|
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. |
11th October 2013, 09:06 AM | #361 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
I don't know about the rest of you but I have had enough of this endless, circular game of whack-a-mole where we cover the same tired old Truther meme's over and over and over again. I would humbly submit that the only truly useful thing that can happen right now is for SoG to put up or shut up and present us with his comprehensive, detailed hypothesis of everything that happened on 9/11 and why. No more cherry-picking and quote mining, no more isolated anomalies, no more "I don't understand it so it couldn't have happened that way.
SoG, tell us, in detail, everything that happened that day explaining who did it, what they did, when they did it, how they did it and most importantly, why? And please do it in a way that isn't laughably stupid. You started in this thread with the claim that real-estate developer Larry Silverstein did 9/11 as a scam to get insurance money from the Salomon Brothers Building (7 World Trade Center), the only building in the WTC complex Silverstein actually owned and that he enlisted the assistance of the New York City Fire Department to pull it off. OK then: 1. If this was a lucrative insurance scam why bother since his losses and expenses (not including the payouts to his thousands of co-conspirators) were more than double his claim payouts? 2. What could he gain anyway since the insurance money HAD to be used to rebuild on the same site? He couldn't run off to Jamaica with it. 3. What does the FDNY have to gain that is worth murdering 343 of their brothers so a real estate tycoon can lose billions of dollars? Why would they go along with it? 4. How did the FDNY pull it off since never before in history have they blown up any building and we all know that if something has never happened before it can never happen? 5. How and when did they get the charges in there? 6. How did the charges survive 7+ hours of raging fires? 7. Why even wait that long, why not blow the building when the twin towers fell? What purpose does it serve the plot to wait? 8. What kind of explosives did they use that produce no noise, no flash, no blast, no shockwave and no high-velocity ejecta? 9. Why bother at all since we know the building was by mid-afternoon dangerously unstable and in danger of imminent collapse all on its own? 10. How did Larry S convince a bunch of Jihadi's to crash airplanes into the twin towers, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania to cover up his little insurance scam? 11. More importantly, why even bother with all that unnecessary complication when he could have just hired two skinheads to make a McViegh bomb to bring down 7 instead of involving thousands of people on his scam who might trip up and accidently spill the beans on national TV like he supposedly did? 12. Why involve the President and the Secret Service since you clearly believe their actions on that morning indicate they knew what Larry was up to. How much of the insurance money did Larry have to split with the FDNY, the Jihadi’s, the POTUS and the Secret Service? 13. Why would Larry casually admit to the whole thing on national TV with no prodding and under no duress whatsoever? If he is really THAT SLOPPY wouldn't the whole plan have un-raveled long before then? I could keep going but I hope everyone gets the idea. Until SoG can provide us with a detailed timeline that explains ALL of the events of that day in a way that does not cause uncontrollable laughter, there is nothing to discuss. All he has so far is a bunch of disconnected anomalies and things he doesn’t understand. Where is the prima facie case? |
__________________
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. |
|
11th October 2013, 09:57 AM | #362 |
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 |
|
11th October 2013, 10:25 AM | #363 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
I can't think of anything more entertaining than a Truther actually presenting a well-reasoned, comprehensive, prima facie case.
But since it has never been done before I could be wrong. Hey, have we just discovered the first actual example of something that can not happen because it has never happened before? |
__________________
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. |
|
11th October 2013, 10:33 AM | #364 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
11th October 2013, 10:40 AM | #365 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
11th October 2013, 11:18 AM | #366 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Why do you believe there would be "multiple angle surveillance" video?
Maybe at the doors but, looking up in the sky? You know people saw the planes and the wreckage and bodies were recovered. By the way, what happened to all the planes and passengers? Do you at least have a hypothesis (I know a theory would be too much to ask)? |
__________________
"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 |
|
11th October 2013, 11:58 AM | #367 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Where is your 500 mph impact with rock and compacted earth?
