Need help convincing my family

reply to post by GenRadek


No, my feelings aren't hurt. Why, are you trying to get a rise out of me? Thank you for your consideration.

I know that you and me are fellow humans, which makes us family. I have learned to see others as my Self, so I don't get mad too easily anymore.

Can't we share information and debate points without the hostilities?

The whole point by me being here on ATS is to realize truth. Who really wants to be an ignoramus? Not me.

In my opinion, the original story does not make sense in regards to Tower 7, the Pentagon, or even the faked bin Laden confession video. This does not make me your enemy my friend.

Peace.

reply to post by Sahabi


WTC 7 and the Pentagon don't make any sense to me either in terms of an internal conspiracy to wage war and introduce repressive legislation. Same with making a hole in a field in Pennsylvania.

Does anyone think the attacks on the twin towers and the deaths of nearly 3000 people would have been an insufficient casus belli ? Would anyone have said " well the Towers were really bad but WTC 7 and the Pentagon were the clincher for me "?

But in terms of a terrorist plot it all makes perfect sense. Strike at American icons and cause as many casualties as you can. The Pentagon was important in that regard as UA 93 would have been if it had got to the Capitol. The Towers had been attacked before but WTC 7 was simply collateral damage.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

I kind of think that these high ranking officials of the Trade Center were trying to cover their tracks of deceit by destroying all evidence and any possibility of prosecution for all their deeds. A Magicians Ploy. Unite the country against a radical Muslim group and we invade a couple of countries to further steer us away from discovering that our Economy is a big Hoax. To me the possibility makes sense.

How many high ranking officials of the Trade center were working at the time of the crash? How many died?

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by GenRadek

 

No, my feelings aren't hurt. Why, are you trying to get a rise out of me? Thank you for your consideration.

I know that you and me are fellow humans, which makes us family. I have learned to see others as my Self, so I don't get mad too easily anymore.

Can't we share information and debate points without the hostilities?

The whole point by me being here on ATS is to realize truth. Who really wants to be an ignoramus? Not me.

In my opinion, the original story does not make sense in regards to Tower 7, the Pentagon, or even the faked bin Laden confession video. This does not make me your enemy my friend.

Peace.

My apologies as I wasnt sure what point you were trying to get at. I was not trying to pick a fight, if it is any consolation. I was just confused when you said what samkent said was a personal attack.

Well, in regards to WTC7, just looking at the "surface" of the event, ie: WTC7 hit by debris, fire, hearing "explosions", and then collapse, it is very easy to jump to a conclusion without all the facts or doing some basic research. The best place to start is with the NIST report on WTC7. It gives a pretty thorough explanation to what happened to WTC7. Of course, there will always be unanswered questions, and we may never know exactly what happened to it, since nobody was inside when it collapsed, nor did anyone have X-ray vision to see everything happening internally down to a microscopic scale. (It would be so cool if we could wouldnt it?) Then the next step would be reading firefighting manuals, reports, and publications which talk about fire safety and observing potential signs of building collapse. The signs are universal for the most part when it comes to signs of impending collapse. I would go there next. Then Iwould go and reread the full accounts of firefighters and people that heard or mention explosions, and see what context it was in. THAT is key. The "(insert favorite group here) For 9/11 Truth" only give you bits and pieces that fit in their conspriacy version, and leave out big chunks that instead, would damage their claims. That is why we ridicule those sites because we know they are lying and only giving half truths.

As for the Pentagon, well, have you been by the Pentagon area during morning rush? I have. It is inconceivable that trying to fake a plane crash there, with anything but an airplane, would not be noticed by all the people that are there on site. The wings are not solid pieces of steel, but rather light aluminum structures that are strong enough for keeping the plane in the air and of course the relevant safety measures, but in an impact with a solid structure, they turn into confetti.

Originally posted by FenderWolf
I, like all of you, fully believe 9/11 was an inside job. I have talked it to death with my parents, at least everything I know and they think im full of it. What is some sure fire way I can convince them?

