30 of 51
30
Physics & Skyscrapers
Posted: 15 February 2012 05:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 436 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6160
Joined  2009-02-26
LanceThruster - 15 February 2012 05:20 PM

CFI = Center FAUX Inquiry

It really hurts me to say this because CFI got me involved in the skeptics movement in the first place.

psikeyhackr - 15 February 2012 09:19 AM
Write4U - 14 February 2012 10:42 PM

Has it occurred to you that there are factors which cannot be calculated unless reproduced at full scale?

Atheists are so scientific.

Center for Inquiry indeed, OMG   LOL

psik

Did you read the subsequent posts? Apparently not.

What is your expertise Lance (or psik for that matter) that you can paint such condemnation of CFI with such a broad brush?

I readily admit that I am here to learn, but in spite of my limited formal education I believe that on occasion I have contributed some valuable layman insights to the general discussions. No one is perfect or knows it all! I personally have learned much and I thank the “learned” people here for their willingness to discuss, challenge, and debate the issues.

CFI challenges one to think critically and research facts on those discussions which are of interest to the general membership. This is not a University or a Formal Educational Forum. It is open to all who show a willingness to think logically and reasonably. But seldom are unsubstantiated claims accepted as fact without vigorous challenges and discussion.
I believe your play on words is premature and prejudicial.

[ Edited: 15 February 2012 06:21 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2012 06:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 437 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6160
Joined  2009-02-26
LanceThruster - 15 February 2012 05:25 PM

I know I’d sure like to see someone replicate having a jetliner pass through a reinforced wall and have the wings and tail fold up and follow it through the hole (as well as what sort of damage the massive jet engines themselves do upon impact).

Seems reasonable. If they can make a big media event out of bringing down old Vegas casinos in controlled demos, they can make a mint on Pay-per-View with this, no?

Now that was an absurd statement. Of course the “steel” beams sheared off the “aluminium” wings, but at cost of their own structural integrity. Moreover I have watched a few controlled demolitions and they always fall straight down (collapse inward) within a few seconds of the main explosive charge (plus the accompanying secondary charges), with minimum damage to the surrounding buildings. As I understand it the collateral damage to the surrounding area of the towers was massive, which would support a chaotic (uncontrolled) collapse. I also mentioned that according to the reports it took 12 seconds and 9 seconds which again supports the view that this was a slowly increasing structural failure as the accumulating weight of each collapsing level placed an ever increasing stress on the levels below.

I have not the expertise to propose this with certainty, but apparently neither does anyone else, except the structural expert I cited in the link.
In the absence of facts to the contrary I believe the single expert who apparently has been cited several times in the investigation.

I am not discounting the possibility of sloppy workmanship. There are examples of contractors trying to get away with below par workmanship and materials, even bribes to inspectors. The movie “China Syndrome” addressed that issue and we know about the sub par (cheaper) valves in the Gulf spill calamity. But to assert that this was an intentional (other than the terrorists) conspiracy to kill some 3000 people seems implausible. Call me naive if you can prove otherwise.

correction:  12 seconds and 9 seconds is incorrect. See #439

[ Edited: 15 February 2012 07:53 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2012 07:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 438 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
LanceThruster - 15 February 2012 01:02 PM

Hypocrisy, much?

I’ll let you know. I concede there are “experts” on *both* sides. We weigh expert opinion and assertions all the time. You all act as if all the sane people are on the official narrative side, and the truly skeptical side is comprised of only “nutters.” This couldn’t be further from the truth.

By all means, bring out your champions.

But have them show their work.

Have them engage in open and honest debate with those whose credentials are also substantial. Have them actually address the glaring inconsistencies. Have them do the math.

Hasn’t this already been done all throughout the internet? You have to have a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. In this case it is easy, and we don’t even have to appeal to authorities. The 9/11 planned demolition conspiracy theory is almost certainly false because of a couple things - one, how could they have wired up that much explosives without anyone noticing? And two, what possible motivation could there be for this?

Now, psik will say, what about the physics? Well, he admits he is not an expert and is requesting experts to do the calculations and make the models or whatever. But he hasn’t answered the question of why. We have no reason to think there was any foul play involved, other than what seems to be a little bit of ass-covering.

Challenge your fellow myth huggers to provide substantiation for statements such as “most conspiracy theories are not true” (approximate wording from memory) and offer an actual percentage. Ask them how one uncovers actual conspiracies if most people accept that statement. Don’t forget, most people (over 50%?) believe in god (2.3% of the world’s pop identify themselves as atheists and 11.9% as non-religious - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism ) and many people (31%) believe in astrology (from search engine query).

