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 8th October 2013, 09:32 AM   #281
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
SonOfGloin, care to explain how the towers were constructed to withstand an impact from a plane that didn't exist when they were finished? Or do you think all plain impacts are created equal?

Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The problem is you people insist on making this into some episode of CSI / Criminal Minds. It's not that complicated.

One of the biggest aircraft in the world went as fast as it possibly could into one of the largest buildings in the world. happens. One of the largest buildings collapses wreaking havoc on the surrounding areas.

Fini. Investigation COMPLETE.
Actually, even Criminal Minds depicts profiling more realistically than your average truther perceives 9/11.

Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
It wasn't designed to resist a collision with a luxury liner either.


Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
The Pesident of the United States says he watched it on TV at the school.....and you say he didn’t, that he imagined it.....that’s what it comes down to Mark.....he said it. He misrepresented the facts. He even dreamed up a hokey folksy line about what a terrible pilot the guy was.[...]
It's cute how you're trying to logically end-run "he lied" by using thinly veiled allusions and thinking we can't figure it out. For the record, when I was first told, I too thought it was some kind of accident. And I'm certainly no kind of Good Ol' Boy (never meanin' no harm).

Quote:
...Rob it was simply acknowleging that the WTC extoled that the towers were impact resistant. Some here commented that it was not a design feature, that the ability to resist came as a consequence of the design....whats the difference...WTC acknowlege that they were....someone asked me to qualify it....
What was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of someone backpedalling.

Quote:
Jay you are correct, witness testimony is not worth the electricity it cost to generate it...that is why it is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events.Why would all the testimony on the day by uninterested parties there by chance be highly prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor?
Welcome to the stundies.
000063 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 8th October 2013, 09:57 AM   #282
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Educate me D, tell me why these officials made these observations regarding Shanksville.

>> "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1]
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler [2]
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]<<
I actually watched the Coroner make this statement on a news feed at the site on the day. I have not forgotten the plethora of first hand testimony and I do not discount it because a decade has passed.
They all appeared to be making the same point. Either it was:

"There wasn't actually a plane crash here", or

"The destruction was so complete that nothing was recognizable".

For some reason, no one seemed to think it was the first one. I wonder why?
__________________
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 8th October 2013, 10:36 AM   #283
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
Don't reply if it does not suit ts.....
Just out of morbid curiosity. If you believe flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, what happened to it?
__________________
"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 8th October 2013, 10:54 AM   #284
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
The Pesident of the United States says he watched it on TV at the school.....and you say he didn’t, that he imagined it.....that’s what it comes down to Mark.....he said it. He misrepresented the facts. He even dreamed up a hokey folksy line about what a terrible pilot the guy was.
If you want to find someone misrepresenting facts look in the mirror. How many examples do we have of you doing that so far?

Quote:
Educate me D, tell me why these officials made these observations regarding Shanksville.

>> "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1]
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler [2]
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]<<
I actually watched the Coroner make this statement on a news feed at the site on the day. I have not forgotten the plethora of first hand testimony and I do not discount it because a decade has passed.
Curious that of the scores of detailed interviews first-term Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller gave you picked out just one sentence, from one statement, removed from all context – why is that?

The answer to your question about why Miller made those particular observations is quite obvious when you don’t remove the context. The aircraft nose-dived into the ground at very high speed, burying itself in a crater which then collapsed on itself. It left no large, clearly identifiable pieces of debris, no intact bodies and no doubt by the time he got there the scene was eerily quiet. This seems like a no-brainer. I would in fact expect exactly those sorts of observations under the circumstances.

