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 ae911 , nist , wtc7

Reply
Old 11th July 2021, 01:01 AM   #1
Jaytje46
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 503
Post NIST Errors

Seems the dolts are suing NIST

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/760-...9-11-free-fall

And they have their own website! http://nisterrors.com/

Quote:
" 1. If you are seeking a place to expose NIST fraud, waste and abuse, particularly in regards to NIST’s World Trade Center reports on Buildings 1, 2, or 7, you’ve come to the right place.

2. If you are a NIST employee or member of the general public, this site provides information
on the scientific errors that were made in NIST’s Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 released in November 2008."
So does this mean that they are ok with NIST report of WTC 1 and 2?
Jaytje46 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 11th July 2021, 07:04 AM   #2
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Jaytje46 View Post
Seems the dolts are suing NIST

https://www.ae911truth.org/news/760-...9-11-free-fall

And they have their own website! http://nisterrors.com/



So does this mean that they are ok with NIST report of WTC 1 and 2?
Not having the displeasure of reading their website, report or blogs. I assume that they are not ok with the reports of WTC1 and/or 2. They should be at the very least consistent.
bknight 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 11th July 2021, 08:07 AM   #3
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,426
First line on the website - "This week on 9/11 Free Fall, ..."

They have a weekly show about an empty building that fell down 20 years ago?
carlitos 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 11th July 2021, 03:35 PM   #4
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
First line on the website - "This week on 9/11 Free Fall, ..."

They have a weekly show about an empty building that fell down 20 years ago?
Yes. And the host believes that no plane crashed into the Pentagon. That sort of lunatic.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 11th July 2021, 04:10 PM   #5
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Yes. And the host believes that no plane crashed into the Pentagon. That sort of lunatic.
And does this host have a name?
bknight 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 11th July 2021, 09:06 PM   #6
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,949
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
And does this host have a name?
??? The host? Andy Steele.
RecoveringYuppy 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 12th July 2021, 02:40 AM   #7
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,557
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
??? The host? Andy Steele.
Can he be melted by jet fuel?
__________________
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 12th July 2021, 03:45 AM   #8
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
I miss the Goddess of Legaltainment to comment on the best moves.
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 12th July 2021, 06:10 AM   #9
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 25,694
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Can he be melted by jet fuel?
Do charring or vapourisation count?
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate 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 12th July 2021, 08:17 AM   #10
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Do charring or vapourisation count?
Dustification.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 12th July 2021, 08:18 AM   #11
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
And does this host have a name?
Yes.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 12th July 2021, 12:37 PM   #12
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Yes.
And that name would be?

If Andy Steele no need to respond.

Last edited by bknight; 12th July 2021 at 12:38 PM.
bknight 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 13th July 2021, 04:07 AM   #13
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,557
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Dustification.
At freefall speed.
__________________
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 15th July 2021, 05:13 AM   #14
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
At freefall speed.
The CTs always leave out the word "nearly" before free fall.
bknight 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 15th July 2021, 05:39 AM   #15
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
The CTs always leave out the word "nearly" before free fall.
Why should they put that word there?

We've been discussing this for 12 years now, and for at least 11 years, it has been confirmed and agreed that indeed some spots on the north wall roofline descended AT freefall acceleration on average for a brief period of time (and quite likely, momentarily even BEYOND g). Are you under the impression that this is a problem, or why else do you refuse to allow for yourself the possibility, probability, reality of freefall acceleration?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 15th July 2021, 08:02 AM   #16
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Why should they put that word there?

We've been discussing this for 12 years now, and for at least 11 years, it has been confirmed and agreed that indeed some spots on the north wall roofline descended AT freefall acceleration on average for a brief period of time (and quite likely, momentarily even BEYOND g). Are you under the impression that this is a problem, or why else do you refuse to allow for yourself the possibility, probability, reality of freefall acceleration?
I'm not precluding that the buildings would fall at nearly free fall, but that word brings more in focus to the facts and takes away the free fall as a "proof" that CDs brought down the towers. Fire buckling the steel members to a point of failure brought down the towers. Once the top mass started down the collapse was inventible.
bknight 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 15th July 2021, 12:37 PM   #17
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I'm not precluding that the buildings would fall at nearly free fall
The smarter of the Truthers in 2021 don't claim any longer that the twins fell at or even just nearly free fall acceleration. That word is reserved for the roofline of WTC7's north wall (which Truthers invalidly equate with "the building", of course).

