|
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. |
2nd April 2011, 10:39 AM | #241 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
2nd April 2011, 11:00 AM | #242 |
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
|
I typically refrain from doing much more than reading some of these silly discussions by truthers but I have to jump in here....
And what branch of the military or what government agency do you believe is involved in "SECRET demolition devices and techniques"? It absolutely AMAZES me when truthers talk about topics they know very little about...but even more so when they invoke the "It's SECRET technology that we don't know about". Here is a little clue for you....if it's so obvious that even a truther can figure it out then it's hardly a secret.....and linking to documents or (ROFL) youtube videos that never were classified or have been declassified don't really do much to support the "BUT ITS SOOPER SEKRIT" argument. This is why folks in the government just laugh truthers off when you start discussing the military or Intel agencies....cause you don't know what you are talking about. And the same is true of Engineers when you discuss Engineering, Firefighters when you discuss firefighting, etc. The idea that there are SECRET "techniques or technology" for demolishing a building is ridiculous. |
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1% |
|
2nd April 2011, 11:13 AM | #243 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Nice try but I'm not that gullible. What do you suggest was cut by invisible in action thermXte? Who put it there? When? How was it not discovered? In brief all those aspects which add up to impossibility and are routinely ignored by truthers.
Try that one one the unknowing public please. Implicitly suggesting that I share your incredulity - see the following where you make it explicit: the only mechanism known to you AND circular logic Hogwash as you switch from my assessment to your incredulity. I wont call that sarcasm - I think you mean it so it probably truthfully reflects your unclear thinking and fixed position of denial which you falsely attribute to me. The central point of your incredulity is that you can only conceive of one possibility - or can only afford to admit one given your need for a pre-determined outcome - that one possibility is use of explosive or incendiary demolition. It isn't the only one and no amount of snide reflections on my reasoning will eliminate the multiple other possible mechanisms. My position simply stated is that I accept the reality of the multitude of possible structural failure mechanisms even though I cannot specify them to the level of "column x failed by reason y taking out beam z". There was no demolition and the only reason none of us can specify the exact failure mechanism is that with the WTC7 collapse it was hidden from clear view. As I said the main reason truthers choose WTC7 is just that. Sufficient evidence is abundantly clear for WTC1 & WTC2 so truthers pick WTC7 where the exact detail of the structural failure cannot be discerned. And you choose to misread the overwhelming evidence against demolition which I briefly summarised. So be it. Your call - I for one do not fall for the part truth trickery and evasions. |
2nd April 2011, 11:16 AM | #244 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
And layered on that is the ridiculous notion that these devices could have been delivered to a building in lower Manhattan, received into the building, transported to the required floors, installed, the damage repaired, the furniture replaced with not one person noticing, .in a building that was occupied 24/7, in a building where use of freight elevators required several days notice, in a city that never sleeps, in a city that nothing is delivered or moved without several different unions being involved.
Add to that the fact that not ONE piece of the supposed devices was ever found....despite the multiple layers of inspection of the debris that recovered over 50,000 personal effects. The number of people that would have been required to carry out such a plan without ONE person spilling the beans makes the idea of "controlled demolition" more than ridiculous |
2nd April 2011, 11:23 AM | #245 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
2nd April 2011, 11:24 AM | #246 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
And he has the gall to tell me, the military engineer that, as if detection of demolition devices depended on them being the specific ones available to an Aussie Army engineer.
Similar comment to my previous. As if qualified engineers could not detect use of devices with which they were not yet familiar. Truther logic all over again - take the element of concern to the truther. Take it totally out of context. Then claim it is wrong. The contextual setting shows the lie. except that he claims that this engineer has no imagination ...partly true - my imagination is NOT limited to what is plausible BUT I choose to not propose implausible "magic" as a solution. |
2nd April 2011, 11:29 AM | #248 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
True. In an ironic sort of way.
I am accused of staying in the nine dots. By someone whose perspective is one dot or at most four dots. When in fact I have considered and identified all twenty five dots.... ....and most of the forty nine dots. But I wont stay with the metaphor 'coz someone will point out that I am still accepting a two dimensional matrix. ...and it gets hard to visualise beyond three dimensions.... |
2nd April 2011, 11:32 AM | #249 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
2nd April 2011, 11:34 AM | #250 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
2nd April 2011, 12:28 PM | #251 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
2nd April 2011, 12:54 PM | #252 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
|
I don't know how or why the building was rigged for demolition but I can look at the results and see that it was.
Quote:
|
2nd April 2011, 01:09 PM | #253 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
2nd April 2011, 01:10 PM | #254 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
|
Thank you
Quote:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . ." Here he is saying that their model provided resistance as can be seen in the video captures and Figure 12-63. "there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous." |
2nd April 2011, 02:24 PM | #255 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Not far enough DGM. You're being too easy. To be truthful it should be "...and think that it was one of the plausible options." At this stage he has been made aware of other plausible options for explaining collapse which have been put by me and others and he has not eliminated those other options.
In addition I have outlined some of the case against demolition which he also has not legitimately addressed. To be truthful those outlined facts or the fully detailed explanations backing those outlines must also be addressed. |
2nd April 2011, 02:42 PM | #256 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
|
No, this can only be a CD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance.
