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 15th March 2006, 06:13 PM   #121
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Don't you think it's somewhat of an over-simplification to suggest a simultaneous structural failure that would send 1/3 of the building hurtling into the other 2/3 is what happend?
It's not 1/3, but yes. You can watch it happen. The upper floors do not disintigrate until they've toppled several hundred feet. Massive structural failures happened in the floors where the planes struck the buildings. The upper floors dropped their nearly full weight onto each floor beneath them. The whole mass accumulated and brought floor after floor down as they crashed to the ground.

Originally Posted by Alek View Post
I'm not disputing the law of momentum. I'm disputing your implicit assumption that the conditions existed in order to send several tens of thousands of tons of steel moving at 5 meters/sec in one instant, as if a magic carpet had been pulled out from beneath it.
Actually, it only takes the mass falling from a height less than half a meter. Several floors were taken out by the jet. I think that's a fair estimate, but even if you make that height much smaller, the upper stories are still hitting the first floor beneath them with the energy of several hundred pounds of TNT.
(doesn't this sound a lot like the old creationist "that's just microevolution. Show me macro-evolution" argument?)

Originally Posted by Alek View Post
While you're in the habit of debunking, could you debunk Stephen A. Jones, a professor of Physics at BYU?
I am not your monkey.
delphi_ote 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 15th March 2006, 06:19 PM   #122
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
That was a rather tedious use of the fallacy of reverse appeal to authority. Unfortunately, fallacies don't invalidate evidence. Why don't you stick to the evidence?
It's not a fallacy if the authority is, indeed, an expert on the subject. Structural engineers are the appropriate experts on why buildings collapse. Now, a good example of the "appeal to authority fallacy" is the "scholars for truth" site you posted. Pure hogwash.

And your evidence has been shown to be false.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 06:21 PM   #123
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
I guess if you're going to accuse people of thousands of murders with no evidence, calling people liars with no evidence isn't really a big deal.
It's pretty disingenuous to claim I have no evidence, when 1) this is my first series of posts on this forum, and 2) I've provided plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it, or consider it in an objective manner.

Quote:

Better question: why would someone who knew it was all going to happen not cash out their investment immediately, especially knowing the markets would be closed soon for several days? Or would that be too obvious? If that's too obvious, why wouldn't this whole scam be too obvious?
What did you think I meant by "realizing their good fortune"? And how would they know the status of the markets after 9/11? For a skeptic, you seem to try and portray a lot of your assumptions as implicit facts. This is dishonest.
Alek 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 15th March 2006, 06:24 PM   #124
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Are you implying that the 9/11 truth movement is driven only by hucksters, for profit?
Yes, mostly. the rest are just idiots who let their politics trump their critical thinking skills.

Quote:
Because if you want to get into cui bono, then why don't you calculate the profits of the panopticon security state that's being created here, for the "homeland". Why don't you calculate the profits of war, and oil?
OK, I get $1.98.

Quote:
Do you think it's objective to state that "Every single person" making claims counter to the 9/11 commission is not a structural engineer? Are you in fact aware of the credentials of every single person who has made such claims, and have you in fact read every engineering journal? Are you supposed to pass for a skeptic? I suppose all swans are white.
I haven't seen one yet, have you? Structural enginers have their professional integrity to protect, unlike, say, a tenured Philosophy professor.

Quote:
I do see the problem. When one is incapable of attacking the message, one attacks the messenger. We live in a highly specialized world, one which dictates that we delegate an inordinate amount of trust in so-called "experts", experts which have all too often proven unworthy of that trust.
I have attacked the messenger and the message w/ equal fervor. My next post will demonstrate how full of bull excrement your "WTC & was hardly scratched" claim.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 06:25 PM   #125
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,252
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
While you're in the habit of debunking, could you debunk Stephen A. Jones, a professor of Physics at BYU?

www-physics-byu-edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Dr. Jones is a physics professor, not a structural engineer, nor a demolitions expert. His work is little more than a rehash of the old conspiracy theories with a few words tacked on. He misuses physics (2nd Law of Thermodynamics to explain why a chunk started to fall?) and as a physics major I can rightly say that he is out of his field. Especially given that his field for the past few decades has been in High Energy physics and Cold Fusion.

Conversely, Structural Engineers in China have written papers that essentially agree with the basic model. To date, no Structural Engineer I have heard of has said the model is signifigantly wrong.

