|
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. |
7th October 2013, 06:38 PM | #241 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th October 2013, 06:46 PM | #242 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
In fact, of course, while the tower's design was checked, as an afterthought, whether or not they could withstand the impact of a 707 which was suffering the same lost in fog low on fuel situation as that of the B25 which hit the ESB, it did survive, decades later, the impact of newer Boeing hitting at much greater velocity.
I do not know how, in 1970 , anyone would even calculate if it could survive the heat generated by multilevel, large area modern office material fires ignited by the dumping of thousands of gallons of liquid acellerant over those floors. |
7th October 2013, 06:58 PM | #243 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
7th October 2013, 07:15 PM | #244 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
7th October 2013, 08:38 PM | #245 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
7th October 2013, 08:41 PM | #246 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
8th October 2013, 01:34 AM | #247 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
8th October 2013, 02:13 AM | #248 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
The Pesident of the United States says he watched it on TV at the school.....and you say he didn’t, that he imagined it.....that’s what it comes down to Mark.....he said it. He misrepresented the facts. He even dreamed up a hokey folksy line about what a terrible pilot the guy was.
Educate me D, tell me why these officials made these observations regarding Shanksville. >> "This crash was different. There was no wreckage, no bodies, and no noise." - Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller [1] "I was looking for anything that said tail, wing, plane, metal. There was nothing." - Photographer Scott Spangler [2] "I was amazed because it did not, in any way, shape, or form, look like a plane crash." - Patrick Madigan, commander of the Somerset barracks of the Pennsylvania State Police [3]<< I actually watched the Coroner make this statement on a news feed at the site on the day. I have not forgotten the plethora of first hand testimony and I do not discount it because a decade has passed. Jack everything other than first hand testimony relies on a source. I can only say that the London Telegraph is a tabloid of long standing and there was no retraction or rebuff. Re the “technical document” is that akin to the Hockey Graph that governments legislated carbon abatement laws around. The one found to be totally fabricated towards an outcome to suit the greenies? BN, I did read your entire post, but I will only ask one question...what is woo, a few have used it, is it just this forum that employs it (I expect it means spin) or is it used on other forums? Rob it was simply acknowleging that the WTC extoled that the towers were impact resistant. Some here commented that it was not a design feature, that the ability to resist came as a consequence of the design....whats the difference...WTC acknowlege that they were....someone asked me to qualify it. Jay you are correct, witness testimony is not worth the electricity it cost to generate it...that is why it is the most valid testimony in our legal system. The only way to rebuke witness testimony is to show that there is an agenda to the statements other than just an account of experienced events. Why would all the testimony on the day by uninterested parties there by chance be highly prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor? No more Joe for you sport....thanks SlyJoe..... You can count the number of progressive collapses on your fingers Craig....then we get three in the one place within 8 hours.....Lots of firsts with 911. |
8th October 2013, 02:43 AM | #249 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th October 2013, 03:37 AM | #250 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th October 2013, 03:37 AM | #251 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
8th October 2013, 03:43 AM | #252 |
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, 03:51 AM | #253 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
Have you asked Mr Miller if he thinks there was a crash at that site? Have you asked Mr Spangler his opinion? Have you asked Mr Madigan if what he saw looked suspicious to him?
Jesus, anybody can take quotes like these and try to make a case. What would a court of law do with these statements, by the way? Well, since for each of these statements there are hundreds of statements and a ton of physical evidence confirming a plane crash, a court of law would speak to ALL of the witnesses and take into consideration ALL of the evidence to get a picture of what really happened. All you are doing is channeling the creepy defense lawyer trying desperately to get his clients off. A court wouldn't fall for it, and I certainly am not. The preponderance of evidence makes your case weak. Anybody with half a brain can see through your simple debate techniques. Perhaps you should go to a forum where people are more accepting of your debate style. |
__________________
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, 04:39 AM | #254 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 215
|
|
8th October 2013, 04:51 AM | #255 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th October 2013, 04:54 AM | #256 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 569
|
I don't think he really misrepresented or dreamed up anything. His mind conflated two related images and filed them into the proper timeline in his mind even though he didn't actually see those images chronologically as they happened. A lot of people have done it. You'd be amazed how many people are convinced that they saw the first plane hit live on national TV but they couldn't have because it wasn't on TV live anywhere, it was filmed by a documentary film crew and only aired on TV several hours later. The second plane strike was seen live on every major network, but since we all know that the Flight 11 strike happened first, it's filed in many people's memory as the one they saw first even though in real life they all saw it after the Flight 175 strike and after both buildings had collapsed.
