One Smart Chic

Originally posted by -PLB-
You seem be confused about the meaning factual and logical. You can create a perfectly logical conclusions based on incorrect facts.

This statement alone is case closed that you have no clue what authentic logical reasoning really is, and it just goes to show how deep your denial has to run to keep having faith in all the garbage that you do.

Originally posted by -PLB-
And yet you are unable to demonstrate that these assumptions invalidates his conclusions.

Bazant never showed his conclusions to be valid in the first place. He was so wrong, that he didn't even show his work, that there would even be anything to falsify. It's clear that trying to make you realize this is exactly like arguing with a religious zealot though. You are trapped in your own little world where logical conclusions can apparently be based on incorrect facts, as you claimed above.


I get the point. You are going to be completely unreasonable and irrational, forever.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

Premises:
Truthers are always correct.
Truthers claim 911 is an inside job.
Conculsion:
911 was an inside job.

See, perfectly sound logic based on false premises.

Oh dear, now you are just confusing opinion with facts again. You know very well the argument we put forward, so why do you make such blatant lies?

You are just upset because you keep failing in your argument. For some reason this is like a competition to you, I don't think you really care about the subject you just want to argue with people and win. A lot of uneducated people try to take on the 911 discussion because they believe the MSM when they say 'truthers' are stupid, and they think they will have an easy time winning a debate with them without putting in too much effort with things like research and really understanding what is involved. This is all over your head PLB, and you know it, it shows in your frustration and the constant stuff you make up.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by ANOK

 

You really do not understand logic do you? If a building would collapse making assumptions in favor of collapse, it would also collapse making more realistic assumptions (as they would automatically be less in favor of collapse).

No that is not logical. More realistic assumption would increase the amount of resistance and decrease the mass available for collapse. So how could that also be in favour of complete collapse?

:head shake:

Originally posted by ANOK
You are just upset because you keep failing in your argument. For some reason this is like a competition to you, I don't think you really care about the subject you just want to argue with people and win.

I think you are exactly right and this is why he is 100% incapable of admitting he is wrong about anything, even to the point that he is forced to claim that he can arrive at "logical conclusions" based on incorrect facts. Seriously, what can you say to such a person that actually believes that?

He also admits that Bazant's model is totally unrealistic but continues to lie and say that Bazant only made assumptions that favored a "collapse" arresting, which is pure garbage just as much as Bazant's assumptions actually gave him much more energy to work with than would have realistically been available for any natural collapse to progress. This is also beyond obvious to anyone who will honestly take the time to look at all of the things Bazant was forced to assume in his model. The very same things that made it unrealistic in the first place.

9/11 is a very serious issue, but apparently not serious enough to take precedent over online bickering games to some people. Winning an argument becomes more important than looking into why thousands of people are dead. If you ask me it's selfish mentalities like this that are the root cause of all greed and corruption on Earth.

reply to post by turbofan


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5a935efbb86f.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ANOK
Oh dear, now you are just confusing opinion with facts again. You know very well the argument we put forward, so why do you make such blatant lies?

You are just upset because you keep failing in your argument. For some reason this is like a competition to you, I don't think you really care about the subject you just want to argue with people and win. A lot of uneducated people try to take on the 911 discussion because they believe the MSM when they say 'truthers' are stupid, and they think they will have an easy time winning a debate with them without putting in too much effort with things like research and really understanding what is involved. This is all over your head PLB, and you know it, it shows in your frustration and the constant stuff you make up.

Hmm is see you didn't get the point and thought oh what the heck, lets try do some personal attacks.

Originally posted by bsbray11
This statement alone is case closed that you have no clue what authentic logical reasoning really is, and it just goes to show how deep your denial has to run to keep having faith in all the garbage that you do.

I actually had a logic course in my master so I know it pretty well. Logic doesn't concern itself with whether the premises are correct. Thats is one of the basics of logic.

Originally posted by -PLB-Bazant never showed his conclusions to be valid in the first place. He was so wrong, that he didn't even show his work, that there would even be anything to falsify. It's clear that trying to make you realize this is exactly like arguing with a religious zealot though. You are trapped in your own little world where logical conclusions can apparently be based on incorrect facts, as you claimed above.

Yet he got his work published, reviewed and accepted in the scientific community. And you just "know" he was wrong, how very scientific of you. Demonstrate it, or it is a baseless assertion.

