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 26th July 2008, 08:31 AM   #81
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Wonder why the most ville, bottom of the barrel truthers are coming out of the woodwork today?
~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, 08:51 AM   #82
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
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?
"Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...:FLD001:H51497
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, 09:02 AM   #83
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation?

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."
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, 09:04 AM   #84
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
"Madam Speaker, Building 7 of the World Trade Center housed a number of Federal Government offices, including the IRS, the EEOC, the Defense Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the New York field office of the United States Secret Service. The field office was destroyed on September 11 and, tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...:FLD001:H51497
Yes...and he was part of the rescue effort outside the building according to the secret service. Why do you think he died in building 7?
~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, 09:05 AM   #85
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation?

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."
What part of the quote are you butchering to claim that anybody asked Silverstein for permission?
~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, 09:08 AM   #86
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,838
Originally Posted by audesapre View Post
the bomb sniffing dogs were pulled
Gross! Why would anyone want to blow up dogs?
Wolrab 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, 09:35 AM   #87
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Yes...and he was part of the rescue effort outside the building according to the secret service. Why do you think he died in building 7?
Here's exactly what I said:

"As to no one dying in the collapse of WTC7, we can be certain that at least one person did:"

As per my House of Representatives quote:
"tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."

Neither I nor the House statement says he was in the building - only that he died as a result of its collapse.
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, 09:38 AM   #88
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
Here's exactly what I said:

"As to no one dying in the collapse of WTC7, we can be certain that at least one person did:"
So in didn't mean in?

As per my House of Representatives quote:
"tragically, Master Special Officer Craig Miller lost his life when the building collapsed."

Neither I nor the House statement says he was in the building - only that he died as a result of its collapse.[/quote]
They didn't but you most certainly said "in."
~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, 09:42 AM   #89
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,368
I long ago stopped trying to actually reason with Truthers, because basically it seemed I had said everything I had to say, and it appeared to make zero impact anyway. So instead I eventually adopted my present persona of semi-articulate doofus. But for some reason, the OP has called me back. So what the hey, let's give logic at least one more whirl.

Let' look at this thing one step at a time. Silverstein said "pull it," which some Truthers take as an industry term for demolishing a building. But even the most die-hard Truther would likely admit (however begrudgingly) that the word "pull" has other meanings beyond demolition, which could be applicable in this context -- "pull out" or "pull back" just to name a couple off the top of my head. Had Silverstein said something more specific like "bring it down" or "blow it up" or "set off the charges now," there would be a lot stronger case here. But he didn't. So at best, Silverstein's words are ambiguous, and open for interpretation -- and thus prove nothing.

But let's say you're one of those people convinced that "pull it" in this instance can mean nothing other than "demolish the building." OK, fine. You now have to explain why Silverstein would openly admit such a thing on television. A momentary lapse in judgement? A slip of the tongue? What, exactly would have possibly possessed Silverstein -- on this one occasion and one occasion only -- to admit complicity in mass murder? So now Truthers have two things to explain: why "pull it" can only mean "demolish it" despite all the other possible meanings, and why Silverstein would actually publically confess this one time.

But let's say you somehow get past those two things. Now you have to explain whether or not WTC7 was in fact a controlled demolision. After all, video evidence and eyewitness testimony abundantly indicate that the building was badly damaged by falling debris, and burned out of control for hours. The vast majority of experts find nothing at all unexpected about the collapse. They are comfortable with the fact the building fell solely because the structural and fire damage it sustained, with no need to invoke a CD to bring it down. So how do you explain why there's no evidence at all that WTC7 was a CD, irrespective of what Silverstein may or may not have meant in his one unguarded moment?

Ah, but it doesn't stop there. If indeed the building was wired for demolition, how the devil did the explosives not go off prematurely, while an uncontrolled conflagration raged away all around them for hours?

But wait, there's more. Now you have to explain why anyone would demolish WTC7. After all, its two vastly more high-profile neighbors had already been destroyed, with spectacular effect. Why, just for good measure, bring down a building that no one had ever heard about? Some have suggested it was to destroy sensitive records, in which case you have to explan why they didn't simply use paper shredders, which not only would have been a lot easier but would also have been far more effective.

