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 15th November 2017, 09:02 PM   #1
ShamelessGit
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 13
I am a 911 Truther

Here is another thread where I can cause a ruckus:

I will prove that the official story about 911 is false.

First, I will make an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but I find it amusing to use it on a “skeptic” forum, because it is the argument used most often by "skeptics". But I agree with the authorities in this case, so I should automatically win on a skeptic forum. Architects and Engineers for 911 truth don’t believe the original story either. You know, they have tried to have a public debate about 911, but the debate never took place because they could not find a Ph.D. in a related field to support the official position. So there is unanimous agreement among qualified people who have studied this subject.

Now, on to the evidence. I can understand that some of the details might be hard to understand for people who don’t have physics degrees like I do, but one should not need a physics degree to understand their core arguments. http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

1. Rapid onset of destruction,
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

To me, it seems pretty clear that there is something wrong here.

Now, for the second proof. This will be an absolute mathematical-style proof showing a contradiction between the evidence and the claim.

Claim: The weight of the floors above the collision caused the lower levels to collapse.
Assumption: F = ma
Assumption: The towers fell at free fall speed for a couple seconds during collapse
Assumption: Steel resists deformation (F, the force of the steel beams resisting collapse, is greater than 0)

Using these assumptions, I can set up a physics equation. Here m is the mass of the tower, g is the acceleration due to gravity, a is the acceleration of the tower as it collapsed, and F is the force of resistance from the steel beams.

ma = mg – F

m*9.8 = m*9.8 – F

m*9.8 - m*9.8 = F = 0

Conclusion: The last assumption was that F > 0. The other assumptions show that F = 0. 0 is not greater than 0, therefore there is a contradiction, and the claim is false.


Another note: “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” is used as a meme to mock 911 truthers. Often, no rebuttal of this statement is offered; it is simply mocked, like how children mock each other by repeating what another child says in a silly voice. Sometimes, it is explained that steel does not have to melt in order to lose structural integrity. That explanation is totally superfluous, because it does not explain how the undamaged floors beneath offered close to 0 resistance as the tower collapsed, nor does it explain the steel beams found fused together in the wreckage, nor does it explain the molten steel seen pouring out the side of the building in footage shortly before collapse, nor does it explain the tons of molten steel found at the collapse site, nor does it explain how the concrete fused with the steel.

This is also a fun video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
ShamelessGit 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 15th November 2017, 09:26 PM   #2
Elagabalus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,245
Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
Here is another thread where I can cause a ruckus:

I will prove that the official story about 911 is false.

First, I will make an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but I find it amusing to use it on a “skeptic” forum, because it is the argument used most often by "skeptics". But I agree with the authorities in this case, so I should automatically win on a skeptic forum. Architects and Engineers for 911 truth don’t believe the original story either. You know, they have tried to have a public debate about 911, but the debate never took place because they could not find a Ph.D. in a related field to support the official position. So there is unanimous agreement among qualified people who have studied this subject.

Now, on to the evidence. I can understand that some of the details might be hard to understand for people who don’t have physics degrees like I do, but one should not need a physics degree to understand their core arguments. http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

1. Rapid onset of destruction,
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

To me, it seems pretty clear that there is something wrong here.

Now, for the second proof. This will be an absolute mathematical-style proof showing a contradiction between the evidence and the claim.

Claim: The weight of the floors above the collision caused the lower levels to collapse.
Assumption: F = ma
Assumption: The towers fell at free fall speed for a couple seconds during collapse
Assumption: Steel resists deformation (F, the force of the steel beams resisting collapse, is greater than 0)

Using these assumptions, I can set up a physics equation. Here m is the mass of the tower, g is the acceleration due to gravity, a is the acceleration of the tower as it collapsed, and F is the force of resistance from the steel beams.

ma = mg – F

m*9.8 = m*9.8 – F

m*9.8 - m*9.8 = F = 0

Conclusion: The last assumption was that F > 0. The other assumptions show that F = 0. 0 is not greater than 0, therefore there is a contradiction, and the claim is false.


