|
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. |
5th October 2013, 01:39 AM | #161 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
|
|
5th October 2013, 02:38 AM | #162 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
Hey Sonofgloin,
Do yourself a favor, get a dictionary and look up the word explosion. Then watch your truther YouTube videos and you might understand what the fire fighters are saying. |
5th October 2013, 03:15 AM | #163 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
5th October 2013, 03:21 AM | #164 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
5th October 2013, 03:34 AM | #165 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
Woah. Let me just absorb the majesty of this argument for a moment.
So the whole thing must have been staged because the Secret Service did not do exactly what you would expect them to have done. It seems to me that argument is just a tiny bit self-defeating. A presidential protection outfit which behaves exactly as you can predict they will would be pretty useless security. The threat scenario you present is one where the bad guys learned where the president was going to visit on a particular day, looked it up on Google Maps - oh, no, wait: it's 2001 - looked it up on actual paper maps and decided to crash a hijacked plane on his head. So they work out the flying time to get there, take their best guess about what time he's going to arrive and how long he'll be there and hijack a bunch of planes. Next they fire up their 2001-era satnav and type in the street address of where they want to crash (that's how it works, right?). Presumably they pick the model that gives you a Hollywood-style heads up display with a flashing image of the particular nondescript building to aim at as you dive towards a city at 500 mph. To maintain the element of surprise, they attack this mobile target first - oh, no, wait - they attack a series of fixed targets to give his bodyguard plenty of time to decide what to do. Very sporting of them. It seems that because you don't know what the Secret Service did between the first alert and the president leaving the school, you just assume they did nothing. |
5th October 2013, 04:31 AM | #166 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
You need to educate yourself. See Figs A6, A7 and A8 here
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...WTC_apndxA.htm Bearing in mind you don't understand one of the most basic points you should question what else you believe. The likelihood is you are wrong on just about everything. |
5th October 2013, 06:00 AM | #167 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,394
|
|
5th October 2013, 07:45 AM | #168 |
Misanthrope of the Mountains
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,133
|
No the building I mentioned (the Library or US Bank Tower) did not collapse. But post fire analysis showed the only reason it didn't collapse was because the contractor applied way more fire insulation to the steel structure than was required by code. If the contractor had only applied the required amount then the tallest building in LA would have collapsed from a fire years before WTC7.
Try to rationalize it how you want but they still almost missed the Pentagon. You are just absolutely wrong on this. Many buildings have caught fire. But only four steel skyscrapers have ever had large fires that were unfought. The one in the US Bank (or Library) tower in LA and the WTC towers. And I've already mentioned why the first one didn't collapse. The extra fire proofing allowed it to stay erect long enough for a firefighting effort to be brought together. Planes flying into the WTC and Pentagon does not mean the President is in danger. And, as we know, he wasn't. And the Secret Service, not being idiots, would have known this too. |
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
|
|
5th October 2013, 09:00 AM | #169 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
SoG:
The rule book Dafffyd....it is in the book of common sense. The secret service advises Bush of the first strike at 9.02, they advise him of the second five minutes later....then left him at the school for a further half an hour...don’t be obtuse Daffyd. J ack>> Regarding Secret Service behaviour which "ain't in the rule book", am I wrong to imagine the US Secret Service are not so foolish as actually to publish their "rulebook" for protecting the president and that this is no more than an expression of personal incredulity?<< Jack there is an unwritten obligation to act if you are employed in a vocation that has a “duty of care” caveat in the job specification. Just as a parentinitiates their “duty of care” to remove a child from harm’s way, so does the secret service....but they didn’t ....join Daffyd in the obtuse corner. I can tell you this. The Principles of Personal Protection is the operational principle that the SS and other similar (DSS) protective details operate within. Here's a link to a paper the Justice department distributed to local agencies back in the day (1998): http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/PI_Guide.pdf Here's a link to an Army FM on the same subject: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...19-10/Ch19.htm If you have the money for tuition, and can pass a full BGC and provide references, you too can be trained to perform the job: http://www.pss.cc/ BTW - your assessment of the SS w/ Bush on 9/11 is completely faulty. They knew the area they were located in had been secured. They had control of the immediate area and an eye on airspace/etc. They moved POTUS out with a minimum of apparent drama. They immediately got him into an area that was not subject to close-in threat and gave them the ability for immediate evac. if needed, then got him into the air. All sop, all well done. If you expected to see ninjas w/ MG's pop out of the ceiling (isn't Hollywood **** cool?) and start the POTUS running down the hall with all the tac-coms(Tactical Commands) Go! Go! Right! Clear! - ********, I'm sorry you were disappointed, but all the grown-ups on scene did exactly what they were trained to do. |
5th October 2013, 12:33 PM | #170 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
5th October 2013, 12:55 PM | #171 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Well SoG believes that the Secret Service already knew that GWB was in no danger so did not move him.
