|
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. |
11th January 2014, 05:35 PM | #321 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
To date you haven't demonstrated anything other than a refusal to discuss the topic.
Done. I laid out my argument in the video and the accompanying transcript in the OP. Wading through all the sarcastic and childish posts I still have yet to see any sort of an attempt to discuss the evidence I brought forth, so I find it humorous that you use the term "layperson opinion". |
11th January 2014, 05:37 PM | #322 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
|
Pretending that we haven't already presented the evidence isn't going to advance your case.
Meanwhile, evidence to support your assertions is notably lacking. ETA: Animated gifs with arrows are *not* evidence - they are the claim. For example: 1. You claim that distortion of the pylons inwards towards the point of impact is inconsistent with the official story, but have provided no *evidence* that supports your assertion that the damage would be otherwise in the official version of events. 2. You claim that the aircraft could not have broken the pylons/beams, but have failed to show any calculations that support the assertion. On the contrary, other posters have provided calculations that show that the energy at the point of impact was sufficient. If, as you claim, this is not the case, where are the calculations and physical evidence of the day in error, as the score is 2-0 against what you claim? There are other questions you have still not answered in the thread, but I'm sure you can find them easily enough. |
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it.... |
|
11th January 2014, 05:38 PM | #323 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
11th January 2014, 05:49 PM | #324 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
Everything:
Have at it, I look forward to seeing you twist yourself into a pretzel to demonstrate how the damage is consistent with the impact of a jet plane. Perhaps you can get Purdue to help. Once you get your video released I'll be happy to prove you wrong seven ways from Sunday. Big surprise that's as far as you can tell but you've still demonstrated squat. |
11th January 2014, 05:51 PM | #325 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
Far as I can tell the op offers no substantive point whatsoever. Its mostly egging on members (quite often successfully it would seem) to be snarky. And in the few cases in which an honest response to the op's query, it's been returned with more snark.
As for the topic at hand you have a burden of proof to uphold in demonstrating that the witness testimony and collective evidence (which you claim doesn't exist) proving the plane impacts is wrong. If you don't explain away anyof that then you have no case like it or not. Unfortunately it takes two people to hold a discussion and the flow of the thread so far is incompatible (and admittedly I'm not totally innocent either). The threads 9 pages too long and there's plenty of blame to go around for how it's gone so far. |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
11th January 2014, 05:52 PM | #326 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
11th January 2014, 05:56 PM | #327 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
1. The video demonstrates exactly that.
2. I claim no such thing, I claim that IF the bolts in the connecting the column ends (not 'pylons' or 'beams', PAY ATTENTION!) had been snapped then BOTH ends of the connecting columns would be damaged. That you demand "calculations" is laughable considering none of the calculations you've ever used as proof of the official story prove anything except the dishonesty of the authors. Name one, if you can. |
11th January 2014, 05:57 PM | #328 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
|
11th January 2014, 05:58 PM | #329 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
|
11th January 2014, 05:59 PM | #330 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
|
|
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it.... |
|
11th January 2014, 06:05 PM | #331 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Let's look at what he got:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What part of this is "demonstrating"? |
__________________
"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 |
|
11th January 2014, 06:13 PM | #332 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
11th January 2014, 06:17 PM | #333 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
11th January 2014, 06:20 PM | #334 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
11th January 2014, 06:21 PM | #335 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
11th January 2014, 06:34 PM | #336 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
|
|
11th January 2014, 06:42 PM | #337 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
11th January 2014, 06:43 PM | #338 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
|
11th January 2014, 06:44 PM | #339 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
11th January 2014, 06:45 PM | #340 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
|
11th January 2014, 06:47 PM | #341 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
|
11th January 2014, 06:47 PM | #342 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
I fail to see the hypocrisy in pointing out that the prima fascia of your argument relies on denying that the plane as described even existed and that thousands of people on the ground in the immediate vicinity saw little more than a hologram or some kind of covered special effect. Since you prove neither, you have the reason as to why I don't give the no plane theory you're pushing my undivided attention. If you ever get to that point I'll be ready to discuss. But it's rather impossible when you respond the same way as many of the peers you're directing the above "critique" to.
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
11th January 2014, 06:49 PM | #343 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
11th January 2014, 06:54 PM | #344 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
|
|
11th January 2014, 06:54 PM | #345 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
No rational arguments here at yankee451 headquarters for fantasy.
http://yankee451.com/2014/01/07/cut-...e-episode-one/ Told you. This yankee451.com is pure nonsense, from anti-government rant to silly missiles on 911. Bad fiction. You could use "Bad Fiction" as your movie company, an intro for your fantasy. http://911crashtest.org/faq/ Fantasy. |
11th January 2014, 07:01 PM | #346 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
I'll bet that the condition you refer to is at the top section of a panel... the columns project about 48" above the floor and the 52" spandrel is there. The top of those panels in that location would be much stiffer and the impact above ripped the columns and destroyed the floor as a more or less direct hit in that location.
