ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th October 2013, 01:39 AM   #161
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,484
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Ape old bean, what is that pathetic attempt at wit....practice with stationery targets first, then move on.

In daylight a cave troll IS a stationary target

Last edited by Ape of Good Hope; 5th October 2013 at 01:40 AM.
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 02:38 AM   #162
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Hey Sonofgloin,
Do yourself a favor, get a dictionary and look up the word explosion.

Then watch your truther YouTube videos and you might understand what the fire fighters are saying.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 03:15 AM   #163
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Travis>> Why would they not...........
Please learn to use the quote function.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 03:21 AM   #164
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post




Forget about you "paper assertions" tiger in 1996 the British Building Research Establishment and British Steel performed a series of six experiments to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C in three of the tests no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.


Did they fly a large jumbo jet loaded with aviation fuel into the model? You few remaining twoofers are past masters at clutching at straws to support your debunked 'theories'. What's it like being a member of a moribund movement?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 03:34 AM   #165
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,061
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
I have a navman in my car, I don’t know how big you place of abode is....but if I type the address in the navman will take me to your door. Same in the air, type in the co ordinates and go.

With some understanding I can tell you that if they are burning the nests you take flight. The secret service see all such events as a direct physical threat to the president....two planes into “monuments to modern America” and the service let him sit there for 30 minutes....rubbish....the whole lot was staged.
Woah. Let me just absorb the majesty of this argument for a moment.

So the whole thing must have been staged because the Secret Service did not do exactly what you would expect them to have done. It seems to me that argument is just a tiny bit self-defeating. A presidential protection outfit which behaves exactly as you can predict they will would be pretty useless security.

The threat scenario you present is one where the bad guys learned where the president was going to visit on a particular day, looked it up on Google Maps - oh, no, wait: it's 2001 - looked it up on actual paper maps and decided to crash a hijacked plane on his head. So they work out the flying time to get there, take their best guess about what time he's going to arrive and how long he'll be there and hijack a bunch of planes. Next they fire up their 2001-era satnav and type in the street address of where they want to crash (that's how it works, right?). Presumably they pick the model that gives you a Hollywood-style heads up display with a flashing image of the particular nondescript building to aim at as you dive towards a city at 500 mph. To maintain the element of surprise, they attack this mobile target first - oh, no, wait - they attack a series of fixed targets to give his bodyguard plenty of time to decide what to do. Very sporting of them.

It seems that because you don't know what the Secret Service did between the first alert and the president leaving the school, you just assume they did nothing.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 04:31 AM   #166
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
High rise fires burn at around 1000 degrees Celsius. The integrity of structural steel disappears at 1500 degrees Celsius.
You need to educate yourself. See Figs A6, A7 and A8 here

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...WTC_apndxA.htm

Bearing in mind you don't understand one of the most basic points you should question what else you believe. The likelihood is you are wrong on just about everything.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 06:00 AM   #167
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,061
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Forget about you "paper assertions" tiger in 1996 the British Building Research Establishment and British Steel performed a series of six experiments to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C in three of the tests no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments.
<edit> Never mind. Your text is lifted verbatim from the link in Sunstealer's post above. Maybe you should just read the rest.

Last edited by Jack by the hedge; 5th October 2013 at 06:14 AM.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 07:45 AM   #168
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,506
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Travis>>Incorrect. Steel loses integrity at lower temperatures than that. And office fires are quite capable of this. Read into the fire at the Library tower in LA for a good example of why steel skyscrapers need copious fire insulation.<<

Travis my china plate....did the building you allude to fall to it’s basement....probably not seeing WTC 7 was the first and last....so far....but who knows what the administration has in mind.
No the building I mentioned (the Library or US Bank Tower) did not collapse. But post fire analysis showed the only reason it didn't collapse was because the contractor applied way more fire insulation to the steel structure than was required by code. If the contractor had only applied the required amount then the tallest building in LA would have collapsed from a fire years before WTC7.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Robrob>> Not actually. The Pentagon and WTC were gigantic targets, easily visible from the air at 500 mph.<<

Rob I have a navman in my car, I don’t know how big you place of abode is....but if I type the address in the navman will take me to your door. Same in the air, type in the co ordinates and go.
Try to rationalize it how you want but they still almost missed the Pentagon.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Robrob>> They soften and sag at a much lower temp, especially under load and not to mention all the jet fuel.<<