At 500 mph not much is left. It is a physics problem, and as you said, you don't like the math, the energy equal to 1400 pounds of TNT; it leave you in the darkness of ignorance. Where in that ignorance you make up lies that are dumber than dirt. All the planes were tracked by RADAR proving each one existed from takeoff to impact. But that is science, and god forbid you would use reality based evidence to form conclusions, it would ruin your perfect record of woo. What would a Kinetic Energy impact equal in energy to 1400 pounds of TNT do to a body? Exactly, you can't do the math or science to break away from your silly disrespectful nonsense. Wait, you can't handle the equal to TNT stuff; let me do the Joules which you can't do. 2,930,000,000 Joules for the impact energy, aka E=1/2mv2 All wasted, because you don't do, you can't do, science; you do woo. Flight 93 passengers figured out 911 in minutes, beating you by 12 years. Ghoul physics. Why are the bodies of humans not found in crashes of 500 mph? If someone looks at E=1/2MV2, we see the V term. Velocity is squared - Speed Kills (the hurt physics, not the chemical side) It takes ~19,000,000 joules to essentially destroy a human body to where you and fantasy minded people say there is no body. But the body is there, you don't see it. Might be a hand and a bone, but you can't google up the hard stuff, you only google woo. When a body drops from a building why is the body in one piece - because the kinetic energy a body reaches at terminal velocity is ~156,800 joules. Why are bodies in normal aircraft accidents usually in one piece? Slow speed crashes, like the design impact for the World Trade Center have kinetic energy ~386,000,000 joules. In slow speed crashes, not only is there only enough energy to destroy 20 human bodies into pieces, the energy goes into breaking the plane, only enough energy left over to kill you like you fell off a building using up 150,000 joules, or so. Flight 93 had 2,930,000,000 joules, enough energy to destroy 154.2 bodies. If we take half of the energy to destroy the aircraft, we have enough to turn 70 bodies into tiny pieces. The seats behind you crush you at 500 mph, into pieces, at 500 mph. People who can't do physics can't grasp the velocity squared term in the kinetic energy equation, so they make up idiotic fantasy - they can't do the math. They do woo. 911 truth can't do Physics. The hornet's nest does physics. Woo from 911 truth, physics from hornets. Think the analogies of 911 truth woo pushers are an attempt at comedy, where as their claims are comedy. The Hornet's Nest, where 911 |
11th October 2013, 02:19 PM | #368 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
|
This is the first time I've heard a truther argue that the 600 ft WTC 7 was shielded by the low-rises 5&6. Congratulations! First time in history! Looks like a pretty deep gouge in WTC 7. While it didn't figure in directly as the proximate cause of the collapse. It certainly provided plenty of ventilation for the fires, and probably did figure into the details of the collapse once it started. |
11th October 2013, 04:29 PM | #369 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
Arguing no-planes in any of the three incidents requires ignoring overwhelming physical evidence concluding the the opposite... If people arguing this stuff are willing to ignore that much is there much point at this time in musing on it? The "problem" with those arguments is known to the the point that it can't be simplified or reduced any further. I find that the "truther" side of this particular argument is very much akin to arguing politics... belief overrides factuality... I'm not sure you can ever explain the issue clearly enough to make that apparent
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
11th October 2013, 05:31 PM | #370 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
11th October 2013, 07:18 PM | #371 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
|
Never mind. Someone covered it above.
|
11th October 2013, 09:18 PM | #372 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
12th October 2013, 03:26 AM | #373 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
12th October 2013, 08:15 AM | #374 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
12th October 2013, 09:18 AM | #375 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
12th October 2013, 01:06 PM | #376 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
|
"24 hard facts about 9/11 that cannot be debunked"
|
12th October 2013, 01:51 PM | #377 |
Misanthrope of the Mountains
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
|
Well, since such videos only ever existed in your imagination you'll be waiting a bit. Seriously, why do you think these exist?
No. I can recall a military jet that crashed not far from where I live a long time ago. It also went into the ground almost straight down at 600 mph and there was not much left of the plane or the poor pilot. Here's an experiment you can do. Put a frog into an air cannon (please find one already dead) fire at mound of gravel and dirt at 600 mph. Report your findings. |
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
|
|
12th October 2013, 02:44 PM | #378 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
That is the key element all Truthers seem to overlook in their claims. The vast majority of crashes you see on TV (where Truthers obtain their education) were on take off or landing approaches when the engines lost power, etc... and the pilots did their best for a soft slow speed belly landing.
Strangely, the Truthers always seem to ignore the high speed and near vertical impacts. You know, the ones like on 9/11? |
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
12th October 2013, 05:19 PM | #379 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
Happy to oblige, only after all here who have posted anything regarding the "crash" to do the same......we have to keep this relative.
