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 19th July 2011, 06:26 AM   #161
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
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.


Yea, that was really controlled.

Why do you dolts keep insisting that we've never seen buildings collapse this way, and yet you never mention the circumstances? We've also never seen massive aircraft with the gas pedal pinned to the floor slam into 110 story buildings before.
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 19th July 2011, 12:45 PM   #162
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

...........................

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?
If you read my posts you wouldn't need to keep asking this question.
__________________
“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 19th July 2011, 12:50 PM   #163
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
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.
You say this because you believe, or claim to believe, that gravity will demolish a building evenly, rapidly, and from the top down from localized, asymmetrical upper floor damage. If that's your basic premise, everything else you believe from there will be flawed.
__________________
“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 19th July 2011, 01:00 PM   #164
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If you read my posts you wouldn't need to keep asking this question.
If you'd answer those questions, plural, with a simple yes or no--or a thesis statement, if you prefer--Oys wouldn't need to keep asking them.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You say this because you believe, or claim to believe,
You're saying Sunny might be a liar, I'd like to point out, just in a passive-aggressive way.

Quote:
that gravity will demolish a building [hilite]evenly, rapidly,[hilite] and from the top down from localized, asymmetrical upper floor damage. If that's your basic premise, everything else you believe from there will be flawed.
Assuming the highlighted portions are correct, and they aren't, you're omitting planes/debris damage and lots of fire. Heck, I can't recall when I've ever seen you refer to planes/debris and fire, together, as the cause for the collapses. It's almost as if you're incapable of not strawmanning.

Last edited by 000063; 19th July 2011 at 01:02 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 19th July 2011, 01:04 PM   #165
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
You say this because you believe, or claim to believe, that gravity will demolish a building evenly, rapidly, and from the top down from localized, asymmetrical upper floor damage.
I believe that gravity will indeed demolish a building in that manner, when assisted by one of the largest aircraft in the world going as fast as it can, followed by a massive fire consisting of several acres burning for ~ 1 hour.

Can you prove otherwise?
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 19th July 2011, 01:05 PM   #166
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
If you'd answer those questions, plural, with a simple yes or no--or a thesis statement, if you prefer--Oys wouldn't need to keep asking them.
Oystein has a habit of repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered repeatedly. Simply reading the OP of this thread and the referring threads I link to would answer his questions several times over.

Besides, you don't ask the questions here. You answer them.
__________________
“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 19th July 2011, 01:11 PM   #167
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I believe that gravity will indeed demolish a building in that manner, when assisted by one of the largest aircraft in the world going as fast as it can, followed by a massive fire consisting of several acres burning for ~ 1 hour.
The localized, asymmetrical upper floor damage was caused by the planes, so that is already accounted for in my description. It makes no difference whether columns were torn by bombs which then ignited fires, or planes. It was localized upper floor damage mainly on one side of the building, which the building accommodated, as it was designed to 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 19th July 2011, 01:14 PM   #168
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Quote:
It makes no difference whether columns were torn by bombs which then ignited fires, or planes.
HEY!! That's a start.

Quote:
It was localized upper floor damage mainly on one side of the building, which the building accommodated, as it was designed to do.
They did their job - the vast majority of the people in the buildings got out. As far as localized, yea - if you're referring to up and down. Side to side, not so much. Several entire floors were engulfed in flames.
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 19th July 2011, 01:23 PM   #169
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oystein has a habit of repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered repeatedly. Simply reading the OP of this thread and the referring threads I link to would answer his questions several times over.
Then you wouldn't mind answering one more time.

Or, y'know, just providing a direct link to one of the times you answered this question instead of trying to make him dance to your tune by going through your entire posting history.

Quote:
Besides, you don't ask the questions here. You answer them.
Attempting to shift the burden of proof. Like I said, this thread is just ego-masturbation for you.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The localized, asymmetrical upper floor damage was caused by the planes, so that is already accounted for in my description.
No, you said "gravity". I don't think it's reasonable to say "X" alone, yet expect others to interpret it as "X and Y". If it was an honest mistake, and I doubt it was, the fault is yours.

