maybe

"I have an idea: how about the utter lack of concrete evidence?"

Maybe, but other than those with a vested interest in maintaining the official account, telling it's not, there's just as little evidence that 9/11 *wasn't* an inside job.

"I absolutely despised the Bush administration so I should be an ideal recruit. So why aren't I? Please don't give me the usual bullshit that I ''crave authority'' and other nonsense."

Don't know what motivates you... People are different.

"If evidence that '' 9/11 was an inside job'' actually existed, it would be nearly impossible to ''suppress''' and would be such a bombshell, journalists like Sy Hersh would be ALL over it. Instead, nearly 8 years later, the ''truth movement'' has nearly zero visibility."

Sometimes conspiracies are not revealed for decades (Gulf of Tonkin). We learn new stuff every day. The truth doesn't necessarily work on your timetable.

"Surely with an Obama administration the thing should bust wide open. Shouldn't it? "

Like he's busting open, torture, domestic spying, universal health care, ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, closing GITMO, government transparency, wall street fraud... Yeah, he's turning out to be a real maverick.

[wildbilln864]

26. Excellent reply whatcha! nt

:hi:

[whatchamacallit]

27. Thanks wildbill!

:toast:

[wildbilln864]

118. my pleasure whatch! nt

:patriot:

[SDuderstadt]

28. ''There's just as little evidence that 9/11 wasn't...

an inside job''. Would you PLEASE take a critical thinking class? I'll even pay for it if it will help you understand logical fallacies like ''trying to shift the burden of proof''.

[whatchamacallit]

29. If a "critical thinking class" is what helped you attain your level of insight

then no. I'm not interested in intellectual diminution.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Have you ever actually taken a critical thinking class?

Just curious.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Realityhack]

40. Can we modify this to 'Do you know what a critical thinking class is?'? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

41. We'd probably still get the same answer...no

It reminds me of debating creationists who claim the "Devil" planted the fossil record to confuse Christians.

[Realityhack]

42. I am reminded of creationists every time I read the 9-11 forum.

What passes for critical thought, logic, and investigation in some peoples minds is stunning.

[Ghost in the Machine]

62. "What passes for critical thought, logic, and investigation in some peoples minds is stunning"

Yes, we know. We deal with it every time a True Believer posts here, spouting/supporting/pushing the government propaganda version of the events of 9-11.

:rofl: <~~~ me, every time I hear a "debunker" mention 'critical thinking' while they're spouting OCT propaganda.

For True Believers, their government is their god & their word is the gospel.

[whatchamacallit]

43. Lol @hack

Well hack, what do you think? Do I know what a critical thinking class is? Since you OCTers seem to believe you're the only ones with the facility for critical thinking and logical reasoning, you should have no problem deducing the answer.

If you answer "no", you are wrong and therefore quite shitty at "critical thinking".

If you answer "yes", your post is pointless and an indicator of your limited capacity to think things through.


I await your brilliant answer...

[SDuderstadt]

44. Simple question...

have you ever taken a critical thinking class?

[wildbilln864]

46. you have to answer questions...

that have been asked of you first before expecting others to answer yours. Man up! :popcorn:

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

67. People....

jump in here all the time ansering for others so get used to it!

[SDuderstadt]

68. And people reply to people "jumping in", Bill...

so, "get used to it"

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whatchamacallit]

48. Formally? No.

but the concepts are known and understood by me. This question seems to be your weapon of choice. You ask it incessantly and seem to rely on it as the definitive test for the ability to understand anything and everything. Let me ask you, if I were to take a critical thinking class do you believe it would it change my views on the 9/11 attacks? You seem to imply it would. If so, then that would indicate that all people who have taken critical thinking classes believe the OCT. Can you state that all people who have taken critical thinking classes believe the OCT? Most likely not. So whatever you are trying to imply with your snotty, one dimensional, question, it's a fail.

[SDuderstadt]

49. I'm saying that everyone I have known who has taken a critical thinking class says...

it changed the way they look at things. Will that change your views on 9/11? I don't know, however, I read the tortured reasoning of "truthers" sometimes (not saying you) and notice that they take far too few data points, then draw totally unwarranted conclusions (I call it "connecting the dot"). I not saying that people who have taken critical thinking classes "believe the OCT" (that term is a rhetorical device used to limit debate), rather, they look at the various claims made by the "truth movement" and provisionally reject those for which there is not sufficient proof. You can call it a "snotty, one-dimensional question" if you like but, to me, it signals a lack of concern with the basics of reasoning and debate. If you don't want to learn how to think better, I can't help you.

[whatchamacallit]

50. Fair enough

I won't deny the merits of studying logic and reason, but I also won't allow people to automatically dismiss my ability to think rationally, based on some arbitrary threshold of knowledge.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Let me pose a sincere question....

do you think that people who don't think rationally in all respects know that they aren't doing so? In other words, it's a perfect catch-22. Many people who are illogical lack the reasoning skills to recognize they are illogical. All I am saying is taking a critical thinking class just may cause one to re-evaluate just how well they reason.

