IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 23rd January 2017, 02:44 PM   #521
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It doesn't matter how many times you say that, we can all count at least 15 floors (personally, I count 16) from the photographs. And one might wonder what's the agenda that makes you cherry-pick the 42m height as something your sources must definitely have got correct when the very same sources give the 17 floors that you insist on rejecting. Is it really so important to you to pretend that no building over 15 floors can possibly collapse due to fire that you're willing to tell lies to defend it?

Dave
Funny thing. I picked up a building permit for a 13 story building I'm doing work on, guess what? The building classification is "Highrise (mixed use)"..............
__________________
"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 23rd January 2017, 02:45 PM   #522
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Is it really so important to you to pretend that no building over 15 floors can possibly collapse due to fire that you're willing to tell lies to defend it?

Dave
Not lies, 'Alternative Facts'
Andy_Ross 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 23rd January 2017, 02:45 PM   #523
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Comprehension fail. Your sources say 17 storeys and 42m. If you reject the 17 storeys why do you insist on the 42m?

Dave
Find me even ONE reference to anything other than 42m for the height of this building then.
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 02:47 PM   #524
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
Happy to accept that it was 15. Thank you.
Great. 15 stories + a mechanical penthouse. If it were 42 m tall, that means it was about 2.5 m per story (plus ~3-5 m for that large mechanical penthouse), which seems to be consistent with construction in parts of Europe (which is likely what the Iranians would have emulated at the time). So can you make a point now?

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 23rd January 2017 at 02:49 PM.
benthamitemetric 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 23rd January 2017, 02:50 PM   #525
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Great. 15 stories + a mechanical penthouse. If it were 42 m tall, that means it was about 2.5 m per story (plus ~3-5 m for that large mechanical penthouse), which seems to be consistent with construction in parts of Europe (which is likely what the Iranians would have emulated at the time). So can you make a point now?
It is the roofline that is quoted at 42m.
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 02:51 PM   #526
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
It is the roofline that is quoted at 42m.
Where does it say 42m is the roofline and not the total height?
benthamitemetric 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 23rd January 2017, 02:53 PM   #527
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Where does it say 42m is the roofline and not the total height?
"Roof 42.0 m (138 ft)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 02:55 PM   #528
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
That doesn't say roofline and is at best ambiguous. The top of that large mechanical penthouse is also a roof.

But, you know what, fine. Who cares? Let's stipulate for the purposes of whatever argument you are planning on making that the roofline was 42m and the penthouse stood taller than that still.
benthamitemetric 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 23rd January 2017, 02:57 PM   #529
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
That doesn't say roofline and is at best ambiguous. The top of that large mechanical penthouse is also a roof.

But, you know what, fine. Who cares? Let's say the roofline was 42m and the penthouse stood taller than that still.
You asked for a reference that quoted the roofline height, and were given it.
Your response is then "who cares". Very telling, as you cared enough to ask for a source previously.

ETA can you find ANY source that quotes a height other than 42m ?
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 02:58 PM   #530
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
That doesn't say roofline and is at best ambiguous. The top of that large mechanical penthouse is also a roof.

But, you know what, fine. Who cares? Let's stipulate for the purposes of whatever argument you are planning on making that the roofline was 42m and the penthouse stood taller than that still.
You are being generous thinking he plans to actually do this.........*

*see signature below.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 23rd January 2017 at 02:59 PM.
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 23rd January 2017, 02:59 PM   #531
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
You asked for a reference that quoted the roofline height, and were given it.
Your response is then "who cares". Very telling, as you cared enough to ask for a source previously.

ETA can you find ANY source that quotes a height other than 42m ?
You didn't provide a quote that said the roofline was 42m. You provided one that said the roof was, which is at best ambiguous as to whether it refers to the top of the sizable mechanical penthouse that tops the building.

But, again, I don't care. We both know you either have no point or a very stupid one, so let's just get to it. I'm willing to stipulate for whatever argument you want to make that the roofline was 42 m.
benthamitemetric 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 23rd January 2017, 03:00 PM   #532
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
Happy to accept that it was 15. Thank you.
Any advance on 15? What about 16 plus the penthouse? Can you show me where you think I miscounted?
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 23rd January 2017, 03:01 PM   #533
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
You didn't provide a quote that said the roofline was 42m. You provided one that said the roof was, which is at best ambiguous as to whether it refers to the top of the sizable mechanical penthouse that tops the building.

