ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags 9/11

Reply
Old 17th September 2017, 02:29 AM   #41
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The collapse of the buildings were a consequence of a crime. The crime was flying planes into the buildings.

What part of the collapse do you consider to be a crime? Please explain.
Yes, but an investigation of that will still require proper storage and examination of physical evidence. That did not take place.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 02:31 AM   #42
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
In order for CD to be considered, there needs to be valid reason to believe it was involved.
Exactly, and the valid reason will come from proper storage and examination of physical evidence. But most of the evidence was sold off as scrap for no valid reason.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 02:56 AM   #43
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
WTC 1 and 2 failed because aircraft hit the building with 7 and 11 times the energy that the shell was designed to stop. The impact kinetic energy dislodged insulation on the steel, and the steel was subjected to the effects of fire without the protection of insulation. You can see the results, bowing of the shell as steel is failing to maintain shape under load. For the towers the floors can only hold 29,000,000 pounds, which you could calculate based on the strength of the connections of the floors to the shell and core, it takes math; can 9/11 truth, or you do math? Thus when the upper section failed and fell, or even placed gently on the lower floor, the floor fails essentially instantly, because the upper section not only is moving down, but it weighs more than 29,000,000 pounds. Thus you are in denial - you deny fire destroys the strength of steel, you deny a floor can only hold up 29,000,000 pounds, you deny physics, math, fire science, structural engineering, all the things even NIST used to explain what they think caused the collapse. The big picture, fire caused the collapse, office fires, you offer doubt based on nothing at all but talk of storing evidence. Kind of shallow doubt, since the crime was solved almost immediately because we know who on the planes had motive, and were able to rule out all the passengers and crew but 19 terrorists who were fooled by UBL, like 9/11 truth believers (who post the same BS as you do) were fooled by 9/11 truth claims made by fake "experts".
Exactly, and in order to find out how the steel was subjected to fire it has to be stored and examined carefully. That didn't happen for this investigation.

Quote:

Why did the fires cause the collapse. The fires were not fought. This makes it simple, fire did it, and there is no evidence for CD, thermite, or the super secret silent explosives. Steel was searched for unique damage, and some was found. Some steel was corroded in fires about 1100C, and 9/11 truth nuts use this steel (appendix C FEMA) to make up melted steel because there is talk of eutectic (chemical engineering term 9/11 truth believers have no clue what it means) and intergranular melting. Thus we get quote mining gone wild and we have melted steel from the failed BS of 9/11 truth, melted steel from corroded steel - the sign of failure.
The steel was not searched for unique damage. Most of it was sold of as scrap without careful examination. That is clearly seen in the FEMA report.

Quote:

The FBI does crime, not NIST, not the NTSB. The crime on 9/11 was 19 terrorists using four planes as WMD. Right and wrong. When the NTSB starts an investigation, sure the collapse parts etc. As soon as the NTSB figured out the pilot went nuts (aka, they decode the FDR and CVR and find out the pilot committed suicide, or crashed on purpose) there is no need to study the wreckage, and the case is not given to the FBI, who uses the FDR, and CVR to convict (i guess not since the crash was murder suicide, case closed as people sue the estate) the murdering pilot, or suicide terrorist. And guess what, for 9/11 the site was restricted, evidence was maintained until the FBI was satisfied they had the evidence to solve the case. The site was for months used to recover any body parts or evidence for DNA, steel was studied by engineers and scientist, I have photos of scientist studying WTC steel. Steel was studied, and selected.
The FBI collects evidence gathered and analyzed by other organizations. In this case, most of the physical evidence was not examined carefully and sold off as scrap. Some of it was even stolen.

Quote:

In the cased on 9/11, saving steel is not required to solve the crime; even the FBI was able to correctly figure out 19 did it. Do you disagree?
Given the points you raised above, it's required for painfully obvious reasons.

Quote:

Do engineers need to save steel to figure out how the WTC failed? No. Did they have steel saved? Yes, which makes your claim silly.
Actually, yes. A silly claim will argue the opposite.

Quote:

Please explain to me which FEMA or NIST goal was not up to your liking. FBI solved who did it, NIST and FEMA claim fire due to the terrorist act caused the collapses. What caused your collapse in your skeptical mind which seems to think the FBI needs steel saved to solve 19 nuts for UBL murdered Americans on 9/11 as promised in 90s by UBL. UBL made good his promise. Who did 9/11 in your skeptical evidence free mind?
In any crime, authorities gather, store, and examine physical evidence. This is especially so in one that involves airplane crashes and buildings collapsing. As clearly seen in the earlier points you raised above, the steel debris has to be examined carefully. That didn't happen: most of it was sold off as scrap for no valid reason.