(edited to show % of belief in astrology under 50%)

This CSICOP link however shows just how pervasive astrology columns are.

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/first_thing_we_do_letrsquos_get_rid_of_all_the_astrologers

My point being that these are the same “institutions” that lack the curiosity or integrity to ask difficult questions and actually demand answers (and follow up on them no less!) but want you to believe that they can be trusted with provided facts that may hurt their bottom line by outraging readers.

If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. ~ Anatole France

“If I were wrong, it would only have taken one.”—Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein

I don’t think anyone is appealing to popularity. Many conspiracy theories can be rejected due to inconsistent internal logic as well, but that would be disputed by many. Coming up with hard numbers would be hard.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2012 07:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 439 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6160
Joined  2009-02-26

Correction re the duration of the collapse of the towers.  I cited 12 and 9 seconds, it actually took much longer which further supports a slow but accelerating weakening and eventual total disintegration of the structures.

From wiki,

The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m., less than an hour after being hit by the hijacked airliner, and at 10:28 a.m. the North Tower collapsed.

[ Edited: 15 February 2012 09:51 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 07:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 440 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07

And that’s something else - if someone planned to blow up the towers, wouldn’t they have timed the fall to be more in sync with the impact? (I can’t believe I’m still reading this joke of a thread.)  grrr

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 08:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 441 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
Write4U - 15 February 2012 07:48 PM

Correction re the duration of the collapse of the towers.  I cited 12 and 9 seconds, it actually took much longer which further supports a slow but accelerating weakening and eventual total disintegration of the structures.

From wiki,

The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m., less than an hour after being hit by the hijacked airliner, and at 10:28 a.m. the North Tower collapsed.

Are you trying to imply that collapse time should be counted form the time of the airliner impacts?

Nobody does that.

The longest collapse times are 25 seconds and that is based on the remains of the core still standing which is called “The Spire”.

Oh sure muddy the waters and cause confusion with rhetorical bullsh!t.  A very Chris Mohr tactic.  LOL

Dr. Sunder of the NIST said 11 seconds for the north tower, so he was ignoring The Spire collapse time.  In order to see The Spire the perimeter and the floors and most of the core was already down.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 08:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 442 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01
traveler - 16 February 2012 07:34 AM

And that’s something else - if someone planned to blow up the towers, wouldn’t they have timed the fall to be more in sync with the impact? (I can’t believe I’m still reading this joke of a thread.)  grrr

Me too. The only reason I clicked on it just now was because I saw your name as the last poster.  cheese

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 443 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15
FreeInKy - 16 February 2012 08:29 AM
traveler - 16 February 2012 07:34 AM

And that’s something else - if someone planned to blow up the towers, wouldn’t they have timed the fall to be more in sync with the impact? (I can’t believe I’m still reading this joke of a thread.)  grrr

Me too. The only reason I clicked on it just now was because I saw your name as the last poster.  cheese

So you admit to being unreasonable (commenting in a thread that holds no interest for you because you’re satisfied you know enough not to give it any further consideration)?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 10:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 444 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01
LanceThruster - 16 February 2012 09:45 AM
FreeInKy - 16 February 2012 08:29 AM
traveler - 16 February 2012 07:34 AM

And that’s something else - if someone planned to blow up the towers, wouldn’t they have timed the fall to be more in sync with the impact? (I can’t believe I’m still reading this joke of a thread.)  grrr

Me too. The only reason I clicked on it just now was because I saw your name as the last poster.  cheese

So you admit to being unreasonable (commenting in a thread that holds no interest for you because you’re satisfied you know enough not to give it any further consideration)?

I admit to being a busy person who chooses to participate in topics and with people I find interesting. If that makes me unreasonable, then I plead guilty.

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 445 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

I don’t think anyone is appealing to popularity. Many conspiracy theories can be rejected due to inconsistent internal logic as well, but that would be disputed by many. Coming up with hard numbers would be hard.

Have you looked at the inconsistencies re: the 9/11 official narrative? Bush said twice he saw the first plane hit on TV. He should have been subpeonaed and put under oath (like Clinton for getting a hummer…instead we got the Bush/Cheney dog and pony show behind closed doors with all sorts of absurd preconditions - sounds like someone trying to keep their lies straight). How about the nation was under attack, the prez was at a known location near airports, and the Secret Service ignored protocol and let him sit there reading a childrens book to grade school students for an extended length of time when there was no telling what might unfold next in this nefarious scheme. You familiar with Sherlock Holmes and “the dog that didn’t bark”? People keep trotting out nonsense like we wouldn’t do that or they couldn’t keep it quiet.

