WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[kuzadd]

I don't cliam to be a pilot or aeronatical engineer but their explantions wrt G forces (and this is very determinable from the flight path) , etc sound reasonable. There are lots of expert pilots that say it was impossible. You have already shown that you will believe anything put out by the government - no matter how ridiculous.

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

Like that Thomas Eager report, full of assertations. Many unsubstantiated, but you don't question, nor does Riverwind, right??????

or how about the wmd assertation, question that one?

How about the assertation that iraq was connected to 9/11.

Just a couple BS assertations, swallowed up, without question, right stig and riverwind???

I am sure you both did.

of course there were other assertations.

yellow cake from niger

cooked intel, lots of assertations, NO TRUTHS, just like 9/11, lots of assertations, NO TRUTH!

[Riverwind]

Whats the difference between assertion and mathematical fact ?

A fact is something that has been proven using mathematical properties and facts that have been proven themselves. For example, here is a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. This proof depends on the fact that the area of a square is the product of the length of its sides.

A proof is worthless if any of the facts used in the proof are not proven themselves.

All of the hypotheses produced by the thruthies are based on facts which are not proven (e.g. the amount of material ejected during the collapse is an unknown quantity). This means that truthies cannot claim that they have PROVEN anything. They have a hypotheses - nothing more.

The same is true of NIST. They have used a number of computer simulations which are more reliable than data collected from video footage but they still rely on data which cannot be verified.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to actually collect the data necessary to validate any of these hypotheses because that would require someone to fly a few more planes into a few more buildings that have been prepared in advance to collect the data. This is obviously not an option so we must evaluate these hypotheses using other criteria.

That is where plausibility comes in. The story arc required to explain the thruthie hypothesis is extremely implausible and has no evidence to support it. The story arc required to explain the NIST hypothesis is extremely plausible and has a lot of evidence to support it (phone calls from passengers on the planes, prior attacks on the WTC, statements by Al Queada, etc).

Thruthies try to compensate for the lack of supporting evidence by claiming they have falsified the NIST hypothesis. However, such approaches are a waste of time because it is impossible to falsify the NIST hypothesis with the data available.

[stignasty]

Like that Thomas Eager report, full of assertations. Many unsubstantiated, but you don't question, nor does Riverwind, right??????

or how about the wmd assertation, question that one?

How about the assertation that iraq was connected to 9/11.

Just a couple BS assertations, swallowed up, without question, right stig and riverwind???

I am sure you both did.

of course there were other assertations.

yellow cake from niger

cooked intel, lots of assertations, NO TRUTHS, just like 9/11, lots of assertations, NO TRUTH!

Transfer:

Transfer is another of the seven main propaganda terms first used by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Transfer is often used in politics and during wartime. It is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind. Although this technique is often used to transfer negative feelings for one object to another, it can also be used in positive ways. By linking an item to something the subject respects or enjoys, positive feelings can be generated for it. However, in politics, transfer is most often used to transfer blame or bad feelings from one politician to another of his friends or party members, or even to the party itself. When confronted with propaganda using the transfer technique, we should question the merits or problems of the proposal or idea independently of convictions about other objects or proposals.

[PolyNewbie]

Kuzadd: I am sure PN is........

I have no expectations. I'm just glad in a sense that 911 happened because it does expose the underbelly of the beast. I know people died on 911 but many more die because of the beast and if its underbelly can be exposed to enough people then we can be free. No more GM foods & Montasanto spraying crops to steal farmers land, no more banker wars, no more flouride in the water, no more UN brainwashing in the education system, NO MORE INCOME TAX !!!, no more scum in political power, no more $500.00/hr lying criminal lawyers, no more sex slave trading that we help support with our taxes, no more global warming BS, no more smart kids having to serve coffee for minimum wage, no more fear of the life sucking beast and its planned mass executions, no more complex & corrupt legal systems that can put any of us in jail for no reason, no more gate keepers on discussion groups.

[kuzadd]

Whats the difference between assertion and mathematical fact ?

A fact is something that has been proven using mathematical properties and facts that have been proven themselves. For example, here is a proof of the Pythagorean Theorem. This proof depends on the fact that the area of a square is the product of the length of its sides.