So let's sum this up: To believe that Silverstein's comments in any way support the Truther movement, you have to explain why a couple of highly ambiguous words can in this case have only one very uncommon meaning, why the person uttering them is publically confessing to mass murder, why there's no other evidence at all a CD actually took place, how the explosives waited patiently for hours within the inferno until Silverstein gave the magic order, and why anyone would even bother to blow up the building in the first place.

That a college professor could possibly have navigated through those questions and still somehow concluded Silverstein is stating WTC7 was a CD speaks very, very badly of that professor's judgement and reason. And I don't think there's anything at all ad hominem about that last statement.
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J

Last edited by Stellafane; 26th July 2008 at 09:44 AM.
Stellafane 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, 09:47 AM   #90
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
That a college professor could possibly have navigated through those questions and still somehow concluded Silverstein is stating WTC7 was a CD speaks very, very badly of that professor's judgement and reason. And I don't think there's anything at all ad hominem about that last statement.
Considering that you are not dismissing his argument because he is a college professor with bad judgement, no it isn't an ad hom and there really were none before the OP's accusation of some.
~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, 09:50 AM   #91
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
They didn't but you most certainly said "in."
Yes.

In the collapse.
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, 09:51 AM   #92
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,368
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Considering that you are not dismissing his argument because he is a college professor with bad judgement, no it isn't an ad hom and there really were none before the OP's accusation of some.
I think some people think "ad hominem" means "you said I was wrong and I didn't like it."
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J
Stellafane 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, 09:56 AM   #93
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
Yes.

In the collapse.
Yes....you said in the collapse of building 7 which is certainly different from during the collapse so.... SPIN UBU SPIN.
~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, 10:09 AM   #94
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
Had Silverstein said something more specific like "bring it down" or "blow it up" or "set off the charges now," there would be a lot stronger case here. But he didn't. So at best, Silverstein's words are ambiguous, and open for interpretation -- and thus prove nothing.
Agreed. Even with the definition supplied by the Controlled Demolition Inc's spokesperson. Even though little or no firefighting was apparent. Nothing short of a subpoena would help remove the ambiguity.

Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
So how do you explain why there's no evidence at all that WTC7 was a CD, irrespective of what Silverstein may or may not have meant in his one unguarded moment?
Putting Silverstein aside for a moment, what bothers many people is not the fact that WTC7 collapsed - it is the manner of its collapse. In the 100 year history of steel-framed high-rises there have been thousands of such collapses (straight down, barely above freefall, reduction to a small debris pile). Every single one, without exception, has been the result of deliberate demolition.

From a purely statistical point of view this leaves us to ponder the following:

Statistical support for deliberate demolition: 100%
Statistical support for damage/fire demolition: 0%

Given these rather stark figures, is it really any surprise that many have difficulty swallowing the fire/damage explanation?
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, 10:11 AM   #95
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Yes....you said in the collapse of building 7 which is certainly different from during the collapse so.... SPIN UBU SPIN.
I think I'll leave our fellow posters to make their own minds up about this one.
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, 10:13 AM   #96
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
Given these rather stark figures, is it really any surprise that many have difficulty swallowing the fire/damage explanation?
Many? You mean insignificant few that by and large live in their parents basement until they get real jobs and move out while forgetting about the truther balony. If that is how you define many, I agee...
~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, 10:15 AM   #97
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
I think I'll leave our fellow posters to make their own minds up about this one.
Ok but I hope you understand that it isn't in your favor.
~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, 10:24 AM   #98
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
Answer my questions first.

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

Stop dodging. Start thinking.

Earthquakes do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Building collapses do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Only a volcano can cause a pyroclastic flow. It's kinda part of the definition (Hint, what does the word "pyro" mean?).

Show me where anyone claimed otherwise.
__________________
"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, 10:25 AM   #99
audesapre
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4
Okay - in no particular order -

1. regarding the class/professor: it is a world civ.class. I don't want to get into any further specifics only because I think his kind of ignorance isn't any worse than the ignorance of some other professors I've had...the one thing that DOES bother me is that he gives these views and a large majority of the class seems to buy into it...because I guess authority figures are meant to have the truth, or whatever.

Anyhow, I plan on taking the points here, sources included, and presenting them on Monday. I am not that outspoken of a person....but I suppose it's time to start...I mean, the guy seems more suited to a talkshow than teaching. He does not present alternatives. He acts as though he has the truth and we are all foundering in the dark.

