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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th July 2011, 05:03 AM   #121
slojoe
Scholar
 
slojoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
I saw a magazine once wherein several young women were photographed pouring wine onto themselves and I was most pleased.
Of course you were. it wasn't your wine.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson
slojoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 05:11 AM   #122
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
While we're at it, what the #@$(* does "crush-up" mean?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 05:22 AM   #123
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
You do realize that this comment is self-contradictory, don't you?

Al-Qeada only targeted towers 1 and 2. Seven fell precisely because the north tower did not fall into or onto its own footprint.

By acknowledging the collapse of building 7, you are implicitly conceding the footprint claim is false.
This always puzzles me. How can you say 1 and 2 fell into their own footprint when one of them is what set 7 on fire? Were the conspirators just hoping it would fall on 7 in a way that wouldn't disrupt their explosives, yet still set the building on fire, and give them an excuse?
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 05:49 AM   #124
Mikey T
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
This always puzzles me. How can you say 1 and 2 fell into their own footprint when one of them is what set 7 on fire? Were the conspirators just hoping it would fall on 7 in a way that wouldn't disrupt their explosives, yet still set the building on fire, and give them an excuse?

Let's just consider for a moment that if building 7 were prestine after the collapse of WTC 1 and did not receive any major damage. The FDNY would have more than likely continued their triage unit there like they had earlier in the day, the emergency bunker would have been utilized by Rudy, and the numerous agencies such as the FBI and CIA would have reentered the building to set up their various command posts.

Suddenly, without warning, it collapses at 5:20 PM from a CD which killed the hunderds that would have entered to building to take advantage of the shelter and command posts.

Good thing the evil planners were correct in their preplanning that the tower collapses would cause major structural damage to building 7 and cause many fires to erupt throughout the building. They are masters in the craft of evil doing that's for sure.

Chris7 would maintain, since he hasn't ruled out arson as a possiblity, there would have been a back up plan by the evil doers to set fires in building 7, which would have been their cover story for the CD1. The evil doers once again caught an enormous break that WTC 1 decided to fall in it's own footprint....oh, wait...I get confused.
Mikey T is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:29 AM   #125
slojoe
Scholar
 
slojoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
I'm not sure I care about the difference between into and onto that's been getting thrown around.... I thought it was pointless when it started, and I haven't the faintest idea why ergo suddenly wants to make it an issue now by himself, other than to add to his roster another opportunity to refer to his critics as "beedunkers." Exactly what calling everyone one of these is supposed to accomplish as an insult exactly, is a mystery...
Other than divert attention away from the abundant evidence that the WTC collapses were nothing like building implosions, and that the Truther argument to the contrary is loaded with obvious balderdash, I can't see any point.

Of course, that probably is the point, the idea being that if you keep the "debate" going long enough via pettifoggery, those not paying close attention will assign your position some credibility, simply from longevity.

As for Ergo's dyslexia, perhaps such things impress Truthers. Consider what they already subscribe to.
__________________
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." - Thomas Jefferson
slojoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:30 AM   #126
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 27,330
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post


FEMA : The WTC7 tower debris field averaged 75 feet from the original building footprint.

Does the rectangular pillow shaped mound at the center left contradict the FEMA statement of a small neat debris field averaging 75 feet ? No It does Not !

In which, Fonebone switches from 75' greater than the original footprint to a plain "75 feet" and that (in any case) 75' is over half the depth of the building. And in which Fonebone neglects the fact that the average would have been boosted had debris not smacked into neighbouring buildings:



__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut

Last edited by GlennB; 18th July 2011 at 06:34 AM.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:36 AM   #127
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
The thing about the word "bedunkers" is silly because I can't even read it as he intends. You've seen the paragraph were every single word is misspelled, yet you can read it without problem? Same thing. I still see debunkers when he writes it.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 09:10 AM   #128
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Mikey T View Post
Chris7 would maintain, since he hasn't ruled out arson as a possiblity, there would have been a back up plan by the evil doers to set fires in building 7, which would have been their cover story for the CD1. The evil doers once again caught an enormous break that WTC 1 decided to fall in it's own footprint....oh, wait...I get confused.
No, no, he'd just dismiss it as "irrelevant", despite it arising directly from his assertions. Like his strange inability to say how much water was available to fight the WTC 7 fires, and how much was enough, despite claiming that the former was =/> the latter.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 11:26 AM   #129
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 6,598
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
Would you rather be disciplined with a rod into or onto your butt?
QFT
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 12:22 PM   #130
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
Seven fell precisely because the north tower did not fall into or onto its own footprint.
I am enjoying the bedunker discussion here. It's clear that you folks need to come to some kind of agreement regarding "into vs. onto".

