Challenge to conspiracy "debunkers"

[Mike Stephens]

Originally Posted by CHF

Mike, where did you get your engineering degree?

Just curious.

Where'd you get yours?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Where'd you get yours?

How did you mess up Payne Stewart's intercept so bad? You may not want to learn to fly if you mess up time real bad.


What is the next big challenge? He have had concrete WTC, 16 minute intercepts, and more. What is next? What other facts have you got totally wrong about 9/11 and NORAD?

Batting zero so far on 9/11 and most CT you bring up. Where did you go wrong. Next challenge. What do you have for a 9/11 story of what happen, are you dieing to tell us who did 9/11?

[Corsair 115]

Pardon the brief sidetrack to the current thrust of the discussion, but can we now consider the oil angle you proposed a couple of pages ago officially put to rest, Mike?

[chippy]

oops

[hellaeon]

Awesome, I am glad that Mike is now obviously away reading all the links and about to come back and have a laugh at himself and readjust his 'beliefs' to align with actual facts.

Thats right isn't it Mike?

[gumboot]

Wow Mike, you've gone off the deep end...

From first sign of distress, it took 81 minutes before a fighter aircraft reached Payne Stewart's aircraft.

In contrast, from first sign of distress, the longest flight on 9/11 was AA77 which lasted 41 minutes.

Payne Stewart's jet remained on a straight and level flight path at all times, with transponder operational.

In contrast the flights on 9/11 did not maintain straight and level flight and their transponders were interfered with.

Payne Stewart's aircraft was intercepted by a USAF fighter that was already airborne.

On 9/11 the fighters relied on for intercept had to be scrambled from the ground first. At the time fighters were expected to be in the air within 15 minutes of the order being given.

In the instance of Payne Stewart's learjet Jacksonville ARTCC notified the military almost immediately. On 9/11 the earliest warning NEADS would receive for any flight was 9 minutes for AA11.

-Gumboot

[qarnos]

I just posted a response to the original blog post where Jesse "called us out". Ron Wieck accepted his challenge, only to have Jesse decline for some reason.

I started to get a bit angry at him as I was writing, but, well, I stand by my words!

I am posting my message here just in case it "goes missing" at the TvNewsLIES site.

ETA: Kudos to the originator of the "roll out of bed" hypothesis. It was someone on this forum, but I can't remember who. I agreed with that so much I decided to "steal" it for this post.

Originally Posted by Me!

Jesse. Ron has agreed to the terms of your challenge. Why won’t you do the honorable thing and accept him? You claim your message was not aimed at him. I strongly disagree. Allow me to quote your message:

“This message is addressed to all the deniers and nay sayers who have spent almost six years swearing to the lies of the official story of 9/11.”

Notice the part where you said “ALL”? You do know what “ALL” means, do you not? I’ll let you in on a little secret: It means “EVERYONE”. And Ron counts. Not satisfied? Again, I quote:

“So here is my offer to both the 9/11 truth movement and to the backers and creators of the official story: Bring it on!”

See the part where you said “the backers … of the official story”. Ron is a backer of the official story, Jesse. Surprised?

“To the 9/11 Commission … and to the portion of the general public who still believe the official explanation of the events of 9/11: assemble your team and get ready to educate us.”

I highlight the phrase, “and to the portion of the general public”. Guess what, Jesse? Ron is a member of the general public. Who would have guessed?!!!

There is no excuse for you to back down on your challenge, yet you have. I have no doubt, you will go running to your truther friends, proclaiming that no one would debate you. If you do, you are a LIAR. Remember that.

It’s time for some real truth, Jesse. You whine and whine that no-one in the media will touch you. Do you want to know why? Because THEY DON’T CARE. No - it’s not because they have sold-out. They don’t care about you or your pathetic “movement” for the same reason they don’t care about the man who claimed he can live without food or water - it’s just to whacked out and crazy to be true, and with a complete lack of any supporting empirical evidence to boot. YOU ARE A NUT.