If you want some more detail, you might wish to read the bautforum thread here: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=34793&


Quote:
I would also like to hear your analysis of what happend to WTC7, a building not hit by a jet, and slightly farther away from the north tower than the Banker's trust building was from the south tower. The facade of banker's trust was damaged, but miraculously, it remained standing. WTC7 collapsed in a stunningly impressive 6.5 seconds into a tight debris pile, having been hit by no jet, and exposed to only minor fires. It was the third modern steel structure in history to have collapsed by fire, the first two buildings being of course the twin towers.
Large chunks of debris fell on WTC7 and what you call 'minor fires' were nothing of the sort. They raged very intensely for over 7 hours. The building visibly fell fast, but it was showing signs of failure 30 seconds before the video most conspiracy sites show starts.

Quote:
Maybe after that you could explain how kerosene fires could create the pools of molten steel that were found in the basements of all three buildings.
To date, not one white of evidence has been produced that there were any pools of molten steel anywhere in the basement. This is a myth of the CT crowd. The primary source has admitted that he did not see it himself, first hand, and there is no video or photo evidence of these pools. So there is no need to explain something that did not happen.

Quote:
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
No, that's pretty much it.
__________________
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 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 15th March 2006, 06:26 PM   #126
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Yet clearly that is what you're doing with this conspiracy theory. You're not skeptical at all. You've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

"Free-fall" Get real.
Yet clearly, that is what you're doing with the official government conspiracy. You're not skeptical at all. You've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Are you going to resort to this kind of banter, or shall we stick to the facts, and the evidence?

The free fall is *what happend*. Time the collapse on video. You're the one rationalizing the free fall collapse.

Why don't we stick to the facts instead of making fishing analogies.
Alek 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 15th March 2006, 06:27 PM   #127
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
I would also like to hear your analysis of what happend to WTC7, a building not hit by a jet, and slightly farther away from the north tower than the Banker's trust building was from the south tower. The facade of banker's trust was damaged, but miraculously, it remained standing. WTC7 collapsed in a stunningly impressive 6.5 seconds into a tight debris pile, having been hit by no jet, and exposed to only minor fires. It was the third modern steel structure in history to have collapsed by fire, the first two buildings being of course the twin towers.
It was heavily damaged:
Quote:
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
So your "scholars" don't know what the hell they're talking about, see?
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 06:28 PM   #128
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
It's pretty disingenuous to claim I have no evidence, when 1) this is my first series of posts on this forum, and 2) I've provided plenty of evidence, you just refuse to acknowledge it, or consider it in an objective manner.
You have not presented any evidence that the 9/11 Commission lied about anything.

Originally Posted by Alek View Post
What did you think I meant by "realizing their good fortune"? And how would they know the status of the markets after 9/11? For a skeptic, you seem to try and portray a lot of your assumptions as implicit facts. This is dishonest.
If they know who's going to hijack which planes when and what effect that is going to have on the economy and that the building is wired for explosives etc. etc. etc. Why are they not smart enough to predict that the market would close for a few days after the attack?
delphi_ote 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 15th March 2006, 06:29 PM   #129
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
The free fall is *what happend*. Time the collapse on video. You're the one rationalizing the free fall collapse.
If you actually watched the video you'd see debris falling faster than the building collapses. So you're either lying about the collapse being at free-fall speeds or haven't seen the video.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 06:31 PM   #130
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
The free fall is *what happend*.
Then show me your math, tough guy. I showed mine.

Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Time the collapse on video.
Just under 10 seconds. Even Dr. Wood's site uses that number.
delphi_ote 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 15th March 2006, 06:42 PM   #131
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Then show me your math, tough guy. I showed mine.
You really want to see math, check out this report!
Which concludes:
Quote:

7.0 CONCLUSIONS
An analysis of the energetics of the WTC collapse events has shown that the kinetic
energy of the aircraft collisions and the subsequent gravitational energy released by the
descending blocks of floors were quite sufficient to destroy the twin towers in the manner
observed. The use of explosive devices in either of the two towers is not necessary to
explain the collapse events and is considered to be
highly unlikely.

The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with
the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer
model used in the calculations.

The calculated times represent the minimum theoretical times of building collapse. If
shorter times are to be physically achieved they must involve an unknown additional
source of energy acting in a downward direction. Such a source of energy does not appear
to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers.

The kinetic energy of the collapse events was sufficient to crush the WTC floor
concrete in both towers to particles 100
m in diameter, or smaller, which is consistent
with the observed WTC debris particle size distribution.