A proof is worthless if any of the facts used in the proof are not proven themselves.

All of the hypotheses produced by the thruthies are based on facts which are not proven (e.g. the amount of material ejected during the collapse is an unknown quantity). This means that truthies cannot claim that they have PROVEN anything. They have a hypotheses - nothing more.

The same is true of NIST. They have used a number of computer simulations which are more reliable than data collected from video footage but they still rely on data which cannot be verified.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to actually collect the data necessary to validate any of these hypotheses because that would require someone to fly a few more planes into a few more buildings that have been prepared in advance to collect the data. This is obviously not an option so we must evaluate these hypotheses using other criteria.

That is where plausibility comes in. The story arc required to explain the thruthie hypothesis is extremely implausible and has no evidence to support it. The story arc required to explain the NIST hypothesis is extremely plausible and has a lot of evidence to support it (phone calls from passengers on the planes, prior attacks on the WTC, statements by Al Queada, etc).

Thruthies try to compensate for the lack of supporting evidence by claiming they have falsified the NIST hypothesis. However, such approaches are a waste of time because it is impossible to falsify the NIST hypothesis with the data available.

"They have used a number of computer simulations which are more reliable than data collected from video footage but they still rely on data which cannot be verified. "

FALSE!

computer simulations, are NOT more reliable, in fact they can be very unreliable depending on the parameters, the programming etc. Rather like computerized voting machines that can easily be "adjusted"

God almighty the crap you swallow up!!!!

Hard evidence, counts not computer generations!!

like NIST puts floors into ovens that don't fail, when subjected to extreme heat, but when they made a computer model, the floors could fail, and this is reliable,

BS!!!

Change the parameters to get the results you want.

are you for real?????

seriously???

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:The story arc required to explain the NIST hypothesis is extremely plausible and has a lot of evidence to support it (phone calls from passengers on the planes, prior attacks on the WTC, statements by Al Queada, etc).

Phone calls above 8000 feet by cell in a plane are impossible.

Prior attack on wtc was shown on TV to be inside job set up by FBI.

Usama bin Laden confession was faked. That really wasn't Usama and anyone can see that. Search "fake Osama confession" on google and you will see a black guy that is 50 lbs overweight and has a pug nose impersonating Usama. Funny the audio isn't actually available ...

kuzadd:God almighty the crap you swallow up!!!!

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: The story arc required to explain the thruthie hypothesis is extremely implausible and has no evidence to support it.

What about the videos and those structural engineers that say you can tell the building was professionally demolished from the videos ? Were they brainwashed by Usama ?

[stignasty]

actually stignasty thought a hypothesis, was a conclusion, ( ask me how that's possible) but I digress.............

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

In reality, I mistakenly called an hypothesis a theory.

Allow me to correct.

9/11 conspiracy theorists like Poly and kuzadd have created an hypothesis (the government used explosives to bring down the three towers). They have then only looked for evidence to support that hypothesis. The problem is that they disregard any counter-evidence because it does not hold to their beliefs.

I apologize for any confusion this may have caused you.

[kuzadd]

Like that Thomas Eager report, full of assertations. Many unsubstantiated, but you don't question, nor does Riverwind, right??????

or how about the wmd assertation, question that one?

How about the assertation that iraq was connected to 9/11.

Just a couple BS assertations, swallowed up, without question, right stig and riverwind???

I am sure you both did.

of course there were other assertations.

yellow cake from niger

cooked intel, lots of assertations, NO TRUTHS, just like 9/11, lots of assertations, NO TRUTH!

Transfer:

Transfer is another of the seven main propaganda terms first used by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Transfer is often used in politics and during wartime. It is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind. Although this technique is often used to transfer negative feelings for one object to another, it can also be used in positive ways. By linking an item to something the subject respects or enjoys, positive feelings can be generated for it. However, in politics, transfer is most often used to transfer blame or bad feelings from one politician to another of his friends or party members, or even to the party itself. When confronted with propaganda using the transfer technique, we should question the merits or problems of the proposal or idea independently of convictions about other objects or proposals.

i didn't use Transfer, i demonstrated more assertation, unsubstantiated assertations, ones which you obviously swallowed up.