Another note: “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” is used as a meme to mock 911 truthers. Often, no rebuttal of this statement is offered; it is simply mocked, like how children mock each other by repeating what another child says in a silly voice. Sometimes, it is explained that steel does not have to melt in order to lose structural integrity. That explanation is totally superfluous, because it does not explain how the undamaged floors beneath offered close to 0 resistance as the tower collapsed, nor does it explain the steel beams found fused together in the wreckage, nor does it explain the molten steel seen pouring out the side of the building in footage shortly before collapse, nor does it explain the tons of molten steel found at the collapse site, nor does it explain how the concrete fused with the steel.

This is also a fun video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

You are not an engineer. Your last paragraph gives you away.
Elagabalus 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 15th November 2017, 09:35 PM   #3
FenerFan
Master Poster
 
FenerFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Istanbul...again
Posts: 2,930
Good OP, you forgot "Silverstein said Pull It," though.
__________________
"... no man wants his obituary to mention a pig." --phiwum
“Limp Bizkit did nothing wrong.”- Chalkman
FenerFan 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 15th November 2017, 09:48 PM   #4
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,591
You've posted this in the wrong forum, so your basic observation skills are already in question.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 15th November 2017, 09:52 PM   #5
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,208
... I thought the Time Warp started with a jump to the left.
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd 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 15th November 2017, 10:39 PM   #6
portlandatheist
Master Poster
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,760
protip to the newcomer: "Nanothermite" is better referred to as "Superdupernanothermite"
portlandatheist 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 15th November 2017, 10:59 PM   #7
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,320
Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
<snip>

So there is unanimous agreement among qualified people who have studied this subject.
...for certain values of "unanimous agreement", "qualified people", and "studied."

Quote:
because it does not explain how the undamaged floors beneath offered close to 0 resistance as the tower collapsed, nor does it explain the steel beams found fused together in the wreckage, nor does it explain the molten steel seen pouring out the side of the building in footage shortly before collapse, nor does it explain the tons of molten steel found at the collapse site, nor does it explain how the concrete fused with the steel.
The same applied to these.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 15th November 2017 at 11:02 PM.
Delphic Oracle 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 16th November 2017, 12:42 AM   #8
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 22,790
Is this what 911 conspiracy theory has sunk to these days? We really are in the death throes, aren't we.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 16th November 2017, 01:13 AM   #9
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,691
"I am a 911 Truther"

I knew there was one left somewhere out there.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 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 16th November 2017, 01:42 AM   #10
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,997
Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
Here is another thread where I can cause a ruckus:
Not a great start. Do you want an honest debate, or are you just here to annoy people?

Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
I will prove that the official story about 911 is false.
I think you should first prove that there is an "official story". Not really improving on your poor start.


Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
First, I will make an appeal to authority. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but I find it amusing to use it on a “skeptic” forum, because it is the argument used most often by "skeptics".
For example? This is what is called an unsupported assertion.
As an aside, what is it with the generally clueless, inexperienced and unqualified and the use of the word 'amusing'? Malbec was a particularly egregious example of this kind of arrogant hubris.

Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
But I agree with the authorities in this case, so I should automatically win on a skeptic forum. Architects and Engineers for 911 truth don’t believe the original story either. You know, they have tried to have a public debate about 911, but the debate never took place because they could not find a Ph.D. in a related field to support the official position. So there is unanimous agreement among qualified people who have studied this subject.
Aside from the observation that this is complete bollocks, you clearly don't know what an argument from authority is.


Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
Now, on to the evidence. I can understand that some of the details might be hard to understand for people who don’t have physics degrees like I do, but one should not need a physics degree to understand their core arguments. http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html
What do you know about the qualifications and experience of ISF members that leads you to make this patronising and insulting charge?

Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post

<snip of endlessly repeated, long-debunked piffle>

To me, it seems pretty clear that there is something wrong here.
You should add 'argument from incredulity' to your arsenal of debating tools.
Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post

Now, for the second proof.
I strongly suggest you read the other threads in this sub-forum before you embarrass yourself further.

Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
Another note: “Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” is used as a meme to mock 911 truthers.
Originally Posted by ae911truth
Jet fuel cannot melt steel
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-n...engineers.html

There might be less mockery if 9/11 truthers weren't saying that. Especially the ones you are relying on.


Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
Oh, surprise, surprise. A YouTube video.

It's always nice to have new people join the forum, but if you arrive with the stated intention of 'causing a ruckus', and post weak, insulting and long-debunked tripe like this, I fear you will quickly wear out your welcome.
I suggest you educate yourself and tone down the attitude, so that the experience will be more positive and productive for all concerned.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 16th November 2017, 02:37 AM   #11
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: 26,412
Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
You know, they have tried to have a public debate about 911, but the debate never took place because they could not find a Ph.D. in a related field to support the official position. So there is unanimous agreement among qualified people who have studied this subject.
Simply untrue. Several organisations, including NIST which is staffed with qualified experts, have concluded that all collapses were due to fire and impact damage. Their choice not to engage with an organisation whose agenda is delusional does not imply agreement with those delusions, just as refusing to engage in one-on-one debate with a creationist does not imply rejection of Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
1. Rapid onset of destruction,
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
1. Simply untrue. In all cases signs of immanent collapse were seen well in advance of visible movement.
2. Simply untrue. Acceleration was not constant, was in only a short period of one collapse close to 1G, and was in the direction of applied force.
3. Explosions are commonplace in large fires. No sounds were recorded or reported similar to the distinctive sound of shaped demolition charges, and no correlation was noted between times of explosions and times of collapses.
4. These ejections were not accompanied by explosions, which would, in order to provide the required energy, have caused permanent hearing damage to nearby witnesses; and lateral ejections of debris are common in collapses.
5. Simply untrue; fracturing of concrete would be expected but the truth movement itself has admitted that the concrete was not fragmented to dust. "Pyroclastic" is a completely inaccurate description of any phenomena observed.
6. Which do not follow the pattern of explosions - they are slowly increasing in strength rather than abrupt transients and are clearly caused by overpressurisation, as expected in a collapse.
7. As expected; the gravitational potential energy stored in all three buildings has been calculated and found to be more than ample to produce all the destruction observed.
8. Simply untrue; reports of molten iron and steel are unverified and no objects were found in the rubble pile which could possibly have been once-molten but then re-solidified iron or steel. "Several tons" is a complete fantasy.
9. Simply untrue. No such evidence has been found.
10. Simply untrue; the paper claiming to demonstrate this draws conclusions that are refuted by the results it presents.

Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
Claim: The weight of the floors above the collision caused the lower levels to collapse.
Assumption: F = ma
Assumption: The towers fell at free fall speed for a couple seconds during collapse
Assumption: Steel resists deformation (F, the force of the steel beams resisting collapse, is greater than 0)
Claim 1 is incorrect; the weight of the entire structure above the point of collapse initiation caused the entire buildings to collapse.
Assumption 2 is false as applied to the WTC Twin Towers, neither of which was observed to collapse at greater than ~0.6G.
Assumption 3 is incorrect; steel resists deformation up to its yield point, at which it fails and no longer presents significant resistance to collapse.
And finally, you're conflating the top-down collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 with the bottom-up collapse of WTC7. WTC1 and WTC2's to-down collapses involved the destruction of structures below the collapse front, and as expected the acceleration was significantly less than 1G due to the resistance of these structures. WTC7's bottom-up collapse involved the destruction of the falling mass, and at a point in the collapse where this destruction removed the structural integrity of this section, an acceleration close to 1G was observed, also as expected.

Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
Using these assumptions, I can set up a physics equation.
The absurd level of oversimplification you've employed in doing so casts severe doubt on your assertion that you possess a degree in physics. If indeed you do, I suggest you apply for a refund in your tuition fees, citing your post as evidence.

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

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 16th November 2017 at 02:39 AM.
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 16th November 2017, 02:44 AM   #12
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,354
I’m not clear on whether he’s here for a five minute argument, or the full half hour.
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 16th November 2017, 03:30 AM   #13
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,748
So, you are a 911 Truther, eh?

