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.
Reply
Old 18th May 2016, 11:04 AM   #2321
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
This has been covered a number of times if you can be bothered to read through even the threads in this forum.
Unless you want to claim that the Fire Department are liars and in on the conspiracy.

Are we stuck in some kind of time warp?
He won't. This guy showed up in the JFK thread a while back, introducing himself as "new to the conspiracy", as if it was something to be proud of.

My guess is that he descent has led him to 9-11 stupidland.
Axxman300 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 May 2016, 12:50 PM   #2322
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I just made an account and sent them an email.
Good for you.

What exactly did you ask? I don't need a copy of the email, I'd just like to know your wording.
__________________
"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 18th May 2016, 03:13 PM   #2323
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
3 of us in New Mexico watching on television predicted collapse, as did at least 4 in Colorado, plus 2sophomore engineering students from NMSU, all of which I know personally.
WTC 7? The mainstream media reported the expectations of collapse very early. If you count the first false report of collapse at 11:07, it was before any photographic evidence of fire. So what?
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 May 2016, 03:23 PM   #2324
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
WTC 7? The mainstream media reported the expectations of collapse very early. If you count the first false report of collapse at 11:07, it was before any photographic evidence of fire. So what?
Why WTC 7? It's a nothing building where no one profited. Certainly you don't think CD'n a building is a better way to destroy some documents then a paper shredder?
__________________
"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 18th May 2016, 03:26 PM   #2325
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Good for you.

What exactly did you ask? I don't need a copy of the email, I'd just like to know your wording.


Edited by jsfisher:  IMG tags replaced with IMGW tags to be less disruptive.

I feel that I was just pointing out the obvious. I don't feel the need to respond to any more comments trying to debunk the NFPA 921 by citing their findings from their JREF careers. Excuse me from that topic, until I get an email response back from them.

Last edited by jsfisher; 18th May 2016 at 03:52 PM.
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 May 2016, 03:27 PM   #2326
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why WTC 7? It's a nothing building where no one profited. Certainly you don't think CD'n a building is a better way to destroy some documents then a paper shredder?
Well, destroying documents with a paper shredder would be more likely to lead to suspicion and an investigation than an elaborate arson.
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 May 2016, 03:31 PM   #2327
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Well, destroying documents with a paper shredder would be more likely to lead to suspicion and an investigation than an elaborate arson.
Spilling documents onto the street is better? "They" had control of a building that was on fire. Why CD?
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 18th May 2016 at 03:35 PM.
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 18th May 2016, 03:32 PM   #2328
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
He won't. This guy showed up in the JFK thread a while back, introducing himself as "new to the conspiracy", as if it was something to be proud of.

My guess is that he descent has led him to 9-11 stupidland.
Lol. 9/11 actually lead me to JFK. I stopped posting to that thread because that rabbit hole is so complicated. I tried arguing for a sniper behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll, but now I actually think it's a distinct possibility that some kind of firecracker was used near there as a diversion. If there was a shooter from the upper right front, they could have been from the grassy knoll storm drain near the bridge.
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 May 2016, 03:34 PM   #2329
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Spilling documents into the street is better?
Maybe they just should have ordered the first responders to stop rescuing people so they could carry boxes of documents out like they did with the Oklahoma City Bombing.
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 May 2016, 03:39 PM   #2330
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Well, destroying documents with a paper shredder would be more likely to lead to suspicion and an investigation than an elaborate arson.

This has to be one of the most ridiculous claims in the entire storied history of this subforum.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 May 2016, 03:40 PM   #2331
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Maybe they just should have ordered the first responders to stop rescuing people so they could carry boxes of documents out like they did with the Oklahoma City Bombing.
I don't even want to know what you think "they" were hiding there. You didn't address my question. Why not let it burn (like it was) and let that destroy whatever you fantasize needed destroying.

Who's the "they"?
__________________
"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 18th May 2016, 03:41 PM   #2332
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Are you citing yourself as a source, using a post you made on a website that you were eventually banned from?

If so, are you related to Fletcher Prouty?
Quit that BS. You know NIST denied freefall and said that it can't happen. In the end, they couldn't even fool a high school physics teacher.
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 May 2016, 03:49 PM   #2333
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Quit that BS. You know NIST denied freefall and said that it can't happen. In the end, they couldn't even fool a high school physics teacher.
Where did they "deny free-fall and said that it can't happen"?