Quote:


Oh, please give a page and paragraph for this cherry picked quote mine tidbit... Do you mean FEMA has no clue who did 9/11? Do they disagree with the FBI that 19 terrorists did it? Or what? What is your point, and please the source.
I did not argue that FEMA has no clue who did 9/11. What I said is that most of the steel debris was sold off as scrap for no valid reason. Less than two hundred pieces were kept out of 350,000 tons placed in four yards.

Quote:

Fire caused the collapse, we know it was 19 terrorists, thus how long do you need the steel. There was enough steel left to verify it was the kind of steel it was suppose to be. Fact is the WTC tower steel was unique, with varying grades used to make the shell strong enough to stand up to hurricanes, and to stop aircraft at the shell going under 200 mph. NIST verified the building was up to "standards", and other studies verified the shell could stop planes going 200 mph, at the shell.
It appears you have no clue what the goals of NIST and FEMA were, and prefer to make up BS about steel not being stored.
Yes, but the buildings still pancaked, together with a third one that was not hit by the planes. Given that, it is very obvious that careful storage and examination of physical evidence was needed. That didn't happen.

Also, the "BS" I gave came from Appendix D of the FEMA report.

Quote:

No, you seem to deny fire science, deny physics, and post BS about FEMA/NIST without sourcing the facts and claims.
Completely wrong. The physical evidence would have shown that. Only non-skeptics who base their views on non-scientific beliefs would argue otherwise.

And what I argued about FEMA came from the FEMA report.

Quote:

The FBI did the investigation, and found 19 guilty suicide terrorists.
NIST explained the cause of the collapse, if you don't like NIST read the many other studies which agree that fire was the cause, and add their own take on the details.
I didn't argue that. What I said is that the physical evidence was not examined carefully.

Quote:

As for the towers, once you have more than 29,000,000 pounds of debris falling (actually less mass is required to fail a floor if the mass is moving down), the WTC tower floor fails; this is why once started the collapse continues. The lower floors don't hold up the upper floors, the shell and the core hold up all the floors, floors only hold up themselves. This is why once started the collapse continues for the WTC towers.
That's obvious, but outside your fantasy world investigators still collect and analyze physical evidence. That's why you see careful collection and inspection of plane wreckage in crashes. That's more so here with two crashes and three buildings (one not hit) pancaking.

Quote:

WTC 7 was totaled by fire, no big surprise, fires not fought cause great damage. Even fires fought have not saved highrise building from being totaled, but have saved them from complete collapse. Had fires in WTC 7 been fought, WTC 7 may of survived, yet still be totaled. You are not being skeptical, you are ignoring evidence.
The questioned isn't whether or not it was totaled by fire but how. That would have required study of physical evidence. But most of the evidence was sold off as scrap.

Quote:

What caused the collapse in your skeptical version, and who did 9/11 in your skeptical version. So far you offered no major evidence to support the skepticism, and have not offered engineering arguments against NIST, FEMA, and the dozens of other studies which agree it was fire, but differ on details. You don't need to settle for NIST and FEMA, there are other studies, some cost money, which have fire as the cause. Not one report outside of 9/11 truth claims it was thermite, CD, or some fantasy inside job.
I didn't given any "skeptical version." What I said is that most of the physical evidence was sold off as scrap without careful examination. Appendix D of the FEMA report supports that.

I did not mention anything about thermite, CD, or inside jobs.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 03:01 AM   #44
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Did you make up this lie, or what? Why post unsourced lies?


https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4398/...bec99c6df5.jpg
Debunked, WTC steel was examined by other agencies, like this guy. Did you make up the lie, or plagiarized it from 9/11 truth cult followers who blindly go where lies are called truth, and evidence is ignored.



What test on steel do we do to know it was 19 terrorists? Makes no sense, the "crime of this magnitude" was solved using passengers manifest, crew and passengers final words, DNA, who had motive, and remembering UBL promised to kill Americans when and where he could as stated in the 90s. Evidence has to be ignored to claim you're a skeptic of the conclusions from all the studies and investigations.

Sounds like Nixon, "I am not a..."
This is not skepticism it is willfully ignoring evidence, or is it a lack of knowledge in criminal investigation, aircraft crashes, fire science, engineering, properties of steel, WTC structure, and more.