Rob, it is simple sport, your utterances have no factual precedent. Look up skyscraper fires.....so many have burnt for longer and on vastly more floors and some in South America burned for days and none fell..and certainly none to the basement....in their own footprint to boot. About “jet fuels”....it is Kerosene Rob with additives....not bloody phosphorus.
You are just absolutely wrong on this. Many buildings have caught fire. But only four steel skyscrapers have ever had large fires that were unfought. The one in the US Bank (or Library) tower in LA and the WTC towers. And I've already mentioned why the first one didn't collapse. The extra fire proofing allowed it to stay erect long enough for a firefighting effort to be brought together.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Robrob>> As mentioned, the rule book would seek to avoid being channelized into an unsecure route and possible ambush.<<

Don’t be ridiculous Rob. With some understanding I can tell you that if they are burning the nests you take flight. The secret service see all such events as a direct physical threat to the president....two planes into “monuments to modern America” and the service let him sit there for 30 minutes....rubbish....the whole lot was staged.
Planes flying into the WTC and Pentagon does not mean the President is in danger. And, as we know, he wasn't. And the Secret Service, not being idiots, would have known this too.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 09:00 AM   #169
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,467
SoG:

The rule book Dafffyd....it is in the book of common sense. The secret service advises Bush of the first strike at 9.02, they advise him of the second five minutes later....then left him at the school for a further half an hour...don’t be obtuse Daffyd.
J
ack>> Regarding Secret Service behaviour which "ain't in the rule book", am I wrong to imagine the US Secret Service are not so foolish as actually to publish their "rulebook" for protecting the president and that this is no more than an expression of personal incredulity?<<

Jack there is an unwritten obligation to act if you are employed in a vocation that has a “duty of care” caveat in the job specification. Just as a parentinitiates their “duty of care” to remove a child from harm’s way, so does the secret service....but they didn’t ....join Daffyd in the obtuse corner.


I can tell you this.

The Principles of Personal Protection is the operational principle that the SS and other similar (DSS) protective details operate within.

Here's a link to a paper the Justice department distributed to local agencies back in the day (1998):

http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/PI_Guide.pdf

Here's a link to an Army FM on the same subject:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...19-10/Ch19.htm

If you have the money for tuition, and can pass a full BGC and provide references, you too can be trained to perform the job:

http://www.pss.cc/

BTW - your assessment of the SS w/ Bush on 9/11 is completely faulty.

They knew the area they were located in had been secured.

They had control of the immediate area and an eye on airspace/etc.

They moved POTUS out with a minimum of apparent drama.

They immediately got him into an area that was not subject to close-in threat and gave them the ability for immediate evac. if needed, then got him into the air.

All sop, all well done.

If you expected to see ninjas w/ MG's pop out of the ceiling (isn't Hollywood **** cool?) and start the POTUS running down the hall with all the tac-coms(Tactical Commands) Go! Go! Right! Clear! - ********, I'm sorry you were disappointed, but all the grown-ups on scene did exactly what they were trained to do.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 12:33 PM   #170
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Did they fly a large jumbo jet loaded with aviation fuel into the model? You few remaining twoofers are past masters at clutching at straws to support your debunked 'theories'. What's it like being a member of a moribund movement?
Of course they did not. In other respects the tests were on a structure consisting of regularly spaced post and beam construction which bears little in common with the construction of WTC 1, 2, or 7 but does more closely resemble WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 12:55 PM   #171
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Woah. Let me just absorb the majesty of this argument for a moment.

So the whole thing must have been staged because the Secret Service did not do exactly what you would expect them to have done. It seems to me that argument is just a tiny bit self-defeating. A presidential protection outfit which behaves exactly as you can predict they will would be pretty useless security.

The threat scenario you present is one where the bad guys learned where the president was going to visit on a particular day, looked it up on Google Maps - oh, no, wait: it's 2001 - looked it up on actual paper mapis and decided to crash a hijacked plane on his head. So they work out the flying time to get there, take their best guess about what time he's going to arrive and how long he'll be there and hijack a bunch of planes. Next they fire up their 2001-era satnav and type in the street address of where they want to crash (that's how it works, right?). Presumably they pick the model that gives you a Hollywood-style heads up display with a flashing image of the particular nondescript building to aim at as you dive towards a city at 500 mph. To maintain the element of surprise, they attack this mobile target first - oh, no, wait - they attack a series of fixed targets to give his bodyguard plenty of time to decide what to do. Very sporting of them.