Potus has little or no say in where or when the Service moves him in the event of a threat. When Regan was attacked he was bodily shoved into the car which then sped away. This was before anyone knew that a bullet had hit him. Regan was given no choice, not consulted on what to do next, it was all the pervue of his protective squad. So if SoG is correct then every Secret Service agent on the squad was in-on-it. All of these men and women still carry that knowledge with them then. They know with certainty and clarity that 911 was pre-planned by the administration. That by doing what they did they are complicit in a cover up of the murder of thousands and treasonous acts. Furthermore, the protective squad, when informed that they were to not follow SOP ( as SoG would have us believe) no one suggested that in order to better continue the illusion that these were unexpected attacks, that it might be better if they followed SOP and rushed GWB off to AF1. In fact if the supposed perpetrators and planners had simply kept the Secret Service out of the loop then there would be a dozen ,or more, fewer people who would know the 'truth'. Instead, SoG would have us believe, the planners decided, for some inexplicable reason , to alter the response by Bush's protective squad thus exposing their plan to discovery on several fronts. In short, either the planners of this vast and complicated conspiracy are utter idiots,, or people believing as SoG does, are idiots. I know where I stand on that choice. |
5th October 2013, 01:03 PM | #172 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
5th October 2013, 02:42 PM | #173 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
The "in its own footprint" is classic failure. It means you have no facts to support your fantasy.
A building totaled by fire, and the fires were fought? Steel fails in fire. WTC 7 fires were not fought, it was totaled by fire. Does not matter if it falls, or not, it was totaled by fire, the same with WTC 5 and 6. Fire destroyed them. You can't do fire science so you make up lies about 911. Why? There were zero explosives used on 911 - 19 terrorists in aircraft did all the damage. UBL promised to kill us, he made it come true; told us so in the 90s, but you missed it. History, you have to read real news and filter to find the facts. You can't fly? Too bad. Thus you make up stuff about flying. UBL promised to kill us in the 90s, he was behind 911 and other world wide terrorist attacks. You have to read for comprehension to figure that one out, not repeat failed lies from 911 truth. Got the original source for this? Did you read the studies? No, you googled up 911 truth quote-mining, and cherry-picking BS. What does it mean? It means you can't discuss this and relate it to 911 in a rational form. You will gish gallop, never correcting your mistakes, or explaining what did 911 in your fantasy. You bring up experiments for steel frame buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 were not like the experiment, they were real events, not tests. The experiments you present by google knowledge, do not say WTC 1, 2, and 7 can't collapse, and you can't use the report to make up lies about 911. You googled up the experiments used by 911 truth to fool the gullible. If you had something you would do a paper to prove your point. Yet, you never looked up the real reports, or did you? Wow, you show proof of no explosives. I they had experience an explosion from an explosive, they would be dead. Brains would be mush; you have never been attacked by bombs. No explosives, and you proved it with your video. Failure is the only product of 911 truth. An idiotic video which fools the gullible, the fake skeptics. You have no idea what explosives do, and how they do it. Better luck with Bigfoot, you can recycle the same claims, hearsay, lies and delusions. You repeat failed claims googled up, and adopt them out of ignorance, like saying, "in its own footprint". What does it mean? You can't figure out 911 after 12 years, so you repeat failed junk. You post false information about steel, and don't correct yourself. You have no idea a totaled building is as bad as a collapsed building. You can't grasp the difference between fought fires, and fires not fought. You ignore the facts to defend ideas made up for you by people who spent less time researching 911 than you did. You can't defend any of the 24 hard facts with evidence? Why not? The " in its own footprint" is a red flag of woo. Means 911 truth has no evidence, only failed slogans of 911 truth. 12 years of the movement of fantasy, idiotic lies, and nonsense. 911 truth = failure. You will need evidence to change that fact. Where are you hiding it? |
5th October 2013, 02:57 PM | #174 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 462
|
So, only 2 planes were headed for Manhattan, but 3 buildings were rigged for demolition.