But, again, I don't care. We both know you either have no point or a very stupid one, so let's just get to it. I'm willing to stipulate for whatever argument you want to make that the roofline was 42 m.
The point is Shyam Sunder's statement that NIST were not aware of a building collapsing primarily due to fire that was over 15 storeys. This means that WTC7 remains an alleged "unprecedented" event.
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 03:02 PM   #534
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
ETA can you find ANY source that quotes a height other than 42m ?
Can you find a source for the number Wikipedia quotes? Are you claiming it must be right because nobody has found a sourced figure?
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 23rd January 2017, 03:03 PM   #535
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Can you find a source for the number Wikipedia quotes? Are you claiming it must be right because nobody has found a sourced figure?
No, I am open to looking at any source that states that the building was anything other than 42m tall.
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 03:04 PM   #536
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
The point is Shyam Sunder's statement that NIST were not aware of a building collapsing primarily due to fire that was over 15 storeys. This means that WTC7 remains an alleged "unprecedented" event.
Why do you ignore your own source that says the building was 17 floors?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 23rd January 2017 at 03:05 PM.
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 23rd January 2017, 03:04 PM   #537
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
The point is Shyam Sunder's statement that NIST were not aware of a building collapsing primarily due to fire that was over 15 storeys. This means that WTC7 remains an alleged "unprecedented" event.
It will always be unprecedented unless you invent a time machine and burn down a tall building before 2001.

However it is now no longer unique, since the Plasco building was over 15 storeys.
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 23rd January 2017, 03:04 PM   #538
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
The point is Shyam Sunder's statement that NIST were not aware of a building collapsing primarily due to fire that was over 15 storeys. This means that WTC7 remains an alleged "unprecedented" event.
Wrong, WTC 1, and 2 collapsed that morning due to fire. Plus steel building all over the world have failed in fire. CD is a fantasy born in ignorance, paranoia, and the need for some crazy undefined conspiracy with no evidence.

ae911t liars have to say this is CD, it has many of the characteristics of WTC 7 during the event which ae911t liars call evidence, but it is big talk based on BS.

The unprecedented event is building failure due to thermal expansion, or some might say thermal expansion leading to failure during cooling. However, thermal expansion is the theory of the universe. NIST has a probable cause, and so far all rational engineers who have not gone nuts on 9/11, say it was fire. ae911t have less than 0.1 percent of all engineers signing a petition, and they don't have any evidence for CD, and there is not much evidence out there what those fringe few gullible (to sign the petition of woo) engineers believe anyway.

Steel fails quickly in fire, ae911t have no clue.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK

Last edited by beachnut; 23rd January 2017 at 03:09 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 23rd January 2017, 03:05 PM   #539
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
I guess some like you and DGM do not consider storey count and height to be important factors in debating/researching a building - you are welcome to that stance, but I do not share it.
Sure, getting the exact number of levels, and what was on each one(a matter completely overlooked thus far) would be important in developing a full report on this fire and collapse. In simply discussing the collapse online on a forum such as this, with no official report to speak to, it is slightly more significant than getting the date correct. It is much less significant in determining what caused the collapse in an official report , and even less so in an internet discussion, and even less significant is how many basement levels there were.

, further down in significance wrt to the Plasco collapse, is what Sunder said many years ago when speaking about the WTC structures.
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 23rd January 2017, 03:06 PM   #540
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
It will always be unprecedented unless you invent a time machine and burn down a tall building before 2001.

However it is now no longer unique, since the Plasco building was over 15 storeys.
if you look at what I actually said - it was that it REMAINS unprecedented.
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 03:07 PM   #541
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
No, I am open to looking at any source that states that the building was anything other than 42m tall.
No doubt if any of us find one, we'll report it here. In the meantime, does it actually matter exactly how tall the building was, since we can use good quality photographs to count the number of floors?
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 23rd January 2017, 03:08 PM   #542
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Sure, getting the exact number of levels, and what was on each one(a matter completely overlooked thus far) would be important in developing a full report on this fire and collapse. In simply discussing the collapse online on a forum such as this, with no official report to speak to, it is slightly more significant than getting the date correct. It is much less significant in determining what caused the collapse in an official report , and even less so in an internet discussion, and even less significant is how many basement levels there were.