So Sword of Truth does not agree with Professor Bazant, who stated that
Originally Posted by Bazant
it is no surprise at all that the towers collapsed essentially on their footprint. Gravity alone must have caused just that.
Who else doesn't?

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
By acknowledging the collapse of building 7, you are implicitly conceding the footprint claim is false.
The footprint claim is that the building fell straight down onto or over their footprints. Imo, "into" is close enough, since it makes little difference in the end result. It's also an expression people recognize, since it's used in the industry.

However, large volumes of debris from WTC 1 and 2 were ejected both upwardly and laterally throughout the destruction of the building, uncharacteristic both of industry standard controlled demolition and of natural collapse. But it needs to be pointed out that industry standard controlled demolition also does not destroy buildings from the top down.

Bedunkers want to claim that the truth argument is that a controlled demolition company was contracted to take down the buildings using industry standard controlled demolition techniques. This is not the claim. The claim is simply that the destruction of all three buildings most closely resembles controlled demolition, and does not even remotely resemble collapse by fire. For reasons which we spend every day outlining to you folks.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 18th July 2011 at 12:27 PM.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 12:40 PM   #131
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
WTC, not a controlled demolition

what do you suppose is propelling these large sections of the tower straight down Outside the buildings footprint and not laterally Ergo? Rockets?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 12:48 PM   #132
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
You'd wonder, wouldn't you?

So you also disagree with Professor Bazant? Who else does?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 12:49 PM   #133
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I am enjoying the bedunker discussion here. It's clear that you folks need to come to some kind of agreement regarding "into vs. onto".

So Sword of Truth does not agree with Professor Bazant, who stated that Who else doesn't?



The footprint claim is that the building fell straight down onto or over their footprints. Imo, "into" is close enough, since it makes little difference in the end result. It's also an expression people recognize, since it's used in the industry.

However, large volumes of debris from WTC 1 and 2 were ejected both upwardly and laterally throughout the destruction of the building, uncharacteristic both of industry standard controlled demolition and of natural collapse. But it needs to be pointed out that industry standard controlled demolition also does not destroy buildings from the top down.

Bedunkers want to claim that the truth argument is that a controlled demolition company was contracted to take down the buildings using industry standard controlled demolition techniques. This is not the claim. The claim is simply that the destruction of all three buildings most closely resembles controlled demolition, and does not even remotely resemble collapse by fire. For reasons which we spend every day outlining to you folks.
What are you... 12?
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 12:50 PM   #134
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
I found your problem ergo. (well, at least one of the many)

You're not understanding these two simple words.

"essentially on "

Do you need help with the definition?
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 12:51 PM   #135
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
What are you... 12?
Is that the best you can do?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 12:53 PM   #136
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Is that number too high?
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 01:05 PM   #137
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Sword of Truth, you've stated your disagreement with Dr. Bazant's assessment. That's fine. I'm merely asking who else disagrees along with you. No need to resort to childish taunts.

Unless, of course, you're 12.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 01:16 PM   #138
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Ergo - yesterday I taught Sunday school to a class of 11 and 12 year old boys. During the class, I found myself having to explain to them that if they were going to re-pourpose the words "hakuna matata" as a euphemism for a body part or biological function, then they would be prohibited from saying "hakuna matata" in church.

