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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th September 2016, 03:41 AM   #121
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,709
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
That explains it pop up marines Marina with stinger-ray shoulder fired anti BS. missles.
ftfy, and showed my age
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 7th September 2016, 04:41 AM   #122
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,389
A stinger would stop a jet in midair and the plane would fall onto a safe empty park, especially a plane going 500 MPH less than a 1/2 mile from it's target. Yeah, that's the ticket!
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
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 7th September 2016, 06:27 AM   #123
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Sherman Bay View Post
Think of a piston in a cylinder, like in an internal combustion engine. When the piston moves, it either compresses the gas in the cylinder (compression cycle) or expands it (power or exhaust cycle).

When a building pancakes, the action is exactly the same, just not as efficient, since there are many places air can escape, like windows or cracks in the wall. The falling floor compresses the gas below it just like a piston in a cylinder. Now the pressure inside is greater than outside, at least briefly.



Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
For the other extreme, think of dropping a book, horizontally, on a pile of flour. The air can escape from below the book, but not as fast as the falling book compresses it, so there's a region of increased pressure below the book as it falls that causes air to move sideways. As this region reaches the pile of flour it pushes some of the flour outwards, making a mess on the kitchen floor.

The situation in the Twin Towers was somewhere between these extremes. Some air was able to escape the pressurized region through the spaces between debris, or between debris and walls, but not all of it. The pressurized air in the lower part of the building was able to escape through broken windows, but quite slowly because there weren't many broken windows far below the fires [1]. So we see the slowly developing and long-lasting plumes, totally unlike the short and sharp emission from an explosion.
Thanks for attempting to answer my question.

I don't think that I've expressed my question properly though, because these attempts are not responsive to the actual question that I asked.

I know how a book displaces air when it falls and I know how a piston and cylinder works. I wasn't asking about the basic principles here. I was asking whether or not anyone has any numbers to support this theory, and if so, where these numbers originated.

I think this is a fair question to ask. Especially if one is going to use this theory to debunk a peer review publication. Can anyone show some numbers?

Does a book falling transfer enough energy into the air to cause material to be ejected a hundred feet? How much energy is this? What is the velocity of the air that is required in order for it to create this particular ejection pattern. What pressure differential is required in order to accelerate this column of air in the time frame indicated in the recording?

Why are these not fair questions?

Is it really acceptable to avoid responding to these questions simply by making some kind of semantic argument regarding what nomenclature we use in order to talk about these demolition squibs? How intellectually dishonest would that be?

The reason that I believe this is the proper question should be obvious. If physics won't provide any scenario where these particular numbers can be achieved using a falling book or bicycle pump model, then we're back to controlled demolition as the only plausible cause for these particular ejection patterns.


edited to add>>>> My own experience with being on the ramp with jet aircraft leads me to believe that most jet engines are incapable of producing the type of fluid flow that is apparent in the videos, so it's incomprehensible to me that a falling book or breaking window could. Of course I would believe the numbers, if they existed, and if they were independently verifiable.

The question is, do any of these numbers actually exist?

Last edited by steveupson; 7th September 2016 at 06:35 AM.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 06:31 AM   #124
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,379
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
The reason that I believe this is the proper question should be obvious. If physics won't provide any scenario where these particular numbers can be achieved using a falling book or bicycle pump model, then we're back to controlled demolition as the only plausible cause for these particular ejection patterns.
No we are not, because controlled demolition is not the default answer when there is no evidence of controlled demolition.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 7th September 2016, 06:47 AM   #125
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
edited to add>>>> My own experience with being on the ramp with jet aircraft leads me to believe that most jet engines are incapable of producing the type of fluid flow that is apparent in the videos, so it's incomprehensible to me that a falling book or breaking window could. Of course I would believe the numbers, if they existed, and if they were independently verifiable.
I fail to see how jet engines fit into the theory that the ejections of material are 'squibs'.

OTOH have you not seen the videos of jet blast throwing vehicles about? I believe that "Mythbusters" did a sequence on that.
jaydeehess 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 7th September 2016, 06:48 AM   #126
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,709
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Why are these not fair questions?
If it were my contention that moonlight is generated by billions of tiny pixies frantically pedalling on bicycle generators, and you disagreed, would it be 'fair' for me to demand that you do the calculations for their electrical and light output before I abandon my theory? That's what you're doing.

