WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone
- Thread starter Hyperviolet
- Start date
Hmm, odd, Red ignored me. I can only conclude that is is a double liar here. He does not have a theory better than NIST's and he does not always answer direct questions asked of him. Odd.
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
That's not the point, RedIbis.
You've claimed to have researched the likelihood of skyscrapers being designed with aircraft impact in mind. What sources did you consult, and for which buildings?
This question is about you, not us. You should be taking great pleasure in the chance to show us your abilities...
Last edited:
Thankfully, it seems I can finallyy bow out of this thread. While Mark Roberts was content to end the discussion without addressing my specific points in any reasonable manner (thankful for that due to his clear inability to discuss things in a civil manner) I was honestly open to the idea that Totovader had picked up a failure in my logic and/or understanding of the Argument from Ignornace. Now that he's shown that is not true I can thankfully leave this one-sided effort at discourse without regret.
Yet again you seem to have failed to read what I clearly stated in earlier posts. I made a distinction between hard and circumstantial evidence and stated that while there was no hard evidence of conspiracy enough cricumstantial evidence existed to warrant further investigation.
Hence the use of Watergate as an example, the relevance of which you also entirely failed to appreciate.
Many 'debunkers' have stated here that political conspiracy is a valid field for further enquiry (go read mackey's thread on the 'Gravy line'). This is also the entire point of Peter Dale Scott's book "The Road to 9/11". Gravy claimed familiarity with this, something that flies in the face of his demands for 'evidence'.
'Hard' evidence is not required to justify the validity of an argument suggesting the possibility of a conspiracy. I was well aware of this and had no desire to derail the thread with discussion unrelated to the specific point I was addressing.
Robert's, and your, failure to grasp this is entirely due to your reading far more into my intent here than anything I wrote ever warranted (i.e. that I was secretly championing some claim regarding physical evidence that your 'hard' evidence had already invalidated).
Ths is just getting repetitive. My above explanation was only a restatement of my earlier ones over the nature of 'evidence' (i.e. hard & circusmtantial and their relation to the possibility of conspiracy vs physical events) yet you have completely failed to apprehend my meaning. Once again, what is the nature of this 'proof' of a lack of political conspiracy that you refer to.
I'm now asking you to go read Dale Scott's book, start a thread and invalidate the central thesis that a political conspiracy possibly occured and this possibility warrants renewed investigation of those involved.
And again, my post either went over your head or bounced off it.
This just as an example of the civility of some of the posters here.
Please go back and check. Tell me where I wasn't honestly open to the possibility of being wrong and willing to accept the blame. It turns out I wasn't actually wrong but now that Totovader clearly doesn't appreciate the fault in his logic there is no effort made to clear up or admit to any possibility of being wrong.
Again, complete failure to understand my meaning. You were wrong. I was allowing for the possibility that I may have been wrong by misinterpreting Gravy's intent.
It is a fantastic comment on the failures of this forum that such attitudes are openly expressed without fear of disdain by others.
Previously I had said that people here should try to avoid extremes of 0 or 100% certainty and always allow for the possibility of their error.
Others believe things are always 100% right or wrong. While in logic things are either A or Not-A (that damned hyphen again) in communicating ideas between reasonable people such extremes are a method guaranteed to polarize the discourse in an entirely negative fashion that promotes dogmatism and entrenchment rather than open-minded debate.
Once again, this was not a discussion about my "lack of evidence". I clearly mentioned circumstantial evidence existed related to my own personal views (views which such evidence alone is more than enough to justify, as above). The derail here was brought about by Roberts attempts to change the topic of discussion by demands for "evidence" about matters unrelated to what I was addressing, namely his faulty claims of anti-semitism's early prominence.
You can clearly see that when addressing my points on the issue Robert's repeatedly evades discussion of my specific critiques and finally begins to attempt to shift the topic of discussion entirely.
After he places me on ignore he immediately reverts back to the issue of anti-semitism.
Clearly he has a specific desire to paint the 'truth movement' in the most negative possible terms and his resorts to ad hominem attacks speak volumes against the constant refrain from him and others that it is in its last stages.
You wonder why there are so few 'truthers' here (a forum over-flowing with incivility, irrationality and dogmatism) and immediately assume there is a single specific reason. Once again, unfamiliarity with the very fallacies you frequently cite is on display.
Yet again you seem to have failed to read what I clearly stated in earlier posts. I made a distinction between hard and circumstantial evidence and stated that while there was no hard evidence of conspiracy enough cricumstantial evidence existed to warrant further investigation.
Hence the use of Watergate as an example, the relevance of which you also entirely failed to appreciate.
Many 'debunkers' have stated here that political conspiracy is a valid field for further enquiry (go read mackey's thread on the 'Gravy line'). This is also the entire point of Peter Dale Scott's book "The Road to 9/11". Gravy claimed familiarity with this, something that flies in the face of his demands for 'evidence'.