Studying how fire started the collapse of the WTC is not evidence to solve the "crime of this magnitude", it is related to the Goals of FEMA and NIST, not who did 9/11, not the FBI investigation. You have confused crime procedures and techniques with engineering studies to meet the goals of NIST/FEMA.
You must be kidding: you're using a photograph to debunk my claim?

If all that you needed were pictures, then the least you could have done was point to Appendix D of the FEMA report!

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-d...75/403_apd.pdf
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 03:10 AM   #45
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Well, my expertise is how I have provided details on why 9/11 truthers were knocking on the wrong door when it comes to facts. Case in point, there were truthers who've claimed that the 9/11 aircraft were switched but anyone with knowledge on the way we do things in the world of aviation would have known there is no way an aircraft can be switched in secret. As I have said in the past, only a certain number of B-767-200 and B-757-200 were building and I would take me just 30 minutes or less to determine that an aircraft was switched because I know what to look for. Other truthers claimed that the 9/11 aircraft were drones, but I knew that would have been impossible for those types of aircraft to have been modified since they were no FBW aircraft and modifying such aircraft to fly as drones would have generated paper trails from Washington State to Washington D.C. and across the Atlantic Ocean.
Your expertise is meaningless for reasons given earlier. The rest is irrelevant because I wasn't talking about truthers.

Quote:

Modifying aircraft was another area of my expertise and as a pilot of 48 years had fit me in another area that allowed me to expose false claims of 9/11 truthers as pertaining to the 9/11 aircraft.
Meaningless because you can't prove anything about yourself, and investigation involves more than what you state about yourself.

You are better off referring to reports.

Quote:

Physical evidence collected in conjunction with video, audio and seismic evidence has proven that fire and impact damage were responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.
Most of the physical evidence was not examined.

Quote:

Any real investigator would have known that it would have been senseless and a waste of time and money to examine every piece of steel of the WTC buildings in order to make a determination as to what happened.
Actually, it's the other way round. Any real investigator will study the matter thoroughly, and that includes physical evidence. Only the illogical will argue that one piece of evidence or another is not necessary without even examining it.

Quote:

Just to let you know, 9/11 investigative reports have already determined why the WTC buildings collapsed and came to their logical and common sense conclusions without examining every piece of WTC steel.
Those were not logical or even commonsense conclusions because most of the physical evidence was sold off as scrap for no valid reason.

350,000 tons of steel debris were kept in four yards. There was no valid reason to sell them off as scrap.

The investigation went on for years. There was no valid excuse to say that they had no time or means to study more than just 156 pieces.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 03:10 AM   #46
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Exactly, and the valid reason will come from proper storage and examination of physical evidence. But most of the evidence was sold off as scrap for no valid reason.
I see, Investigate until you find the cause you like.
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 03:14 AM   #47
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
That is false! It has already been determined that CD had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings. Explosives make a lot of noise when detonated and there was no way that explosions alone could bring down a steel-framed building. That was evident during nuclear test when steel-framed buildings remained standing despite the blast effects and the fact that a huge vehicle bomb detonated in WTC 1 in 1993 had failed to bring down the building.

When it comes to demolishing steel-framed buildings with explosives, the steel structures must first be pre-weakened, which is a very noisy and dirty operation that would have taken many months for each of the WTC buildings, which would have been senseless to say the least. I could have planted a thousand pounds of explosives on each floor of the WTC Towers and detonate them all at once and the WTC Towers would have remained standing minus walls and windows. The Chinese embassy in Belgrade received multiple JDAM bomb strikes and yet the building remained standing and I have posted in the past of other structures that have remained standing despite repeated bomb strikes. Even if cutter charges are used, dynamite or other explosives are needed to bring down a steel-framed structure only after the steel structure has been pre-weakened.

People get the wrong idea that explosives alone can bring down a steel structure. The fact that it took hundreds of bombs just to drop a single steel bridge in North Vietnam is one good example other than the failure of explosives to bring down WTC 1 in 1993.
The fact that you use phrases like "even if" proves my point. The only way to show whether or not a CD was involved is to examine the physical evidence. That is not possible for this issue for obvious reasons.

That's why the only thing you can offer are analogies and speculation. Brilliant.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 03:18 AM   #48
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,527
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
The only way to show whether or not a CD was involved is to examine the physical evidence.
Why would CD even be on the table? There has never been any evidence pointing to it. Is space beams also on the table?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 03:26 AM   #49
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Is that what the FEMA report actually said, or is that your interpretation based on the facts as you know them?

It is not a quote, certainly. Can you provide the quote?