The debris field was unusual because the circumstances of the crash were unusual. A deliberate crash in a steep angle at very high speed, leaving the plane and it's occupants in tiny, largely unidentifiable pieces. Even though the Flight 93 crash was unusual, it's debris field was similar to plane crashes that also featured steep plummets and hit the ground nose down at high speed, such as USAir Flight 427 in 1994. The characteristics of the Flight 93 crash site were unusual but not unprecedented. Nonsense, eyewitness testimony is by far the least reliable and valid type of evidence imaginable. The human memory is malleable and ever changing. Even the most honest, well-meaning people in the world will misremember important moments and details because that's just how the brain is. It is obsessed with finding patterns, connecting dots, and filling in blanks and when there is not enough information to do so accurately, the memory and the reality are going to be different. Physical evidence and expert testimony explaining the physical evidence always trump witness testimony, especially when it contradicts the physical evidence. Because all memory-based testimony is prone to subjectivity, hyperbole, and metaphor no matter who gives it or on what subject. It's not even intentional in most cases, it's just the brain doing it's routine "fill in the blanks to try and make sense of what I saw" thing. Yeah, because that "one place" had been attacked by terrorists in fully-loaded jetliners that deliberately crashed into two ginormous buildings. The third building was destroyed by debris and fire caused by the collapse of the two buildings that got rammed into. There were also more than three buildings destroyed that day. WTCs 1, 2, 3, and 7 were completely destroyed. WTCs 4, 5, and 6 were almost completely destroyed and had to have what little was left of them torn down. The Deutsche Bank Building was heavily damaged and ultimately had to be dismantled and will be replaced by the new WTC 5. How many other buildings around the world have been smashed into at high speed by a fully-loaded jetliner deliberately flown right into it, which started a raging fire after knocking the fireproofing off critical load bearing steel members? While it's true that numerous skyscrapers had never collapsed in one day before, no skyscrapers had ever been attacked by jetliners being used as missiles starting a cascade of failures that would destroy the buildings and other buildings around them. That was the real "first ever" on 9/11. Unless that happens elsewhere, we can't compare what happened to the WTC complex to anything else. |
__________________
Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. We must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind-Jedi Master Yoda. |
|
8th October 2013, 05:09 AM | #257 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th October 2013, 05:24 AM | #258 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Quote:
So you know as much about law as you do the Secret Service |
8th October 2013, 05:30 AM | #259 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
Heck, I just want to know when he is going to stop relying on quote-mined comments (usually just single sentences plucked from much longer comments), cherry-picked specifically to remove them from their proper context to suit his personal brand of reality distortion.
This guy is a lost cause. It is nothing but the same old game of whack-a-mole again. He makes accusations based on a few very loosely interpreted anomalous witness statements, usually without proper context and always without corroboration, then we explain why he is wrong, then he changes the subject. He has been asked repeatedly to present something, anything resembling a prima facie case and he ignores those requests. When given the option to chose the rational or the completely ridiculous interpretation of his "evidence" he goes for the completely ridiculous every single time. This is after all a person who seriously real estate developers can order the local fire department to blow up buildings in order to save lives I personally would like to bring this conversation back around to where sonofgloin stepped into it - with the claim that Building 7 was blown up by Larry Silverstein and the FDNY in an insurance scam. I challenged him to present his detailed prima facie case for this way back around page 3 AND explain how that fits into all the other events of that day especially Flights 77 and 93. He predictably ignored the request and changed the subject. Rather than allowing all these new tangents I would like to bring this back to the un-resolved business of where this particular part of the conversation started. So what so you sonofgloin? Care to present your comprehensive analysis of everything that happened on 9/11, explaining who did it, how they did it, and why? Remember, you have to include EVERYTHING. No picking Cherries. |
__________________
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, 05:37 AM | #260 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
There was a short series broadcast on History Channel last month - one of those truly interesting programs that are becoming increasingly rare on this channel - called "Your Bleeped Up Brain" about how fallible and maleable human memory and recollection are.
http://www.history.com/shows/your-bl...FatcMgodaXsAKQ They specifically addressed the Bush comment about seeing the first plane hit on TV. Interestingly they also talked about the results of a poll in which 70% of those responding said they had seen the first plane hit on live TV even though nobody saw the first plane hit on live TV. |
__________________
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, 05:37 AM | #261 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
8th October 2013, 05:39 AM | #262 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
8th October 2013, 05:43 AM | #263 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
Let's not lose sight of what this discussion is about: You would like me to be persuaded that the plane crashes and fires which we all saw were not the sole cause of the WTC collapse.