From a consideration of the strength of the WTC columns, and the effective area of
support they provided, it is demonstrated that the conditions necessary for the initial floor
collapse were initiated by the aircraft impacts and made irrevocable by the subsequent
eccentric loading of the core columns. The fires that were initiated by the jet fuel spilled
within the towers certainly weakened steel in localized areas in the impact zones.
However, it is suggested that the total collapse of both towers would have occurred
even
without the jet fuel fires
.

F.R. Greening
greening@sympatico.ca
Original version, (1.05): March 1, 2005
This version, (2.06): February 16, 2006

Quote:
Just under 10 seconds. Even Dr. Wood's site uses that number.
The addendum to the above report uses seismic data to calculate the time of the collapses as:
WTC 1 - 13.48 sec.
WTC 2 - 12.07 sec.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 06:47 PM   #132
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by delphi_ote
Actually, it only takes the mass falling from a height less than half a meter. Several floors were taken out by the jet. I think that's a fair estimate, but even if you make that height much smaller, the upper stories are still hitting the first floor beneath them with the energy of several hundred pounds of TNT.
(doesn't this sound a lot like the old creationist "that's just microevolution. Show me macro-evolution" argument?)
Several floors were taken out by the jet? What brought the towers down, the jets, or the kerosene? It certainly wasn't the jets, otherwise an assymetrical collapse would have begun immediately.

Was it the kerosene? Air-aspirated hydrocarbon fires don't reach temperatures hot enough to turn steel into the structural equivalent of wet noodles. They require blast-furnaces with pressurized, pre-treated air. According to most accounts, most of the jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes, and the remaining fuel was office furniture and similar materials. Cellulosic fires require the most optimal of conditions to even remotely affect steel, and eyewitness accounts of firefighters indicate the fires were under control. If I'm wrong, and this isn't the case, then certainly controlled demolition got a whole lot more cheap and convenient after 9/11. Why bother with extensive planning and thermite, when a simple jet fuel fire will suffice?

Quote:

I am not your monkey.
I didn't suggest you were. But since you went from inquiring about websites which debunk the myth that the towers couldn't collapse in a free fall to an authoritative physics expert who thoroughly debunked my claim in the span of a few posts, I figured you had the credentials to debunk Jones. Since I'm interested in the truth, I'd be more than happy to see you do it.

Last edited by Alek; 15th March 2006 at 06:50 PM.
Alek 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 15th March 2006, 06:55 PM   #133
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Several floors were taken out by the jet? What brought the towers down, the jets, or the kerosene? It certainly wasn't the jets, otherwise an assymetrical collapse would have begun immediately.
Read the report I linked to in my previous post.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 06:59 PM   #134
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,252
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Several floors were taken out by the jet? What brought the towers down, the jets, or the kerosene? It certainly wasn't the jets, otherwise an assymetrical collapse would have begun immediately.

Was it the kerosene? Air-aspirated hydrocarbon fires don't reach temperatures hot enough to turn steel into the structural equivalent of wet noodles.
They don't need to be, steel loses much of its strength at much lower temperatures than is needed.

Quote:
They require blast-furnaces with pressurized, pre-treated air.
To melt steel yes. Much less is needed to weaken it.

Quote:
According to most accounts, most of the jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes, and the remaining fuel was office furniture and similar materials. Cellulosic fires require the most optimal of conditions to even remotely affect steel,
Bull. Take a look at steel exposed to fire from normal sources. Set a barn on fire and the farming tools inside will be warped to hell and back. You are mixed melting with other effects.

Quote:
and eyewitness accounts of firefighters indicate the fires were under control.
No, they were not. You better produce serious evidence of this.

Quote:
If I'm wrong,
Oh, you are.

Quote:
and this isn't the case, then certainly controlled demolition got a whole lot more cheap and convenient after 9/11. Why bother with extensive planning and thermite, when a simple jet fuel fire will suffice?
Because controlled demolitions are just that: Controlled. They are designed to have minimal impact on the surrounding area. The WTC collapse was nowhere near that as its collapse damaged several buildings and left debris over several acres. Not to mention the dust cloud that covered most of Lower Manhattan for hours afterward. If a demolition crew had these results, they'd be cashiered.
__________________
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 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 15th March 2006, 07:08 PM   #135
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
Then show me your math, tough guy. I showed mine.


Just under 10 seconds. Even Dr. Wood's site uses that number.
I'm not a physicist, I'm quoting the work of others. The buildings both collapsed symmetrically in under ten seconds, which is virtually free fall speed, which implies there was virtually no resistance from floor to floor, or from the 47 load-bearing steel columns.