[whatchamacallit]

52. Like the people auditioning for American Idol who don't know they suck?

Look, I get your point, but that's not true of any and all who didn't take classes on "how to think". Some of us were smart right out of the box. ;-)

[SDuderstadt]

54. I didn't say it was true of any and all but...

do you think it's possible you commit logical fallacies without even being aware of it?

[whatchamacallit]

58. Absolutely

If I'm not paying attention I could easily do so. Not because I didn't take a class, but because I'm human. Do you think it's possible *you* commit logical fallacies without even being aware of it? Be honest. And if the answer is yes, it brings your premise into question. If the answer is no, it's probably either a lie, or a fallacy.

[SDuderstadt]

59. If you've never formally studied logical fallacies...

how would you know what you're not paying attention to? And, as to myself, the answer is no. If you don't believe me, I invite you to comb through my posts and cite any I've committed by name, please.

My point is simple. The more trained in critcal thinking one is, the less inclined one is to being a conspiracy theorist.

[whatchamacallit]

60. Oh brother...

How 'bout this:

"The more trained in critcal thinking one is, the less inclined one is to being a conspiracy theorist"

If this is not a logical fallacy, it certainly is 100% gold plated bullshit.

Congratulations you have attained Zero Credibility!

[SDuderstadt]

61. Then name the fallacy.

That should be easy. I'd love to see you argue the opposite: that the more trained in critical thinking, the more inclined one is to be a conspiracy theorist.

[whatchamacallit]

63. I'm not foolish enough to argue either (n/t)

[Kalun D]

56. PROOF

""I not saying that people who have taken critical thinking classes "believe the OCT" (that term is a rhetorical device used to limit debate), rather, they look at the various claims made by the "truth movement" and provisionally reject those for which there is not sufficient proof.""


So what did you do? Stand outside a critical thinking class and take a poll of people leaving it?

But wait, that wouldn't work. You would have to get their names and numbers, and then get them to look at the various truther arguments, and then get back with you and take a poll to see what they thought.

If you did all this it should be well documented, otherwise how would you know they looked at truther claims and rejected them?

So please show us some documents and some numbers, like what critical thinking class did they take, how many of them agreed to participate in your study, how many rejected the truther arguments. From your statement it sounds like they ALL rejected the truther theories.

Please also show us what truther arguments the critical thinking class students were exposed to in your study. You would think a OCTer like yourself might have given them a biased selection to chose from.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Read what I wrote carefully, Kalun...

Do you see the words "provisionally reject"?

[Realityhack]

70. This post is exactly why you need to consider a formal critical thinking class.

Let me ask you, if I were to take a critical thinking class do you believe it would it change my views on the 9/11 attacks? You seem to imply it would.

So far so good.

If so, then that would indicate that all people who have taken critical thinking classes believe the OCT.

Whoops. Did you catch your logical error there?
Someone can have an opinion that a particular piece of information will change your views without thinking it will or has change the views of everyone who has it in exactly the same way.

example:
A thinks that if B saw X movie B would like it. Can not be generalized to:
A thinks All People who have seen X like it.

It is not the only error you have made within this discussion alone.

[whatchamacallit]

72. Right Sherlock

Someone can have an opinion that a particular piece of information will change your views without thinking it will or has change the views of everyone who has it in exactly the same way.
example:
A thinks that if B saw X movie B would like it. Can not be generalized to:
A thinks All People who have seen X like it.

It is not the only error you have made within this discussion alone.

This is the problem with robots... If A knows absolutely nothing about B, A is either pulling his "opinion" out of his ass, or generalizing. This is backed up by A's previous statement:

"My point is simple. The more trained in critical thinking one is, the less inclined one is to being a conspiracy theorist."

A bogus generalization having nothing to do with an opinion about B in particular. If you bothered to pay attention to the context of these messages, and not inappropriately reduce everything to rudimentary logic statements, you and A wouldn't embarrass yourselves so much.

[SDuderstadt]

73. Do you really want to argue that the more one is trained in critical thinking...

the MORE inclined they are to be a conspiracy theorist?

[whatchamacallit]

75. Calling you on your bullshit assertion doesn't mean I am trying to argue the opposite

That's *your* projection. Your argument is going nowhere, unless you can produce some data to back it up (which of course you can't).

[SDuderstadt]

76. Here's a challenge for you then.

Find a critical thinking forum in which the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd outweighs the debunkers. Good luck.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

78. Dude... Read carefully....

That IS My proof. If what I am saying is not true, you should be easily able to find a critical thinking forum in which the "9/11 was an inside job" crowd eclipses the debunkers. I just gave you an easy way to falsify my claim.

[whatchamacallit]

79. Unreal... It's not my responsibility to disprove shit you make up

The onus is on you to back up your assertions. If you don't understand this, you have no place on this (or any other) forum.

Clue?

[SDuderstadt]

85. Dude...

I made an observation. You don't seem to understand where I am drawing it from. Students of critical thinking are trained in reasoning that uses facts and evidence to draw proper conclusions. One can confirm my observation by visiting any critical thinking forum and noting that "9/11 was an inside job" and other CT types are not only in the minority, they are openly derided by critical thinkers. Are you denying thin?