Quote the statement.

Bet you can't.............

Stop making **** up!
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 18th May 2016 at 03:50 PM.
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 18th May 2016, 03:54 PM   #2334
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
He predicted a historical first while witnessing a historical first. Up to that point, nobody had ever seen a 47 story building get mangled by a 110 story building collapsing on it, with zero firefighting efforts to save it.
The "structural damage" was superficial. Source: NIST. If WTC 7 collapsed from structural failure, than the engineer would have to have a 100% perfect understanding of the current situation, which means disagreeing with the firefighters there who though the damage from North Tower rubble was pretty bad. The firefighters went through the trauma of the Twin Towers collapsing, and the loss of their brothers. An engineer "from the office of emergency management", however, would have a fresher and more professional perspective. This engineer predicting the hour of the collapse when the big fires had only been burning for about 30 minutes to an hour is very suspicious.

Quote:
Do you think firefighters just stop fighting fires in buildings after everyone's out? No, they keep fighting to try to save the building. They know that steel will ultimately fail in a fire. This is common sense. Nobody can refute that. It's fact.
Yeah right, we all know that tall steel buildings on fire just end up as charred skeletons except for 9/11. What does not happen is a collapse just like a controlled demolition like something out of Loony tunes.

Quote:
Thus the prediction. In addition, they were there. They had access to senses that the keyboard warrior doesn't. Sense of hearing. Sense of sight. There is no way you will ever have as much information as the people standing in front of the damn thing. INSIDE the damn thing.
There is no they. The one I'm talking about is the anonymous engineer guy, who for all we knew could have disappeared from city record as soon as WTC 7 collapsed. It would seem that his prediction is the genesis of the precise and certain foreknowledge. After that, the confirmation bias sets in and all of a sudden every firefighter there swears they knew that sucker was coming down. "Foreknowledge" is an appropriate term here, and it should be investigated.

I knew when I brought this subject up, I was going to get quotes from firefighters talking about the structural uncertainty they perceived well into the afternoon, rather than the 12:00 - 1:00 PM the engineer made his call. Of course, there is also evidence (in the form of a false media report that "fifty stories went down") of foreknowledge as early as 11:00 AM. I do not deny that the fires were intense on the floors they were on, I've read all of the firefighters quotes that everybody else here has.

Last edited by MicahJava; 18th May 2016 at 03:59 PM.
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 May 2016, 03:56 PM   #2335
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Where did they "deny free-fall and said that it can't happen"?

Quote the statement.

Bet you can't.............

Stop making **** up!
I was too lazy to copy and paste the information I already knew and you should have known long ago, so I linked to a debate politics comment I made that gave three examples of NIST denying freefall and saying it can't happen.
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 May 2016, 03:56 PM   #2336
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The NFPA 921 lists many signs of explosive destruction and arson that eerily describe the WTC. That's all you need. Like, it doesn't matter if you think it's waste of taxpayer's money, it should most certainly happen.
Except for the "Kaboom". The all-important sign. WHERE'S THE KABOOM?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Where's the Kaboom.jpg (30.8 KB, 5 views)
Redwood 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 May 2016, 03:59 PM   #2337
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I was too lazy to copy and paste the information I already knew and you should have known long ago, so I linked to a debate politics comment I made that gave three examples of NIST denying freefall and saying it can't happen.
So you have no actual statement from the NIST for this?

They never made this claim. Stop believing people that lie.
__________________
"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 18th May 2016, 04:01 PM   #2338
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I'd say check out the videos that show the closest view of the North Tower. It's been 10 years and you aren't antiquated with the photographic record of 9/11? You can see with the naked eye the antenna falling before the perimeter on most up-close videos, no matter the angle.
I'd suggest you try this one:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I also you suggest you watch the whole thing, being that it's the most complete record of the "102 minutes" and tell us "Where is the kaboom?"
Redwood 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 May 2016, 04:05 PM   #2339
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
This has to be one of the most ridiculous claims in the entire storied history of this subforum.
Arsonists often cover up their crimes. If the WTC was a demolition and one of the motives was to destroy files, then the arsonists did a very good job.
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 May 2016, 04:07 PM   #2340
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I don't even want to know what you think "they" were hiding there. You didn't address my question. Why not let it burn (like it was) and let that destroy whatever you fantasize needed destroying.

