IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 controlled demolition , wtc 7

Reply
Old 25th July 2008, 08:23 AM   #41
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Here's one:


Seriously Engima, it's entirely possible for people to have not cared about it until brought up, for example in a class like this. Not everyone is either insane or has been dedicated to researching things for years. Now, please stop with the attacks and keep on topic.
What attack? Ok, now provide evidence BESIDES his claim. Now if you think it is possible please show me a school in the USA that did it. I am aware of it happening recently at the University of Guleph but that is not in the USA and if that is where it took place we have a serious indication that as far as citizen the OP lied.
~enigma~ 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 25th July 2008, 08:41 AM   #42
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
I don't understand why Enigma is so adamant about this. What about someone who was 7 years old in 2001? Any reason why he couldn't be a fencesitter?

Enigma seems to think that everyone has been thinking about/investigoogling 9/11 for the last seven years. I will agree that anyone who has been doing so, and still claims to be a fencesitter, is either stupid or disingenuous. But not everybody has been.
Matthew Best 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 25th July 2008, 08:49 AM   #43
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
I don't understand why Enigma is so adamant about this. What about someone who was 7 years old in 2001? Any reason why he couldn't be a fencesitter?

Enigma seems to think that everyone has been thinking about/investigoogling 9/11 for the last seven years. I will agree that anyone who has been doing so, and still claims to be a fencesitter, is either stupid or disingenuous. But not everybody has been.
Someone who has never looked at 9/11 since 2001 has heard enough on the news since then so I will not believe that they all of a sudden up and decided to read CT sites for their information. If they do, they aren't a fencesitter.
~enigma~ 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 25th July 2008, 08:55 AM   #44
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Well, the problem is that if someone gets interested in the subjects of conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK, whatever) then the first things that come up in any search for information on them tend to be conspiraloon sites.

I'm sure I'm not alone on this forum in having believed in a JFK conspiracy at one point in the distant past. And the reason I came to this forum in the first place was because I was interested in reading some rebuttal of the claims made in "Loose Change". I suppose at that point you could have called me a "fencesitter".

I just think that the notion that because the science is settled, then there will never be any more people who need convincing of that fact, is naive at best.
Matthew Best 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 25th July 2008, 08:58 AM   #45
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by audesapre View Post
First, thanks for the replies, and links. In reply to the ad hominem comments...the guy actually is bright, in certain ways...which I understand sounds apologist-esque...but he seems kind and learned...and the 9/11 topic came up in discussion regarding "false flag terrorism." Read into that what you will.

As I said prior, I am having a hard time buying into the whole "inside job" bit...I mean, if a gov goes through the trouble of engineering a ploy to KILL 3000 of its own constituency then why would they let us uncover it? Hasn't anybody watched X Files ? Also, there's just so much at stake if something like an "inside job" was exposed...too much, I would think.

Just my thoughts. I didn't have time to get a word in during class.

Anyhow, back OT, has anybody watched "A Great Conspiracy"?
It features Barrie Zweiker, (or something like that), and was the basis for our class discussion. I cringed the whole way through...well, most of the way. No, probably the whole way.


I suggest you read up on the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident. It is remarkably similar to the Intel that lead up to the Iraq invasion. In other words fabricated, deceitful, and in some cases outright false.
The decisions made based on this bogus and fabricated information cost 58,000 American lives.

Taking poor, incomplete, or downright fabricated information, and using this to involve the US in war with no or extremely limited justification to have as its result the death of thousands of Americans didnt start on 9/11.
roundhead 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 25th July 2008, 09:03 AM   #46
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Well, the problem is that if someone gets interested in the subjects of conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK, whatever) then the first things that come up in any search for information on them tend to be conspiraloon sites.

I'm sure I'm not alone on this forum in having believed in a JFK conspiracy at one point in the distant past. And the reason I came to this forum in the first place was because I was interested in reading some rebuttal of the claims made in "Loose Change". I suppose at that point you could have called me a "fencesitter".