Quote:
It makes no difference whether columns were torn by bombs which then ignited fires, or planes. It was localized upper floor damage mainly on one side of the building, which the building accommodated, as it was designed to do.
Please, tell us how the building was designed to take an impact from a fuel-heavy jumbo jet moving at hundreds of MPH, a jet that wasn't even rolled off the assembly line until after said building was completed. I'd like to hear it. Oh, and to then take an hour or more of multi-story fires. Or anything similar to that kind of damage.

Last edited by 000063; 19th July 2011 at 01:27 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 19th July 2011, 01:32 PM   #170
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oystein has a habit of repeatedly asking questions that have already been answered repeatedly. Simply reading the OP of this thread and the referring threads I link to would answer his questions several times over.

Besides, you don't ask the questions here. You answer them.
This is funny coming from someone that avoids answering questions 99% of the time...
__________________
I'll go with the qualified experts, over some ranting guy on the internet that claims he has "the truth".

Always beware of those that overuse, capitalize and blanket themselves in them word "truth". I may not always know the truth, but i do know when i'm being lied too.
The Platypus 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, 02:50 PM   #171
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 26,326
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
I would have preferred a "Here's my incontrovertible evidence that 9-11 was a controlled demolition" thread (or whatever the hell you believe, you won't say), but I guess "onto/into" is okay...
I once sat through a discussion, lasting 28 minutes, between six senior staff of an airline about what the default font in Excel should be, when it was rolled out.

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
Would you rather be disciplined with a rod into or onto your butt?
Kinky!
catsmate 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, 03:46 PM   #172
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Not exactly, but I appreciate this reply because it brings up some misconceptions about what the argument is. Misconceptions that Dave Thomas seems to labour under.
Its semantics plain and simple. Neither into or onto is being used in their strict dictionary sense and thus this is a matter of how close to the actual dictionary reference you are willing to accept. I did however point out that 'into' connotes a greater precision that does 'onto'.

Quote:
To bring a building down into its footprint is another way of saying to implode it or bring it down in a controlled manner. The expression describes the building falling as a whole, rapidly, straight down, into a debris pile at and/or below ground level.
IF that is what you are getting at then yes it did do that, EXAVCTLY as would be expected for such a design as the WTC towers. However WTC 7 simply does not fit this description in anything closely resembling what occured in the towers. The debris from WTC 7 clearly shows that much of the western part fell over WTC 6 while the eastern part went to the NE.Not symmetric and not largely into or onto its own footprint or into its basement.

