|
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. |
17th September 2013, 01:14 AM | #41 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
True enough BUT we are now in 2013 not 2006-7-8. Back then many - probably most - of the truth seekers were genuine and would accept reasoned arguments. That is not what we see now in 2013.
Without arguing what proportion of currently active truth movement members are "genuine truth-seeker" versus what proportion are not genuine......it is simple fact that we see untrue statements made by members of the truth movement. One aspect of that untruth relevant to your current query is the meme that "free-fall means CD not 'natural collapse'". That statement is false. Basic physics. Arguments that assume "free-fall" == "CD" are false arguments. The associated issue of "over G" acceleration - usually claiming that there cannot be "over G" in a "natural collapse" is also false. That also a matter of basic physics albeit it requires understanding of free body explanations and those are notoriously difficult for many folk to comprehend. Therefore it is doubly hard for people who are physics illiterate to comprehend. Now if we have a "genuine truth-seeker" asking questions they should and, in 2006-8-9, usually did accept reasoned explanations of the physics. So reality is of no concern to those members of the truth movement. But currently the active membership of the truth movement seems balanced more to those who are not genuine truth-seekers. Which answers your final question: It wouldn't be "inconvenient" to genuine truth seekers. But it will discomfort those who are not genuine and want to rely on false memes about "free fall == CD" or "cannot have 'over G' acceleration" OR any related false premises. |
17th September 2013, 07:03 AM | #42 |
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 16
|
Apparently the OP listing the 24 alleged "hard facts" has been "auto moderated" for breaching rule 4 - thou shalt not copy and paste.
I'm not sure exactly what I was supposed to do there, since my post count is too low to post links. The board settings don't exactly make it easy for newcomers. :-/ |
17th September 2013, 07:34 AM | #43 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
|
|
17th September 2013, 07:52 AM | #44 |
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 21,899
|
This one?
http://www.collective-evolution.com/...t-be-debunked/ If you want to up your post count, go over to community or humor and post in few threads. You'll have full privileges in no time. |
__________________
|
|
17th September 2013, 08:16 AM | #45 |
New Blood
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 16
|
|
17th September 2013, 11:00 AM | #46 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
So the 9/11 Commission had a $15 million budget.
0nly 25% of the $60 million made available for a Monica Lewinsky "total" investigation. Do you believe a Monica Lewinsky Investigation could reasonably be expected to cost 4 times as much as the 9/11 Commission Investigation? MM |
17th September 2013, 11:17 AM | #47 |
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 |
|
17th September 2013, 11:23 AM | #48 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
17th September 2013, 11:39 AM | #49 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
What does the 911 Commission have to do with 24 idiotic lies made up by nuts on the internet? The 911 truth movement has spent zero dollars looking up zero evidence and making zero difference. Save my typing practice.
You make a post of BS to support 2 hard facts? lol, you got nothing, and that sums up the 911 truth movement. How much did the FBI investigation cost? The political investigation, you want the political one, or the criminal one? Too bad the overwhelming evidence you have is fantasy. Where is your 60 million come from? The FBI, 911 commission, NIST, FEMA, NTSB, and more agencies were involved in investigating 911. Your 15 million is bogus, you left out all the rest. You can't supply facts |
17th September 2013, 12:20 PM | #50 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
False comparison. The 9/11 Commission was one aspect of the investigation of the events of 9/11. There was also a FEMA report and of course the compendium of reports created by the NIST. The 9/11 Commission report is also the least technical of the three, involving mostly a review of history leading up to 9/11 as well as a fairly detailed description of the events of the day.
Ask yourself this; why did the author of this list of 24 issues ignore the budgets of all gov't sponsored investigations dealing with 9/11? Surely he/she knows of the existence of the FEMA and NIST reports. |
17th September 2013, 12:35 PM | #51 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
MM: Protip, you might want to read the thread before you come out swinging given that statement was a lie has already been explained.
So.... yeah, thanks for posting. /I'm baffled why truthers don't get royally pissed off when idiotic lists that contain easily explained lies are published. |
17th September 2013, 12:37 PM | #52 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
|
|
17th September 2013, 12:46 PM | #53 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
|
17th September 2013, 12:47 PM | #54 |
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
|
|
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon |
|
17th September 2013, 12:56 PM | #55 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
17th September 2013, 01:31 PM | #56 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
|
17th September 2013, 02:36 PM | #57 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Since the references to the documentation have been posted already , I'll address your final question.
Its quite simple really, in straight line vertical fall nothing can achieve greater than free fall. The documentation of such then indicates one of two things - directed additional force such as rocket motors driving the structure down and mounted on the roof or exterior walls( and if you ask why they have to be mounted on the exterior you will illustrate something about yourself) - a rotational effect, I.e. not straight line vertical motion, is involved and thus any attempt to relate this acceleration to straight line vertical acceleration is irrational and incorrect. But this slightly greater than basic high school physics is inconvenient and thus is ignored. |
17th September 2013, 02:41 PM | #58 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
I'll go further with the speculation that free fall=CD.