It seems that because you don't know what the Secret Service did between the first alert and the president leaving the school, you just assume they did nothing.
Well SoG believes that the Secret Service already knew that GWB was in no danger so did not move him.

Potus has little or no say in where or when the Service moves him in the event of a threat. When Regan was attacked he was bodily shoved into the car which then sped away. This was before anyone knew that a bullet had hit him. Regan was given no choice, not consulted on what to do next, it was all the pervue of his protective squad.
So if SoG is correct then every Secret Service agent on the squad was in-on-it. All of these men and women still carry that knowledge with them then. They know with certainty and clarity that 911 was pre-planned by the administration. That by doing what they did they are complicit in a cover up of the murder of thousands and treasonous acts.

Furthermore, the protective squad, when informed that they were to not follow SOP ( as SoG would have us believe) no one suggested that in order to better continue the illusion that these were unexpected attacks, that it might be better if they followed SOP and rushed GWB off to AF1.

In fact if the supposed perpetrators and planners had simply kept the Secret Service out of the loop then there would be a dozen ,or more, fewer people who would know the 'truth'.

Instead, SoG would have us believe, the planners decided, for some inexplicable reason , to alter the response by Bush's protective squad thus exposing their plan to discovery on several fronts.

In short, either the planners of this vast and complicated conspiracy are utter idiots,, or people believing as SoG does, are idiots.

I know where I stand on that choice.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th October 2013 at 12:58 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 01:03 PM   #172
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Give them time and steel won't "melt" until it reaches 15,000,000,000 degrees kelvin.

Of course it gets quite soft by 800° C.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4cf76aae76.jpg
Great illustration of column creep. SoG however says that steel is unaffected by heat under 1000 degrees. Either the photo lies, or SoG is incorrect.

I know where I stand on that choice.

BTW, would you mind posting that pic to the 'Tony Szamboti writes a paper' thread.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 02:42 PM   #173
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,018
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
So you consider yourself a wordsmith BN, what is "totaled by fire?" If it it structurally fall down to basement level in its own footprint then we have a comparison....if not we have a singular exception given Bld 7 is the only fire ravaged steel framed high rise to do it. ...
The "in its own footprint" is classic failure. It means you have no facts to support your fantasy.

A building totaled by fire, and the fires were fought? Steel fails in fire. WTC 7 fires were not fought, it was totaled by fire. Does not matter if it falls, or not, it was totaled by fire, the same with WTC 5 and 6. Fire destroyed them. You can't do fire science so you make up lies about 911. Why? There were zero explosives used on 911 - 19 terrorists in aircraft did all the damage.

UBL promised to kill us, he made it come true; told us so in the 90s, but you missed it. History, you have to read real news and filter to find the facts.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Absolutely not ...
You can't fly? Too bad. Thus you make up stuff about flying.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
I have never heard any of the Bin Laden’s throw their hands up to 911....you do some reading. BN, regardless of the form of the threat the ss had the president at an unsecure location for 30 minutes after two strikes against America. For all the ss knew a helicopter with a charge on board could be minutes away from the publicized school photo op. Tiger your assertions are ridiculous...safe at the school indeed.... ...
UBL promised to kill us in the 90s, he was behind 911 and other world wide terrorist attacks. You have to read for comprehension to figure that one out, not repeat failed lies from 911 truth.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Forget about you "paper assertions" tiger in 1996 the British Building Research Establishment and British Steel performed a series of six experiments to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C in three of the tests no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments. I said in my initial posts, the number of "firsts" that had materialize to allow 911 to unfold as it did is is astounding, unbelievable in fact. ...
Got the original source for this? Did you read the studies? No, you googled up 911 truth quote-mining, and cherry-picking BS.
What does it mean? It means you can't discuss this and relate it to 911 in a rational form. You will gish gallop, never correcting your mistakes, or explaining what did 911 in your fantasy.