I say this to you so that you understand what I mean when I say that your semantic mexican hat dance around the words "into" and "onto" in a pathetic attempt to conceal the lack of evidence for your claims and to continue your callous disasterbation over the graves of 2,600 innocent people is the most childish thing I've seen all week.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 01:22 PM   #139
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
The opinion of someone who responds to a summary of his arguments written in the plainest language possible with

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
What are you... 12?
doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

If you have nothing intelligent to say, please desist from posting here. Thanks.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 01:24 PM   #140
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Well ergo, your mission here is complete. I'm sure no one will ever taunt you for your inability to distinguish the word "into" from the word "onto".

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go get some food on me.

uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 01:27 PM   #141
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go get some food on me.

Will there be scantily clad young women present?
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 01:37 PM   #142
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
Will there be scantily clad young women present?
One can hope.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 01:40 PM   #143
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
ejected both upwardly
Um...

up?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 02:03 PM   #144
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I am enjoying the bedunker discussion here. It's clear that you folks need to come to some kind of agreement regarding "into vs. onto".
Appeal to impossible perfection. You're pretending that people giving slightly different versions of the same facts is evidence of some sort of lack of consensus, and that such a consensus is actually necessary. The funny thing is, "the debunkers" do agree that your definition of the word is wrong.

Quote:
So Sword of Truth does not agree with Professor Bazant, who stated that Who else doesn't?
Stop that. This is a common tactic of yours, to try and get multiple opinions, and then act like the lack of consensus you perceive proves something. It's useless, because even when there is a unified opinion, you can't argue honestly against it. You can only argue against your big, unwieldy strawmen generalizations of debunkers' claims, not the actual arguments individual people are making. Hence the need for a large sample size.

Quote:
The footprint claim is that the building fell straight down onto or over their footprints. Imo, "into" is close enough, since it makes little difference in the end result.
In other words, this entire thread is just your pseudointellectual masturbation, intended to validate your ego about something you think you're right about. Since the driving question is clearly rhetorical, it might be a good idea for the mods to lock the thread.

Quote:
It's also an expression people recognize, since it's used in the industry.
Source?

Quote:
However, large volumes of debris from WTC 1 and 2 were ejected both upwardly and laterally throughout the destruction of the building,
Source?

Quote:
uncharacteristic both of industry standard controlled demolition and of natural collapse. But it needs to be pointed out that industry standard controlled demolition also does not destroy buildings from the top down.
Are you citing as evidence of controlled demolition features that are uncommon to controlled demolitions? That's certainly...novel.

Quote:
Bedunkers want to claim that the truth argument is that a controlled demolition company was contracted to take down the buildings using industry standard controlled demolition techniques. This is not the claim.
You're right, it's not. The standard Truther claim WRT CD is that the government somehow planted (silent) explosives (without a wave of pressure to cause barotrauma but nonetheless strong enough to break steel) and/or thermite (or thermate, or top-secret nanothermite) in WTC 1, 2, and 7, three heavily-trafficked office buildings with over a half-million people passing through each day. I'm not sure what of straw man you're erect--I mean, building.

Quote:
The claim is simply that the destruction of all three buildings most closely resembles controlled demolition, and does not even remotely resemble collapse by fire.
Followed by the claim that it was CD, not fire (or plane/debris impacts, the two are almost invoked seperately) which bought down the buildings. Strange that you were claiming that part of the collapses didn't look like CD, and now that the collapses overall did looked like a CD. I'm not making a composition/division fallacy, just pointing out this odd fact.

Quote:
For reasons which we spend every day outlining to you folks.
Who's this "we"? This thread is about educating you. Says so in the title.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You'd wonder, wouldn't you?
So you don't know. Thanks.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 03:45 PM   #145
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sword of Truth, you've stated your disagreement with Dr. Bazant's assessment. That's fine. I'm merely asking who else disagrees along with you. No need to resort to childish taunts.
It doesn't matter who else disagrees. Address the arguments on their own merits, not how many people or which agree or disagree.

Also, you're strawmanning disagreement with a portion of the paper into disagreement with the overall paper itself. Composition fallacy. Several debunkers have admitted that femr2's analysis of certain collapses differs from NISTs, but not enough to actually invalidate the conclusion of NISTs report. If one dirty cop gets arrested, that doesn't mean the entire police force is corrupt.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The opinion of someone who responds to a summary of his arguments written in the plainest language possible with

doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.
Says the man who needs a full thesis statement before he's willing to accept a two-digit number.