Ah, I see you wrote this:


So it appears it is only your *interpretation* of what FEMA said. What did FEMA actually say?




Stating your *interpretation* as a fact isn't exactly a solid argument.




Based on your experience as a structural engineer, how many pieces should have been retained to assure a supportable conclusion? Is "all of them" the only acceptable answer?

Hank
Appendix D of the FEMA report is shared above, and again below.

One of the reasons why I became inactive in this board is that I found the intellectual level lacking, and one of them involves the inability to do simple research. That is seen in your post and in Pgimeno's. Other problems include forum members referring to their expert background (as if that that be verified in a forum that uses user names) and using photographs to prove that a proper investigation took place (never mind studies!). What makes matters worse is that because question the investigation, then that makes me a truther who refers to CDs and some "inside job," even though I am not a truther nor mentioned any of those things in my posts.

It's bad enough that I have to spoon-feed you and others, I have to do it several times.

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-d...75/403_apd.pdf

That's it. I'm clearly wasting my time here.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 05:54 AM   #50
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
General 9/11 Conspiracy Discussion

This will either work or will be quickly sent to AAH. There was a thread like this before that was deemed necessary, to quote the mod box that closed it, "...it served its initial purpose as a "catch all" for topics that did not fit well into other 9/11 conspiracy theory threads". I also appreciate that it was necessary to close it, to quote said mod box again, "....rather it seems the thread has descended into little more than a free-for-all of bickering and incivility".

My hope is that the mods see the renewed purpose of this thread as most threads of specific topics have been talked and rehashed to death, and very quickly descend into off-topic discussions. A "catch all" discussion thread that flows, I believe, is necessary.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 06:01 AM   #51
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...when you of course know perfectly well that several and very large investigations, particularly the single largest FBI investigation ever, have in fact been carried out and concluded.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Since the attack has already been investigated in detail by the FBI (in the largest investigation in the history of that agency),

Dave
Here in lies the problem: I find very few conspiracists even know that PENTTBOM took place. They believe that the 9/11 Commission was the investigation into 9/11, and then relay its limitations ("set up to fail", not enough money). They do not realize that the FBI, as well as all the other alphabet-agencies, had carte blanche and funding to investigate as far as they needed.

When you "surrender" that the 9/11 Commission was not a criminal investigation they actually believe they have won a point.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump

Last edited by cantonear1968; 17th September 2017 at 06:24 AM. Reason: spelling
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 06:18 AM   #52
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Appendix D of the FEMA report is shared above, and again below.

One of the reasons why I became inactive in this board is that I found the intellectual level lacking, and one of them involves the inability to do simple research. That is seen in your post and in Pgimeno's. Other problems include forum members referring to their expert background (as if that that be verified in a forum that uses user names) and using photographs to prove that a proper investigation took place (never mind studies!). What makes matters worse is that because question the investigation, then that makes me a truther who refers to CDs and some "inside job," even though I am not a truther nor mentioned any of those things in my posts.

It's bad enough that I have to spoon-feed you and others, I have to do it several times.

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-d...75/403_apd.pdf

That's it. I'm clearly wasting my time here.
Ralfyman, I do hope you'll stay, but I find your protestations a little disingenuous. You were asked specifically to quote the FEMA report and where is states it's selection process was flawed. You didn't do this but merely linked the FEMA Appendix D page again.

I went through this report and do not come to the conclusions that you do. I see a selection process that was relevant to their investigation and the majority of said pieces were held aside. Presumably for shipment to NIST. The report itself lists 156 pieces were selected and I believe the final tally for the NIST investigation was 236.

I can't find the direct quote from the House Congressional Hearings, but FEMA team leader Gene Corley and SE Dr. Astaneh-Asl, who was examining steel as early as September 18th, both tesitifed that, yes, they would have liked more time and money for an investigation, but feel that what they did collect would be sufficient to determine the cause of collapse.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 06:21 AM   #53
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,666
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why would CD even be on the table? There has never been any evidence pointing to it. Is space beams also on the table?
Exactly. Old mate doesn't like being called a truther, but for some bizarre reason feels that CD needs to be disproven
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 06:23 AM   #54
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,824
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Appendix D of the FEMA report is shared above, and again below.
I asked for the quote, not a link to the entire report.

If you can't provide the precise quote that justifies your claim (and it appears you're reluctant to do that), just say that.

As I said, if they didn't say that, and it's just your *interpretation* of what they said, then that calls into question your expertise, and whether you have any to make that judgment.