Quote:
This happened in both the cases of the towers and WTC 7, although in different manners. However, the debris from the Towers did not simply fall straight down, as the pictures show us. It was pushed up and out in large volumes as well. This is not only uncharacteristic of typical controlled demolition, but of natural collapses as well. Still, the buildings demolished in an (unprecedented) top downward fashion, so you can say that it descended straight down.
No the towers collapsed in exactly the way one(certainly I) would expect this design to collapse. Given its large open span floor space when the upper, when collapse initiates it quickly causes all columns at that level to be overwhelmed. The upper portion can ONLY topple if it has a pivot but in this case the pivot gets destroyed before the upper portion can topple very far and thus physics indicates that the center of mass of the upper section WILL drop in the direction of the attractive force of gravity, straight down. This ENSURES that the vast bulk of falling mass will impinge upon the floor pans of the lower levels and do so with at least a degree of magnitude greater than those floor pans are designed to transfer to the columns via their column seats.
Quote:
The argument about debris is that a gravitational collapse from localized, asymmetrical damage would not produce an even collapse, with all four faces of both buildings being destroyed evenly and at the same time. Instead, if a collapse were to occur, it would occur where the damage began, and proceed asymmetrically, and also not complete itself, because the gravitational energy meets with resistance of the intact building structure.
In a large open span structure with no diagonal bracing this is simply wrong. At the fire/impact level the damage was widespread resulting in the redistribution of loads at those levels BUT once enough columns are at their limit a small further change will quickly cause an overload and failure of all columns at those levels.
Asymettric damage to floor pans is inconsequentila since even if once side leads the other the falling debris will still fail the other side. In fact if debris does begin to pile up at the impact zone it will tend to 'cone' and if one side fails faster then the 'cone' point wuill shift towards the lagging side resulting in more mass at that side which will tend to correct this asymmetry.
Quote:
The Delft building that chris mohr likes to cite is an excellent example of asymmetrical collapse from localized damage. A portion fell off and it did not bring the rest of the building down.
Not a long span floor space structure IIRC. But did not everything below the intial failure also fail?
You might also note that all thre structures are uncharacteristic of any other collapsed structure in that they are far taller, were long span(and in the case of WTC 7 asymmetrically constructed) designs, and are the only large structures to have ever suffered the impact of very large very fast airliners and subsequent and immediate large area multilevel office fires acellerted by thousands of gallons of liquid fuel.
Quote:
Nevertheless, we have bedunkers here arguing that the WTC buildings did not descend symmetrically, and bedunkers like Dave Thomas saying that the debris scatter was also not symmetrical (while showing a diagram of a highly symmetrical debris field.) We also have bedunkers here trying to argue that none of the buildings fell straight down.
More semantics. No it did not scatter debris symmetrically. Your beef only seems to be that it was closer to symmetry than you personally believe it should have been.

Quote:
And still no one except Quad has been willing to explain the difference between a building collapsing into vs. onto its footprint. Yet bedunkers who have no clue what this argument is about harass me from thread to thread about this strawman, non-existent distinction.
Excuse me? I did so in my last post as well.
Chopped liver I must be!

The whole thing is semantics and strawman. If you are so concerned about it then stop using the phrse 'it fell into/onto its footprint' and start using something more objective or to the point.
Your point is that you believe that the structures that did fully collapse did not scatter their debris as much as you would have expected and that you would have expected more toppling and less collapse. Which, as I pointed out before, is nothing more than your own personal incredulity.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 19th July 2011 at 03:48 PM.
jaydeehess 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 20th July 2011, 02:47 AM   #173
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If you read my posts you wouldn't need to keep asking this question.
Why don't you just say yes or no? What power forces you with such great might to evade every question? What makes you so damned afraid of the question that you must absolutely dodge it? Is it a medical condition that doesn't allow your brain to just plainly answer a question? Or did you pledge allegiancer to some truther grand wizzard that you will never, under any circumstances, just answer questions?



Or is my feeling about your weasly ways mistaken, and you CAN answer a direct question directly, then please answer now:


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?

ETA:
And also, lest you forget there was another question ignored, evaded, dodged like a weasle would:

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?

Last edited by Oystein; 20th July 2011 at 02:54 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2011, 02:51 AM   #174
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You say this because you believe, or claim to believe, that gravity will demolish a building evenly, rapidly, and from the top down from localized, asymmetrical upper floor damage. If that's your basic premise, everything else you believe from there will be flawed.
Instead of going with the derail of this thread, you should address the fact that the industry describes building collapses as "into their footprint" ONLY when closely surrounding roads stay open, and nearby buildings excape unscathed.
You should also address the fact that Bazant rightly descibed collapses - that were the exact opposite of what I just described - as "on the footprint", in the context of what he was talking about.

Or, in short, please address the immense, extreme differences between "into the footprint" (an industry expression, as YOU explained to us) and "on the footprint" (as used by Bazant in a specific context.
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 4th September 2011, 06:14 AM   #175
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 827
Evidence

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
As I have shown, experts do not call that kind of behaviour "falling into the building footprint".

Both NIST and FEMA are very clear that they are NOT talking about the building footprint, but an area larger than the building footprint. It is abundantly clear than that no building fell into the building footprint - all buildings fell into areas larger than the building footprint. No building even managed to stay confined within their own lots.
FLAPDOODLE !

