Mark Roberts Interview on Skeptic Zone

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Has anyone bothered to correct Gravy and find out if skyscrapers are designed to withstand airliner impact?

Why haven't you?

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?

 

[RedIbis]

Why haven't you?

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?

Do you mean besides the Twin Towers?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So when you consulted the twin towers, what did they say?

 

[RedIbis]

So when you consulted the twin towers, what did they say?

It would be a misplaced modifier if his question didn't end with the words, "and for which buildings".

Snarky and incorrect is not a good combination.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you mean besides the Twin Towers?

Yes. That's the argument you were attempting to make when you responded to Gravy's post about WTC7, was it not?

The features of the new WTC 7 would probably prevent its collapse during circumstances like 9/11, but fly an airliner into it and all bets are off.

Are you honestly suggesting that airplane impact is not a consideration when designing skyscrapers?

 

[RedIbis]

Yes. That's the argument you were attempting to make when you responded to Gravy's post about WTC7, was it not?

His comment is ridiculous whether we're talking about the Twin Towers or we're talking about other skyscrapers.

When he said, "fly an airliner into it and all bets are off" he's insinuating that the buildings are not designed to withstand such an impact. This is patently false and I'd expect a few of his loyalists to gently point this out to him.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

His comment is ridiculous whether we're talking about the Twin Towers or we're talking about other skyscrapers.

When he said, "fly an airliner into it and all bets are off" he's insinuating that the buildings are not designed to withstand such an impact. This is patently false and I'd expect a few of his loyalists to gently point this out to him.

I see you've switched to "the buildings" rather than just "buildings" or "skyscrapers" in general. Which buildings are we talking about now, RedIbis?

 

[RedIbis]

I see you've switched to "the buildings" rather than just "buildings" or "skyscrapers" in general. Which buildings are we talking about now, RedIbis?

Well, let's take a look at the full context of what Gravy said and see if we can pull the meat out of this word stew:

Gravy: The events of 9/11 were unique, and it's probably not feasible to design all tall buildings to cope with such extraordinary circumstances. The features of the new WTC 7 would probably prevent its collapse during circumstances like 9/11, but fly an airliner into it and all bets are off.

He's wrong. Not only is it feasible, it's been done and continues to be done. The bets are not off when an airliner is flown into a building.

 

[johnny karate]

He's wrong. Not only is it feasible, it's been done and continues to be done. The bets are not off when an airliner is flown into a building.

Your parsing of words is both typically dishonest and glaringly obvious.

Gravy said is wasn't feasible to design all tall buildings to cope with the extraordinary circumstances of 9/11. If you have evidence the every single tall building in the world is being designed this way, please present it or retract your claim.

Furthermore, he said "all bets are off" specifically regarding the new WTC7, not tall buildings in general. If you have evidence the new WTC7 is being designed to withstand an airliner impact, please present it, or retract your claim.

 

[RedIbis]

Your parsing of words is both typically dishonest and glaringly obvious.

Gravy said is wasn't feasible to design all tall buildings to cope with the extraordinary circumstances of 9/11. If you have evidence the every single tall building in the world is being designed this way, please present it or retract your claim.

Furthermore, he said "all bets are off" specifically regarding the new WTC7, not tall buildings in general. If you have evidence the new WTC7 is being designed to withstand an airliner impact, please present it, or retract your claim.

While we're parsing words, it is "feasible" whether or not it's done. But it is routine:

However, according to Scott Steedman, a structural engineer in London, buildings including the World Trade Centre are regularly designed to take enormous impacts. He explains:

‘Buildings are routinely designed for impact from aircraft, that’s quite normal. In the nuclear industry it is absolutely routine and these sorts of tower buildings, these buildings in particular, were designed to take the impact of large airliners.’
‘The impact of an aeroplane is relatively small in comparison to the winds blowing in a hurricane that a tall building can experience.’

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlights/010914_tower.shtml

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

While we're parsing words, it is "feasible" whether or not it's done. But it is routine:

Ah-ha! Finally... You know, it really is like pulling teeth with you, RedIbis

Now... Would he be referring to accidental impacts, or 9/11-like high-speed impacts?

 

[RedIbis]

Ah-ha! Finally... You know, it really is like pulling teeth with you, RedIbis

Now... Would he be referring to accidental impacts, or 9/11-like high-speed impacts?

It's not that hard to find this information for yourself, that's why I resist posting it for all of the so called master researchers around here.

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event, it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.

 

[johnny karate]

While we're parsing words, it is "feasible" whether or not it's done. But it is routine:

Why don't you go ahead and quote the part of the article you linked that says all tall buildings are designed to "cope with the extraordinary circumstances of 9/11", which would include a fuel-laden jetliner slamming into it at full speed and then burning in uncontrolled fires.

This is what Gravy said was not feasible and this is the point you're arguing against. Evidence that buildings are designed to withstand unspecified impacts with unspecified aircraft is immaterial.

 

[johnny karate]

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event, it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.

You're lying again, and what's so sad is how obvious it is.

Gravy made a very specify claim referring to the "extraordinary circumstances" of 9/11, which were the WTC towers collapsing due to the jetliner impacts AND the ensuing fires.

You're trying to parse that to just mean the impacts. In reference to the feasibility of the design of all tall buildings, Gravy did not make this claim.

Please stop lying.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's not that hard to find this information for yourself, that's why I resist posting it for all of the so called master researchers around here.

Well, I have never claimed to be a master researcher, have I, RedIbis?

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event [...]

Actually, it is. How many commercial airliners have actually impacted skyscrapers, RedIbis?

[...] it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.

How does one design a skyscraper to prevent aircraft impacts, RedIbis?

 

[beachnut]

It's not that hard to find this information for yourself, that's why I resist posting it for all of the so called master researchers around here.

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event, it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.

Too hard for you to find.

It is not like you to post any substance with your bs, so why start now. You need not explain your standard operating procedures.

It is not practical to design for 600 mph aircraft impacts. I doubt your house can take a 600 mph 300,000 pound aircraft impact. Why would you design for a 600 mph impact. Your house can't even take an F-5 tornado. Your house can't even protect you from meteorite. We can design for it, can you afford it?

 

[Mercutio]

It's not that hard to find this information for yourself, that's why I resist posting it for all of the so called master researchers around here.

We both know what Gravy was trying to do. He wanted to disseminate the false idea that airplane impact is such an extraordinary event, it's not feasible to design skyscrapers to prevent it, which is obviously wrong.

So...

We know you are lying.

You know you are lying.

Could you list the people you believe do not think you are lying?

I am honestly curious. I really want to know the reason you would write this extraordinary lie, given that the people you are interacting with are not fooled.

 

[Gravy]

Eight points:

1) Earlier in this thread I asked that people who think I've made errors unrelated to the podcast discuss them in the Mark Roberts factual error thread.

2) On the last page I asked that this skyscraper/airplane discussion be taken elsewhere.

3) I hate to point it out again, but I think that debunkers who continue to engage with dishonest and ineducable attention-seekers are helping to perpetuate the conspiracy theories.

4-8) If you don't like trolls, don't feed them.

 

[Corsair 115]

How does one design a skyscraper to prevent aircraft impacts, RedIbis?

Well, that's easy: install SAMs and Phalanxes on them. Then the jets can be shot down before they hit the skyscraper!

Of course, the smaller surrounding buildings probably won't like that outcome very much...

 

[RedIbis]

To clarify, I simply meant design to prevent collapse from airplane impact, but I'm sure you all knew that already.