You bring up experiments for steel frame buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 were not like the experiment, they were real events, not tests. The experiments you present by google knowledge, do not say WTC 1, 2, and 7 can't collapse, and you can't use the report to make up lies about 911. You googled up the experiments used by 911 truth to fool the gullible. If you had something you would do a paper to prove your point. Yet, you never looked up the real reports, or did you?




Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Wow, you show proof of no explosives. I they had experience an explosion from an explosive, they would be dead. Brains would be mush; you have never been attacked by bombs. No explosives, and you proved it with your video. Failure is the only product of 911 truth. An idiotic video which fools the gullible, the fake skeptics. You have no idea what explosives do, and how they do it. Better luck with Bigfoot, you can recycle the same claims, hearsay, lies and delusions.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
I'm sceptical.... .
You repeat failed claims googled up, and adopt them out of ignorance, like saying, "in its own footprint". What does it mean? You can't figure out 911 after 12 years, so you repeat failed junk.

You post false information about steel, and don't correct yourself. You have no idea a totaled building is as bad as a collapsed building. You can't grasp the difference between fought fires, and fires not fought. You ignore the facts to defend ideas made up for you by people who spent less time researching 911 than you did.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Ape old bean, what is that pathetic attempt at wit....practice with stationery targets first, then move on.
You can't defend any of the 24 hard facts with evidence? Why not?

The " in its own footprint" is a red flag of woo. Means 911 truth has no evidence, only failed slogans of 911 truth. 12 years of the movement of fantasy, idiotic lies, and nonsense. 911 truth = failure. You will need evidence to change that fact. Where are you hiding it?

Last edited by beachnut; 5th October 2013 at 02:52 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 02:57 PM   #174
Snarf
Critical Thinker
 
Snarf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 462
So, only 2 planes were headed for Manhattan, but 3 buildings were rigged for demolition.
Who screwed up the math there?
Snarf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 03:58 PM   #175
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Originally Posted by Snarf View Post
So, only 2 planes were headed for Manhattan, but 3 buildings were rigged for demolition.
Who screwed up the math there?

Oh. Stop it with the logic and rationality.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 04:58 PM   #176
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Forget about you "paper assertions" tiger in 1996 the British Building Research Establishment and British Steel performed a series of six experiments to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected.
Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C in three of the tests no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments. I said in my initial posts, the number of "firsts" that had materialize to allow 911 to unfold as it did is is astounding, unbelievable in fact.
You do realize there were ~30 floors above the WTC impact site?

And that your "simulated" eight-story building had not been hit by a jet airliner?
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 05:33 PM   #177
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
or people believing as SoG does, are idiots.
I know where I stand on that choice.
Is that a nature or nurtured idiot?

My fellow posters you are a myopic lot, whereas I am bifocal.

You are more than willing to forward individual data that relates to cause and effect, data that presents valid figures pertaining to the issue but within the parameters of it being a component of the whole, theoretical data not practical data. Practical data comes from outcomes and there are so many first time events regarding the structural failure of three steel reinforced buildings that there is no precedent data.

You are less than willing to accept or even comment on the video I forwarded.
A video composite of blood soaked victims, FDNY officials and crews, live news links, NYPD spokesmen etc etc......all saying that there were ongoing explosions in real time throughout the period from the first strike to the collapse. The explosions were a constant theme throughout the live broadcasts.....but then the media airbrushed the explosions out of the plebs minds and obviously out of your “free thinker” minds as well.

As Jed Clampett used to say.....”pitiful”......brainwashed almost....like climate change zombies not accepting the obvious and defending with numbers.

I was not at 911, nor were the vast majority of you, but we have same day, same minute, at the scene ongoing reports of explosions and you reject it all....pitiful.

I agree with Gord Snarf....too much logic.

Last edited by sonofgloin; 5th October 2013 at 05:40 PM. Reason: addition
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 05:49 PM   #178
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
You do realize there were ~30 floors above the WTC impact site?

And that your "simulated" eight-story building had not been hit by a jet airliner?
Bob, it does not matter if they test on an 8 storey frame or an 80. The stess factor on all floors is equal, eqilateral weight transferance. You use "hit by jet" as a validation to the fragile nature of the sub frame. It is a validation....a validation of the integrity of the frame given no floors collapsed at the time of impact, or closely after.
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 07:00 PM   #179
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,018
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
...
I was not at 911, nor were the vast majority of you, but we have same day, same minute, at the scene ongoing reports of explosions and you reject it all....pitiful. ...
There were no explosives used on 911 to bring down the WTC complex.