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...98#post7378798

--and--

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...16#post6847216
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone 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 20th December 2021, 04:35 PM   #176
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 827
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post13683650
Quote:
BUT in the last post of that thread, Fonebone said "FLAPDOODLE!", and that means he says the truth!
Follow his links, and here is what he means by "into":

If you spill most of the beer from a bottle to anywhere within 75 feet around a pint glass, you are pouring that beer into the pint glass.
No. Seriously. That is exactly Fonebone's definition of "collapse into the footprint" - that if "most" of the debris ends up within an area 75 feet outside (and including) the building footprint, then it collapsed into the footprint.
This is the damned Truth, even though no demolition expert ever described any demolition as going "into the footprint" when, in reality, much of the debris landed 75 feet outside of it, and some even further away.

(That thread back in 2011 however answered a different question than Fonebone raised here: He claimed the other day that "the LIDAR images reveals the majority of the towers both collapsed into their building footprints", which some have denied. I happen to think however that this, that Fonebone is correct: My best guess would be that >50% of the mass of each of the three towers ended up inside the respective original building footprints.
BUT that does NOT at all mean they "collapse into the footprint" in the sense that experts in the demolitions industry use that term.
Fonebone is deliberately trying to confuse and obfuscate.)


Let's recap:
Originally, Truthers made the claim that the WTC towers "fell into their own footprints", and that this is "evidence for CD", because "CDs make buildings collapse into their footprints".
It was pointed out that Truthers also claimed that WTC1+2 also "exploded" all over the place, and their debris covered many acres of ground, and that this wildly falling outside the footprint is also "evidence for CD". So whatever way a building collapses - "into the footprint" or "not into the footprint", it's "evidence for CD" according to Truthers.

So Truthers retreated and set their sight on WTC7 and hung on to the claim that at least "WTC7 fell into its footprint" - and again that this is "evidence for CD", because that is what demolitions experts do when they make buildings collapse.

It has been pointed out by me to Ergo 10 years ago, that
a) In a large majority of explosive demolitions, they do NOT aim at making the building collapse "into its footprint" - it usually suffices to keep the debris confined to a defined area that includes the footprint PLUS some safe area around it. The aim is to keep surrounding property and infrastructure undamaged.
b) In the few cases were the demolition experts say that the collapse occurred "into the footprint", they really mean it: That even things very close to the building remain untouched. E.g. an adjacent street remains so perfectly clear of debris and even dirt that it is opened an hour later.
It is clear as day that WTC7 did not at all fall "into its footprint", as debris covered and blocked and rendered unusable all four surrounding streets for weeks, and it caused devastating damage to buildings across those streets.

And that is where we stand: Even though perhaps "most" of the towers' mass ended up within the footprints, none fell "into" its footprint. Which is why Fonebone and Ergo operate with attempted obfuscation by quoting sources such as Bazant, NIST, FEMA, who all stated in some way that the buildings collapsed "on" or "onto" the footprints - or that "most" of them did.
The lying pair of Ergo and Fonebone would go on with a sleigh of hand and try to pass by the laughable proposition that "into" means essentially the same as "onto", and that "most" is a qualifier equivalent to "all".

No one is falling for those lies, but they are obnoxious.

I will deal with your post cited above in this thread rather that risk another yellow demerit.
If this is not the proper method to move your post , please PM me with the instructions how
to properly move post #134 over to this thread Thank you in advance -Fonebone
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw

Last edited by zooterkin; 21st December 2021 at 03:29 AM. Reason: Fixing broken quote tag
Fonebone 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 20th December 2021, 05:57 PM   #177
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 827
[Sorry Deleted double post
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw

Last edited by Fonebone; 20th December 2021 at 06:00 PM. Reason: delete double post
Fonebone 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 20th December 2021, 11:28 PM   #178
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,013
Is there a decoder algorithm for Fonebone posts? What a waste of the quote button

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
FLAPDOODLE ! ...
Sums up all of 9/11 truth (the movement based on lies, with a name only 1984 could appreciate).