Would you preclude that the roofline would fall at fully free fall?

Truthers are correct that free fall acceleration was observed.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 15th July 2021, 12:44 PM   #18
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The smarter of the Truthers in 2021 don't claim any longer that the twins fell at or even just nearly free fall acceleration. That word is reserved for the roofline of WTC7's north wall (which Truthers invalidly equate with "the building", of course).

Would you preclude that the roofline would fall at fully free fall?

Truthers are correct that free fall acceleration was observed.
I don't/haven't precluded anything.

Fire buckling the steel members to a point of failure brought down the towers. Once the top mass started down the collapse was inventible.

So get off my case, please.
bknight 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 16th July 2021, 03:21 AM   #19
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I don't/haven't precluded anything.

Fire buckling the steel members to a point of failure brought down the towers. Once the top mass started down the collapse was inventible.

So get off my case, please.
Your case is that Truthers leave out the word "nearly" to qualify "at free fall". As Truthers mostly talk about the roofline descent of WTC7, your case is WRONG: full free fall acceleration was indeed observed for a brief period, so it would be flat out WRONG to demand it be qualified to "nearly" at free fall acceleration. It was NOT nearly - it was AT free fall acceleration. So you were WRONG. You now act like a Truther, who would never correct themselves when shown to be WRONG.

The problem is not so much that the qualifier "nearly" is missing from their claim (a weazle word, anyway: how nearly is nearly? Within 5%? 0.5%? 50%), the problems are that they falsely equivocate "roofline" and "the building", and that a brief episode of free fall late into the collapse sequence would not be all that interesting anyway.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 16th July 2021, 03:50 AM   #20
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,557
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Your case is that Truthers leave out the word "nearly" to qualify "at free fall". As Truthers mostly talk about the roofline descent of WTC7, your case is WRONG: full free fall acceleration was indeed observed for a brief period, so it would be flat out WRONG to demand it be qualified to "nearly" at free fall acceleration. It was NOT nearly - it was AT free fall acceleration. So you were WRONG. You now act like a Truther, who would never correct themselves when shown to be WRONG.

The problem is not so much that the qualifier "nearly" is missing from their claim (a weazle word, anyway: how nearly is nearly? Within 5%? 0.5%? 50%), the problems are that they falsely equivocate "roofline" and "the building", and that a brief episode of free fall late into the collapse sequence would not be all that interesting anyway.
With all due respect, Oystein, I think you're taking a light-hearted comment far too seriously.
__________________
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 16th July 2021, 07:49 AM   #21
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Your case is that Truthers leave out the word "nearly" to qualify "at free fall". As Truthers mostly talk about the roofline descent of WTC7, your case is WRONG: full free fall acceleration was indeed observed for a brief period, so it would be flat out WRONG to demand it be qualified to "nearly" at free fall acceleration. It was NOT nearly - it was AT free fall acceleration. So you were WRONG. You now act like a Truther, who would never correct themselves when shown to be WRONG.

The problem is not so much that the qualifier "nearly" is missing from their claim (a weazle word, anyway: how nearly is nearly? Within 5%? 0.5%? 50%), the problems are that they falsely equivocate "roofline" and "the building", and that a brief episode of free fall late into the collapse sequence would not be all that interesting anyway.
The roof may have collapsed at free fall for a very brief time, but the whole building did not fall at free fall. If you are implying that it did then you are wrong and the same goes for the twin tower. No nearly does not have a qualifier of any percentage in my vocabulary, but any time greater than free fall is nearly. You put on your own percentage to weasel.
Now I have defined my position prove me wrong and unless you can do that I'm asking you again politely to get off my case.
bknight 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 16th July 2021, 07:53 AM   #22
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
With all due respect, Oystein, I think you're taking a light-hearted comment far too seriously.
What he said^^^
bknight 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 16th July 2021, 05:34 PM   #23
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
The roof may have collapsed at free fall for a very brief time, but the whole building did not fall at free fall.
Yes, correct. Notice how the word "nearly" doesn't come into play here? Neither for the roof nor the building?

Originally Posted by bknight View Post
If you are implying that it did then you are wrong
Do you think I was implying that?

