Request to move WTC Collapses thread from Pseudoscience to Arch. and Engineering

It appears that the official story supporters in the above mentioned thread have gone almost silent. I think that, after more then a thousand posts and with posters such as Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer who has written several papers on it, including his just recently published paper "The Missing Jolt", on the side of the controlled demolition theory, that this thread has matured to the point where it should be seriously considered to be moved to the Architecture and Engineering forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I absolutely oppose that obnoxious suggestion!:bugeye: The thread is filled with nonsense from people like yourself that know so little actual science and engineering that it's a crying shame to even see such garbage posted in a public place - much less in a true scientific-orientated category as that. It really belongs in the Cesspool.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seconded. The "official story supporters" are probably just sick of having their legitimate points completely neglected.

Taking the action that scott3x suggests would go a long way to delegitimizing this place as an "intelligent community".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry Scott,
To be fair there is so far that I would be willing to go if not this forum as a whole to deal with the "9/11 conspiracies" that people come up with. While it's possible to ask about the architectural method of building a building that high, it's obviously would be railroaded into arguments of what sort's of impacts it could take and where you'd fit your particular favourite brand of explosive.

As for those people that have stopped accessing the thread, it's likely because they feel like they are hitting their head against a brick wall by trying to repeat the same explanations over and over again, especially since it's wasted on those that really don't care about answers but just harassing people. most people know when to let go.

 

Well you're certainly one not to waste your time on being courteous

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I fully admit that my knowledge of engineering isn't exactly stellar, but I have read a fair amount on the subject and I have as my tutors such groups as the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. You dismiss my contributions lightly but you haven't actually specified anything that you find objectionable in my claims.

Furthermore, there are others who are more knowledgeable in technical issues, such as Headspin, who has a fair amount of technical expertise, psikeyhackr who has a good knowledge of physics and engineering from what I gather and Tony Szamboti, who has recently joined in the discussion, is a mechanical engineer and has written papers on the subject of the WTC collapses.

 

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

I would argue that it would do precisely the opposite and I have a strong feeling that so would the other people I have mentioned who have long argued that the official story on the WTC collapses is full of holes.

 

All of these issues have to do with the architecture of the building- as in, what would be required to take it down in the manner in which it came down. I agree with psikeyhackr, who has a good background in physics, that these issues should be ones that more architects and engineers should be looking at.

I admit that at times, the conversation can be tense, but I think it's fair to say that the tension and the insults has come from both sides. As I think you would agree, I myself am fairly averse using certain base insults (I distinctly have an aversion to one liners such as 'stupid', 'moron', etc.) and I think that this has helped keep the conversation at a fairly civil level.

Perhaps the real issue here is that the very concept that 9/11 could have been an inside job may feel like harassment to some? And yet, if the truth is that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, I don't think we should hide from it simply because it hurts the sensibilities of some.

I can't speak for others. I just hope that you and perhaps others can imagine- what if 9/11 really was an inside job? I and many others believe that this possibility should be investigated to the fullest. Why? Because if it was, indeed, an inside job, I think we can all agree that we'd want to make sure that those responsible don't get away with it.

 

I'm sure I could find much evidence of conspiracy theorists ignoring logical arguments in that thread if I cared to look.

 

How are you so sure?

 

Because it's a thread with over 1000 posts. This means that there are lots of people ignoring lots of other people. Because you are complaining that "the other side" has stopped responding, it makes the situation pretty clear to me, at least.

And, God willing, the thread will stay where it belongs. There are lots of places to go and discuss conspiracy theories on the internet and be taken seriously---the day that this happens to SciForums is the day I retire

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I fail to see your reasoning here. Why should the fact that the thread has 1000 posts mean that lots of people are ignoring lots of other people? Furthermore, do you have any evidence that anything relevant was missed in regards to the official story?

Why couldn't it be that it is precisely the official story side that is ignoring the relevant evidence? They are, after all, the ones who have stopped responding.

I find it troubling that you feel that you know where the thread belongs when you yourself have essentially admitted that you have read little if any of it.

I find this sad, Ben. As you may have seen in my recent "WhoAmI?" thread, I respect you and wouldn't want you to retire. However, I strongly believe that certain 9/11 conspiracies, such as the theory that the twin towers and WTC 7 were taken down by controlled demolition actually happened and so should definitely be taken seriously.

