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.
Tags 9/11 conspiracy theories

Reply
Old 11th November 2019, 02:05 AM   #41
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
You appear to be saying that it is impossible for fires to be able to bring down a steel-framed building.

Please show how you arrived at this conclusion.

Then we can move on to compare this with the actual cases of steel-framed buildings that have indeed been brought down by fire.

You have a good chance of learning something from this process.
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
No. My argument was that you can't compare and contrast something real to something not real. You can compare the speed of a leopard to the speed of a cheetah. You can't compare the speed of a leopard to the speed of a werewolf. If someone wishes to make the latter comparison he first has to show that a werewolf is a real creature and track its speed.

If you wish to compare and contrast a steel-framed high-rise destroyed by demolition to one destroyed by fire you have to show me a real world example of this. Get a demolition company to destroy a steel-framed high-rise with fire and we can compare it to WTC7. If you can't do this you are in the same category as bigfoot believers.



How do we know it's wrong if you can't provide any real world examples to show that fire can lead to a 2.25 second free-fall collapse like WTC7?
Well, firstly, you have yet to show how you arrived at the conclusion that fire cannot bring down a steel-framed building.
Beyond parroting what you have gleaned from conspiracy websites, what actual evidence can you show to back up this assertion?
Only when you've done this can you justify your somewhat ridiculous werewolf analogy.
Secondly, here's a werewolf building for you.
http://www.questjournals.org/jace/pa...e4/D342124.pdf
__________________
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 23rd November 2019, 09:58 AM   #42
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
By your reasoning nothing can be inferred from evidence without an exact precedent. You won't find it. It's an utterly skewed view of how science works.

How about you show us a conspiracy theory on the level 9/11 truthers are alleging?

Back to square one. Again.
You don't need an exact precedent, but you do need a precedent. For instance, scientists were able to infer the discovery of a new human subspecies, Denisovans, from a single finger bone by sequencing the DNA. So we now can compare the DNA of Denisovans to Neanderthals. However, we cannot compare the DNA of Denisovans to Bigfoot.

So you need to provide an example of a steel-framed high-rise, like WTC7, collapsing due to fire alone. Once this has been done we can compare it to WTC7. Until then you are merely a Bigfoot believer.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
So what you're saying is you don't do science on any level.

While werewolves are not real they can certainly be modeled on a computer using known mammals to make comparison of speed. Some nerd at MIT has probably already done this. This how we know how fast some dinosaurs could run without bringing them back to life and running a race. A quality computer model can tell you just about everything you need to know.
If werewolves only exist in a computer model then they don't exist. If someone was mauled in the woods and claimed it was dogs or a bear that would be believable. If someone claimed he was mauled by a werewolf it would not be believed. WTC7 existed in reality not just a computer model. You need to find a real-world example before you can say something is real. Dinosaurs are an extinct species, but we know they existed because we have dug up their bones.

Steel-framed high-rises are not an extinct way of constructing buildings. There are tens of thousands or more of such buildings in the world today. This allows us to do real-world experiments. But for some reason all the believers in the official story can't point to any examples or can't replicate the process experimentally.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
This is why nobody has to do something stupid like building a recreation of WTC and then blow it up, we can do all that in the computer. We can also subject it to fire. We can have Godzilla knock it over.
Computer models are only effective to the extent they mirror reality. The models are not arbitrary. If something exists solely in a model but cannot be re-created in the real world the model is false.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The engineering software has been solid enough to simulate all kinds of hazards for over 25 years.

Plus WTC took 20 minutes to collapse and the final plunge was no where near terminal velocity.
WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or roughly 8 stories. It wasn't just a controlled demolition, but a masterpiece of demolition.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Well, firstly, you have yet to show how you arrived at the conclusion that fire cannot bring down a steel-framed building.
Because I have never seen the process experimentally replicated. If it is possible let's see a demolition company do it. And how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is possible? All the government propaganda you imbibe.
__________________
pomeroo: "Mark, where did this guy get the idea that you talked about holding aluminum in your hand?"

Undesired Walrus: "Why, Ron, Mark mentioned this on your very own show!"

Last edited by tanabear; 23rd November 2019 at 10:04 AM.
tanabear 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 23rd November 2019, 10:40 AM   #43
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,709
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
You need to find a real-world example
Could you please tell us exactly of what you need to find a real-world example, please?