Originally Posted by bknight View Post
and the same goes for the twin tower. No nearly does not have a qualifier of any percentage in my vocabulary, but any time greater than free fall is nearly.
You would say "nearly free fall" if the building took two weeks to come down?!?

Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You put on your own percentage to weasel..
No, I have not. Silly.

Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Now I have defined my position
Your position is that, literally, any distance is defined as "near", which is a highly unusual definition and pretty much obliterates all the conventional meanings.

Originally Posted by bknight View Post
prove me wrong
A definition cannot be proven wrong - by definition.

Originally Posted by bknight View Post
and unless you can do that I'm asking you again politely to get off my case.
You didn't plan this, but you set up a perfidious trap there, a veritable Catch-22. I have seen Stephen Jones try stuff like this to bully his way out of losing a debate. The difference is that he is smart enough to do it on purpose, where you just struggle with language and concepts.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 16th July 2021, 05:40 PM   #24
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,161
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
With all due respect, Oystein, I think you're taking a light-hearted comment far too seriously.
And?

I have a problem with debunkers who happen to have chosen the "right" side of history, but can't string together a coherent argument based on true premises.
Put differently: I know Truthers who are smarter - and sometimes even more correct .- than bknight. Would you come to a Truther's rescue like that if I took a light-hearted, but plainly wrong (or irrelevant) comment of theirs serious and pointed out how it's false (or irrelevant)?

You see, I am quite against the concept of defending or letting pass my team's errors. In fact, I am more critical with my team members than with the opposing team's members. I want my team members to be better than them.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 16th July 2021, 11:41 PM   #25
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,557
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And?

I have a problem with debunkers who happen to have chosen the "right" side of history, but can't string together a coherent argument based on true premises.
Put differently: I know Truthers who are smarter - and sometimes even more correct .- than bknight. Would you come to a Truther's rescue like that if I took a light-hearted, but plainly wrong (or irrelevant) comment of theirs serious and pointed out how it's false (or irrelevant)?

You see, I am quite against the concept of defending or letting pass my team's errors. In fact, I am more critical with my team members than with the opposing team's members. I want my team members to be better than them.
You may imagine you are justified in this, and that the means justify the ends, but I seriously doubt that this approach will achieve the goals you desire.
You don't have to fight every battle. Sometimes you end up doing more harm than good. It can be better just to let some things go.
__________________
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 17th July 2021, 06:05 AM   #26
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Yes, correct. Notice how the word "nearly" doesn't come into play here? Neither for the roof nor the building?
I was talking about free fall, if I wanted to added nearly then I would have. You were assuming facts not in evidence. But I digress the whole building fell at nearly free fall.
Quote:

Do you think I was implying that?
I asked the question, I didn't "think" anything and you sidestepped answering my question.
Quote:



You would say "nearly free fall" if the building took two weeks to come down?!?
Sarcasms are not needed/desired in any discussion. You are putting meanings into my thoughts.
Quote:


No, I have not. Silly.
If you didn't then why did you submit a list of percentages?
Quote:


Your position is that, literally, any distance is defined as "near", which is a highly unusual definition and pretty much obliterates all the conventional meanings.
NO I don't define "any distance" as near, but near defines the time it took to free fall. So your comment concerning unusual definition has no meaning and since it has no meaning then the "obliterates all the conventional meanings" has no meaning. The distance the building fell is predefined by its original height so it is not nearly a distance. And last as a matter of practicality, I really don't believe that the roof fell at free fall because any resistance to falling by structural members would slow it down, whereas a free falling body is just that free falling not stopping albeit momentarily prior to proceeding. But to prove your comment there would have had to be a high speed camera recording the drop. You are assessing your belief on very imprecise measurements.
Quote:


A definition cannot be proven wrong - by definition.
Since you took my definition of near to be incorrect, then your statement is incorrect. The buildings fell at near free fall. Prove that wrong or drop the subject.
Quote:


You didn't plan this, but you set up a perfidious trap there, a veritable Catch-22. I have seen Stephen Jones try stuff like this to bully his way out of losing a debate. The difference is that he is smart enough to do it on purpose, where you just struggle with language and concepts.
I didn't set up anything, you nitpick on a word you choose.
I have posted the last lines on this subject post back if you really believe you need to post and get the last word, but I am done.
bknight 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 July 2021, 01:48 AM   #27
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,577
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I have a problem with debunkers who happen to have chosen the "right" side of history, but can't string together a coherent argument based on true premises.
Agreed.
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Put differently: I know Truthers who are smarter - and sometimes even more correct .....
There have been several lengthy "discussions" resulting from just that situation. In fact go back to 2008 and one famous "split" - when key issues of correct understanding were put on the table by persons who were ridiculed and denigrated as "truthers".. There are several historic threads which clearly show the mental gymnastics arising from assumptions "truthers are always wrong" -- when they weren't and "we are always right" -- when "we" were not. Including at least one ridiculous situation when the debunkers claim was almost explicitly "It is true when we say it but wrong when you say it because you are a truther".