As evidence, you present the Telegraph's report (nitpick - it's not a tabloid) that there used to be a sign at the top of the tower telling visitors that the design could withstand a plane crash. From that you would like us to infer that the towers were invulnerable to any plane crash and therefore the towers could not have fallen as a result of that alone. It's now been pointed out that the towers were not in fact designed to be crash-proof, but that calculations were later done which found that the towers should survive a similar event to the 1945 Empire State Building crash, that is of a typical aircraft of the day (a 707) lost in fog while trying to land and striking the tower at about 180mph. Now as we saw, the towers did initially withstand the impact of planes which were twice as heavy as a landing 707, and travelling much more than twice as fast. That makes the public notice entirely moot, as the initial impacts did not in fact destroy the buildings. What brought them down were massive, unfought fires copiously supplied with jet fuel, weakening steel which had its fireproofing materials stripped away by the initial crashes. There was no reason for the Telegraph to retract what it wrote since it was quite likely true. The only problem with it is your totally unreasonable interpretation. Regarding your hockey stick reference, I'm quite aware that politicians lie with statistics, but I'm not impressed by a counsel of despair which says all evidence is therefore equal, and I doubt you'll find any other takers here either. |
8th October 2013, 05:58 AM | #264 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th October 2013, 06:00 AM | #265 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
"This crash was different". Well, different to what? If only you had not forgotten what you heard the coroner say on TV instead of quote mining that little snippet, you might already know why he said it (generously assuming you don't already know perfectly well). I think you're going to find it was because Shanksville was a relatively unusual, steep angled, high speed crash which left most of the wreckage either buried or reduced to very small pieces.
|
8th October 2013, 06:07 AM | #266 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th October 2013, 06:32 AM | #267 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
nitpick, the jet fuel simply acellerated the spread of the fire. Had a wastepaper basket started the fire then the situation involving half a dozen floors would have taken hours. Instead, with thousands of gallons of acellerant dumped at high speed throughout these floors and ignited, within seconds several adjacent floors were all involved in large area office fires.
On that scale, that was a 'first' and it happened twice. |
8th October 2013, 06:34 AM | #268 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
8th October 2013, 06:40 AM | #269 |
No Ordinary Rabbit
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,757
|
The thing that bothers me most about these discussions is when I remember Truthers have the right to vote.
|
__________________
-------------------------------------- Stop asking me about that stupid fruity cereal...that's the OTHER rabbit! |
|
8th October 2013, 06:41 AM | #270 |
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, 07:01 AM | #271 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
The electrical fire on the lower floor years ago is proof of the slow spread (prior to the installation of the sprinkler system)
The combination of the accelerated spread of the fire and the disabling of the sprinkler system was deadly. Had it been a wastepaper basket, the sprinkler system would have contained the fire in the first place, even if there had been gasoline thrown around and entire floor, the sprinkler system likely would have contained it enough to allow for fire fighting personnel to control it. |
8th October 2013, 07:32 AM | #272 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
8th October 2013, 08:00 AM | #273 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th October 2013, 08:01 AM | #274 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
|
8th October 2013, 08:16 AM | #275 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
Quote:
Coming from a guy (in)famous for his mangling of the language, this surprises you? |
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
8th October 2013, 08:17 AM | #276 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
Can you site SIMILAR (key word here) plane crashes where a 747-222 impacted the ground at such a steep angle and at the same speed as flight 93 so we can compare?
You're insinuating that the people listed above have witnessed plane impacts with the same characteristics and that this particular crash had different physical results when compared to those SIMILAR crashes. |
8th October 2013, 08:26 AM | #277 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
8th October 2013, 09:00 AM | #278 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,702
|
Sure thing. You need to help me narrow my search down though.
In the case of WTC1 and WTC2: Please find me all the high rise towers that were about 1,360 feet high, having a steel tube in tube design, were hit in the upper third by a jet (I noticed you left this part out above), and had resultant fires on the floors around the impacts. In the case of WTC7: Please find me all the high rise towers that were about 610 feet high, trapezoidal in shape, steel tube in tube design above the 7th floor, had a 5th floor which acted as a diaphragm to distribute loads, and had unfought fires in them. Or do you think that ALL buildings, regardless of the structural design, will react the same way when the same circumstances are applied to each of them? |
8th October 2013, 09:21 AM | #279 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th October 2013, 09:29 AM | #280 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: I live in a swamp
Posts: 27,710
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|