, further down in significance wrt to the Plasco collapse, is what Sunder said many years ago when speaking about the WTC structures.
Yes, it is important to get the height and the storey count correct - this was disputed on this thread earlier by DGM for example. And the contents of the building may have been overlooked here, but they are already forming part of the narrative as far as Iranian concerns regarding the collapse go.
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 03:10 PM   #543
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
The point is Shyam Sunder's statement that NIST were not aware of a building collapsing primarily due to fire that was over 15 storeys. This means that WTC7 remains an alleged "unprecedented" event.
First off, you might want to check what the word precedented means. Nothing can change the fact that, at the time, the collapse of WTC 7 was unprecedented.

Second off, what exact meaning do you intend to draw from the quote? Do you really mean to say that, because Sunder said that quote and because the building lacks that somehow critical 16th story, that neither you nor anyone else can draw parallels between the collapse of the Plasco building and WTC7; whereas, if he had not said that quote or if the building had one more story, we would be able to draw such parallels?
benthamitemetric 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 23rd January 2017, 03:10 PM   #544
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
Yes, it is important to get the height and the storey count correct - this was disputed on this thread earlier by DGM for example. And the contents of the building may have been overlooked here, but they are already forming part of the narrative as far as Iranian concerns regarding the collapse go.
Nope, is it a BS quibble, and does not mean much for the liars at ae911t who spread fake lies, and makeup fake news.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
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 23rd January 2017, 03:11 PM   #545
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
if you look at what I actually said - it was that it REMAINS unprecedented.
Is THAT the whole thrust of your bugaboo about the number of storeys?


Is your entire reason for bogging down discussion with a whine about how tall the building is, to have the WTC collapses remain unprecedented and thus by paranoid extension, suspicious?
Is that it?
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 23rd January 2017, 03:13 PM   #546
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
if you look at what I actually said - it was that it REMAINS unprecedented.
It remains that case that no such event preceded it. There were no similar collapses before it, and no matter how many buildings burn down after it, none of them will have been before it. Yes. You are very clear about that. All subsequent events are after it. None can be a precedent to it. It can only ever be unprecedented.

Like Apollo 11, no future moon landing will ever be a precedent to that.
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 23rd January 2017, 03:13 PM   #547
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Is THAT the whole thrust of your bugaboo about the number of storeys?


Is your entire reason for bogging down discussion with a whine about how tall the building is, to have the WTC collapses remain unprecedented and thus by paranoid extension, suspicious?
Is that it?
As you just said yourself, the height and storey count are important.

ETA it is not my thrust that has bogged the thread down, it is the unwillingness to accept reality amongst the people here that has. My position remains as it was. Does anyone still claim that this was a 17 storey building ?

Last edited by Old coarse guy; 23rd January 2017 at 03:15 PM.
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 03:15 PM   #548
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Is THAT the whole thrust of your bugaboo about the number of storeys?


Is your entire reason for bogging down discussion with a whine about how tall the building is, to have the WTC collapses remain unprecedented and thus by paranoid extension, suspicious?
Is that it?
Not to mention the fact he doesn't know the meaning of the word "unprecedented".
__________________
"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 23rd January 2017, 03:16 PM   #549
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Not to mention the fact he doesn't know the meaning of the word "unprecedented".
REMAINS unprecedented. I stand by that statement.

ETA DGM do you still say that the height and storey count of the building is not relevant ?
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 03:17 PM   #550
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
First off, you might want to check what the word precedented means. Nothing can change the fact that, at the time, the collapse of WTC 7 was unprecedented.

Second off, what exact meaning do you intend to draw from the quote? Do you really mean to say that, because Sunder said that quote and because the building lacks that somehow critical 16th story, that neither you nor anyone else can draw parallels between the collapse of the Plasco building and WTC7; whereas, if he had not said that quote or if the building had one more story, we would be able to draw such parallels?
Pretty sure this where this is going.
Elagabalus 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 23rd January 2017, 03:19 PM   #551
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
As you just said yourself, the height and storey count are important.