'Hard' evidence is not required to justify the validity of an argument suggesting the possibility of a conspiracy. I was well aware of this and had no desire to derail the thread with discussion unrelated to the specific point I was addressing.
Robert's, and your, failure to grasp this is entirely due to your reading far more into my intent here than anything I wrote ever warranted (i.e. that I was secretly championing some claim regarding physical evidence that your 'hard' evidence had already invalidated).
Ths is just getting repetitive. My above explanation was only a restatement of my earlier ones over the nature of 'evidence' (i.e. hard & circusmtantial and their relation to the possibility of conspiracy vs physical events) yet you have completely failed to apprehend my meaning. Once again, what is the nature of this 'proof' of a lack of political conspiracy that you refer to.
I'm now asking you to go read Dale Scott's book, start a thread and invalidate the central thesis that a political conspiracy possibly occured and this possibility warrants renewed investigation of those involved.
And again, my post either went over your head or bounced off it.
This just as an example of the civility of some of the posters here.
Please go back and check. Tell me where I wasn't honestly open to the possibility of being wrong and willing to accept the blame. It turns out I wasn't actually wrong but now that Totovader clearly doesn't appreciate the fault in his logic there is no effort made to clear up or admit to any possibility of being wrong.
Again, complete failure to understand my meaning. You were wrong. I was allowing for the possibility that I may have been wrong by misinterpreting Gravy's intent.
It is a fantastic comment on the failures of this forum that such attitudes are openly expressed without fear of disdain by others.
Previously I had said that people here should try to avoid extremes of 0 or 100% certainty and always allow for the possibility of their error.
Others believe things are always 100% right or wrong. While in logic things are either A or Not-A (that damned hyphen again) in communicating ideas between reasonable people such extremes are a method guaranteed to polarize the discourse in an entirely negative fashion that promotes dogmatism and entrenchment rather than open-minded debate.
Once again, this was not a discussion about my "lack of evidence". I clearly mentioned circumstantial evidence existed related to my own personal views (views which such evidence alone is more than enough to justify, as above). The derail here was brought about by Roberts attempts to change the topic of discussion by demands for "evidence" about matters unrelated to what I was addressing, namely his faulty claims of anti-semitism's early prominence.
You can clearly see that when addressing my points on the issue Robert's repeatedly evades discussion of my specific critiques and finally begins to attempt to shift the topic of discussion entirely.
After he places me on ignore he immediately reverts back to the issue of anti-semitism.
Clearly he has a specific desire to paint the 'truth movement' in the most negative possible terms and his resorts to ad hominem attacks speak volumes against the constant refrain from him and others that it is in its last stages.
You wonder why there are so few 'truthers' here (a forum over-flowing with incivility, irrationality and dogmatism) and immediately assume there is a single specific reason. Once again, unfamiliarity with the very fallacies you frequently cite is on display.
Provide examples with the parameters, speed, and scenario for aircraft impact. Speed? Produce or it is hearsay. Sources? Etc.
Wait, you can't do it.
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
Apparently, you are not familiar with risk analysis, RedIbis. The real world operates differently than your hindsight dictates it should have operated.
There was risk analysis back in the mid-1960s, nowhere near the sophistication of that of today, but risk assessment is very much a part of building design and dictates to a large extent what risks are associated with the life of all buildings, skyscrapers in particular.
Risks can be assessed and quantified within the confines of existing knowledge, technology, and probabilities. The question faced the architects and structural engineers of the World Trade Center towers in the mid-sixties as the dealt with existing knowledge, assessments, metallurgy, structural techniques, weather conditions, and the possibility of being hit - accidentally - by an aircraft. Risk assessment, ultimately, allows one to make a decision to proceed on a project or not.
The question comes down to justifying the cost of a project. Would WTC 1 and 2 have been built in Miami in given the greater risk of hurricanes? Maybe - if the cost of strengthening the structure to withstand hurricane-force winds justified itself.
Surely you agree that those responsible for the design, risk assessments, and construction of WTC 1 and 2 some 35 years before 2001 were no more in a position than anyone to foresee the future to the extent that they would conceive the risk of a large jetliner not yet on the drawing boards would intentionally be flown into it at high speed as very high. They DID conceive of the possibility of a jet hitting it by accident at a low speed, on approach to landing at one of NYC's three major accidents. The costs of designing and building the towers to deal with this situation - to the extent that the towers could stand long enough to allow for an evacuation - were assessed. And the towers were built.
Since 9/11, the subject of assessing risk in building construction, given our new knowledge of what happened on 9/11 is a huge topic. See this article, for instance.
So, RedIbis, be careful how you represent history. Don't make unwarranted assumptions on how buildings should have been built.You know little and you can learn a lot.
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
I wouldn't embarrass yourself so readily with your lack of knowledge,
Edited by chillzero:
Do not change names to insult
Last edited by a moderator:
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
bje
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,281
Dear me. Read my reply to RedIbis,
Edited by chillzero:
Do not alter names as an insult
Last edited by a moderator:
Start a thread. But you have no clue the energy of impact; do you? In joules, or are you not able to function in a physics world?
