collapse

Author Topic: WTC7.... Turning The Key  (Read 5986 times)

Offline Pimander

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4852
  • Gold 366
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2015, 03:26:17 AM »
The British made a documentary on WTC7 but I haven't found it yet.  They came to the conclusion that the building was demolished.

Offline Aemilius

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Gold 13
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2015, 10:04:30 AM »
Sarge, there is a difference between an opinion and a cogent argument or analysis.

Right, that's why I didn't bother responding right away.... How does one really deal with someone who actually believes unsupported opinion can somehow supercede or even call into question an iron clad empirically verifiable scientific method driven graphical target system analysis and solid conclusion arrived at by process of elimination (really just an exhaustively stated eighth grade homework assignment)?

I've discussed this in a number of forums both as I worked it out and following completion. Lots of people like Sarge who live in the shadowy world of opinion have had lots to say.... I'm wrong, I'm making claims, it's a false premise, I'm making assertions, it's an assumption, I'm speculating, I'm an idiot, it's just my opinion, I'm lying, I'm a troll, I can't think clearly, I have an agenda, too many people would have to have been involved, it's already been settled, it's old news, the government would never do that, we'll never know, nobody cares, I should be ashamed, I'm not an expert and so on.

One thing no one has ever done though is shine any kind of light on any error in the top to bottom empirically verfiable analysis I posted (either as it was being worked out or following completion).

Sarge, just like all the rest, you don't provide any empirical data (defined as empirically verifiable research carried out by you or someone else) to support anything of what you're going on about, and you don't point out any error in the top to bottom empirically verfiable analysis I posted by simply copying and pasting some aspect of it accompanied by a relevant quote of any descriptive text saying anything like "This animation and accompanying discriptive text is incorrect, the scenario (target system) would not play out as depicted/described compared to the control (source system) and here's why...." corresponding to your disagreement (whatever you imagine that is), so you can disagree all you like and shovel all the opinion you want.... What do I care?

If you can't break the analysis (and by extension the conclusion it naturally arrives at), and you can't provide some more plausible empirically verifiable explanation for the observed behaviour of the building using an acceptable method of analysis that effectively models/demonstrates your laughable opinion (just my opinion of your opinion), I really don't need to care what you think or take anything you say seriously (at least in this thread).... Why should I?

The fact is that WTC7, a solidly constructed (welded and bolted together) steel frame building clad in glass and red exterior non-load bearing masonry attached to the steel work, as clearly demonstrated by sound empirical analysis, was brought down by explosives, and nothing you said changed a thing. And unless you can come back with something that either directly addresses some error in the analysis in the above described manner or you can coherently present some more plausible empirically verifiable explanation that supports what you're saying and supercedes it, analytically, you're screwed..... Sarge.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 11:01:48 AM by Aemilius »

Offline Aemilius

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Gold 13
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2015, 11:05:05 AM »
To the rest.... interesting comments.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 11:08:52 AM by Aemilius »

Offline rdunk

  • The Roundtable
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3128
  • Gold 389
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2015, 11:09:28 AM »
Aemillus, since when did "real facts" become "real answers"?? Seemingly, the real world for many of us has become what we individually believe about the total circumstance of a matter. And that is pretty much how we humans have always regarded matters. We often confuse fact with what we think we know - a "flat earth" being a good "for example". One of the things Ronald Reagan said was, "often what people think they know, just isn't right". It was a political comment about Democrats/liberals, but it does generally apply.

So, I guess empirical evidence can provide fact of truth to some, and more grounds for questions to others.  Often what we think we know can blind us to whatever is the truth. Howbeit, it makes no difference to the truth what we think or believe - the fact/truth prevails. And this applies to every aspect of our lives and our existence.

The word "skepticism" is the term that encompasses these such actions, and broadly defines why some cannot accept "presented proof" for whatever - whether it be for alien intelligence/intelligent design, or for our government possibly doing anything that is against the law, like killing Americans and taking down buildings

Well, considering the multitude of lawlessness demonstrated by the US Government in recent years - IRS, Benghazi, gun running, etc, etc, etc, etc, --------- where does one now draw the line to what we think our government absolutely "could not/would not/never not" ever do??    Huuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmm??!!!

So Aemillus, don't be too put out that your very detailed efforts are not totally seen as the answer by some, as that is to be expected - each of us knows what we know - "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead"! :)

Thanks for your efforts!!
 

Offline Aemilius

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Gold 13
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2015, 02:33:54 PM »
Aemillus, since when did "real facts" become "real answers"??