Remember also that nobody has to disprove your contentions. You have to prove them.

Here's what I'm waiting for you to prove (with a actual quote):
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
According to the FEMA report, the steel debris was not examined carefully.


Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
One of the reasons why I became inactive in this board is that I found the intellectual level lacking, and one of them involves the inability to do simple research.
So when asked for a quote to justify your claim, you turn to insult. Interesting response. No one should have to research the document for you to justify your claim. Presumably (and that presumption is getting less likely with time) you had a specific statement by FEMA in mind when you said this:
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
According to the FEMA report, the steel debris was not examined carefully.
I'm waiting for you to share that FEMA statement.



Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
That is seen in your post and in Pgimeno's.
Sorry, no. Asking you to source your claim is neither intellectual laziness nor an inability to do research. You appear to be attempting to Shift the Burden Of Proof here. Clearly you are refusing to cite the actual words of FEMA that led you to make the claim above, and just as clearly, you're blaming me and Pgimeno for not disproving your claim.



Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Other problems include forum members referring to their expert background (as if that that be verified in a forum that uses user names) and using photographs to prove that a proper investigation took place (never mind studies!). What makes matters worse is that because question the investigation, then that makes me a truther who refers to CDs and some "inside job," even though I am not a truther nor mentioned any of those things in my posts.
I asked for none of that, and freely admit I'm a total laymen here. I'm just asking for you to provide the quote where FEMA said what you said they said.



Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
It's bad enough that I have to spoon-feed you and others, I have to do it several times.

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-d...75/403_apd.pdf
Sorry, insulting me by calling my asking you to document your claim is not 'spoon-feeding' me. Citing a link to an entire report is neither sufficient nor necessary (otherwise, on the JFK boards, I could just provide a link to the Warren Report and be done with it).

Instead, as an example of what I'm looking for, look at this post. You will note I cited the actual expert testimony -- quoting word-for-word what they said -- as well as giving a link to their entire testimony. I didn't post a link to the Warren Report and say that settles it. I quoted both the actual conclusion in the Warren Report AND then some of the expert testimony that supports that conclusion.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1534

I didn't consider that spoon-feeding my opponent. I considered it proving my point. Now, can or can not you do the same to justify your statement?



Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
That's it. I'm clearly wasting my time here.
Well, if you think making undocumented claims will suffice, and expect to be taken at your word, then yeah. It's up to you to move the needle by providing the actual language from the FEMA report to establish your claim is true. It should be clear and concise, and not subject to interpretation. Can you provide that quote?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 17th September 2017 at 06:37 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 06:23 AM   #55
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Yes, but the buildings still pancaked, together with a third one that was not hit by the planes.
I hope you'll excuse our skepticism at your protestations about not being a truther when you use truther phrases such as this. No one claims WTC7 was hit by a plane. But most truthers take that to mean it wasn't hit by anything and spontaneously collapsed.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 06:38 AM   #56
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,302
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The collapse of the buildings were a consequence of a crime. The crime was flying planes into the buildings.

What part of the collapse do you consider to be a crime? Please explain.
Yes, but an investigation of that will still require proper storage and examination of physical evidence. That did not take place.
"Yes" does not answer the question "what part of the collapse do you consider a crime". Asserting that an investigation requires proper storage and examination of physical evidence is not an explanation of what part of the collapse you consider a crime.

Do you consider the collapse a crime perpetrated by the building on the occupants?

FBI had enough video evidence to be 100% sure that the crime committed by the perpetrators was to crash planes into the buildings. They didn't need any examination of the ruins to be certain of that.

As for an investigation of building performance, it was not mandated by law to keep the remains for further study. The NCSTAWP was passed as a direct result of 9/11 precisely to cover that legal hole and enforce building remains to be kept. NIST created NCSTAR-1 (NCSTA Report #1) thanks to that law.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 09:24 AM   #57
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Yes, but an investigation of that will still require proper storage and examination of physical evidence. That did not take place.

These photos are direct physical evidence that fire weakened the WTC steel beams.

https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.co...horseshoe1.jpg

http://www.911memorial.org/sites/all...5663221221.jpg

http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/DSCN0941_s.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...tc/fig-D-6.jpg
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 09:38 AM   #58
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Your expertise is meaningless for reasons given earlier. The rest is irrelevant because I wasn't talking about truthers.

It exposes the ignorance of 9/11 truthers who continue to claim that WTC steel was not examined and that CD was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Quote:
You are better off referring to reports.
Okay, let's take a look here.