Your main problem here is one of logic. You've made a claim that you've presented throughout as cut+dried ('demolition squibs') but have done nothing to support that claim, instead dumping responsibility on others.

Let's take a different tack - in the final WTC7 report NIST used a freely available commercial software package to calculate the loudness of a single explosive charge sufficient to cut just one section of a core column. It was more than adequate to blow out windows over a large part of that storey and generate sound at the 130-140 db level, i.e. unmissable. Make that hundreds of such charges and nobody in New York would have missed it. It didn't happen.

But, you say, "nano thermite!". Well, if it isn't engineered as a high-explosive then it won't cut steel columns in a hurry. If it is you'll hear it. You've ignored this the several times people have pointed this out, among other things.

And, please, stop trying to bolster your so-called arguments by mentioning a 'peer-reviewed' paper. Bentham was a joke, they paid to publish, and the peer-review would not have been scientifically acceptable in a professional journal. I could just have easily have paid to publish a "pixie-powered moonlight" paper - would you have been impressed by its contents?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 7th September 2016 at 06:50 AM. Reason: typos
GlennB 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 7th September 2016, 06:50 AM   #127
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
I wasn't asking about the basic principles here. I was asking whether or not anyone has any numbers to support this theory, and if so, where these numbers originated.

I think this is a fair question to ask. Especially if one is going to use this theory to debunk a peer review publication.
This is called the appeal to perfection. There is not, in fact, a peer reviewed publication that gives plausible numerical data that supports the claim that explosives were the cause of the ejecta seen during the collapse of the towers, nor is there a coherent line of reasoning that proposes a mechanism by which explosives could both cause the collapse of the towers and produce the ejecta observed; there is simply a knee-jerk response to an observation with no analysis to back it up, exactly the kind of failing the authors attribute to NIST.

You might also note that Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, but rather a general interest members' magazine, and that the editors themselves include a disclaimer that the article "contains some speculation".

So your request is unreasonable; you're trying to impose a demand for high precision in responding to a speculation that is asserted but not justified.

If you disagree, please show the numerical calculations that support the contention that the ejecta from the lower parts of the structure were caused by explosives. If you can't show numbers yourself, then there's no justification for expecting them from anyone else.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 7th September 2016, 06:50 AM   #128
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
No we are not, because controlled demolition is not the default answer when there is no evidence of controlled demolition.
I think that you're claiming that we can pretend that the video evidence of demolition squibs doesn't exist if we can determine that it's evidence of controlled demolition.

Is that what you're saying?
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 06:53 AM   #129
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,379
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
I think that you're claiming that we can pretend that the video evidence of demolition squibs doesn't exist if we can determine that it's evidence of controlled demolition.

Is that what you're saying?
You keep calling them demolition squibs. You have no evidence that controlled demolition produced the phenomenon you are referring to.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 7th September 2016, 06:53 AM   #130
Klimax
NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ)
 
Klimax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9
Posts: 12,538
Quick question: Does anybody have link to debunking of this "paper"? One of large Czech news sites just published front-page article about it. (reporting what they wrote as is, no input from other experts)

I have already sent e-mail with link to general resources as collected in directory of this subforum, but not sure if there is everything.
__________________
ModBorg

Engine: Ibalgin 400
Klimax 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 7th September 2016, 06:55 AM   #131
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I fail to see how jet engines fit into the theory that the ejections of material are 'squibs'.

OTOH have you not seen the videos of jet blast throwing vehicles about? I believe that "Mythbusters" did a sequence on that.
I'm asking what seems to me to be a very straight-forward question. The comparison to a jet engine blast was provided to try and highlight the fact that there must be a quantifiable cause and effect in order to explain what is seen in the videos.

Have any of these cause and effect theories been quantified, and if so, when and where?
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 06:57 AM   #132
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,097
100mph wind generates 0.17psi loadimg on a window. 200mph wind generates 0.7psi. 1/2 psi would be an increase in pressure equivalent to a 5145 % decrease in volume of the space.
If you place a layer of flour on a table 10 feet off the ground and drop a book on it so it lands flat, the flour will cover a LARGE area of the floor below the table
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 7th September 2016, 06:59 AM   #133
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
If it were my contention that moonlight is generated by billions of tiny pixies frantically pedalling on bicycle generators, and you disagreed, would it be 'fair' for me to demand that you do the calculations for their electrical and light output before I abandon my theory? That's what you're doing.

