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 6th October 2013, 08:10 AM   #201
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,621
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........

.....................I have been fooled by a bunch of con-men. I can't believe I could be so stupid as to fall for this stuff. Thanks for turning me around.
Finished that statement for you.

Hey.........I can hope.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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, 08:29 AM   #202
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,429
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
He would be more familiar with this type of building.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com...171d3ef6b0.jpg
No, that's SonOfSamwise
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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, 08:50 AM   #203
slyjoe
Graduate Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins
Posts: 1,568
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....
This is also wrong. No one designs an office building to resist large aircraft. They designed the building to be an office building. After they designed it, they did a "what if" calculation regarding a low speed 707.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe 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, 09:12 AM   #204
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 485
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The "in its own footprint" is classic failure.
It means you have no facts to support 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?




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 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?---

Right here :

Evidence
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9525376#post9525376

What exactly are you and Oystein trying to pull here ?
Dr Bazant, The NIST, and FEMA all agree....
the Twin WTC towers and 7 WTC all fell into their footprints.

__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time __Bovee

Truth once elicited never dies -Bancroft

twoofers versus twidiots , twaitors , twusters and boil-thuckers
Fonebone 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, 09:17 AM   #205
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,843
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post

Right here :

Evidence
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9525376#post9525376

What exactly are you and Oystein trying to pull here ?
Dr Bazant, The NIST, and FEMA all agree....
the Twin WTC towers and 7 WTC all fell into their footprints.
And where would you expect them to fall?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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, 09:17 AM   #206
Gorgonian
Thinker
 
Gorgonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 201
As the date stamp on the picture clearly shows, that was after two days worth of cleanup of the surrounding streets. The collapse left parts of WTC7 on the ROOF of neighboring buildings. I'm sure you don't consider the roof of neighboring buildings "in the footprint of WTC7" do you?
Gorgonian 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, 09:36 AM   #207
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
This is also wrong. No one designs an office building to resist large aircraft. They designed the building to be an office building. After they designed it, they did a "what if" calculation regarding a low speed 707.
It wasn't designed to resist a collision with a luxury liner either.
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, 10:03 AM   #208
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,015
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
...
the Twin WTC towers and 7 WTC all fell into their footprints. ...
Has to be one of the dumbest slogans of 911 truth, "fell into their footprints". Dumbed down nothingness which proves a few fringe conspiracy theorist who can't do math and physics repeat a do nothing phrase of silly woo, "fell into their footprints".

Wow, your evidence, a slogan of woo. Cool, 911 truth's fantasy has vapor evidence. Better go buy some coffee from Gage's strap-hanger.
http://wakeupcoffee.org/

12 years of "fell into their (own) footprints". I can't believe how anti-intellectual that is, and it means nothing.

Not sure what a footprint is, but last time I took of WTC towers socks, there were no feet. How can 911 truth make up a dumber statement? How can 911 truth cult followers repeat a dumber statement? When you think 911 truth can't, 911 truth comes out with dumber stuff.

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm

Looks like feet print for buildings is what ever happens when they collapse due to fire, gravity, and sometime impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design.

The best part, 911 truth can't define footprint. 911 truth accidentally made up the footprint statements, they sounded good to people who can't think for themselves and gullible 911 truth follower repeat the silly phrase without thinking - drones to the truth.

Is this like a Bigfoot footprint? lol, a fantasy? yes it is

... fell into its own footprint, as meaningless as path of least resistance (which describes 911 truth followers approach to research, they avoid it).
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, 10:26 AM   #209
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post

Right here :

Evidence
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9525376#post9525376

What exactly are you and Oystein trying to pull here ?
Dr Bazant, The NIST, and FEMA all agree....
the Twin WTC towers and 7 WTC all fell into their footprints.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1dfb59eb19.jpg
How do you reconcile that with twoofers who claim that the "smoking gun" to explosive demolition of the towers is that they ejected material far outside their footprints?