Real facts are what we use to get real answers.... also known as "the truth".

Seemingly, the real world for many of us has become what we individually believe about the total circumstance of a matter. And that is pretty much how we humans have always regarded matters.

Unfortunately, that outlook will not stop a 339.87 pound anvil from crushing your toes when dropped from a height of approximately 16.5 feet. I think I'll stick with my outlook.... hard facts, hard science and hard answers. You can go ahead with your individual total circumstance becoming the individual real world thing though, let me know how that works out for you.... but stay away from anvils!   

We often confuse fact with what we think we know - a "flat earth" being a good "for example". One of the things Ronald Reagan said was, "often what people think they know, just isn't right". It was a political comment about Democrats/liberals, but it does generally apply.

The "flat earth" is just an example of people wrongly believing something was a fact that was not. Science corrected that, nothing to do with this topic.
 
So, I guess empirical evidence can provide fact of truth to some, and more grounds for questions to others.

Empirically verifiable scientific evidence (particularly with regard to Newtons Laws) is synonymous with fact and truth.  Anyone may feel free to wonder about them, but nothing will change them (think anvil).

Often what we think we know can blind us to whatever is the truth. Howbeit, it makes no difference to the truth what we think or believe - the fact/truth prevails. And this applies to every aspect of our lives and our existence.

Well, that may be true in some cases, like thinking we know what's inside a black hole, or thinking that the whole universe once occupied the volume of a pencil eraser, but it's not applicable here. There's no chance, for instance, that the entire world has somehow been flat-earth-like misinterpreting the Law of Conservation of Energy or that someday soon we'll all find out that rocks actually do fall upward, not downward as we believed.

The Law of Conservation of Energy is a "law" because it has been shown to be true so many times over the centuries, and it can be applied in analysis to precisely predict the actions of bodies in any number of hypothetical scenarios under the influence of gravity.... that's a fact.

The Law of Conservation of Energy has not been misapplied in analysis, and though one needn't be Isaac Newton to carry out this form of analysis, the formatting of the animations was nevertheless guided by a forty-five year veteran Ph.D research phyisicist, Dr. Alan Calverd. If there was any error, as I like to say, he would have closed in on me faster than a ravenous Hyena closing in on an abandoned newborn baby Wildebeest (he's actually a nice guy, well, for a sophist anyway).   

The word "skepticism" is the term that encompasses these such actions, and broadly defines why some cannot accept "presented proof" for whatever - whether it be for alien intelligence/intelligent design, or for our government possibly doing anything that is against the law, like killing Americans and taking down buildings.

No, that's not accurate really. In science, the word "skepticism" applies to things and mechanisms we don't yet completely understand but continue to advance theories about in an attempt to better explain observations, like what's in a black hole, or whether or not the whole universe once occupied the volume of a pencil eraser, that sort of thing.

However, when it comes to the Law of Conservation of Energy, there are no such uncertainties or any ambiguity. Any reluctance to accept presented proof derived from the properly applied Law of Conservation of Energy in analysis or the reliably precise predictions it makes is denial (maybe worse).... not healthy skepticism.

Well, considering the multitude of lawlessness demonstrated by the US Government in recent years - IRS, Benghazi, gun running, etc, etc, etc, etc, --------- where does one now draw the line to what we think our government absolutely "could not/would not/never not" ever do??

Hah! In recent years? Operation Gladio alone goes back half a century or more. By recent years.... Are you speaking in terms of geological time? Because it seems to me false flag attacks have been a mainstay of miltary strategy going back at least to the old pirate days where the term originates.... and probably much further! In fact, I can easily envisage the first ancient malicious psychopathic stone age villager sticking an arrow in his leg that looks like the ones belonging to another guy in a neighboring village, running into the village with the arrow sticking out and raising a ruckus, and then promptly leading his now infuriated fellow villagers off to slaughter everyone in the other peaceful neighboring village. He gets their food, their women and their land, hell, he'd probably even be seen as a hero afterwards by his fellow villagers for leading them to victory over an aggressor and thwarting the evil spirits or something.... it's a natural!


So Aemillus, don't be too put out that your very detailed efforts are not totally seen as the answer by some, as that is to be expected...."


Not put out. If people want to believe in things that can't possibly be true, things that one learns in the eighth grade are literally physically impossible, like "Natural Progessive Structural Gravitational Acceleration", for example as in the case of WTC7, where one massive body is said to have fallen straight down through another massive body as if through air, they're certainly free to. In view of all the other bizarre things people believe these days.... I guess I really shouldn't be surprised!


