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 loose change , part 1 , 911 conspiracy theory

Closed Thread
Old 16th May 2006, 06:26 AM   #4001
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Dylan is still under the impression the Michael Meacher is going to show Loose Change on June 14. He refers to an email dated 5/5/06 from "T.S., Managing Director, MMI Ltd":
http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2...ment-funk.html

Perhaps we should refer MPs to Gravy's critique anyway, just in case?
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 06:41 AM   #4002
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Double post.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 06:47 AM   #4003
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
One to watch:
"PENTAGON VIDEOS TO BE RELEASED TOMORROW!":
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=4266
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 06:47 AM   #4004
Curnir
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Oh.

You're still using that base 10 numbering system, aren't you?

How quaint.

I've been using base 13 for years, so page 100 is meaningless to me...
What do you get if you multiply six by nine?
Curnir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 06:50 AM   #4005
Kage
Critical Thinker
 
Kage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 455
I was discussing 911 CTers with my dad and he said that this wasn't like the fact that Bush got all of Osama's family etc etc out of the country right after 9/11. I know this comes from fahrenheit 911 but is this also CT bunk?

Thanks again for all the useful information about this. Given the rabid anti-bush slant of some of my relatives I can expect to come across some of this [rule 8] at an upcoming family event, and it is nice to have the information necessary to shoot down this kind of [rule 8 again].
Kage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:01 AM   #4006
dubfan
Critical Thinker
 
dubfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 452
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
One to watch:
"PENTAGON VIDEOS TO BE RELEASED TOMORROW!":
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=4266
Obvious prediction: it won't show very much, and the CTs won't believe it anyway.

Not so obvious prediction: the CTs will clamor for the other 84 confiscated videos to also be released, and it will become part of accepted CT lore (and a tirelessly repeated talking point) that something incriminating is contained on one of the other videos that was not released.
__________________
"I'd rather be Locked up with those throat slitting terrorists, then with JREF." -- e-dog@Loose Change

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." -- Jonathan Swift
dubfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:04 AM   #4007
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Kage View Post
I was discussing 911 CTers with my dad and he said that this wasn't like the fact that Bush got all of Osama's family etc etc out of the country right after 9/11. I know this comes from fahrenheit 911 but is this also CT bunk?

Thanks again for all the useful information about this. Given the rabid anti-bush slant of some of my relatives I can expect to come across some of this [rule 8] at an upcoming family event, and it is nice to have the information necessary to shoot down this kind of [rule 8 again].
According the the 9/11 Commission, it's bunk:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

Of course, people who buy into this stuff view the 9/11 Commission with extreme suspicion, but I'm sure you could follow up on original sources to confirm this if you're resourceful enough. The Report cites all their sources.

Edit: There are several media sources listed at the bottom of the Snopes article.

Last edited by chipmunk stew; 16th May 2006 at 07:09 AM.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:17 AM   #4008
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
Dylan is still under the impression the Michael Meacher is going to show Loose Change on June 14. He refers to an email dated 5/5/06 from "T.S., Managing Director, MMI Ltd":
http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2...ment-funk.html

Perhaps we should refer MPs to Gravy's critique anyway, just in case?
Dylan is aware that Meacher cancelled. Now he's trying to create a pressure campaign to get him to go ahead with the screening:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=4264
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:24 AM   #4009
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
I sent Dylan Avery an email today:
Gravy, maybe you can sweeten the deal by appearing on Roxdog's 50-listener show first.

Originally Posted by jenabell
Funny why would he ask for this when he was unwilling to go on RD's show?

Did he change his mind about the show?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...post&p=4476828

I know jenabell is misrepresting your position, but I think if you give the Loosers a taste of what you're bringing to the table, they're going to want blood and demand that Dylan debate you.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:28 AM   #4010
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
Gravy, maybe you can sweeten the deal by appearing on Roxdog's 50-listener show first.