(Note: In or outside the footprint is a non-issue to me. To me, they looked like they fell in the expected direction. That is to say, down.)
TjW 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, 10:42 AM   #210
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by Gorgonian View Post
As the date stamp on the picture clearly shows, that was after two days worth of cleanup of the surrounding streets. The collapse left parts of WTC7 on the ROOF of neighboring buildings. I'm sure you don't consider the roof of neighboring buildings "in the footprint of WTC7" do you?
He appears to be a Truther so my guess would be yes.
swright777 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, 01:25 PM   #211
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
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 the WTC buildings were brought down by shotguns?
__________________
"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 6th October 2013, 03:24 PM   #212
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
So it is 2006 again, isn't it?
__________________
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 6th October 2013, 03:25 PM   #213
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
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 your POV is impervious to facts...
__________________
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 6th October 2013, 10:31 PM   #214
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
Number 2 is not a fact about 9/11, it is a fact about people who have a strong opinion about 9/11.

Their opinion is also number 2.
A large pile of it in fact!! Very large.
fuelair 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, 10:39 PM   #215
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
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.
Your hypothesis is frighteningly sensible both in understanding current trends and predicting future activity.

I'll make sure to continue educating the RocketBoys with this in mind as they are entering the next 6-year window.
Jrrarglblarg 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, 10:42 PM   #216
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Both those obsessions on the same level to this English born Aussie.

Footballs are spherical and the game played with bat and ball has the initial letter "C"

Croquet, I assume - though I was under the impression pink flamingos were the striking instrument of choice.
fuelair 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 7th October 2013, 02:12 AM   #217
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,204
Only if you have wooden hoops. not horrible tin ones.
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 7th October 2013, 02:26 AM   #218
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,064
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
It wasn't designed to resist a collision with a luxury liner either.
And even IF it was designed as such (it wasn't but just suppose), what would be the evidence it was built that way?

For there would never be a difference between design and reality, wouldn't there be? (cough! Ronan Point. Cough! Hyatt Regency Walkway. Cough!)
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl 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 7th October 2013, 03:40 AM   #219
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
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....
I recently read a book called "To Engineer is Human". It was written well before 9/11 but talked about some important engineering failures and how they taught engineers how to do their jobs better in the future.

One of the problems engineers face is the question of how failure-proof they should make any given design. They could make it three times stronger than the strongest force they expect it to experience, but...how do they know what forces it will experience? How many times will it experience that force? Will the correct materials be used to build the thing? Will it be assembled properly? Do they need to add even more failure-proofing to account for these possibilities?

One of the problems with the WTC was that, according to inspections a few years before its destruction, fire-proofing was found to be installed improperly. So right off the bat that would invalidate any calculations that might have been done, at the time the building was designed, that would show it was invulnerable to airliner impact. And that's just the fireproofing. There could have been many other mistakes in materials and assembly that weren't detected. The buildings would still function perfectly fine for decades, but would not be able to withstand that worst-case scenario it was designed to survive.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm 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 7th October 2013, 04:34 AM   #220
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
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 the personal character assassinations will stop and I can bring some rationality to other acolytes of a deception.

But that wasn't to be.....
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 7th October 2013, 04:43 AM   #221
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
that the personal character assassinations will stop and I can bring some rationality to other acolytes of a deception.

But that wasn't to be.....
I wondered about your previous post; I couldn't tell if you were seriously reconsidering the issue or just being sarcastic. Seems you were serious, so congratulations.

I suspect it's so long since someone who'd been taken in by truther misinformation genuinely declared they were reconsidering their view on 9/11 that people hereabouts just don't recognise when it's time to cease fire.
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 7th October 2013, 04:45 AM   #222
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
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.
Conspiracy and the Bush's...why did George lie about how he got the information of the second strike. Why would he do that. What did the agent whisper into his ear if, as George tells it he got the info during a break......perhaps the agent said " Mr President this is the little charade you asked me to pull."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

Last edited by sonofgloin; 7th October 2013 at 04:46 AM.
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 7th October 2013, 04:51 AM   #223
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
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