Who's the "they"?
That's really not what I care to discuss.
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 May 2016, 04:08 PM   #2341
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
I'd suggest you try this one:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


I also you suggest you watch the whole thing, being that it's the most complete record of the "102 minutes" and tell us "Where is the kaboom?"
Off topic and also the thumbnail appears to show that the video was taken hundreds of feet away from the Twin Towers.
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 May 2016, 04:08 PM   #2342
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Arsonists often cover up their crimes. If the WTC was a demolition and one of the motives was to destroy files, then the arsonists did a very good job.
Why? Because no one found anything you think should have been found?
__________________
"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 18th May 2016, 04:09 PM   #2343
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That's really not what I care to discuss.
Of course not............
__________________
"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 18th May 2016, 04:10 PM   #2344
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So you have no actual statement from the NIST for this?

They never made this claim. Stop believing people that lie.
BS, just click my link and I give three hard examples straight from the mouth of NIST.

The goal of debunker rhetoric is to bog down discussion.
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 May 2016, 04:10 PM   #2345
Mentalpygmy
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why? Because no one found anything you think should have been found?
The dog did not Bark.

No evidence of arson is evidence of a really good arson. Or some crap like that.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Mentalpygmy 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 May 2016, 04:11 PM   #2346
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Of course not............
Because obviously you need a motive before you bother investigating a possible crime.
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 May 2016, 04:13 PM   #2347
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
BS, just click my link and I give three hard examples straight from the mouth of NIST.

The goal of debunker rhetoric is to bog down discussion.
I did, not a single direct quote.
Prove me wrong.
__________________
"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 18th May 2016, 04:15 PM   #2348
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why? Because no one found anything you think should have been found?
Yeah, set fires on a few floors of a skyscraper and then destroy it in classic implosion style for the whole world to see. Wait a second... that's actually a horrible plan. Any reasonable person would see the freefall of a skyscraper straight down to the ground and get suspicious! Man, if someone tried that in real life, there would be investigations.
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 May 2016, 04:17 PM   #2349
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Except for the "Kaboom". The all-important sign. WHERE'S THE KABOOM?
NFPA 921 – 23.1.4 Definition of an Explosion

“Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria for an explosion.”
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 May 2016, 04:17 PM   #2350
ComfySlippers
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,723
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Arsonists often cover up their crimes.
...

That's just... No.
ComfySlippers 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 May 2016, 04:18 PM   #2351
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Can you debunk the NFPA 921? You don't need Gage or Cole or anybody to justify an investigation into insider foul play, only that. Passages from the NFPA 921 eerily describe the WTC destruction.
And just another example of you attempting to get your facts from amateurs.

Why the hell do you care what WE think of the implementation of NFPA 921 on 9/11?

You haven't bothered to ask if anyone here is a fire investigator.
IIRC, Triforcharity was/is a fireman, and very knowledgeable about NFPA 921.

I am DAMN sure that you haven't asked that question at any of your truther websites, either.

So, let's get to see what a couple of real fire investigators say about this issue:

In this thread, lot's of real firefighters post. And this same issue was brought up.

http://www.firehouse.com/forums/t107457/

And Erik Lawyer, the idiot who makes such a big deal of it, posts, too, as "koolaid1" (starting in post 18).

You'll do well to see how REAL fire investigators respond to Lawyer's stupidity. (Lawyer is NOT a fire investigator, BTW.)

Pay attention to "GeorgeWendt" (posts 15, 24, and others) and Dickey (post 29 & others) who both ARE professional fire investigators.

You'd do well to read the entire thread.
It ends with a Truther doing what you guys do best: Making a complete ass of himself.

The most important thing that you'll learn from this is that there is often a vast difference between what professionals think on some topic & what a clueless bunch of amateurs with an agenda think.

Last edited by tfk; 18th May 2016 at 04:22 PM.
tfk 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 May 2016, 04:20 PM   #2352
Mentalpygmy
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
NFPA 921 – 23.1.4 Definition of an Explosion

“Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria for an explosion.”
Indeed. Where was the violent escape of gasses? (Bearing in mind an explosion has gasses travelling at above 1800 m/s - hence the sound).