Speaking of relative, on one hand some proffer that the “softness” of the reclaimed land buried or swallowed the body of the plane while claiming it disintegrated and that suggests an unyielding impact area. TS, if feel your frustration, but I am still not convinced that the official story if fact, and I don't have a dog in this fight....I subscribe to no other conspiracy theories, it's not a hobby. Once again Jay, if your assailants position is unknown and your position is, then you move to the another secure location....the bomb proof limo for instance.
Quote:
What I said to Jay as to how compact the earth was is relevant. Soft earth, more energy absorbtion. Mark I need more time, got to fly, I’ll be back. |
12th October 2013, 06:44 PM | #380 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
You spent how much time failing to understand 911? Is your lack of time doing rational research the reason you post nonsense about 911? You need more time? You failed to spend time in the first place, as you google your way to BS and lies.
More time, how long did it take you to miss Larry was talking about fire support? 12 years? Is this one of your "hard facts", based on lack of comprehension what someone is talking about? 12 years and you can't figure out 911, or explain the story you have for your fantasy inside job. How does this "hard fact" fit? How does this support 911 truth claims? What does it mean? Nothing. It is a "hard fact" 911 truth failed out of the box. Then comes ignorance on engineering, by bringing up experiments, and not applying the results correctly for 911. The test prove steel fails. Did you read them? No. You don't have time. Another "hard fact" ends up being nothing of value, more like soft woo - another item can't be explained, but you think you did. I gave you the reference, and you did not have time. You imply explosives were used on 911, supporting that nonsense with quote-mined stuff, you don't even recognized when explained. Is due to time? You post woo because you don't have time to look up stuff, or check the google junk you repeat? Why does 911 truth quote-mine and not check the "hard facts"? Can you explain why, and how it relates to failure to figure out 911 after 12 years? You don't have time to retract the false stuff? Why not, you posted it. And you can't figure out fire did it. Why? What is stopping you from getting help from structural engineers? What did it in your fantasy? Why can't you prove it, or explain your story of 911? Not enough time? You seem unable to understand the difference between 180 mph impact (design point for WTC aircraft impact - aka an accident), and a high speed impact at 590 mph, an act of terrorism by nuts. Can you understand cars and speed? A study shows at 70 km/h 1 out of 10 die, but at 90 km/h, 8 out of 10 die. Physics at work. Do you understand physics? Do you have time to work on physics so you can understand 911? You sure have enough time to post false junk, but not enough to back it up, or retract it. Then you post quote-mined junk about Flight 93 to spread more nonsense. Soft dirt, what about soft water? Why do you hate physics so much? Soft dirt? You don't have enough time to do the math, or study aircraft impacts, RADAR, FDR, DNA, NTSB, etc. But you have enough time to make silly claims you googled up from 911 truth. |
12th October 2013, 07:08 PM | #381 |
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
|
|
12th October 2013, 07:47 PM | #382 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Regarding Jet A fuel, I get the impression someone might be confusing "detonation" and "deflagration".
All detonations are explosions, and some deflagrations are explosions, but not all explosions are detonations, and no deflagrations are detonations. Hope that clears things up. |
__________________
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
12th October 2013, 08:05 PM | #383 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
12th October 2013, 09:00 PM | #384 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
12th October 2013, 11:34 PM | #385 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
The reason for the question is a number of members here have experience in those fields.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Please, before you post again consider this; there are about 3,200 current Secret Service Agents. Add another 5-6,000 retired. Not to mention the tens of thousands of other professionals who currently or formerly have worked in personal protection. How many of them agree with you?
Quote:
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
13th October 2013, 12:26 AM | #386 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 539
|
Fair enough mate, but could you at least give us a little insight into your level of aviation knowledge ? Here'a a few simple questions about aerodynamic forces. Can you answer them correctly? There are many members here who can. You know how those wingy things on a airplane that are kind of curvy on the top and flatish on the bottom. That's called an AIRFOIL . Can you tell us what happens when you turn an airplane upside down and the flatish side is on the top and the curvy side is on the bottom. Can you tell me what forces would be exerted on an inverted aircraft positive G's, and how these would differ from the forces on a non inverted aircraft, same angle, same speed ? Here is a drawing of a 40 deg. inverted Boeing 757. I put some different coloured arrows on it. Can you tell us what force each of those different coloured arrows represents and a little explanation about each force? [/url] If you don't want to answer the question, you could just say, "I don't know a bloody thing about aerodynamics or forces so my bogan opinion on airplane crashes means bugger all". |
13th October 2013, 01:10 AM | #387 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
Not good enough. You need to show your work. This is just your reasoning which is clearly faulty and not considering all factors.
