9/11 Thread no. 2

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Jul 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Oli! Now if only you'd stick around and chat with Tony about the engineering aspects of the WTC buildings, laugh ;-).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,104
    I guess psiky missed this one.

    If the truth is out there then pay for it cheapskates.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,205
    .
    Sure, pointing out to people who BELIEVE that a 400,000 ton building can collapse in less than 18 seconds that they don't have sense enough to ask about the distribution of material that held the building up is spamming.

    I didn't notice you explaining what was incorrect about this:

    http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.msg251656#msg251656

    psik
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,205
    .
    How much money does it take for you to think about the mass that was in front of the plane that hit the south tower?

    You heed someone else to do your supposed SCIENTIFIC THINKING for you. They need to be paid.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    psik
     
  8. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    It was just a poorly phrased sentence as I was in a rush to get out the door. You don't need to tell me something I don't already know.

    The point I was attempting to get accross is something I've repeated on this forum before, that engineers can claim that a building is safe against a large plane crash, but only in hindsight can you observe how their calculations were either wrong, or that the crashes and fires exceeded that of what they thought were safe. As it happens I don't believe anybody has found any analyisis that the engineers put forward to say the WTC was safe from a high speed 707 with at least one of the engineers saying the fuel load and high speeds weren't even considered.
     
  9. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    I believe Ryan Mackey is going to school Tony on Hardfire pretty soon.

    I gotta give props to Tony for having the courage to debate one of the best debunkers around, though. Most notable truthers don't have the courage.

    For example, Ryan Mackey wrote an extensive critique of David Ray Griffin's book, and David has not accepted any invitation of debates and has written nothing of Ryan Mackey's criticism.

    Did you know that when Richard Gage debated Mark Roberts on Hardfire, he didn't promote his appearance before or after the show? Richard Gage is a guy that promotes every little thing he does in the truth movement, and yet when he takes on a prominent debunker, nothing is mentioned of it. Strange...
     
  10. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    LOL the newscaster even says he heard a huge explosion in your video there.

    Pretty bad footage and little audio with WTC 7 in that video too.

    Actually that video makes me think perhaps they did demo WTC 1 and 2 and I didn't even think that before! You could hear the explosions inside the building during that footage with the firemen.

    Thanks!
     
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Lol, good point

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    He'd responded to that post in the past (post 91). He's now responded again.
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    It seems to me that Stryder missed the fact that psikey hadn't missed his post. I myself once got fairly frustrated when I realized how much time it took to find out if x, y or z post of mine had been responded to or not. Even more frequently, I have spent a fair amount of time backtracking replies in order to get to important points. This becomes more and more of an issue the bigger a thread gets. For some time now, I have made post trees of atleast parts of some 9/11 threads. For some time I have thought of sharing atleast some of this with you guys.

    This thread currently still being rather small, I currently have the whole thread in post trees; I don't have a scanner here at my house, though, so I'm just going to link to the reply sequence:
    http://scott3x.tripod.com/post_trees/911_thread_no.2.htm
     
  14. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,205
    I have been to one of Gages shows and I regard it as mostly propaganda. He isn't trying to prove why a plane could not bring the towers down he is just trying to psychologically convince people that he apparently he thinks can't understand it.

    KJC just dishes out psychological BS too.

    Oh no, we can't tell people what is actually required to hold up a skyscraper then explain why something with ONE HALF OF ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT THE MASS can knock it down in less then 2 hours.

    psik
     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    That is indeed the demonstration I was looking for, although I disagree with your assessment of it. It can be seen in video at around 6:45 here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1W2sRQebtE
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Don't you think that a lot of people don't understand the strutural engineeing aspects involved? I certainly do. Secondly, I disagree with your assertion that Richard Gage dishes out psychological BS- I think that Richard Gage and his site, 9/11 Architects and Engineers, has presented a fair amount of good evidence that supports the theory that the 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11 were taken down via controlled demolitions.


    Architects and Engineers like Richard Gage, Tony Szamboti and Gordon Ross have gone into great detail as to why the WTC buildings couldn't have come down via plane crashes and kerosene fires alone. From what I understand, Tony and Richard Gage certainly wouldn't mind having more data on the WTC buildings that collapsed, but even with the data already available, it's more than enough to make the case against gravitational collapses.

    It seems that your largest objection is simply that their methods are not the simplest methods to do so. This may be so; perhaps Tony could put his 2 cents in on this one. However, I don't think that the methods that people like Tony, Richard Gage and Gordon Ross are -that- complicated; one simply has to study their logic for some time.
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to Hoz's post 23 in this thread.