Who screwed up the math there? |
5th October 2013, 03:58 PM | #175 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
|
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
5th October 2013, 04:58 PM | #176 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
5th October 2013, 05:33 PM | #177 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
Is that a nature or nurtured idiot?
My fellow posters you are a myopic lot, whereas I am bifocal. You are more than willing to forward individual data that relates to cause and effect, data that presents valid figures pertaining to the issue but within the parameters of it being a component of the whole, theoretical data not practical data. Practical data comes from outcomes and there are so many first time events regarding the structural failure of three steel reinforced buildings that there is no precedent data. You are less than willing to accept or even comment on the video I forwarded. A video composite of blood soaked victims, FDNY officials and crews, live news links, NYPD spokesmen etc etc......all saying that there were ongoing explosions in real time throughout the period from the first strike to the collapse. The explosions were a constant theme throughout the live broadcasts.....but then the media airbrushed the explosions out of the plebs minds and obviously out of your “free thinker” minds as well. As Jed Clampett used to say.....”pitiful”......brainwashed almost....like climate change zombies not accepting the obvious and defending with numbers. I was not at 911, nor were the vast majority of you, but we have same day, same minute, at the scene ongoing reports of explosions and you reject it all....pitiful. I agree with Gord Snarf....too much logic. |
5th October 2013, 05:49 PM | #178 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
Bob, it does not matter if they test on an 8 storey frame or an 80. The stess factor on all floors is equal, eqilateral weight transferance. You use "hit by jet" as a validation to the fragile nature of the sub frame. It is a validation....a validation of the integrity of the frame given no floors collapsed at the time of impact, or closely after.
|
5th October 2013, 07:00 PM | #179 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
There were no explosives used on 911 to bring down the WTC complex.
Some witnesses heard "explosions" that were bodies hitting the ground and building parts. Other people heard cans in fire "exploding", like soup can closed on the kitchen burner. There was no evidence of explosives used on 911. No body was killed by explosives, no steel was damaged by explosives, no sounds of explosives used to destroy the WTC. What is your point? The video has people who heard loud noises, but not explosives that destroyed the WTC. What is your point? What a bunch of silly BS; did you make this up or copy and paste? Total nonsense. You have not shown anything, only standard gullibility, as failed claims are repeated from people who made it all up. 911 truth, Debunked 6 years ago, and all we get is some quibbling and BS, with repeated failed lies, and false claims googled. 911 truth makes up claims based on ignorance. By quote-mining FEMA, 911 truth takes reports which support a global collapse study, and don't support the delusional claim of CD, or the big inside job junk. Go ahead, take the experiments and explain why they support your claim of? What is your claim? Is it small building don't collapse as easy as big buildings? Buildings with over 130 tons of TNT in energy due to E=mgh, might collapse globally due to all that mass, the m part of mgh? What is your point, you don't understand building collapsing because you did not take physics, or engineering? |
5th October 2013, 09:14 PM | #180 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
Bodies hitting the ground sounds like charges.....rediculous BN.
I watched the 911 doco released by the two French brothers while riding with a FDNY crew. They were recording as the poor souls were jumping....they were thuds.... Re the physics and engineering I bet you have contributed to discussions that you are not mastered in.....I commented on structural weight dispersment, a concept that I grasp if you do not sport. You know that Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane.....and they did....so it is still back to fire collapsing three steel framed buildings in one place for the first time in history. For someone with no precedent data, you are welded onto the concept of fire being the agent. |
5th October 2013, 09:18 PM | #181 |
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 |
|
5th October 2013, 09:22 PM | #182 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
@sonofgloin
So assuming you are correct and the explosive sounds heard on the day were bombs? Would they be Thermite bombs ? |
5th October 2013, 09:26 PM | #183 |
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 |
|
5th October 2013, 09:29 PM | #184 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
5th October 2013, 09:31 PM | #185 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
5th October 2013, 09:36 PM | #186 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
5th October 2013, 09:51 PM | #187 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
You don't realize a 110 story building hit by a jet at the 80th floor before suffering a fire would perform differently than a 8 story building not hit by a jet before suffering a fire? Please tell me you realize 30 floors exerts more downward pressure than 8?
