WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    fluff counters are easily countered and yes, duration does matter

    This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.

    That depends. Consider:
    Kevin Ryan says that 2+2=4

    Mackey Ryan says that no, 2+2=17

    I come in and simply state that Kevin's original answer is right, as it follows the laws of mathematics, where Mackey's clearly didn't. Frequently, Mackey Ryan's "rebuttal" are nothing more then fluff; sometimes even I can see that.


    An assertion based on some sound arguments made by the person he is 'rebutting', yes.


    NIST's workstation tests were clearly tweaked, as Steven Jones and others have made clear. Don't you think it rather curious that the -physical- models of the WTC steel never collapsed?


    Why do you think that?


    It wouldn't do much to steel on the few floors of WTC building that had the fires, but perhaps to a weaker structure, such as the Windsor Tower in Madrid, it could produce a gradual partial collapse.


    Ah, ok. Anyway, my point on duration making a big difference still stands.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    To each their own I guess, laugh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    If the fires were so hot the could destroy floor slabs then how did this happen?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2foEo8pzDZY

    psik
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Constantly backing up one's claims adds credibility

    This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.

    Linking to 1 would probably be sufficient.


    I call them like I see them.



    I'm not all that interested in reading fluff. However, if you'd like to excerpt a portion of Mackey's writings to make a point, as you've done in the past, that'll be fine.


    I'll say

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    When you excerpt from his writings in order to make a point, I generally do address the content. I'm not going to go reading his fluff without a good reason though.


    Then bring the key points up again. I do this when -you- ignore key points.


    Sigh. If I bring up the same passages, it's because -you- have missed -my- key points. You see, unlike you, I will repeat the same point again, perhaps highlighted the second time round, so that you can get it on the second round.


    What are the big letters? Just the titles or all the text? I have all the text default to rather large for me, as I don't like the really small text. But I'm not sure if all you see is the titles big or the whole message.


    Points:
    1- Mackey's Version 2 of his rebuttal has " lengthy fallacy-rich sections addressing Thurston's and Ryan's articles"

    2- Jim Hoffman's review will never be a complete reply to Mackey's essay; an attempt to create such a reply would be misguided since it would lend legitimacy to Mackey's method: generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies.

    Jim Hoffman argues that "The rationale behind that method seems clear enough: create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.". I myself am not sure if Ryan Mackey himself knows that his arguments are frequently baseless and so I'm not sure if the smokescreen he's creating is done in an effort to deceive or whether Ryan Mackey is simply deceived himself.
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Backing up claims and explaining one's reasoning, Round 2


    This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.

    You don't even post on every page. I'm not going to be looking through the thousands of posts looking for rebuttals to the arguments I've made on my site. However, you don't have to rebutt the points on my site either; I'm sure you've got your hands full simply responding to my posts.


    You have told me what many times?
     
  9. leeray666 Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    Hmmm... You believe? On the basis of what? Authority?

    Have you not, as a scientist, been inclined to look for the evidence that backs up their claims?
    What evidence do they have?
    Surely you would WANT to question this publication when it is HISTORICALLY linked to yellow journalism.

    Popular Mechanics is a Hearst Publication is it not?

    You're a physics expert are you not? Well maybe you could point out what's wrong with the Newtonian physics in this:

    The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis
    Prof. Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti

    (Google it as I cannot post links. There is however, a link earlier in this thread.)
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2009
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i have been following 9/11 since it happened.
    i too thought the collapse looked suspiciously like a controlled explosion, but unlike scott and the others i had an open mind about the matter.
    so with those two sentences in mind i went off in search of the evidence needed to prove one way or another what happened that day.

    i am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that explosives were not used in the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

    i question scotts objectivity on the grounds that he could never tell me the possible reasons for the explosions that were heard, he "just assumes" it was explosives.
    i also question psikeyhackrs competence on the grounds that he doesn't know the weight distribution. all of the factors needed to calculate the distribution have been published.

    tony claims to be a structural engineer but i question his competence in regards to high rise buildings. his inability to answer my question of his experience with high rise buildings leads me to that opinion.
     
  11. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    So tell us the weights of each of the 12 different types of perimeter wall panels and the number of each type and specify the source.

    Tell us the total quantity of concrete in the towers and why some sources have 90,000 tons per tower and some have 425,000 cubic yards for both towers which would be 280,000 tons per tower at least.

    Lots of stuff has been published. Lots of it contradictory or incomplete too.

    My point of FALL OF PHYSICS is to show that changing the distribution of mass changes the collapse time therefore BELIEVING ANYTHING without being sure your data is correct is absurd. I have never been arguing for controlled demolition. I have been arguing against BELIEVING the planes did it without trustworthy data.