Quote:
ETA: You keep saying that but you have not provided any plausible options.
Quote:
|
2nd April 2011, 02:45 PM | #257 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
2nd April 2011, 03:02 PM | #258 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
2nd April 2011, 03:04 PM | #259 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
2 minutes and 19 seconds, you'd think they could at least spare a few more seconds to show the entire collapse.
I agree entirely. However, there were no implosions on 9/11. We don't need to think up any reasons. We already know it wasn't a controlled demolition. Two aircraft struck each tower at about the same place, causing massive structural damage and a raging inferno. Roughly the same time they collapsed in strikingly similar fashion. To normal people, this makes sense. Two identical things resulted in to identical collapses. Where's the beef? |
2nd April 2011, 03:13 PM | #260 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
2nd April 2011, 03:55 PM | #261 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
|
That is incorrect. Many of the fires had burned out, including the one that supposedly started the collapse.
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30] Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. * * * * * * * * * * Chris, Did you know that the Fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse? |
2nd April 2011, 04:04 PM | #262 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
The primary mover used in CD is gravity. Physics is required; got physics?
CD looks like a gravity collapse, I have physics you have, your opinion. Good luck collecting the Pulitzer Prize, don't think there is a category for what your claims is. On track for 10 years of failure, and eternal failure if you insist on keeping anti-intellectual claims of CD based on zero evidence. What did CBS say? What did 20/20 say? When is 48 hours covering your discovery of woo? Why has Gage failed to break through to reality? Gage is making money selling lies; what a nice guy. |
2nd April 2011, 04:12 PM | #263 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
2nd April 2011, 04:15 PM | #264 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
2nd April 2011, 09:43 PM | #265 |
Dreaming of unicorns
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
|
So the same old people are still deceptively using the NIST L instead of using the full report? You are wasting your time with C7 gents.
|
__________________
Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase. |
|
3rd April 2011, 03:44 AM | #266 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
|
|
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum |
|
3rd April 2011, 08:16 AM | #267 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
|
Hi all, a couple things: my view of the freefall collapse is evolving nicely. I'll post it for critiques when I finish the first draft, before tagging it to the end of my Richard Gage debate.
At this point the one way I agree with Chris is to say, "Don't just blow off free fall of Building 7." But looking at it as a case of zero net resistance, I think a reasonable explanation can be made. Since I gave over 100 reasons NOT to accept controlled demo as a workable hypothesis in my debate, we'll see how my first draft hypothesis of natural freefall collapse (really, a boiled down summary of the help I got here from both sides) flies. |
3rd April 2011, 09:05 AM | #268 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
3rd April 2011, 09:37 AM | #269 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
|
|
3rd April 2011, 09:41 AM | #270 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,021
|
|
3rd April 2011, 09:45 AM | #271 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
3rd April 2011, 09:55 AM | #272 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
|
|
3rd April 2011, 10:01 AM | #273 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
3rd April 2011, 10:11 AM | #274 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
|
That is incorrect. There were fires on floors 19, 22 29 and 31 at the south west corner but they burned out by about 1:00 PM. [NCSTAR 1A pg 19] The only other fire reported on the south face was on floor 12 near the center between 11:30 and 2:00 PM. [Part IIC pg 21] The smoke from WTC 6 was being drawn up the side of WTC 7 by a low pressure area caused by the breeze from the NW. [NCSTAR1-9 pg 118] The same phenomenon occurred at the NE corner. There were no fires above the 13th floor yet the smoke was drawn up the corner and there appeared to be fire on every floor. just like the SW corner.
This is the last part of the east end of floor 12 to burn and it was on fire at 3:15 and had burned out by about 3:45 PM. Part IIC also contains the statement about the fire on floor 12 being burned out by about 4:45. [pg 22] http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf |
3rd April 2011, 10:32 AM | #275 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
To prove there was no fire on the South side of the building, you produce a photo of the East edge of the North face.
Okee doke. |
3rd April 2011, 10:47 AM | #276 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
|
Only if you ignore the fact that the irregular buckling of the exterior moment frame provides resistance and Sunders acknowledgment that "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it."
The core columns pulling down on the floor beams pulled the exterior columns down but could not pull them at free fall acceleration because they provided resistance. ETA: As can be seen in the collapse video captures and Figure 12-63 http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7...video14s16.jpg http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1...ngvnothing.jpg
Quote:
* * * * * The fire that supposedly started the collapse had gone out over one half hour before the collapse. In other words, the NIST hypothesis of a progressive collapse never started. |
3rd April 2011, 10:51 AM | #277 |
This space for rent.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
|
irreducible delusion noted.
|
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers) |
|
3rd April 2011, 10:55 AM | #278 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
|
|
3rd April 2011, 11:31 AM | #279 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
|
Originally Posted by C7
|
3rd April 2011, 11:47 AM | #280 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
You should publish your findings of CD in a journal. Wow, 9 years and now we are going to find out the truth. When can you have your paper ready? How did they make silent explosives? Will Gage have you speak at his events, as his guest, like pay your travel expenses? This is terrific stuff. When will you take action?
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|