"24 hard facts about 9/11 that cannot be debunked"

[Jack by the hedge]

that the personal character assassinations will stop and I can bring some rationality to other acolytes of a deception.

But that wasn't to be.....

I wondered about your previous post; I couldn't tell if you were seriously reconsidering the issue or just being sarcastic. Seems you were serious, so congratulations.

I suspect it's so long since someone who'd been taken in by truther misinformation genuinely declared they were reconsidering their view on 9/11 that people hereabouts just don't recognise when it's time to cease fire.

 

[sonofgloin]

Why/How would the President staying at the school indicate anything other than a decision was made at the time to stay at the school? The President could have been rushed away from the school and be involved in a conspiracy. He clearly wasn't, but there's not conclusion to draw one way or the other from the decision to stay in place.

Conspiracy and the Bush's...why did George lie about how he got the information of the second strike. Why would he do that. What did the agent whisper into his ear if, as George tells it he got the info during a break......perhaps the agent said " Mr President this is the little charade you asked me to pull."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

 

[sonofgloin]

So you will be producing the engineering studies for the particular design consideration?

I won't hold my breath waiting

I expect you will be forwarding me precedents regarding high rises falling to their basements due to fire....on upper or lower floors, I’ll take either.

 

[sonofgloin]

He would be more familiar with this type of building.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_23409525171d3ef6b0.jpg[/qimg]

Dafydd, we all get the "hobbit" references, give it a rest sport, it's worn out.....and you weren't even the first.

 

[sonofgloin]

This is also wrong. No one designs an office building to resist large aircraft. They designed the building to be an office building. After they designed it, they did a "what if" calculation regarding a low speed 707.

"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html

Well it seems Joe the WTC admistrators have a different view on what dedicated safety features came with the construction of the towers. Slow impact...fast impact....you make me smile tiger.

 

[Mark F]

Conspiracy and the Bush's...why did George lie about how he got the information of the second strike. Why would he do that. What did the agent whisper into his ear if, as George tells it he got the info during a break......perhaps the agent said " Mr President this is the little charade you asked me to pull."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

You are correct, why would Bush lie?

He didn't lie. He mis-spoke, something he was rather famous for. If you were to give us a detailed account of everything you did that day how accurate would it be? Human memory is notoriously fallible. That is not evidence of wrongdoing, only that he got his details mixed up in an off-the-cuff remark made months later about the most hectic, confused and stressful day of his life.

Now, do you have any evidence to support your case that does not rely entirely on mis-interpreted witness statements?

 

[BStrong]

You are correct, why would Bush lie?

He didn't lie. He mis-spoke, something he was rather famous for. If you were to give us a detailed account of everything you did that day how accurate would it be? Human memory is notoriously fallible. That is not evidence of wrongdoing, only that he got his details mixed up in an off-the-cuff remark made months later about the most hectic, confused and stressful day of his life.

Now, do you have any evidence to support your case that does not rely entirely on mis-interpreted witness statements?

One of the cornerstones of CT think is the rejection of human frailty as a factor in any event.

This type of opinion is usually held by individuals who have no real-world experience in situations where the wheels fall off, professionally referred to as Crisis Management.

 

[fitzgibbon]

So it is 2006 again, isn't it?

Proof that time travel IS possible. Too bad it seems to have more in common with "Groundhog Day" than "Dr. Who"

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

that the personal character assassinations will stop and I can bring some rationality to other acolytes of a deception.

But that wasn't to be.....

Interesting definition of "rationality" you have. I'm not sure that I'd concur that that's the best word to describe what you brought

Fitz

 

[Animal]

I expect you will be forwarding me precedents regarding high rises falling to their basements due to fire....on upper or lower floors, I’ll take either.

Typical troofer.......makes a claim, can't back it up and follows with a demand for proof of something that did not happen.

 

[dafydd]

Dafydd, we all get the "hobbit" references, give it a rest sport, it's worn out.....and you weren't even the first.

Your twooferism is worn out, and you're not the first to fall for it.

 

[dafydd]

Typical troofer.......makes a claim, can't back it up and follows with a demand for proof of something that did not happen.

They are always expecting us to educate them but they never listen to the answers.

 

[Animal]

I recently read a book called "To Engineer is Human". It was written well before 9/11 but talked about some important engineering failures and how they taught engineers how to do their jobs better in the future.

