RMT I apoligize for skiping over you. I was gonna wait till my CPU scan was finished to start but I read indazonas' stuff here and I'm compelled to address it...Mainly just because he has no idea how to apply the Rules of Disinformation to a disinformationalist.
INDY, you said
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why are you incapable of being wrong? What happened to your critical thinking process and currently forbids you to accept the facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Use a strawman.
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule.
Alright then allow me to demonstrait a difference of values here. Above you apply tactic 4 and 5 to me in reference to what you quoted me saying...Now then ,would you point out to me EXACTLY who I am setting up as a straw man and where I riddiculed you in the above quoted? Perhaps you would like me to explain my comments. I feel you have some kind of pyschological block inhibiting you from accepting all of the evidence of 911 because if you did then it would confirm something your not prepared to deal with on a mental and emotional level...OR you maybe blindly stuborn, mentaly rigid unwilling to accept the whole of the facts because that would mean you would have to admit error. Something the stubborn dislike doing. I do not know what the answer is Indy, that why I asked you about your "faith" in your answers.
I did not even try to set you up because that is foolishness and it would detract from the truth I am telling. Also I did not ridicule you in the above quoted... That post isn't mocking, its despair. Despair that people as smart as you and RMT would rather believe the assinine story the governmnet espouts rather than accepting the truth for what it is and what it means.
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes do tell why the tower hit second fell first. And do tell why the building not hit by a plane at all fell around five in the afternoon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Change the subject.
The above is not changeing the subject. The subject is 911 and our difference of opinion about how it fell. I was addressing your severel threats (bad form sir, there is no need to threaten me crediblity. As far as you and few others are concerned I have no crediblity already.) of telling me off.
And it's looking like you don't have an answer for me. It doesn't strike as strange in the least bit that the tower that was hit second fell first? Surely you can't believe that the fire burned hotter in one building than the other.
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are egear as a beaver to destroy me. ...(not imppressive).... You wanna defeat a stranger rather than make a friend...speaks volumes to your charicter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Question motives.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad. (Tip: It works best when you are a good speller)
Now here your misappling tactic 7. Thier is no question mark in the above posting. To be blunt I am less concerned with you motives and more concerned with your misunderstanding of the facts of the matter.
Tactic 18 .... I'm not sure..Maybe it would be best to just apply 18 and 5 to the above. Including your jab at my spelling.
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You dislike my analogy of the outer mesh frame.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because it is a wholly invalid comparison that is without merit.
Because it says absolutely nothing about the outer perimeter columns of the WTC.
20. False evidence.
False evidence....I have no clue why you consider an analogoy "evidence"...thats just illogical.
Geometricly speaking "I" think screen and grid are the same. Of course it is differnt materials but I was hoping to express the point that it was a tight well constructed grid/mesh/screen of steel that got a hole knocked into it. Prior to the collapse it was solid as a rock.
IN FACT one of the victims had the misfortune of being trapped on the floor the plane impacted on. He called 911 and stayed on the phone with the operator till his final moments. (chilling heart breaking phone call to listin to..but its online and at youtube) In the back round you can hear his co-worker giveing his info and relying what office they were trapt in, you can hear the fire burn stuff but one noise that is not on the phone is the sound of steel trusses creaking as they expanded into the collumns...no the only thing you hear is a loud rumble and Larrys final words and one and a half seconds later its over...The question is why didn't I hear Trusses expandind or falling to the ground has they fell out of place? maybe this could be explained as the mic not picking the noise up. But I think we both know how much noise metal on metal and metal falling onto a concrete floor makes... If it happened like that then I think it should of been audible considering how much other back round noise that could be heard.
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The steel mesh outer core is a load bearing structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a screen in a porch door is not. Ergo your attempt at backwards logic did not work.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Again I am supprised by your illogic. Are you more concerned with winning an argument and shameing me or is your concern on the truth of the matter? I stated the the outer core was a load bearing structure and you say I am practiceing Alice in Wonderland logice because I compared its style of construction to a screen. And in context I dont understand how you could possibly consider my logic backwards...I went on to state that it supported the floors in conjunction with the INNER CORE. And if you really wanna get technical the Inner core supported the majority of the load with the outter core ensureing stability at such exterm heights that the building was built too. I'm not saying the outer core didn't carry any weight. I am saying the inner core is the more important load bearing structure and that as long as it was in tact and still holding it beams thier was no reason for the floors on any level to fall..
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jet fuel burned up in one big fire ball
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. False evidence.
19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that there was other combustible material that caught fire and sustained the fire.)
WHEW BOY HOWDY!
OKay. I have no clue why you say I bring up false evidence. You saw the fireball I sall the fireball
everyone saw the fireball that was a huge freaking fireball. AND the reason it was so huge (as I have explained before and shall do so again) was because all the jet fuel was burning up. And because it was an indirect coner clip impact, the velocity carried the even more fuel forward to burn in mid air, unlike the south tower which was a direct hit dead center meaning the central core took the brunt of it. Still, I have also stated time and again that a fire is only as hot as its strongest fuel. In this case the jet fuel. And jet fuel isn't wax. It burns FAST! as we saw the the north towers' fireball. The jet fuel was all used up within moments after the impact and like you said and Me before you it ignited everything else it touched but nothing in that building was capable of burning hotter than that fuel. Which, as I already said ,was consumed with in moments of impact. Everything else burned in at a lower tempature in an oxygen poor inviroment.
Those are the facts. I have not ignored them. They are logical fact. An example of Alice in Wonderland logice is the Idea that A hijakers passport survived the impact and fireball from the inside of the plane and sailed to the ground RIGHT IN FRONT OF AN FBI AGENT with only minor charring around the edges. THAT IS INSANE and the only thing crazier than that story is the sad fact that so many americans just accepted it.