Your main problem here is one of logic. You've made a claim that you've presented throughout as cut+dried ('demolition squibs') but have done nothing to support that claim, instead dumping responsibility on others.

Let's take a different tack - in the final WTC7 report NIST used a freely available commercial software package to calculate the loudness of a single explosive charge sufficient to cut just one section of a core column. It was more than adequate to blow out windows over a large part of that storey and generate sound at the 130-140 db level, i.e. unmissable. Make that hundreds of such charges and nobody in New York would have missed it. It didn't happen.

But, you say, "nano thermite!". Well, if it isn't engineered as a high-explosive then it won't cut steel columns in a hurry. If it is you'll hear it. You've ignored this the several times people have pointed this out, among other things.

And, please, stop trying to bolster your so-called arguments by mentioning a 'peer-reviewed' paper. Bentham was a joke, they paid to publish, and the peer-review would not have been scientifically acceptable in a professional journal. I could just have easily have paid to publish a "pixie-powered moonlight" paper - would you have been impressed by its contents?
This would be a legitimate argument if it were made during the 20th century.

Things have changed a lot since then. How did this "commercially available" software package characterize the nano thermite reaction?

Oh yeah, it didn't.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 07:01 AM   #134
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post

Does a book falling transfer enough energy into the air to cause material to be ejected a hundred feet?
Do you really think that is a fair question? No one has ever said that a book will eject material 100 feet.
(the following math is done quickly and in my head, hopefully I got it right)
A book may have an area of 0.01 square meters and may be dropped from 0.1 meters up. That's a volume of air of 0.001 cubic meters of air. At a conservative 0.5g it takes 0.2 seconds to drop.

The book/flour example will probably send flour out maybe 2-3 meters. Now scale up the 'book' to 10 meters square and have it constructed of concrete and steel. The levels of the WTC towers were 3 meters tall. The air volume under the section is 10X10X3=300 cubic meters of air. If we conservatively assume it falls at 0.5g it hits the floor in 1.1 seconds

0.001 versus 300 cubic meters
0.2 versus 1.1 seconds

See the difference?
jaydeehess 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 7th September 2016, 07:04 AM   #135
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
I think that you're claiming that we can pretend that the video evidence of demolition squibs doesn't exist if we can determine that it's evidence of controlled demolition.

Is that what you're saying?
No, what you are doing is called circular reasoning. You are saying they are demolition squibs because you say they are demolition squibs. You have absolutely no evidence that such explosive devices are the cause of the ejections other than your own unsupported assumptions that they are.

Now I don't believe you addressed the fact that these ejections seem very randomly located and very few in number. How exactly do a few random "squibs" do what you propose, take down a 110 storey structure?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 7th September 2016 at 07:11 AM.
jaydeehess 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 7th September 2016, 07:08 AM   #136
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Things have changed a lot since then. How did this "commercially available" software package characterize the nano thermite reaction?

Oh yeah, it didn't.
ANY explosive that manages to sever a large column fast enough to be used as a controlled, ie. timed, demolition, will necessarily create a supersonic pressure wave. IOW it goes BOOM big time.

nanothem?te or not. There is no such thing as a quite high explosive.

Hopefully you are not setting up a gish gallop away from 'squibs'
jaydeehess 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 7th September 2016, 07:09 AM   #137
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
You keep calling them demolition squibs. You have no evidence that controlled demolition produced the phenomenon you are referring to.
You are person who keeps making the false claims, not me. The videos which show these demolition squibs are "evidence" of something.

You are claiming that if this turns out to be "evidence" of controlled demolition, then we can simply ignore the videos because there is no "evidence" of controlled demolition.

You'd fit right in at NIST. "We never found any evidence of explosives*"
(*because we refused to consider any of the evidence of explosives.)

Last edited by steveupson; 7th September 2016 at 08:05 AM.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 07:17 AM   #138
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You are person who keeps making the false claims, not me. The videos which show these demolition squibs are "evidence" of something.
Yes, they are evidence of material being ejected from the building ahead of the exteriorly visible collapse front.
THAT'S IT!
Quote:
You are claiming that if this turns out to be "evidence" of controlled demolition, then we can simply ignore the videos because there is no "evidence" of controlled demolition.
You have as yet failed to demonstrate that these are evidence of controlled demolition. Is there a pattern to them, are their number sufficient to cause complete collapse of a level of the tower?