By this I mean: Enumerate and spell out fully the objective criteria by which you decide whether or not an example meets your expectations.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 23rd November 2019, 12:39 PM   #44
Venom
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 3,325
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
You don't need an exact precedent, but you do need a precedent. For instance, scientists were able to infer the discovery of a new human subspecies, Denisovans, from a single finger bone by sequencing the DNA. So we now can compare the DNA of Denisovans to Neanderthals. However, we cannot compare the DNA of Denisovans to Bigfoot.

So you need to provide an example of a steel-framed high-rise, like WTC7, collapsing due to fire alone. Once this has been done we can compare it to WTC7. Until then you are merely a Bigfoot believer.
Horrible example and actually hurts your reasoning.

We know how structures behave under various loading conditions. We know how steel members behave from heating. We know that the various possible interactions in these chaotic, complex events can only be approximated at best. So we can never expect a perfect model when it comes to the collapse of the WTCs. A good theory is enough from the available evidence, tanabear.

How about this for precedent: show me a single conspiracy in history that is as complex and successful as what 9/11 truthers allege? We're talking hijackers flying planes into explosive rigged buildings.

Until then you are merely a conspiracy theory peddler.
Venom 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 23rd November 2019, 06:23 PM   #45
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,100
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Steel-framed high-rises are not an extinct way of constructing buildings. There are tens of thousands or more of such buildings in the world today. This allows us to do real-world experiments. But for some reason all the believers in the official story can't point to any examples or can't replicate the process experimentally.
It's not about believing the "Official Story" it about folks like you not presenting evidence that disproves the results of the multiple investigations into the events of 9/11/2001 as the occurred in NYC.

Name one time a building was selected to preform structural experiments. Most high-rise structures are in crowded cities, getting permits would be impossible and the insurance for such an endeavor would be steep.

Here's an easier challenge, list the buildings that are identical to WTC#7 where such experiments could possibly take place. If there are tens of thousands of them this list should be long.



Quote:
Computer models are only effective to the extent they mirror reality. The models are not arbitrary. If something exists solely in a model but cannot be re-created in the real world the model is false.
How does one model "arbitrary" into computer program?

SAAB makes great submarines and they all start as computer models. In fact I can't think of any US engineering and construction company that would just throw a building up to see what happens.


Quote:
WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or roughly 8 stories. It wasn't just a controlled demolition, but a masterpiece of demolition.
Define "free-fall acceleration".

Quote:
Because I have never seen the process experimentally replicated. If it is possible let's see a demolition company do it. And how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is possible? All the government propaganda you imbibe.
Where is your real-world test data on silent cutting charges which leave zero residue?

Who makes these silent explosive shape charges and why have we not seen them used by anyone before or since 9/11/2001?

Why do no demolition companies use these charges or even know about them? (Silent explosives would make the permit process easier).
__________________
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 23rd November 2019, 09:38 PM   #46
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,291
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
... So you need to provide an example of a steel-framed high-rise, like WTC7, collapsing due to fire alone. Once this has been done we can compare it to WTC7. Until then you are merely a Bigfoot believer. ...
you have to prove with science WTC 7 can't fail in fire, and you can't do it... Bigfoot is a poor analogy due to complete ignorance of steel properties and science

Steel fails in fire, you have to prove it does not. It is simple science you ignore to keep the wild fantasy of CD.

Where do you get the silent explosives for your silent CD?

CD is equal to bigfoot, a fantasy based on nonsense.
__________________
"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 24th November 2019, 01:43 AM   #47
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Well, firstly, you have yet to show how you arrived at the conclusion that fire cannot bring down a steel-framed building.
Beyond parroting what you have gleaned from conspiracy websites, what actual evidence can you show to back up this assertion?
Only when you've done this can you justify your somewhat ridiculous werewolf analogy.
Secondly, here's a werewolf building for you.
http://www.questjournals.org/jace/pa...e4/D342124.pdf
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
You don't need an exact precedent, but you do need a precedent.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Secondly, here's a werewolf building for you.
http://www.questjournals.org/jace/pa...e4/D342124.pdf

Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
So you need to provide an example of a steel-framed high-rise, like WTC7, collapsing due to fire alone. Once this has been done we can compare it to WTC7. Until then you are merely a Bigfoot believer.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Secondly, here's a werewolf building for you.
http://www.questjournals.org/jace/pa...e4/D342124.pdf