I can't remember if this is before or after I presented three links, and you said you looked at two which didn't have the number in question and didn't bother with the third. Given that the information was clearly visible in the first link, I asked why you had counter-intuitively started with the second and third, and you never replied.

Quote:
If you have nothing intelligent to say, please desist from posting here. Thanks.
All you did was insult Storm, not actually offer any facts. It's not a childish taunt, but it's an insult nonetheless.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 04:03 PM   #146
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...
So Sword of Truth does not agree with Professor Bazant, who stated that Who else doesn't?
Dr. Bazant used the word "on", because it is the correct word here. He did not use the word "into", because that would have been incorrect here. Several posters have given you other examples that highlight how the meaning of a statement changes significantly when you substiture "into" for "on": A rod that goes "on" your rectum is significantly different from one that goes "into" your rectum. I might as well give you an example that is much closer in analogy to what Bazant was talking about: When the barkeeper pours a pint of beer, his customer can justly expect him to pour it "into" the glass. There would be marked dissatisfaction if he merely poured it "essentially on the glass", with 5% missing the glass entirely, and 50% or 90% of the rest spilling out of the glass because it is poured so violently. The latter is exactly what Bazant describes for the twin towers: 5% misses the footprint outright, and much of the rest spills outside of the footprint after it fell on it.
As I have shown, demolition experts only speak of an implosion "into" the footprint when indeed it falls into the footprint, with only insignificant amounts missing the footprint or spilling outside of it: When a building falls into its footprint, adjacent roads stay clean and can be used within an hour, and neighbouring buildings are totally unscathed. Contrast that to the cluttering of all streets around all towers for weeks with hundreds of tons of debris, and the billions of dollars and damages and destruction to more than a dozend neighbouring buildings, and the difference between "into" and "on" could not be more extreme.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The footprint claim is that the building fell straight down onto or over their footprints. Imo, "into" is close enough, since it makes little difference in the end result.
Bollocks. The difference is about 10 neighbouring buildings completely destroyed and about 10 others sustaining damages running into the billions, vs. neighbouring buldings escaping with zero damage
The difference is a major train station and emergency water supply completely destroyed plus at least 7 roads cluttered and unusable for weeks, vs. all adjacent infrastructure usable within the hour.
The difference is EXTREME.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It's also an expression people recognize, since it's used in the industry.
You have yet to show one example of anyone in the industry using the expression "into the footprint" when a demolition resulted in total destruction of neighbouring property and roads rendered unusable for weeks.

I on the other hand already showed you in post 100 that this expression is reserved to events whose effects differ in the mostz extreme way from what happened on 9/11, and that industry experts expressly and verbosely refute that any of the towers fell "into" their footprints. I quote industry experts: "They did not". No qualification. They just did not, and your claim is asinine in the extreme, and totally unsupported.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
However, large volumes of debris from WTC 1 and 2 were ejected both upwardly and laterally throughout the destruction of the building, uncharacteristic both of industry standard controlled demolition and of natural collapse. But it needs to be pointed out that industry standard controlled demolition also does not destroy buildings from the top down.
Yes, these ejections - where did they go? On the footprint? Into the footprint? No! Neither!

But thanks for debunking the standard truther meme that the collapses "looked like CD" - they very clearly did not.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Bedunkers want to claim that the truth argument is that a controlled demolition company was contracted to take down the buildings using industry standard controlled demolition techniques. This is not the claim. The claim is simply that the destruction of all three buildings most closely resembles controlled demolition, and does not even remotely resemble collapse by fire. For reasons which we spend every day outlining to you folks.
You moved a goal post there. Put it back.

Last edited by Oystein; 18th July 2011 at 04:05 PM. Reason: fixed QUOTE tag, spelling
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 04:48 PM   #147
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Dr. Bazant used the word "on", because it is the correct word here.... The latter is exactly what Bazant describes for the twin towers: 5% misses the footprint outright, and much of the rest spills outside of the footprint after it fell on it.
Nor is any of this in dispute, as my original referring thread will show you.