Since the only case study of acceleration of a collapsing building is 7WTC, and no study has ever been done to determine under what conditions FFA or greater will be observed at locations of the structure, in a 2d rendering of the event, in a structural collapse, the premise is without any substantiation other than the erroneous application of high school physics principles. Clear now, fonebone? |
17th September 2013, 05:10 PM | #59 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Precisely.
However the reality is than many of our debunkers enjoy "whack-a-mole" And often the mole that gets whacked is a phantom mole. For the cognoscenti the thread "Tony Szamboti Publishes a Technical Paper about 9/11 Truth" provided many examples. Look in the vicinity of those posts of mine which referred to something as being "bleedingly obvious". Most of them were associated with the whacking of phantom moles. In fact most of Tony's contributions automatically set the scene for whacking of non-existent moles. Explanation available if required - it arises from his SOP of setting false premises or a false starting point for his "arguments". One example is the mole whack of using geometry to show that tilt would prevent axial contact of columns. If you have tilt it is too late for axial contact. Therefore that is a phantom mole. Despite it having been whacked many times - it isn't there There's no point whacking at the space where it isn't....if I'm not pushing the metaphor too far... HOWEVER mole whacking can be fun even when it is redundant and as a thread/forum activity it at least one grade higher than "Feeding The Trolls" |
17th September 2013, 05:19 PM | #60 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Maybe...
You have some implied limits on what is falling and what falling is. (Excuse the word play. ) I stand you vertically in a closed box. The box height set so that your feet are on the bottom and your head is in contact with the top. I put a tennis ball in your right hand and close the box. Then I drop the box + you + tennis ball off a high building with you and box upright. To occupy yourself during the journey you throw the tennis ball down onto the floor/bottom of the box. What is the acceleration of the tennis ball: a) Before you move your arm; b) As your arm/hand moves downwards to throw it? AND c) Immediately after release before it bounces off the bottom of the box? Get that lot under the belt and understanding "Over G" possibilities at WTC7 is only one extra step. |
17th September 2013, 06:20 PM | #61 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The old Same place
Posts: 11,138
|
|
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie. |
|
17th September 2013, 07:51 PM | #62 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Yes, we have already done this exercise a while ago.
Of course in the context of 7WTC the frame of reference is the surface of the Earth. My argument above includes the concept that says that while the center of mass of any object in free fall near the surface of this planet may achieve an acceleration near 'g' of 9.8 m/s/s(air resistance and distance to the CoM of the earth slightly affecting dense large mass objects), if that object is rotating with axis of rotation other than aligned with the force due to gravity, then points other than its COM can achieve greater than 'g' wrt to the surface of the Earth. Better? Will fonebone understand it? |
17th September 2013, 08:15 PM | #63 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
17th September 2013, 08:19 PM | #64 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Revision is part of the learning process.
Yes...and you have taken that next step I referred to. Here is my version - rather than drop the box in a stable vertical orientation - tip it over the side so that it starts to spin. COM falls (near enough) G - one end cyclically exceeding G then G then less than G then....... (that mechanism was probably the WTC7 "part of façade over G" scenario.) If he doesn't AND he is one of his beloved "genuine truth-seekers" he can ask for more clarification. C22 |
17th September 2013, 08:25 PM | #65 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Yeah the sum of instantaneous acceleration of all points in the rotating object will still equal 'g'.
|
17th September 2013, 08:35 PM | #66 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
Reliable and deadly accurate, it is the handgun of choice for the FBI, the DEA and the Secret Service to name a few; and it has just been awarded contracts from the Coast Guard and Homeland Security. Law enforcement's baby: the SIG SAUER P229. http://www.bvvinc.org/WebPages/Milta...20accurate.htm |
18th September 2013, 05:40 PM | #67 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 58
|
The Spanish Inquisition?
|
18th September 2013, 08:29 PM | #68 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
18th September 2013, 09:13 PM | #69 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 235
|
|
18th September 2013, 09:54 PM | #70 |
Philosophile
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
|
And no matter what figure was spent on the 9/11 Commission, Truthers will claim that it was both too little and therefore couldn't get the job done and too much because the money was obviously used to stuff the mouths of fellow conspirators and all part of the plan to fleece the taxpayer and Dick Cheney is cackling on a pile of money or something. |
19th September 2013, 08:02 AM | #71 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
19th September 2013, 10:24 AM | #72 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
19th September 2013, 10:50 AM | #73 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Northern VA/DC
Posts: 2,361
|
not to derail, but I thought the first Gulf of Tonkin attack was real, and the second time the US sailors fired on radar "ghosts." Is that wrong?
|
__________________
InfoWars. Punching logic in the face on a daily basis. (from Facebook) |
|
19th September 2013, 12:45 PM | #74 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
My belief is that the whole episode was fueled by active imaginations and itchy fingers, and there were "blips on the radar," but once the smoke cleared there were red faces and exposed asses in evidence.