I expect you will be forwarding me precedents regarding high rises falling to their basements due to fire....on upper or lower floors, I’ll take either.
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 7th October 2013, 04:54 AM   #224
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
He would be more familiar with this type of building.



http://www.internationalskeptics.com...171d3ef6b0.jpg
Dafydd, we all get the "hobbit" references, give it a rest sport, it's worn out.....and you weren't even the first.
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 7th October 2013, 05:07 AM   #225
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by slyjoe View Post
This is also wrong. No one designs an office building to resist large aircraft. They designed the building to be an office building. After they designed it, they did a "what if" calculation regarding a low speed 707.
"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340...ane-crash.html

Well it seems Joe the WTC admistrators have a different view on what dedicated safety features came with the construction of the towers. Slow impact...fast impact....you make me smile tiger.
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 7th October 2013, 05:14 AM   #226
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Conspiracy and the Bush's...why did George lie about how he got the information of the second strike. Why would he do that. What did the agent whisper into his ear if, as George tells it he got the info during a break......perhaps the agent said " Mr President this is the little charade you asked me to pull."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60
You are correct, why would Bush lie?

He didn't lie. He mis-spoke, something he was rather famous for. If you were to give us a detailed account of everything you did that day how accurate would it be? Human memory is notoriously fallible. That is not evidence of wrongdoing, only that he got his details mixed up in an off-the-cuff remark made months later about the most hectic, confused and stressful day of his life.

Now, do you have any evidence to support your case that does not rely entirely on mis-interpreted witness statements?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 7th October 2013 at 05:16 AM.
Mark F 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 7th October 2013, 05:30 AM   #227
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,467
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
You are correct, why would Bush lie?

He didn't lie. He mis-spoke, something he was rather famous for. If you were to give us a detailed account of everything you did that day how accurate would it be? Human memory is notoriously fallible. That is not evidence of wrongdoing, only that he got his details mixed up in an off-the-cuff remark made months later about the most hectic, confused and stressful day of his life.

Now, do you have any evidence to support your case that does not rely entirely on mis-interpreted witness statements?
One of the cornerstones of CT think is the rejection of human frailty as a factor in any event.

This type of opinion is usually held by individuals who have no real-world experience in situations where the wheels fall off, professionally referred to as Crisis Management.
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 7th October 2013, 05:38 AM   #228
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
So it is 2006 again, isn't it?
Proof that time travel IS possible. Too bad it seems to have more in common with "Groundhog Day" than "Dr. Who"

Fitz
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!"
Howard Beale, "Network"
fitzgibbon 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 7th October 2013, 05:40 AM   #229
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
that the personal character assassinations will stop and I can bring some rationality to other acolytes of a deception.

But that wasn't to be.....
Interesting definition of "rationality" you have. I'm not sure that I'd concur that that's the best word to describe what you brought

Fitz
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!"
Howard Beale, "Network"
fitzgibbon 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 7th October 2013, 05:46 AM   #230
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
I expect you will be forwarding me precedents regarding high rises falling to their basements due to fire....on upper or lower floors, I’ll take either.
Typical troofer.......makes a claim, can't back it up and follows with a demand for proof of something that did not happen.
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 7th October 2013, 05:52 AM   #231
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Dafydd, we all get the "hobbit" references, give it a rest sport, it's worn out.....and you weren't even the first.
Your twooferism is worn out, and you're not the first to fall for it.
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 7th October 2013, 05:53 AM   #232
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Typical troofer.......makes a claim, can't back it up and follows with a demand for proof of something that did not happen.
They are always expecting us to educate them but they never listen to the answers.
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 7th October 2013, 05:55 AM   #233
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
I recently read a book called "To Engineer is Human". It was written well before 9/11 but talked about some important engineering failures and how they taught engineers how to do their jobs better in the future.

One of the problems engineers face is the question of how failure-proof they should make any given design. They could make it three times stronger than the strongest force they expect it to experience, but...how do they know what forces it will experience? How many times will it experience that force? Will the correct materials be used to build the thing? Will it be assembled properly? Do they need to add even more failure-proofing to account for these possibilities?