I just think that the notion that because the science is settled, then there will never be any more people who need convincing of that fact, is naive at best.
JFK is not 9/11. That was Willie Rodriguez
~enigma~ 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 25th July 2008, 09:18 AM   #47
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Be very wary of all the "fool's gold" that is dispensed here.

As you've already seen by the ad hominem responses, this forum is
rife with those who will not tolerate disagreement with the Official Theory.

Good luck in your quest for 9/11 Truth.

MM
No, People will not tolerate liars. Truth movement apologist's lack of understanding in this "pull it" issue is indicative of their major problems getting a handle on 9/11 issues. That lack of logic, and ignorance on 9/11 leads to believing pure fantasy. Truth movement apologists need to mature to understand they need evidence, and stop supporting the rant of fantasy?


To actually support "pull it" as a plank in the failed truth movement platform, is the sign of woo.

MM, it is your lack of skepticism with your own kind, those that lack knowledge on 9/11 and make up lies, that is your downfall.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 09:25 AM   #48
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
JFK is not 9/11. That was Willie Rodriguez
Well, thanks for the smile - at least you're not calling me stupid!

But if you think that 9/11 isn't like JFK, I think you're wrong. There'll be people believing this nonsense for years to come, just like there are with JFK. And in ten years' time, some of them will be people who weren't even alive in 2001. At some point in their lives they'll be "fencesitters" - people who don't yet know what to believe, but who are questioning the information they've been fed up to then.

When they come to somewhere like this, and the first response they get is "go away, truther scum", or something similar, I don't think we'll be doing much in the way of moulding young minds or influencing people to think critically.
Matthew Best 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 25th July 2008, 09:31 AM   #49
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
But if you think that 9/11 isn't like JFK, I think you're wrong.
I didn't say that. I said JFK is not 9/11. "Like" is a word you used.
Quote:
There'll be people believing this nonsense for years to come, just like there are with JFK. And in ten years' time, some of them will be people who weren't even alive in 2001. At some point in their lives they'll be "fencesitters" - people who don't yet know what to believe, but who are questioning the information they've been fed up to then.
If you think there will be truthers (ala the moon hoaxers or flat earthers) that is your perogative but you would be wrong.
Quote:
When they come to somewhere like this, and the first response they get is "go away, truther scum", or something similar, I don't think we'll be doing much in the way of moulding young minds or influencing people to think critically.
Where was that comment made or where was something similar saying "go away" made in this thread? Personally, I don't understand how one can think critically and make such a blatently false accusation.

ETA - There is a difference between being critical and being gullible.
~enigma~ 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 25th July 2008, 09:39 AM   #50
Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
 
Athyrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nutsack, FL
Posts: 2,502
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
....The decisions made based on this bogus and fabricated information cost 58,000 American lives.....



Gee, I would never had known that except for this post, that no Americans died in Viet Nam prior to Gulf of Tonkin, and none would have died after that had it not occurred. Amazing.
__________________
Knowledge is good.... Emil Faber
Athyrio 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 25th July 2008, 09:40 AM   #51
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Here's one:


Seriously Engima, it's entirely possible for people to have not cared about it until brought up, for example in a class like this. Not everyone is either insane or has been dedicated to researching things for years. Now, please stop with the attacks and keep on topic.
I agree, you can stumble upon the truth movement and panic, as if the world went pure stupid. Imagine discovering for the fist time, your kind professor is a fraud on 9/11!

You understood 9/11 in a general sense, then by surprise, a high school dropout, Charlie Sheen, says 77 could not have made the maneuver turning 330 degree and descending 7000 feet. You are forced to look up the facts to prove the pure stupid statement is crap!

Without specific knowledge on 77's flight path, you sit there with your mouth open, how can a guy who has spent more money in one year on drugs and girls than you will make in a lifetime, make such a insanely stupid statement (was it the drugs or the girls, or the lack of knowledge)! And to counter his claims you have to study 9/11 for a few hours, or find JREF to help you.

