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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 26th December 2006, 04:44 PM   #81
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
" how fast did the towers fall?"

Depending on where you get the information and where you start timing on the videos it is about 12 to16 seconds.

"how much energy is required to account for the destruction observed?"

A hell of a lot more than the building had in Kenetic energy at a gravatational collapse.
RemoveBush 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 26th December 2006, 04:44 PM   #82
PerryLogan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 980
You see, RemoveBush? I tried to warn you...
PerryLogan 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 26th December 2006, 04:45 PM   #83
Dr. Lao
Critical Thinker
 
Dr. Lao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 415
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"The burden of proof is on you , now show me your vast understanding of these buildings, please."

There were 47 steel columns in the center that were tied together through a structual support structure. The building floors were attached by bolts that were welded to the core. They attacked to Steel hollow tubes that made up the outside facade.

The core was the strongest part of the bulding and it did infact support most of the buildings weight. The thickest part was 6" thick, and the thinnest was a little over 3". From bottom to top respectfully.

The designers stated that the buildings were designed to withstand a FULLY LOADED 707 and it would be like a masquito puncturing a screen. A 707 is actually larger and heavier than a 757, so I would say that the damage by a 757 would be as less detrimental to the structual integrity of the building.

Anything else?

Uh, how about 767? Pesky details.

As for the 707 designed to withstand etc. We don't know that, because no one ever flew a FULLY LOADED 707 into the tower, did they? You can say a 757 (uh, 767) would be less detrimental, but where is your proof?
Dr. Lao 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 26th December 2006, 04:47 PM   #84
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"Indeed it was terrible, it was so sad when they announced it on the news, oh wait they scrubbed it as unworkable"

Yes they did because they had a MORAL person in charge then.

Source?
911timeline DOT net

source?
Google! Type in OKC and bombsquad. You will find old new reports of the bomb squad pulling several bombs.
Look for 7/7 and London and you will find that they were performing a "training" exercise for the trains and bus route used for the attacks.
Look at 9/11 and you will see that there were several exercised being performed and that one was scheduled to be performed in October, but Cheney moved it to 9/11.

"Hearing explosions inside burning building is not the same as explosions being planted inside the building beforehand."

Excuse me?? If there were bombs going off, as several firefighters, ems, police, and reporters state then they had to of been planted before hand.

Not to bright are you? You seem to think that they ran into the buildings and planted them as things were happening.
No I guess I am not. I never made any claims about anybody running into building planting bombs you did.

So when did they do it? How much explosives where planted and on which floors.

Please show me your full understanding of the construction of the Towers. Please show a full thesis and mathematic model of your explosives that were planted. You being so bright and all, this will be no problem.

Please tell me all about the US death squads that plant explosives inside Towers to kill innocent people.

Please show me how the same explosives survived the planes slamming into the towers and the massive fires afterwards.

Please remember I am not that bright, so just simple sentences will do.

Thanks in advance.
stateofgrace 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 26th December 2006, 04:48 PM   #85
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
" how fast did the towers fall?"

Depending on where you get the information and where you start timing on the videos it is about 12 to16 seconds.

"how much energy is required to account for the destruction observed?"

A hell of a lot more than the building had in Kenetic energy at a gravatational collapse.
whats the numerical equivilent of "a hell of a lot" ?

Quote:
"Indeed it was terrible, it was so sad when they announced it on the news, oh wait they scrubbed it as unworkable"

Yes they did because they had a MORAL person in charge then.
robert mcnamara?
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 26th December 2006, 04:48 PM   #86
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,156
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"did you know that 1 second slower than freefall would result in an energy equal to over 40 tons of TNT per tower?"

Provide the math and proof of this..... There is a great deal of kenetic energy in the towers, but not enough to destroy the concrete into "FINE" powder and to completly destroy the core. Not to mention create molten pools of steel.

Let's see your evidence to the 40 tons.
I personally interviewed The Concrete while it was falling that day and let me tell you it was really NOT very fine. Just that weekend, it had been brooding in stony silence because of the difficulty in cementing a tight relationship with the Steels. That had been a major pain in the buttress to get through. The Concrete knew that the Steels were rotten to the cores and that there could never be any joist between them.

RemoveBush: Did it ever occur to you that you are in fact AIDING Bush by making such absurd statements about 9/11? If the Bush Administration wanted to have the citizenry roll their eyes and shake their heads every time 9/11 analysis was mentioned: What better way to do it than to seed the populace with crazy conspiracy theorists (posing as)? In that way - a deeper investigation into their arrogance, ignorance and complacency is thwarted.