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Mentalpygmy 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 May 2016, 04:20 PM   #2353
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah, set fires on a few floors of a skyscraper and then destroy it in classic implosion style for the whole world to see. Wait a second... that's actually a horrible plan. Any reasonable person would see the freefall of a skyscraper straight down to the ground and get suspicious! Man, if someone tried that in real life, there would be investigations.
No one ever tried this, how would you know?
__________________
"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 18th May 2016, 04:23 PM   #2354
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
MicahJava

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is like one or two sparse quotes about a transit detecting movement of the building. Still no photographic evidence presented to make the case that it was "leaning". I'm not claiming they're liars, just sometimes wrong, like the firefighters who claimed that all 47 stories were involved in fire.


None of this proves that anybody had any basis to predict, at 12-1 PM, that the building was going to collapse at 5-6PM.

I've asked you before to tell us your educational & professional background.

With this comment, you appear to be making a claim to having a structural engineering background, with a specialization in “fire damage assessment” & “progressive collapse”.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
EDIT: It would appear that there is at least one quote by Peter Hayden about a transit detecting movement in the building. If so, when was this done and how could it relate to the perimeter bulge that was also witnessed, which in hindsight could in no way bring down a 47-story football field sized skyscraper?
Sometime sarcasm doesn’t transmit well in this medium, so let me be clear.
I have complete confidence that you’ve never set foot in a mechanical/structural engineering classroom.

Care to share your real background?
We’ve all found out that truthers rarely share their backgrounds. The main reason: they have none that is pertinent to any of these issues. They are amateurs.
And they get their information from other amateurs.
Which is exactly what you have done.

We’ve all found out that debunkers almost always share their backgrounds. The main reason: debunkers are smart enough to listen to, & depend upon, the opinions & conclusions of experts.
__

One of your real problems is that you accept entirely implausible reports in the media as “facts”.

Here’s an interesting exercise, and it will be enlightening, if you play along.

Walk thru ALL the steps that you believe culminated in the decision for Hayden to order the clearing of the perimeter around WTC7, because it might be in danger of collapse.

Ignore the numbers. Put in whatever you want, but start with …

1. WTC 1 collapses, breaking water mains, causing some amount of damage to WTC7 & starting some fires inside.
2. …
3. …
4. ….
5. Someone called for somebody with a transit.
6. A guy with a transit arrives & does (something)
7. …
8. …
9. …
10. And Deputy Chief Hayden gets the message that (… something).
11. …
12. …
13. Deputy Chef Hayden records his oral history, asserting that “someone told him that the building was going to collapse around 5 to 6 pm.”

I am really curious what you are going to say.

I am pretty damn sure that both of the following are false:

1. the engineer / fireman taking those measurements said “the building was going to collapse around 5 to 6 pm.”.
2. the engineer based his measurements on measurements of “the bulge”.

My confidence is due to the fact that I’ve been the engineer taking measurements like that, in some perilous situations. Dangerous to fewer other people, so less of a disaster. But potentially fatal to me, so more of a catastrophe.

After you present your sequence, I’ll present mine & we’ll compare notes.
tfk 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 May 2016, 04:40 PM   #2355
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Pick a time between 2.25 seconds and infinity. It does not matter what time you pick. Why? Simple. The roof line collapsed at freefall for approximately 2.25 seconds. The total collapse time is not nearly important as the 2.25 seconds of freefall.

Neither the collapse time nor the 2.25 seconds are important. What's important is the collapse of the East Penthouse, the events leading up to it, and the events afterward leading to the collapse of the West Penthouse. Everything else is minor detail. If you think it's not minor detail, use your engineering expertise (or someone's at AE911T) to explain why it's not.
Redwood 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 May 2016, 04:55 PM   #2356
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,475
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Oh, awesome. There was an investigation? Can you link to me the inquiry into who that engineer was who told Chief Peter Hayden at 12:00-1:00 PM that WTC 7 was going to collapse in "five or six hours"?
What difference does it make? To the average person, it just proves he was right! The burden is upon you to prove he couldn't possibly be right. I suggest reading standard textbooks on the subject of collapse from fires. It can't do you any harm, and it may even make you smarter.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I was pretty curious of who that character was.
Do you think he wasn't a real engineer? Maybe an NWO agent who fooled all the FDNY into believing it would collapse, when their own judgment said it wouldn't?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Predicting when a skyscraper will collapse from fire when the heavy fires were only burning for about an hour, I think he deserves James Randi's million dollar prize because he's psychic!
Or maybe it just means he's a seasoned professional who knows more than you do. That's what the average person thinks. This is the granite wall of reality that Truthers have been slamming their heads against and coming off second best every time.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Brannigan's Building Construction For the Fire Service.jpg (113.1 KB, 5 views)
File Type: jpg Dunn Firefighting.jpg (47.5 KB, 4 views)
Redwood 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 May 2016, 05:11 PM   #2357
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Where did they "deny free-fall and said that it can't happen"?