The quick fix, is to ask for some help. Watch out, the hounds of woo are posting to the new guy trying to warn him to avoid using evidence, and stick with the woo of the truth movement.

There are posts with data, and skills to combat pure ignorance! Good luck to the new guy combating the insane ideas of his kind professor.

I can't imagine teaching stuff from the truth movement, except to point out how it is pure anti-intellectual claptrap.

Last edited by beachnut; 25th July 2008 at 09:47 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 09:45 AM   #52
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
When they come to somewhere like this, and the first response they get is "go away, truther scum", or something similar, I don't think we'll be doing much in the way of moulding young minds or influencing people to think critically.
Generally speaking, I agree with you. The 9/11 CT will be around, probably forever. If someone comes to a site like this with a genuine interest in learning they should be educated (or directed to where they can be) in an equally genuine way.

However, in the years I've been here, I can probably count on one hand how many of this kind of "fence sitter" there were. Personally, I have no tolerance for the arrogant and ignorant and less when they are disingenuous regarding their intentions. I've lost track of their numbers.
DavidJames 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 25th July 2008, 09:47 AM   #53
roundhead
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
Originally Posted by Björn Toulouse View Post
Gee, I would never had known that except for this post, that no Americans died in Viet Nam prior to Gulf of Tonkin, and none would have died after that had it not occurred. Amazing.

Great, i am glad your aware.


My comment was directed to the OP, who perhaps isnt.
roundhead 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 25th July 2008, 09:54 AM   #54
Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
 
Athyrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nutsack, FL
Posts: 2,502
That sound you just heard was the joke going over your head.
__________________
Knowledge is good.... Emil Faber
Athyrio 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 25th July 2008, 09:56 AM   #55
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
Great, i am glad your aware.


My comment was directed to the OP, who perhaps isnt.
Oh yeah, your post clears up WTC7 and make perfect sense.
Good job, without your post I would be lost forever, not understanding WTC7 and how a kind professors turns into liars on 9/11 issues. Thank you, great one of a kind post!
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2008, 10:20 AM   #56
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
I didn't say that. I said JFK is not 9/11. "Like" is a word you used.
I know you didn't say it, and I didn't say that you said it - that's why I put "If you think ...." at the beginning of the sentence. If you don't think that, then that's fine. You're not the only person reading this thread.

Quote:
If you think there will be truthers (ala the moon hoaxers or flat earthers) that is your perogative but you would be wrong.
We will have to agree to disagree, then.

Quote:
Where was that comment made or where was something similar saying "go away" made in this thread? Personally, I don't understand how one can think critically and make such a blatently false accusation.
Talk about blatantly false accusations! I made no accusation and I don't know how a critical thinker can say that I did. I did not accuse you or anybody else of saying "go away, truther scum" in this thread or anywhere else. Perhaps you should read my post again?
Matthew Best 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 25th July 2008, 10:22 AM   #57
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
I didn't say that. I said JFK is not 9/11. "Like" is a word you used.
I know you didn't say it, and I didn't say that you said it - that's why I put "If you think ...." at the beginning of the sentence. If you don't think that, then that's fine. You're not the only person reading this thread.

Quote:
If you think there will be truthers (ala the moon hoaxers or flat earthers) that is your perogative but you would be wrong.
We will have to agree to disagree, then.

Quote:
Where was that comment made or where was something similar saying "go away" made in this thread? Personally, I don't understand how one can think critically and make such a blatently false accusation.
Talk about blatantly false accusations! I made no accusation and I don't know how a critical thinker can say that I did. I did not accuse you or anybody else of saying "go away, truther scum" in this thread or anywhere else. Perhaps you should read my post again?
Matthew Best 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 25th July 2008, 04:06 PM   #58
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Yes, nothing proves one conspiracy theory like using another conspiracy theory as evidence. If you want proof of bother 9/11 and Gulf of T, then look at JFK. We can go on and on can't we?