What were the conditions, why did a plane hit? etc.
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,778
Nothing, per se. It's what you didn't say: that the B25 impact into the Empire State Building was an accident, whereas the impacts into WTCs 1 & 2 on 9/11 were not.
Designing for an accident like the B25 crash, or a theoretical 707 lost in fog and coming in for a landing, is one thing; designing for a deliberate 9/11-like crash is something else entirely.
Last edited:
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
There is at least one actual architect who posts on this very forum. He goes by the board name Architect. Perhaps you can start a thread asking him what criteria currently go into designing tall buildings.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
And what are the specification differences between the North American B-25 Mitchell medium bomber and a modern commercial jetliner? I suggest you examine these specification differences.
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Ah, I see people are still discussing this skyscraper design issue. I merely wanted to give links to the code changes above. A few points:
Calculations were done by the Twin Towers engineers to see if they would withstand the impact of a 707, but this was NOT a design requirement. You won't find paperwork from the Port Authority, the City of New York, or anyone else, specifying that the towers had to be able to withstand the impact of X plane flying at Y speed at Z floors.
Obviously, the towers did withstand the aircraft impacts.
No calculations were done to estimate the effects of fire on the towers from such an impact, nor were such calculations feasible in the 1960s. Even 35 years later, just before the Silverstein lease, his risk assessors believed the fire from an aircraft impact on WTC 1 or 2 would mostly be limited to the skin of the building and the plaza (That assessment wasn't done by an engineer, but it shows how ignorant even a professional can be about such events).
If you were to design a skyscraper to survive an airliner impact and fire, which airliner would you base the design on? A 747? An A380? A larger aircraft that might be built in the future? I'd like to see those designs!
Boeing 767-200: 2 engines, wingspan 156 feet, about 100-150 tons loaded, fuel capacity 23,980 US gal./90,770 L (the 767s that hit the towers had less than 10,000 gal. each aboard)
Airbus A380: 4 engines, wingspan 262 feet, about 400-550 tons loaded, fuel capacity 81,890 US gal./310,000 L (larger versions planned)
As Leslie Robertson says, we can't design for every eventuality, so we need to keep the planes away from the buildings. This has been covered in numerous threads. Please seek them out if you want to continue discussing this topic.
(BTW: NYC skyscrapers have been hit by aircraft five times. There is no NYC building code for aircraft impact/fire resistance.)
Calculations were done by the Twin Towers engineers to see if they would withstand the impact of a 707, but this was NOT a design requirement. You won't find paperwork from the Port Authority, the City of New York, or anyone else, specifying that the towers had to be able to withstand the impact of X plane flying at Y speed at Z floors.
Obviously, the towers did withstand the aircraft impacts.
No calculations were done to estimate the effects of fire on the towers from such an impact, nor were such calculations feasible in the 1960s. Even 35 years later, just before the Silverstein lease, his risk assessors believed the fire from an aircraft impact on WTC 1 or 2 would mostly be limited to the skin of the building and the plaza (That assessment wasn't done by an engineer, but it shows how ignorant even a professional can be about such events).
If you were to design a skyscraper to survive an airliner impact and fire, which airliner would you base the design on? A 747? An A380? A larger aircraft that might be built in the future? I'd like to see those designs!
Boeing 767-200: 2 engines, wingspan 156 feet, about 100-150 tons loaded, fuel capacity 23,980 US gal./90,770 L (the 767s that hit the towers had less than 10,000 gal. each aboard)
Airbus A380: 4 engines, wingspan 262 feet, about 400-550 tons loaded, fuel capacity 81,890 US gal./310,000 L (larger versions planned)
As Leslie Robertson says, we can't design for every eventuality, so we need to keep the planes away from the buildings. This has been covered in numerous threads. Please seek them out if you want to continue discussing this topic.
(BTW: NYC skyscrapers have been hit by aircraft five times. There is no NYC building code for aircraft impact/fire resistance.)
Last edited:
Mince
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 2,009
No. Have you forgotten that the B-25 would have had roughly 1/gazillionth of the force a 767 would have slamming into a building? I forgot, was the B-25 a prop aircraft or a jet aircraft. I also forgot, is the 767 a prop aircraft or a jet aircraft? And wasn't the pilot of the 767 running at a very high speed trying to impact the building? I forgot again.
When come back, bring a sense of ratio and proportion instead of "OMG! Alex Jones said 9/11 was an inside job!!!1! That must mean 9/11 was an inside job!!!!11!1! ZOMG!!"
Last edited:
Mince
Master Poster
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 2,009
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Additionally, even though the pilot initiated a last-ditch attempt to bank and climb away from the building, the resulting slow speed impact still managed to kill 11, start fires on four floors and eject debris through the opposite side of the crash zone. Sounds kinda familiar.
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm
When did I ever say this?