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...post&p=4476828

I know jenabell is misrepresting your position, but I think if you give the Loosers a taste of what you're bringing to the table, they're going to want blood and demand that Dylan debate you.
If Gravy does appear on Roxdog's show we should ensure that we are all on IM at the time to aid in quick fact checking so he doesn't get overwhelmed in a pile of drek, a la Hovind v Shermer.
Arkan_Wolfshade is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:30 AM   #4011
geggy
Muse
 
geggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 537

first squib going off the allow the top to fall without toppling over and break into pieces.





second squib ejecting to allow the portion above to fall without toppling over and break into pieces









click on pic to play video of witnesses account of hearing bombs

September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]

August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”

July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]

Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences [The coloring of the text is added here. See below for reason]) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.”...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.”...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... â€

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/
geggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:32 AM   #4012
geggy
Muse
 
geggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 537


Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?
geggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:34 AM   #4013
bob_kark
Person of Hench
 
bob_kark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,488
Why do you even bother posting a link that contains a proven myth in the first sentence?

Quote:
Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis
I just don't get it.
__________________
"You may balk at this, but bob_kark's argument that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders" is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous." - Shemp
bob_kark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:36 AM   #4014
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
[cut & paste of a bunch of CT crap that's been addressed ad nauseum]
What do you hope to accomplish by returning to square one?
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:37 AM   #4015
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed.
Wow, it's accelerating? That would be something.

Quote:
how do you explain this?
Acme brand rockets.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:37 AM   #4016
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,374
Originally Posted by geggy View Post

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?
Here's a better idea: If this is caused by explosives as you are hinting, calculate how many tons it would require.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:39 AM   #4017
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,374
Quote:
July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]
Yeah, the 78 floor wasn't an inferno. Shame about all the floors above them.

More lies from geggy.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:39 AM   #4018
Curnir
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,639
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
Look on right side of the tower.
Okidoki
Quote:
Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed.
Um... No.
Quote:
how do you explain this?
Hmmm you don't know (rule 8) about physics.
Curnir is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:39 AM   #4019
bob_kark
Person of Hench
 
bob_kark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,488
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
Link?


Originally Posted by geggy View Post
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]
Link?


Originally Posted by geggy View Post
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]
Link?

Originally Posted by geggy View Post
August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”
Link?

Originally Posted by geggy View Post
July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]
They waited two months to report this? Oh, and Link?
__________________
"You may balk at this, but bob_kark's argument that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders" is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous." - Shemp
bob_kark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:42 AM   #4020
bob_kark
Person of Hench
 
bob_kark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,488
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...t/mushroom.jpg

Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?
So, you're saying that the concrete that is "flying straight outward" is accelerating? Are there rockets on the concrete? Do you mean that they're falling toward the earth and experiencing acceleration due to gravity? Oh, big question here, how can you determine acceleration from a still photo?
__________________
"You may balk at this, but bob_kark's argument that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders" is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous." - Shemp
bob_kark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 07:45 AM   #4021
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,374
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
[September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]
And yet, for all this talk, not one pool of molten steel has been taped, photographed. Molten metal could also mean molten aluminum, which while not glowing, is a molten metal that could be reached in am office fire.

Quote:
August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements.
Which means that we can rule out defective materials as a cause. Nothing more.

Quote:
It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”
I bolded the relevant part for you geggy. You are missing the fact that NIST had only limited samples because they did not qant to work with unidentified steel. Get it?

Quote:
Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences [The coloring of the text is added here. See below for reason]) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.”...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.”...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... â€
A horde of non-explosive reasons have been given for this. Without any further info

And finally:

Please list the number of Structural Engineers that agree with your asessment, or any other CT asessment as to how the buildings fell.

Geggy is a lying, squirming litte snot trying to repeat stuff we've debunked dozens of times. Stop wasting our time.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:06 AM   #4022
geggy
Muse
 
geggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 537
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...cinvestigation

It's all right here, dorks...
geggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:11 AM   #4023
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,374
Originally Posted by geggy View Post

And its all crap, fishbulb.

Anyone do a drink calculation for geggy's latest spew?
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:16 AM   #4024
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?
So you think the debris off to the sides has come there horizontally, instead of being in the process of falling from a higher level and on its way mostly down? Can you find the video that shows this? After all, there are many videos of the collapse - just find one that shows this debris going sideways.