Clearly it's important to you to believe something that is incorrect. Why is that? I have some ideas why you cling to your errors but I'd like to read it from you. Why be so committed to something you've put so little effort or thought into? It's odd to find someone so sure and so committed to something they've really expended no or little energy on. |
13th October 2013, 05:27 AM | #388 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
15th October 2013, 04:45 AM | #389 |
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. |
|
15th October 2013, 06:07 AM | #390 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
15th October 2013, 11:33 AM | #391 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Nope, the one thing for certain is that your assailant is not where you are. Other certainties are that the attacks so far are taking place against massive targets in large centers, 1300 miles away. Best stay put and bolster security along any route to be taken. Stay put until the security of AF1 can be assured.
Quote:
So, explain why the Secret Service SOP was altered.
Quote:
|
15th October 2013, 11:40 AM | #392 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Thank you GB. 'Deflagration' I just could not for the life of me recall that term. An detonation exploision would, involve a pressure wave propigating at greater than the speed of sound, while all deflagration involve subsonic propagation of a pressure wave, basically pressure wave propagates with flame front .
http://m.exponent.com/explosions/ |
15th October 2013, 11:43 AM | #393 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
I was being polite and giving sonofgloin the chance to break ranks and actually present a full theory. I'm trying to think of the name of the truther that we had here for a while. He promised to come back in a couple of weeks with his full theory. That was two years ago. Javaman, was that the name?
|
16th October 2013, 03:40 AM | #394 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
Bush should have ripped off his suit exposing his superman costume and blasted out of that school roof and stopped those planes. It's the only answer.
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
16th October 2013, 12:59 PM | #395 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
|
|
16th October 2013, 06:53 PM | #396 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 594
|
This is what I think of every time someone brings up this alleged Secret Service SOP. If the Secret Service deliberately broke protocol, it presumably was because the conspirators needed Bush to stay at the school. His being there was staged for propaganda purposes or something.
But look at that recording of Bush as he learns of the attacks and just sits there. He looks like a brain-damaged deer in the head lights. He looks like an idiot and a loser, incompetent in fact. I know you can't judge his leadership ability based on the fact that he sat there for several minutes, but from a propaganda standpoint, the only thing it conveys is "FAIL". Why would they go so far as to break protocol and risk discovery to stage that? |
17th October 2013, 03:58 AM | #397 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
17th October 2013, 06:15 AM | #398 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Yes!
I see a man who has no idea what to do. Conspiracy bent folk see a man thinking 'what have I done' , perhaps. Some have opined that GWB was not aware of the conspiracy, was an incompetent set in place because he was incompetent. In this version its Cheney or Rumsfeld who are responsible. In that case GWB was kept at the school so that he would not have the communications abilities afforded by AF1. Still ridiculous of course since the POTUS is never incommunicado and any advantage afforded by his not being in the WH applies whether he is in an elementary school or at 40,000 ft ASL in AF1. |
17th October 2013, 06:30 AM | #399 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
One wonders about the conversations that would have to take place between conspiracy planners and Secret Service brass, and between those officers and the field agents on GWB's protection squad.
'On Sept. 11 a major attack will take place but the POTUS is to remain where ever he is at the moment. By no means is he to be moved to the limo or AF1 until we get clearance to do so from above." "From above? Who is above the POTUS?" " Just do as you are told and make sure all your agents understand the change in SOP for this event. All will become obvious to you after the fact, if you don't already comprehend the implications, but we are sure that none of you good soldiers will be so distraught about being made part of this that you will go public" |
17th October 2013, 06:42 AM | #400 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
He had the deer in the head lights look on many occasions when the television camera light turned on. Ascribing intelligence based on stage presence is really silly.........but feeds into the political talking points. I guess that is why some people think hollywood stars are so brilliant.
Having met Bush and seeing him work a room, he was not dumb. I don't agree with a lot of what he did, was sincerely and thought about things before reacting he just could not turn on the tears on cue like his predecessor. I do think that some in the MSM went out of their way to make him look foolish.....just as many go out of their way now to protect our narcissistic child emperor. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|