Some witnesses heard "explosions" that were bodies hitting the ground and building parts. Other people heard cans in fire "exploding", like soup can closed on the kitchen burner.

There was no evidence of explosives used on 911. No body was killed by explosives, no steel was damaged by explosives, no sounds of explosives used to destroy the WTC.

What is your point? The video has people who heard loud noises, but not explosives that destroyed the WTC. What is your point?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Bob, it does not matter if they test on an 8 storey frame or an 80. The stess factor on all floors is equal, eqilateral weight transferance. You use "hit by jet" as a validation to the fragile nature of the sub frame. It is a validation....a validation of the integrity of the frame given no floors collapsed at the time of impact, or closely after.
What a bunch of silly BS; did you make this up or copy and paste?
Total nonsense. You have not shown anything, only standard gullibility, as failed claims are repeated from people who made it all up.

911 truth, Debunked 6 years ago, and all we get is some quibbling and BS, with repeated failed lies, and false claims googled.

Originally Posted by peteweaver View Post
The website:

http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

Tries to use fire tests carried out on behalf of British steel to try and make a case against the collapse of the WTC.

They misrepresent the data of the cardington fire tests by omitting practically all data from them, and concentrating on the one fact that the cardington test rig did not collapse as a result of fire.

Several facts they omit are as follows:
Trusses buckled and failed due to the heat.
Intact Composite floor slabs added their own tensile strength and compensated for the failed floor trusses preventing collapse.

All the data from the cardington fire tests can be found here:

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm

The page on corus's website
http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design_and_innovation/structural_design/fire/cardington_fire_test/cardington_fire_test/

Shows photographs from a test office fire that clearly show that the test office fire had been hot enough to cause structural warping.
911 truth makes up claims based on ignorance. By quote-mining FEMA, 911 truth takes reports which support a global collapse study, and don't support the delusional claim of CD, or the big inside job junk.

Go ahead, take the experiments and explain why they support your claim of? What is your claim? Is it small building don't collapse as easy as big buildings? Buildings with over 130 tons of TNT in energy due to E=mgh, might collapse globally due to all that mass, the m part of mgh? What is your point, you don't understand building collapsing because you did not take physics, or engineering?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 09:14 PM   #180
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
There were no explosives used on 911 to bring down the WTC complex.

Some witnesses heard "explosions" that were bodies hitting the ground and building parts. Other people heard cans in fire "exploding", like soup can closed on the kitchen burner.

What is your point, you don't understand building collapsing because you did not take physics, or engineering?
Bodies hitting the ground sounds like charges.....rediculous BN.
I watched the 911 doco released by the two French brothers while riding with a FDNY crew. They were recording as the poor souls were jumping....they were thuds....

Re the physics and engineering I bet you have contributed to discussions that you are not mastered in.....I commented on structural weight dispersment, a concept that I grasp if you do not sport.

You know that Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane.....and they did....so it is still back to fire collapsing three steel framed buildings in one place for the first time in history.

For someone with no precedent data, you are welded onto the concept of fire being the agent.
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 09:18 PM   #181
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
My fellow posters you are a myopic lot, whereas I am bifocal.
Interesting. I've never heard a conspiracy theorist claim that I am an ignorant sheep while he has an almost god-like ability to see "the truth".

Must be something new
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 09:22 PM   #182
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
@sonofgloin

So assuming you are correct and the explosive sounds heard on the day were bombs?

Would they be Thermite bombs ?
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 09:26 PM   #183
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
@sonofgloin

So assuming you are correct and the explosive sounds heard on the day were bombs?

Would they be Thermite bombs ?
Hushaboom?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 09:29 PM   #184
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Smile

Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Interesting. I've never heard a conspiracy theorist claim that I am an ignorant sheep while he has an almost god-like ability to see "the truth".

Must be something new
Can we meet....I have a habit, cigarettes and wine....
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 09:31 PM   #185
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
@sonofgloin

So assuming you are correct and the explosive sounds heard on the day were bombs?