Also, since you seem to be implying that this was the result of a controlled demolition, please find any video of a controlled demolition anywhere that has large amounts of building material being ejected sideways.

Geggy, do you really believe this cr*p you post, or are you just trying to get a reaction out of us? I just can't believe that anyone would be so clueless as to believe what you just posted.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:17 AM   #4025
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
Keep on linking and ducking, geggy. You're doing great.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:19 AM   #4026
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,374
Geggy, why are you such a sniveling, lying, slimey weasel?
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:22 AM   #4027
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
If Gravy does appear on Roxdog's show we should ensure that we are all on IM at the time to aid in quick fact checking so he doesn't get overwhelmed in a pile of drek, a la Hovind v Shermer.
The comparison to Hovind is apt. Hovind's main characteristic is the sheer number of lies that he can casually spew out. By the time a debater shows his first lie to be false, Hovind is already on lie number 87. And if he gets cornered in one subject area, he can quickly switch to a different front.

I think the only way to debate these guys would be to announce your intent up front, to look at each claim in enough detail to rebut it, and refuse to let them switch subjects on you until you're finished with the one you were on.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:22 AM   #4028
geggy
Muse
 
geggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 537
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
And yet, for all this talk, not one pool of molten steel has been taped, photographed. Molten metal could also mean molten aluminum, which while not glowing, is a molten metal that could be reached in am office fire.
Right and all the witnesses are lying.

Quote:
I bolded the relevant part for you geggy. You are missing the fact that NIST had only limited samples because they did not qant to work with unidentified steel. Get it?
Got any evidence the heat on the steel ever reached above the temp. of 600 C?
geggy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:23 AM   #4029
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by Curnir View Post
What do you get if you multiply six by nine?
Wow - before I read this, it had never occurred to me that (42base13) = (54base10).

I wonder if this thread will make it to (269base10) pages.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:25 AM   #4030
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
Right and all the witnesses are lying.

Got any evidence the heat on the steel ever reached above the temp. of 600 C?
Simultaneously defending the conflicting ideas that there was molten steel and that the steel never got hotter than 600C.

Not connecting both or either of these ideas with how they support the controlled demolition theory.

Keep going, geggy. You're a laugh a minute.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:26 AM   #4031
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,374
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
Right and all the witnesses are lying.
The witnesess can be mistaken, and in some cases were using artistic liscence, or never saw any such steel themselves.

http://911myths.com/html/dr_alison_geyh.html

Quote:
Got any evidence the heat on the steel ever reached above the temp. of 600 C?
Yes, why don't you read the entire NIST report instead of getting trimmed bits from your kookspiracy websites. Or would that be too much like real work? Are you guys allergic to real research or something?
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker 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 Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:31 AM   #4032
NobbyNobbs
Gazerbeam's Protege
 
NobbyNobbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,617
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
Look on right side of the tower. Concrete flying straight outward at an accelerating speed. how do you explain this?
Acceleration: a change in velocity over a period of time. Either an increase or decrease in speed or a change in direction

Newton's 1st Law:(simplified) An object will not change its velocity without a force on it. No force, no acceleration.

The debris you refer to is in mid-air. The only force on it in that photo is gravity. Gravity pulls downward. So, in a way, you are right. The concrete is flying outward (it has momentum) and it is accelerating. However, it is accelerating downward.

That is all you can tell from the photo, and you can only tell that much because we are sure, without a shadow of a doubt, that gravity exists. We are not sure that controlled explosives exist, so we can't tell if it is accelerating outward.

Since acceleration is a change in velocity over a period of time, and since a photo is only one moment in time, it is impossible to tell if an object is accelerating from one photograph.



(This educational moment has been brought to you by a full-standing member of the National Science Teachers Association. Join us again next time when we discuss why Einstein's theories show how unlikely it is that aliens are visiting us.)
__________________
I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding.
AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant
NobbyNobbs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 08:58 AM   #4033
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,579
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
The comparison to Hovind is apt. Hovind's main characteristic is the sheer number of lies that he can casually spew out. By the time a debater shows his first lie to be false, Hovind is already on lie number 87. And if he gets cornered in one subject area, he can quickly switch to a different front.