Quote:
FEMA building performance study

"FEMA suggested that fires in conjunction with damage resulting from the aircraft impacts were the key to the collapse of the towers."

7 World Trade Center

"In May 2002, FEMA issued a report on the collapse based on a preliminary investigation conducted jointly with the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers under leadership of Dr. W. Gene Corley, P.E. FEMA made preliminary findings that the collapse was not primarily caused by actual impact damage from the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC but by fires on multiple stories ignited by debris from the other two towers that continued unabated due to lack of water for sprinklers or manual firefighting.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 09:44 AM   #59
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Exactly, and the valid reason will come from proper storage and examination of physical evidence.

False!! There was never evidence that CD was responsible for 9/11. There was no visual evidence, no audio evidence, no physical evidence and no seismic data evidence. Simple as that because CD was fabrication and truthers took the bait.

It seems that you were unaware of the fact that there were certain people posting false and misleading information on the Internet in order to trash the credibility of the truth movement and it worked and made the truth movement a laughing stock because truthers took the false information and re-posted that same false information as factual. Would you care to see some examples?!

.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 17th September 2017 at 09:48 AM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 10:39 AM   #60
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,912
Lol, you are caught making an intellectual error... and then debunk yourself. BTW, my one photo debunked your lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
... . Also, other agencies were not allowed to examine the debris for no valid reason. ...
A lie, and the photo proves it. One photo is all that is needed to expose your silly lie of "other agencies were not allowed".
You must be kidding, proved wrong my me, and then by yourself.

Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
You must be kidding: you're using a photograph to debunk my claim?

If all that you needed were pictures, then the least you could have done was point to Appendix D of the FEMA report!

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-d...75/403_apd.pdf
Lol, which debunks your BS claim.
Quote:
The steel was not searched for unique damage.
Yes it was, and you posted Appendix D, showing unique pieces. But those are not needed to solve the 9/11 crime, the passenger manifest is a start. Sorry, you have no idea fire caused the collapse, and you can't make a valid point.

Fire caused the collapse, you are not a skeptic on 9/11, you make up BS about how things should be and ignore evidence.

19 terrorists are responsible for the all the damage and murder on 9/11, fire caused the damage at the WTC after aircraft impacts started the biggest office fires in history. Not much you can do but spread lies, and claim to be a skeptic.

LOL, the source you provide proves pieces were selected. You are self-debunking, as are all your claims, already debunked.

Quote:
The ongoing volunteer effort of the SEAoNY engineers is securing WTC steel pieces that will provide physical evidence for studies on the WTC building performance. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-d...75/403_apd.pdf
oops, engineers picked pieces... darn, your skepticism, aka opinion, was due to lack of knowledge.

Better stop reading reports on 9/11, you will debunk your opinions.

Your lack of intellectual rigor, and your pointing out stuff most read years ago, is more BS. You had no idea what the difference between crime and accidents was, and now you play the you are intellectually smarter than others, as repeat the BS you posted 2 years ago.

It is irony to see you claim you pointing out stuff, stuff which debunks your lies.

Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
... That's it. I'm clearly wasting my time here.
Clearly you never wasted any time reading NIST, reading FEMA (until last night or this morning), learning investigation techniques, engineering, fire science etc. But you do make up a lot of lies about the FBI investigation and all your claims are bogus. With CD on the table, you ignore evidence and avoid research. The claims made against your flimsy opinions, are based on the stuff you did not study, aka the evidence and hundreds of reports.

Quote:
ralfyman - I didn't given any "skeptical version." What I said is that most of the physical evidence was sold off as scrap without careful examination. Appendix D of the FEMA report supports that.

I did not mention anything about thermite, CD, or inside jobs.
How could you have a version, you never studies the evidence, as proved by the silly claims you make. Debunking yourself, posting proof engineers picked steel of interest. Read the sources your post, don't cherry pick summaries you made up due to lack of reading the entire work for meaning.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 17th September 2017 at 11:34 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 12:34 PM   #61
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,775
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
In any crime, authorities gather, store, and examine physical evidence. This is especially so in one that involves airplane crashes and buildings collapsing. As clearly seen in the earlier points you raised above, the steel debris has to be examined carefully. That didn't happen: most of it was sold off as scrap for no valid reason.
Refer to the explanation of probable cause. In this context, probable cause applies to the crime of hijacking aircraft and deliberately crashing them into the towers. The collapses were the result of the crime (deliberate act), and the resulting collapses were the result of their actions.

The purpose of subsequent engineering reports was to determine if their designs were in any manner faulty with respect to life safety and building codes.