ETA it is not my thrust that has bogged the thread down, it is the unwillingness to accept reality amongst the people here that has. My position remains as it was. Does anyone still claim that this was a 17 storey building ?
I claim it was a sixteen storey building with a penthouse on top of that.

What's your position on counting them in the photos I referred back to?
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 23rd January 2017, 03:21 PM   #552
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
REMAINS unprecedented. I stand by that statement.

ETA DGM do you still say that the height and storey count of the building is not relevant ?
Your command of the English language is unique.

I agree with his statement and if a 100 story building collapses tomorrow it will still be true.

To answer your question. Yes, unless you can show some relevance to, well, anything.
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 23rd January 2017 at 03:23 PM.
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 23rd January 2017, 03:23 PM   #553
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
REMAINS unprecedented. I stand by that statement.

ETA DGM do you still say that the height and storey count of the building is not relevant ?
You need to look up "unprecedented" and perhaps "tautology" too. Unprecedented means there was never an example of the thing before itself. So saying it's still unprecedented doesn't add any meaning. It's like telling us Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon and then insisting he is still the first man on the moon.
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 23rd January 2017, 03:26 PM   #554
Old coarse guy
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 699
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
You need to look up "unprecedented" and perhaps "tautology" too. Unprecedented means there was never an example of the thing before itself. So saying it's still unprecedented doesn't add any meaning. It's like telling us Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon and then insisting he is still the first man on the moon.
I don't need to look up anything. Perhaps you should do a search for the exact phrase "remains unprecedented". Let me know how you get on with that.....
Old coarse guy 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 23rd January 2017, 03:26 PM   #555
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why do you ignore your own source that says the building was 17 floors?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building
Because it is standard for conspiracy theorists to just cherry pick a source for items that support their position and ignore anything else from that source.
Apollo Conspiracists say NASA lies about everything but they will still use NASA as a source if they find something they think supports their conspiracy.
Same with 9/11 loons, they say FEMa and NIST are part of the conspiracy but will use their data if it supports them.
Andy_Ross 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 23rd January 2017, 03:27 PM   #556
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,051
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
As you just said yourself, the height and storey count are important.

ETA it is not my thrust that has bogged the thread down, it is the unwillingness to accept reality amongst the people here that has. My position remains as it was. Does anyone still claim that this was a 17 storey building ?
I'm feeling frisky today, I say 17 floors including penthouse.
Elagabalus 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 23rd January 2017, 03:30 PM   #557
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I claim it was a sixteen storey building with a penthouse on top of that.

What's your position on counting them in the photos I referred back to?
You and your fancy counting!

As Chico said "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

Last edited by Andy_Ross; 23rd January 2017 at 03:35 PM.
Andy_Ross 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 23rd January 2017, 03:30 PM   #558
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
I don't need to look up anything. Perhaps you should do a search for the exact phrase "remains unprecedented". Let me know how you get on with that.....
I'll do that while you go and count the 16 storeys in those photos I suggested.

Is that a deal?
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 23rd January 2017, 03:31 PM   #559
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 571
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Pretty sure this where this is going.
If we really wanted to tie him in knots, we could point out that a building that is comprised of 15 stories with a mechanical penthouse on top of such stories is over 15 stories tall. But I'm sure that would just lead to another 3 pages of pointless garbage. I find when you actual boil down to the logic of the point, it ends these conversations much more quickly. If he believes that the one additional story matters so much that its absence renders comparison between the building's collapse and that of WTC 7 impossible, then let him articulate exactly why. If his reason is "because Sunder said so", that's a pretty stupid reason.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 23rd January 2017 at 03:37 PM.
benthamitemetric 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 23rd January 2017, 03:31 PM   #560
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Old coarse guy View Post
I don't need to look up anything. Perhaps you should do a search for the exact phrase "remains unprecedented". Let me know how you get on with that.....
Is this statement correct?

The collapse of the South tower at World Trade Center remains unprecedented to this day.
__________________
"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
Reply

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

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 09:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.