Oh well, I'm sorry for your loss!
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky 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 16th November 2017, 04:50 AM   #14
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 22,412
The 10-point list is 100% wrong. But I doubt that we'll hear from the o/p again.
__________________
"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 16th November 2017, 04:57 AM   #15
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 5,714
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
I’m not clear on whether he’s here for a five minute argument, or the full half hour.
Looks more like a seagull argument to me.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin 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 16th November 2017, 05:13 AM   #16
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,857
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
The 10-point list is 100% wrong. But I doubt that we'll hear from the o/p again.
I'd challenge them to pick from that 10-point list one point and make it out as evidence. For each of the ten points, the argument presented consists, in essence, of three separate statements about that claim of fact:

1. The fact, if true, is typically observed, or must be expected, in intentional demolitions
2. The fact, if true, is not typical, or is not expected, for accidental (e.g. fire-induced) collapses
3. The fact is true, i.e. it describes an actual, objective, scientifically meaningful observation

All three must be true for the claimed fact to be evidence against the consensus theory and for a hypothetical theory of deliberate demolition ("hypothetical" because no such theory actually exists, in particular, AE911T has no such theory).

So, again, I challenge the thread starter to pick one of the ten points on the list and make it out. I predict that whatever point gets scrutinized, it will be found to NOT be evidence that actually favours AE's case, for it fails at least one of the three tests I numbered above.

But if the one point picked by the thread starter fails, how certain can they then be of the other nine? Well, they could then pick a second. Which, in turn, will fail. The thread starter will not be able to pick a point that holds water.

And thus, the 10-point list in its entirety will fail. This will reflect catastrophically on a) AE911Truth as an "authority" and b) the thread starter as a believer of incompetent, or possibly fraudulent, authority
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 16th November 2017 at 05:15 AM.
Oystein 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 16th November 2017, 06:00 AM   #17
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 18,636
A ruckous you say.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   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 16th November 2017, 08:05 AM   #18
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 4,665
Oh my word, I am psychic after all. I KNEW all these goofy STEM posts were gearing up to set the stage for some sort of truthiness.

Did they teach you that an engineering degree is different from a physics degree in college?
isissxn 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 16th November 2017, 08:14 AM   #19
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 511
Even Tony Szamboti has come to recognize that the free fall period is not evidence of controlled demolition. Is it going to take the rest of you twoofers another 15 years to realize that buckled columns offer negligible resistance in the context of a collapsing sky scraper?
benthamitemetric 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 16th November 2017, 08:28 AM   #20
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
I will prove that the official story about 911 is false.
No, you won't.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... 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 16th November 2017, 08:31 AM   #21
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: 26,412
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Well, to be fair on Tony, he hasn't actually realised that the inevitable implications of his claim take the ground out from under his conclusions, any more than in the exchange that led to my current signature.

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 16th November 2017, 08:32 AM   #22
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: 26,412
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, you won't.
Not least because "the official story" doesn't exist as such; its existence is a truther construct, set up primarily as a convenient windmill to tilt at.

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 16th November 2017, 08:49 AM   #23
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 15,659
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Oh my word, I am psychic after all. I KNEW all these goofy STEM posts were gearing up to set the stage for some sort of truthiness.

Did they teach you that an engineering degree is different from a physics degree in college?
It's going to be ugly when sts60 and Beach it show up.
Craig4 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 16th November 2017, 09:14 AM   #24
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,392
Hmmmm,... looks like someone needs attention. And everyone is feeding it.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 16th November 2017, 09:26 AM   #25
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: 26,412
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Hmmmm,... looks like someone needs attention. And everyone is feeding it.
No doubt. But of course not doing so would lead to a repeat of the OP's nonsensical pseudo-appeal to authority. And frankly I'd rather be the one ridiculed by idiots for offering a sensible answer than the one crowing about having asked a stupid question.

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 16th November 2017, 09:39 AM   #26
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,382
I enjoyed the part about the physics equation that proves that no building has ever collapsed because the kinetic energy of a falling mass does not exist or something.

