|
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. |
8th October 2013, 09:32 AM | #281 |
Philosopher
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?
Actually, even Criminal Minds depicts profiling more realistically than your average truther perceives 9/11. 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:
Quote:
|
8th October 2013, 09:57 AM | #282 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
|
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
8th October 2013, 10:36 AM | #283 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
8th October 2013, 10:54 AM | #284 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
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:
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:
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:
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. |
|
8th October 2013, 11:15 AM | #285 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
8th October 2013, 01:42 PM | #286 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
8th October 2013, 02:02 PM | #287 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
8th October 2013, 02:04 PM | #288 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
8th October 2013, 02:30 PM | #289 |
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:
|
8th October 2013, 02:36 PM | #290 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
8th October 2013, 03:02 PM | #291 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
Hmm, your source says this:
Quote:
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
8th October 2013, 03:03 PM | #292 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
8th October 2013, 03:16 PM | #293 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
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 |
|
8th October 2013, 04:00 PM | #294 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th October 2013, 04:15 PM | #295 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
|
8th October 2013, 04:18 PM | #296 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
8th October 2013, 04:19 PM | #297 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
8th October 2013, 04:24 PM | #298 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th October 2013, 04:47 PM | #299 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
|
8th October 2013, 06:54 PM | #300 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
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:
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? |
8th October 2013, 07:57 PM | #302 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
|
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
8th October 2013, 09:45 PM | #303 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
Quote:
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
8th October 2013, 11:13 PM | #304 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
The Pesident? You meant the PEZidents?
http://www.candywarehouse.com/produc...d=scsho3478700 You picked silly woo "hard fact" 19 -
Quote:
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:
Because they are not trained aircraft accident investigators. You love to quote mine and can't say what the failed quote-mining efforts mean. 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. 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. 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? 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.
Quote:
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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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? |
9th October 2013, 12:16 AM | #305 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,042
|
|
9th October 2013, 12:20 AM | #306 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,042
|
sonofgloin seems to be edging in to the 'No Planer' camp.
|
9th October 2013, 02:05 AM | #307 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
9th October 2013, 05:58 AM | #308 |
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. |
9th October 2013, 06:26 AM | #309 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
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? |
9th October 2013, 06:35 AM | #310 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
9th October 2013, 06:36 AM | #311 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
9th October 2013, 08:24 AM | #312 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
|
|
9th October 2013, 08:34 AM | #313 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
|
9th October 2013, 08:35 AM | #314 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
|
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
|
9th October 2013, 09:09 AM | #315 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
9th October 2013, 09:52 AM | #316 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
9th October 2013, 10:51 AM | #317 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
|
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
10th October 2013, 10:03 AM | #318 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
So, not so much with SoG telling us what else the other people he quoted said.
|
10th October 2013, 03:04 PM | #319 |
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:
Jet A Explosions and TWA Flight 800 Investigation Aviation Kerosene (Jet A) Research at Caltech
Quote:
Laboratory Testing Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories California Institute of Technology
Quote:
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. |
10th October 2013, 03:09 PM | #320 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,042
|
So what are you claiming> all the fuel just sloshed out of the aircraft and washed around the place?
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|