2. thanks for the resources - I am getting through them. I also read the commissions report, as suggested (I had alot of spare time).

And the man DOES NOT COME OFF AS STUPID. He isn't blubbering on about Martians meeting with Eisenhower...or anything...and the fact that he is on the fringe, so to speak, means that the class is absent of the usual republican v democrat rhetoric. That said, he is making people ask questions...even if they find answers contrary to his views. But I am going to address what was raised here regarding WTC 7, and the research I did on the topic. I think he will be open to it...I hope.
audesapre 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, 10:26 AM   #100
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Earthquakes do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Building collapses do not cause pyroclastic flows.

Only a volcano can cause a pyroclastic flow. It's kinda part of the definition (Hint, what does the word "pyro" mean?).

Show me where anyone claimed otherwise.
Better I think is to have them explain what in the "pyroclastic flow" were the pyroclasts. That seems to have stopped TF dead in his tracks.
~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, 10:28 AM   #101
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8,368
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
Agreed. Even with the definition supplied by the Controlled Demolition Inc's spokesperson. Even though little or no firefighting was apparent. Nothing short of a subpoena would help remove the ambiguity.
Even though you say you agreed with me, your additional comments (and what they appear to imply) border on silly. What's the chances that Silverstein would have used a little-known, insider term that mean demolition, when far more common meanings (pull out, pull back) would make perfect sense, especially when uttered by a "civilian"? And it leaves utterly unanswered my obvious followup question: Why the hell would Silverstein have publically confessed to mass murder? You see, that's the whole point of my post. You can't just raise a bit of gray area about one specific question and then declare you've accomplished anything. You have to address all the other followup questions that must also be true. So even if Silverstein meant "demolish," explain to me why he confessed publically that one time -- and no other.


Quote:
Putting Silverstein aside for a moment, what bothers many people is not the fact that WTC7 collapsed - it is the manner of its collapse. In the 100 year history of steel-framed high-rises there have been thousands of such collapses (straight down, barely above freefall, reduction to a small debris pile). Every single one, without exception, has been the result of deliberate demolition.

From a purely statistical point of view this leaves us to ponder the following:

Statistical support for deliberate demolition: 100%
Statistical support for damage/fire demolition: 0%

Given these rather stark figures, is it really any surprise that many have difficulty swallowing the fire/damage explanation?
Yes, it is a surprise that any reasonable, informed, and sane person has any question at all about WTC. How many other buildings in history have been struck by flaming debris falling from an adjacent 1000+ foot tower, and then burned uncontrollably for hours? And if you somehow get past that one, there's all those other pesky questions I mentioned. Why do the vast majority of structural engineers accept that the WTC7 fell due to damage and fire, and not a CD? Are they all in on it too? And if it were a CD, why didn't the explosives go off by themselves while being engulfed in flames for hours? And then the biggest question of all, why do this in the first place?

Truthers are fond of claiming they're "just asking questions." But sometimes I think in fact Truthers hate questions, because they always seem to ignore all the followup ones that arise whenever they make a single claim. It's like they see the world in a complete vacuum, where something can be true with no connections or consequences. But the world doesn't work that way. It's like Truthers are more interested in playing "gotcha!" than actually discussing the truth.

So long as my questions remain unanswered (and thus far, every single one of them does), Truthers have contributed nothing to our understanding of how WTC7 collapsed.
__________________
"Stellafane! My old partner in crime!" - Kelly J

Last edited by Stellafane; 26th July 2008 at 10:32 AM.
Stellafane 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, 10:36 AM   #102
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 audesapre View Post
Okay - in no particular order -

1. regarding the class/professor: it is a world civ.class. I don't want to get into any further specifics only because I think his kind of ignorance isn't any worse than the ignorance of some other professors I've had...the one thing that DOES bother me is that he gives these views and a large majority of the class seems to buy into it...because I guess authority figures are meant to have the truth, or whatever.

Anyhow, I plan on taking the points here, sources included, and presenting them on Monday. I am not that outspoken of a person....but I suppose it's time to start...I mean, the guy seems more suited to a talkshow than teaching. He does not present alternatives. He acts as though he has the truth and we are all foundering in the dark.