    Sifting facts from disinfo is one thing. Determining whether someone is being deceptive or believes their own disinfo is another thing entirely. Note that I am not even making a judgement call on who's info is right on any particular point, although I do believe that nano thermite coming from Ground Zero was indeed identified. Perhaps the reason I can't tell whether Trippy or your claims on particular points isn't because I'm not a chemist but rather because, as you say, I haven't studied Harrit's paper to sufficient length. Or perhaps you just knew more chemistry than I did from the start. However, I blanch at the thought that you may be accusing Trippy of being deceptive when in fact he is only mis-taken or even right on some things that you believe him to be wrong on.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2009
  18. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    No what I was doing was correcting a truther who resorts to lies in an attempt to support the absurd conspiracy.

    I have made no comparisons of the structures of the buildings but it demonstrates that fire can weaken steel structures and lead them to collapse. This is a critical point that needs to be made and understood yet many truthers dance around and try every trick in the book to avoid this happening.
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    There have been fairly large online polls where you can see the questions asked; in such polls, there were many people who atleast questioned the official story.

    Wikipedia actually has an entry on 9/11 Polls:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls

    Here's one where the questions are quoted:
    Poll: 50% of NYC Says U.S. Govt Knew

    In 2 Angus Reid Polls spaced 4 years apart (2002 and 2006), it would seem that Americans' views of Bush Administration's honesty regarding what happened on 9/11 is slowly getting worse; here's the summary for May 2002:
    Telling the truth
    21%
    Hiding something
    65%
    Mostly lying
    8%
    Not sure
    6%

    And here it is in 2006:
    Oct. 2006
    Telling the truth
    16%
    Hiding something
    53%
    Mostly lying
    28%
    Not sure
    3%


    The numbers are ofcourse higher on sites that report stories regarding 9/11 that the mainstream media doesn't publish. On opednews, in a 9/11 Poll and article called Obama Should Commission An Independent 9/11 Special Prosecutor Investigation?, of 287 votes, 91% believe that 9/11 could have been a conspiracy that needs to be investigated with an independent investigation.
     
  20. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    While I agree with Psik's complaint that we should have all of the information on the buildings, I don't think that should stop us from analyzing the collapses with the information we presently have. There is already enough information in the public domain to do so, although it should be realized that some important information is being withheld.

    I think Psik is overdoing the point in the sense that, while he is absolutely right here, he shouldn't be beating everyone half to death with it and acting like that is the only thing they should be working towards. Sometimes you have to do with what you have when you can't control what you get. That doesn't mean the complaint should not be strongly made but there is a balance that should be recognized and sought.

    I have made this complaint myself. When the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed in 1940 the drawings were made public in an effort to enlist as much help as possible with the problem and correct it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2009
  21. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Given the number of worldwide skyscraper fires over the years and the fact that none have completely collapsed to the ground due to fire, except for the three which did so on Sept. 11, 2001 in NYC, what do you think the odds are of those three occurring on the same day and within a city block of each other?

    I am just curious to see if you ever gave this a thought.
     
  22. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    Like I said... DO YOU HAVE EARS?

    Tne newscaster says explosion, but if you listen for yourself WITH YOUR OWN EARS does it sound anything like the clips before of controlled demolitions?

    No. It doesn't.

    The first time you hear anything is AFTER the collapse has been initiated, thus explosives were not used to initiate the collapse.

    This is true, they were the best clips I could find. However all of the clips I gave of WTC7 would have still provided a boom event clearly audible if explosives were used.

    Especially with the clip with the guy saying "I told ya that sucker was coming down", if blast events happened before the tower fell, they would have been included in the clip, as they would have all of the clips. The fact that the clips begin only when the tower begins to fall tells you that no blast events were heard.

    Clearly you must suffer from amnesia if you failed to hear the clips beforehand. The only thing that is heard in the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 is the sound of the collapse itself. There is no punctuation of explosives which would have been clearly heard over the rumble of the collapse.

    You forget that the sound of the collapse was not heard for miles. Yet the sound of explosives would have been heard for miles.

    Your dishonest mind is seeing what it wants to see and hearing what it wants to see.
     
  23. KennyJC Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,936
    You mean the 2 examples you gave me? Two examples of large fires in steel framed buildings is enough to tell how the towers on 9/11 should have behaved?

    Isn't it interesting that on 9/11 there were more examples of large fires on high rise steel framed buildings than ever before in history?

    Like I said before, you don't get to use the "never before in history" excuse if there have never been many large fires in the history of steel framed skyscrapers.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page