One of the problems engineers face is the question of how failure-proof they should make any given design. They could make it three times stronger than the strongest force they expect it to experience, but...how do they know what forces it will experience? How many times will it experience that force? Will the correct materials be used to build the thing? Will it be assembled properly? Do they need to add even more failure-proofing to account for these possibilities?

One of the problems with the WTC was that, according to inspections a few years before its destruction, fire-proofing was found to be installed improperly. So right off the bat that would invalidate any calculations that might have been done, at the time the building was designed, that would show it was invulnerable to airliner impact. And that's just the fireproofing. There could have been many other mistakes in materials and assembly that weren't detected. The buildings would still function perfectly fine for decades, but would not be able to withstand that worst-case scenario it was designed to survive.

The fact is that engineers (and architects) design to what is required by building codes. Structural strength required by the code both then and now included for gravity loads - both dead and live, lateral loads (wind, earthquake) and a factor of safety. They were not designed for aircraft impact, meteors, klingon on death rays, biblical floods, godzilla, or any other nonsensical and rare occurrences. Saying the WTC could withstand the impact of an aircraft (which it did) is far sexier than saying it could withstand a 120 mph wind. The other aspect frequently ignored by troofers is that building codes are not created to save buildings from fire. They are designed to allow for evacuation of the building by all occupants and to give fire fighting efforts a reasonable chance to rescue occupants and extinguish fires without a loss of life.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html

Well it seems Joe the WTC admistrators have a different view on what dedicated safety features came with the construction of the towers. Slow impact...fast impact....you make me smile tiger.

Handwaving away the speed of impact is scarcely going to help your argument's credibility.

You appear to be interpreting "made to withstand them" as meaning the towers were purposely designed to withstand the worst-case scenario impact from any current or future aircraft of any size, at any speed and with any fuel load.

That's a pretty heavy burden to place on the precise wording of what is after all not a technical document nor even a public notice from the WTC but merely a newspaper's description of the wording of a public notice from the WTC.

Do you have any supporting evidence to make that stance seem any less unreasonable?

 

[dafydd]

The fact is that engineers (and architects) design to what is required by building codes. Structural strength required by the code both then and now included for gravity loads - both dead and live, lateral loads (wind, earthquake) and a factor of safety. They were not designed for aircraft impact, meteors, klingon on death rays, biblical floods, godzilla, or any other nonsensical and rare occurrences. Saying the WTC could withstand the impact of an aircraft (which it did) is far sexier than saying it could withstand a 120 mph wind. The other aspect frequently ignored by troofers is that building codes are not created to save buildings from fire. They are designed to allow for evacuation of the building by all occupants and to give fire fighting efforts a reasonable chance to rescue occupants and extinguish fires without a loss of life.

More facts for twoofers to ignore.

 

[beachnut]

that the personal character assassinations will stop and I can bring some rationality to other acolytes of a deception.

But that wasn't to be.....

LOL, you bring woo, and you don't know it. You post false information about steel. You take studies and make up lies about buildings falling, failing to present the math and physics to back up your silly claims.

Conspiracy and the Bush's...why did George lie about how he got the information of the second strike. Why would he do that. What did the agent whisper into his ear if, as George tells it he got the info during a break......perhaps the agent said " Mr President this is the little charade you asked me to pull."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

You mean first strike. How can you make a claim about 911 and get the claim back-wards? Did you watch the video you posted?
What is your claim?

Oh, Bush said he was outside the class room before the second impact and he said..

"I saw an airplane hit the tower"

But idiots in 911 truth don't understanding seeing the impact hole of flight 11 before 9am is possible, and bush in typical Bush speak really said (in his head)

"I saw (where) an airplane hit the tower"

Darn, this is your best google of woo? lol, you can't figure out 911 given the answers and you need help with this silly nonsensical political attack of woo? What does it mean? Is this the best evidence 911 truth has? Better go prove Bigfoot, you can recycle your "hard evidence".

The poor nut in the video, everyone who had TV saw the first crash, I have photos of the first crash. "first crash" = "impact hole"
Can't believe a quibble about meaning makes it to a 911 truth talking point. What a big fail. I saw the first crash on 911, on TV, and I was thinking the same thing; perfect weather, and how could an pilot be so dumb? Was he in 911 truth? Seeing the first crash? lol, we saw where the first aircraft crashed. Bush and I went to the same UPT base to learn to fly jets, we also share the (same, omg i left his out, i thought it but ... ) mastery of English... This is your best stuff?