You fail to recognize that the impact was not a uniform blunt "thing" hitting a another uniform flat thing... they were both complex and represented a range of stiffness/density/resistance and so forth. You show a certain obsession with detail and miss the over larger principles of mechanics in play. |
__________________
So many idiots and so little time. |
|
11th January 2014, 07:17 PM | #347 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
Ohh...the documents may say 52 but the spandrels say 48. There are these new fangled measuring tools you can use to measure distances in photographs. Science, try it, you'll like it.
Besides, you bet wrong. I clearly highlight the half dozen seams with only one half of the connections damaged, some top, some bottom. You really should watch the video. You failed to examine the evidence. Why? http://yankee451.com/wp-content/uplo.../07/Seams7.png |
Last edited by LashL; 13th January 2014 at 07:26 PM. Reason: To change oversized image to a link as the size was disruptive. |
|
11th January 2014, 07:20 PM | #348 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
And all those conditions confirm the condition I noted.. I am not wrong. You've highlighted exactly what I said in words! Check the stagger pattern... you'll see.
|
__________________
So many idiots and so little time. |
|
11th January 2014, 07:31 PM | #349 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
No you didn't.
What we are seeing highlighted in the image are seams that prove the bolts were removed prior to impact. Only one half of the connecting panels were damaged. We see a spandrel plate shattered and directly below it we see the telltale three straight column ends. This is exactly opposite what you said in words. |
11th January 2014, 07:32 PM | #350 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,794
|
|
11th January 2014, 07:33 PM | #351 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
11th January 2014, 07:33 PM | #352 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Yeah I see that. You know what I also saw? Planes hit the towers.
None of the mindless babble you've presented as "evidence" even comes close to countering that. Hell maybe the images you've seen were made by that same magical hologram machine that made the planes. Why exactly should we believe anything you show us? Faking a grainy internet photo would be infinitely easier then faking a plane hitting a tower. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
11th January 2014, 07:40 PM | #353 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
11th January 2014, 07:50 PM | #354 |
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
|
Your post seems to me to suggest you have issues with the Purdue Finite Elements Analysis (FEA) simulation video. Prior experience suggests asking you questions is like pissing up a rope, but would you please give me one or two reasons why you doubt the results of that analysis?
|
11th January 2014, 07:54 PM | #355 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
|
The questions were asked, the answers evaded "The damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it." is an assertion that is not supported by anything. In your opinion, the damage evidence proves a jet didn't do it, but there is nothing to back this up:
On a more basic point, nothing has been presented to explain why the physics of an aircraft impact is insufficient to cause the damage observed. Several posters have provided you with calculations that support the damage. If these are wrong, what is wrong with them and why? |
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it.... |
|
11th January 2014, 08:12 PM | #356 |
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
|
Nope. Your subjective and unsystematic hog-tied amateur interpretation of a limited dataset is not "proof" of anything.
Over 20 (maybe as many as 30) different videos have surfaced of the second 9/11 impact. These videos were taken at distances ranging from a few hundred feet from the tower to nearly 5 miles away, and range all around the compass. Here is one collection of them. In this collection is a video shot from a nearby building looking up at the impact, (02:12 to 02:25) with another building between the tower and the camera. You want to compare the mass of the plane to the mass of the building? In that video you can clearly see the building flex to screen-right when the mass of the airplane hit the central column. Somewhere out there is a longer version of that clip showing the WTC oscillating for nearly 5 minutes after the impact. Do the math on the timing of that the motion of the building begins at a time AFTER the initial impact, consistent with the impact velocity of the plane reaching the building core. Also in that same clip you can see the debris ejecta leave the building. The debris leaves two smoke trails, one spiralling and one not. The spiralling smoke trail originates at the corner of the building, and you can see this in nearly every video. That smoke trail is the right wing engine punching through the building, falling a thousand feet while travelling at about 450mph (I've done the math -- if you don't believe me do it yourself) and ending up at the intersection of Church and Murray. The other tail leads to a nearby rooftop where a chunk of fuselage more than 100'square was later found. The videos are consistent. The debris ejecta is consistent. The "Pinocchio's nose" aka "hole that wasn't there" is consistent (both in timing and placement) with the air column of the fuselage exiting the building along with the fuel from the center tanks, which then explodes in a fuel-air fireball. Your Nope Lamer fantasy only works if you toss out 9 tenths of the information. That's not science. That's lying to yourself and others. |
11th January 2014, 08:25 PM | #357 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,215
|
|
__________________
I lost my mind many years ago and it hasn't affected me a bit...a bit..a bit..a bit. |
|
11th January 2014, 08:33 PM | #358 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
Oh, dear: The only way you can pretend there is "no evidence" is to ignore the questions that so obviously intimidate you. Just for grins--how fast was the leading edge of the wing or either one of the 767s that was observed to impact either one fo the towers, at the pint either one was observed to impact the tower if impacted? Do remember that speed is a scalar.
And remember that that is just the first step...until you begin to deal with actual reality, "we" are, in fact, done. |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
11th January 2014, 08:34 PM | #359 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
11th January 2014, 08:38 PM | #360 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
Okay. You know what proves a jet did it? A jet hitting the flippin' tower.
I mean seriously this is beyond the pale. Planes... hit... the.... towers. Tens of thousands of people saw it happen in real life. Millions saw it live on television. This is beyond wrong into full scale reality denial. |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|