I think the only way to debate these guys would be to announce your intent up front, to look at each claim in enough detail to rebut it, and refuse to let them switch subjects on you until you're finished with the one you were on.
That's why I have said that the debate should be a very narrow topic. Something like, Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. Now, debate that.

CTers would NEVER agree to that, however, because they know they would be completely massacred. First thing they'd have to explain is what happen to each of the 40odd people who were on the flight. They can't do that, because they could find no evidence at all that anyone of them are alive. Leaves a fairly large hole in the argument.

Typically, they just brush the group off with some conspiracy claim. However, if the topic is focused, they would have to address each one individually, and actually provide evidence for their claims.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 09:07 AM   #4034
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
"charliebean" posted your challenge on the LC forum, and "DemolitionCrew" responded:

Besides being someone NEW, WHO ARE YOU DUDE?

I ask that to say...what would Dylan or any member from the LC Crew have to gain by debating you?????

Perhaps someone should point out that Dylan (IIRC) already requested that people from this site debate him - on his "radio show."

So the question isn't why he should do it -- he says he is willing to -- the question is why won't he do it in a neutral forum, rather than where he controls the microphone and can edit at will?

Seems to me that he was quite vocal in calling people cowards if they did not choose to appear in his podcast to literally hund^h^h^h^h doze^h^h^h^h a few people. He's willing to debate "nobodies"; he just isn't willing to do it where he cannot control the editing.

Draw your own conclusions.
NoZed Avenger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 09:08 AM   #4035
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
Check your PM, geggy. I'd like a reply.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 09:08 AM   #4036
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger View Post
Perhaps someone should point out that Dylan (IIRC) already requested that people from this site debate him - on his "radio show."

So the question isn't why he should do it -- he says he is willing to -- the question is why won't he do it in a neutral forum, rather than where he controls the microphone and can edit at will?

Seems to me that he was quite vocal in calling people cowards if they did not choose to appear in his podcast to literally hund^h^h^h^h doze^h^h^h^h a few people. He's willing to debate "nobodies"; he just isn't willing to do it where he cannot control the editing.

Draw your own conclusions.
That was "Roxdog"/"conspiracybeliever", one of Dylan's loyal followers.
chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 09:10 AM   #4037
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,596
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
No...the "power of christ" reference was from family guy. It's just funnier when peter griffin said it. It was in the episode which chris started speaking ebonic hip hop language and peter thought he had been possessed, so he pulled over his car to start cranking up biblical references and spray holy water on chris to get rid of the blackness in him. Just like I think you guys have been possessed by believing that the offcial account of sept 11 is true, therefore you are possessed by the government.
OK geggy, can you explain to me why you're quoting from Family Guy, when its creator, Seth Macfarlane, obviously had advance warning of 9/11 and is thus part of the conspiracy? Because as I explained in an earlier post, Macfarlane was supposed to be on one of the planes that hit the WTC, but at the last minute he "accidently" missed the flight. So doesn't that make it obvious that Macfarlane is in on the conspiracy?

This isn't just some goof -- I really do want you to explain to me why Macfarlane missed that plane. And do you know why? Because I want you to admit it doesn't mean anything, it's just a coincidence. Then I can slam you by pointing out the fact that you're willing to overlook this coincidence, but you attach all sorts of meaning to other coincidences that are vastly less striking and suspicious. Not only that, you've built a vast conspiracy out of these bits of meaningless fluff.

So which is it: Are you finally ready to admit your 9/11 conspiracy is a big load of stupid crap, or is Peter Griffin yet another agent of GW Bush? One or the other, geggy -- your choice.

Last edited by Stellafane; 16th May 2006 at 09:13 AM.
Stellafane is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 09:12 AM   #4038
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger View Post
Perhaps someone should point out that Dylan (IIRC) already requested that people from this site debate him - on his "radio show."

So the question isn't why he should do it -- he says he is willing to -- the question is why won't he do it in a neutral forum, rather than where he controls the microphone and can edit at will?