I expect you will be forwarding me precedents regarding high rises falling to their basements due to fire....on upper or lower floors, I’ll take either.

I expect you ("to" I did it again) back you failed claims with math and physics. But you can't; that is why CD claims, inside job claims are fantasy. Better luck with Bigfoot, or Santa.

Dafydd, we all get the "hobbit" references, give it a rest sport, it's worn out.....and you weren't even the first.

You can't figure out what the WTC was design to resist for aircraft impacts, maybe you should sick with simple stuff, large building seem to be too complex for your quote-mining common sense approach to work.

Your problem with understanding 911 is due to you picking up 911 truth claims and trying to defend them. You did not have these ideas, you googled them. You are falling for lies and fail to see they are backed up with fantasy. No evidence, just sound good phrases and slogans.

You google up lies, and give a pass to 19 murderers. You never study how 911 was done, you study how silly conspiracy theorists say 911 was done. You are letting someone else do your thinking. You don't read news stories for facts.

"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html

Well it seems Joe the WTC admistrators have a different view on what dedicated safety features came with the construction of the towers. Slow impact...fast impact....you make me smile tiger.

Administrators? lol, I have the person who designed the structure and engineers who do studies, you got administrators, and quote-mining.

You failed to make a point too. You put no claim behind a news article.
The WTC was studied after 911 and found to stop low speed impacts, below 200 mph. Robertson designed the structure for 180 mph impact, he was the structural engineer on the WTC.

You use google to find nonsense to support your inside job you can't explain. Your research needs work.

An ordinary aircraft accident, the WTC would survive. Planes at 700 feet would be lost in the clouds trying to land, about 180 mph. Kind of makes claims for aircraft impacts BS when you see the speed of 11 and 175 - which were too fast to meet the design speed of 180 mph. You don't know the speed of impact for 11 and 175? Why not? Can you do the kinetic energy each supplied, and explain why the WTC would stop that much energy? Any rational science stuff to go with the quote-mining stuff?

 

[Robrob]

"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."

Since they did "withstand them" and only collapsed after an hour of uncontrolled fire, your point?

 

[Justin39640]

Since they did "withstand them" and only collapsed after an hour of uncontrolled fire, your point?

Was there a panel? I never heard such a claim or seen a pic of this panel before. Anyone got anything on that?

Truthers don't realize or ever give credit to the design did survive the impact and help save thousands of lives. I would think most tall skyscrapers would have collapsed immediately upon impact. The Towers were massive compared to the other skyscrapers here (our Australian friend here may not realize that).

 

[jaydeehess]

Is that a nature or nurtured idiot?

My fellow posters you are a myopic lot, whereas I am bifocal.

Well that makes little to no sense.

You are more than willing to forward individual data that relates to cause and effect, data that presents valid figures pertaining to the issue but within the parameters of it being a component of the whole, theoretical data not practical data. Practical data comes from outcomes and there are so many first time events regarding the structural failure of three steel reinforced buildings that there is no precedent data.

You are less than willing to accept or even comment on the video I forwarded.
A video composite of blood soaked victims, FDNY officials and crews, live news links, NYPD spokesmen etc etc......all saying that there were ongoing explosions in real time throughout the period from the first strike to the collapse. The explosions were a constant theme throughout the live broadcasts.....but then the media airbrushed the explosions out of the plebs minds and obviously out of your “free thinker” minds as well.

As Jed Clampett used to say.....”pitiful”......brainwashed almost....like climate change zombies not accepting the obvious and defending with numbers.

I was not at 911, nor were the vast majority of you, but we have same day, same minute, at the scene ongoing reports of explosions and you reject it all....pitiful.

I agree with Gord Snarf....too much logic.

Witness testimony is trumped by all manner of documentary and physical evidence. I for one discount witness statements especially in a setting in which they will be highly prone to subjectivity , hyperbole, and metaphor.

If you choose otherwise you simply bolster my opinion of your opinion.

 

[slyjoe]

"Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors' centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1340225/Twin-towers-built-to-withstand-plane-crash.html

Well it seems Joe the WTC admistrators have a different view on what dedicated safety features came with the construction of the towers. Slow impact...fast impact....you make me smile tiger.

I would suggest you read Animal's post above, and since you are fond of argumentum ad youtubeum why don't you look up Leslie Robertson's description of the whole "design for aircraft" crap?

And by the way, it is poor form to alter members' names.