Quote the statement.

Bet you can't.............

Stop making **** up!
The first version of the BBC's Conspiracy Files Third Tower program, aired July 6 2008, has the denial of freefall. This was edited out of subsequent airings, after NIST confirmed freefall.

Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shayam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

Link to portion of video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJAu_OtQsK4&t=0m47s

Subtitle file for original airing: http://subsaga.com/bbc/documentaries...ird-tower.html

In NIST NCSTAR 1A draft for public comments, published August 01, 2008 (page 79 of pdf), says this about the motions of the building:

"the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." -NIST NCSTAR 1A draft for public comments, published August 01, 2008 (page 79 of pdf)

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=909254

In their final report, usage of the phrase "consistent with physical principles" was edited out.

In NIST's technical briefing on WTC 7 (August 26 2008), Shayam Sunder had this to say:

"Well, the-first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure-applies to all bodies on this particular-on this planet, not just in Ground Zero. The analysis showed there is a difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17-for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video, below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-...6C1F5EDFC83824

Full transcript of technical briefing: http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Bri...Transcript.pdf

Last edited by MicahJava; 18th May 2016 at 05:12 PM. Reason: a link
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 May 2016, 05:14 PM   #2358
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by ComfySlippers View Post
That's just... No.
So arsonists never start a fire near an circuit breaker or a fireplace to hide their deeds and ward off investigations?
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 May 2016, 05:16 PM   #2359
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,239
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
And just another example of you attempting to get your facts from amateurs.

Why the hell do you care what WE think of the implementation of NFPA 921 on 9/11?

You haven't bothered to ask if anyone here is a fire investigator.
IIRC, Triforcharity was/is a fireman, and very knowledgeable about NFPA 921.

I am DAMN sure that you haven't asked that question at any of your truther websites, either.

So, let's get to see what a couple of real fire investigators say about this issue:

In this thread, lot's of real firefighters post. And this same issue was brought up.

http://www.firehouse.com/forums/t107457/

And Erik Lawyer, the idiot who makes such a big deal of it, posts, too, as "koolaid1" (starting in post 18).

You'll do well to see how REAL fire investigators respond to Lawyer's stupidity. (Lawyer is NOT a fire investigator, BTW.)

Pay attention to "GeorgeWendt" (posts 15, 24, and others) and Dickey (post 29 & others) who both ARE professional fire investigators.

You'd do well to read the entire thread.
It ends with a Truther doing what you guys do best: Making a complete ass of himself.

The most important thing that you'll learn from this is that there is often a vast difference between what professionals think on some topic & what a clueless bunch of amateurs with an agenda think.
The point I'm making by quoting the NFPA 921 is that it describes characteristics of intentional destruction that apply to the WTC. I know that the NFPA material has no legal grounds.
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 May 2016, 05:20 PM   #2360
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The first version of the BBC's Conspiracy Files Third Tower program, aired July 6 2008, has the denial of freefall. This was edited out of subsequent airings, after NIST confirmed freefall.

Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shayam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

Link to portion of video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJAu_OtQsK4&t=0m47s

Subtitle file for original airing: http://subsaga.com/bbc/documentaries...ird-tower.html

In NIST NCSTAR 1A draft for public comments, published August 01, 2008 (page 79 of pdf), says this about the motions of the building:

"the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles." -NIST NCSTAR 1A draft for public comments, published August 01, 2008 (page 79 of pdf)

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=909254

In their final report, usage of the phrase "consistent with physical principles" was edited out.

In NIST's technical briefing on WTC 7 (August 26 2008), Shayam Sunder had this to say:

"Well, the-first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure-applies to all bodies on this particular-on this planet, not just in Ground Zero. The analysis showed there is a difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17-for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video, below which you can't see anything in the video, is about 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkp-...6C1F5EDFC83824

Full transcript of technical briefing: http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Bri...Transcript.pdf

Where is the denial for "free-fall and the claim it can't happen?
__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 18th May 2016 at 05:26 PM.
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
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 04:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.