(Well, except for this new "5%" figure that you've just pulled out of somewhere...)

Quote:
You have yet to show one example of anyone in the industry using the expression "into the footprint" when a demolition resulted in total destruction of neighbouring property and roads rendered unusable for weeks.

Nor would I attempt to, since this isn't any kind of claim I'm making.

Quote:
Yes, these ejections - where did they go? On the footprint? Into the footprint? No! Neither!

But thanks for debunking the standard truther meme that the collapses "looked like CD" - they very clearly did not.
Sigh, again. They do not look like any CD we know. That may be because CDs are not typically conducted from the top of a building downward. Nor do they look like any natural building collapses we've ever seen. If they did, there would be no controversy.

They look like they were taken down in a controlled, or semi-controlled manner. That is the main point you need to take from this.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 04:56 PM   #148
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Ergo, your conspiracy belief (if it is, indeed a sincere belief and not a tool for trolling) is wrong. Accept that and move on.
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 05:23 PM   #149
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sigh, again. They do not look like any CD we know. That may be because CDs are not typically conducted from the top of a building downward.
They did not look like a CD, but they must have been a CD because they look like a CD.

Got it, thanks.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 05:34 PM   #150
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Nor is any of this in dispute, as my original referring thread will show you.

(Well, except for this new "5%" figure that you've just pulled out of somewhere...)
Taken from the Bazant-paper you linked to in your OP. Page 903:
Originally Posted by BLGB
The mass shedding fraction kout is, of course, quite uncertain and doubtless depends on z, which is neglected. The realistic range of possible kout values extends at most from 0.05 to 0.5. Within that range, the effect of varying kout is not discernible in the video (remaining within the error bars shown), and small on the collapse time (which differs up to 0.45 s). For koutE[0.1, 0.3], the match of both the video and seismic records is excellent.
This means, that, according to BLGB, at least 5% of the towers' mass fell outside of the footprint, with a range between 10% and 30% being their best guess.

Besides, it is obvious that a significant percentage of the mass must have fallen outside of the footprints - witness the peeling of long slabs of perimeter wall from the twin towers, or the WTC7 wall structure that fell onto Fiterman Hall and pierced into the Verizon building at a height above pile height.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Nor would I attempt to, since this isn't any kind of claim I'm making.
Yes, that lie makes eyes pop.
You said:
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...
The footprint claim is that the building fell straight down onto or over their footprints. Imo, "into" is close enough, since it makes little difference in the end result. It's also an expression people recognize, since it's used in the industry.
...
In essence, you are saying:
- building fell straight down onto or over their footprints
- this is essentially the same as saying "buildings fell into their footprints"
- I, ergo, use the expression "into the footprint" the way experts of the demolition industry do
- there is little difference between buildings falling "on" their footprints and buildings falling "into" their footprints

Your claim is thus: The three towers fell into their footprints, in accordance with the way the demolition industry uses that term.

How and when is this expression used in the industry?
Well, I showed you the results of my search of all occurences at implosionworld.com of somebody describing an implosion as going "into the footprint":
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...only 2 of these are reports of building collapses described as actually going "into" their own "footprints":
  1. Fargo Packing Complex in Buffalo, NY
  2. St. Fabian's Tower in London, England
The 1. report is only a brief mention that describes no peculiar circumstances or preparations, but the text...
Originally Posted by implosionworld.com
The structure collapsed gently into its own footprint, and all nearby roadways were re-opened to traffic within the hour.
...highlights a huge, a major difference to what happened at the World Trade Center: When a building is said to fall into its footprint, no debris clutters or damages the roads around the property.
...
The 2. above link describes how this confinement to the footprint was achieved:
Originally Posted by implosionworld.com
To address concerns that the tower's large concrete tiles could break free and "sail off" during collapse, the entire structure was shrouded in heavy gauge geotextile fabric, which led to the project being dubbed "the big black condom" by local residents.
And the result of this is:
Originally Posted by implosionworld.com
the high-rise directly into its own footprint, and shortly thereafter community officials breathed a sigh of relief to find the Paradox Centre and all other buildings completely unscathed as promised.
...
It is clear that the industry uses that expression "into the footprint" when, and only when, the debris ends up so entirely and tightly confined to the actual building footprint that even roads and adjacent buildings that are unusually close to the demolished building excape without any damage at all.