Re: the first part…remember “we don’t torture, we don’t illegal wiretap, there are no secret renditions, the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, the election wasn’t stolen” etc., as well as the fact of indefinite detentions, no due process even for American citizens, ad so on?

Turns out their assurances are less than worthless (with exception of that Constitution statement…they’ve been wiping their collective @sses with it for some time).

Re: the second part - whether from incompetence or criminal negligence, nobody lost their jobs, nobody was investigated, and in fact many were rewarded for their ‘actions’ though we paid a incredibly heavy price both that day, and to the fabric of the republic ever since. Do a search on Cass Sunstein, who recommends spreading disinformation to discredit 9/11 truth sites. Why would the “truth” need to be protected by a web of lies?

Does CFI support these sort of tactics? At a CFI conference in DC before the Iraq war was started, I asked Paul Kurtz if the response to 9/11 should be viewed as a military problem or as a law enforcement one. He answered that he felt it should be dealt with as a political one and went on to explain that underlying issues should also be addressed. To me that spoke of dealing with the truth in an upfront and straight forward manner.

To the poster who asked how it would have been possible to pre-place by whatever means might be used to foster the collapse, I would ask are you aware of this tidbit? That Marvin Bush’s firm that operated security for the WTCs. There were multiple irregularities prior to 9/11 (see: http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_09.htm  )

To those stating they have the answers they need, what about the destruction of evidence in a case of mass murder? Why not spare a little bit of your outrage towards truthers for that? (see: http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_11.htm )

Experts agree that to implode a building from the top down, as in the case with the Towers, the central core and foundation need to first be pulled and destroyed. Then the building can be brought down from above with well-timed explosives. Are the underground explosions reported and detailed above evidence of the core foundation being pulled? We don’t know. However, this, and all other speculative conjectures, could have easily been put to rest if experienced, un-biased investigators were allowed to examine the remains of the WTC site. Steel beams could have been tested for evidence of explosives. Girders and joists could have been analyzed for damage patterns. Residue from incendiary and explosive devices could have been investigated. But the necessary evidence was destroyed.

In direct violation of federal law regarding crime scene protocol, the WTC debris pile was virtually locked down and illegally cleared of all pertinent evidence. No FEMA, industry experts, fire/arson investigators, nor any structural engineers were allowed to gather evidence for later laboratory investigation. They were given limited access to walk around segments of ground zero, to observe and take notes on the debris pile. But to suggest that this cursory review was sufficient examination to comprehensively detail the reason for the Towers’ collapse, or to lucidly comment on perhaps the greatest crime in our nation’s history, is scientifically absurd.

——- AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO DEFEND THIS BRAZENESS?!?!

I mean, for crying out loud…why look at actual evidence when you can just build computer models? You see only what you want to see because they only let you see what they want you to see. It’s the same sort of indoctrinations that makes religionism the default position for those unwilling to think for themselves.

[ Edited: 16 February 2012 12:03 PM by LanceThruster ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 446 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15
FreeInKy - 16 February 2012 10:28 AM
LanceThruster - 16 February 2012 09:45 AM
FreeInKy - 16 February 2012 08:29 AM
traveler - 16 February 2012 07:34 AM

And that’s something else - if someone planned to blow up the towers, wouldn’t they have timed the fall to be more in sync with the impact? (I can’t believe I’m still reading this joke of a thread.)  grrr

Me too. The only reason I clicked on it just now was because I saw your name as the last poster.  cheese

So you admit to being unreasonable (commenting in a thread that holds no interest for you because you’re satisfied you know enough not to give it any further consideration)?

I admit to being a busy person who chooses to participate in topics and with people I find interesting. If that makes me unreasonable, then I plead guilty.

PATIENT - “Doctor it hurts when I go like this

DOCTOR - “Then don’t go like this.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 447 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
LanceThruster - 16 February 2012 11:57 AM

I don’t think anyone is appealing to popularity. Many conspiracy theories can be rejected due to inconsistent internal logic as well, but that would be disputed by many. Coming up with hard numbers would be hard.

Have you looked at the inconsistencies re: the 9/11 official narrative? Bush said twice he saw the first plane hit on TV. He should have been subpeonaed and put under oath (like Clinton for getting a hummer…instead we got the Bush/Cheney dog and pony show behind closed doors with all sorts of absurd preconditions - sounds like someone trying to keep their lies straight). How about the nation was under attack, the prez was at a known location near airports, and the Secret Service ignored protocol and let him sit there reading a childrens book to grade school students for an extended length of time when there was no telling what might unfold next in this nefarious scheme. You familiar with Sherlock Holmes and “the dog that didn’t bark”? People keep trotting out nonsense like we wouldn’t do that or they couldn’t keep it quiet.