Contrary to assertion, the NV's were shooting at whoever they had in range, and they had been engaging in the south and in Laos. Giap's comment on Tonkin: In 1995, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara met Giáp to ask what happened on 4 August 1964 in the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident. "Absolutely nothing", Giáp replied.[9] The attack on 4 August 1964, had been imaginary,[10] although it had not started as a deliberate fabrication. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vo_Nguy...After_the_wars |
1st October 2013, 01:43 AM | #75 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
Larry Silverstein makes a statement that he never repeats or acknowledges again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk How is it possible that within a few hours of making the decision to demolish Bldg 7 it falls into its own footprint? According to Larry Silverstein the NYFD achieved in a few hours what demolition teams and engineers take weeks to accomplish. Given that before 911 no high rise has fallen to its basement due to fire, this is not just suspect this is arguable proof of pre meditation given who made the statement. Can any poster propose a scenario that rebuffs the obvious? This piece adds more "obvious" scenarios needing to be explained. The detractors last statement of "reporters do your job...ask some questions" expresses the exasperation of those who for good reason do not believe the media. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g |
1st October 2013, 03:32 AM | #76 |
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 |
|
1st October 2013, 06:01 AM | #77 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
So your hypothesis then is that a real estate developer ordered the FDNY (not NYFD) to blow up a building? And you think that said real estate developer, after pulling off the most fiendish and secretive criminal plot in all of human history just decided to casually admit to the whole thing on national TV, right? And you don't find it odd there was not a hint of follow-up after that alleged admission from his insurers, the FBI, etc, etc, etc... And you find this whole thing more plausible than 19 terrorist thugs with a long history of attacking the United States hijacking 4 airplanes and crashing them into symbols of American economic, military and political power to achieve their own political aims?
Really? This begs two rather obvious questions that most of the rest of us have already considered but I suspect you have not: 1. Since when does the FDNY take orders from a real estate developer AND 2. Since when is the FDNY is the business of blowing up buildings? Beyond that there are additional obvious questions which I suspect you may not have considered. What is the motive for example? What's that you say? Insurance scam? OK, let us consider that. Silverstein properties got what from its insurers, about $4.6 billion? Seems like a lot doesn't it? But wait, what were the conditions on the use of those funds? They could only be used to rebuild on the same site, right? How much did that cost? Best estimates are about $9 billion. Even using Truther math I'm not finding the big windfall here and we have not even considered 12 years of lost rental revenue, legal expenses, etc, etc, etc,... which will add up to several billion more dollars at least. Not to mention they billions that would have to be paid out to the co-conspirators in the FDNY who were in on the plan. I mean, they lost several hundred of their brothers in that whole thing - it is going to take a LOT OF MONEY to hush them up about something like this. But wait, if 9/11 was just a big insurance scam, how does one explain Flight's 77 and 93 and the attacks on Washington DC? How does that fit into an insurance scam? Did Larry Silverstein Properties own the lease on the Pentagon? I'm starting to think this whole Larry did it for insurance money angle doesn't hold much water. Besides, no 47-story high-rise building has ever been destroyed in a controlled demolition before and of course we all know that if something has never happened before it can never happen. And of course the FDNY has never blown up a building before either and since things that have never happened before can never happen,... But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Really we need to examine exactly what is it Mr. Silverstein claims to have said. During an interview for the documentary America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero, broadcast on PBS in 2002 Mr. Silverstein made the following statement when discussing the loss 7 World Trade Center, a non-descript and virtually unknown office building in the WTC complex that collapsed at 5:21pm on 9/11:
Quote:
What do the FDNY have to say about the collapse of 7? How about this from Chief Hayden;
Quote:
That's my explanation. Can you do better? |
__________________
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. |
|
1st October 2013, 06:09 AM | #78 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
1st October 2013, 06:39 AM | #79 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Silverstein (themselves) only got about 900 Million*. The only building they owned was WTC 7. It had a 400 Million dollar mortgage and the cost to rebuild was about 700 Million. Silverstein had to borrow money to complete this scheme.
*PANYNJ hold the purse strings for most of the insurance money. |
__________________
"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 |
|
1st October 2013, 06:46 AM | #80 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
The FDNY and NYC DOB would be responsible for public safety when a building or structure in the city is under stress, fire, severely damaged. Their assessment was that 7WYC was becoming increasingly unstable and subject to inevitable collapse. They may a call to set up an evacuation zone and pulled all the FDNY and other personnel from the building late in the afternoon. They used the press to inform the public of their decision. To the commissioner it was not whether the building would come down but when it would. It did... he was correct. His decision saved the lives of FDNY and other responders near the building.
|
__________________
So many idiots and so little time. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|