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you hold a torch to a beam for only a few seconds your not gonna cut the beam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore facts. (In this case the facts and evidence for Euler column buckling)
Actully I never heard of this collumn before last night. And since I was explaining how a support beam is heated but by a weilding torch and not addressing a buckled collumn I never heard of I fail to see how I can ignore what I was not aware of...rest assured though I'll go look it up now.
My fact stand true above. If you hold a weilding torch to a beam for only a few seconds your not gonna cut the beam...hell your not gonna get the beam hot enough to light a ciggarette off it if you only apply the flame for a few seconds. And the point of that statement was to explain that the strongest heat source was only present for a few moments and thierfore it could not signifigantly contributed to the heating of the steel. Now the friction of the plane itself probably caused some lasting heat damage but the Jet fuel was not a factor after it burned up igniting everything else to burn at lower temps...
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never mind the fact that the WTC fireball did not burn anywhere near the tempature a weilding torch can produce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that steel weakening at temperature can induce the onset of Euler column buckling, thereby foregoing the necessity for steel melting temperatures)
Yes, your repeating yourself. And just like many other times on this post, your mis-appling the tactic. In fact since the exact subject in my post was fire tempature at that particular moment and not a buckled collumn I would say your repeative posting is a distractionary tactic. What Happened Indy? I thought you were going to "destroy" my alleged crediblity by picking apart the gems I left in the previous post...I guess you choose not to address it right away. Maybe I'll get to read about those gems in your next response.
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The structural damage itself was not that bad
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore facts. (In this case the fact that it was not only the structural damage that caused the collapse. Ignore that it was a compounding effect. Continue to ignore Euler column buckling)
Ok three times you have said this and I have clearly and completely refuted your two pervious accusations of me ignoreing facts. The problem with the above quote is that me and you could argue from now till forever about the extent of the damage. Reguardless of that it will come back to my opinion vrs your opinion. Just to be clear when I compare the impact hole to the rest of the 110 stories of building I consider that minor damage in comparison. The 91 bomb had more explosive energy and did more imediate damage then the planes. In fact if that terrorist had parked next to the core the surrounding explosion probably would of been enough to knock out the center out collaspeing the structure from the inside out...For some reason he parked as far away from the core as he could along the outside of the sub-basement parking level.
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gawd I need a break for a moment.... I feel like I am trying to explain to a teenager
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule.
Again. ..again and again and again... you try to use the Tactics of disinfo against me but you repeatedly misapply the spesific tactics to your referenced quotes. The above was not riddicule and I feel kind a bad for you if you honestly thought it was. Fact of the matter is I was tired and a bit brain drained at that exact moment... I was gonna write alot more and address RMT too but I needed the break... And yes I still feel like I am trying to explain the the illogic of the Magic bullet theory to a teenager. I'm not calling YOU a teenager but even if I was I think the shoe would fit considering teenagers "know it all". Also, I seriously doubt either one of us will be sidetracked. This debate will continue on or one of us will change our minds.
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You and RMT tear it up... I'll be back after while to again bring up the inconsistencies and out right distrotions of truth when I return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
You are vapid and transparent in your incessant drone of half-facts, non-facts, invalid analogies, and expressions of pseudo-expert opinions ("it should of collapsed" the way I say it should have). On top of that you use the exact same disinformation tactics that you accuse others of, as can be seen from my accounting above. Grow up, go to school, and stop ignoring those facts that don't suit what you wish to believe.
You have accused me of establishing a fall back position to rely on. Now have the intellectual decency to explain to me and everyone else following this, What, exactly that fall back position IS that you claim I established and where you have observed me relying on it. Typeing my "goodnight" is hardly a fall back position upon which to rely upon.
You accuse me of ignorance but fail to understand how to properly apply the tactics of disinformation you accuse me of.
You totaly ignored every point I brought up in the post instead chooseing to do you best to apply the tactics to me in an attempt to ruffel my feathers. THATS EMOTIONALIZING.
You say I am ignoreing facts that don't suit my belife after a bit of unmistakeable riddicule.
Instead of focusing on winning an argument and proving yourself superior to me amongst your peers , Why not give me your thoughtful explaination for why tower that was hit second indirectly fell first. Maybe you could also tell me why the chief of the New York fire department would consult the laymen/owner about the structual integrity of the Solomon building. Larry said that maybe the best thing to do was to pull it. ...Larry goes on to saw the Fire chief agreed and they pulled the building. Do you belive the NYFD is trained in controled demolition? Larry is one the record saying the NYFD pulled the building. It doesn't strike you as odd that the decision was made to bring down the building because they were worried the building would come down? Why risk the safty of your firemen to bring down an empty building that has been determined unsafe and in imminent danger of collapse? After the north tower fell the chief told his men to drop everything and evacuate the South tower because he feared it would collapse. ....And where Please tell me where because I am dying to know where did they get the amount of explosives needed to pull building 7. Do they keep the explosives on the fire trucks? Did the police have explosives in the trunks of thier police cursiers? Maybe the national guard was deployed with enough C4 to bring down the Solomon building and they just let the New York Fire Department handle the demolition because of thier training in demolishing buildings...??? And since Larry Silverstien owner/laymam/Fire Department consultant admited that the Solomon building was brought down via controled demolition organized and completed in a matter of hours during a crisis situation, IS IT REALLY that big of a streech of the imagination to consider the posiblity that it could be possible that the WTC could of been wired to explode? If the NYFD can bring down a 47 story building in a matter of hours how much faster could a team of trained black ops wire a build twice the size? Would it take them one day? Two? Maybe a week doing it quitely under everyones watchful eye? irreguardless we can honestly agree that at least one building fell on 911 due to controled demolition.