Show them photographs of the columns with the explosives wired to them in the days before 9/11. Barring that, show them photographs of the wreckage with the remains of the det cord and wiring that strung the controlled demolitions together.

"Pics or it didn't happen", after all.

I talked with my parents on the 9/11 inside job subject,At first they stated "Joe - It can't happen in America" I showed them some videos and information and they didn't say anything,I could tell they were having second thoughts on the "Official Story". I don't know what happened that day but I'm leaning towards Government involvement at some level.

Back in 2006 I talked with my Grandfather on the subject,He's a veteran of World War 2 and was a U.S. Army Engineer-He Blew stuff up. I showed him the videos again of the towers collapsing and Building 7 collapsing in its own footprint. He was then convinced that the "Terrorists" had those buildings rigged with explosives to take them down

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

DUH! What's the Square-Cube Law?

Uh, OK.

Not sure why you're rolling your eyes about that, since you haven't given any indication of understanding it yourself. But whatever.

Got a question for you concerning your amazing physical model.

So your model proves that it is possible for a structure not to collapse entirely when a fraction (15% as you say (not counting the broomstick, no doubt)) of its own weight is dropped a foot or two. But you could have demonstrated that possibility by dropping a book onto a stack of books, or dropping 15 washers onto a stack of 85 washers without paper loops.

Congratulations. But we knew that already. What you seem to think based on your references to your model is that it constitutes evidence that such a collapse is impossible. I think you've fallen into a logical fallacy of some kind.

Right Here:

Denying the antecedent

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

If my model collapses under certain conditions, then it is possible for the towers to collapse under similar conditions.
My model did not collapse under those conditions.
Therefore the towers can't have collapsed under those conditions.

If you read the wikipedia article, you'll see that this kind of argument is never valid.

Toodles.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

DUH! What's the Square-Cube Law?

Uh, OK.

Not sure why you're rolling your eyes about that, since you haven't given any indication of understanding it yourself. But whatever.

Got a question for you concerning your amazing physical model.

So your model proves that it is possible for a structure not to collapse entirely when a fraction (15% as you say (not counting the broomstick, no doubt)) of its own weight is dropped a foot or two.

Oh wow I am impressed by your P's and Q's.

The problem is that it would be difficult to make a small model that would collapse because of the Square-Cube Law. So overcoming it means using a weaker support material. But then you want to play ridicule games because I am using paper for that support. My whole point is to use supports AS WEAK AS POSSIBLE in relation to the static load but demonstrate that the structure still will not collapse.

Destroying those supports from above means using energy so it has to come from somewhere so the falling mass slows down. That is the trouble with this TEN YEAR problem The PhD physicists should have explained why it couldn't happen to building that tall which had stood for 28 years. So after this much time they would look pretty silly if they admit that. So why can't they build any model that can do it?

Yeah, dish out P and Q crap. Where have the physicists even been demanding accurate mass distribution information. My Python program does not even need the square cube law so why does it take 12 seconds with constant mass distribution? If it takes 14 seconds if bottom heavy then how could a real building come down in less than 30 seconds if supports must be destroyed. P and Q that.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You haven't addressed the substance of my post, actually. I do believe that your model is flawed, but that's beside the point. The greater error is the fallacious reasoning that is done based on the model.

I'm being entirely serious and earnest, right now, so here is an example of the fallacy without p's and Q's.

If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being.
Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen.
Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.

Do you see how your assertions about your model resemble this argument?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You haven't addressed the substance of my post, actually. I do believe that your model is flawed, but that's beside the point. The greater error is the fallacious reasoning that is done based on the model.

I'm being entirely serious and earnest, right now, so here is an example of the fallacy without p's and Q's.

You can try all you want to persuade people that your LOGIC trumps physics.

The supports of any structure must be strong enough to support its own static load. Energy will be required to destroy the supports from above in a purely gravitational collapse.

Where have your PhD physicists built a model that can collapse?

Isn't 9/11 important enough for them? Can't they have the peons understanding grade school physics.

Ever notice that your PhDs don't talk about the planned obsolescence 43 years after the Moon landing either?

psik

reply to post by FenderWolf


Do the Reagan approach and ask your family:

"Are you better off now than you were eleven years ago?"