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post

Steel-framed high-rises are not an extinct way of constructing buildings. There are tens of thousands or more of such buildings in the world today. This allows us to do real-world experiments. But for some reason all the believers in the official story can't point to any examples or can't replicate the process experimentally.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Secondly, here's a werewolf building for you.
http://www.questjournals.org/jace/pa...e4/D342124.pdf


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Computer models are only effective to the extent they mirror reality. The models are not arbitrary. If something exists solely in a model but cannot be re-created in the real world the model is false.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Secondly, here's a werewolf building for you.
http://www.questjournals.org/jace/pa...e4/D342124.pdf
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or roughly 8 stories. It wasn't just a controlled demolition, but a masterpiece of demolition.
Please provide your evidence- explosives residue, pieces of detcord etc, witnesses who saw the explosives being rigged, whistleblowers who actually installed the charges, a paper trail of orders and responsibility, stuff like that.


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Because I have never seen the process experimentally replicated. If it is possible let's see a demolition company do it. And how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is possible? All the government propaganda you imbibe.
I am not an engineer, but I am aware that fire softens steel. Is this news to you? Do you think this is government propaganda?
Which government do you think I believe, and specifically which pieces of propaganda do you think I have read and accepted?

While you assemble the evidence, perhaps you could find the time to look at the link to something you claim is impossible, that actually happened?
__________________
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 24th November 2019, 04:37 PM   #48
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,491
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
So you need to provide an example of a steel-framed high-rise, like WTC7, collapsing due to fire alone. Once this has been done we can compare it to WTC7. Until then you are merely a Bigfoot believer.
There is this city called Madeup City which had a population of 10 people. It was founded by 12 people, but two of them were murdered. One of them has just died, though, and the coroner said it was a cancer.

What you're doing now is like saying that this person didn't die from cancer, because Madeupans can't die from cancer, as all Madeupans that have died so far were murdered, and this person was murdered too, and whoever says that this person can have died from cancer is a Bigfoot believer.

There's nothing that singles out Madeupans among all humans as invulnerable to cancer. Similarly, there's nothing that singles out steel-framed high rises among all steel-framed structures as invulnerable to fire.


Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or roughly 8 stories. It wasn't just a controlled demolition, but a masterpiece of demolition.
You still have to show an example of a demolition where this happens, before claiming that this is proof of demolition.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2019, 01:19 AM   #49
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,709
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
...
You still have to show an example of a demolition where this happens, before claiming that this is proof of demolition.
Why?
Suppose tanabear showed you a demolition where some point on some roofline descends at ffa for some time, would you accept this then as evidence that WTC7 was a demolition?

The word "demolition" refers to the fact that collapse INITIATION is brought about intentionally as opposed to accidentally. Everything that follows is incidental. Showing merely an example of incidental feature X happening at a demolition is not evidence that X happens only in demolitions.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 25th November 2019, 02:41 AM   #50
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: 29,950
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or roughly 8 stories. It wasn't just a controlled demolition, but a masterpiece of demolition.
So much of a masterpiece, in fact, that it's radically different in this respect from any controlled demolition ever seen. And it's the fact that it's different to every controlled demolition ever that proves that it must have been a controlled demolition.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 25th November 2019, 03:21 AM   #51
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,979
2.2 +/- of FFA only give a hint to that a building wide axial structural failure occurred about 100' +/- above grade where the movement was then slowed to a "crush up" by the solid ground. This would strongly suggest that this failure was located at the level of the transfer structures on floors 5-7. The FFA came after the EPH collapsed into / through the building.
__________________
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 25th November 2019, 04:01 AM   #52
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,491
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Why?
Suppose tanabear showed you a demolition where some point on some roofline descends at ffa for some time, would you accept this then as evidence that WTC7 was a demolition?
If tanabear wants to claim that free fall is a sign that a demolition was used, showing a demolition where that happens is a pre-requisite to accept the claim. After all, he's demanding examples of buildings that collapse due to fire, that show this kind of fall.