Learn how to spell Nonsense, it is all 9/11 truth can post post.

Footprint means the dumbed down cult followers of 9/11 truth are fooled by Nonsense.

Never knew 2 acres of footprint, ended up being 19 acres of debris.

Where is Ergo? After 20 years he must of figured out 9/11, and left the delusional world based on ignorance known ironically as 9/11 truth, after 9/11 truth turned out to be liars, idiots, and snake oil salesmen. Stop quibbling about "footprint", and join reality.


It is possible Ergo figured out 9/11, 6 years before you, as you continue pushing the ignorance of 9/11 truth claims, which you can't define, explain, or stitch into a coherent story based on evidence...
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 20th December 2021 at 11:36 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st December 2021, 02:48 AM   #179
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
...
If this is not the proper method to move your post , please PM me with the instructions how ...
Not proper: once again, you messed up formatting tags.
If, after all these years, you have not learned and understood how to post, what hope is there you will ever learn and understand 9/11?

Don't bother responding. The forum nor the world needs any more of your convoluted lies.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd December 2021, 03:06 PM   #180
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 827
Gamolon's question begins here...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13677356


Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
How did you determine this?
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
I will answer your question in this thread.
_Fonebone

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=214226

exhibit A Schematic map of the WTC complex and
adjacent buildings.

Vesey street on the North (image top)

Liberty street on the South (image bottom)

West street on the image left is West and

Church street (image right) is East.






***********************



exhibit B is the same map with a horizontal RED line- Vesey- street running E-W
on the north and a horizontal BLUE line -Liberty- street running E-W on the south.





THE 2 Dimensional exhibit B was the superimposed over exhibit C LIDAR


exhibit C LIDAR



creating exhibit D


the outlines of WTC1 -RED-
WTC2 -yellow-
WTC -Blue-
were crudely estimated and drawn faintly to exhibit the three piles on
the footprints of the buildings.

Compare exhibits C & D to estimate the height and locations of the three debris footprints
in the building footprints.
( continued )
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone 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 22nd December 2021, 05:00 PM   #181
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,274
Lidar image taken on 27 September, 18 days after the event and when we would expect access corridors to have been cleared.j
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 22nd December 2021, 05:09 PM   #182
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,274
WTC 1 flattened WTC 6 and substantially damaged WTC 7 I think it would probably have left some debris in between. The rescue effort would require clearing corridors, Vesey and Liberty would be the logical choice for these.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 08:17 AM   #183
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,489
fonebone what is this point of this exercise?
Does it disprove that planes crashed into WTC1 &2 causing them to ultimately fall?
Does it disprove that several Muslim hijackers, hijack the planes used in the targeting of the two buildings?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 09:00 AM   #184
digger
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 93
Don't things usually fall directly downwards? That's kind of what defines where down is. Without lateral force or intertia, things fall down.
digger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 09:04 AM   #185
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 4,970
Originally Posted by digger View Post
Don't things usually fall directly downwards? That's kind of what defines where down is. Without lateral force or intertia, things fall down.
Not in CT world. In CT world, things only fall straight down when you blow them up with explosives.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 09:09 AM   #186
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,035
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Not in CT world. In CT world, things only fall straight down when you blow them up with explosives.
Don't forget that they also only fall in any other direction than straight down when you blow them up with explosives. In the absence of explosives, I think stuff is just supposed to sit there in mid-air looking sheepish.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 09:12 AM   #187
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 18,604
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
the outlines of WTC1 -RED-
WTC2 -yellow-
WTC -Blue-
were crudely estimated and drawn faintly to exhibit the three piles on
the footprints of the buildings.

The outlines are so "crudely drawn" that both of them are askew relative to the street grid, to one another, and even to themselves (i.e. not square in the image's perspective). It's almost as though someone drew the outlines where the rubble piles look most distinct, instead of where the tower footprints actually were, in a "crude" attempt to deceive viewers about the "into their own footprints" claim.
__________________
A zřmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 09:20 AM   #188
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,055
Originally Posted by digger View Post
Don't things usually fall directly downwards? That's kind of what defines where down is. Without lateral force or intertia, things fall down.
RANT! Through the path of MOST resistance? There was a whole building down there, how could they fall that way?