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I am more critical with my team members than with the opposing team's members. I want my team members to be better than them.
I share the frustration.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You don't have to fight every battle. Sometimes you end up doing more harm than good. It can be better just to let some things go.
I've made that pragmatic choice many times. Looking back over 12 or more years I've probably been too easy with debunker responses which were far from accurate. I'm not sure about the "more harm than good" aspect but it was definitely a choice I took - possibly too many times over the years.

Last edited by ozeco41; 18th July 2021 at 01:53 AM.
ozeco41 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 July 2021, 02:50 AM   #28
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 35,706
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You may imagine you are justified in this, and that the means justify the ends, but I seriously doubt that this approach will achieve the goals you desire.
You don't have to fight every battle. Sometimes you end up doing more harm than good. It can be better just to let some things go.
Error should be pointed out or it will come back and bite you later.
Captain_Swoop 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 19th July 2021, 07:59 AM   #29
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 23,426
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Your case is that Truthers leave out the word "nearly" to qualify "at free fall". As Truthers mostly talk about the roofline descent of WTC7, ....
Maybe the truthers that you interact with. The ones that are left in my observation are all over the board and not nearly so nuanced.

I linked to a radio show called 9/11 Free Fall. Not 9/11 Roofline 2.25 Seconds Freefall, or "we don't mean the actual World Trade Center but rather the Salomon Brothers Building only one part of it Freefall." The guy who hosts it is apparently a no plan at the Pentagon guy.
carlitos 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 19th July 2021, 01:08 PM   #30
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Maybe the truthers that you interact with. The ones that are left in my observation are all over the board and not nearly so nuanced.

I linked to a radio show called 9/11 Free Fall. Not 9/11 Roofline 2.25 Seconds Freefall, or "we don't mean the actual World Trade Center but rather the Salomon Brothers Building only one part of it Freefall." The guy who hosts it is apparently a no plan at the Pentagon guy.

Hello Carlitos ...Fonebone is a truther.
__________________
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
Fonebone 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 19th July 2021, 10:32 PM   #31
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,219
Bitterly disappointed to have missed Gage at the Red Pill Expo. That sounded positively enriching. Still I am glad to see that the AE911Troof people are going to educate engineers. They could do with educating, those engineers.

Waiting with baited breath to see this law suit. Apparently they are going to sue the NIST people about things like seismology data and melted steel that aren't even in the Hulsey report so, yeah, that sounds almost as enriching as Gage at the Red Pill Expo.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 22nd July 2021, 05:51 PM   #32
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Sounds like nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Code:
   SEND
 + MORE
________
  MONEY
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 22nd July 2021, 09:05 PM   #33
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,219
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Sounds like nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Code:
   SEND
 + MORE
________
  MONEY
I guess that with the Pilots gone and Aldo and Craig gone quiet then they have the whole field to themselves more or less.

Amazing that you can fund a set of full time salaries on the basis of donations from the gullible. Well, come to think of it, not so amazing.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 23rd July 2021, 06:37 AM   #34
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,157
Gage and truthers never made an evidenced based case and so were not taken seriously by the engineering community. Their swill did seem to impress the uneducated and gullible much the way people fall for cults. It's Gage's "work" and he's done well with his dog and pony shows at keeping him well compensated.

The upside to all of this was some decent "independent" research revealing how structures collapse and cascading failures. I learned a lot.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 23rd July 2021, 10:44 AM   #35
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,435
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I guess that with the Pilots gone and Aldo and Craig gone quiet then they have the whole field to themselves more or less.

Amazing that you can fund a set of full time salaries on the basis of donations from the gullible. Well, come to think of it, not so amazing.
Gotta keep pumping the prime to ensure livelihood.
bknight 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 12:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.