If you don't believe me that 2+2=5 then just look at the incident of 6+6=13. Same thing.
Jonnyclueless 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 25th July 2008, 04:09 PM   #59
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Audesapre:

1. This is an open forum, but it is dominated by people, such as myself, who not only do not believe the 9/11 CTs, but despise those who promote them.

2. We have a few truthers. We would have more, but for some reason they seem incapable of following the rules and regs of the JREF Forums (of which there is MUCH MORE than 9/11 CTs).

3. Some of the truthers here (a small minority) are civil and can at least be engaged with , in terms of a discussion.

4. Most truthers here spend a lot of their time antagonizing, flame baiting, trolling, etc...

5. The links I provided you will take you several days, if not weeks, to go through thoroughly. As well, my suggestion is you pick up the 9/11 commission report in paperback. Now mind you, once you do, if you mention it to a truther, they will immediately say "go read David Ray Griffin's book on the commission report". Be aware that DRG is a first rate Snake Oil Salesmen. He speculates, connects things that he shouldn't, misquotes, quote mines.

Good luck.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 25th July 2008, 04:34 PM   #60
Par
Master Poster
 
Par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
I know you didn't say it, and I didn't say that you said it - that's why I put "If you think ...." at the beginning of the sentence. If you don't think that, then that's fine. You're not the only person reading this thread. We will have to agree to disagree, then. Talk about blatantly false accusations! I made no accusation and I don't know how a critical thinker can say that I did. I did not accuse you or anybody else of saying "go away, truther scum" in this thread or anywhere else. Perhaps you should read my post again?


You might be wondering why your conversation with Enigma isn’t going as smoothly as you had hoped it would. “This guy’s being slightly unreasonable,” you initially thought, “but if I broach the matter politely and rationally, I’m sure he’ll come round. After all, he opposes conspiracy theories, so he’s bound to be reasonable enough.” Now, normally – on this forum, at least – that’s a fairly prudent rule of thumb. Enigma, however, is an irrationalist: dogmatic, intellectually dishonest and abusive. Countless such people just so happen to oppose trutherism, and Enigma just so happens to be one of them. In short, he – like the conspiracy theorist – has rejected reason. That is why you cannot reason with him.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
Par 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 25th July 2008, 04:39 PM   #61
doobiedoright
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by roundhead View Post
I suggest you read up on the Gulf Of Tonkin Incident. It is remarkably similar to the Intel that lead up to the Iraq invasion. In other words fabricated, deceitful, and in some cases outright false.
The decisions made based on this bogus and fabricated information cost 58,000 American lives.

Taking poor, incomplete, or downright fabricated information, and using this to involve the US in war with no or extremely limited justification to have as its result the death of thousands of Americans didnt start on 9/11.



Reading can be fun! You should try it as your wrong on both counts!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident


Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a pair of attacks initiated by naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (the Communist government of North Vietnam) against two American destroyers, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. The incident occurred on August 2 and 4, 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin.[1] The incident prompted the first large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Vietnam.
doobiedoright 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 25th July 2008, 05:08 PM   #62
Mince
Master Poster
 
Mince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,009
Is your professor Dylan Avery? Though counterintuitive, professors can be idiots too.
Mince 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 25th July 2008, 05:12 PM   #63
Mince
Master Poster
 
Mince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,009
Originally Posted by audesapre View Post
First, thanks for the replies, and links. In reply to the ad hominem comments...the guy actually is bright, in certain ways...which I understand sounds apologist-esque...but he seems kind and learned...

No one who speaks upon such a topic with such obvious ignorance is bright or learned.