Would they be Thermite bombs ?
The whole thermite thing is suspect because it fronted up years later....but all the same NIST should have tested for it.

Last edited by sonofgloin; 5th October 2013 at 09:32 PM. Reason: spelling
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 09:36 PM   #186
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
The whole thermite thing is suspect because it fronted up years later....but all the same NIST should have tested for it.
Great, so can you now point us to the evidence that shows explosives were used.
Not just footage of fire fighters saying they heard explosions.
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 09:51 PM   #187
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Bob, it does not matter if they test on an 8 storey frame or an 80. The stess factor on all floors is equal, eqilateral weight transferance. You use "hit by jet" as a validation to the fragile nature of the sub frame. It is a validation....a validation of the integrity of the frame given no floors collapsed at the time of impact, or closely after.
You don't realize a 110 story building hit by a jet at the 80th floor before suffering a fire would perform differently than a 8 story building not hit by a jet before suffering a fire? Please tell me you realize 30 floors exerts more downward pressure than 8?

Quote:
You know that Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane.....and they did....
Lie.

Quote:
so it is still back to fire collapsing three steel framed buildings in one place for the first time in history.
Lie. Seriously, do you not realize we've been through these myths many times before?
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."

Last edited by Robrob; 5th October 2013 at 09:52 PM.
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 10:05 PM   #188
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,018
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Bodies hitting the ground sounds like charges.....rediculous BN.
OOPS, you should read before you make up stuff. They don't? How would you know? Was there a HD audio on 911? (no)
How can you fall into traps so easy? Does 911 truth fail to read anything? Is all 911 truth research this shallow?

Quote:
8)100′s of Firefighters and witness testimony to BOMBS/EXPLOSIONS
"Hard Fact" 8, was silly. There were no bombs on 911. Hard fact 8 becomes a delusional lie.

Quote:
Following are 16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises well before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Oops, you were wrong. How can 911 truth get everything wrong about 911?
These were bodies. Darn, you thought you were right.

I already played this card. Better read posts instead of making up more nonsense. How do you know what things sound like? It is funny, you use witnesses to support woo, I use witnesses to shoot down woo. Research kills woo again.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard
Learn something before you post junk.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
I watched the 911 doco released by the two French brothers while riding with a FDNY crew. They were recording as the poor souls were jumping....they were thuds....
Wow, they need better sound equipment. Physics of sound. You know there are big books about sound, you can't google up knowledge to save you from making silly posts like this. Next time think before posting nonsense. What was your point? Your perceptions are limited to low quality video sound?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Re the physics and engineering I bet you have contributed to discussions that you are not mastered in.....I commented on structural weight dispersment, a concept that I grasp if you do not sport.
You posted nonsense about a experiments you googled and used the 911 truth claims to support your fantasy of 911. A fantasy you can't explain, or support in the real world.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
You know that Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane.....and they did....so it is still back to fire collapsing three steel framed buildings in one place for the first time in history.
Minoru Yamasaki was an architect, not a structural engineer, he did not design the WTC structure, he designed what you see, not how it is built. Did you read anything about the WTC? How can you make mistakes this big? Do you know anything about the WTC; you already failed comparing the WTC to a 8 story experiment you never studied. How many ways are you fooled by lies 911 truth made up?

Wow, you failed to make a point with "Hard Fact" 13.
Quote:
13) Towers were built to withstand a Boeing jet(s).
SO?

Nope, you left out what ... , the structural engineers designed the WTC to withstand a collision of a Boeing 707 going 180 mph, low on fuel, lost in the fog. Oops you left off the technical part. You left out the physics. Why do you present no data to support the woo?

A 707 going 180 mph would not do much damage. In fact, a study after 911 showed the WTC could stop impacts up to 200 mph, maybe higher. (can you find the study?) No.

707 impact design for WTC equal to 187 pound of TNT.
Flt 11 impact on 911, equal to 1300 pounds of TNT.
Flt 175 impact on 911, equal to 2093 pounds of TNT.

Why do you present the reason the WTC failed to stop aircraft, the design was only for a slow speed impact. Do you try to do research, or only repeat lies you pick up from 911 truth.