Your comment was that the massive kinetic energy generated by X tons of structure falling was more than enough to overcome any resistance. I find this quite reasonable. The only problem is, I can't get from A to B. I find it hard to intuit how the structure at the point of impact would go from bearing the entire load, to none of it, unilaterally, symmetrically, and instantaneously, without any signs of buckling or weakening beforehand. The steel would have to go from say, 60% to 0% instantly. I find this infeasible. It's not as if modern buildings just disintegrate and collapse into a free fall when their structures fail. They buckle, then they topple, slowly (absent a thermite induced controlled demolition). I'm well aware that the effects of physics are often counter-intuitive, but I've also viewed evidence of burning steel skyscrapers (such as in Madrid) whereby the buildings burn for days, with white hot flames, yet no collapse. The heart of the evidence really lies with WTC7, because no planes hit the building. Even FEMA in the 9/11 commission report doesn't have a suitable explanation why this skyscraper imploded in a free fall. Check your emotions at the door and watch the WTC7 video and tell me that wasn't a controlled demolition. It's just blatantly obvious. I don't need to be a physicist to know that that building's core columns couldn't miraculously fail all at once, resulting in one of the most impressive controlled demolitions i've seen.

wtc7.net
Alek 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 15th March 2006, 07:14 PM   #136
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,252
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
I'm not a physicist, I'm quoting the work of others. The buildings both collapsed symmetrically
I assume when you say symmetrically, you mean they fell straight down. That is becuase there was insufficient force to move a large enough parts. This was something that fell over, this was

Quote:
in under ten seconds, which is virtually free fall speed,
Several sources give times that are much longer than that. Objects can be seen falling at what really would be freefall, and they are faster than the tower collapse.

Quote:
which implies there was virtually no resistance from floor to floor, or from the 47 load-bearing steel columns.
Only if you start with a false premise.
__________________
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 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 15th March 2006, 07:15 PM   #137
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
It was heavily damaged:

So your "scholars" don't know what the hell they're talking about, see?
It was heavily damaged on one side, so it collapses in a symmetrical free fall. I'm supposed to believe this? There is a dearth of photographic evidence documenting just how damaged the building was. You do realize that the weak supposition given by FEMA in the 9/11 report is that fire from some generators caused the collapse, right? Or do you believe that a girder which may have damaged the facade of the building would result in a total collapse? Do you really believe that, skeptic?
Alek 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 15th March 2006, 07:16 PM   #138
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
I'm not a physicist, I'm quoting the work of others. The buildings both collapsed symmetrically in under ten seconds, which is virtually free fall speed, which implies there was virtually no resistance from floor to floor, or from the 47 load-bearing steel columns.
I showed you evidence of the actual times, verified by seismic data, and they're greater than 10 seconds.

Quote:
The heart of the evidence really lies with WTC7, because no planes hit the building. Even FEMA in the 9/11 commission report doesn't have a suitable explanation why this skyscraper imploded in a free fall. Check your emotions at the door and watch the WTC7 video and tell me that wasn't a controlled demolition. It's just blatantly obvious. I don't need to be a physicist to know that that building's core columns couldn't miraculously fail all at once, resulting in one of the most impressive controlled demolitions i've seen.

wtc7.net
Now you're getting annoying. I linked to a NYC Fire Captains first-hand account of the WTC 7 damage, fire, and collapse. yet you brought it up again! I can only assume you're deliberately ignoring the evidence in order to confirm your own pre-determined beliefs.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 07:18 PM   #139
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
It was heavily damaged on one side, so it collapses in a symmetrical free fall. I'm supposed to believe this? There is a dearth of photographic evidence documenting just how damaged the building was. You do realize that the weak supposition given by FEMA in the 9/11 report is that fire from some generators caused the collapse, right? Or do you believe that a girder which may have damaged the facade of the building would result in a total collapse? Do you really believe that, skeptic?
The entire interior of the building was on fire! READ THE FREAKING FIRE CAPTAIN"S ACCOUNT!!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 07:20 PM   #140
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,252
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Your comment was that the massive kinetic energy generated by X tons of structure falling was more than enough to overcome any resistance. I find this quite reasonable. The only problem is, I can't get from A to B. I find it hard to intuit how the structure at the point of impact would go from bearing the entire load, to none of it, unilaterally, symmetrically, and instantaneously, without any signs of buckling or weakening beforehand. The steel would have to go from say, 60% to 0% instantly. I find this infeasible. It's not as if modern buildings just disintegrate and collapse into a free fall when their structures fail. They buckle, then they topple, slowly (absent a thermite induced controlled demolition).
No, they do not. Ever hear of the Sampoong Department store?
__________________
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 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 15th March 2006, 07:25 PM   #141
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,252
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
It was heavily damaged on one side, so it collapses in a symmetrical free fall. I'm supposed to believe this?
It also had a fire raging on several floors for at least seven hours.