The only people who take you seriously enough to bother even debunking you are your old enemies - the skeptics. And even we begin to tire of it after the 10,000th truther has proudly marched into the JREF forums to smugly proclaim, as if no one else ever had, that “fire can’t melt steel”.

I know why you do it. It makes you feel superior to the average Joe. There’s no shame in that - everybody like to feel superior to everyone else. The difference is, the “truth movement” makes it incredibly easy - all you have to do is roll out of bed. Done! You are superior because you haven’t “sold out”. You know “the truth”. And what’s more - you didn’t need a fancy university degree in order to discover “the truth”. You did it with your natural, superior (need I say), intelligence. How great that must feel.

It must also feel great to know that you aren’t a sheep, yeah? I mean, you don’t blindly swallow the tripe spoon-fed by “the corporate media”. No! You’re too smart to fall for that crap! Instead, you blindly swallow the tripe spoon-fed to you by Avery, Jones (both of ‘em!), Fetzer, et al. Man, you are sooooo not a sheep.

I will sign off with this, Jesse: You made a challenge. It was accepted. Now, SHOW UP OR SHUT UP!

-qarnos.

[CHF]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Where'd you get yours?

Never said I had one.

You're the one claiming to be an engineer.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

If you watch the video of one of the towers collapsing, you can even see the top spire of the building coming down and it appears that it is toppling. Toppling, that is what I am getting at - more of the building should have toppled over if the damaging event is isolated to one specific portion of the structure.

Oh, no. Not that again.

[Vincent Vega]

This is worse than watching Polish cavalry charging German Panzers on horseback.

[qarnos]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

This is worse than watching Polish cavalry charging German Panzers on horseback.

But the Polish Cavalry had more balls than the truthers will ever have.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by qarnos

But the Polish Cavalry had more balls than the truthers will ever have.

And a lot more sense, since they never actually did charge German armour.

Dave

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And a lot more sense, since they never actually did charge German armour.

Dave

OK smart guy...but I think you get my point.

"Like watching Union Infantry charging the stone wall at Fredericksburg" isnt quite as effective (and that DID happen).

[qarnos]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

And a lot more sense, since they never actually did charge German armour.

Dave

I figured as much, but was too lazy to check it out. That'll teach me.

In any case, they stood up to the Nazi's at Warsaw, comprehensively outnumbered and with little weaponry - at that definitely takes balls.

[The Doc]

It troubles me that someone who would put out a challenge to us is reusing an argument that is, at best, horribly irrelevant.

There are so many differences between Payne Stewart and 9/11 that the only thing relating them does, is damage the truther's credibility. I take it the OP has read gumboot's response.

So what we have is someone 'calling us out'. Ron accepted the challenge. The OP declines, despite making the challenge. He then resorts to recycling debunked threads on a message board. Poor form I would say.

[Dave Rogers]

I just noticed something rather amusing in this thread.

In post 212, Mike replies to Beachnut's post 206 giving 80 minutes as the interception time for Payne Stewart.

In post 229, Mike posts a second reply to post 206, starting by saying, "Again 80 min?"

He's replying twice to the same post, and complaining that it says the same thing both times.

Well I thought it was funny.

Dave

[CurtC]

I thought Mike was asking about Thomas Paine's jet.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

as I stated previously I don't design high-rises for a living, so I am not able to provide any such calculations relating to the greatest engineering failure of my lifetime.

Nice way of putting in so it seems peculiar.

Quote:

I don't know hellaeon, although I greatly appreciate your recent demeanor, I find your avatar extremely offensive

Sorry, this is the internet. You might have to contend with people who don't share your beliefs and who happen to show theirs.

Quote:

Here's a calc for you: a floor falls unrestricted (for simplicity's sake and to give you a shorter time of failure than what you would have if you looked at it in more detail) (1353' tall / 110 stories = 12.4) 10 feet (floors 2 feet thick). d=vo + 1/2 gt^2 or t= (1/2*d/g)^0.5.
t = 10/32.2/2^1/2 or 0.39 seconds. That's only one of 110 though. Too many? Okay say that the pancake only started where the floors were impacted, was it the 70th story? Okay 70 floors * 0.39 sec/floor gives you 27.3 sec.