On 911 the impact from 11 and 175 were 7 and 11 times greater in energy than the design of the WTC could take. 7 and 11 times greater. Now how did you miss that? Did you do the physics before making up another meaningless claim?


Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
For someone with no precedent data, you are welded onto the concept of fire being the agent.
LOL, fire destorys the streanght of steel. A fact you can't grasp? Why? Science, it makes your conclusions on 911 woo.


Oops, no, it is not the first time in history fire has destroyed the strength of steel. Darn, you and 911 truth were wrong, but you can't figure it out given 12 years and the answers. In 12 years 911 truthers could have had a PhD in structural engineering, but all they have is a PhD in woo from Google U. Good luck with Flt 93, and 77 - you can't explain you fantasy on the WTC, you only repeat lies from 911 truth.

What will you do when you get to silly "hard fact" 24?
Quote:
24) At least 7 of the 19 listed highjackers are still alive
LOL, how will you defend this one?

Which 911 truth "hard fact" can you support? All 911 truth "hard facts" are nonsense.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...t-be-debunked/
Poor Joe is gullible, and spreads lie mindlessly.

Last edited by beachnut; 5th October 2013 at 10:19 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 10:17 PM   #189
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
Holy flashbacks. I swear it's 2006 again. This has been a banner year for complete rehashings of nonsense that was already debunked.
It takes about 6 years for a new crop of grade school kids to learn how to read well enough to know what the snake oil salesmen are peddling so all of this crap looks like new information to some poor schmuck.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 10:29 PM   #190
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Minoru Yamasaki was an architect, not a structural engineer, he did not design the WTC structure, he designed what you see, not how it is built. Did you read anything about the WTC? .
Yes BN I stuffed that up, I knew when I posted it, the engineers designed it to resist a large aircraft. Doesn't change the fact that it was designed to be impact reistant and it was....then it burnt to the ground....
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2013, 11:14 PM   #191
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,018
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Yes BN I stuffed that up, I knew when I posted it, the engineers designed it to resist a large aircraft. Doesn't change the fact that it was designed to be impact reistant and it was....then it burnt to the ground....
A slow speed impact, not a high speed impact. Low on fuel, not 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. Better get the numbers right before supporting lies. Another "hard fact" failure for 911 truth.

Last edited by beachnut; 5th October 2013 at 11:22 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2013, 01:46 AM   #192
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
A slow speed impact, not a high speed impact. Low on fuel, not 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. Better get the numbers right before supporting lies. Another "hard fact" failure for 911 truth.

Thanks for the replies my fellow thinkers, it gave me the impetus to revisit the facts that formed my opinion all those years ago. I am moving on from this thread safe in the knowledge........
sonofgloin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2013, 02:15 AM   #193
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,217
Is it time to post the pictures of aircraft carrier steel flight decks sagging after fires? Guess what the fuel was?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2013, 02:22 AM   #194
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post

My fellow posters you are a myopic lot, whereas I am bifocal.
You really believe that, don't you? Twoofers are the most misinformed people in the world.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2013, 02:23 AM   #195
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Thanks for the replies my fellow thinkers, it gave me the impetus to revisit the facts that formed my opinion all those years ago. I am moving on from this thread safe in the knowledge........
That Twooferism is dead.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2013, 02:54 AM   #196
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,484
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4qZrPX60bw
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2013, 05:11 AM   #197
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,915
Why/How would the President staying at the school indicate anything other than a decision was made at the time to stay at the school? The President could have been rushed away from the school and be involved in a conspiracy. He clearly wasn't, but there's not conclusion to draw one way or the other from the decision to stay in place.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2013, 05:22 AM   #198
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Why/How would the President staying at the school indicate anything other than a decision was made at the time to stay at the school? The President could have been rushed away from the school and be involved in a conspiracy. He clearly wasn't, but there's not conclusion to draw one way or the other from the decision to stay in place.
Common sense does not apply in the wacky world of Twooferland.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2013, 07:03 AM   #199
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post

You know that Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane.....and they did....so it is still back to fire collapsing three steel framed buildings in one place for the first time in history.
So you will be producing the engineering studies for the particular design consideration?

I won't hold my breath waiting
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2013, 07:21 AM   #200
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
So you will be producing the engineering studies for the particular design consideration?

I won't hold my breath waiting
He would be more familiar with this type of building.



dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.