Same thing with Scott Spangler and Patrick Madigan’s observations of not finding large, clearly identifiable pieces of airplane. We are used to aircraft accidents occurring during take-off or landing where the impact speed is relatively low and the impact angle relatively shallow, often leaving much of the plane intact.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/im...ne.crash.1.jpg

http://inothernewz.com/wp-content/up...ft-crashes.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AtXmS311Vn...0/aircrash.jpg

http://resources1.news.com.au/images...-air-crash.jpg

That is NOT what happened in Shanksville – the plane did not skid along the ground at low-speed, it dove almost straight in at very high speed - so there is no reasonable expectation that intact wings, tails and so on should be found. The most broadly analogous situation would be to a Kamikaze attack during WW2 – they didn’t find much aircraft wreckage after those either. I mean, were you seriously expecting they would find this:



At this point I guess my mind just boggles at what you think it is you have proved here. How does any of this establish anything different from what we already know - that Flight 93 after being taken over by hijackers nose-dived into a field in Shanksville where the remains of the aircraft and all the people aboard were recovered?

I certainly don't see how any of this supports claims of an insurance scam involving a real estate developer and the FDNY re: Building 7.

Quote:
Rob it was simply acknowleging that the WTC extoled that the towers were impact resistant. Some here commented that it was not a design feature, that the ability to resist came as a consequence of the design....whats the difference...WTC acknowlege that they were....someone asked me to qualify it.
Technically speaking aircraft impact resistance was not a design requirement of either the customer or of city code and the twin towers were not actually designed specifically to survive aircraft impact. This was something that was studied after the design work was already completed, the impact in question being a Boeing 707 flying at 180mph. As it turns out both towers survived impacts 5 to 7 times greater than those crudely studied in 1964.

Again, what this has to do with an insurance scam regarding a real estate developer and the FDNY re: Building 7 boggles the mind.

Quote:
Jay you are correct, witness testimony is not worth the electricity it cost to generate it...that is why it is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events.


That was a joke, right?
__________________
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; 8th October 2013 at 10:55 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 8th October 2013, 11:15 AM   #285
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
They all appeared to be making the same point. Either it was:

"There wasn't actually a plane crash here", or

"The destruction was so complete that nothing was recognizable".

For some reason, no one seemed to think it was the first one. I wonder why?
It is telling that the people who uttered the statements SoG quotes all, without fail, completely accept that flight 93 crashed there. Somehow while they were fooled, SoG manages to use their observations on site, to come up with the polar opposite conclusion.
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 8th October 2013, 01:42 PM   #286
sonofgloin
Thinker
 
sonofgloin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I thought I had seen the first plane live. As for the rest of your post, presenting twoofers with facts and logic is a waste of time.
Dafyyd....you enjoy using the term twoofer don't you tiger, a twoofer here and a twoofer there, here a twoofer, there a twoofer........is trhat all you've got?
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 8th October 2013, 02:02 PM   #287
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Dafyyd....you enjoy using the term twoofer don't you tiger, a twoofer here and a twoofer there, here a twoofer, there a twoofer........is trhat all you've got?
I'm going to assume you just didn't see the few posts above yours that brought up some pretty good points that are contrary to your opinion that you could have addressed and decided to post the above, ok?
__________________
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 8th October 2013, 02:04 PM   #288
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
I'm going to assume you just didn't see the few posts above yours that brought up some pretty good points that are contrary to your opinion that you could have addressed and decided to post the above, ok?
Nah, he prefers one liners.
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 8th October 2013, 02:30 PM   #289
indio007
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Why 24 reasons when all you need is one?
Jet A does not explode at sea level.
40 years of data from NASA , FAA, DOT, Army Corp of Engineers and Caltech's Explosion Research Team investigation of TWA 800

David Handshuh's (NY Post) photo proves there was an explosion and not a flashover.
Jet A fuel is a nonflammable under domestic law.