One of the problems with the WTC was that, according to inspections a few years before its destruction, fire-proofing was found to be installed improperly. So right off the bat that would invalidate any calculations that might have been done, at the time the building was designed, that would show it was invulnerable to airliner impact. And that's just the fireproofing. There could have been many other mistakes in materials and assembly that weren't detected. The buildings would still function perfectly fine for decades, but would not be able to withstand that worst-case scenario it was designed to survive.
The fact is that engineers (and architects) design to what is required by building codes. Structural strength required by the code both then and now included for gravity loads - both dead and live, lateral loads (wind, earthquake) and a factor of safety. They were not designed for aircraft impact, meteors, klingon on death rays, biblical floods, godzilla, or any other nonsensical and rare occurrences. Saying the WTC could withstand the impact of an aircraft (which it did) is far sexier than saying it could withstand a 120 mph wind. The other aspect frequently ignored by troofers is that building codes are not created to save buildings from fire. They are designed to allow for evacuation of the building by all occupants and to give fire fighting efforts a reasonable chance to rescue occupants and extinguish fires without a loss of life.
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 7th October 2013, 06:03 AM   #234
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
"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340...ane-crash.html

Well it seems Joe the WTC admistrators have a different view on what dedicated safety features came with the construction of the towers. Slow impact...fast impact....you make me smile tiger.
Handwaving away the speed of impact is scarcely going to help your argument's credibility.

You appear to be interpreting "made to withstand them" as meaning the towers were purposely designed to withstand the worst-case scenario impact from any current or future aircraft of any size, at any speed and with any fuel load.

That's a pretty heavy burden to place on the precise wording of what is after all not a technical document nor even a public notice from the WTC but merely a newspaper's description of the wording of a public notice from the WTC.

Do you have any supporting evidence to make that stance seem any less unreasonable?
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 7th October 2013, 06:03 AM   #235
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
The fact is that engineers (and architects) design to what is required by building codes. Structural strength required by the code both then and now included for gravity loads - both dead and live, lateral loads (wind, earthquake) and a factor of safety. They were not designed for aircraft impact, meteors, klingon on death rays, biblical floods, godzilla, or any other nonsensical and rare occurrences. Saying the WTC could withstand the impact of an aircraft (which it did) is far sexier than saying it could withstand a 120 mph wind. The other aspect frequently ignored by troofers is that building codes are not created to save buildings from fire. They are designed to allow for evacuation of the building by all occupants and to give fire fighting efforts a reasonable chance to rescue occupants and extinguish fires without a loss of life.
More facts for twoofers to ignore.
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 7th October 2013, 09:50 AM   #236
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,015
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
that the personal character assassinations will stop and I can bring some rationality to other acolytes of a deception.

But that wasn't to be.....
LOL, you bring woo, and you don't know it. You post false information about steel. You take studies and make up lies about buildings falling, failing to present the math and physics to back up your silly claims.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Conspiracy and the Bush's...why did George lie about how he got the information of the second strike. Why would he do that. What did the agent whisper into his ear if, as George tells it he got the info during a break......perhaps the agent said " Mr President this is the little charade you asked me to pull."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60
You mean first strike. How can you make a claim about 911 and get the claim back-wards? Did you watch the video you posted?
What is your claim?

Oh, Bush said he was outside the class room before the second impact and he said..
Quote:
"I saw an airplane hit the tower"
But idiots in 911 truth don't understanding seeing the impact hole of flight 11 before 9am is possible, and bush in typical Bush speak really said (in his head)
Quote:
"I saw (where) an airplane hit the tower"
Darn, this is your best google of woo? lol, you can't figure out 911 given the answers and you need help with this silly nonsensical political attack of woo? What does it mean? Is this the best evidence 911 truth has? Better go prove Bigfoot, you can recycle your "hard evidence".