....each of us knows what we know - "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead"!


Right! That's the old individual total circumstance becoming the individual real world spirit!

Thanks for your efforts!!

And thanks for commenting!!

You're post didn't directly address any aspect of the analysis, so naturally it can have no impact on the veracity of the information conveyed or the (still) empirically eastablished fact that WTC7 was brought down by explosives, but it was interesting and clearly shows how some can be confronted with scientific reality and still remain in denial (or rather skepticism as you call it) by trying to explain away the most fundamental laws of physics as if somehow, possibly, maybe, just might be, if everything was just right, if things went a particular way, sort of, and conditions were just so.... they might be open to various interpretation.

So where were we? Oh yes, the analysis and it's conclusion continue to stand empirically unassailed (here and elsewhere), WTC7 was brought down by explosives.... and it remains an empirically established fact.   
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 04:31:27 PM by Aemilius »

Offline ArMaP

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9936
  • Gold 751
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #20 on: March 20, 2015, 03:05:02 PM »
You're post didn't directly address any aspect of the analysis, so naturally it can have no impact on the veracity of the information conveyed or the (still) empirically eastablished fact that WTC7 was brought down by explosives
I only finished high-school and have some trouble understanding some of those long words, so I may have missed/misinterpret a previous explanation, but when does a theory become a fact?

Offline Sgt.Rocknroll

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2088
  • Gold 320
  • ROCK On!
    • Sgt. Rocknroll
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2015, 03:13:35 PM »
Ok somehow my opinion on a subject is of great concern here. I'll have to go back and re read my posts but I do believe I said that Wtc-7 was different than the rest of the bldgs . being brought down. It definitely looked like a demo job. I only questioned if they had enough time to rigged the explosives. And I also questioned the REASON they would want to bring it down.

I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you but tuff! After all it is only an opinion!
Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini Tuo da gloriam

Offline Aemilius

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Gold 13
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2015, 03:36:20 PM »
I only finished high-school and have some trouble understanding some of those long words, so I may have missed/misinterpret a previous explanation, but when does a theory become a fact?

I dropped out of the eighth grade. And no, you didn't miss anything. There's no theory in the analysis, only graphically represented empirically verifiable data.... nothing about theories becoming fact or fact becoming theories or anything like that. Technically though, Newtons Laws are still theory, even though we refer to them as laws. Centuries of independent experimental verification of results he obtained is why they're seen as inviolable laws.

 
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 03:40:40 PM by Aemilius »

Offline Aemilius

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Gold 13
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2015, 04:01:38 PM »
Ok somehow my opinion on a subject is of great concern here.

Not at all. On the contrary, your opinion is of absolutely no concern at all. There's no science in it.... How could it be?

I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you but tuff!

Well Sarge, it's not that it's not good enough for me, it's that it's not good enough for science.... tuff for you, not for me.

After all it is only an opinion!

Right, that's all it is.... you certainly won't get any argument from me on that!
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 04:42:05 PM by Aemilius »

Offline Sgt.Rocknroll

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2088
  • Gold 320
  • ROCK On!
    • Sgt. Rocknroll
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #24 on: March 20, 2015, 04:53:39 PM »
But you keep talking about it! So it obviously does. Lol only your comments matter I forgot! Lol
Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini Tuo da gloriam

Offline ArMaP

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9936
  • Gold 751
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2015, 05:06:25 PM »
There's no theory in the analysis, only graphically represented empirically verifiable data.... nothing about theories becoming fact or fact becoming theories or anything like that.
Now I'm even more confused; is an "empirically eastablished fact" a real fact? Are there different kinds of facts?

Quote
Technically though, Newtons Laws are still theory, even though we refer to them as laws. Centuries of independent experimental verification of results he obtained is why they're seen as inviolable laws.
Well, where's the independent experimental verification of your ideas/theories? Or don't ideas/theories need independent experimental verification?

Offline Aemilius

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Gold 13
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2015, 05:29:26 PM »
But you keep talking about it! So it obviously does. Lol only your comments matter I forgot! Lol

Just responding to your posts is all. What really irks me I think is that you seem to think you can argue against solid science with unsupported opinion, which is really a bit like standing there in your underwear throwing small rocks at an advancing Sherman Tank. You're just going to repeatedly get run over (looks like your taking a beating already) but go ahead if you're into that sort of thing.... it's none of my business.