From
A Review of the Flammability
Hazard of Jet A Fuel Vapor in Civil
Transport Aircraft Fuel Tanks
FAA/DOT Office of Aviation Research


Quote:
Jet A and A-1 flash points are currently specified to be a minimum of 37.8°C (100°F). This limit was set in 1975, when it was reduced from 40.6°C (105°F), in order to conform to commodity classifications of “nonflammable” liquids [4]
I would post links but this must be the only forum on the internet that disallows it till you get your spam erm.... I mean post count up.
indio007 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 8th October 2013, 02:36 PM   #290
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Why 24 reasons when all you need is one?
Jet A does not explode at sea level.
40 years of data from NASA , FAA, DOT, Army Corp of Engineers and Caltech's Explosion Research Team investigation of TWA 800

David Handshuh's (NY Post) photo proves there was an explosion and not a flashover.
Jet A fuel is a nonflammable under domestic law.

From
A Review of the Flammability
Hazard of Jet A Fuel Vapor in Civil
Transport Aircraft Fuel Tanks
FAA/DOT Office of Aviation Research




I would post links but this must be the only forum on the internet that disallows it till you get your spam erm.... I mean post count up.
The fact that in the vast majority of jet plane crashes, there is massive fire from leaking fuel, proves you absolutely wrong. Next?
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives 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 8th October 2013, 03:02 PM   #291
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,385
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Why 24 reasons when all you need is one?
Jet A does not explode at sea level.
40 years of data from NASA , FAA, DOT, Army Corp of Engineers and Caltech's Explosion Research Team investigation of TWA 800

David Handshuh's (NY Post) photo proves there was an explosion and not a flashover.
Jet A fuel is a nonflammable under domestic law.

From
A Review of the Flammability
Hazard of Jet A Fuel Vapor in Civil
Transport Aircraft Fuel Tanks
FAA/DOT Office of Aviation Research




I would post links but this must be the only forum on the internet that disallows it till you get your spam erm.... I mean post count up.
Hmm, your source says this:

Quote:
The minimum ignition energy (MIE) for hydrocarbon vapors is thought to be about 0.25 mj.
How much energy is supplied when the airplane tears through the skin of the building, plus several columns?
__________________
"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 8th October 2013, 03:03 PM   #292
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
So if a car impacts my house at 80 mph and my house does not collapse, does that mean the contractors, during the design phase, calculated/designed my house to be resistant to car impacts?
But if the gas tank ruptures, a spark ignites the fuel vapors in a huge fireball, burning your house down to the foundation, you can blame the government for it!
__________________
"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 8th October 2013, 03:16 PM   #293
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Why 24 reasons when all you need is one?
Jet A does not explode at sea level.
40 years of data from NASA , FAA, DOT, Army Corp of Engineers and Caltech's Explosion Research Team investigation of TWA 800

David Handshuh's (NY Post) photo proves there was an explosion and not a flashover.
Jet A fuel is a nonflammable under domestic law.

From
A Review of the Flammability
Hazard of Jet A Fuel Vapor in Civil
Transport Aircraft Fuel Tanks
FAA/DOT Office of Aviation Research




I would post links but this must be the only forum on the internet that disallows it till you get your spam erm.... I mean post count up.
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ar98-26.pdf
You should try to understand your "evidence" before you post it.
__________________
"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 8th October 2013, 04:00 PM   #294
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Dafyyd....you enjoy using the term twoofer don't you tiger, a twoofer here and a twoofer there, here a twoofer, there a twoofer........is trhat all you've got?
It's more than you have got. I have questions which you refuse to answer. You don't answer others questions and you take no notice of the explanations given to you. Is that all you've got? What about your full theory of the events of 911? Are you a no-planer?

Last edited by dafydd; 8th October 2013 at 04:02 PM.
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 8th October 2013, 04:15 PM   #295
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,047
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Jet A does not explode at sea level.
Not if you leave it sitting quietly in a fuel tank. But how is that relevant?
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 8th October 2013, 04:18 PM   #296
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Dafyyd....you enjoy using the term twoofer don't you tiger, a twoofer here and a twoofer there, here a twoofer, there a twoofer........is trhat all you've got?
Actually no, we've got questions you WON'T answer. So until you get around to being the first twoofer to do so, you get mocked.

If you DO become the first twoofer to do answer the question, you'll be lauded. Trust me.
NoahFence 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 8th October 2013, 04:19 PM   #297
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Why 24 reasons when all you need is one?
Jet A does not explode at sea level.
40 years of data from NASA , FAA, DOT, Army Corp of Engineers and Caltech's Explosion Research Team investigation of TWA 800

David Handshuh's (NY Post) photo proves there was an explosion and not a flashover.
Jet A fuel is a nonflammable under domestic law.

From
A Review of the Flammability
Hazard of Jet A Fuel Vapor in Civil
Transport Aircraft Fuel Tanks
FAA/DOT Office of Aviation Research




I would post links but this must be the only forum on the internet that disallows it till you get your spam erm.... I mean post count up.

LOL
Just finding your account after over a year?

uh huh.
NoahFence 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 8th October 2013, 04:24 PM   #298
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
don't you tiger,
Have you been talking to my girlfriend?
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 8th October 2013, 04:47 PM   #299
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,888
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Dafyyd....you enjoy using the term twoofer don't you tiger, a twoofer here and a twoofer there, here a twoofer, there a twoofer........is trhat all you've got?
Hey, that's nice, now answer my question about what the else the people you quoted said. Then tells us what you think happened.
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 8th October 2013, 06:54 PM   #300
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,015
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Why 24 reasons when all you need is one?
Jet A does not explode at sea level.
40 years of data from NASA , FAA, DOT, Army Corp of Engineers and Caltech's Explosion Research Team investigation of TWA 800

David Handshuh's (NY Post) photo proves there was an explosion and not a flashover.
Jet A fuel is a nonflammable under domestic law.

From
A Review of the Flammability
Hazard of Jet A Fuel Vapor in Civil
Transport Aircraft Fuel Tanks
FAA/DOT Office of Aviation Research


I would post links but this must be the only forum on the internet that disallows it till you get your spam erm.... I mean post count up.
Are you wanting to SPAM first, or post woo and junk?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...dingflying.jpg

This is not an explosion from an explosive, this is a Kinetic Energy Impact equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, like a 2000 pound bomb, but in the shape of an aircraft. The fire part, is a jet fuel fireball (jet fuel "explosion" at 700 feet) Oops.

You don't have a point, you misread the study.

24 idiotic claims are not not enough? Why are you making up more nonsense out of ignorance and woo?

Oops, jet fuel does explode, but no like an explosive, like jet fuel. You failed to comprehend the study you used to support another failed 911 truth claim. What is your claim, the big picture?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkAlwB77nIs

So much for 75 millijoules and jet fuel, there goes your does not "explode" stuff up in smoke, darn. Did you read the studies? They confirm this experiment. Do you need some help with science?


Ironically, your source, the study you posted, says ...
Quote:
... an exact prediction of when an aircraft fuel tank has an explosive vapor mixture is not to be expected. It is possible, however, using presently available data, to develop a methodology for assessing various approaches to reduce or minimize the fuel tank explosion hazard.
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/ar98-26.pdf

Oops, JET A explodes. Darn, you were doing so well with your fantasy until you posted it here, at a skeptics forum. You might want to take the woo to a woo-forum?

You can't support of the 23 "hard facts" so you make up a dumber one?
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...t-be-debunked/
Where do you rank your claim among the 24 dumbest "hard facts" by 911 truth?

Last edited by beachnut; 8th October 2013 at 07:55 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 8th October 2013, 07:44 PM   #301
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Lego does, and that's about it for the engineering knowledge of truthers.
That, and MineCraft.
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 8th October 2013, 07:57 PM   #302
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,385
Originally Posted by ApolloGnomon View Post
That, and MineCraft.
Woah, there. Let's not forget Christopher7's MSPaintFire.
__________________
"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 8th October 2013, 09:45 PM   #303
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Quote:
Jay you are correct, witness testimony is not worth the electricity it cost to generate it...that is why it is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events.Why would all the testimony on the day by uninterested parties there by chance be highly prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor?
Once again, you are making up legal precedence to suit your needs.
__________________
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 8th October 2013, 11:13 PM   #304
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,015
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
The Pesident of the United States says he watched it on TV at the school..... ...
The Pesident? You meant the PEZidents?
http://www.candywarehouse.com/produc...d=scsho3478700


You picked silly woo "hard fact" 19 -
Quote:
19) Bush said he watched the first plane crash into the North tower on TV before entering the classroom.
What does it mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDv3_KfdBs4

Oops, anyone with a TV on at 8:52 saw ("where") flight 11 hit on 911.
The president left out "where" when the president said he saw the first impact.

Raise the flag of woo; you can't tie this "hard fact" to support the "inside job" nonsense. Can you?
Bush makes a speaking error, and 911 truth makes up nonsense.

Woo about the President's silver tongue... now we have woo on Flight 93, the Passengers who figure out 911 in minutes, and here you are, 12 years and you can't figure it out given the answers.

Now you fall for "hard fact" 16.
Quote:
16) “Flight 93″ debris was spread out over many miles. Cheney admits to giving the order to shootdown 93. “shot down the plane over Pennsylvania” Rumsfeld, “nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there” ‘Chris Konicki. “Not a drop of blood” Coroner Wallace Miller. “there was no plane.” Mayor Ernie Stull.
The "hard fact" expert makes no real claim. No one shot down the 93. The FDR shows the terrorists flew 93 into the ground. Will quote-mining in the "hard fact" 16 inspire more silly claims?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Educate me D, tell me why these officials made these observations regarding Shanksville. ...
Because they are not trained aircraft accident investigators. You love to quote mine and can't say what the failed quote-mining efforts mean.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
"This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller ...
Oops, don't look, here is wreckage.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...debris18sm.jpg
I see over 1,000 aircraft parts. Guess my USAF training as an accident investigator make visible, the stuff you say is invisible.

And this is a best effort, quote-mining, cherry-picking out in the old Balsamo orchard of woo, lies, and delusional fantasies.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler ...
Your quote-mine makes him look crazy, he was the parts to talk to him? Talking parts?
Another quote mine. Does this support your story? No, you failed to look a RADAR if you think there was no plane. What is your story as you quote mine your way to bigger woo.
Oops, parts, thousands more. Who too this photo, Scott?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...3debris8sm.jpg

Are you saying the photographer is blind? All those parts, and they are all from Flight 93, proved by RADAR, and FDR; not to mention all passengers were identified by DNA, even the 4 terrorists, which no one has picked up.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police ...
Really, why are all the part of the plane there? Look, here is an engine.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...3debris11d.jpg
Plus the crash of a plane out of gas, which looks like no aircraft too.
What does this quote-mined statement mean. Because Patrick knows it was Flight 93 - do you? It is funny you quote mine people who know it was Flight 93. What is your point?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
I actually watched the Coroner make this statement on a news feed at the site on the day. I have not forgotten the plethora of first hand testimony and I do not discount it because a decade has passed. ...
You do discount most of it. All you do is quote mine first hand testimony. I have the FDR data from the impact crater, and RADAR data, which proves it was 93. You have quote-mined statements which mean? Nothing.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
... I can only say that the London Telegraph is a tabloid of long standing and there was no retraction or rebuff. ...
Quote:
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.
An aircraft accident, not a terrorists attack.
Pay attention, the design of the WTC would stop planes slower than 200 mph, Robertson designed it for a 707 low on fuel lost in the fog going 180 mph. This equal 187 pounds of TNT.
Flight 11 hit at 490 mph, with an impact equal to 1300 pounds of TNT, 7 times more than design.
Flight 175 hit at 590 mph, an impact equal to 2093 pounds of TNT, 11 times more than design.

Why can't you do the physics? These impacts were so much more than design, they destroyed the fire systems, dislodged fire insulation, and destroy most of the escape routes. The design impact speed of 182 would not do much damage - the terrorists speeding did major damage.

Physics? 911 truth doesn't use it.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
BN, I did read your entire post, but I will only ask one question...what is woo, a few have used it, is it just this forum that employs it (I expect it means spin) or is it used on other forums? ...
You use woo, you think quote mined statements are evidence for your inside job you can't explain. That is a lot of woo. You spread woo.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
... the towers were impact resistant. Some here commented that it was not a design feature, that the ability to resist came as a consequence of the design....whats the difference...WTC acknowlege that they were....someone asked me to qualify it. ...
180 mph impact was the design point. Aircraft accident was the design point. Terrorist exceeded the impact design point by 7 and 11 times. You have no point.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
... witness testimony ... is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events. ...
LOL, hit is woo, big time woo. It is ironic, you only quote-mine witness testimony, you don't present much more. You don't know you are quote-mining, or do you?

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
Why would all the testimony on the day by uninterested parties there by chance be highly prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor? ...
You said people did not see an aircraft in PA. Yet, here we have thousands of aircraft parts all over the ground, and buried in a crater due to impact.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris18sm.jpg
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/flt93debris8sm.jpg
There are more photos of parts.
Did they lie? Or are do they lack the knowledge to know those are aircraft parts?

What does an aircraft impact look like at 487.5 knots?
What does an aircraft impact look like at 561 mph?
Have you ever been at 560 mph?
What does an aircraft impact look like when the plane is in 142 degrees of roll (almost upside down), and -41.1 degrees of pitch? Number which are from the FDR found in the crater Flight 93 made because the terrorist pilot flew the plane into the ground instead of fighting the Passengers.

How do you explain all the DNA?

You don't know what an aircraft looks like at 561 mph, -41 degree pitch, and 142 degrees of roll. But you can quote-mine.

Impact energy greater than 1,400 pounds of TNT. Enough energy to destroy the entire aircraft, into parts, small parts.

Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post
You can count the number of progressive collapses on your fingers Craig....then we get three in the one place within 8 hours.....Lots of firsts with 911.
What does it mean? It means you can't do the physics and engineering to realize impacts and fire did it? Or WTC 7 burned all day? Fire destroys the strength of steel, quickly when not protected. Why can't 911 truth grasp science?
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 9th October 2013, 12:16 AM   #305
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,178
Originally Posted by sonofgloin View Post

Educate me D, tell me why these officials made these observations regarding Shanksville.

>> "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise."
- Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1]
"I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing."
- Photographer Scott Spangler [2]
"I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash."
- Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks
of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]<<
I actually watched the Coroner make this statement on a news feed at the site on the day. I have not forgotten the plethora of first hand testimony and I do not discount it because a decade has passed.

From your selected quotes it would seem you are implying there wasn't a crash at Shanksville.

Would this be correct?

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 9th October 2013 at 12:20 AM.
Captain_Swoop is online now   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 9th October 2013, 12:20 AM   #306
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,178
sonofgloin seems to be edging in to the 'No Planer' camp.
Captain_Swoop is online now   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 9th October 2013, 02:05 AM   #307
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
sonofgloin seems to be edging in to the 'No Planer' camp.
That is one deep rabbit hole.
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 9th October 2013, 05:58 AM   #308
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Looks like sonofgloin has no interest in being the first of his kind to provide a reasonable alternative to what the rest of us call reality.

What a shock.
NoahFence 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 9th October 2013, 06:26 AM   #309
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,047
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Looks like sonofgloin has no interest in being the first of his kind to provide a reasonable alternative to what the rest of us call reality.

What a shock.
I'm coming round to thinking he's just having a little fun with us.

After all, the quote mining he presented from Shanksville could only be interpreted as supporting a truther perspective if that was all you knew about what was said. Those mischievously selected snippets allowed him to imply something quite contrary to what the original speakers intended to convey, but recall that he was quite emphatic that he personally remembers what was said at the time, so any possible excuse that he only came upon those misleading fragments on a truther site would not stand up.

So I don't think he's a truther. I think he's just having a bit of fun. And after all, what could be a more appropriate subject for lighthearted teasing than the worst terrorist atrocity in history?
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 9th October 2013, 06:35 AM   #310
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Just out of morbid curiosity. If you believe flight 93 did not crash in Shanksville, what happened to it?
Still not answered. Sonofgloin?
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 9th October 2013, 06:36 AM   #311
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
So I don't think he's a truther. I think he's just having a bit of fun. And after all, what could be a more appropriate subject for lighthearted teasing than the worst terrorist atrocity in history?
It is difficult to spot the difference between a truther and somebody who spouts debunked tosh on the net for fun.
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 9th October 2013, 08:24 AM   #312
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by indio007 View Post
Why 24 reasons when all you need is one?
Jet A does not explode at sea level.
40 years of data from NASA , FAA, DOT, Army Corp of Engineers and Caltech's Explosion Research Team investigation of TWA 800

David Handshuh's (NY Post) photo proves there was an explosion and not a flashover.
Jet A fuel is a nonflammable under domestic law.

From
A Review of the Flammability
Hazard of Jet A Fuel Vapor in Civil
Transport Aircraft Fuel Tanks
FAA/DOT Office of Aviation Research




I would post links but this must be the only forum on the internet that disallows it till you get your spam erm.... I mean post count up.
Are you saying that jet fuel doesn't burn?
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 9th October 2013, 08:34 AM   #313
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,047
Originally Posted by swright777 View Post
Are you saying that jet fuel doesn't burn?





I note that he/she specifically says it exploded, rather than burned. I wonder if there is anything more to come with regard to that particular technical distinction or if it was just a copy/paste hit and run.
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 9th October 2013, 08:35 AM   #314
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonofgloin
....so it is still back to fire collapsing three steel framed buildings in one place for the first time in history. ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonofgloin
......
You can count the number of progressive collapses on your fingers Craig....then we get three in the one place within 8 hours.....Lots of firsts with 911.
“Is it your claim that it is impossible for something that has never happened before in history to happen for the first time? “

Well, it doesn’t look like we’ll get an answer from sonofgloin.

From the Big Bang , to the formation of the earth, first living organism, first homo sapiens, first language, first wheel, first geometry, first laws of motion, first iron bridge, first submarine, first steel skyscraper, first antibiotic, first elevator, first anesthetic, first assassination of a president, first flight, first cubist painting, first satellite, first transistor, first lost astronaut, first conceptual art, first heart transplant, first computer, first high rise partial progressive collapse, first high rise global progressive collapse and so on… Every event in the universe and every single human event, had never happened before until it happened for the first time in history.

The only value to the “first time in history” conspiracy canard is as an example of how typically poor truthers’ logic is. Add this to their typically poor engineering and chemistry understanding but rich in wishful fantasy, and you have the truther assault on knowledge.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch 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 9th October 2013, 09:09 AM   #315
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post

Well, it doesn’t look like we’ll get an answer from sonofgloin.
The inability to answer straight questions appears to be a generic trait in truthers.
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 9th October 2013, 09:52 AM   #316
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,511
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I note that he/she specifically says it exploded, rather than burned. I wonder if there is anything more to come with regard to that particular technical distinction or if it was just a copy/paste hit and run.
I believe "drive by truthing" is the correct terminology
__________________
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.
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 9th October 2013, 10:51 AM   #317
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
I believe "drive by truthing" is the correct terminology
Ick. I've been "truthed"?

No wonder I feel so slimy.
__________________
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 10th October 2013, 10:03 AM   #318
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,888
So, not so much with SoG telling us what else the other people he quoted said.
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 10th October 2013, 03:04 PM   #319
indio007
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5
Well well well quite the hornet's nest. You fell for the bait. I was waiting for you all to fall all over each other. There is a lot more data than what I posted.

First of all I'm at quite the disadvantage because I can't post links or images.

Secondly I said Jet A does not explode at sea level.

Thirdly Are you all afraid to post Handshuh's photo? It's an image of the impact site from directly below it. There is a 75 ft column of flame shooting into the direction the plane came from. This is an explosion , not a flashover over the fuel.

Fourth, 75 milijoule ignition is a red herring. A 20 joule spark immersed in Jet A will not ignite it. Go read Spark Ignition Energy Measurements in Jet A Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories
California Institute of Technology.
see figure 21

They stopped testing at 20 joules out of futility of trying to get Jet A to ignite via an immersed spark.

Stop making an ass of yourselves with logical falacies. The data is extensive.
1. There WAS an explosion at the moment of plane impact.
2. The explosion could not have been caused by the plane fuel

That's the only fact necessary, you don't need 2, 4 , 6 or 80044 facts to prove the official conspiracy theory is flawed.

I suggest you read

FIRE AND EXPLOSION MANUAL
FOR
AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATORS
Joseph M. Kuchta

JET A EXPLOSION EXPERIMENT:
LABORATORY TESTING
NTSB
Caltech

Summary and Conclusions of Explosion Research Team
M. Birky (NTSB), J. Kolly (NTSB), J. E. Shepherd (CIT), P. A. Thibault (CDL), M. R. Baer (SNL),
K. van Wingerden (CMR), J. E. Woodrow (UNR), J. C. Sagebiel (DRI)
Introduction
A team of researchers contributed to the TWA 800 accident investigation by carrying out a research
program on issues connected with the explosion of Jet A (aviation kerosene) vapors.

Quote:
The measured peak pressure rises recorded during our experiments were between 1.5 and 4 bar (20
to 60 psi), sufficient to cause failure of structural components inside the CWT of a B-747 aircraft
............

Structural Response
1. Structural failure modeling. The CWT is a typical modern airplane structure and consists of a large number of individual components such as stringers, stiffeners, and panels held together with rivets and removable fasteners.
Even if there was an explosion, do you think the WTC blew apart from a 60 PSI shockwave?

Jet A Explosions and TWA Flight 800 Investigation
Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech

Quote:
What makes jet fuel explosive?
The liquid fuel is not explosive by itself. Explosive conditions are created when the fuel evaporates and mixes with the air in a partially empty tank. The evaporated fuel is referred to as fuel vapor. The fuel vapor consists of fuel molecules that have escaped from the liquid fuel and form a gas in the volume (ullage) above the liquid in the bottom of the fuel tank.
Jet A Explosion Experiments:
Laboratory Testing
Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories
California Institute of Technology
Quote:
The leaner the mixture, the lower the flame speed.
Near the flammability limit, the flame speed decreases to about 4 to 5 cm/s. There is no data available in the literature on Jet A flame speeds other than a range of 0.3 to 0.6 m/s quoted in CRC (1983).
The compare all this to the Bagram crash of a fully fueled plane with JP8.
The WTC smoke mushroom cloud reaches over 1/2 mile in diameter in less than 30 seconds and eventually is over a mile wide.

The dynamics of the WTC crash explosion do not match experiment OR real world data.

No amount of word smithing and logical fallacies are going to fix this.


PS enough with the omission of time in energy comparisons (and every other comparison) such as the "energy of XXX pounds of TNT". It means nothing. The rate at which the energy is released os the substantial comparison.

Last edited by indio007; 10th October 2013 at 03:09 PM. Reason: composition
indio007 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 10th October 2013, 03:09 PM   #320
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,178
So what are you claiming> all the fuel just sloshed out of the aircraft and washed around the place?

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 10th October 2013 at 03:22 PM.
Captain_Swoop is online now   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 10:09 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.