2. thanks for the resources - I am getting through them. I also read the commissions report, as suggested (I had alot of spare time).

And the man DOES NOT COME OFF AS STUPID. He isn't blubbering on about Martians meeting with Eisenhower...or anything...and the fact that he is on the fringe, so to speak, means that the class is absent of the usual republican v democrat rhetoric. That said, he is making people ask questions...even if they find answers contrary to his views. But I am going to address what was raised here regarding WTC 7, and the research I did on the topic. I think he will be open to it...I hope.

Good luck!

Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
Better I think is to have them explain what in the "pyroclastic flow" were the pyroclasts. That seems to have stopped TF dead in his tracks.

Nah, too many syllables. Start them off with "pyro" and work from there.
__________________
"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, 10:39 AM   #103
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Nah, too many syllables. Start them off with "pyro" and work from there.
Yeah but unlike every other attempt, it seems mine stopped a truther dead in his tracks and left him (or it) with nothing whatsoever to say.
~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, 10:42 AM   #104
MarkyX
Master Poster
 
MarkyX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,157
Quote:
(straight down, barely above freefall, reduction to a small debris pile)
That's not what happened to WTC7.
__________________
MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom
MarkyX 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, 11:07 AM   #105
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
Even though you say you agreed with me, your additional comments (and what they appear to imply) border on silly. What's the chances that Silverstein would have used a little-known, insider term that mean demolition, when far more common meanings (pull out, pull back) would make perfect sense, especially when uttered by a "civilian"? And it leaves utterly unanswered my obvious followup question: Why the hell would Silverstein have publically confessed to mass murder? You see, that's the whole point of my post. You can't just raise a bit of gray area about one specific question and then declare you've accomplished anything. You have to address all the other followup questions that must also be true. So even if Silverstein meant "demolish," explain to me why he confessed publically that one time -- and no other.
Beats me. Like I said, short of any new revelations the Silverstein angle is exhausted and remains ambiguous. Time to move on.

Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
Yes, it is a surprise that any reasonable, informed, and sane person has any question at all about WTC. How many other buildings in history have been struck by flaming debris falling from an adjacent 1000+ foot tower, and then burned uncontrollably for hours?
WTC6 to name just one. It was massively more damaged than WTC7 and did not collapse.

Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
Why do the vast majority of structural engineers accept that the WTC7 fell due to damage and fire, and not a CD?
Since when were majorities proof of anything? History is replete with majority opinion being overturned.

Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
And if it were a CD, why didn't the explosives go off by themselves while being engulfed in flames for hours? And then the biggest question of all, why do this in the first place?
We first establish beyond doubt what happened. The hows and whys can then be vigorously pursued. To do so prior to removing doubt is potentially a huge waste of time.

Originally Posted by Stellafane View Post
So long as my questions remain unanswered (and thus far, every single one of them does), Truthers have contributed nothing to our understanding of how WTC7 collapsed.
As I stated above, your questions may - or may not - be relevant. Your questions are secondary to the fundamental questions, such as:
How can asymmetrical damage result in symmetrical collapse?

Fundamentals first.
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, 11:20 AM   #106
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by MarkyX View Post
That's not what happened to WTC7.
Oh?
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, 11:23 AM   #107
Par
Master Poster
 
Par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,768
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation?

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."

He’s right! Fire chiefs don’t ask building owners for permission! But fire chiefs do blow up buildings! Of course they do! Asking permission would be unusual. But blowing up the building would be perfectly normal. Why can’t you people understand!?

Look!:

Now look at these:

What's wrong with you people?!
__________________
(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 26th July 2008, 11:24 AM   #108
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
Oh?
How does a symmetric collapse have the north wall lying atop the pile with the south wall (the damaged one) on the bottom?
~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, 11:49 AM   #109
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
Originally Posted by audesapre View Post
Okay - in no particular order -

1. regarding the class/professor: it is a world civ.class. I don't want to get into any further specifics only because I think his kind of ignorance isn't any worse than the ignorance of some other professors I've had...the one thing that DOES bother me is that he gives these views and a large majority of the class seems to buy into it...because I guess authority figures are meant to have the truth, or whatever.

