Help with debunking debunkers

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Help with debunking debunkers
Topic Started: Sep 10 2008, 01:20 PM (597 Views)
scott75	Sep 10 2008, 01:20 PM Post #1
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	I saw a post in sciforums.com recently and it stated this: Quote: Here are the other problems. 1) Claims of controlled demolition by people that have no experience in the field. 2) Claims of Hani Hanjour making an "impossible maneuver" by people that have never flown in their lives. 1- I know I've seen expert testimony but don't have the link anymore; apparently a physicist like Steven Jones doesn't cut it, they want 'structural engineers'. I know one of NIST's reports was criticized by some UK experts, but don't have the link on me anymore. Can someone give me a hand? 2- Not up on the Hanji story.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


look-up	Sep 10 2008, 02:43 PM Post #2
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	well, to debunk their argument is easy. 1, Just because a non-structural engineer makes a comment, does not mean that structural engineers do not agree. Many do. 2, Same debunking. Just because non-pilots say a thing, does not mean that the pilots are absent from the discussion. These "debunkers" aren't very familiar with the base of our movement, its origins, and the claims we make. They are hearing YOU make claims, and disbelieve you because you are not qualified, according to them. Show them the film "Improbable collapse", and point out that Danny Jowenko, a C.D. expert, sticks by his assertion that building 7 was a controlled demolition. He didn't even know he was looking at building 7 when he said that. That means there is not presupposed inclination towards conspiracy theories. start with the architects and engineers for truth site, pilots for truth site, patriots for truth site, and scholars for truth and justice site. engineers architects pilots government insiders whistle-blowers terrorism experts they all agree with us. sure, our numbers are greater than the "experts", but that does not mean we are not basing our arguments on expert testimony/opinion. WIth Hanni Hanjour, it's not really "Impossible", but "Highly unlikely for even someone with 1,000s of hours of experience to do it"... which makes the likelihood nearly zero, but not exactly zero. Don't let them twist the logic on you. Show them how they are thinking illogically.. like I have done for #1 and #2. good luck.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


scott75	Sep 10 2008, 03:47 PM Post #3
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	look-up Sep 10 2008, 02:43 PM well, to debunk their argument is easy. 1, Just because a non-structural engineer makes a comment, does not mean that structural engineers do not agree. Many do. 2, Same debunking. Just because non-pilots say a thing, does not mean that the pilots are absent from the discussion. Ok. Quote: These "debunkers" aren't very familiar with the base of our movement, its origins, and the claims we make. They are hearing YOU make claims, and disbelieve you because you are not qualified, according to them. Agreed... Quote: Show them the film "Improbable collapse", and point out that Danny Jowenko, a C.D. expert, sticks by his assertion that building 7 was a controlled demolition. He didn't even know he was looking at building 7 when he said that. That means there is not presupposed inclination towards conspiracy theories. I've already heard someone say that he also said that the WTC 1 and 2 buildings were not demolished, but it seems that in the video where they talk about WTC 7 that he's reconsidering that.. Quote: start with the architects and engineers for truth site, pilots for truth site, patriots for truth site, and scholars for truth and justice site. Thanks, that helped a bunch :-). Quote: engineers architects pilots government insiders whistle-blowers terrorism experts they all agree with us. sure, our numbers are greater than the "experts", but that does not mean we are not basing our arguments on expert testimony/opinion. Yes, very good point. Quote: WIth Hanni Hanjour, it's not really "Impossible", but "Highly unlikely for even someone with 1,000s of hours of experience to do it"... which makes the likelihood nearly zero, but not exactly zero. Don't let them twist the logic on you. Show them how they are thinking illogically.. like I have done for #1 and #2. good luck. Thanks. Here is the reply I made to a debunker: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2003768&posted=1#post2003768 Edited by scott75, Sep 10 2008, 03:48 PM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


JFK	Sep 10 2008, 04:20 PM Post #4
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	Point camilus to http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8510748876310097541&hl=en-GB
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


scott75	Sep 10 2008, 10:38 PM Post #5
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	JFK Sep 10 2008, 04:20 PM Point camilus to http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8510748876310097541&hl=en-GB I'm assuming you wanted this because it's a higher quality video. Anyway, done :-).. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2004181&postcount=796
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