That doesn't mean the claim would be accepted as soon as an example is shown, but it would at least give some base to that assertion. So far it's just baseless, a bare assertion which can be outright rejected.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2019, 09:33 AM   #53
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,955
No the No Planer Theories occured because I split up Fetzer, Trump, and Judy Woods. And the break up of the Oridginal Scholors for truth.
Although the first No planer theory was Lytle Tripps Cruise Missle hit the Pentagon theory. Favored By debunked 9/11No Planer Jerome Corsi, in early 2008.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2019, 12:12 PM   #54
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,955
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
'Vestige' would mean no-plane theories came first. It's my distinct recollection that CD theories came along quite soon after 9/11 and that no-plane theories were added on later by nutcases who didn't feel special enough proposing plain CD.
The first no plane theory was the Pentagon was hit by a Cruise Missle theory, then Came doctor Judy Woods.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 02:23 AM   #55
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
You don't need an exact precedent, but you do need a precedent.

So you need to provide an example of a steel-framed high-rise, like WTC7, collapsing due to fire alone. Once this has been done we can compare it to WTC7. Until then you are merely a Bigfoot believer.
Or you could do it the other way round.
Can you provide an example of a steel-framed building that endured 7 hours of unfought fires and did not collapse at all?
__________________
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 26th November 2019, 03:17 AM   #56
curious cat
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 206
All the CD theories are based on one type of CD: where the building collapses into its own footprint. The reason for this type of demolition is not to cause any damage to the surroundings. This pattern is sometimes not being followed in cases when making the building to fall away from not to be damaged objects would provide better safety margin.
Now: why the "demolition experts" used the first method in the 2 tall buildings when they could as easily make them fall on WTC7 and save a lot of work and explosives that way? A bad planning, obviously :-). I think I hit a major gap in the whole CD conspiracy theory here.
curious cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th November 2019, 03:31 AM   #57
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,955
WTC7 came down at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds or roughly 8 stories. It wasn't just a controlled demolition, but a masterpiece of demolition.



Because I have never seen the process experimentally replicated. If it is possible let's see a demolition company do it. And how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is possible? All the government propaganda you imbibe.[/quote]

It's simple inertia that induced the Illusion of CD in the Column Kicking of building 7s outer movement frame, Columns kicking out after the interior has been hulled out.
Nothing unusual about it we see the same effects in the spire.
Nothing remarkable or unexpected.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 27th November 2019, 01:42 AM   #58
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
All the CD theories are based on one type of CD: where the building collapses into its own footprint. The reason for this type of demolition is not to cause any damage to the surroundings. This pattern is sometimes not being followed in cases when making the building to fall away from not to be damaged objects would provide better safety margin.
Now: why the "demolition experts" used the first method in the 2 tall buildings when they could as easily make them fall on WTC7 and save a lot of work and explosives that way? A bad planning, obviously :-). I think I hit a major gap in the whole CD conspiracy theory here.
I love the way you think that obvious gaps and contradictions in a conspiracy theory will make any difference at all to these people.
Aw, bless!
__________________
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 27th November 2019, 06:56 AM   #59
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,955
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I love the way you think that obvious gaps and contradictions in a conspiracy theory will make any difference at all to these people.
Aw, bless!
The easiest way to look at building 7 is to look at it as the old Imertia based Magic trick of pulling a table cloth ot from under a set table, as long as the inertia of the columns in the stiff movement frame. Is stronger than the individualized connections, the movement frame will have no motion until that inertia is over come by the pulling and spreading debris.
Pulling out then Column Kicking.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 28th November 2019, 03:00 AM   #60
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,979
Seems to me after reading the interweb for more than a decade which is where I find conspiracy theories mostly reside, those who present them do no listen, perhaps not understand and virtually never respond to their critics. Many obvious criticisms are completely unanswered. An example is fire protection of steel framed commercial and residential high rise buildings. IF steel could not lose it's strength, capacity and the integrity of the connections... why would there be requirements for fire protection? These sorts of buildings have ratings (protection) for 1, 2, or 3 hrs. We know fire was uncontrolled for almost 7hr. We know that there was also considerable structural damage at the onset of the events in each building. We know that there were at the tome new and unusual and largely untried structural schemes for these buildings. How many high rise towers are erected of a main power substation? How many have massive and extensive transfers because the axial loads of the tower above something like an electrical substation meant that less than half of the columns from the occupied floors could pass directly to the foundations (without being supported on transfers)?

How many towers had long span open floors supported on lightweight bar trusses with no columns except at the perimeter of the floors?