Quote:
You'd fit right in at NIST. "We never found any evidence of explosives because we refused to consider any of the evidence of explosives."
No, there WAS a large fast aircraft impacting both towers, there WAS a situation of multi-level wide area fires in each tower within a second or two of said aircraft impact. There was no evidence at all of explosives in the towers. You are claiming that a few randomly located ejections of material ahead of the exteriorly visible collapse front are evidence of a controlled demolition. That fails on the face of the claim, why would NIST ever consider it?

Might as well consider the prospect of space-a-beam weapons based on the fact that there was a hurricane several hundred miles east of NYC.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 7th September 2016 at 07:18 AM.
jaydeehess 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 7th September 2016, 07:30 AM   #139
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You are person who keeps making the false claims, not me. The videos which show these demolition squibs are "evidence" of something.
This broke my irony meter. You persist in calling the ejecta "demolition squibs", which is itself a false claim, because the only evidence you've offered that they are in any way connected with demolition explosives is the fact that you continue to refer to them as "demolition squibs" (which, as I've already pointed out, aren't even a real thing).

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You are claiming that if this turns out to be "evidence" of controlled demolition, then we can simply ignore the videos because there is no "evidence" of controlled demolition.
And another false claim repeated. We are claiming that the plumes of ejecta are not evidence of controlled demolition. The reason they are not evidence of controlled demolition is that their behavior is (a) inconsistent both in timing and behavior with the blast from explosives, and (b) easily explained by known phenomena associated with a fire and damage induced collapse. Counter to this, all you have offered is your unsupported assertion that they are "demolition squibs". That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You'd fit right in at NIST. "We never found any evidence of explosives because we refused to consider any of the evidence of explosives."
Since NIST never made that statement, the use of quotes is a lie by implication. In other words, yet another false claim.

Again, your performance is impressive. Your post denying that you make false claims contains three false claims.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 7th September 2016, 07:38 AM   #140
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,379
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You are person who keeps making the false claims, not me. The videos which show these demolition squibs are "evidence" of something.

You are claiming that if this turns out to be "evidence" of controlled demolition, then we can simply ignore the videos because there is no "evidence" of controlled demolition.

You'd fit right in at NIST. "We never found any evidence of explosives because we refused to consider any of the evidence of explosives."
No, what false claim did I make?

A building got hit by a plane. The building was on fire. Eventually the building collaped. That is what the evidence shows. There is no evidence of controlled demolition. You point to a flawed experiment in a pay to publish journal, and claim that it is evidence of controlled demolition. It is not, because no demolition sounds, sights, devices, purchase trails, testimony of perpetrators, video of perpetrators, forensic evidence in any form, exists of controlled demolition.

If you want controlled demolition to be the only explanation, as you apparently desperately want to do, you need to provide evidence. If you want to claim the building collapse and all observable phenomena associated could not be caused by the confluence of plane crash and building design, as all observations available demonstrate, then you need to provide a clear explanation backed by science and engineering to show that is the case. Good luck with that, not even our resident Truther Structural Engineer has been able to make that case, and he isn't even addressing puffs of stuff coming out of a collapsing building, like air out of a bellows.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 7th September 2016 at 07:40 AM.
LSSBB 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 7th September 2016, 07:42 AM   #141
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Do you really think that is a fair question? No one has ever said that a book will eject material 100 feet.
(the following math is done quickly and in my head, hopefully I got it right)
A book may have an area of 0.01 square meters and may be dropped from 0.1 meters up. That's a volume of air of 0.001 cubic meters of air. At a conservative 0.5g it takes 0.2 seconds to drop.

The book/flour example will probably send flour out maybe 2-3 meters. Now scale up the 'book' to 10 meters square and have it constructed of concrete and steel. The levels of the WTC towers were 3 meters tall. The air volume under the section is 10X10X3=300 cubic meters of air. If we conservatively assume it falls at 0.5g it hits the floor in 1.1 seconds

0.001 versus 300 cubic meters
0.2 versus 1.1 seconds

See the difference?
You're definitely on the right track, to be sure. This is exactly what I'm asking about.

To your knowledge, have these calculations ever been done formally, and if so, where?

Calculating these numbers wouldn't necessarily be a trivial exercise, but it should be well within the capabilities of any serious debunking organization. For one thing, the fluid flow properties of air don't scale directly due to internal friction forces which are quantified by Reynolds numbers.