The poor nut in the video, everyone who had TV saw the first crash, I have photos of the first crash. "first crash" = "impact hole"
Can't believe a quibble about meaning makes it to a 911 truth talking point. What a big fail. I saw the first crash on 911, on TV, and I was thinking the same thing; perfect weather, and how could an pilot be so dumb? Was he in 911 truth? Seeing the first crash? lol, we saw where the first aircraft crashed. Bush and I went to the same UPT base to learn to fly jets, we also share the (same, omg i left his out, i thought it but ... ) mastery of English... This is your best stuff?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
I expect you will be forwarding me precedents regarding high rises falling to their basements due to fire....on upper or lower floors, I’ll take either.
I expect you ("to" I did it again) back you failed claims with math and physics. But you can't; that is why CD claims, inside job claims are fantasy. Better luck with Bigfoot, or Santa.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Dafydd, we all get the "hobbit" references, give it a rest sport, it's worn out.....and you weren't even the first.
You can't figure out what the WTC was design to resist for aircraft impacts, maybe you should sick with simple stuff, large building seem to be too complex for your quote-mining common sense approach to work.

Your problem with understanding 911 is due to you picking up 911 truth claims and trying to defend them. You did not have these ideas, you googled them. You are falling for lies and fail to see they are backed up with fantasy. No evidence, just sound good phrases and slogans.

You google up lies, and give a pass to 19 murderers. You never study how 911 was done, you study how silly conspiracy theorists say 911 was done. You are letting someone else do your thinking. You don't read news stories for facts.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340...ane-crash.html

Well it seems Joe the WTC admistrators have a different view on what dedicated safety features came with the construction of the towers. Slow impact...fast impact....you make me smile tiger.
Administrators? lol, I have the person who designed the structure and engineers who do studies, you got administrators, and quote-mining.

You failed to make a point too. You put no claim behind a news article.
The WTC was studied after 911 and found to stop low speed impacts, below 200 mph. Robertson designed the structure for 180 mph impact, he was the structural engineer on the WTC.

You use google to find nonsense to support your inside job you can't explain. Your research needs work.

An ordinary aircraft accident, the WTC would survive. Planes at 700 feet would be lost in the clouds trying to land, about 180 mph. Kind of makes claims for aircraft impacts BS when you see the speed of 11 and 175 - which were too fast to meet the design speed of 180 mph. You don't know the speed of impact for 11 and 175? Why not? Can you do the kinetic energy each supplied, and explain why the WTC would stop that much energy? Any rational science stuff to go with the quote-mining stuff?

Last edited by beachnut; 7th October 2013 at 10:09 AM.
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 7th October 2013, 10:48 AM   #237
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."
Since they did "withstand them" and only collapsed after an hour of uncontrolled fire, your point?
__________________
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 7th October 2013, 02:27 PM   #238
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Since they did "withstand them" and only collapsed after an hour of uncontrolled fire, your point?
Was there a panel? I never heard such a claim or seen a pic of this panel before. Anyone got anything on that?

Truthers don't realize or ever give credit to the design did survive the impact and help save thousands of lives. I would think most tall skyscrapers would have collapsed immediately upon impact. The Towers were massive compared to the other skyscrapers here (our Australian friend here may not realize that).
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 7th October 2013, 06:25 PM   #239
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Is that a nature or nurtured idiot?

My fellow posters you are a myopic lot, whereas I am bifocal.
Well that makes little to no sense.

Quote:
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.
Witness testimony is trumped by all manner of documentary and physical evidence. I for one discount witness statements especially in a setting in which they will be highly prone to subjectivity , hyperbole, and metaphor.

If you choose otherwise you simply bolster my opinion of your opinion.
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 7th October 2013, 06:28 PM   #240
slyjoe
Graduate Poster
 
slyjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins
Posts: 1,568
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340...ane-crash.html

Well it seems Joe the WTC admistrators have a different view on what dedicated safety features came with the construction of the towers. Slow impact...fast impact....you make me smile tiger.
I would suggest you read Animal's post above, and since you are fond of argumentum ad youtubeum why don't you look up Leslie Robertson's description of the whole "design for aircraft" crap?

And by the way, it is poor form to alter members' names.
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade
slyjoe 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 11:18 AM.
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.