The analysis continues to stand over your objections (really just  shouting and hand waving), you haven't refuted any part of it, the building was brought down by explosives, that's the way it is..... Sarge
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 05:44:09 PM by Aemilius »

Offline Aemilius

  • Regular Members
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Gold 13
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2015, 06:12:56 PM »
Now I'm even more confused; is an "empirically eastablished fact" a real fact?

Yes.

Are there different kinds of facts?

Well, there are lots of facts about lots of different things, even facts about facts, but there aren't lots of different kinds of facts about one thing.... a fact is a fact, that's a fact (just having a bit of fun there).

Well, where's the independent experimental verification of your ideas/theories?

I think I mentioned a couple of times I don't have any new ideas or theories, only empirically verifiable data.

Or don't ideas/theories need independent experimental verification?

Sure new ideas/theories need independent experimental verification. But since there are no new ideas or theories of any kind in the analysis, only empirically verifiable data top to bottom, there's nothing there to verify, it's just the Law of Conservation of Energy. So, if what you're asking me to provide is independent empiirical verification of the Law of Conservation of Energy.... you're lost, I can't help you. Try Wikipedia (look up  Newton and Galileo). I'm not a grade school teacher.

« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 06:24:19 PM by Aemilius »

Offline Sgt.Rocknroll

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2088
  • Gold 320
  • ROCK On!
    • Sgt. Rocknroll
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #28 on: March 20, 2015, 06:31:47 PM »
Just responding to your posts is all. What really irks me I think is that you seem to think you can argue against solid science with unsupported opinion, which is really a bit like standing there in your underwear throwing small rocks at an advancing Sherman Tank. You're just going to repeatedly get run over (looks like your taking a beating already) but go ahead if you're into that sort of thing.... it's none of my business.

The analysis continues to stand over your objections (really just  shouting and hand waving), you haven't refuted any part of it, the building was brought down by explosives, that's the way it is..... Sarge

Don't wear underwear! Lol and I don't remember making any objections to anything. So you keep trying to beat your chest about your scientific facts and I'm happy for you. Lol
Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini Tuo da gloriam

Offline Pimander

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4852
  • Gold 366
Re: WTC7.... Turning The Key
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2015, 06:36:32 PM »
So was building 7 rigged with explosives in advance?  I think that is the suspicion right?

Who did it?  Someone in the CIA had to be involved in the cover up!

 


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC
affiliate_link
Free Click Tracking
Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

* Recent Posts

Re: More Jobs Down the Drain Sam's Club Closed 63 Stores today by Littleenki
[Today at 12:58:13 PM]


Re: 411 by Gigas
[Today at 12:40:19 PM]


Re: More Jobs Down the Drain Sam's Club Closed 63 Stores today by Gigas
[Today at 12:14:07 PM]


Re: Fake Casino Hides Massive Underground Construction of Super Secret Subway... by Gigas
[Today at 11:53:15 AM]


Re: Penney for your thoughts by The Seeker
[Today at 11:34:56 AM]


Re: Penney for your thoughts by micjer
[Today at 11:07:32 AM]


Penney for your thoughts by Sgt.Rocknroll
[Today at 04:26:12 AM]


Re: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Sarge by Sgt.Rocknroll
[Today at 03:43:49 AM]


Re: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Sarge by Smilingtree
[January 16, 2018, 06:56:20 PM]


Re: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Sarge by thorfourwinds
[January 16, 2018, 05:48:49 PM]


Re: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Sarge by Sgt.Rocknroll
[January 16, 2018, 04:26:41 PM]


Re: HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Sarge by ArMaP
[January 16, 2018, 07:07:50 AM]


HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Sarge by The Seeker
[January 16, 2018, 05:40:14 AM]


Re: Music You Love by ArMaP
[January 15, 2018, 02:13:35 PM]


Re: Oprah Winfrey for president: a wild idea that just got dramatically more real by micjer
[January 15, 2018, 12:24:47 PM]


Re: Oprah Winfrey for president: a wild idea that just got dramatically more real by Somamech
[January 15, 2018, 08:22:57 AM]


Re: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence by A51Watcher
[January 14, 2018, 01:03:50 PM]


Re: Oprah Winfrey for president: a wild idea that just got dramatically more real by petrus4
[January 14, 2018, 11:52:41 AM]


Re: The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence by spacemaverick
[January 13, 2018, 07:57:56 PM]


Re: Oprah Winfrey for president: a wild idea that just got dramatically more real by Shasta56
[January 13, 2018, 06:11:48 PM]