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The supports of any structure must be strong enough to support its own static load.

You always bring up the same thing. "static load"
Well static load has nothing to do with the WTC collapse.

15 floors traveling at 'x' mph is a dynamic load. The dynamic load is what brought down the WTC. To my knowlege the only dynamic loads the engineers have to design to are to each individual floor. Clearly each floors designed dynamic loads were exceeded when 15 and more floors came crashing down on them.

Maybe that's why the 'worlds physicists' don't bother to build a model.

Everyone who wanted to help teach my parents,, my Mother is Verrrry skeptical now Shes one of those who worshiped W.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

You haven't addressed the substance of my post, actually. I do believe that your model is flawed, but that's beside the point. The greater error is the fallacious reasoning that is done based on the model.

I'm being entirely serious and earnest, right now, so here is an example of the fallacy without p's and Q's.

If Queen Elizabeth is an American citizen, then she is a human being.
Queen Elizabeth is not an American citizen.
Therefore, Queen Elizabeth is not a human being.

Do you see how your assertions about your model resemble this argument?

Do you notice that I have said before that my model is not a PROOF?

You are coming up with rhetorical debating crap. My model is not a tube-in-tube structure like the WTC. I have stated that repeatedly. But it does demonstrate the physical principles involved in qa gravitational collapse. Any supposed gravitational collapse of the WTC could not violate those physical principles. So why don't your PhDs want accurate data on steel and concrete distributions and build a physical model that can collapse completely.

Of course after TEN YEARS they have a problem if it is IMPOSSIBLE.

You want to use ridicule because my model uses paper but then you want to claim I don't understand the square cube law. Then you come up with the strawman P and Q crap when I never claimed a PROOF.

psik

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The supports of any structure must be strong enough to support its own static load.

You always bring up the same thing. "static load"
Well static load has nothing to do with the WTC collapse.

15 floors traveling at 'x' mph is a dynamic load. The dynamic load is what brought down the WTC. To my knowlege the only dynamic loads the engineers have to design to are to each individual floor. Clearly each floors designed dynamic loads were exceeded when 15 and more floors came crashing down on them.

Maybe that's why the 'worlds physicists' don't bother to build a model.

The dynamic load still must DESTROY the supports which had to be strong enough to support the STATIC LOAD created by that mass. That destruction takes ENERGY. That slows down the dynamic load. That is why multiple loops are crushed in my physical model which is AS WEAK AS I CAN MAKE IT relative to the STATIC LOAD.

Any grade school kids can duplicate it. In fact our expensive engineering schools should be able to scale it up to reduce the square-cube problem and create a more realistic tests. So why hasn't any engineering school tried it? It would certainly be a problem for them if it is IMPOSSIBLE.

Engineering schools do perform big tests.

www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

You want to use ridicule because my model uses paper.....

No, because your arts and crafts project has a big broomhandle in the middle and wouldn't have collapsed even if you hit it with a hammer. Not only is it not "proof" its not even a good demonstration of anything but what happens when a bunch of washers, impaled on a broomhandle is dropped on some loops of copy paper taped together.

There is to much distraction and deraling concerning the discussion of 911. Seems that the people who believe the 911 story or atleast pump it out always fall back on arguments about steel, temperatures, planes and other after effects.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


There is countless threads about demolition and the tar pit dead end they are. Do you really want to learn about 911? Research everything that happened before the 1st plane even hit the tower

Originally posted by FenderWolf
Everyone who wanted to help teach my parents,, my Mother is Verrrry skeptical now

Shes one of those who worshiped W.

Ddi you show her that video?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Sahabi

 

WTC 7 and the Pentagon don't make any sense to me either in terms of an internal conspiracy to wage war and introduce repressive legislation. Same with making a hole in a field in Pennsylvania.

To focus on the attack itself and not on the executors, the planners, the paper trail, the war games will lead you nowhere really and these debunkers have been offering the exact same responses for over 5 years here.

They want you to talk about controlled demo and collapses.