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
5th October 2013, 10:05 PM | #188 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
OOPS, you should read before you make up stuff. They don't? How would you know? Was there a HD audio on 911? (no)
How can you fall into traps so easy? Does 911 truth fail to read anything? Is all 911 truth research this shallow?
Quote:
Quote:
These were bodies. Darn, you thought you were right. I already played this card. Better read posts instead of making up more nonsense. How do you know what things sound like? It is funny, you use witnesses to support woo, I use witnesses to shoot down woo. Research kills woo again. https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard Learn something before you post junk. Wow, they need better sound equipment. Physics of sound. You know there are big books about sound, you can't google up knowledge to save you from making silly posts like this. Next time think before posting nonsense. What was your point? Your perceptions are limited to low quality video sound? You posted nonsense about a experiments you googled and used the 911 truth claims to support your fantasy of 911. A fantasy you can't explain, or support in the real world. Minoru Yamasaki was an architect, not a structural engineer, he did not design the WTC structure, he designed what you see, not how it is built. Did you read anything about the WTC? How can you make mistakes this big? Do you know anything about the WTC; you already failed comparing the WTC to a 8 story experiment you never studied. How many ways are you fooled by lies 911 truth made up? Wow, you failed to make a point with "Hard Fact" 13.
Quote:
Nope, you left out what ... , the structural engineers designed the WTC to withstand a collision of a Boeing 707 going 180 mph, low on fuel, lost in the fog. Oops you left off the technical part. You left out the physics. Why do you present no data to support the woo? A 707 going 180 mph would not do much damage. In fact, a study after 911 showed the WTC could stop impacts up to 200 mph, maybe higher. (can you find the study?) No. 707 impact design for WTC equal to 187 pound of TNT. Flt 11 impact on 911, equal to 1300 pounds of TNT. Flt 175 impact on 911, equal to 2093 pounds of TNT. Why do you present the reason the WTC failed to stop aircraft, the design was only for a slow speed impact. Do you try to do research, or only repeat lies you pick up from 911 truth. On 911 the impact from 11 and 175 were 7 and 11 times greater in energy than the design of the WTC could take. 7 and 11 times greater. Now how did you miss that? Did you do the physics before making up another meaningless claim? LOL, fire destorys the streanght of steel. A fact you can't grasp? Why? Science, it makes your conclusions on 911 woo. Oops, no, it is not the first time in history fire has destroyed the strength of steel. Darn, you and 911 truth were wrong, but you can't figure it out given 12 years and the answers. In 12 years 911 truthers could have had a PhD in structural engineering, but all they have is a PhD in woo from Google U. Good luck with Flt 93, and 77 - you can't explain you fantasy on the WTC, you only repeat lies from 911 truth. What will you do when you get to silly "hard fact" 24?
Quote:
Which 911 truth "hard fact" can you support? All 911 truth "hard facts" are nonsense. http://www.collective-evolution.com/...t-be-debunked/ Poor Joe is gullible, and spreads lie mindlessly. |
5th October 2013, 10:17 PM | #189 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
|
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat. |
|
5th October 2013, 10:29 PM | #190 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
5th October 2013, 11:14 PM | #191 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
6th October 2013, 01:46 AM | #192 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
6th October 2013, 02:15 AM | #193 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,042
|
Is it time to post the pictures of aircraft carrier steel flight decks sagging after fires? Guess what the fuel was?
|
6th October 2013, 02:22 AM | #194 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
6th October 2013, 02:23 AM | #195 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
6th October 2013, 02:54 AM | #196 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
|
|
6th October 2013, 05:11 AM | #197 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,712
|
Why/How would the President staying at the school indicate anything other than a decision was made at the time to stay at the school? The President could have been rushed away from the school and be involved in a conspiracy. He clearly wasn't, but there's not conclusion to draw one way or the other from the decision to stay in place.
|
6th October 2013, 05:22 AM | #198 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
6th October 2013, 07:03 AM | #199 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
6th October 2013, 07:21 AM | #200 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|