|
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. |
6th October 2013, 08:10 AM | #201 |
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 |
|
6th October 2013, 08:29 AM | #202 |
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 |
|
6th October 2013, 08:50 AM | #203 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 3,668
|
|
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade |
|
6th October 2013, 09:12 AM | #204 |
persona non grata
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,950
|
|
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured; but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw |
|
6th October 2013, 09:17 AM | #205 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
|
__________________
So many idiots and so little time. |
|
6th October 2013, 09:17 AM | #206 |
Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 205
|
As the date stamp on the picture clearly shows, that was after two days worth of cleanup of the surrounding streets. The collapse left parts of WTC7 on the ROOF of neighboring buildings. I'm sure you don't consider the roof of neighboring buildings "in the footprint of WTC7" do you?
|
6th October 2013, 09:36 AM | #207 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
6th October 2013, 10:03 AM | #208 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Has to be one of the dumbest slogans of 911 truth, "fell into their footprints". Dumbed down nothingness which proves a few fringe conspiracy theorist who can't do math and physics repeat a do nothing phrase of silly woo, "fell into their footprints".
Wow, your evidence, a slogan of woo. Cool, 911 truth's fantasy has vapor evidence. Better go buy some coffee from Gage's strap-hanger. http://wakeupcoffee.org/ 12 years of "fell into their (own) footprints". I can't believe how anti-intellectual that is, and it means nothing. Not sure what a footprint is, but last time I took of WTC towers socks, there were no feet. How can 911 truth make up a dumber statement? How can 911 truth cult followers repeat a dumber statement? When you think 911 truth can't, 911 truth comes out with dumber stuff. http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm Looks like feet print for buildings is what ever happens when they collapse due to fire, gravity, and sometime impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design. The best part, 911 truth can't define footprint. 911 truth accidentally made up the footprint statements, they sounded good to people who can't think for themselves and gullible 911 truth follower repeat the silly phrase without thinking - drones to the truth. Is this like a Bigfoot footprint? lol, a fantasy? yes it is ... fell into its own footprint, as meaningless as path of least resistance (which describes 911 truth followers approach to research, they avoid it). |
6th October 2013, 10:26 AM | #209 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
How do you reconcile that with twoofers who claim that the "smoking gun" to explosive demolition of the towers is that they ejected material far outside their footprints?
(Note: In or outside the footprint is a non-issue to me. To me, they looked like they fell in the expected direction. That is to say, down.) |
6th October 2013, 10:42 AM | #210 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
|
|
6th October 2013, 01:25 PM | #211 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
|
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
6th October 2013, 03:24 PM | #212 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
So it is 2006 again, isn't it?
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
6th October 2013, 03:25 PM | #213 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
6th October 2013, 10:31 PM | #214 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
6th October 2013, 10:39 PM | #215 |
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
|
|
6th October 2013, 10:42 PM | #216 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
7th October 2013, 02:12 AM | #217 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
Only if you have wooden hoops. not horrible tin ones.
|
7th October 2013, 02:26 AM | #218 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,632
|
|
7th October 2013, 03:40 AM | #219 |
Ardent Formulist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
|
I recently read a book called "To Engineer is Human". It was written well before 9/11 but talked about some important engineering failures and how they taught engineers how to do their jobs better in the future.
One of the problems engineers face is the question of how failure-proof they should make any given design. They could make it three times stronger than the strongest force they expect it to experience, but...how do they know what forces it will experience? How many times will it experience that force? Will the correct materials be used to build the thing? Will it be assembled properly? Do they need to add even more failure-proofing to account for these possibilities? One of the problems with the WTC was that, according to inspections a few years before its destruction, fire-proofing was found to be installed improperly. So right off the bat that would invalidate any calculations that might have been done, at the time the building was designed, that would show it was invulnerable to airliner impact. And that's just the fireproofing. There could have been many other mistakes in materials and assembly that weren't detected. The buildings would still function perfectly fine for decades, but would not be able to withstand that worst-case scenario it was designed to survive. |
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens. |
|
7th October 2013, 04:34 AM | #220 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
7th October 2013, 04:43 AM | #221 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,393
|
I wondered about your previous post; I couldn't tell if you were seriously reconsidering the issue or just being sarcastic. Seems you were serious, so congratulations.
I suspect it's so long since someone who'd been taken in by truther misinformation genuinely declared they were reconsidering their view on 9/11 that people hereabouts just don't recognise when it's time to cease fire. |
7th October 2013, 04:45 AM | #222 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
Conspiracy and the Bush's...why did George lie about how he got the information of the second strike. Why would he do that. What did the agent whisper into his ear if, as George tells it he got the info during a break......perhaps the agent said " Mr President this is the little charade you asked me to pull."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60 |
7th October 2013, 04:51 AM | #223 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
7th October 2013, 04:54 AM | #224 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
7th October 2013, 05:07 AM | #225 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340...ane-crash.html Well it seems Joe the WTC admistrators have a different view on what dedicated safety features came with the construction of the towers. Slow impact...fast impact....you make me smile tiger. |
7th October 2013, 05:14 AM | #226 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
You are correct, why would Bush lie?