Quote:
There is a dearth of photographic evidence documenting just how damaged the building was. You do realize that the weak supposition given by FEMA in the 9/11 report is that fire from some generators caused the collapse, right? Or do you believe that a girder which may have damaged the facade of the building would result in a total collapse? Do you really believe that, skeptic?
Do you have any evidence to indicated that explosives were used? All you are doing is trying to poke holes while producing nothing of your own. There was plenty of damage to WTC7 to cause it to collapse.
__________________
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 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 15th March 2006, 07:27 PM   #142
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
It was heavily damaged on one side, so it collapses in a symmetrical free fall. I'm supposed to believe this? There is a dearth of photographic evidence documenting just how damaged the building was. You do realize that the weak supposition given by FEMA in the 9/11 report is that fire from some generators caused the collapse, right? Or do you believe that a girder which may have damaged the facade of the building would result in a total collapse? Do you really believe that, skeptic?
Yes, I do believe that. You, however, believe that 100's of tons of explosives was placed in the WTC and wired together w/o anyone noticing... and was covered up by thousands of people across both political partys. The mind boggles...
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 07:28 PM   #143
hellaeon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,488
alek,

Tell us what is REALLY the key to what made you go 'this is a cover up'

some of the stuff on the most popular websites is half produced facts and the like about what happened. They make many claims but refuse to show the complete sides of the story as it does not fit. They will show something, take it out of context and then when the source of that info steps forward, 'the government got to them'

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html
Read that, then argue with the evidence they produce? please, I bet you wont. If you can believe anything written on the nutter sites, why do you refuse to believe whats on one such as this? is it because its just too simple/cold/boring/uneventful? Not movie like enough? Not enough x files?

Alek, is it that hard to accept evidence from 100's of experts in engineering and physics over a few wild misquotes and half truths?

I know where ill put my trust.
hellaeon 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 15th March 2006, 07:29 PM   #144
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,252
Notice how the 'tip of the iceberg' is turning out to be an ice cube?
__________________
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 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 15th March 2006, 07:29 PM   #145
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Hardly on fire at all...

__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 07:36 PM   #146
hellaeon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Yes, I do believe that. You, however, believe that 100's of tons of explosives was placed in the WTC and wired together w/o anyone noticing... and was covered up by thousands of people across both political partys. The mind boggles...
hahaha!

I cant believe that this is a theory. Just that factor, how much explosives etc. No evidence of it, then the theory they will built in the cement when the WTC was built is just *spun out*.

These CT guys are all science experts and got their degrees at Hollywood film studios.
hellaeon 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 15th March 2006, 07:39 PM   #147
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
I'm not a physicist, I'm quoting the work of others.
In other words, you don't understand the physics involved at even the most basic level. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
delphi_ote 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 15th March 2006, 07:43 PM   #148
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,252
FOr more fun, you can see how Dr. Jones is showing pictures of what is obviouly rebar reenforced concrete with some staining and telling us it is a molten slag of metal. PWAH!
__________________
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 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 15th March 2006, 07:45 PM   #149
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
I don't need to be a physicist to know that that building's core columns couldn't miraculously fail all at once, resulting in one of the most impressive controlled demolitions i've seen.
You don't need any kind of analytic argument to "know" all of the things you claim. You're engaged in the process of belief. If you were actually skeptical of this subject, you wouldn't be linking to websites you admit you can't even understand.
delphi_ote 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 15th March 2006, 07:46 PM   #150
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Video of WTC 7 burning, and firefighters talking about how it is unstable and making sure everyone is out of the way because they believe it will collapse.

But hey, a philosopher at the "scholars for truth" site says it wasn't hardly damaged and in no danger of collapse unless there were explosives planted in it...
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 07:52 PM   #151
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
They don't need to be, steel loses much of its strength at much lower temperatures than is needed.
Kevin Ryan of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this. Read his letter to NIST:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41112144051451

Quote:

No, they were not. You better produce serious evidence of this.
Or what? You'll sic Homeland Security on me?

Here are the firefighter's tapes:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Here are the excerpts:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/fir...e-excerpts.htm

If you search the net, you can find indexed versions of the audio, but I'm not your monkey.