Somehow that just feels wrong.

[Regnad Kcin]

Quote:

Hello everybody. I know you don't know me from Adam as this is only my second post, but was wondering if I might find some support from this forum to aid me in debating in another forum? I have been duking it out in close-quarters-combat with what seems to be half of the jref forum at randi.org. It is easy to spot, has grown to over 5 pages now in fewer days. Just look at the conspiracy theories forum for a title called:
JREF Forum » JREF Topics » Conspiracy Theories
"Challenge to conspiracy "debunkers".

I don't have time to address most of the sincere questions, much less all of the catty remarks provided as "arguments".

Have found that room to be full of knuckle-draggers with mob mentality, boy do I know how to pick them. Does anyone here know anything about this randi.org site?

Source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=7791

C'mon, Mike. The above is just silly. In so many ways.

You started a thread (this one), not in the spirit of rational inquiry, but in order to provoke and demean. That the OP words aren't your own is hardly a defense.

Like it or not, the JREF is a forum that promotes and encourages critical thinking (with regard to all manner of topics). It is not a locale with a monolithic mindset, automatically adversarial to challenges; people here often disagree. However, when it comes to the subject of 9/11, there is in large part consensus. Why is that?

The topic and its subtopics have been discussed and analyzed for well over a year; this subforum is almost entirely devoted to the issue. A great many people have seriously looked into the claims made by proponents of an "inside job" and found them lacking. Not simply a no-it-wasn't auto-response, but with careful and considered rebuttals. Not to mention evidence, something the average CTer seems ill-equipped to provide.

Moreover, I have seen countless new members such as yourself enter the fray with bluster and swagger only to disappear after a short stay. My guess is that people in general confuse skepticism with critical thinking and are used to adopting a tone of wary disbelief in their lives, but are not prepared to actually engage in the latter. Me, I wish they'd stay -- there's a lot to learn and a lot of fun to be had in learning.

One more thing: Am I a "knuckle-dragger?"

Thanks to Disbelief for the LCF quote and link.

[The Doc]

Quote:

Hello everybody. I know you don't know me from Adam as this is only my second post, but was wondering if I might find some support from this forum to aid me in debating in another forum? I have been duking it out in close-quarters-combat with what seems to be half of the jref forum at randi.org. It is easy to spot, has grown to over 5 pages now in fewer days. Just look at the conspiracy theories forum for a title called:
JREF Forum » JREF Topics » Conspiracy Theories
"Challenge to conspiracy "debunkers".

I don't have time to address most of the sincere questions, much less all of the catty remarks provided as "arguments".

Have found that room to be full of knuckle-draggers with mob mentality, boy do I know how to pick them. Does anyone here know anything about this randi.org site?

Source: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=7791

So let me get this perfectly clear.

You came in here posing a challenge to "conspiracy debunkers". We provide you with "sincere questions" and suddenly you "don't have time" to answer them? Yet, you have time to go groveling over to Loose Change?

Instead of wasting your time over at LC, how about answering our questions and responding to our statements.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by CurtC

I thought Mike was asking about Thomas Paine's jet.

I assumed he was confusing Thomas Paine with Payne Stewart^WP.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Wow Mike, you've gone off the deep end...

I suspected as much from the get-go.

For some reason, these truthers ALL seem reasonable and "on the fence" when they first post here. It doesn't take long before their political agenda, ignorance, lack of reason and close-mindedness begins to show.

Surely, it's a coincidence that all of them happen to think this way.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

C'mon, Mike. The above is just silly. In so many ways.

You started a thread (this one), not in the spirit of rational inquiry, but in order to provoke and demean. That the OP words aren't your own is hardly a defense.