You must now prove to us that you are NOT working for the Bush Administration. Because the chance of that being true is much higher than the chance of surreptitiously smuggling explosives into 3 skyscrapers - in the middle of the downtown section of the most populous city in the USA.

Last edited by ConspiRaider; 26th December 2006 at 04:51 PM.
ConspiRaider 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 26th December 2006, 04:51 PM   #87
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"Focus like a laser beam, you are trying to blow all your mega conspiracies in one shot, and by doing so, you are living up to every CT stereotype out there."

Wrong! I am providing information for your NARROW mind to show events that occured similarly! I realize you don't understand the concept, apparently, but this is done to show connections and a history of such events.
RemoveBush 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 26th December 2006, 04:55 PM   #88
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
RemoveBush said
Quote:
Depending on where you get the information and where you start timing on the videos it is about 12 to16 seconds.
How fast did each building fall? And why does the speed the buildings falling in anyway back up your claims of preplanted explosives ?

Quote:
A hell of a lot more than the building had in Kenetic energy at a gravatational collapse.
Ah,another claim, please back it up with your full undestanding of a gravatational collapse.

Last edited by stateofgrace; 26th December 2006 at 04:57 PM.
stateofgrace 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 26th December 2006, 04:57 PM   #89
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"Focus like a laser beam, you are trying to blow all your mega conspiracies in one shot, and by doing so, you are living up to every CT stereotype out there."

Wrong! I am providing information for your NARROW mind to show events that occured similarly! I realize you don't understand the concept, apparently, but this is done to show connections and a history of such events.
please allow me to quote Robert Cronk

Quote:
My approach has been influenced by all of my interactions with conspiracy theorists in the past. One thing I try to avoid is what I have called the “conspiracy theory pattern”. It goes like this: First, I find some evidence that refutes one of the theory’s supporting facts, next, the defender of the theory essentially avoids the evidence I presented and then brings up several (usually more than five) other facts that supposedly also support the theory.
This has the effect of keeping the overall theory protected since the issue in question doesn’t get resolved - rather, the theory seems to get even stronger as all of these other supporting (but thus far not proven) “facts” are brought up.
In my experience, it turns out that those other “facts” usually end up being a large pile of debunkable (is that a word?) “maybes”. It’s as though protecting the theory is more important than uncovering the truth - as if they have such a strongly held belief that their theory is true that they refuse to let any of the supporting “facts” be debunked because any debunked “fact” threatens whatever vested interest they may have in the theory being true.
They might also twist a fact into a pretzel shape so that it can fit into their theory. Of course I have found that this happens to most people defending their theories and so this behavior is not necessarily proof of anything, it’s just something to keep in mind as we go through this. My idea is that once all of the facts are proven true or false individually, then and only then can the true ones be gathered together to form a theory.
now with this in mind. Can you address my post on the previous page re-free fall fallicy?

Last edited by A W Smith; 26th December 2006 at 05:00 PM.
A W Smith 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 26th December 2006, 04:58 PM   #90
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"As for the 707 designed to withstand etc. We don't know that, because no one ever flew a FULLY LOADED 707 into the tower, did they? You can say a 757 (uh, 767) would be less detrimental, but where is your proof?"

Physics! F = M * A

If the plane is lighter and slower, then I would say that PHYSICS proves the damage would be less. It's not rocket science for the mathematicly inclined.
RemoveBush 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 26th December 2006, 05:02 PM   #91
TheChadd
Critical Thinker
 
TheChadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 414
Quote:
As for the 707 designed to withstand etc. We don't know that, because no one ever flew a FULLY LOADED 707 into the tower, did they? You can say a 757 (uh, 767) would be less detrimental, but where is your proof?
How fast was the 707 flying in their examples?
How fast were the 767's that flew into the WTC going?
TheChadd 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 26th December 2006, 05:03 PM   #92
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"As for the 707 designed to withstand etc. We don't know that, because no one ever flew a FULLY LOADED 707 into the tower, did they? You can say a 757 (uh, 767) would be less detrimental, but where is your proof?"

Physics! F = M * A

If the plane is lighter and slower, then I would say that PHYSICS proves the damage would be less. It's not rocket science for the mathematicly inclined.
except the planes on 9/11 were larger and faster, what does physics say about that?

and the "mosquito screen" thing didnt come from any of the designers of the tower
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 26th December 2006, 05:04 PM   #93
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"A W Smith" though your calculations "appear" to be accurate for a quick glance, this by no means proves or disproves anything.