Also - yes, obviously, you're right.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 10:49 AM   #189
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,668
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
The outlines are so "crudely drawn" that both of them are askew relative to the street grid, to one another, and even to themselves (i.e. not square in the image's perspective). It's almost as though someone drew the outlines where the rubble piles look most distinct, instead of where the tower footprints actually were, in a "crude" attempt to deceive viewers about the "into their own footprints" claim.
That's not really a fair criticism. The lines are fairly accurate, especially those of WTC 1, and the area of WTC 2 is approximately correct even if the lines are slightly displaced and tilted.

Here's my own match of the LIDAR and a WTC plan, made with Gimp's perspective tool, taking surrounding buildings as reference to match against, compared to Fonebone's assessment:


pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 12:04 PM   #190
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 827
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Corrections :

In order to correct the WTC1 and WTC2 footprint boundries highlighted in
exhibit B graphic in the OP and establish a more accurate location of the
four corners of the 208 foot square footprint of each WTC tower a 2D
map Exhibit C of the WTC complex was constructed to help establish the LIDAR
vanishing point to use a reference point as shown in Exhibit D

Exhibit C (see http://www.internationalskeptics.com...83#post8397683 )




Exhibit D Viola - the LIDAR vanishing point (VP) is where all of the lines in exhibit
C meet facing East are extrapolated to the LIDAR map facing East.
The upper horizontal line is Church street and the lower horizontal line is
marking the north south alignment of the twin towers WTC1 EAST and WTC2 WEST walls.
The black dot with the yellow center is placed on the Southeast corner of
the WTC1 North Tower.

Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
That's not really a fair criticism. The lines are fairly accurate, especially those of WTC 1, and the area of WTC 2 is approximately correct even if the lines are slightly displaced and tilted.

Here's my own match of the LIDAR and a WTC plan, made with Gimp's perspective tool, taking surrounding buildings as reference to match against, compared to Fonebone's assessment:



Excellent work Pgimeno I'm astonished at the superb rendering and accuracy of the schematic 2D map superimposed over the 3D LIDAR
My attempt to correct the twin towers LIDAR footprint
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 01:48 PM   #191
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,489
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Excellent work Pgimeno I'm astonished at the superb rendering and accuracy of the schematic 2D map superimposed over the 3D LIDAR
My attempt to correct the twin towers LIDAR footprint
The LIDAR is not a 3D it is a 2D representation of a 3D.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 04:44 PM   #192
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 827
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
The LIDAR is not a 3D it is a 2D representation of a 3D.

If a graphic contains three dimensions it is considered to be 3D.
Length width height are present in the computer generated pseudo
three dimensional image.
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 04:53 PM   #193
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,234
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Gamolon's question begins here...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13677356
No, it doesn't. It's not even on the same page.

However, you quote Gamolon as asking "How did you determine this?", where "this" refers to your, Fonebone's, claim that "the LIDAR images reveals the majority of the towers both collapsed into their building footprints"

You pretend that you answer this by posting enormously silly things like...

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
exhibit A Schematic map of the WTC complex and adjacent buildings.
[...]
exhibit B is the same map with a horizontal RED line- Vesey- street running E-W on the north and a horizontal BLUE line -Liberty- street running E-W on the south.
[...]
exhibit C LIDAR
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1fc8b30cb7.jpg


creating exhibit D
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...236282a758.jpg
[...]

Compare exhibits C & D to estimate the height and locations of the three debris footprints
in the building footprints.
( continued )
Well, it has been pointed out that the LIDAR images were taken some time after 9/11, when significant amounts of debris outside the footprints was already removed to clear streets and other areas in order to provide access to the piles.