    Considering that the Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the towers were destroyed and it is now 40 years after the Moon landing it is almost hysterically funny that the US can't explain exactly how a couple of planes weighing less than 200 tons nearly leveled a couple of buildings weighing over 400,000 tons in less than 2 hours. If that is what happened of course.

    psik
     
  12. leeray666 Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    Did you find any?

    Beyond a reasonable doubt? Well you must have found some pretty solid evidence. Care to share it?

    OK, fair enough. Do you not just assume that the explosions heard were due to things other than explosives?

    Have they? Why hasn't the full data of weight distribution been released? Wasn't that information needed before they even built the towers?

    So Tony may or may not have had any experience with high rise buildings. But does that automatically restrict him from forming any kind of scientific opinion?
    Does one have to have direct experience in the field to have questions? to analyse, to find flaws in other hypotheses?
    Does Stephen Hawking have any direct experience with black holes? Is he suddenly not capable of forming theories because he has no direct experience with the subject matter?

    In my own opinion, you seem to be absolutely not looking at the subject objectively. You are choosing to believe in a theory, because it is backed by an authority. So how do you know that the data that you have read was actually produced by people in the field of structural engineering specifically based around the building of high-rise structures?
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    all of the factors needed to compute weight distribution have been published.
    apparently you know nothing about interpolation.
    i will not haggle with you about this any longer.


    yes.
    yes.
    no. for the simple reason i will not give these people the ammunition they need to tweak and refine their model.
    i've done that before and this mysterious substance called "nanothermite" started to make its appearance.
    no.
    i haven't a clue, but the factors needed to calculate it has been.
    yes. like i said above, all the factors needed to calculate it has been released.
    no, it doesn't prevent him from forming an opinion.
    whether that opinion is valid or not is another story.
    no. but a person needs to be knowledgeable to understand what is being stated.
    no. but remember that you used the word "theory". to state these buildings were brought down by explosives is stating a fact, a fact that has no basis in reality.
    then how do you account for the evidence i've found?
    the evidence i've found is a fact, nothing theoretical about it.
    it's not so much as what i've read but of what i haven't read that convinces me.
     
  14. leeray666 Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    So how do I account for the evidence that you've found, that you won't share with others?

    The evidence that you've found is a FACT? Nothing theoretical about it?

    It's not so much as what you've read but what you haven't read that convinces you?

    Did God bring down the twin towers?

    Is that your answer?

    IF YOU HAVE EVIDENCE AND ARE SO SURE THAT IT IS INFALLIBLE, THEN SHOW IT. PROOVE IT.

    Any hypothesis should be open to scrutiny. And once it has passed all levels of scientific scrutiny, then it might then just become fact.

    What have you got to be scared of? Why should you be so scared to show this evidence? And what if people find new things that test your theories such as Nanothermite? Are you just going to rule that out? Without checking?

    That's not objectivity.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2009
  15. leeray666 Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    From the pages of the Authoritarians:

     
  16. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    ROFLMAO

    I think we can all agree that the NIST NCSTAR1 report is a published source.

    I have been telling people for 2 years that it does not specify the total amount of concrete in the towers and not one person has provide the data and specified where it is in the reports though a number of peoplr keep saying, "It's there, it's there." LOL

    So why don't you tell us the total quantity of concrete from the NCSTAR1 report and specify the report and page. I can do that for the steel if you want.

    psik
     
  17. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    all you need to do leeray is to ask yourself one question, and that is "how can i convince myself of the manner in which these towers fell?".
     
  18. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    .
    Is that why economics is not a science. LOL

    Each new batch of economists can't find the depreciation lost by the last batch.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    psik
     
  19. leeray666 Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    Again,

    Any hypothesis should be open to scrutiny. And once it has passed all levels of scientific scrutiny, then it might then just become fact.

    I see nothing of the sort with regards to the 'official story'. When I see the 'official story' being challenged, I only ever see authoritarian aggression, appeals to authority, lies, and simple brushing aside of any evidence which works contrary to the 'official story'.

    No scientific discussion or debate. People tend to get overly defensive when their beliefs are challenged. Which is why science isn't about belief.
     
  20. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Thanks for the sermon.
     
  21. leeray666 Registered Member

    Messages:
    17

    Oh it's a science alright. These Economists know what's going on. It's the science of deception; the science of ripping off the little man. Why would they rock the boat? They just join in the fun.
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Is this the angry convenience store clerk thread?
     
  23. leeray666 Registered Member

    Messages:
    17
    I don't know? Are there any angry convenience store clerks here?

    Is that what you do?

    Sorry, I think you've got the wrong thread.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page