Samples of the materials that were retained were those believed to provide the most relevant information in determining the sequence of failures leading to the collapse of the buildings, not because the collapses themselves were criminal, except where perhaps design failures could be blamed on criminal negligence... that being besides the point... That's the largest disconnect held in this belief that not enough evidence of a crime was retained.

EDIT: Shortened it to the bare bones answer.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 17th September 2017 at 01:08 PM.
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 04:42 PM   #62
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,492
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Exactly, and the valid reason will come from proper storage and examination of physical evidence.
It was stored and examined.

Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
But most of the evidence was sold off as scrap for no valid reason.
It should have been kept for what now? What on earth else would one do with heaps of scrap metal? Keep it forever? At great expense for no good reason?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 05:27 PM   #63
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
It was stored and examined.


It should have been kept for what now? What on earth else would one do with heaps of scrap metal? Keep it forever? At great expense for no good reason?
If I'm correct, the first piece of steel left for China around Jan/Feb of '02. Most CTers think it left directly from GZ.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 05:38 PM   #64
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,492
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
If I'm correct, the first piece of steel left for China around Jan/Feb of '02.
Which is odd in itself. One would expect that irrelevant honking great waste metal would be disposed of quite quickly. But no. CTs think the US should have held onto all of it in perpetuity because reasons.

Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
Most CTers think it left directly from GZ.
Most CTers think that the planes had nothing to do with it. Go figure.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 06:21 PM   #65
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Which is odd in itself. One would expect that irrelevant honking great waste metal would be disposed of quite quickly. But no. CTs think the US should have held onto all of it in perpetuity because reasons.
Reasons? Giuliani. Because.....reasons.

Quote:
Most CTers think that the planes had nothing to do with it. Go figure.

And some think there weren't any planes at all. But they cannot be reasoned with.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 06:25 PM   #66
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,492
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
Reasons? Giuliani. Because.....reasons.




And some think there weren't any planes at all. But they cannot be reasoned with.
That is, in fairness, hard to fathom, but then you get the Judy Wood space beams nonsense.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 06:33 PM   #67
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
That is, in fairness, hard to fathom, but then you get the Judy Wood space beams nonsense.
On this.....they seem ro think hurricane Erin participated in the power needed to power the.....weapon?

How?


Discuss.
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 06:50 PM   #68
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,492
Originally Posted by cantonear1968 View Post
On this.....they seem ro think hurricane Erin participated in the power needed to power the.....weapon?

How?


Discuss.
Hurricane Erin? Well they seem to think that was guided and controlled by HAARP. Because it seems that nothing is good enough but that the US is hell bent on self destruction. The HAARP induce hurricanes are simply a means of forcing the seeple into the FEMA death camps for extermination when "Marshall" law is declared last century. Once "marshall" law is declared and the evil (insert bugbear of choice) are eliminated, the remaining reptilians will rule over <something> which will be themselves and insufficient to sustain themselves. Meanwhile, the GMO conspiracy will have come to fruition by dint of the chemtrails and there will be no people left to raise them. Oh, and this will only happen in murka, because nothing else exists.

The illuminutty just want to kill everyone, because...because...

Well, they are evil, I guess.It seems to matter not a whit that they would be killing themselves at the same time.

Figure that lunacy out. I can't.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 10:25 PM   #69
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Hurricane Erin? Well they seem to think that was guided and controlled by HAARP. Because it seems that nothing is good enough but that the US is hell bent on self destruction. The HAARP induce hurricanes are simply a means of forcing the seeple into the FEMA death camps for extermination when "Marshall" law is declared last century. Once "marshall" law is declared and the evil (insert bugbear of choice) are eliminated, the remaining reptilians will rule over <something> which will be themselves and insufficient to sustain themselves. Meanwhile, the GMO conspiracy will have come to fruition by dint of the chemtrails and there will be no people left to raise them. Oh, and this will only happen in murka, because nothing else exists.
Whenever I used to see people satirically posting this sort of thing I used to think it was exaggerated for comic effect, but recently I watched my first David Icke lecture (all nine hours of it!) and it really, really isn't, is it?
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th September 2017, 11:02 PM   #70
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,492
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Whenever I used to see people satirically posting this sort of thing I used to think it was exaggerated for comic effect, but recently I watched my first David Icke lecture (all nine hours of it!) and it really, really isn't, is it?
Ah. The turquoise shell suited guru, because that is what jebus used to wear. For some reason (he claims), turquoise colour interferes with the reptilians senses. Because "turquoise". No, I don't get it either.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 12:19 AM   #71
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Ah. The turquoise shell suited guru, because that is what jebus used to wear. For some reason (he claims), turquoise colour interferes with the reptilians senses. Because "turquoise". No, I don't get it either.
He was in a green shirt in the one I saw. Reptiles are green. Coincidence?
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 01:24 AM   #72
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Aren't most of those actually girders as opposed to columns?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 01:26 AM   #73
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Since when is following standard fire investigation protocol a conspiracy theory?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 01:57 AM   #74
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,997
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Since when is following standard fire investigation protocol a conspiracy theory?
I think ignoring the numerous times you have been schooled over this error, plus ignoring all the other evidence showing the culpability of Al Qaeda, whilst simultaneously refusing to advance a theory of your own, is proof of your adherence to conspiracy theories. They only survive as a result of actions like this.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 05:36 AM   #75
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,492
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Since when is following standard fire investigation protocol a conspiracy theory?
What is "standard fire investigation protocol" in your opinion?