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying here, you're response and your method is directly on point and focuses on exactly what my question is. I know it was a quick and dirty back-of-the-envelope type of calculation and it seems very sound to me. My impressions about what these partial results show are a lot different than yours, though. At least we're finally on the same page regarding the basic question.

The time intervals are important here. The 0.2 versus 1.1 seconds. In the case of the book, it probably take about 1.1 seconds for the flour to travel one meter while in the case of the building it probably takes 0.2 seconds for the debris to travel 30 meters.

Why can't we just look this up somewhere?
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 07:46 AM   #142
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
... There was no evidence at all of explosives in the towers. You are claiming that a few randomly located ejections of material ahead of the exteriorly visible collapse front are evidence of a controlled demolition.
That's exactly what is being claimed here, not just by me, but also by the authors of an article that was just published in a very respected peer review journal.

Do you have any evidence that refutes this claim? Any proof at all?
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 07:48 AM   #143
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You can't mean the Pentagon, can you? Seriously? Washington freeking DC? Are you kidding me, or do you honestly think this airspace in undefended?

Look, I've been called a liar more than once today, but I've not been anywhere close to this dishonest.
Can you provide citations for the level of airspace defense normally over DC in place on a random Thursday in 2001?
Jrrarglblarg 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 7th September 2016, 07:58 AM   #144
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You're definitely on the right track, to be sure. This is exactly what I'm asking about.

To your knowledge, have these calculations ever been done formally, and if so, where?
Why would they be?
Quote:
Calculating these numbers wouldn't necessarily be a trivial exercise, but it should be well within the capabilities of any serious debunking organization. For one thing, the fluid flow properties of air don't scale directly due to internal friction forces which are quantified by Reynolds numbers.
If this is important to you then just do it.

Quote:
The time intervals are important here. The 0.2 versus 1.1 seconds. In the case of the book, it probably take about 1.1 seconds for the flour to travel one meter while in the case of the building it probably takes 0.2 seconds for the debris to travel 30 meters.
That is not how I was using or calculating those particular numbers.

Quote:
Why can't we just look this up somewhere?
No, scaling up is not linear.
jaydeehess 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 7th September 2016, 08:00 AM   #145
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
No, what you are doing is called circular reasoning. You are saying they are demolition squibs because you say they are demolition squibs. You have absolutely no evidence that such explosive devices are the cause of the ejections other than your own unsupported assumptions that they are.

Now I don't believe you addressed the fact that these ejections seem very randomly located and very few in number. How exactly do a few random "squibs" do what you propose, take down a 110 storey structure?
Me calling them demolition squibs or pork bellies has nothing at all to do with what caused them.

You are claiming that because I call them one thing and not the other then we can ignore them entirely.

And your repeated insistence that I have no evidence is falsified by the link in the OP. I have a journal article as evidence! You're the one lacking evidence.

As far as what appears to be a random spattering of demolition squibs goes, it's so easily explained that I wasn't taking your question seriously. If there was a controlled demolition of the towers then there was also a serious effort to conceal this fact from the public. The visible demolition squibs indicate the places where this attempt to shield the demolition from public view actually failed. No one that I know of is seriously claiming that these visible squibs are the only instances demolition devices being used. The shaped charges were either installed backwards or some such mistake was made.

Understand that under any likely scenario, the installers would be completely unaware of what they were installing. This is the type of human error that is expected in this type of exercise.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 08:02 AM   #146
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
That's exactly what is being claimed here, not just by me, but also by the authors of an article that was just published in a very respected peer review journal.
Where do you get the notion that Europhysics News is "a very respected peer review journal"? It isn't any such thing; it's a membership magazine.

And have you got any numbers to justify your assertion that the ejecta are "demolition squibs" yet? So far, you haven't produced any, and neither have the authors of the magazine article that you're referring to.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 7th September 2016, 08:07 AM   #147
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post

Since NIST never made that statement, the use of quotes is a lie by implication. In other words, yet another false claim.


Dave
I fixed the paraphrasing of the NIST dialog.

I wasn't trying to trick anyone. I apologize if you were misled somehow.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 08:11 AM   #148
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,080
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
I think that you're claiming that we can pretend that the video evidence of demolition squibs ...
Is that what you're saying?
It is a failed fantasy to call air pushed out by the collapse squibs, it is a lie. CD is a lie based on lies and ignorance. There were no blast effects on steel, no damage from your imaginary explosives with squibs.