For example: The floors would have PILED up on one another! Did that happen???? Was a large portion of the core still standing?

Also, the formula(s) do not take into account other factors. Like the top of the building tilting and starting to fall! Yet it miraculously straightens out and falls neatly on its own footprint.

You also forget that demolitions DO NOT REQUIRE 40 tons of TNT! You can gloss over this little fact, but it is reality. I am in the process of finding other demolitions and the amount of TNT required to implode them.

I DOUBT it was over 10 TONS for a modest sized building. So your claim of 40 Tons is simply a pull out of... well....
RemoveBush 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 26th December 2006, 05:05 PM   #94
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
 
Mr. Skinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
It's not rocket science for the mathematicly inclined.
Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?
__________________
U.S.L.S 1969-1975
"thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk
"He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana
"Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele
Mr. Skinny 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 26th December 2006, 05:09 PM   #95
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"How fast did each building fall? And why does the speed the buildings falling in anyway back up your claims of preplanted explosives ?"

Simple! The core would have been LARGELY in tact for several stories and the floors would have been piled up in a large mound. There were none of these. Only an outside source could break up the floors to allow the gravitational collapse to occure with LESS resistance, hence providing more force.

"Ah,another claim, please back it up with your full undestanding of a gravatational collapse."

A gravataional collapse is going to be slowed by resistance! The core, outer part of the building were the points of resistance. Unless these items are gone there will be resistance. It's a fact!
RemoveBush 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 26th December 2006, 05:09 PM   #96
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"Focus like a laser beam, you are trying to blow all your mega conspiracies in one shot, and by doing so, you are living up to every CT stereotype out there."

Wrong! I am providing information for your NARROW mind to show events that occured similarly! I realize you don't understand the concept, apparently, but this is done to show connections and a history of such events.
Oh, boy! A new twoofer to play with! Saying everything we've heard fourteen times in the last week, all on one thread for easy mocking!

Another one who can't be bothered with math and stuff, because his common sense is so much better!

Thanks for showing up. Was getting pretty quiet around here.

Oh, and just so you know; if you want people to take you serious, you have to act serious. Coming in with an attitude right off the bat just doesn't score any style points here, as we require actual facts to back up what you say, unlike Loser Change.

Mock you later, dude!
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm 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 26th December 2006, 05:10 PM   #97
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"except the planes on 9/11 were larger and faster, what does physics say about that?"

NO! Actually a 767 is slightly smaller and about a 100 miles per hour slower than the 707. Perhaps you need to do some research on this??????

The 707 is actually a bigger faster plane. It is however, much less economical than the 767.
RemoveBush 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 26th December 2006, 05:10 PM   #98
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
You also forget that demolitions DO NOT REQUIRE 40 tons of TNT! You can gloss over this little fact, but it is reality. I am in the process of finding other demolitions and the amount of TNT required to implode them.

I DOUBT it was over 10 TONS for a modest sized building. So your claim of 40 Tons is simply a pull out of... well....
so it was no more than 10 tons of TNT

yet the energy produced by the towers falling at a speed of 10.2 seconds is equal to 40 tons of TNT, how is it that 10 tons is enough to destroy the towers but 40 isnt?
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 26th December 2006, 05:11 PM   #99
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"did you know that 1 second slower than freefall would result in an energy equal to over 40 tons of TNT per tower?"

Provide the math and proof of this..... There is a great deal of kenetic energy in the towers, but not enough to destroy the concrete into "FINE" powder and to completly destroy the core. Not to mention create molten pools of steel.

Let's see your evidence to the 40 tons.
I have to admire the woowoos ability to skip from one 'claim' to another without drawing breath.

So we start with that old chestnut about how the towers couldn't collapse at freefall speed when nobody actually claims they did, except the woowoos themselves who conveniently ignore the outer debris falling faster that the structure itself (which provides simple and irrefuteable proof that the woowoo claim of the towers collapsing at freefall speed is just a load of crap) and then they jump with the grace of an asthmatic elephant to asking how the concrete in the towers could be pulverised to a fine dust when it is only the woowoo's who actually claim that this happened (once again) and for added comic relief they add the coda that not only was all the concrete pulverisd to fine dust (which it wasn't) but somehow this non-existent event is somehow to be linked with questioning how the core could be destroyed as if somehow the core of the tower is some magic construction which is able to stand without any support from the rest of the structure and (of course) is so amzing that it can withstand impact damage from both the original airplane crash and the subsequent collapse of tons of material.