Like it or not, the JREF is a forum that promotes and encourages critical thinking (with regard to all manner of topics). It is not a locale with a monolithic mindset, automatically adversarial to challenges; people here often disagree. However, when it comes to the subject of 9/11, there is in large part consensus. Why is that?

GROUPIES!!!!

[Augustine]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

I was however interested in getting the most knowledgeable professionals and avid researchers of the mainstream story of how 911 happened to debate with their peers from the other side of the fence.

Mike, there are no peers on the truther/Loose Change side. The "911 Truth" movement has had: a 70+ year old civil engineer in California who has no professional distinction whatsoever, no publicly available resume, and no prominent buildings to his credit; and an offshore oil rig designer who was similarly professionally undistinguished without a single building design to his name. That is the extent of the structural engineering knowledge on the "Truth Movement" side.

On the other side, SOM and Thornton-Tomasetti, firms that together have four of the world's ten tallest buildings to their credit, helped write the NIST report. Leslie Robertson, the man who designed the WTC Towers, who I have met and seen speak, agrees with the NIST conclusions. I ask you the same questions I asked before:

Quote:

Are you claiming that these engineers have lied or misled the public? Are you claiming that these engineers are incompetent, or not competent to address the engineering subject matter? How are any of their conclusions suspect, to be precise?

Are you claiming that [these engineers] are corrupt? Are you claiming that they are placing financial considerations above the welfare of the public? What is your evidence of this?

What is more likely: that controlled demolition is immediately obvious to laymen and non-structural engineers, yet fools every single one of the most experienced and accomplished structural engineers on the planet?...or that the structural engineers are correct and understand the actual behavior mechanics of the collapse, while those laymen and non-structural engineers do not?

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

I am not able to provide any such calculations relating to the greatest engineering failure of my lifetime.

The Hyatt Regency walkway collapse was an engineering failure. The Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse was an engineering failure. The Hartford Civic Center roof collapse was an engineering failure. However, the WTC was not an engineering failure unless you are arguing that it should have been designed for a 225-ton plane impacting at a speed of 500 mph with over 20,000 gallons of jet fuel. If that is the case, I have a news flash for you: no tall building in the world is designed for that. There do exist building structures designed for the equivalent kinetic energy impact and explosive force of 9/11: they are called bunkers. They tend to be buried or partially buried, have very thick concrete walls with no windows, are aesthetically unpleasing and architecturally drab, and are very depressing places to work.

Oh, if you have any questions about the Pentagon, or think no plane hit it, please call Allyn Kilsheimer. He is very much a common-sense, practical, structural engineer. However, be forewarned: he does not suffer fools gladly, and he was there after the attack.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

Can only wish you were one of your word...

Well I would have been, has you not baited me into discussing things with you in your reply to that very post you quoted.

Next time, when someone says they will not discuss things with you, don't bait them by stating they are afraid to...I mean I am only human...

have you admitted to being wrong on the 2.5h quote yet?

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I suspected as much from the get-go.

For some reason, these truthers ALL seem reasonable and "on the fence" when they first post here. It doesn't take long before their political agenda, ignorance, lack of reason and close-mindedness begins to show.

Surely, it's a coincidence that all of them happen to think this way.

Yes, so much so we have named it. Do a search on the "Mark of Woo".

TAM

[Belz...]

Yes, I didn't want to say it, but this brain malfunction also results in pretty much all other forms of woo.

All of them. At the same time.

[Mike Stephens]

Originally Posted by CHF

Never said I had one.

You're the one claiming to be an engineer.

There's plenty of my personal information on this thread without me posting more.

It's obviously not structural engineering.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

There's plenty of my personal information on this thread without me posting more.

It's obviously not structural engineering.

An honest engineer would retract the error in the concrete.

A real engineer would fess up on the Payne Stewart (aka Thomas Paine) time to intercept. Or explain what you are talking about.

What other wrong ideas do you need to fix?