Quote:

Because controlled demolitions are just that: Controlled. They are designed to have minimal impact on the surrounding area. The WTC collapse was nowhere near that as its collapse damaged several buildings and left debris over several acres. Not to mention the dust cloud that covered most of Lower Manhattan for hours afterward. If a demolition crew had these results, they'd be cashiered.
So you're on record as saying that kerosene fires can bring down modern steel structures, right? Does anyone else on this forum want to back him up? You might want to start of by naming one example of this happening in history. It hadn't happend, prior to 9/11. This is even admitted in the mainstream NOVA documentary "Why the towers fell". I can render an mpeg of this if you want. You might want to explain how the Madrid fire burned uncontrollably for days, yet the structure didn't collapse.

Speaking of the dust cloud, does gravity help produce enough energy to completely pulverize concrete? What about the squibs seen many many floors below in videos of the towers collapsing? BTW, this thread is called Loose Change. Have you even watched Loose Change version 2, the movie this thread is based on? All of this evidence is presented there, and there is more that isn't covered in the film. I realize this isn't as much fun as debunking ghost stories and establishing why the psychic friends network is a fraud, but please, for the sake of truth and our country, at least try to be slightly more objective and open minded? I'm not here to agitate, I'm here to raise awareness, and perhaps learn something.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5296
Alek 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 15th March 2006, 07:55 PM   #152
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
No, they do not. Ever hear of the Sampoong Department store?
Nice. In case he's too lazy to Google it:
Quote:
That is, until the evening of June 29th, 1995, when in less than 20 seconds, the mall came crashing down with an estimated 1,500 unsuspecting shoppers and employees inside. Not just a single floor or area, but five stories of the North wing pancaking into the four basements, killing more than 500 people and injuring over 900. There was no sign of a natural disaster, terrorist act, or a wrecking ball in sight. Yet one minute the department store was bustling with diners and shoppers and the next, all five floors were a heap of rubble. It is considered the worst structural collapse of a building in modern history.
delphi_ote 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 15th March 2006, 07:59 PM   #153
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Kevin Ryan formerly of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this.
Ahem.

Also, according to the UL company spokesman:
Quote:
UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center.
delphi_ote 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 15th March 2006, 08:12 PM   #154
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Kevin Ryan of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this. Read his letter to NIST:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41112144051451
Somehow, he doesn't seem to have noticed that a good number of the support columns were knocked out by a 140 ton battering ram hitting them at 450 mph...

Originally Posted by Alek
What is that supposed to show?

Originally Posted by Alek
So you're on record as saying that kerosene fires can bring down modern steel structures, right? Does anyone else on this forum want to back him up? You might want to start of by naming one example of this happening in history. It hadn't happend, prior to 9/11. This is even admitted in the mainstream NOVA documentary "Why the towers fell". I can render an mpeg of this if you want.
Did you also forget about the 140 ton plane hitting the building at 450 mpf, taking out numerous supports?

Originally Posted by Alek
You might want to explain how the Madrid fire burned uncontrollably for days, yet the structure didn't collapse.
Gladly.
Quote:
The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.
Oops! That building used concrete as it's primary support. And what happened to the steel it did contain?
Quote:
The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.
That's gotta hurt, don't it Alek?

Originally Posted by Alek
Speaking of the dust cloud, does gravity help produce enough energy to completely pulverize concrete?
Yes.
Quote:

Hence it is theoretically possible for
the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to
particles well within the observed particle size range.


Originally Posted by Alek
What about the squibs seen many many floors below in videos of the towers collapsing?
Seen where?

Originally Posted by Alek
BTW, this thread is called Loose Change. Have you even watched Loose Change version 2, the movie this thread is based on?
Yes, I have. I even tolerated the horrible soundtrack beating incessantly through the whole movie. It's complete rubbish.
__________________
Vive la liberté!

Last edited by WildCat; 15th March 2006 at 08:24 PM.
WildCat 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 15th March 2006, 08:15 PM   #155
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,252
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
Kevin Ryan of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this. Read his letter to NIST:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41112144051451
Kevin Ryan works at the UL department that examines water. His comments will not impress me at all. It is a straightforward fact that steel weakens with heat.

Quote:
Or what? You'll sic Homeland Security on me?

Here are the firefighter's tapes:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Here are the excerpts:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/fir...e-excerpts.htm

If you search the net, you can find indexed versions of the audio, but I'm not your monkey.
This is bull. Nothing on any of those excerpts indicates that the fires were under control. A few say they personally are not having problems with fire and smoke where they are. The fact that the building was showing visible flames until the collapse means that 'under control' is not what you think it is.