Anyhow, I plan on taking the points here, sources included, and presenting them on Monday. I am not that outspoken of a person....but I suppose it's time to start...I mean, the guy seems more suited to a talkshow than teaching. He does not present alternatives. He acts as though he has the truth and we are all foundering in the dark.

2. thanks for the resources - I am getting through them. I also read the commissions report, as suggested (I had alot of spare time).

And the man DOES NOT COME OFF AS STUPID. He isn't blubbering on about Martians meeting with Eisenhower...or anything...and the fact that he is on the fringe, so to speak, means that the class is absent of the usual republican v democrat rhetoric. That said, he is making people ask questions...even if they find answers contrary to his views. But I am going to address what was raised here regarding WTC 7, and the research I did on the topic. I think he will be open to it...I hope.
You're welcome.

Yes, I don't imagine that the professor comes off as stupid. In fact, many of the canards conspiracy fantasists use do indeed sound eminently sensible. For example, it's true that jet fuel/kerosene burning in open air without the benefit of being in an insulative system doesn't reach the temperatures sufficient to melt steel; the problem is that 1. Jet fuel burning in open air was not what happened a the Twin Towers, and 2. Steel melting was not the cause of the collapse. The "fact" by itself, however, makes sense.

That's how so much of this mythology called 9/11 Truth gets across to people. When someone says "The jets flew around the US for 20/30/40 minutes without the Air Force responding", that sounds like a reasonable statement. But when you really dig into the details of the US's response - found in study of the timeline (summed up by Gumboot here), as well as in the basics of NORAD's procedures (also summed up by Gumboot here) and in the confusion every one involved experienced that day (written up by Vanity Fair here) - you realize how it's unfair to characterize things that way. The military had, what, only single digit minutes between the time they were notified of the hijackings and the time the aircraft crashed (and in the case of Flight 93, were only told about the hijacking after it had already crashed). The devil is in the details, and conspiracy peddlers just wave past that in order to state their premises in ways that sound suspicious. Because of that, I have no doubt that an otherwise intelligent person like your professor would buy into such things. It takes time and desire to chase all that information down, and the tretcherous thing is that the pseudoscientific presentation of the evidence makes things deceptively easy to gather and very deceptively easy to think you understand the situation. Just read through some of the other threads here for how many fantasy believers think they know the details of the events that day, and see how so many of them are terribly misled.

Anyway, if I may give some advice, the "Gravysite" (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com, named for forum poster Gravy (aka Mark Roberts), the 911 Myths site (http://911myths.com) and others are great resources for discovering the truth behind the claims that are fooling your otherwise fine professor.

Anyway, good luck. Post questions if you have them, but it would also be a good idea to see if they haven't already been answered by doing a search of the forum. If you can't find them, ask anyway; one of us here can point to relevant threads or other resources if necessary.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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, 11:50 AM   #110
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
RE: "Pull it"

Since when does the fire chief have to call the building owner to remove
firefighters from an unsafe situation?

"Sorry crew, you'll have to stay in the burning building until I can contact
Larry. Keep on burning and dying until I tell you to come out..."


Yeah I guess I would be confused too turbo if I lik you hadn't bothered to read the actual conversation between the two guys. But the PFT cult can't sell as many DVDs to idiots if they include that stuff.

I still laugh every time idiots make these kind of claims. The irony being that these people generally think that they have done some kind of research. Too funny!
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 26th July 2008, 12:04 PM   #111
Turbofan
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,143
Originally Posted by ~enigma~ View Post
What part of the quote are you butchering to claim that anybody asked Silverstein for permission?
I guess you missed that famous tv interview where he states he talked to
the fire commander?

You know," all that loss of life, the best thing to do is pull it."

Do I have to link the video too?
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, 12:08 PM   #112
Bananaman
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 299
Oh God, Turbo, you can't be serious.

Tell me you're pulling our legs because this is just on another level of ill-informed rubbish now.

Do some proper research and for God's sake grow up.

Bananaman (who will give Turbo a small clue. Try researching what Silverstein actually meant, and try not to go too red if reality seeps through).
Bananaman 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, 12:08 PM   #113
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 16,361
Originally Posted by Turbofan View Post
I guess you missed that famous tv interview where he states he talked to
the fire commander?

You know," all that loss of life, the best thing to do is pull it."