As you also know, I have once PMed you in regards to the WTC collapses and we had a brief discussion until it apparently lost your interest. Yes, there are other places to discuss conspiracy theories- as a general rule, however, they are far more polarized on one side or the other then in this forum. What this tends to mean is that discussion frequently doesn't last too long- the moderators will frequently ban key members of one side or the other, which can frequently render the argument fairly one sided. The only exception to this rule that I have seen is here.

In the ending, sciforums is run by the moderators and on the whole, they seem to be of the view that the 9/11 conspiracy theories that entail anything other then the flimsy official story shouldn't be taken seriously and thus certainly shouldn't be given too much inspection. I find that this, in turn, leads to a rather sad scenario; you don't take it seriously, thus you don't look much at the evidence that the alternate theory people have presented and because you don't look at said evidence, it's hard to persuade you that you should, indeed, take the claims seriously.

 

i have a DVD about 911 entitled re-examining the evidence.
during the first 5 minutes or so there is a man talking solemnly about 911 almost like a funeral director.
at the end of this little pitch this man says he feels the citizens of new york should sue the government for damages done to their health because of the generated dust clouds.
personally i feel that, alone, sets the entire tone for these sites you have been posting here.

 

The first statement is very true. Unlike you, I don't believe in wasting time getting to the point.

Your last statement is totally UNTRUE! I, and many, many others have provided very specific, detailed information which totally demolished MANY of your rather childish and simplistic claims. The REAL truth is, I'm sad to say, is that you just aren't bright enough to be able to separate fact from fantasy and completely ignore genuine evidence when it's presented.

And this is yet another of your failings. Because it suits your brainless desire to believe the above mentioned cranks (and others like them), you cannot recognize that there are a few people here who actually DO understand physics and engineering to degrees that are LIGHT-YEARS above your pitiful level! Again, sorry, but you just aren't educated enough to recognize that.

One of the biggest indicators that someone is completely foolish is that they spend SO much time reading all the various conspiracy-nut sites while making NO effort to study scientific and engineering principles on reputable sites and ignoring things readily available like textbooks. In short, you've failed on every front simply by refusing to educate yourself. Now THAT is a true pity and you've no one to blame for it but yourself.

 

That's never stopped a moderator cutting and pasting the parts required from a thread in the past, now has it?

 

I am very happy to find that there are some people here who respect me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And you should take the fact that I've responded past the initial "Meh" as a sign of mutual respect. (You'll notice how little I reply to people like Reiku/Saxion/gluon.)

But, all the same, Reiku/Saxion/gluon would argue that HE strongly believes that HIS crackpot theories regarding science should be taken seriously. Simply having a belief that something is true is no grounds to call the idea "legitimate", or even that it should be "taken seriously". You've looked at a set of data (digested by someone else) and come to one conclusion. Most people don't come to that conclusion. And, your conclusion seems rather unlikely---extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof. That is, the more unlikely something seems to be, the more convincing your evidence better be. I've not seen any convincing evidence, and most people agree.

 

Not all my idea's are crackpot though, and most of my theories concern consciousness, so of course you would levitate towards that side of thinking. You do afterall hate any discussion of consciousness in your subforum.

 

Perhaps, but I agree with Ben on his approach to your stuff - you'll note that I never (before this single time) responded to anything you've posted.

And the reason is quite simple: that particular topic is SO subjective that absolutely NONE of it can be considered science. It all just opinions mixed with a whole lot of assumptions and conjecture. And nothing like that qualifies as science in the very least.

 

Ok, probably one of the more ''nicer-worded'' posts you have ever made to me. You know, i never made it easy on myself. The more i thought moderators where ganging up on me, the more i posted filth of science and deliberate off-tracks.

However, this particular subject misses a complete discription by physics, but it doesn't necesserily mean that physics has no place with it. It basically means, that even if there are many speculations around it, one can carefully take the speculations and give it the right light, admitting scientific research in its area; this includes physics, which a small portion of all physical investigation ever gets put into. This is a shame, and a real loss.

 

Besides, Ben has a nerve.

If he isn't talking to me generally here, he likes to talk about someone behind their back.

 

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you feel the sites I've been posting are like the dust clouds? Or are you saying that the government's response to the 9/11 attacks leaves much to be desired and can even lead one to suspect they may have been involved in carrying it out?