I know you did ,it's ok, some people can only muster blindly following, with subservient unquestioning.

The assertation of WMD's in iraq, was just that an assertation, didn't you know that??

BTW: I am well versed in the tools of propoganda, you could do well to learn more about them , then you wouldn't swallow up so many assertations, nor jump on the bandwagon so quickly, and would avoid the "name calling/smear technique, along with glittering generalities etc., etc.,

and while your at it, bone up on your language and defintion skills!

You need to understand a hypothesis is not a consclusion.

when in doubt , check it out!

[stignasty]

Phone calls above 8000 feet by cell in a plane are impossible.

Prior attack on wtc was shown on TV to be inside job set up by FBI.

Usama bin Laden confession was faked. That really wasn't Usama and anyone can see that. Search "fake Osama confession" on google and you will see a black guy that is 50 lbs overweight and has a pug nose impersonating Usama. Funny the audio isn't actually available ...

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

[Riverwind]

Phone calls above 8000 feet by cell in a plane are impossible.

No one but truthies claim that cell phone calls were made above 8000 feet. The planes had airphones which were used.

Prior attack on wtc was shown on TV to be inside job set up by FBI.

Another assertion without a shred of proof.

Usama bin Laden confession was faked. That really wasn't Usama and anyone can see that. Search "fake Osama confession" on google and you will see a black guy that is 50 lbs overweight and has a pug nose impersonating Usama. Funny the audio isn't actually available ...

This claim has been debunked many times. You display your ignorance by constantly reposting it.

stignasty: what is the propaganda term for repeating a known lie over and over again?

[kuzadd]

actually stignasty thought a hypothesis, was a conclusion, ( ask me how that's possible) but I digress.............

Assertion:

Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

In reality, I mistakenly called an hypothesis a theory.

Allow me to correct.

9/11 conspiracy theorists like Poly and kuzadd have created an hypothesis (the government used explosives to bring down the three towers). They have then only looked for evidence to support that hypothesis. The problem is that they disregard any counter-evidence because it does not hold to their beliefs.

I apologize for any confusion this may have caused you.

did I ever mention explosives, anywhere????

NOPE

[stignasty]

You need to understand a hypothesis is not a consclusion.

when in doubt , check it out!

Assertion:

Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

[PolyNewbie]

stignasty:9/11 conspiracy theorists like Poly and kuzadd have created an hypothesis (the government used explosives to bring down the three towers). They have then only looked for evidence to support that hypothesis. The problem is that they disregard any counter-evidence because it does not hold to their beliefs.

What evidence ? Are you talking about that confession tape of Usama or do you think that new confession from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that was tortured at Gitmo is a valid confession ? Which confession do you believe ?

Confession #1

Confession # 2

Which confession do you believe ?

[Riverwind]

What about the videos and those structural engineers that say you can tell the building was professionally demolished from the videos ? Were they brainwashed by Usama ?

You don't have any structural engineers that say that. You have a demolition experts but that does not mean much. More importantly, it does not make a difference if they have 25 PhDs - a claim made without proof or supporting evidence is an assertion - not a fact.

[kuzadd]

You need to understand a hypothesis is not a consclusion.

when in doubt , check it out!

Assertion:

Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

stignasty:

In reality, I mistakenly called an hypothesis a theory.

are you now contradicting yourself, or was this one of you assertations??

LOL!

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:

You don't have any structural engineers that say that.

se below in bold

Jack Keller, PhD, PE – Professor Emeritus, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Utah State University. Member, National Academy of Engineering. International advisor on water resources, development and agricultural water use. Serves as an advisor to the CALFED Water Use Efficiency Program and former member CALFED Independent Science Board. Awarded State of Utah Governor's Medal for Science and Technology (1988). Selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world's 50 leading contributors to science and technology benefiting society (2004).

Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: "Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."

Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.

Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 [610 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished." English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch

Original in German: http://www.danieleganser.ch

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:a claim made without proof or supporting evidence is an assertion - not a fact

Doesn't that make both the NIST & FEMA reports "assertions" ? - (since the evidence was destroyed and they were not allowed to look at it before generating the reports)

Or are they facts that need to be disproven because the government says them ?