It seems to me that this is something gleaned from TV, like the bovine notion that all crashed aircraft are painstakingly reconstructed fragment by fragment in every case. (they're not. it's rare for that to occur. But TV makes people believe that they are.)
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 06:30 AM   #76
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,396
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
The only way to show whether or not a CD was involved is to examine the physical evidence.
Sorry, why are you even talking about CD? There is no reason to suppose that any demolition devices were installed in any of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11, no records of any such devices being installed, no observations of loud reports or flashes that on more than the most superficial and biased examination appear consistent with such devices being the cause of any of the collapses, nor any physical evidence of any such devices in the debris, which was examined in extremely fine detail. The only reason to even suggest CD as a possible cause of collapse is that you're a closet truther who doesn't want to admit to being one because you know the truth movement has no credibility, and is therefore trying to discredit the various investigations just to spin out a pointless argument. Nobody outside of the truth movement takes the idea of CD seriously as a possible cause of the collapses on 9/11 because of the complete lack of any evidence for it including evidence which could not have escaped observation, and for that reason sensible people consider it already shown that no CD was involved. Only truthers JAQing off think any differently.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 06:33 AM   #77
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,396
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Since when is following standard fire investigation protocol a conspiracy theory?
I don't think anybody's actually accusing you of suggesting a conspiracy theory, for the simple reason that you haven't actually suggested anything yet, or indeed made any intelligent statement (as opposed to JAQing off) on this subject. However, since you seem (so far as it's possible from the information vacuum you're offering) to feel that a new investigation of 9/11 is necessary, would you like to start by telling us what form this investigation should take, who should carry it out, what powers they should be granted, and from what authority and under what legal framework these powers should be derived?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 06:37 AM   #78
heymatto70
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
What is "standard fire investigation protocol" in your opinion?

It seems to me that this is something gleaned from TV, like the bovine notion that all crashed aircraft are painstakingly reconstructed fragment by fragment in every case. (they're not. it's rare for that to occur. But TV makes people believe that they are.)
I think TV also makes people think that when an object (lets say, oh, an airplane) travels at fast speeds and impacts something hard (like reinforced concrete on the Pentagon, just off the top of my head) it's supposed to cut out a hole the exact size and shape of a plane, just like Wile E Coyote does.
heymatto70 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 06:53 AM   #79
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,492
Originally Posted by heymatto70 View Post
I think TV also makes people think that when an object (lets say, oh, an airplane) travels at fast speeds and impacts something hard (like reinforced concrete on the Pentagon, just off the top of my head) it's supposed to cut out a hole the exact size and shape of a plane, just like Wile E Coyote does.
Ah, yes. The Warner theory of physics.

This is exactly how no-planers and the likes of Judy Wood gained currency in the CT world. Unable to deal with actual evidence, the tall tale must get taller until you end up with CGI planes, nukes, embedded det-charges from the 70's, and space weapons.

One assumes that any moment now MicahJava will be demanding that we prove that crazy satellites touting vast laser beams don't exist. Or 1970s fusion bombs embedded in the foundations of WTC 1 and 2. Or any of the other nonsense.

Surely it makes sense to spend a gazillion dollars investigating such things, right?

MJ sure thinks so.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th September 2017, 07:06 AM   #80
FFTR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Yes, but an investigation of that will still require proper storage and examination of physical evidence. That did not take place.
It is known that the steel was inspected. Identified critical pieces were stored. A simple search provides that information.

Your point storage and examination of physical evidence has been discussed and has no real validity.
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.