He didn't lie. He mis-spoke, something he was rather famous for. If you were to give us a detailed account of everything you did that day how accurate would it be? Human memory is notoriously fallible. That is not evidence of wrongdoing, only that he got his details mixed up in an off-the-cuff remark made months later about the most hectic, confused and stressful day of his life. Now, do you have any evidence to support your case that does not rely entirely on mis-interpreted witness statements? |
__________________
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. |
|
7th October 2013, 05:30 AM | #227 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
|
|
7th October 2013, 05:38 AM | #228 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,830
|
|
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network" |
|
7th October 2013, 05:40 AM | #229 |
Master Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,830
|
|
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network" |
|
7th October 2013, 05:46 AM | #230 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
7th October 2013, 05:52 AM | #231 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
7th October 2013, 05:53 AM | #232 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
7th October 2013, 05:55 AM | #233 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
The fact is that engineers (and architects) design to what is required by building codes. Structural strength required by the code both then and now included for gravity loads - both dead and live, lateral loads (wind, earthquake) and a factor of safety. They were not designed for aircraft impact, meteors, klingon on death rays, biblical floods, godzilla, or any other nonsensical and rare occurrences. Saying the WTC could withstand the impact of an aircraft (which it did) is far sexier than saying it could withstand a 120 mph wind. The other aspect frequently ignored by troofers is that building codes are not created to save buildings from fire. They are designed to allow for evacuation of the building by all occupants and to give fire fighting efforts a reasonable chance to rescue occupants and extinguish fires without a loss of life.
|
7th October 2013, 06:03 AM | #234 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,393
|
Handwaving away the speed of impact is scarcely going to help your argument's credibility.
You appear to be interpreting "made to withstand them" as meaning the towers were purposely designed to withstand the worst-case scenario impact from any current or future aircraft of any size, at any speed and with any fuel load. That's a pretty heavy burden to place on the precise wording of what is after all not a technical document nor even a public notice from the WTC but merely a newspaper's description of the wording of a public notice from the WTC. Do you have any supporting evidence to make that stance seem any less unreasonable? |
7th October 2013, 06:03 AM | #235 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
7th October 2013, 09:50 AM | #236 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
LOL, you bring woo, and you don't know it. You post false information about steel. You take studies and make up lies about buildings falling, failing to present the math and physics to back up your silly claims.
You mean first strike. How can you make a claim about 911 and get the claim back-wards? Did you watch the video you posted? What is your claim? Oh, Bush said he was outside the class room before the second impact and he said..
Quote:
Quote:
The poor nut in the video, everyone who had TV saw the first crash, I have photos of the first crash. "first crash" = "impact hole" Can't believe a quibble about meaning makes it to a 911 truth talking point. What a big fail. I saw the first crash on 911, on TV, and I was thinking the same thing; perfect weather, and how could an pilot be so dumb? Was he in 911 truth? Seeing the first crash? lol, we saw where the first aircraft crashed. Bush and I went to the same UPT base to learn to fly jets, we also share the (same, omg i left his out, i thought it but ... ) mastery of English... This is your best stuff? I expect you ("to" I did it again) back you failed claims with math and physics. But you can't; that is why CD claims, inside job claims are fantasy. Better luck with Bigfoot, or Santa. You can't figure out what the WTC was design to resist for aircraft impacts, maybe you should sick with simple stuff, large building seem to be too complex for your quote-mining common sense approach to work. Your problem with understanding 911 is due to you picking up 911 truth claims and trying to defend them. You did not have these ideas, you googled them. You are falling for lies and fail to see they are backed up with fantasy. No evidence, just sound good phrases and slogans. You google up lies, and give a pass to 19 murderers. You never study how 911 was done, you study how silly conspiracy theorists say 911 was done. You are letting someone else do your thinking. You don't read news stories for facts. Administrators? lol, I have the person who designed the structure and engineers who do studies, you got administrators, and quote-mining. You failed to make a point too. You put no claim behind a news article. The WTC was studied after 911 and found to stop low speed impacts, below 200 mph. Robertson designed the structure for 180 mph impact, he was the structural engineer on the WTC. You use google to find nonsense to support your inside job you can't explain. Your research needs work. An ordinary aircraft accident, the WTC would survive. Planes at 700 feet would be lost in the clouds trying to land, about 180 mph. Kind of makes claims for aircraft impacts BS when you see the speed of 11 and 175 - which were too fast to meet the design speed of 180 mph. You don't know the speed of impact for 11 and 175? Why not? Can you do the kinetic energy each supplied, and explain why the WTC would stop that much energy? Any rational science stuff to go with the quote-mining stuff? |
7th October 2013, 10:48 AM | #237 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
7th October 2013, 02:27 PM | #238 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
|
Was there a panel? I never heard such a claim or seen a pic of this panel before. Anyone got anything on that?
Truthers don't realize or ever give credit to the design did survive the impact and help save thousands of lives. I would think most tall skyscrapers would have collapsed immediately upon impact. The Towers were massive compared to the other skyscrapers here (our Australian friend here may not realize that). |
__________________
"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 |
|
7th October 2013, 06:25 PM | #239 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Well that makes little to no sense.
Quote:
If you choose otherwise you simply bolster my opinion of your opinion. |
7th October 2013, 06:28 PM | #240 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ
Posts: 3,668
|
|
__________________
"You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|