I have read any truther acknowledge of respond to the unique structural characteristics of these buildings.
__________________
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 28th November 2019, 10:39 AM   #61
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,058
It wasn't enough to cause irreparable damage to the Twin Towers with 767s and kill many hundreds of civilians in the process. You had to bring them down entirely. Otherwise, no one would care. Obviously.

Also, you had to use a missile to hit the Pentagon, but pretend it was a 757. And you had to shoot down another 757 in Pennsylvania, but pretend it was a heroic "the passengers stormed the cockpit" scenario. Otherwise, no one would care. Obviously.

This all makes perfect sense. Obviously.
Allen773 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 29th November 2019, 04:04 PM   #62
FFTR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 77
tanabear:
Please tell me who is correct.
- Gage (911T) says it was conventional explosives, nanothermite and no nukes that took down the WTC towers including 7.
- Prager says it was mini neutron bombs and no conventional explosives or nanothermite.
- Dr. Woods states in was an energy beam weapon.
They cannot all be correct.

Shouldn't any explanation stand on its own merits. It should be based on witness statements, physical evidence, and science. No one after all theses years have brought forward the single concise CD explanation that explains how it was done. To continue with well "fire could not have" is inadequate. So please lay out the CD explanation in detail.
FFTR 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 30th November 2019, 10:40 AM   #63
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,955
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
tanabear:
Please tell me who is correct.
- Gage (911T) says it was conventional explosives, nanothermite and no nukes that took down the WTC towers including 7.
- Prager says it was mini neutron bombs and no conventional explosives or nanothermite.
- Dr. Woods states in was an energy beam weapon.
They cannot all be correct.

Shouldn't any explanation stand on its own merits. It should be based on witness statements, physical evidence, and science. No one after all theses years have brought forward the single concise CD explanation that explains how it was done. To continue with well "fire could not have" is inadequate. So please lay out the CD explanation in detail.
{Conspiracy theorist mode}
I used simple Thermite Fuses, coupled with oxygen to both cut and weaken critical sections and hid the bright flashes with black carbon Smoke generators.
I even manufactured them in a way that they wouldn't produce the Eye ball Microspheres commonly formed By Thermite. {Conspiracy theorist Mode *****
Crazy Chainsaw 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 1st December 2019, 01:50 AM   #64
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
tanabear:
Please tell me who is correct.
- Gage (911T) says it was conventional explosives, nanothermite and no nukes that took down the WTC towers including 7.
- Prager says it was mini neutron bombs and no conventional explosives or nanothermite.
- Dr. Woods states in was an energy beam weapon.
They cannot all be correct.

Shouldn't any explanation stand on its own merits. It should be based on witness statements, physical evidence, and science. No one after all theses years have brought forward the single concise CD explanation that explains how it was done. To continue with well "fire could not have" is inadequate. So please lay out the CD explanation in detail.

Nanothermite, mini neutron bombs and energy beam weapons are surely the Bigfoot, Yeti and Sasquatch of the world of weaponry.
I expect Tanabear, in their reply, to provide some real-world examples of steel-framed buildings brought down by these methods, or to dismiss them with the same blithe speed as fire-induced collapses.
__________________
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 1st December 2019, 02:55 AM   #65
curious cat
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I love the way you think that obvious gaps and contradictions in a conspiracy theory will make any difference at all to these people.
Aw, bless!
You are right, of course. But I am still proud to find a new hole in the conspiracy theories. Not an easy deed while there are so many in plain sight already ;-).
curious cat 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 1st December 2019, 03:10 AM   #66
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,955
Originally Posted by curious cat View Post
You are right, of course. But I am still proud to find a new hole in the conspiracy theories. Not an easy deed while there are so many in plain sight already ;-).
This hole was known ten years ago it is hardly new.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 1st December 2019, 05:42 AM   #67
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,709
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
This hole was known ten years ago it is hardly new.
You found a hole in the hole!

It's probably holes all the way down.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 1st December 2019, 06:55 AM   #68
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,979
911 Conspiracy theories are not worth any time.
__________________
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 1st December 2019, 07:12 AM   #69
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
This hole was known ten years ago it is hardly new.
To non-CT believers, possibly.
To CT-ists, probably not.
Have any of our resident CT-ists addressed this? Seems unlikely.
__________________
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 1st December 2019, 06:01 PM   #70
IsThisTheLife
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 425
"No-planers". Holographic planes? Give me a break.