Seems to me that he was quite vocal in calling people cowards if they did not choose to appear in his podcast to literally hund^h^h^h^h doze^h^h^h^h a few people. He's willing to debate "nobodies"; he just isn't willing to do it where he cannot control the editing.

Draw your own conclusions.
That's Roxdog, you're referring to, not Dylan Avery. All Roxdog has to do is come here, make his points, and stick around for the debate, but he won't do that. This forum gets many times the audience that his podcast does. He is a sad, cowardly person.

ETA: As for me being on his show, sure! I'd act really dumb, and that would give Avery the confidence to debate me.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 16th May 2006 at 09:15 AM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 09:14 AM   #4039
bob_kark
Person of Hench
 
bob_kark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,488
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]
No link to confirm. Also, what exactly is this to confirm? What explosives leave metal in a liquid state for 8 weeks? I have an answer for you in my next quip.

Originally Posted by geggy View Post
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:
Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 5/1/2003]
This is the key point, Underground.

Firefighters have extinguished almost all but the last remnants of underground fires that have burned at the World Trade Center site for more than three months since the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

Originally Posted by geggy View Post
William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002]
The link for this is to a book, I'm not going to purchase just to debunk an incomplete sentence that could have been taken completely out of context.



Originally Posted by geggy View Post
August 27, 2003: NIST Investigators Rule Out Weak Steel as a Factor in Collapses At the end of a two-day meeting to discuss the progress of their investigation of the WTC collapses on 9/11, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigators say that early tests on steel beams recovered from the World Trade Center showed they met or were stronger than design requirements. It also will point out: “Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C. ... Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.”
What they fail to follow up with is this:

Originally Posted by NIST
Examination of photographs showed that 16 of the exterior panels from WTC 1 were exposed to fire prior to the building collapse. None of the nine recovered panels from within the fire floors of WTC 2 were directly exposed to fire. NIST used two methods to estimate the maximum temperatures that the steel members had reached:

Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250�C: east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, and truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250�C. NIST did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the columns from the fire floors
So, these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimiter columns and 1 percent of the columns from the fire floors. Not really damning evidence.

Originally Posted by NIST
Observations of the microstructure of the steel. High temperature excursions, such as due to a fire, can alter the basic structure of the steel and its mechanical properties. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 �C.

These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones with WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures.
Oh, wait, so the areas where the samples were located weren't even supposed to have elevated steel temperatures!

Originally Posted by geggy View Post
July 23, 2002: A “lost tape” of radio messages from firefighters inside the WTC on 9/11 is made public. Supposedly, “city fire officials simply delayed listening” to this tape until after the official report on the fire department’s response to the attacks was published, and they still refuse to allow any officials to discuss the contents. The tape reveals that two firefighters were able to reach the crash site on the 78th floor of the South Tower. While there, “Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.” [New York Times, 9/4/2002; Guardian, 9/5/2002]
Full quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
At that point, the building would be standing for just a few more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so, Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire, and called for a pair of engine companies to fight them.
Originally Posted by geggy View Post
Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences [The coloring of the text is added here. See below for reason]) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.”...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.”...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... â€

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/
Again, this article starts off on the wrong foot by making a false claim in the first sentence.
__________________
"You may balk at this, but bob_kark's argument that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders" is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous." - Shemp

Last edited by bob_kark; 16th May 2006 at 09:54 AM.
bob_kark is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 16th May 2006, 09:14 AM   #4040
dubfan
Critical Thinker
 
dubfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 452
Originally Posted by chipmunk stew View Post
That was "Roxdog"/"conspiracybeliever", one of Dylan's loyal followers.
Tonight at 9:30 was supposed to be my big debut on Roxdog's show. I asked him last week for details (what we were going to discuss specifically, who else would be on, and what number to call), and he has yet to reply.

They're all atwitter over there now about the Pentagon videos that will be released at 1PM. Dylan went way out on a limb and predicted the videos would show a "silver blob".
__________________
"I'd rather be Locked up with those throat slitting terrorists, then with JREF." -- e-dog@Loose Change

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." -- Jonathan Swift
dubfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 12:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.