[Riverwind]

likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."

I already told you that the claim is BS because the professor in question has not published his reasons for making the statement. The fact that you only have a single quote demonstrates who little support the truthies have among the credible academic community.

Doesn't that make both the NIST & FEMA reports "assertions" ? - (since the evidence was destroyed and they were not allowed to look at it before generating the reports)

The NIST analysis is a hypothesis that is plausible given the facts available.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:I already told you that the claim is BS because the professor in question has not published his reasons for making the statement. The fact that you only have a single quote demonstrates who little support the truthies have among the credible academic community.

The professor states his reasons for thinking wtc7 was demolished - the videos !! Its plainly obvious.

We have lots of quotes and the fact the we don't have more from this side of the pond has to do with no fly lists and terrorist sympathizer lists that are made in secret with no oversight.

Riverwind: The NIST analysis is a hypothesis that is plausible given the facts available.

What facts support NIST ? Which of the two 911 confessions do you believe ?

[Riverwind]

The professor states his reasons for thinking wtc7 was demolished - the videos !! Its plainly obvious.

That more or less proves my point. A professor that makes such a claim based only video evidence clearly does not know what he is talking about.

We have lots of quotes and the fact the we don't have more from this side of the pond has to do with no fly lists and terrorist sympathizer lists that are made in secret with no oversight.

Is Steve Jones on the no fly list? How about Hoffman or Wood? Your claims regarding no fly lists are clearly BS if the biggest loud mouths are free to fly where ever they want. The silence from the academic community strongly indicates that no serious academic takes the thruthie claims seriously.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: Is Steve Jones on the no fly list? How about Hoffman or Wood? Your claims regarding no fly lists are clearly BS if the biggest loud mouths are free to fly where ever they want.

The no fly list was discussed by a law professor today on prisonplanet TV. Its starts at about the beginning of the third hour - the show cycles every 3 hours and starts at noon EST time. www.prisonplanet.com, look for link at left of page for live show. The more public truthers are allowed to fly. Alex Jones says that going public is the best way to protect yourself.

Riverwind:That more or less proves my point. A professor that makes such a claim based on video evidence clearly does not know what he is talking about.

Well Mr Science, everything you have said has been shown to be ridiculous. Lots of people have made that claim based on watching only the video. The only way a building can collapse in such an orderly and expedient and complete manner is with controlled demolition.

I hardly think you are qualified to determine competence of Phd'ed engineers and scientists.

[stignasty]

You need to understand a hypothesis is not a consclusion.

when in doubt , check it out!

Assertion:

Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

stignasty:

In reality, I mistakenly called an hypothesis a theory.

are you now contradicting yourself, or was this one of you assertations??

LOL!

Read what you posted above carefully. Read it a number of times if you have to. Pay careful attention to who said what. Eventually it may start to make sense to you.

[Riverwind]

The more public truthers are allowed to fly. Alex Jones says that going public is the best way to protect yourself

IOW there is nothing stopping a European professor from publishing a peer reviewed paper. If he was prevented from flying he would be able to enlist the support of his government in the name of academic freedom. You cannot explain away the silence from the academic community. The silence can only mean that no experts take truthies seriously.

Lots of people have made that claim based on watching only the video. The only way a building can collapse in such an orderly and expedient and complete manner is with controlled demolition.

Where is proof that backs up that assertion? You can't get it from a video. The only way to get the proof is to analyze the design of the building and the nature of the damage to the structure. I don't need to be a expert in structural engineering to recognize when people are making unsubstantiated claims. There would be hundreds of credible researchers in the academic community supporting the truthies if it was really 'obvious' from the video.

[PolyNewbie]

Where is proof that backs up that assertion? You can't get it from a video.

This engineering professor thinks the video is enough to make that determination. I guess if you say he is wrong he must be wrong. He is just a professor of structural engineering, not an expert at everything like yourself. Perhaps you could teach him a few things. They did leave a link on the quote. I think you should stop wasting your time on this forum and go straighten this guy out - teach him about science.

Here is the quote again for you to follow the link:

Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 [610 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished." English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch

Original in German: http://www.danieleganser.ch