Re: the first part…remember “we don’t torture, we don’t illegal wiretap, there are no secret renditions, the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, the election wasn’t stolen” etc., as well as the fact of indefinite detentions, no due process even for American citizens, ad so on?

Turns out their assurances are less than worthless (with exception of that Constitution statement…they’ve been wiping their collective @sses with it for some time).

Re: the second part - whether from incompetence or criminal negligence, nobody lost their jobs, nobody was investigated, and in fact many were rewarded for their ‘actions’ though we paid a incredibly heavy price both that day, and to the fabric of the republic ever since. Do a search on Cass Sunstein, who recommends spreading disinformation to discredit 9/11 truth sites. Why would the “truth” need to be protected by a web of lies?

Does CFI support these sort of tactics? At a CFI conference in DC before the Iraq war was started, I asked Paul Kurtz if the response to 9/11 should be viewed as a military problem or as a law enforcement one. He answered that he felt it should be dealt with as a political one and went on to explain that underlying issues should also be addressed. To me that spoke of dealing with the truth in an upfront and straight forward manner.

To the poster who asked how it would have been possible to pre-place by whatever means might be used to foster the collapse, I would ask are you aware of this tidbit? That Marvin Bush’s firm that operated security for the WTCs. There were multiple irregularities prior to 9/11 (see: http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_09.htm  )

Still sounds incredibly unlikely, but okay. And the motive?

To those stating they have the answers they need, what about the destruction of evidence in a case of mass murder? Why not spare a little bit of your outrage towards truthers for that? (see: http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_11.htm )

Experts agree that to implode a building from the top down, as in the case with the Towers, the central core and foundation need to first be pulled and destroyed. Then the building can be brought down from above with well-timed explosives. Are the underground explosions reported and detailed above evidence of the core foundation being pulled? We don’t know. However, this, and all other speculative conjectures, could have easily been put to rest if experienced, un-biased investigators were allowed to examine the remains of the WTC site. Steel beams could have been tested for evidence of explosives. Girders and joists could have been analyzed for damage patterns. Residue from incendiary and explosive devices could have been investigated. But the necessary evidence was destroyed.

In direct violation of federal law regarding crime scene protocol, the WTC debris pile was virtually locked down and illegally cleared of all pertinent evidence. No FEMA, industry experts, fire/arson investigators, nor any structural engineers were allowed to gather evidence for later laboratory investigation. They were given limited access to walk around segments of ground zero, to observe and take notes on the debris pile. But to suggest that this cursory review was sufficient examination to comprehensively detail the reason for the Towers’ collapse, or to lucidly comment on perhaps the greatest crime in our nation’s history, is scientifically absurd.

——- AND YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO DEFEND THIS BRAZENESS?!?!

You seem to get worked up really easily by rhetoric. That was an act of terrorism, not crime, so no “crime scene protocol” needs to be followed.

I mean, for crying out loud…why look at actual evidence when you can just build computer models?

Not sure how accurate a computer model could be given the amount of information available.

You see only what you want to see because they only let you see what they want you to see.

That sentence doesn’t make sense.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 01:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 448 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6194
Joined  2006-12-20
domokato - 16 February 2012 12:39 PM
LanceThruster - 16 February 2012 11:57 AM


To the poster who asked how it would have been possible to pre-place by whatever means might be used to foster the collapse, I would ask are you aware of this tidbit? That Marvin Bush’s firm that operated security for the WTCs. There were multiple irregularities prior to 9/11 (see: http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_09.htm  )

Still sounds incredibly unlikely, but okay. And the motive?

Yes, it does sound incredibly unlikely. What Lance and psik don’t take into account is that theirs is an extraordinary claim and should be treated as such. So extraordinary evidence required.

domokato - 16 February 2012 12:39 PM

but okay. And the motive?

Yep, how could going to that trouble, with the most enormous risk of getting caught, be better than just flying the planes into the buildings?

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 02:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 449 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

You seem to get worked up really easily by rhetoric. That was an act of terrorism, not crime, so no “crime scene protocol” needs to be followed.

Are *you* Cass Sunstein?

Principal: Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Billy Madison: Okay, a simple “wrong” would’ve done just fine.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 February 2012 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 450 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  167
Joined  2002-10-15

I mean, for crying out loud…why look at actual evidence when you can just build computer models?

My bad…forget to add the [sarcasm on] [sarcasm off] brackets (because I had no freakin’ idea I might actually need them).

Are you some sort of computer generated answer-bot incapable of detecting sarcasm?

Profile
 
 
   
30 of 51
30