Of course, woowoo's are experts in fantasy.

Last edited by uk_dave; 26th December 2006 at 05:12 PM. Reason: laughing too much
uk_dave 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 26th December 2006, 05:11 PM   #100
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
For example: The floors would have PILED up on one another! Did that happen???? Was a large portion of the core still standing?
Hmmm, this line of "reasoning" sounds awfully familiar.
apathoid 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 26th December 2006, 05:12 PM   #101
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?"

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.
RemoveBush 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 26th December 2006, 05:13 PM   #102
TheChadd
Critical Thinker
 
TheChadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 414
Quote:
NO! Actually a 767 is slightly smaller and about a 100 miles per hour slower than the 707. Perhaps you need to do some research on this??????

The 707 is actually a bigger faster plane. It is however, much less economical than the 767.
You're correct it is larger, I'm not sure about top speeds, but I do know that the WTC's estimate for a 707 crash was roughly for taxiing speed - Not the 500mph or so that the 767 crashed into it.
TheChadd 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 26th December 2006, 05:14 PM   #103
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
defaultdotxbe you don't need to blow EVERY floor! You seem to have this pre concieved notion that EVERY floor needs to be blown up????

Only every 10 or 20 floors need to have explossives. Gravity will do the rest.
RemoveBush 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 26th December 2006, 05:15 PM   #104
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"A W Smith" though your calculations "appear" to be accurate for a quick glance, this by no means proves or disproves anything.

For example: The floors would have PILED up on one another! Did that happen???? Was a large portion of the core still standing?
Why would the floors simply have piled up on each other during a gravity driven collapse?

Please explain the relationship between the floor trusses, the central cores and the external supports.

Quote:
Also, the formula(s) do not take into account other factors. Like the top of the building tilting and starting to fall! Yet it miraculously straightens out and falls neatly on its own footprint.

Are you claiming each Tower fell into there own footprint? Source?
stateofgrace 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 26th December 2006, 05:15 PM   #105
TheChadd
Critical Thinker
 
TheChadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 414
Quote:
I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.
Which field of engineering? What sort of projects in that field have you worked on? I kinda doubt a real engo would leave that out, but lets see.
TheChadd 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 26th December 2006, 05:16 PM   #106
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"A W Smith" though your calculations "appear" to be accurate for a quick glance, this by no means proves or disproves anything.
what? are you serious? This just after you mention your shorthand formula for calculating the force of a plane impact? well that doesn't prove anything either.

Quote:

For example: The floors would have PILED up on one another! Did that happen???? Was a large portion of the core still standing?
turn back a page and see that it was already compensated for

Quote:

Also, the formula(s) do not take into account other factors. Like the top of the building tilting and starting to fall! Yet it miraculously straightens out and falls neatly on its own footprint.
Two things to consider. Your indestructible "core" could have in fact skewered the top of the building and arrested its tilting. Also theres the consideration of momentum overcoming the tilt as it was falling a hell of a lot faster than it was tilting.
Quote:
You also forget that demolitions DO NOT REQUIRE 40 tons of TNT! You can gloss over this little fact, but it is reality. I am in the process of finding other demolitions and the amount of TNT required to implode them.

I DOUBT it was over 10 TONS for a modest sized building. So your claim of 40 Tons is simply a pull out of... well....
A page ago you yourself said that there was not enough kinetic energy to precipitate a fall at that speed. Do the math and the tonnage of TNT to make up for the lack of kinetic energy will reveal itself.
A W Smith 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 26th December 2006, 05:16 PM   #107
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?"

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.
Oh good lord... it's YOU again.

You know, you never responded to what I said over at 911blogger about how no engineering or scientific journal has questioned the EBV (Evidence Based Version), no articles published, no papers have passed peer review, no professional association of engineers and no faculty of engineering at any university, college or technical school has either.

Were you ever going to comment on that?
Sword_Of_Truth 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 26th December 2006, 05:17 PM   #108
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?"

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.
Amazing.

Do you work professionally in the construction field?

Do you have PI insurance?
uk_dave 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 26th December 2006, 05:17 PM   #109
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
defaultdotxbe you don't need to blow EVERY floor! You seem to have this pre concieved notion that EVERY floor needs to be blown up????