Now remember you claimed that LIDAR "reveals the majority of the towers both collapsed into their building footprints". Exactly how did you determine this from the LIDAR imaged?
You say "the majority of the towers" - what does this even mean, to begin with? >50% of their original mass? Of the original volume of their solid constituents? Is this including or excluding dust?

How would you measure the mass inside the footprints, and measure the mass outside the footprints, in order to compare them?

How did you figure out how much volume of debris there is underneath the surfaces shown?

Please show your work - or admit you simply eyeballed and took a wild guess, with no concept of how to actually evaluate (determine values of physical quantities with appropriate units) that which you make a claim about.

(And mind you: I am not arguing your claim is wrong - as a matter of fact, I happen to believe it is probably correct! But I could not determine this from the LIDAR, especially as the LIDAR was taken so many days later)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 04:59 PM   #194
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,489
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
If a graphic contains three dimensions it is considered to be 3D.
Length width height are present in the computer generated pseudo
three dimensional image.
There is no Height in this image, sorry you fail. It is a 2D image of a 3D real, but it is not a 3D.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 05:05 PM   #195
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,489
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
fonebone what is this point of this exercise?
Does it disprove that planes crashed into WTC1 &2 causing them to ultimately fall?
Does it disprove that several Muslim hijackers, hijack the planes used in the targeting of the two buildings?
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
If a graphic contains three dimensions it is considered to be 3D.
Length width height are present in the computer generated pseudo
three dimensional image.
Instead of posting silly references, answer my question.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd December 2021, 07:17 PM   #196
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,013
WTC 1-2 "onto", and/or "into" WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6, plus more.

Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Gamolon's question begins here...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post13677356

exhibit A Schematic map of the WTC complex and adjacent buildings.

Vesey street on the North (image top) Liberty street on the South (image bottom) West street on the image left is West and Church street (image right) is East.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ef2e14efaa.jpg
***********************

exhibit B is the same map with a horizontal RED line- Vesey- street running E-W
on the north and a horizontal BLUE line -Liberty- street running E-W on the south.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...23c32947ed.jpg


THE 2 Dimensional exhibit B was the superimposed over exhibit C LIDAR


exhibit C LIDAR
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1fc8b30cb7.jpg


creating exhibit D
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...236282a758.jpg

the outlines of WTC1 -RED- WTC2 -yellow- WTC -Blue-were crudely estimated and drawn faintly to exhibit the three piles onthe footprints of the buildings.

Compare exhibits C & D to estimate the height and locations of the three debris footprints in the building footprints. ( continued )
Wow, they Fell Into their own Footprint and smashed WTC 3, 4, 6, and part of 5... Is that the onto part, fell onto WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 in their own footprint - it appears the footprint is 19 acres of WTCs 1 and 2 acre footprint, footprint being some sort of projection from different sun angles, plus.

So how does this into/onto thread fit into the 9/11 truth fantasy?

Why do anti-war 9/11 truther agree to spread lies about 9/11 to stop wars. The anti-war narrative is spoiled by the idiot claims of 9/11 truth, marking the liars as failed conspiracy theorists instead of competent protesters with meaningful messages.

Failure, is 9/11 truth, a movement based on ignorance and incompetence.

What is an example of incompetence? 9/11 truth
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2021, 03:52 AM   #197
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,668
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
There is no Height in this image, sorry you fail. It is a 2D image of a 3D real, but it is not a 3D.
It's 2.5D
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2021, 04:15 AM   #198
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,274
I would also like to hear the point. What does all of this prove?
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2021, 06:05 AM   #199
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,489
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
It's 2.5D
Of course, if he was machining!
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2021, 07:28 AM   #200
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,668
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Of course, if he was machining!
Sorry, wrong link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.5D

Despite the smiley (due to the irony of it) I was serious; the kind of projection used in the LIDAR image is called "2.5D". Quoting from this last link:
"Assigning height to 2D regions of a topographic map" associating every 2D location with a height/elevation value creates a 2.5D projection; this is not considered a "true 3D representation", however is used like 3D visual representation to "simplify visual processing of imagery and the resulting spatial cognition".
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 04:03 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.