Last edited by Mince; 25th July 2008 at 05:14 PM.
Mince 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 25th July 2008, 08:41 PM   #64
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Talk about blatantly false accusations! I made no accusation and I don't know how a critical thinker can say that I did. I did not accuse you or anybody else of saying "go away, truther scum" in this thread or anywhere else. Perhaps you should read my post again?
Oh...sorry....on second thought, I don't apologize cause here is your post.
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
When they come to somewhere like this, and the first response they get is "go away, truther scum", or something similar, I don't think we'll be doing much in the way of moulding young minds or influencing people to think critically.
~enigma~ 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 25th July 2008, 09:58 PM   #65
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
So you read it and you still think I've accused you (or someone else) of having already done something that (in my hypothetical example) takes place up to ten years in the future?

Par - thanks for the information.
Matthew Best 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 25th July 2008, 11:38 PM   #66
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Your Prof is a smart man, you should listen to him.

Ask yourselves how you get 'cauliflower' (pyroclastic flow) type smoke clouds from a falling
building
Image of pyroclastic flow
http://www.geo.umn.edu/courses/1001/...ion/img011.JPG

Image of dust flow
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...AP_468x312.jpg

Also think about the amount of force it took for those heavy steel beams
to shoot across 350 feet and cut through the core columns of WTC7.

Is that gravity induced?

When the Penthouse fell, why did the building pause for a few seconds
before falling?

The beams supporting the Penthouse obviously broke loose from the
remainder of the building, otherwise it all would have move at once, correct?

So how did the other columns fail simultaneously?

Stop frame analysis:
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.1.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.2.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.3.jpg
http://www.procision-auto.com/Tino/wtc7.4.jpg
Turbofan 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 25th July 2008, 11:55 PM   #67
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Ask yourselves how you get 'cauliflower' (pyroclastic flow) type smoke clouds from a falling
building

...

Is that gravity induced?

...

Heh, considering the average pyroclastic flow is a gravity induced flow, this is funny.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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 July 2008, 12:07 AM   #68
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Originally Posted by Turbofan
Ask yourselves how you get 'cauliflower' (pyroclastic flow) type smoke clouds from a falling
building

...

Is that gravity induced?

...

Heh, considering the average pyroclastic flow is a gravity induced flow, this is funny.


What's even funnier is you twisted my reply and misquoted the content.

The reference to gravity induced was about the steel beams :
Quote:
Also think about the amount of force it took for those heavy steel beams
to shoot across 350 feet and cut through the core columns of WTC7.
Pyroclastic flow needs what main criteria to occur? The flow may be
gravity driven, but what produces the 'cauliflower' appeal as compared to
a normal dust cloud (see photo references above)?
Turbofan 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 July 2008, 12:13 AM   #69
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
What's even funnier is you twisted my reply and misquoted the content.

Heh. Pot, kettle, etc.

Quote:
The reference to gravity induced was about the steel beams :

Lovely. The juxtaposition was too funny to pass up, especially as it basically answered your question for you.

Quote:
Pyroclastic flow needs what main criteria to occur?

Gravity. Look it up.

Quote:
The flow may be gravity driven, but what produces the 'cauliflower' appeal as compared to a normal dust cloud (see photo references above)?

A pyroclastic flow is basically dust, ash, and super-heated gas. A "normal" dust cloud is perfectly capable of billowing in a similar manner. So the short answer is typical fluid dynamics create the appearance you note in your photo. There are videos of buildings collapsing in earthquakes that demonstrate identical dust clouds.

Those are gravity driven as well.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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 July 2008, 01:14 AM   #70
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 10,281
Surely truthers have managed to figure out by now that "pyroclastic" doesn't mean what they think it means, haven't they?

Even the stupid ones, I mean.
Matthew Best 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 July 2008, 01:18 AM   #71
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Surely truthers have managed to figure out by now that "pyroclastic" doesn't mean what they think it means, haven't they?

Even the stupid ones, I mean.