The ones talking about 9/11 are illuminati..there are 2 factions
9 are freemasons and 11 are Magicians/witches, its all a farce

Originally posted by -PLB-
And you just "know" he was wrong, how very scientific of you. Demonstrate it, or it is a baseless assertion.

What part of this don't you understand?:

Bazant never showed his conclusions to be valid in the first place. He was so wrong, that he didn't even show his work, that there would even be anything to falsify.

Show me where Bazant even took the safety factors into account.

Were you taught to never show your work too?

reply to post by bsbray11


Another logic fail. Bazant didn't show the details of his work, therefor it is wrong. Truther logic is really something.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Bazant didn't show the details of his work, therefor it is wrong.

Then you must admit that your support of Bazant is simply faith?

Because if he didn't show his work, then how can anyone know if his conclusion are correct, regardless of anyone's rebuttal?

You can't explain his paper, you admit his model was not reality, you admit that he didn't show his work. Where in any of your discussion with bsbray have you shown anything that shows his paper is correct?

:shake head:

reply to post by ANOK


I will repeat again why it is not faith. I do not "know" whether his conclusions are correct. I also would not "know" it if he did include all the details of how he got this energy value.

The reason I believe Bazant to be correct is because his background shows he knows what he is talking about, he demonstrated that he knows how to calculate something like that. He also had is work reviewed by other experts in the field, and they accepted it. Additionally, nobody has ever been able to show his value to be underestimated. Therefore, I have no reason to believe it is wrong.

That is something different from "knowing" or being 100% sure. If anyone comes with a paper that demonstrates his value is at least a factor 8 wrong and it published in a peer reviewed journal, only then his conclusion is invalidated (I already said that I personally don't even need it to be peer reviewed). If someone includes all the energy sinks possible and make even wilder assumption in favor of arrest and comes to a value that is just factor 2 different, the conclusion by Bazant still stands. The correction would just be an administrative one.

But as it is, nobody has been able to demonstrate that his value is even 10% wrong. So far from Ross I read some baseless claims that Bazant forgot a safety factor, and that lower floor would also consume some energy. Except for a hand full of truthers, nobody in the world accepts that as a valid rebuttal. Of course, call all the scientists and engineers in the world who did some investigation in the matter illogical religious zealots. But when almost everyone in the world is crazy but you, there is likely something else going on.

In general, I believe the best explanation available. I am never 100% sure about any explanation, and when a better one comes around it will replace the current one. But it is the best we have and believing anything else is not rational, it is motivated by other factors.

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by aero56

 

Gut feelings (intuition) is right more so than wrong in most cases, on the night (my time) of the twins collapse my gut told me instantly, its the muslims! How wrong was my gut?

I don't know, maybe we should ask an israeli ???



I quote "We were sent to document the event"

That implies they knew in advance.

I could go into other things like "9-11 press for truth"

I could go into the death of John P. O'neill.

I could go into Sibel Edmonds, etc etc.....

I could go into the fact the video of many cameras government and corporate
were quickly seized and only a few frames of one video tape has been released
just like the OKC bombing video tapes that are still not for public viewing.

In that event check out the book " The 3rd terrorist "

Our country has been hijacked, and most ppl do not even know it,
but Mr. perkins does....

Originally posted by -PLB-
In general, I believe the best explanation available. I am never 100% sure about any explanation, and when a better one comes around it will replace the current one. But it is the best we have and believing anything else is not rational, it is motivated by other factors.

I agree -PLB-. Not everyone has a degree in structural engineering, astronomy, astrophysics, cupcake making, whatever. If we lack the knowledge of a certain subject, we learn what we can, (watch cupcake wars) and then draw our own conclusions. The amount of research we do will play a role on the outcome. The problem is when you draw a conclusion before you start! This is the fatal error of the truth movement and their ilk.

I was a truther for a short time. I hated (and still do) George Bush and his administration. I was watching a video on the Penta-Lawn. I was hooked. Bush did it! Then, after about a week or two of research I was quickly swaying back to reality.

I'm not a structural engineer, but I am friends with many of them. When I got lost reading some sections of the NIST reports, I reached out to them and asked them for guidance.