We both agree that Bazant's description of the towers collapsing essentially on their footprints is appropriate. (It is, because Bazant is so much more interested with the physics of the bulk of the collapse itself, and less so with what happens to the rubble after all the structure has turned to rubble, and he also is not interested in the fate of the 10%-30% of the mass that do fall outside the footprint outright.

I hope we also agree both that, when the three WTC towers fell, all of them destroyed buildings across the roads, cluttered said roads, and destroyed lots of infrastructure, rendering all of these unusable for weeks to months and even years. Do we agree on this, ergo?

I also hope that we both agree that the previous description of where large amounts of the debris ended up has nothing at all in common with what is aimed for and achieved when industry experts use the term "into the footprint" in the examples I googled at implosionworld.com. Do we agree on this, ergo?

My assertion thus still stands:
Your claim is : The three towers fell into their footprints, in accordance with the way the demolition industry uses that term.
This claim is utterly, completely wrong.


You'd need to show us that the industry has ever employed the term in a situation that was not defined by minimal problems with debris on roads and buildings very close to the imploded building to refute my assertion and instead was defined by debris destroying neighbouring buildings and blocking roads for a long time.





Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sigh, again. They do not look like any CD we know.
This is off-topic to this thread, but I again thank you for debunking a standard truther talking point so lucidly.
Although you follow up with a strangely illogical conclusion:
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
They look like they were taken down in a controlled, or semi-controlled manner.
How can you know it looks like that, when you first said it looks like nothing we know?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:06 PM   #151
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
Would you rather be disciplined with a rod into or onto your butt?
How big is his buttprint?
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:09 PM   #152
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Well ergo, your mission here is complete. I'm sure no one will ever taunt you for your inability to distinguish the word "into" from the word "onto".

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go get some food on me.

Make sure you cook the food on the microwave/oven.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:10 PM   #153
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Taken from the Bazant-paper you linked to in your OP. Page 903:

This means, that, according to BLGB, at least 5% of the towers' mass fell outside of the footprint, with a range between 10% and 30% being their best guess.
So you decided to use the lowest figure you could squeeze out of that -- a figure below their best guess... I see.


Quote:
Your claim is thus: The three towers fell into their footprints, in accordance with the way the demolition industry uses that term.
Nope. And I've already explained this. Since the rest of your post merely builds on this non-existent argument you keep trying to flog, I'll let you flog away on your own...
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:13 PM   #154
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sigh, again. They do not look like any CD we know. That may be because CDs are not typically conducted from the top of a building downward.
They did not look like a CD, but they must have been a CD because they look like a CD.

Got it, thanks.

Psst... hey, SoT: into vs. onto.... figured it out yet??
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:27 PM   #155
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sigh, again. They do not look like any CD we know.
Then why are truthers screaming, "it looks like CD!"

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
They look like they were taken down in a controlled, or semi-controlled manner. That is the main point you need to take from this.
So controlled that large parts of the building damaged other buildings?

The "controlled" part of the truther conspiracy has always made me laugh - there was nothing controlled given the widely accepted definition of "controlled demolition". Say that the building was blown up by all means, but don't equate that to any control, because the word control within the definition doesn't apply.

Please Ergo - show us all how control relates to demolition in this sense.

P.S. No "remote" doesn't cover it. lol.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:40 PM   #156
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...
If you have nothing intelligent to say, please desist from posting here. Thanks.
Blast it, ergo. You owe me a new Irony Meter!
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:42 PM   #157
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
They did not look like a CD, but they must have been a CD because they look like a CD.

Got it, thanks.
Um...disinformation!

Ergo, you failed to address my post where I called you out on your lack of sourcing and straw men. For a guy who keeps asking his opposition to discuss their apparent differences among themselves, you sure seem keen to cherry pick the multiple replies to your posts...