Sadly, no.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...35#post3530735

See the goofiness posted by tanabear.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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 July 2008, 06:01 AM   #72
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Ask yourselves how you get 'cauliflower' (pyroclastic flow) type smoke clouds from a falling
building
And apparently either your a dumb man or a dishonest parrot of trutherisms. Do you care to tell us what the pyroclasts in the "pyroclastic" flow were?
~enigma~ 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 July 2008, 06:12 AM   #73
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
A pyroclastic flow is basically dust, ash, and super-heated gas. A "normal" dust cloud is perfectly capable of billowing in a similar manner. So the short answer is typical fluid dynamics create the appearance you note in your photo. There are videos of buildings collapsing in earthquakes that demonstrate identical dust clouds.

Those are gravity driven as well.
Typical. Nobody answered the questions, but rather asked questions...about
the questions....

So you have proof of pyroclastic flow of buildings which fell from earthquakes?

Link them up. I 'd like to see your proof of this.

We can also watch the building(s) fall from side to side in your videos and
not straight down.
Turbofan 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 July 2008, 06:18 AM   #74
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
for those idiots who do not think you can get "Cauliflower" clouds from a falling building...

and no, before you mention it, the clouds are not the results of the explosives (for the love of god)...

go to the 52-58 second mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM

TAM
T.A.M. 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 July 2008, 06:26 AM   #75
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Typical. Nobody answered the questions, but rather asked questions...about
the questions....

So you have proof of pyroclastic flow of buildings which fell from earthquakes?

Link them up. I 'd like to see your proof of this.

We can also watch the building(s) fall from side to side in your videos and
not straight down.
What were the pyroclasts in this alleged pyroclastic flow?
~enigma~ 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 July 2008, 06:35 AM   #76
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
What were the pyroclasts in this alleged pyroclastic flow?
Answer my questions first.

Show me the video of earthquake buildings creating this pyroclastic flow.

Stop dodging. Start thinking.
Turbofan 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 July 2008, 06:39 AM   #77
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
Answer my questions first.

Show me the video of earthquake buildings creating this pyroclastic flow.

Stop dodging. Start thinking.
Excuse me? Did I say anything about pyroclastic flows being caused by anything? Pyroclastic flows are a volcanic phenomenon. Read the damn thread to find out who said what. Now answer my question which was asked to you well before anybody brought up earthquakes.
~enigma~ 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 July 2008, 08:14 AM   #78
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by audesapre View Post
But IS "pull" some sort of code in the demolishing business? I mean, you google "pull" and "demolition" and get 9/11 CT sites right back...so...
Why not call Controlled Demolitions Inc and ask them? Not that you'd be the first. Pumpitout.com's 'Jeff' did exactly that - and here is the result of his enquiry:

Receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
Receptionist: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok - I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
Receptionist: Well, what kind of question?
Jeff: Well, I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
Receptionist: Ok - what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
Receptionist: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
Receptionist: Hmm......... Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
(Pause while receptionist consults CDI colleagues)
Receptionist: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
Receptionist: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh. Well, thank you very much for your time.
Receptionist: Okay!
Jeff: Bye.
Receptionist: Bye.
http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls...emolitions.mp3

As to it referring to 'pulling' the firefighters out, we would need to examine when any such firefighting took place. According to NIST's Shyam Sunder:
"There was no firefighting in WTC 7".
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=5

As to no one dying in the collapse of WTC7, we can be certain that at least one person did:
"When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished, and the entire Secret Service office was buried in that building."Steve Carey, SS special agent

I hope you find this information helpful.
damien pastaume 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 July 2008, 08:16 AM   #79
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
There was, I believe, some initial firefighting, but not sustained. I also recall that they still had a contingent of firefighters holding a perimeter around the building.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 July 2008, 08:29 AM   #80
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
As to no one dying in the collapse of WTC7, we can be certain that at least one person did:
"When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished, and the entire Secret Service office was buried in that building."Steve Carey, SS special agent
How does he died while attempting to rescue others from the WTC site morph into he died in WTC 7? Is it because there was a secret service office there that such a wild accusation is being made? Are you accusing Larry Silverstein of murder?
~enigma~ 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

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 08:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.