JFK	Sep 10 2008, 10:43 PM Post #6
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	scott75 Sep 10 2008, 10:38 PM JFK Sep 10 2008, 04:20 PM Point camilus to http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8510748876310097541&hl=en-GB I'm assuming you wanted this because it's a higher quality video. Anyway, done :-).. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2004181&postcount=796 No, I just wanted to get him away from LC2E recut to LCFC for his arguements.
Posts: 4,165 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Stundie	Sep 11 2008, 06:30 PM Post #7
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Hi Scott, Just to give you ammunition. 1. Danny Jowenko and Torin Wolf. From an article. http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2 If he throws Brent Blanchard at you, then proceed to laugh because this guy as no hands on experience and he as never answered the criticisms in his silly paper about how the WTC were not a demolition. lol I would wouldn't normally recommend it, but search for demolition dave's post at JF. Although he was suspicious about wtc 7 if I remember correctly, its worth searching out because he shows some debunkers a demolition company which uses thermite and give his opinions on Blanchard. 2. I think this might help you. http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Kolstad.html Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and Grumman F-14 Tomcat. Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100. 23,000+ total hours flown. -------------------------------- "I started questioning the Sept 11, 2001 “story” only days after the event. It just didn't make any sense to me. How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn't the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just didn't add up. ... At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described. I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven! -------------------- I hope it helps. Cheers Stundie Edited by Stundie**, Sep 11 2008, 06:31 PM.
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


scott75	Sep 12 2008, 08:17 AM Post #8
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	JFK Sep 10 2008, 10:43 PM scott75 Sep 10 2008, 10:38 PM JFK Sep 10 2008, 04:20 PM Point camilus to http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=8510748876310097541&hl=en-GB I'm assuming you wanted this because it's a higher quality video. Anyway, done :-).. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2004181&postcount=796 No, I just wanted to get him away from LC2E recut to LCFC for his arguements. Ah ok :-)
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Sep 24 2008, 01:26 PM Post #9
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	I was wondering, is anyone else in here also in sciforums.com? I think I could use a little more help in their with all the debunkers anyway, laugh ;-). They keep on coming up with things that I don't really know how to respond to. Recently, someone said: Quote: The claims of thermite, supposedly used to cut the columns, wouldn’t explain the bent steel and neither do bombs. If the steel could bend without these things, why do we need to imagine that they were involved? http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2020875&postcount=909 Perhaps it's just silly. I mean, who cares why some steel was bent? The real issue should be why the towers collapsed. And ofcourse bent steel doesn't make a tower collapse, let alone get it to collapse in its own footprint at about freefall speed. But it seems the argument is that bent steel = towers collapsing at free fall speed :-p.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


Headspin	Sep 24 2008, 05:44 PM Post #10
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Quote: The claims of thermite, supposedly used to cut the columns, wouldn’t explain the bent steel and neither do bombs. Is he seriously suggesting that if thermite or bombs were used there would be no bent steel in the rubble pile?? Quote: If the steel could bend without these things, why do we need to imagine that they were involved? He's basically saying (in a round about way) that "the steel did not need to melt, it just needed to bend for the buildings to collapse." The problem with this reasoning is that there is a body of evidence which says the steel did melt. From a lawyers perspective he is trying to ignore evidence, from a scientists perspective he is not accounting for all the data, from a politician's perspective he's doing a fine job.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


scott75	Sep 25 2008, 04:11 AM Post #11
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Quote: Quote: The claims of thermite, supposedly used to cut the columns, wouldn’t explain the bent steel and neither do bombs. Is he seriously suggesting that if thermite or bombs were used there would be no bent steel in the rubble pile?? Sure sounds like it :-). I have no idea why he seems to think this, but I thought that I'd run it by the people here to see what they thought of it.. Quote: Quote: If the steel could bend without these things, why do we need to imagine that they were involved? He's basically saying (in a round about way) that "the steel did not need to melt, it just needed to bend for the buildings to collapse." The problem with this reasoning is that there is a body of evidence which says the steel did melt. From a lawyers perspective he is trying to ignore evidence, from a scientists perspective he is not accounting for all the data, from a politician's perspective he's doing a fine job. Laugh :-). I brought up the fact that all this talk about bent steel was distracting us from what happened, namely the collapse of the towers. Anyway, if he brings it up again, I will definitely ask him why he thinks that explosives couldn't leave bent steel behind.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic »