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.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory , 911 debunking resources , 911 links , wtc , wtc 7

Reply
Old 2nd August 2007, 02:09 PM   #121
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Everyone knows what exactly happened to WTC7. People like you just like to bring up stupid questions. I'm not the 1 being a child asking questions about a building that we know was brought down by fire and it's own weight.

Asking the same questions about WTC7 is babbling. You want to act like a little child pointing the finger at me? Go right ahead!
9/11 Chewy Defense 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 2nd August 2007, 02:11 PM   #122
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
You couldn't handle the truth about WTC7 Dabljuh.
9/11 Chewy Defense 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 2nd August 2007, 02:27 PM   #123
Viper Daimao
Critical Thinker
 
Viper Daimao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 496
dabljuh, read the links this whole thread is about. One side collapsed, then the other side fell on top of it. Basically you're whole premise is wrong.
Viper Daimao 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 2nd August 2007, 02:35 PM   #124
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Dabljuh View Post
Why's the WTC building 7 falling straight down, rather than toppling over, when it was damaged only on one side?
For two reasons:

1) A 47-story steel-framed skyscraper cannot "topple over" without a very large lateral force being applied. Where would such a force come from? No, such buildings are made of thousands of interconnected parts. When those parts loose crucial support or become misaligned, they fail. One major failure can rapidly lead to others, resulting in collapse. When the building collapses, it falls down, not over, as it must.

2) The damage that brought WTC 7 down was fire in the center interior of the building, not the external damage you see in photos. YouTube is not a reliable guide to forensic engineering.

Quote:
Why did the fires in WTC building 7 start?
No offense, but you are aware that two quarter-mile high buildings collapsed across the street, aren't you? And that fires started in many buildings after those collapses?


Quote:
Was there a fire in building 6, which was, unlike 7, really crushed by the debris?
Yes. The severe fires in WTC 6 burned for hours. If you are suggesting that WTC 7 wasn't hammered by debris, you are wrong, and I strongly encourage you to read about WTC 7's condition in my paper, which is linked in my signature. These pages in particular will tell you what the conspiracy fools won't:

Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 fires
Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage
Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy 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 2nd August 2007, 09:20 PM   #125
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Mark, I mean Gravy! You're a legend man, I mean the way you prove all of these Conspiracists wrong is making me laugh beyond all reason. I've watched your video about the 9/11 Truthers at Ground Zero: "The Ground Zeros" and I couldn't contain myself. We all know that Les is an idiot and he's always attacking your 1st Amendment. I like how you got him scared on that subject. And that guy in the glasses, I call him "Gilliagan" because in Abby Scotts video he's wearing a "fishing" hat.

I've also seen you debate with Loose Change director Dylan Avery and his "researcher" Jason Bermas on Hardfire. Dylan only had very little to say and not much rebuttal from him. Jason on the other hand is just wrong. They're both wrong! And Dr. James Fetzer! He's another one that got proved wrong by you.

Thank god there's people on this earth like you Gravy!
9/11 Chewy Defense 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 3rd August 2007, 01:36 AM   #126
Dabljuh
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 600
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
For two reasons:

1) A 47-story steel-framed skyscraper cannot "topple over" without a very large lateral force being applied.
That's wrong, a skyscraper *will* topple over unless the damage caused is at the center. If you only blow out one side with explosives in controlled demolition, the building will fall to the side, without a lateral force being applied.

Hence I would expect a building that was severely damaged on one side to topple over, rather than to fall pretty much straight down like the video hints at.

Quote:
2) The damage that brought WTC 7 down was fire in the center interior of the building, not the external damage you see in photos. YouTube is not a reliable guide to forensic engineering.
Which brings you back to the whole "Could fire destroy these buildings" questions. NIST ran tests with models and couldn't reproduce it. Only in computer simulations, where they weakened the 600% redundant central core so much the building would have fallen over in the first steep wind, they could reproduce a collapse by fire.

The thing is: Yes, temperature will weaken steel. But will the temperature of the fires be enough to weaken it below 1/6th of the original strength? I have not seen any evidence anywhere whatsoever that points at this is what happened.

P.S: Got some links on WTC6 burning?

Last edited by Dabljuh; 3rd August 2007 at 01:42 AM.
Dabljuh 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 3rd August 2007, 11:27 AM   #127
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Hey Dabljuh, do you really want to pi$$ with Mark Roberts (Gravy)? Do you really want to challenge his claims and say he's "wrong"?

Gravy's got links out the wazzoo about everything including WTC6. What links do you got of WTC6 BTW?
9/11 Chewy Defense 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 3rd August 2007, 11:32 AM   #128
Viper Daimao
Critical Thinker
 
Viper Daimao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Dabljuh View Post
That's wrong, a skyscraper *will* topple over unless the damage caused is at the center. If you only blow out one side with explosives in controlled demolition, the building will fall to the side, without a lateral force being applied.
And what do you base this belief on?
Viper Daimao 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 3rd August 2007, 01:52 PM   #129
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
I'll reply here, but if you wish to discuss these issues further I ask that you do so in new threads. You will do well to use the forum search feature before making claims that have been discussed here ad nauseum.

Originally Posted by Dabljuh View Post
That's wrong, a skyscraper *will* topple over unless the damage caused is at the center.
First, you do not address the fact that, as I noted above, the worst damage to WTC 7 was caused by the fire, which was in the interior of the building.

Next, there are several ways that you could have supported your opinion.

1. You could present an example of a similarly-constructed building toppling for any reason.

2. You could cite engineering texts that support your claim.

3. You could do your own analysis of the structure, damage, and fires.

You have done none of these things.


Quote:
If you only blow out one side with explosives in controlled demolition, the building will fall to the side, without a lateral force being applied.
Again, please provide examples of this happening to similar structures, cite structural experts who agree with you, provide evidence that WTC 7 was "blown out on one side," etc.

Quote:
Hence I would expect a building that was severely damaged on one side to topple over, rather than to fall pretty much straight down like the video hints at.
The cases of the twin towers should be instructive to you. The collapses of both initiated on one side of the building: the east side of the south tower and the south side of the north tower (sides with 60-foot floor trusses, btw). In each case, the tops of the towers tilted significantly to those sides. However, you'll note that the tilting did not continue until "toppling" occurred. Instead, once the tilt had reached a few degrees, the bending columns, which were not designed for such off-axis loads, buckled, and the collapse progressed straight down. These are basic engineering concepts. See also Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? Bazant & Zhou (2001) Appendix II

Quote:
Which brings you back to the whole "Could fire destroy these buildings" questions. NIST ran tests with models and couldn't reproduce it.
If you believe that the NIST floor truss fire tests were done to reproduce conditions in the towers, you are mistaken and clearly haven't read the reports. From NIST NCSTAR 1-6B:



When you read that report, take note of which truss failed the test. You should also read NCSTAR 1-5B.

Quote:
Only in computer simulations, where they weakened the 600% redundant central core
I have no idea where you got this information, which has no bearing on reality.

Quote:
so much the building would have fallen over in the first steep wind, they could reproduce a collapse by fire.
Ditto.

Quote:
The thing is: Yes, temperature will weaken steel. But will the temperature of the fires be enough to weaken it below 1/6th of the original strength? I have not seen any evidence anywhere whatsoever that points at this is what happened.
If you have specific disagreements with specific findings of the investigations, state them and be prepared to back your claims with facts. For example, if you want to pursue your claim that WTC 7 should have toppled over, you'll need to show that either:

1. The collapse did not initiate in the area circled in red below, or

2. If you agree that the collapse did initiate in that area, as NIST's working hypothesis states, why a major failure there would cause the building to topple. Be sure to include the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse in your analysis.



Quote:
P.S: Got some links on WTC6 burning?


See also FEMA 403, chapter 4, and videos shot by Steve Spak.

Again, if you wish to continue this discussion, please do so in a new thread, and search the forum and links in my signature to be sure your questions haven't been answered a thousand times.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy 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 3rd August 2007, 03:55 PM   #130
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Gravy, once again you're knowledge is overwelming and powerful. I salute you my fellow American!
9/11 Chewy Defense 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 3rd August 2007, 04:18 PM   #131
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by ThereIsNoConspiracy View Post
Gravy, once again you're knowledge is overwelming and powerful. I salute you my fellow American!
No, you cannot have the Great and Awesome Gravy's autograph.

He'll let you kiss the toes of one of his minions, but that's as far as it goes.

Come back with a Truther scalp and 30 pieces of silver and we'll reconsider.
chipmunk stew 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 3rd August 2007, 05:38 PM   #132
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
I've got so many truther scalps I could make a gorilla suit out of them.

I'm a debunker, just like so many on the streets and the internet. Truthers can go to hell!
9/11 Chewy Defense 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 August 2007, 08:22 PM   #133
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,744
Originally Posted by Dabljuh View Post
That's wrong, a skyscraper *will* topple over unless the damage caused is at the center. If you only blow out one side with explosives in controlled demolition, the building will fall to the side, without a lateral force being applied.

Hence I would expect a building that was severely damaged on one side to topple over, rather than to fall pretty much straight down like the video hints at.

Which brings you back to the whole "Could fire destroy these buildings" questions. NIST ran tests with models and couldn't reproduce it. Only in computer simulations, where they weakened the 600% redundant central core so much the building would have fallen over in the first steep wind, they could reproduce a collapse by fire.

The thing is: Yes, temperature will weaken steel. But will the temperature of the fires be enough to weaken it below 1/6th of the original strength? I have not seen any evidence anywhere whatsoever that points at this is what happened.

P.S: Got some links on WTC6 burning?
Do you get anything right? Three strikes in one posts. Out. Wonder which part of the NIST report you skipped?
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 15th August 2007, 07:48 PM   #134
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
I posted some papers on progressive collapse here, they were intended for this thread, I put them on CS's thread by mistake.

Last edited by cmcaulif; 15th August 2007 at 07:52 PM.
cmcaulif 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 15th August 2007, 09:59 PM   #135
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by cmcaulif View Post
I posted some papers on progressive collapse here, they were intended for this thread, I put them on CS's thread by mistake.
Thanks! I've added them to the site and credited your nickname.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy 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 16th August 2007, 08:56 PM   #136
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Thanks! I've added them to the site and credited your nickname.
my pleasure Here is a full text of the Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl study in case it is not included in the press release about the study on your site as well:

http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/...per%202003.pdf

I think a look at these mechanisms is really important in understanding the demise of building 7, given that the failure originated at the east penthouse, and is likely to have propagated from there. I wish I had more time to really get into them though!
cmcaulif 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 30th August 2007, 03:45 PM   #137
jp834618
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 11
Being an ex-truther, I think your websites need some nice videos with lots of quotes and truthers walking around to ominous music. Also, would it kill you to put up a few blog buttons and a countdown timer of some sort?

I'm not sure your movement is going to be very good..
jp834618 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 31st August 2007, 02:56 PM   #138
8den
Graduate Poster
 
8den's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,293
Originally Posted by jp834618 View Post
Being an ex-truther, I think your websites need some nice videos with lots of quotes and truthers walking around to ominous music. Also, would it kill you to put up a few blog buttons and a countdown timer of some sort?

I'm not sure your movement is going to be very good..
I know, we have all are these pesky facts logic and science making the place look untidy...
__________________
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out again and nothing was passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again.
If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it out again."
- Penn Jillette in God, No!
8den 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 2nd September 2007, 04:01 AM   #139
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
A fantastic amount of research details there Gravy, but it's not what is there that is interesting, more like what is NOT there. How about a detailed explanation of Condoleeza Rice's comments after 9/11? You can make all the sand-castles you like, but when the tide comes in , they 'll all be washed away. All that vast researching shows to me , is you have about as much of a life as the average "twoofer" away from this subject!

Last edited by CJOKUSAP; 2nd September 2007 at 04:05 AM.
CJOKUSAP 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 2nd September 2007, 04:13 AM   #140
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
Remember - 'Motive' and 'Opportunity' are the usual starting points in a criminal investigation; and only someone devoted to maintaining the status quo would deny that some members of the current administration had each of those factors!

p.s. How was your trip to Barbados, or wherever it was you were going the other night?

Last edited by CJOKUSAP; 2nd September 2007 at 04:40 AM.
CJOKUSAP 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 2nd September 2007, 05:52 AM   #141
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by CJOKUSAP View Post
A fantastic amount of research details there Gravy, but it's not what is there that is interesting, more like what is NOT there. How about a detailed explanation of Condoleeza Rice's comments after 9/11? You can make all the sand-castles you like, but when the tide comes in , they 'll all be washed away.
I don't make sand castles. I present facts. You want me to do your work for you? Sorry. You have a claim? You do the homework and write your report. Whining on the internet will never advance your claims.

Quote:
All that vast researching shows to me , is you have about as much of a life as the average "twoofer" away from this subject!
Like the rest of the 9/11 deniers, ad hominems are all you've got. Good luck with that program.


Originally Posted by CJOKUSAP View Post
Remember - 'Motive' and 'Opportunity' are the usual starting points in a criminal investigation;
Why not gather evidence instead of idly speculating and arguing from ignorance? Are you afraid of what you'll find? I look forward to reading the results of your investigation.


Quote:
and only someone devoted to maintaining the status quo would deny that some members of the current administration had each of those factors!
Only a fool would apologize for terrorists while making accusations of mass murder against others that aren't supported by a single shred of evidence.

Think I'm wrong? Then tell me who you have evidence against that allows you to make a charge of complicity to mass murder, and present your evidence. Right now.

Nothing? I thought not. Okay, please explain which parts of the 9/11 terrorist plot and attack would require U.S. government involvement. You may want to read the 9/11 Commission report before you try to tackle this one.


Quote:
p.s. How was your trip to Barbados, or wherever it was you were going the other night?
Bermuda. I'm there now. It's cloudy and warm, thank you.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 2nd September 2007 at 05:57 AM.
Gravy 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 2nd September 2007, 05:57 AM   #142
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
Look, you're the "investigator", I'm just a critic. You do your work, I'll do mine. When the information comes in, I'll be back to you.

Don't forget your sun-cream.
CJOKUSAP 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 2nd September 2007, 06:01 AM   #143
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
Only a fool would make this claim;

"Only a fool would apologize for terrorists while making accusations of mass murder against others that aren't supported by a single shred of evidence."
CJOKUSAP 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 2nd September 2007, 06:06 AM   #144
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
And stop being so righteously indignant
Edited by prewitt81:  Incivility removed
!

Mod WarningCJOKUSAP, name-calling like this is unacceptable. Either keep your posts within the bounds of the Membership Agreement or stop posting.
Posted By:prewitt81

Last edited by prewitt81; 2nd September 2007 at 07:02 AM. Reason: Incivility
CJOKUSAP 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 2nd September 2007, 06:09 AM   #145
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by CJOKUSAP View Post
And stop being so righteously indignant
Edited by prewitt81:  Incivility removed
!

A word to the wise, you won't last long here if you just sling insults and obscenities. If your arguments with Gravy are strong you won't have to rely on any personal attacks and name calling.

Trust me, civility is a well sharpened sword.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

Last edited by prewitt81; 2nd September 2007 at 07:02 AM. Reason: removing quoted incivility
RedIbis 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 2nd September 2007, 06:16 AM   #146
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
As long as he doesn't refer to me as a fool Redibis, we'll be fine!
CJOKUSAP 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 2nd September 2007, 06:23 AM   #147
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by CJOKUSAP View Post
As long as he doesn't refer to me as a fool Redibis, we'll be fine!
Then be a better debator and don't rely on similar tactics.

I'm well aware of the incongruent strategies employed on a forum devoted to critical thinking and skepticism.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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 2nd September 2007, 06:25 AM   #148
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
Then enlighten me!
CJOKUSAP 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 2nd September 2007, 06:48 AM   #149
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Then be a better debator and don't rely on similar tactics.

I'm well aware of the incongruent strategies employed on a forum devoted to critical thinking and skepticism.
BTW. "critical thinking" involves being criticized!
CJOKUSAP 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 3rd September 2007, 09:55 AM   #150
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
I've noticed that most of the objections to even the slightest possibility of any conspiracy accusations being likely, is the matter of complicity. "How dare you imply that G.W. could be involved in such a heinous crime!", "So, the entire administration are murderers are they?", etc, ad nauseum. But, consider (Now you need an open mind to do this properly, but don't be scared; it can actually be a quite liberating experience.) the possibility that Bush is simply the 'puppet-master's' head, and the military, etc. relate to different parts of the body. Do you not want to know who has his, or her hand up your governments arse? Because I WOULD, and do. Forget quibbling over the cost of an entirely independent, full inquiry,i.e. Done by a different country, into the events a month either side of September the 11th, 2001. The outcome either way would be the best money your country has ever spent. If it concludes that the initial inquiry was correct, and the only fault of your government was to underestimate 'the enemy', then the government is absolved of any involvement, and you all can shout, "Told ya so!" until you are hoarse.

Does that not seem like a reasonable request or demand, when the future of "Democracy" is at stake?
CJOKUSAP 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 3rd September 2007, 10:29 AM   #151
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by CJOKUSAP View Post
Remember - 'Motive' and 'Opportunity' are the usual starting points in a criminal investigation;
Yes, but unless actual evidence of guilt is found, then having all the motive and opportunity in the world to commit a crime means nothing.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 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 3rd September 2007, 10:34 AM   #152
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Yes, but unless actual evidence of guilt is found, then having all the motive and opportunity in the world to commit a crime means nothing.
Would you like to address my point in post #150 as well?
CJOKUSAP 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 3rd September 2007, 10:38 AM   #153
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
This is not a thread for discussion.
Pardalis 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 3rd September 2007, 10:51 AM   #154
CJOKUSAP
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
This is not a thread for discussion.
Well, where would you like to address it then?
CJOKUSAP 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 3rd September 2007, 10:52 AM   #155
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Start a thread.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2007, 10:27 AM   #156
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Thanks, Gravy.

I was visiting a friend of mine yesterday, and when I got ther,e he was watching some truther videos with his roommate. When he asked me what I thought of Alex Jones, I told him. "He's a liar, and there's no evidence to support anything he says."

Even when Alex Jones quotes a "zombie survey" as saying that 92% of New Yorkers "agree with us" and the next scene in the truther movie showed results of 50% (probably a bogus survey in any case) he stuck to his conspiracy theory. "You're insulting my intelligence," he said. "No, I'm not. I'm telling you there's not a shred of evidence to support his clams. Look, I'd believe him if he had evidence. What would it take to change your mind?" "Nothing! Nothing can change my mind!"

Oi. Thanks, Gravy. Sometimes, however, facts are of no use.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2007, 04:39 PM   #157
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
You should feel good for speaking up. Your friend may come around eventually, remember your words, and not be so quick to jump on the woo wagon next time.

Facts are always useful, if only as a defense in your trial for wanton dope-slapping.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th September 2007, 05:53 PM   #158
Toro
Scholar
 
Toro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 48
Cool.

Thanks for your work.
Toro 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 September 2007, 06:47 PM   #159
terryfunk4life
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24
Just wondering any chance of a ground zeros part 2? Also make sure you are there on sept 11 because someone needs to be there so they don't get there "facts" across. Or better yet just send mongo!

Last edited by terryfunk4life; 6th September 2007 at 06:53 PM. Reason: fun
terryfunk4life 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 September 2007, 10:08 PM   #160
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Some additional engineering resources for WTC bibliography

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

Recent advances in fire–structure analysis
Fire Safety Journal, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 20 August 2007,
Dat Duthinh, Kevin McGrattan and Abed Khaskia

Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Prasad and Baum is somewhat redundant since it is used directly in NCSTAR1-5F and G, but it is worth reading nonetheless.

and also:

http://nistreview.org/WTC7-COLLAPSE-SCHEUERMAN.pdf

sorry if any of these are repeats, I tried to find new sources that I had found personally useful.
cmcaulif 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 04:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.