[Mike Stephens]

You all seem to be oblivious or intentionally obtuse, even to the point that you will not accept a "truther" point that the towers were composed of steel reinforced concrete. Of course with a tower structure of this height/base ratio it is almost required that the frame be constructed of steel beams, but the bulk of the building, all of those open spans like ceilings/floors, walls, those are constructed of steel reinforced concrete, as I stated earlier, not just concrete. Only an idiot pours concrete without reinforcing it with some type of high tensile strength material. How many in here have done just that, only to see the concrete crack and split?

Where do you think all of that powder / dust came from? Wallboard? Most of that was pulverized concrete. But you don't want to admit that because it adds another problem for your mainstream explanation. Where did the extra energy come from to pulverize the concrete? Fire isn't going to turn concrete into powder, not under those conditions. Checkout a construction site one of these days and you might see some truth to what I say.

[CurtC]

Mike, you're the first person I've ever seen claim that the towers were composed of steel reinforced concrete.




ETA: Well, I know that Christophera fantasized that the cores were concrete, but I'm not holding his lunacy against any Troother.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

You all seem to be oblivious or intentionally obtuse, even to the point that you will not accept a "truther" point that the towers were composed of steel reinforced concrete. Of course with a tower structure of this height/base ratio it is almost required that the frame be constructed of steel beams, but the bulk of the building, all of those open spans like ceilings/floors, walls, those are constructed of steel reinforced concrete, as I stated earlier, not just concrete. Only an idiot pours concrete without reinforcing it with some type of high tensile strength material. How many in here have done just that, only to see the concrete crack and split?

Where do you think all of that powder / dust came from? Wallboard? Most of that was pulverized concrete. But you don't want to admit that because it adds another problem for your mainstream explanation. Where did the extra energy come from to pulverize the concrete? Fire isn't going to turn concrete into powder, not under those conditions. Checkout a construction site one of these days and you might see some truth to what I say.

Most of it was from wallboard.

Quote:

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/meeker-20041115.pdf#search=%22EPA%20particle%20WTC%20anal ysis%22
First, I highly suggest reading the short paper, as it describes the EPA's methodology in a very detailed manner.
Component analysis for the six WTC bulk samples is summarized in Table 1 and Figures 2 - 7. All of the samples show three primary components – gypsum, phases compatible with concrete, and MMVF. The additional particle types shown in Table 1 were found in most samples. The data demonstrate that the most consistent particle-type abundance ratios occur within the MMVF, i.e., slag wool, rock wool, and soda-lime glass. In all samples, slag wool is the dominant MMVF component while rock wool and soda-lime glass fibers occur in all samples at similar relative abundances below approximately 10 to less than 1 percent total MMVF (Table 1).

Table 1. Range in area percent of major and minor components for all samples.
Particle Type Comment Percent Range, Outdoor Percent Range, Indoor
Gypsum Includes all Ca sulfate particles 26.3 – 53.3 63.3 – 63.7
Concrete All phases compatible with hydrated cement 19.3 – 30.8 14.0 – 21.0
MMVF* Total 20.3 – 40.6 9.5 – 19.2
<snip>

Wait. You read that too fast. Let me reiterate
Particle Type
Gypsum
Percent Range, Outdoor
26.3 – 53.3
Percent Range, Indoor
63.3 – 63.7
Particle Type
Concrete
Percent Range, Outdoor
19.3 – 30.8
Percent Range, Indoor
14.0 – 21.0
Let me put it another way. In the EPA's sample, drywall dust accounted for more than ~15% more of the outdoor sample than concrete; and account for more than ~46% more of the indoor sample.

http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.co...A35D!304.entry

http://www.ehponline.org/members/200...lioy-full.html

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

You all seem to be oblivious or intentionally obtuse, even to the point that you will not accept a "truther" point that the towers were composed of steel reinforced concrete. Of course with a tower structure of this height/base ratio it is almost required that the frame be constructed of steel beams, but the bulk of the building, all of those open spans like ceilings/floors, walls, those are constructed of steel reinforced concrete, as I stated earlier, not just concrete. Only an idiot pours concrete without reinforcing it with some type of high tensile strength material. How many in here have done just that, only to see the concrete crack and split?