Hey, wait a minute! I just got it! You ask for the opinions of other debunkers from the ones who actually respond to you with strong points so you can respond to the ones you think you can handle and ignore the ones you don't! It all makes sense now!

Last edited by 000063; 18th July 2011 at 06:51 PM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:54 PM   #158
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
So you decided to use the lowest figure you could squeeze out of that -- a figure below their best guess... I see.
Because our hypothetical barfly would be so much more pleased by losing 10 to 30% of his drink than just 5%.

The point is, even the minimum guess is substantial. Using the higher numbers actually makes your case worse and Oystein's stronger.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2011, 06:57 PM   #159
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 14,213
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Psst... hey, SoT: into vs. onto.... figured it out yet??
It's you who can't figure it out, ergo. Try to keep up.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2011, 01:39 AM   #160
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
So you decided to use the lowest figure you could squeeze out of that -- a figure below their best guess... I see.
There isn't a FAIL too big for you to try, is there? Yes, I decided to use the lowest figure, as it comes closest to YOUR stance, that the building material fell "into" the footprint at least before spilling sideways. 5% shed rate means 95% stayed inside the footprint until hitting the ground. Any higher choice of shed rate removes you even further from any notion of "into" footprint, and also takes away from the "onto" footprint idea. (Of course, Bazant's wording isn't wrong: Yes, one could say "that the towers collapsed essentially on their footprint", if one talks about the moronic idea that the towers ought to have toppled like trees, which is the context of the phrase you are debating here, ergo. There is no contradiction: Saying "the towers collapsed essentially on their footprint" is well in line with a scenario where 70-95% fell properly on the footprint before possibly spilling, with the remaining 5-30% landing outside of the footprint on all sides, when one has diligently contrasted this with a scenario where an absolute majority of the material would fall outside the footprint on one side.)

However, you have variously insisted that all three towers did fall into their footprints, without qualifying this, or referring to an alternative hypothetical scenario like Bazant did.


Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Your claim is : The three towers fell into their footprints, in accordance with the way the demolition industry uses that term.
Nope. And I've already explained this. Since the rest of your post merely builds on this non-existent argument you keep trying to flog, I'll let you flog away on your own...
Your lie is so transparent.
May I quote you again?
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...
[1] The footprint claim is that the building fell straight down onto or over their footprints. []2 Imo, "into" is close enough, since it makes little difference in the end result. [3] It's also an expression people recognize, since it's used in the industry...
Proposition [1] expresses that "onto the footprint" is what you claim. Right? In context, this taken from the Bazant paper, where the authors explain how the part of the building mass that was NOT shed during collapse propagation moved (essentially straight down).
Proposition [2] expresses your conviction that Bazant's "on", or your "onto", is in no significant way different from a proposition that uses the expression "into the footprint"
Proposition [3] explains that the expression "into the footprint" is one used by the demolition industry to describe the debris distribution resulting from certain implosions, and that your usage of such can be interpreted as having the same meaning it has when the expression is used by experts of said industry.

In conjunction, the quoted paragraph expresses the claim that the debris distribution of the WTC towers as described by Bazant differs in no significant way from the debris distribution that result from implosions descibed by industry experts as "into the footprint".

This claim, as shown already, is as false as could possibly be: The results of the collapse that Bazant describes are well known: Many buildings destroyed, many roads blocked for long durations, damages in the billions. The results of implosions into building footprint, as the expression is used by the implosion industry, are also well established: Absolutely zero damage to other buildings, not more than dust and dirt on roads, which reopen less than an hour later.



You failed to answer a few questions ergo. I must ask them again:

I hope we also agree both that, when the three WTC towers fell, all of them destroyed buildings across the roads, cluttered said roads, and destroyed lots of infrastructure, rendering all of these unusable for weeks to months and even years. Do we agree on this, ergo?

I also hope that we both agree that the previous description of where large amounts of the debris ended up has nothing at all in common with what is aimed for and achieved when industry experts use the term "into the footprint" in the examples I googled at implosionworld.com. Do we agree on this, ergo?

Last edited by Oystein; 19th July 2011 at 01:45 AM. Reason: spelling and making sense
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.