I rely on those that rely on real science and mathematics. Those that believe in the proper peer review process. It should speak volumes the massive failures of the truth movement that not only have they not have one paper properly reviewed, as far as I know, they have never even made an attempt.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by -PLB-
In general, I believe the best explanation available. I am never 100% sure about any explanation, and when a better one comes around it will replace the current one. But it is the best we have and believing anything else is not rational, it is motivated by other factors.

I'm not a structural engineer, but I am friends with many of them. When I got lost reading some sections of the NIST reports, I reached out to them and asked them for guidance.

I rely on those that rely on real science and mathematics. Those that believe in the proper peer review process. It should speak volumes the massive failures of the truth movement that not only have they not have one paper properly reviewed, as far as I know, they have never even made an attempt.

So how do your structural engineering friends explain why the NCSTAR1 report does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers. Why doesn't it have the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level.

Is the conservation of momentum to difficult for them to understand.

Consider how ridiculous it is if it is physically impossible and the structural engineers haven't figured it out in TEN YEARS. What does it say about them that they have not been demanding that information? Kind of screws up their reputations.

psik

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by turbofan

 

When your "gut" tells you something, generally speaking, the "gut" is right. When she talks about what you see when the towers fall, is like what I felt in my "gut" that morning. It seemed a controlled demolition.

guts are wrong all the time while facts are not, NIST didn't even look in the direction of controlled demolition because there were no signs of it, it didn't look like one at all. Where were the flashes from detonation points? implosions are deafening there is no way that all that was heard by witnesses was a few explosions here and there, if it was a REAL demolition there would have been NO doubt.


The A&E people may be "experts" but not in the specific fields that required certain knowledge not known to them. Would you hire a water expert to fix your TV? Of course not, that's why it's deceptive calling these people experts. NIST made a report based off evidence that the A&E would never have enough credentials to aquire, so to make such a huge accusation that the NIST report falsified information is laughable.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
It should speak volumes the massive failures of the truth movement that not only have they not have one paper properly reviewed, as far as I know, they have never even made an attempt.

Actually two papers have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

911blogger.com...

Is it really the fault of the 'truth movement'? Maybe if YOU and your buddies woke up and started demanding a real investigation also it might get to the point they will have no choice. See it's you deniers that are stopping this getting more attention. I mean that IS what you're here for isn't it, so why so surprised that you're doing a good job?

Is it really the fault of the 'truth movement'?

The phony truth movement was obviously initiated and to this day controlled by the same perps who were responsible for the attacks. You think these people would go through all this trouble to plan these attacks and not devise a plan beforehand to marginalize those who would eventually figure out that the OS was a load of horse spit?

Is it really that difficult to put up some websites with compartmentalized bits of truth supported by so called professionals and experts? I'm sure many have even joined these Truth Movement organizations thinking they're above board and legit. There are even some characters on this site who supposedly belong to these Truth Movement organizations and appear to be quite suspicious in their beliefs. Obviously, these patsies are only allowed to go so far with their nonsense and even attempt to impede and deflect those who are legitimately calling for a real investigation with distractions.

This is why the Truth Movement, which was started shortly after the attacks, has done absolutely nothing in 9 years, except pick their rear ends. In the eyes of an extremely ignorant dumbed down and mentally challenged public, this lack of productivity by the TM alone is enough to marginalize and discredit those who genuinely seek to investigate the events.

The Truth Movement was built to protect the lies.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
There are even some characters on this site who supposedly belong to these Truth Movement organizations and appear to be quite suspicious in their beliefs. Obviously, these patsies are only allowed to go so far with their nonsense and even attempt to impede and deflect those who are legitimately calling for a real investigation with distractions.

This is why the Truth Movement, which was started shortly after the attacks, has done absolutely nothing in 9 years, except pick their rear ends. In the eyes of an extremely ignorant dumbed down and mentally challenged public, this lack of productivity by the TM alone is enough to marginalize and discredit those who genuinely seek to investigate the events.

Yeah, this whole thing is pretty ridiculous.

psikeyhackr.livejournal.com...

psik

reply to post by doubledutch


You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

No matter how much proof is out there that this was clearly a planned demolition, a false flag to incite yet another war and a excuse to grab yet another country's resources and settle daddy Bush's score those that refuse to wake up from the matrix will remain asleep.

Starred your reply because you are awake and aware.

Another point is no matter how much proof you bring to the table that 9/11 was a false flag operation, there are those people who are too proud to admit that they may have been wrong and manipulated.

Nobody likes to think they were manipulated.