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
...
Have any of these cause and effect theories been quantified, and if so, when and where?
Cause and effect? The ejection is subsonic, no blast, it is air ejected, and due to ignoring the facts presented, explained and you failed to refute; you are willfully ignoring the evidence it was air escaping during collapse, showing a lack of knowledge of science.

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
...
Things have changed a lot since then. How did this "commercially available" software package characterize the nano thermite reaction?

Oh yeah, it didn't.
Jones and Harrit made up the thermite conclusion and the paper is based on lies and delusions of idiots who made up a fantasy version of 9/11 due to bias and insanity/or BS artistry gone mad.
Quote:
This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation.
The new artile explains the paper is no science, it is speculation.
Did you understand it is fantasy, you are defending an idiotic fantasy with fail science, and no idea how air was ejected, even though air rushes by you when a car goes by, or more when a truck passes, no clue the air is moving.
You ignore science and spread lies.

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You are person who keeps making the false claims, not me. The videos which show these demolition squibs are "evidence" of something. ...
They are not squibs, you were fooled by liars and now repeat the lie ignoring it is air ejected due to collapse.


Plus you made up all theses claims/lies/BS or copied and pasted them. Did you make up this BS?
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
A history lesson might be in order here. Back when we were preparing for the Atlanta Olympics, President Clinton attended a G-x meeting in Athens and he became interested in how the meeting was being secured against terrorism and investigated the methods that were being used and then applied those same methods for securing the airspace over the Olympics.

The requirements were very stringent, and included an 8-minute response time for scrambling interceptors in the event of a hijacking. Several exercises were accomplished in order to validate the system and the results of at least three of them were made public. The first exercise targeted the twin towers and it was a fiasco that was canceled prematurely because it was a complete failure. At this time the FAA and the military used completely different radar equipment with completely different displays and it was impossible for them to communicate with one another.

About a year later, once the new protocols were implemented, every FAA flight controller had a counterpart at NORAD who had the exact same display in front of him as that seen by the controller. He also had direct communication with his counterpart in the event of a hijacking. The FAA controller counterpart at NORAD had authority to scramble interceptors. They did at least two exercises where the results were made public where they performed flawlessly. This was the state of our air defenses when President Bush was sworn in.

Compare this to the protocol that was in effect on 9/11. From the 9/11 Commission Report we know that the controller, upon declaring a hijacking, had to notify his superior and that this notice had to be promulgated up the chain of command to the Secretary of Transportation who then notified the Joint Chiefs who then promulgated the notice down to the flight line where the interceptors were scrambled.

True. Look it up. The 9/11 Commission Report is there for anyone to read.

Coincidentally, the 9/11 timeline shows that it was 8 minutes from the time the Joint Chiefs were notified to the time the interceptors were scrambled. Failing this requirement by even a second would have triggered a Congressional investigation into the matter.

So.... you make the call. Profits or stupidity?
Source this BS, or did you make it up? It appears you made up this stuff with no sources

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
... allowed to enter the most secure airspace on the planet without challenge? ...
Did you make up the lie about "most secure airspace"? You spread the lie of CD, squibs, and secure airspace. Why do you repeat failed lies from 9/11 truth?

The OP...
Quote:
is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation.
Where the article is explained to be BS. You defend the article with more lies.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 7th September 2016 at 08:16 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 7th September 2016, 08:14 AM   #149
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
No, what false claim did I make?

A building got hit by a plane. The building was on fire. Eventually the building collaped. That is what the evidence shows. There is no evidence of controlled demolition. You point to a flawed experiment in a pay to publish journal, and claim that it is evidence of controlled demolition. It is not, because no demolition sounds, sights, devices, purchase trails, testimony of perpetrators, video of perpetrators, forensic evidence in any form, exists of controlled demolition.

If you want controlled demolition to be the only explanation, as you apparently desperately want to do, you need to provide evidence. If you want to claim the building collapse and all observable phenomena associated could not be caused by the confluence of plane crash and building design, as all observations available demonstrate, then you need to provide a clear explanation backed by science and engineering to show that is the case. Good luck with that, not even our resident Truther Structural Engineer has been able to make that case, and he isn't even addressing puffs of stuff coming out of a collapsing building, like air out of a bellows.
You want to keep ignoring evidence by simply claiming that it isn't evidence.