"Assumption: The towers fell at free fall speed for a couple seconds during collapse."

Assuming that this assumption is true, one wonders what caused the towers to stop falling at free fall "speed"??

speed, hee hee!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 16th November 2017 at 09:40 AM.
The Big Dog 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 16th November 2017, 09:51 AM   #27
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,529
Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
Here is another thread where I can cause a ruckus:
Can I assume said ruckus will begin soon? There hasn't been a good ruckus in 9/11 threads in years, I so look forward to one..................
__________________
"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
DGM 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 16th November 2017, 09:58 AM   #28
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,392
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Can I assume said ruckus will begin soon? There hasn't been a good ruckus in 9/11 threads in years, I so look forward to one..................
A ruckus would be nice. Better than the same-old, same-old.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 16th November 2017, 12:03 PM   #29
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,354
I believe OP might have difficulties with clothing. Especially socks...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 16th November 2017, 12:25 PM   #30
Elagabalus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,245
Personally, I think this thread is a bit of "Garbo" misdirection. Having seen his H Denial thread he seems to know the names of prominent HD'ers, so I suspect his next "attack" will be in that thread.
Elagabalus 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 16th November 2017, 12:58 PM   #31
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,392
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Personally, I think this thread is a bit of "Garbo" misdirection. Having seen his H Denial thread he seems to know the names of prominent HD'ers, so I suspect his next "attack" will be in that thread.
I predict a drive-by truthing here.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 16th November 2017, 01:04 PM   #32
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,106
Originally Posted by portlandatheist View Post
protip to the newcomer: "Nanothermite" is better referred to as "Superdupernanothermite"
Get with the program.

It's nano-nano-bo-bano-therm*te

*could be an a A or an I.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is online now   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 16th November 2017, 01:06 PM   #33
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,997
Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
I love this path of greatest resistance claim. It's almost as if they think it would have been easier for the building to fall upwards--after all if down is the path of greatest resistance, then every other direction has less resistance, right?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 16th November 2017, 01:24 PM   #34
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,505
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I love this path of greatest resistance claim. It's almost as if they think it would have been easier for the building to fall upwards--after all if down is the path of greatest resistance, then every other direction has less resistance, right?
It's even better when a truther claims path of least resistance is a law of physics.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief 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 16th November 2017, 01:28 PM   #35
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
So far Holocaust Denier and 9/11 Truther. Next up: Apollo Moon Landing Hoaxer or Bigfoot is real?

BTW: I don't think ruckus means "People laughing at regurgitated nonsense." but we'll go with it if you insist.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift 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 16th November 2017, 01:53 PM   #36
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,382
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I love this path of greatest resistance claim. It's almost as if they think it would have been easier for the building to fall upwards--after all if down is the path of greatest resistance, then every other direction has less resistance, right?
amen, it is a unlikely event indeed when the "path of least resistance" is "against gravity."
The Big Dog 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 16th November 2017, 02:03 PM   #37
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
WOW someone shows up and repeats AE's rubbish as facts...

I love the one about multi ton steel being ejected 600 feet at 60mph... completely made up from whole clothe. the Hudson River is 600' from the twin towers and the WFC is in the way!

This is just parroting nonsense.
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 16th November 2017, 03:09 PM   #38
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,859
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I love this path of greatest resistance claim. It's almost as if they think it would have been easier for the building to fall upwards--after all if down is the path of greatest resistance, then every other direction has less resistance, right?
The "path of greatest resistance" claim has always amused me. Do truthers think that if you pick up a rock, then drop it directly above a bigger rock, that the rock you drop will move sideways so as to avoid the "path of greatest resistance" through the bigger rock directly below it?
CORed 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 16th November 2017, 03:11 PM   #39
ShamelessGit
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 13
It is sad that you guys can't be bothered to think.
ShamelessGit 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 16th November 2017, 03:30 PM   #40
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 15,659
Originally Posted by ShamelessGit View Post
It is sad that you guys can't be bothered to think.
My irony meter will never be the same.
Craig4 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 06:00 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.