Where do you think all of that powder / dust came from? Wallboard? Most of that was pulverized concrete. But you don't want to admit that because it adds another problem for your mainstream explanation. Where did the extra energy come from to pulverize the concrete? Fire isn't going to turn concrete into powder, not under those conditions. Checkout a construction site one of these days and you might see some truth to what I say.

Funny stuff. You need to study the WTC first and you will not look like a kid. Does your dad know you are using his id for your id?

Dust is also wrong. It was mostly wallboard and insulation. Sorry you should really go back to school and get some research practice.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

You all seem to be oblivious or intentionally obtuse, even to the point that you will not accept a "truther" point that the towers were composed of steel reinforced concrete. Of course with a tower structure of this height/base ratio it is almost required that the frame be constructed of steel beams, but the bulk of the building, all of those open spans like ceilings/floors, walls, those are constructed of steel reinforced concrete, as I stated earlier, not just concrete. Only an idiot pours concrete without reinforcing it with some type of high tensile strength material.

Just stop, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. The towers were constructed of steel and glass. The concrete in the structure consisted of the poured in place 4" concrete slabs on a steel deck, plus of course the foundation and the "bathtub".

[CurtC]

... and the concrete slabs did not contain steel rebar reinforcement - it was just lightweight concrete poured 4" thick onto a corrugated steel sheet, supported underneath that by steel floor trusses.

The concrete in no way provided structural support to the building - it was there simply to provide a hard surface for the tenants to walk on. Also, the walls and ceilings were not concrete at all.

I hope your call for tag-team help over at the LC Forum goes well, because you've clearly jumped in over your head here.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Mike Stephens

You all seem to be oblivious or intentionally obtuse, even to the point that you will not accept a "truther" point that the towers were composed of steel reinforced concrete.

Mike, I have to ask you: are you okay? I'm seriously concerned that you are becoming disconnected from reality. Just yesterday, you were taken to task and laughed at over your concrete claim, which is absurd. You were given many, many resources that will explain exactly how the buildings were constructed. But you choose to return today with the same claim.

I'm going to ask you again: please stop wasting our time. You are grossly misinformed. We've given you the resources necessary to learn about this subject. Use them.

Quote:

Of course with a tower structure of this height/base ratio it is almost required that the frame be constructed of steel beams, but the bulk of the building, all of those open spans like ceilings/floors, walls, those are constructed of steel reinforced concrete, as I stated earlier, not just concrete.

And you are 100% wrong. As has been explained, the composite floors were of concrete poured over steel decking, supported by a steel truss system. No concrete walls, no concrete ceilings, no concrete around the columns.

Quote:

Where do you think all of that powder / dust came from? Wallboard? Most of that was pulverized concrete. But you don't want to admit that because it adds another problem for your mainstream explanation.

You are making a fool of yourself for yet another day. I'm begging you to stop and learn. If you're not embarrassed for yourself, I'm embarrassed for you.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Vincent Vega

OK smart guy...but I think you get my point.

"Like watching Union Infantry charging the stone wall at Fredericksburg" isnt quite as effective (and that DID happen).

Maybe you should use Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. It's better known, but then again, legend has it that exactly one of Pickett's men actually reached Union lines. I don't think any troofers have gotten nearly that close...

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by CurtC

I thought Mike was asking about Thomas Paine's jet.

We would have never won the Revolutionary War without Thomas Paine's jet.

It's true!

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by WildCat

We would have never won the Revolutionary War without Thomas Paine's jet.

It's true!

It was never intercepted. Did NORAD stand down for 200 years?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by beachnut

It was never intercepted. Did NORAD stand down for 200 years?

Well NORAD also includes Canada, and we know whose side THEY were on in that war.

Damn Loyalists...