Only every 10 or 20 floors need to have explossives. Gravity will do the rest.
i thought gravity couldnt turn everything into a fine powder? i thought you needed "a hell of a lot" more energy (however much a hell of a lot is)
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 26th December 2006, 05:17 PM   #110
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
[quote=RemoveBush;2206299A gravataional collapse is going to be slowed by resistance! The core, outer part of the building were the points of resistance. Unless these items are gone there will be resistance. It's a fact![/quote]

No it is not, it is completely wrong.

Why would the floor spaces slow a gravity driven collapse?
stateofgrace 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 26th December 2006, 05:17 PM   #111
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
 
Mr. Skinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?"

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.
Thank you. It's always nice to know the educational level of someone where the debate rests considerably on mathmatics, physics, chemistry, and the other sciences.

BTW, if I would have had to guess what, if any, education you had, I'd have guessed you were an engineer as they (and I include myself here) tend to have atrocious spelling skills.
__________________
U.S.L.S 1969-1975
"thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk
"He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana
"Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele
Mr. Skinny 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 26th December 2006, 05:19 PM   #112
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,156
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"Can I ask what level of mathmetics instruction you've completed? Level of physics instruction?"

I have a bachelors in Engineering and have worked in my field for over 10 years, using my math EVERYDAY.
'kay let's see, 365 days a year.

You've used math every day of those 10 years.

10y * 365d = 10 TONS OF TNT

Your rite - the maths spokes for thierselves.
ConspiRaider 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 26th December 2006, 05:21 PM   #113
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by ConspiRaider View Post
'kay let's see, 365 days a year.

You've used math every day of those 10 years.

10y * 365d = 10 TONS OF TNT

Your rite - the maths spokes for thierselves.
killtown? is that you?
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 26th December 2006, 05:23 PM   #114
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
defaultdotxbe you don't need to blow EVERY floor! You seem to have this pre concieved notion that EVERY floor needs to be blown up????

Only every 10 or 20 floors need to have explossives. Gravity will do the rest.

how would explosives every 10th or 20th floor speed up the collapse any more than 10 of 5 percent of an unassisted collapse? And for what purpose? If explosives were used that far ahead of the collapse it would have been self evident from 80 something camera angles. Are you reading what you are typing? Do you think you have stumbled upon a Sesame Street forum for children?
A W Smith 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 26th December 2006, 05:24 PM   #115
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
killtown? is that you?
365d =

3+6 = 9

5 - d(being 4th letter of alphabet) = 1

10tons of tnt + 1 = 11

therefore 9 11

QED
uk_dave 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 26th December 2006, 05:24 PM   #116
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
"How fast was the 707 flying in their examples?"

I don't know! I would think they would be somewhere in the area of landing and takeoff speeds? This speed would be somewhere between 200 and 350 MPH, by best guess.

"How fast were the 767's that flew into the WTC going?"

They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.
RemoveBush 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 26th December 2006, 05:26 PM   #117
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"How fast was the 707 flying in their examples?"

I don't know! I would think they would be somewhere in the area of landing and takeoff speeds? This speed would be somewhere between 200 and 350 MPH, by best guess.

"How fast were the 767's that flew into the WTC going?"

They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.
You really are an expert!!!!!

BTW - Did you try following them in your car?
uk_dave 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 26th December 2006, 05:27 PM   #118
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.
Oh gawd... I think half my frontal lobe mass just went necrotic.
Sword_Of_Truth 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 26th December 2006, 05:27 PM   #119
TheChadd
Critical Thinker
 
TheChadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 414
Quote:
They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.
Have you seen the clips of it hitting the building? Take out a frame or two and you'll miss it.
TheChadd 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 26th December 2006, 05:27 PM   #120
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"How fast was the 707 flying in their examples?"

I don't know! I would think they would be somewhere in the area of landing and takeoff speeds? This speed would be somewhere between 200 and 350 MPH, by best guess.

"How fast were the 767's that flew into the WTC going?"

They say about 500 MPH, but the speed seems slower when you watch it. The plane is not moving through the air like a fighter jet at an air show and you can track it with a camera. If it was going 500 MPH, it would have been much harder to track with a camera.

I have tried following planes at an air show, and you can barely see them coming or going. Nothing like that on 9/11.
how far away were the cameras that were able to track the planes on 9/11? its much easier to track a fast moving object from farther away you know (as opposed to at an air show when they fly directly overhead)
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 01:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.