If there is no other physical explanation that can explain the existence of the video evidence of the demolition squibs other than that they were part of a controlled demolition, then the video evidence doesn't just disappear. It's still video evidence.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 08:18 AM   #150
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post

As far as what appears to be a random spattering of demolition squibs goes, it's so easily explained that I wasn't taking your question seriously. If there was a controlled demolition of the towers then there was also a serious effort to conceal this fact from the public. The visible demolition squibs indicate the places where this attempt to shield the demolition from public view actually failed. No one that I know of is seriously claiming that these visible squibs are the only instances demolition devices being used. The shaped charges were either installed backwards or some such mistake was made.

Understand that under any likely scenario, the installers would be completely unaware of what they were installing. This is the type of human error that is expected in this type of exercise.
I've highlighted steveupson's "idiot genius NWO" for any CT Bingo players in the home audience.

Now this last paragraph bothers me because I'm not sure which Union would be in charge of installing the shape charges. Would it be the electricians, the plumbers, or is there a union for NWO Demolition Shape Charge Installers?

Also, is installing a device backwards really this common? I've been in many buildings and I don't recall ever seeing anything like a fire sprinkler or drinking fountain installed backwards as part of "normal human error."

Steveupson is obviously not any kind of building trades person, to imagine tradespeople mindlessly installing mystery devices without question and getting a large percentage of the installs wrong.

I'm expecting a soviet era smoke machine delivery any minute now.
Jrrarglblarg 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 7th September 2016, 08:21 AM   #151
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,709
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
If there is no other physical explanation that can explain the existence of the video evidence of the demolition squibs other than that they were part of a controlled demolition, then the video evidence doesn't just disappear. It's still video evidence.
If the nano-thermite of which you speak was somehow configured as a high explosive everybody would have heard it, by definition, especially as there would have been scores of such explosions. That didn't happen.

If the supposed nano-thermite was being used as an incendiary to melt the columns then you wouldn't expect demolition squibs (even if that was correct CD terminology, which it isn't).

You're presenting self-contradictory ideas here. Choose just one, please.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 7th September 2016, 08:22 AM   #152
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Why would they be?

If this is important to you then just do it.

That is not how I was using or calculating those particular numbers.

No, scaling up is not linear.
If you are going to use this argument in order to refute or debunk a peer review journal then I would think that you'd have some evidence, other than "it feels good to me."

It should be a fairly straightforward exercise to show that these demolition squibs can actually occur absent a controlled demolition. Failure to show that this scenario is physically possible seems like a fatal flaw in the debunking of peer reviewed science.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 08:23 AM   #153
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,080
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
You want to keep ignoring evidence by simply claiming that it isn't evidence. ...
It is evidence you believe in fantasy. It is evidence you can't drop the inside job fantasy CD claims of super secret thermite. Then you failed to show damage to WTC steel from your fantasy secret thermite which has properties you can't explain because it is secret in your fantasy world of inside job. You can't explain who made the super secret thermite, or why it failed to leave the super secret iron behind; how much super secret thermite did Harrit say was used?

You can't answer anything. How much was used according to your expert Harrit, who was exposed as a nut in court. Someone who spreads lies and crazy claims about 9/11, as seen by the OP.

Quote:
is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation.
An article based on speculation, aka fantasy and lies. And you defend the paper with fantasy squibs, which thermite would not make anyway.

Where is the damage to WTC steel from your imaginary stuff that makes squibs...?

You can't figure out squibs are air ejections during collapse, you claim there is "most secure airspace", but can't source or prove it. And you make up BS about airspace procedures, unable to source them.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
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 7th September 2016, 08:24 AM   #154
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
Me calling them demolition squibs or pork bellies has nothing at all to do with what caused them.
Exactly. And yet you keep repeating the assertion below:

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
If there is no other physical explanation that can explain the existence of the video evidence of the demolition squibs other than that they were part of a controlled demolition, then the video evidence doesn't just disappear. It's still video evidence.
This is a strawman argument. There is a physical explanation that explains the existence of the video evidence of ejecta plumes (which you keep referring to as "demolition squibs" without evidence that they have any relation to explosives used for demolition, which is what you define demolition squibs to be), therefore the video evidence is not video evidence of explosives; it's video evidence of ejection of smoke and/or dust laden air. Therefore, there is no video evidence of demolition.

I can't believe you're too stupid to get this. Why do you keep believing we're stupid enough to fall for it?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 7th September 2016, 08:26 AM   #155
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
I've highlighted steveupson's "idiot genius NWO" for any CT Bingo players in the home audience.