[whatchamacallit]

86. So, you want me

to goto a random "critical thinking forum" and dig through the 9/11 threads so I can learn what the "real thinkers" feel about CTs? Well that ought to set me straight, seeing as how it's a given everyone there is a specially trained intellectual commando like you :crazy:

[SDuderstadt]

87. Do you really think critical thinking and conspiracy theories are on the same...

end of the spectrum?

[whatchamacallit]

88. Being they are not the same thing, a direct comparison is inappropriate

One is a methodology for attempting to arrive at sound conclusions, the other is speculation. Given that we know real conspiracies have really happened, and that those who may have speculated the truth of those events were correct, trying to compare the worthiness of one to the other is pointless. Maybe you should apply some of your vaunted critical thinking to your own posts before pressing the button.

[SDuderstadt]

89. Dude...

you don't seem to understand the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. And conspiracy theories and critical thinking are definitely at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[whatchamacallit]

90. Ha, right

One is the act of conspiring, the other is a theory the act took place. Dude, you oughta jump out before the fire engulfing your car reaches the gas tank.

[SDuderstadt]

91. You ought to try actually addressing the issues I raise...

n/t

[whatchamacallit]

92. Um... this entire thread is me doing just that (nt)

[SDuderstadt]

94. Umm...

No, it's not. You're doing your usual dodging and weaving.

[whatchamacallit]

95. We'll have to let others reading these posts judge for themselves...

If you really believe you have an issue I haven't properly addressed, please restate it succinctly and I'll try my best to address it. Keep in mind, properly addressing your issue does not = me capitulating.

[Realityhack]

113. "If A knows absolutely nothing about B"

This is simply not the case. Observing someones attempts to form logical arguments about a specific subject and observing that they might reach different conclusions after taking a logical thinking class is not operating in a vacuum. Regardless of SDs other statement you made an error in your post.

[procopia]

23. For the same reasons

There were no massive protests when Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Bush lied about WMD and was never held accountable.

Bush administration officials sanctioned torture and have yet to be held accountable.

[procopia]

8. Symmetry, totality

"The symmetry of collapse struck Paul Mason, a
structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and
Dennis Kollar, P.E. (licensed Professional Engineer in
Wisconsin). Kollar was troubled by the collapses’
“totality and uniformity” and the
fact that the mass of debris
remained centered on the building
core all the way down. The towers
should have fallen “with
increasing eccentricity as the
collapse progressed,” writes
Howard Pasternack, P.E. These
systematic collapses required that many structural
connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously,” but
also “in sequential order,” wrote Frank Cullinan, P.E.,
who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s
“impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and ...
small, short-duration fires.”

[hack89]

34. Since the impact loading was not asymmetrical and the fires were huge

I can see his problem.

The initial collapse was not symmetrical - remember the tilting. However, gravity meant that all that weight was going to go in one direction and that was straight down. Since that massive impact loading was an order of magnitude greater than all those connections were designed to handle they were in fact going to fail almost simultaneously. It's like dropping a weight on a toothpick structure.

[wildbilln864]

55. do you know that the....

center of gravity of the tilting part was no longer directly over the center of the lower part of the building below the impact area after it tilted?

[LARED]

82. So what, that changes nothing nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

100. Learn something about fulcrums and shifting loads then get back with us...

Thanks,


Ghost

[LARED]

102. Thanks for the Sunday morning dose of CT'er irony.

Always a good start to the week

[Ghost in the Machine]

103. I wasn't expecting an intelligent response from you....

.. so please forgive my lack of disappointment in your reply.

[LARED]

104. Wow, a double dose this morning thanks - nt

[hack89]

106. Learn something about vectors and you will see your mistake.

any horizontal movement was dwarfed by the force of gravity on that huge mass.

[LARED]

109. I would suggest he start with a proper understanding

of the fulcrum, then move on to vectors.

[Ghost in the Machine]

116. Learn something about construction and get back with me..

How many steel framed buildings have YOU erected? I've erected hundreds of them, from single story school buildings to 55 story office buildings. I know a little bit about how steel buildings go up... and how they're supposed to come down.

[wildbilln864]

101. I guess....

that if you don't understand the effects of that then it won't change anything for you. :eyes:

[hack89]

105. But it was still within the foot print of the building. nt

[AZCat]

18. I found this charming little sidebar on page 5.

A Note About 9/11 “Debunkers”
It could be hoped that the comments from the structural
engineers quoted in this article would silence the
“debunkers” who dismissed our arguments first because,
allegedly, no engineers agreed with us. That was never
true to begin with. After AE911Truth was formed and
scores of engineers signed the petition, these debunkers
predictably moved the goalposts, saying we didn't have
any engineers who know anything about heavy steel
structures such as tall buildings. Since the 28 engineers
interviewed for this article do in fact possess that
knowledge, the goalposts will no doubt just be moved
again. This kind of behavior should make clear the nature
of the game that is being played. One word for it is
sophistry.

I think its inclusion in this "paper" says a lot about the authors.

[SidDithers]

115. ...

Sid

[wildbilln864]

117. !!!