But what about the satellite-mounted Tesla weapons? The mini-nukes?

I don't know, it almost sounds like the kind of thing that might be promoted via slick websites and the like to discredit more sober and grounded scepticism of the 'official' conspiracy theory. Well-poisoning IOW.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."
IsThisTheLife 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 2nd December 2019, 02:41 AM   #71
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: 29,950
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
I don't know, it almost sounds like the kind of thing that might be promoted via slick websites and the like to discredit more sober and grounded scepticism of the 'official' conspiracy theory. Well-poisoning IOW.
Which is, of course, yet another tactic used by conspiracy theorists; practically every flavour of 9/11 conspiracy theory has been accused of being government disinfo to discredit the genuine truth seekers by proponents of different conspiracy theories who are sufficiently self-aware to realise that their theory is contradicted by all the others. Some have even claimed that aspects of the attacks were specifically designed to give the appearance of a more far-fetched conspiracy than was actually the case, in order to foster belief in those theories that would then discredit the truth movement. The rational conclusion that all the conspiracy theories are complete bollocks is, of course, not an acceptable one for those who simply want the truth not to be true.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
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 2nd December 2019, 06:54 AM   #72
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,955
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
"No-planers". Holographic planes? Give me a break.

But what about the satellite-mounted Tesla weapons? The mini-nukes?

I don't know, it almost sounds like the kind of thing that might be promoted via slick websites and the like to discredit more sober and grounded scepticism of the 'official' conspiracy theory. Well-poisoning IOW.
No it's idiots being played for idiots, ego maniacs being exposed as ego maniacs.
In 2006 or 2007, I sent Judy Woods in (An Email), with an old 1980s article from popular Science on the Proposed Gama Ray Laser of the star wars program of Ronald Reagan, the article described a device with a small Thermonuclear device that was focused Using Magnetic lenses on to multiple targets on the ground.
In theory the device would cause fission of the plutonium 239 in the warheads of nuclear Missle that were launched or unlaunched destroying them over Soviet Airspace.
What I didn't send her was the other half of the Article debunking the Gama Ray Laser as an impossible and foolish Idea.
Shortly afterwards she came up with the vaporized steel Idea.
As the Loose change people said on Loose Change, she got Jrefered.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 2nd December 2019, 11:14 AM   #73
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,291
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
... to discredit more sober and grounded scepticism of the 'official' conspiracy theory. Well-poisoning IOW.
That is ironic, since there is no "more sober and grounded scepticism" of what happened on 9/11.

The truth is the plot is too complex for those "more sober and grounded sceptics" and those who make up wild evidence free claims.

Plot:
1 take plane (too easy based pre 9/11 hijacking culture)
2 crash plane (the complex task of crashing, easiest maneuver)
And of course you need the best of the best to pull off 9/11 - as in gullible and extremely stupid. How did UBL found 19 nuts to do it (gullible).

Where is the "sober and grounded scepticism"? Is that the claim of 9/11 truth liars and fantasy believers?

Is there a list of "more sober and grounded"?
1. nope
__________________
"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 2nd December 2019, 12:14 PM   #74
bknight
Graduate Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 1,866
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
"No-planers". Holographic planes? Give me a break.

But what about the satellite-mounted Tesla weapons? The mini-nukes?

I don't know, it almost sounds like the kind of thing that might be promoted via slick websites and the like to discredit more sober and grounded scepticism of the 'official' conspiracy theory. Well-poisoning IOW.
There may be skepticism but no evidence of any discrediting of the official timeline of occurrences. There is always a fringe that attempts to position a theory of a government CT, but those are really out in left field. Why has no one come forth with creditable evidence of a CT? Because there is none when you dig beneath the glossy CT theory. There was a CT that precluded 9/11, but it started with KSM scheming up an attack USL funding such attack and the US agencies that are supposed to prevent such occurrences did not communicate well with each other and the attack fell through the cracks in preventing those attacks from happening.
bknight 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 3rd December 2019, 04:24 AM   #75
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,955
Originally Posted by IsThisTheLife View Post
"No-planers". Holographic planes? Give me a break.

But what about the satellite-mounted Tesla weapons? The mini-nukes?