Now this last paragraph bothers me because I'm not sure which Union would be in charge of installing the shape charges. Would it be the electricians, the plumbers, or is there a union for NWO Demolition Shape Charge Installers?

Also, is installing a device backwards really this common? I've been in many buildings and I don't recall ever seeing anything like a fire sprinkler or drinking fountain installed backwards as part of "normal human error."

Steveupson is obviously not any kind of building trades person, to imagine tradespeople mindlessly installing mystery devices without question and getting a large percentage of the installs wrong.

I'm expecting a soviet era smoke machine delivery any minute now.

The most serious theory is that the ceiling tile system was used. But you're probably right. I'll bet that all those union drywall hangers know nano thermite when they see it.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 08:28 AM   #156
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
If you are going to use this argument in order to refute or debunk a peer review journal then I would think that you'd have some evidence, other than "it feels good to me."
Again, who gave you the idea that EuroPhysics News magazine was a peer reviewed scientific journal?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 7th September 2016, 08:33 AM   #157
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,080
"serious theory", matches "most secure airspace"

Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
The most serious theory is that the ceiling tile system was used. But you're probably right. I'll bet that all those union drywall hangers know nano thermite when they see it.
That is the most insane claim, a fantasy that has to be the result of insanity, or massive abuse of drugs, or someone who wants to see if someone is gullible enough to use it as a "serious theory". Ceiling tiles? They would do nothing, and they were set off by radio.

You defend a fantasy with a dumber fantasy. The thermite in the ceiling tiles... wow
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._scenario.html
How many tiles were replaced?

Where is the iron from the ceiling tiles when the super secret thermite, now in ceiling tiles, made by elves in some super secret lab you can't name.

Quote:
1,000,000 20"x20"x3/4" ceiling tile with embedded thin-film explosive and 2-channel wireless micro-detonator
Then we have,
800,000 12"x12"x3/4" ceiling tile with embedded thin-film explosive and 2-channel wireless micro-detonator
Only 800,000?
100 10-lb nano-thermite kicker charge with 2-channel wireless detonator in fire-protective capsule disguised as fire extinguisher
20 5 gallon thermate coating compound
2 - spray applicator with flexible snake hose and integrated borescope (oh)
100 2-channel wireless high-temperature igniter
240 20-channel 200W RF repeater with UPS
Where do you get this stuff? This is sad, a googled up fantasy.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 7th September 2016 at 08:40 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 7th September 2016, 08:34 AM   #158
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
If the nano-thermite of which you speak was somehow configured as a high explosive everybody would have heard it, by definition, especially as there would have been scores of such explosions. That didn't happen.

If the supposed nano-thermite was being used as an incendiary to melt the columns then you wouldn't expect demolition squibs (even if that was correct CD terminology, which it isn't).

You're presenting self-contradictory ideas here. Choose just one, please.
I never claimed that nano thermite was used in the same manner as conventional thermite. They are different things that have been developed for different purposes.

The physics are fundamentally different than what you are claiming. In order for a loud sound to be produced some energy would have to be transmitted into the air somehow. If the charge doesn't transmit energy into the air then you wouldn't hear it.
steveupson 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 7th September 2016, 08:36 AM   #159
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
Originally Posted by steveupson View Post
The most serious theory is that the ceiling tile system was used. But you're probably right. I'll bet that all those union drywall hangers know nano thermite when they see it.
Union drywall workers certainly know what drywall looks like, so there's that. And they'll certainly be familiar with electrical and plumbing subsystem components because their trade interfaces directly with them any time they penetrate the wall, and all the others they see while covering the stud bays with drywall.

The ceiling tile installers are another trade, with specific trade subject matter experts, who are familiar with all the various building and infrastructure subsystems normally encountered in their trade. You may be personally unfamiliar with the multitude of objects beneath the drywall but people who look at them every day are not fools.
Jrrarglblarg 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 7th September 2016, 08:40 AM   #160
steveupson
Thinker
 
steveupson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
That is the most insane claim, a fantasy that has to be the result of insanity, or massive abuse of drugs, or someone who wants to see if someone is gullible enough to use it as a "serious theory". Ceiling tiles? They would do nothing, and they were set off by radio.

You defend a fantasy with a dumber fantasy.
What do you think is the actual theory regarding the controlled demolition of the towers?

Do you think that the scientific theory for controlled demolition involves holograms?
steveupson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:58 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.