Quote:
So you're on record as saying that kerosene fires can bring down modern steel structures, right? Does anyone else on this forum want to back him up? You might want to start of by naming one example of this happening in history. It hadn't happend, prior to 9/11.
Yes it did. The Ronan point apartment building, for example, had a partial collapse from fire. Its structure had the advantage in not making a total collapse. This was due to design differences from the WTC. There are other examples, but none as large as the WTC. of course, few of them had a plane full of fuel fly into them.

Quote:
This is even admitted in the mainstream NOVA documentary "Why the towers fell". I can render an mpeg of this if you want. You might want to explain how the Madrid fire burned uncontrollably for days, yet the structure didn't collapse.
1) Not the same kind of structure as the WTC. Nor was the fire of the same type.

2) It did collapse. The steel columns from the 17th floor did fail, leaving only the concrete structure. The WTC did not have such a feature.

Quote:
Speaking of the dust cloud, does gravity help produce enough energy to completely pulverize concrete?
Yes.

Quote:
What about the squibs seen many many floors below in videos of the towers collapsing?
Squibs can be caused by many things, these squibs are likely air & debris being ejected from pancaking floors. Real eplxosives squibs are much more obvious.

Quote:
BTW, this thread is called Loose Change. Have you even watched Loose Change version 2, the movie this thread is based on? All of this evidence is presented there, and there is more that isn't covered in the film.
So, you are saying that you have twice as much crap as befire.

Quote:
I realize this isn't as much fun as debunking ghost stories and establishing why the psychic friends network is a fraud, but please, for the sake of truth and our country, at least try to be slightly more objective and open minded? I'm not here to agitate, I'm here to raise awareness, and perhaps learn something.
No, you are determined to beleive in a conspiracy theory with minimal evidence. My mind is open, but you are trying to shovel garbage into it. Meanwhile, yours is so open it fell out onto the floor.

Your magic video isn't going to save you.
__________________
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 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 15th March 2006, 08:21 PM   #156
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by hellaeon View Post
alek,

Tell us what is REALLY the key to what made you go 'this is a cover up'
The idea that WTC7 collapsed in a symmetric free fall, coupled with the fact that it was an unprecedented failure of structural engineering was the key for me. When I say unprecedented, I mean, it had *never* before happend in history. Please, prove me wrong. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that so-called "skeptics" like yourselves can so quickly deny the fact that the building was a controlled demolition, after looking at the video evidence (which I presume at least some of you are objective enough to do, although I'm really not so sure). Practically everyone here has already put more effort into covering up that fact then FEMA/NIST did in the 9/11 report.

Quote:

some of the stuff on the most popular websites is half produced facts and the like about what happened. They make many claims but refuse to show the complete sides of the story as it does not fit. They will show something, take it out of context and then when the source of that info steps forward, 'the government got to them'
I already admitted there is a lot of disinformation and lies out there, and your generalization is applicable to the official report. "negative association" is an established propaganda technique. Because someone associates aliens with controlled demolition theories doesn't mean the demolition theories are any less valid. Nor can the monolith that is the mainstream media validate the official story by reducto ad nauseum.

Quote:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/1227842.html
Read that, then argue with the evidence they produce? please, I bet you wont. If you can believe anything written on the nutter sites, why do you refuse to believe whats on one such as this? is it because its just too simple/cold/boring/uneventful? Not movie like enough? Not enough x files?

Alek, is it that hard to accept evidence from 100's of experts in engineering and physics over a few wild misquotes and half truths?

I know where ill put my trust.

I've already read it. The PopSci "debunking" was written by Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security. How objective do you think it really is? It's full of propaganda, disinformation, and fallacy, designed to discredit critics of the official story. I'll be happy to read it again and respond item by item, if you're sincerely interested. I will point out the techniques they use, and the bias.

Scientific American had a similar article featuring skeptic Michael Shermer (perhaps some of you have heard of him?). The article features among other things, misquotation, strawman, reverse strawman, and bracketing in the techniques it uses to discredit. Again, this is not to say that much of the information out there isn't worthless, it's to point out how the entire debate is squelched among the narrow-minded because of these psychological tactics.

Like I said before in another post, you people need to overcome the emotional barrier which prevents you from considering possibilities which are highly disturbing, and which would force you to reconsider your entire worldview. Only then can you view the evidence objectively.

We live in a world where the pentagon has an "Office of Strategic Influence", and where "perception management" (propaganda) is commercialized.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/1...gic.influence/

http://scl.cc/home.php

Wake up.