I don't know, it almost sounds like the kind of thing that might be promoted via slick websites and the like to discredit more sober and grounded scepticism of the 'official' conspiracy theory. Well-poisoning IOW.
The Truth movement was a lie not grounded in good Science to begin with like the Crazy Crowdstrike Conspiracy theory, Birtherism or JFK, what good would it have done for the FBI to aquire the server Network?
They would have had to spend years goning though it with a scanning Tunnelling electron Microscope manually reading the data by eye, when the NSA, and Crowdstrike did a real time clone of the software that could be more easily accessed with digital tools bots. The FBI would have had Crowdstrike certifided under oath that the clone was an exact copy of the Software in the DNC data, and no server was ever removed from the data network.
The Same is true of 9/11/2001, and much of that Conspiracy theory itself came from Russian Propoganda spread on Myspace without many people knowing it.
Russia was never an Ally of the USA, they just pretended to be.
That was clear from the start the cold war just thawed a little now it has refrozen.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 3rd December 2019, 05:02 PM   #76
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,291
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
... Someone needs to give an explanation as to how debris damage and fire could've caused the collapse. ...
All it takes, knowledge and comprehension of steel, fire, science, engineering, and an ability to use this knowledge to overcome the dumbed down woo of 9/11 truth lies and fantasy.

Anyone can gain this knowledge to overcome the gullibility of blindly believing in CD and other lies about 9/11. After 18 years, maybe some are unable to overcome fantasy, and never will gain the knowledge and critical thinking skills to escape from being fooled by lies, false information, and dirt dumb ideas.

Who did 9/11 in your fantasy version where steel can't fail in fire (btw, steel fails in fire in the real world), was it the "deep state"?

Is it true you ignore science and engineering because you believe it is government propaganda?
__________________
"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 5th December 2019, 02:01 AM   #77
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,979
CD people simple don't get that these events escalated and grew because there was no control of the fires and a plentiful supply of "things" to burn. A forest fire of hundreds or thousands of acres can be started by one lighting strike or one match even. The events were "runaway". The structural failures were "runaway". Loads were not decreasing, but structural integrity was. The structural system and components reached a point where what was left could not support all the mass.... and the buildings succumbed to gravity.
__________________
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 5th December 2019, 02:59 AM   #78
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,955
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
To non-CT believers, possibly.
To CT-ists, probably not.
Have any of our resident CT-ists addressed this? Seems unlikely.
This goes back to the Gravy days on JREF and the movie in Plane site on YouTube 2006.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 5th December 2019, 03:14 AM   #79
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,955
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
CD people simple don't get that these events escalated and grew because there was no control of the fires and a plentiful supply of "things" to burn. A forest fire of hundreds or thousands of acres can be started by one lighting strike or one match even. The events were "runaway". The structural failures were "runaway". Loads were not decreasing, but structural integrity was. The structural system and components reached a point where what was left could not support all the mass.... and the buildings succumbed to gravity.
All True, it was the Ctist misunderstanding of the physics involved that started the Conspiracy theories based on bits and pieces Bread Crumbs provided by mostly natural elements found in the collapses.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 5th December 2019, 06:39 AM   #80
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,979
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
All True, it was the Ctist misunderstanding of the physics involved that started the Conspiracy theories based on bits and pieces Bread Crumbs provided by mostly natural elements found in the collapses.
ignorance (technical) led them to not understand what they saw. To them it was like a Hollywood production - special effects... which can make anything look real.

Soon they hopped on the bandwagon that these collapses were impossible without CD type assistance. And they were done.

These types are NOT interesting in learning or understanding... only in whatever justifications they can come up with including the bogus material injected into the discussion but the likes of Szamboti, Ross, Cole, Harrit, Jones, et al and most recently Hulsey... who present flawed analysis which seems to only fool the people who WANT to believe it and be fooled.

These collapses were chaotic and had large elements of randomness, lack of hard data sets from transducers. All the explanations were educated "guesses" and some better than others but most with internal consistency. That is to say there was no single path or chain of events. These collapses unfolded like an avalanche.

It's been apparent for years now that they are unwilling to learn, unwilling to discuss and stipulate to facts, unwilling to accept anything that in anyway resembles how the events were described by "official" sources. You can't change minds which are clapped shut. Why even try?
__________________
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
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 09:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.