Do I have to link the video too?
Here's the quote in it's entirety:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Note the word I bolded.
johnny karate 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, 12:12 PM   #114
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
WTC6 to name just one. It was massively more damaged than WTC7 and did not collapse.
WTC 6, unlike WTC 7, was a traditional post-and-beam structure. It was only a few stories high, and wasn't cantilevered over an electrical substation. Because of its small height, it cannot follow the progressive collapse mechanism of the WTC Towers, and because it was not a perimeter-and-core structure, it was less susceptible to a single internal failure resulting in global collapse than either WTC 1, 2, or 7.

Nonetheless, it experienced significant internal collapses. FDNY was concerned that it could totally collapse, and it came pretty close to doing so as it was, requiring a delicate demolition of the remains.

Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
As I stated above, your questions may - or may not - be relevant. Your questions are secondary to the fundamental questions, such as:
How can asymmetrical damage result in symmetrical collapse?
The collapses were not symmetrical. All three collapses experienced significant tilting. They were partly symmetrical, but this is as expected given the mostly symmetrical distribution of material at the start of collapse. It's all momentum, and gravity pulls straight down. As more of the structure is involved, the vertical momentum gained from gravity naturally dominates the collapse behavior, damping out asymmetries at the start.

Very simple.
R.Mackey 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, 12:40 PM   #115
damien pastaume
Thinker
 
damien pastaume's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 145
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
WTC 6, unlike WTC 7, was a traditional post-and-beam structure.
Well - he did ask.



Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
The collapses were not symmetrical. All three collapses experienced significant tilting. They were partly symmetrical, but this is as expected given the mostly symmetrical distribution of material at the start of collapse. It's all momentum, and gravity pulls straight down. As more of the structure is involved, the vertical momentum gained from gravity naturally dominates the collapse behavior, damping out asymmetries at the start.

Very simple.
I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises - the collapses of which actually displayed less symmetricality than that of WTC7.

A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.
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, 12:42 PM   #116
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises
And did you hear demolition charges? Wonder why you heard none on any video of any of the WTC collapses?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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, 12:43 PM   #117
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.
You might want to tell that to the owners of 30 west broadway and the verizon building. 30 west broadway is still being deconstructed last I heard...
__________________
Grizzly Bear 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, 12:49 PM   #118
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by damien pastaume View Post
I have personally witnessed the demolition of steel-frame hi-rises - the collapses of which actually displayed less symmetricality than that of WTC7.

A team of demolition experts versus random, asymmetrical damage - and the latter does the cleaner job?

Not simple.
Don't confuse yourself.

Professional demolitions deliberately create asymmetric implosions in most cases. They're trying to keep the debris field inside the original footprint. The best way to do that is to separate the four (or more) walls and have them topple against each other.

Demolitions of core-and-perimeter structures are unusual, since that is a relatively new innovation and the few examples that exist are newer, not needing demolition. It's not clear how they would demo one of these structures, or if they would have to take it apart piece by piece instead.

The point is, you cannot compare the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses to professional demolitions in the past. The phenomenology is totally different. The phenomenology is, however, totally consistent with an initiating failure on the fire-affected floors.

It also wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, "cleaner." If a professional demo company did half as much collateral damage as either Tower, they'd be looking at jail terms.
R.Mackey 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, 12:55 PM   #119
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
And did you hear demolition charges? Wonder why you heard none on any video of any of the WTC collapses?
You and your friends dont want to accept the witness-accounts of sounds of explosions. You just spin these accounts: "they did not see a bomb", they just heard and saw "explosions", which could also be explained by something else than bombs, and so on and so on. Now you landed on your JREF-landing place and claim proudly "nobody heard the sounds of demolition charges."
bio 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, 12:58 PM   #120
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Don't confuse yourself.

Professional demolitions deliberately create asymmetric implosions in most cases. They're trying to keep the debris field inside the original footprint. The best way to do that is to separate the four (or more) walls and have them topple against each other.


Demolitions of core-and-perimeter structures are unusual, since that is a relatively new innovation and the few examples that exist are newer, not needing demolition. It's not clear how they would demo one of these structures, or if they would have to take it apart piece by piece instead.
(...)
thank you for the argument, that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.
bio 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 12:48 AM.
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.