Last edited by Alek; 15th March 2006 at 08:26 PM.
Alek 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 15th March 2006, 08:28 PM   #157
Alek
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by delphi_ote View Post
In other words, you don't understand the physics involved at even the most basic level. You literally don't know what you're talking about.
And you do, hence the search for links to convince your roommate.
Alek 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 15th March 2006, 08:32 PM   #158
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
You really want to see math, check out this report!
Which concludes:
[/left]
[/size][/font]

The addendum to the above report uses seismic data to calculate the time of the collapses as:
WTC 1 - 13.48 sec.
WTC 2 - 12.07 sec.
That report is great! So many of my quick calculations are close to what they got. I underestimated the energy calculation by about an order of magnitude (I significantly underestimated the weight and I didn't have it falling nearly the same distance. I also wrote MJ when I meant GJ, but that's another story.) That means we're talking about more energy than a ton of TNT!

Especially interesting is this:
Quote:
a relatively small fraction of the available energy, (6.7 % for WTC 1 and 3.3 % for WTC 2), is converted to heat by the first impact of the upper blocks of floors. Because the fractional conversion of energy to heat is even smaller for subsequent impacts, most of the kinetic energy of collapse is conserved from one floor impact to the next. Thus a rapid self-sustaining total collapse of the towers is an inevitable consequence of first order momentum transfer theory.
Thanks, WildCat. That paper just kills the "free-fall" nonsense. I actually grabbed video of the towers falling. This is the first time in 4.5 years I've watched the towers fall willingly. I usually get angry even if I see this video on T.V. It's such a cheap attention grabber. Nothing gets me upset faster than people disrespecting what happened that day.

But seeing the physics in action is humbling. It's nice to finally see something beautiful in all that destruction and death.

Last edited by delphi_ote; 15th March 2006 at 08:37 PM.
delphi_ote 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 15th March 2006, 08:36 PM   #159
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,252
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
The idea that WTC7 collapsed in a symmetric free fall, coupled with the fact that it was an unprecedented failure of structural engineering was the key for me. When I say unprecedented, I mean, it had *never* before happend in history. Please, prove me wrong.
Sampoong. Gone.

Quote:
Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that so-called "skeptics" like yourselves can so quickly deny the fact that the building was a controlled demolition,
after looking at the video evidence (which I presume at least some of you are objective enough to do, although I'm really not so sure). Practically everyone here has already put more effort into covering up that fact then FEMA/NIST did in the 9/11 report.
Sorry bub, but what you have is zilch, nada, zip, nothing. You have a building that falls quickly (after being pounded with debris and being on fire for 7 hours) and nothing else. There is no evidence of explosives being used (they tend to make noise) nor thermite (which requires a lot of thermite). In the end, you have nothing but your own desire for a conspiracy.

Quote:
I've already read it. The PopSci "debunking" was written by Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security.
Poison the well much?

Quote:
How objective do you think it really is? It's full of propaganda, disinformation, and fallacy, designed to discredit critics of the official story. I'll be happy to read it again and respond item by item, if you're sincerely interested. I will point out the techniques they use, and the bias.
Claiming to be able to do that is a far cry from being able to do it, especially given your pathetic track record so far.

Quote:
Scientific American had a similar article featuring skeptic Michael Shermer (perhaps some of you have heard of him?). The article features among other things, misquotation, strawman, reverse strawman, and bracketing in the techniques it uses to discredit. Again, this is not to say that much of the information out there isn't worthless, it's to point out how the entire debate is squelched among the narrow-minded because of these psychological tactics.
Again, more complaints without substance.

Quote:
Like I said before in another post, you people need to overcome the emotional barrier which prevents you from considering possibilities which are highly disturbing, and which would force you to reconsider your entire worldview. Only then can you view the evidence objectively.
Horsefeathers. We look at the facts, the evidence, and we find it wanting, badly. This is such a pile of junk the 9/11 CT'ers have culled together that it is just plain sad. the only reason anyone falls for this junk is an inherent need to beleive in conspiracy theories.
__________________
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 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 15th March 2006, 08:36 PM   #160
delphi_ote
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,994
Originally Posted by Alek View Post
And you do, hence the search for links to convince your roommate.
Exactly. I understand momentum, force, gravitation, mass, velocity, kenetic energy, calculus, and algebra. I can write equations and work them out. I can estimate roughly how each hypothesis would play out (especially when they show their math.)

My room mate can't. He's a realtor.
delphi_ote 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 04:42 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.