Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[tempesta29]

He was talking about the underdeveloped intellect of the 9/11 truth movement.

Oh. Were you in attendance?

 

[ozeco41]

This is my argument in a nutshell.

Good - so I understand your viewpoint and we can progress from there. Until someone points out that we are off topic.

It will take me a while to respond fully. Meanwhile could you read this post http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...-obligatory-9-11-thread-t515-680.html#p135852 - it explains some of the things we are trying to clarify and will save me rewriting a lot of words.

 

[TJM]

Oh. Were you in attendance?

A pre-schooler shot would've worked much better in that instance.

Glad to help.

 

[tempesta29]

Good - so I understand your viewpoint and we can progress from there. Until someone points out that we are off topic.

It will take me a while to respond fully. Meanwhile could you read this post http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...-obligatory-9-11-thread-t515-680.html#p135852 - it explains some of the things we are trying to clarify and will save me rewriting a lot of words.

Will do.

A pre-schooler shot would've worked much better in that instance.

Glad to help.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Craig4]

It's Latin for "to man".



Thanks doctor. Truly riveting stuff this evening. Will this be your last lecture of the year or can we expect to see you demonstrating your vast knowledge at a few more children's pre-schools?

Seriously dude, stop making a tragedy into your meaningless hobby. It's disrespectful.

 

[TJM]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Yeah, you might want to look over the Membership Agreement before you start trading barbs like that one.

 

[jhunter1163]

Address the argument, not the arguer. Also, the topic (Sen. Cantwell ignoring a Truther) is thataway. ------>

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[DC]

tempesta29, not one single point you brought up is new.

 

[triforcharity]

One eyewitness saw a steel beam, glowing hot and dripping at its end. There is always a possibility that our senses are deceiving us, but considering the number of accounts of molten steel, that probability is very low.

Really? Show us the math. You must show how you came to the conclusion that it wasn't any of the 6+ metals that would melt below 1200 deg. F, that would have been found in abundance in the WTC. Go!

Second, what ground are you talking about? People were rocked off their feet by what they thought were bombs. Use your sense.

Use your sense. Things go boom in a fire. Would you like me to name a few for you?

(BTW, not one instance of a barotraumatic injury. That right there tells you, it most likely, wasn't bombs)

 

[deeper]

tempesta29, not too long ago I believed the same things as you. The short story is that my 'research' involved looking at conspiracy sites which presented the very arguments that you are. On the surface and without the education (like you I have no background in physics, fire or structural engineering), they seemed plausible.

At the beginning of the thread you stated that you didn't have time to watch the YouTube videos presenting an alternative hypothesis. This is where your going wrong. The information is out there which shows the 'evidence' you have been presented with is shaky to the point of being worthless at best and deceitful at worst.

How much time have you spent trying to disprove the theories you have adopted as truth/ being plausible? I'm assuming either not a great deal or you don't know where to look. Maybe you should provide some balance to your research especially as many people pretending to present the 'truth' are really just promoting their own agenda, whether that be self-promotion or something else.

Like yourself, I wish some of the responders here (sadly this includes yourself) would not be so dismissive/ rude but I can sympathise with the members here as they've gone over this many times and nothing new has been presented to them in a number of years.

Here is a link which might be relevant to some of what you have been discussing, How does a building crush itself?.

 

[Jackanory]

. I'm just looking for explanations, because at this point, it looks like controlled demolition.

I'm all ears to your 'CD'. Looking like CD to a school boy or to a butcher, baker and candlestick maker is great stuff. Will always appeal to the wackiest of conspiracy...thats for sure. Fortunately those professions have only ever pulled a christmas cracker and therefore really have little or nothing to compare a CD too. Just bluster and hearsay. Cool. I like this conspiracy stuff. You get to make as much stuff up as you like and swing the lead for years and years. Bet you can't tell me what a christmas cracker is designated in the same catagory as? You may be surprised! Look it up.

Do us a favour............give us something that we can believe. I know a fare bit about 'CDs' and 'explosives' and 'explosive characteristics' and 'explosive materials' and 'explosive signature' both military and civil. I'm not the only one here who can speak from direct experience of using the stuff but all I tend to do is ridicule those who come here sprouting the unknown. So please..........if ya have some 'CD' or 'explosive' knowledge (any at all) that we can discuss then fire away. If not.......then ridicule it is.

I suspect that you have no personal hands on experience of much of what you try to shovel here and elsewhere but it would be kinda refreshing if you could be the one to change the record. We've seen and listened to it all before. We have done the Samba and the Tango so many times. In fact, I believe that we have done every dance that there is to do.........again and again and again. Give us something fresh and exciting would ya?

It looks like rain today because it's clowdy. It may snow. It may hail. It may do none but it sure as hell looks like rain.

Merry Christmas all.

 

[Carlos]

Also, WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds even though steel offers a minimum amount of resistance to collapse. This is also not possible if only the only dead load is WTC 7's own components.

Are you sure?

Do you know the difference between isostatic structures, hyperstatic structures and mechanisms?

 

[tempesta29]

Seriously dude, stop making a tragedy into your meaningless hobby. It's disrespectful.

That's your opinion. There are plenty of victims' family members who encourage what I'm doing. You and I have different takes on an event. Get over it.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

There are plenty of victims' family members who encourage what I'm doing.

Do they encourage you for calling them "Government Agents/Plants, Shills, Liars, ect. ect. ect." that you Truthers accuse them of?

Admit it, they don't "encourage" you, they despize you.

 

[Thunder]

There are plenty of victims' family members who encourage what I'm doing.

and there are plenty more victim's families, who find your work to be offensive and insulting.

 

[tempesta29]

Really? Show us the math. You must show how you came to the conclusion that it wasn't any of the 6+ metals that would melt below 1200 deg. F, that would have been found in abundance in the WTC. Go!

You're being condescending. Seeing the steel beam itself in a molten state is confirmation steel melted.

Use your sense. Things go boom in a fire. Would you like me to name a few for you?

The fires were very far from the ground level, below which many eyewitnesses felt massive explosions.

(BTW, not one instance of a barotraumatic injury. That right there tells you, it most likely, wasn't bombs)

I've heard this argument before. You have no record of whether or not barotrauma occurred. The whole argument is rooted in logical fallacy as well.

tempesta29, not too long ago I believed the same things as you. The short story is that my 'research' involved looking at conspiracy sites which presented the very arguments that you are. On the surface and without the education (like you I have no background in physics, fire or structural engineering), they seemed plausible.

At the beginning of the thread you stated that you didn't have time to watch the YouTube videos presenting an alternative hypothesis. This is where your going wrong. The information is out there which shows the 'evidence' you have been presented with is shaky to the point of being worthless at best and deceitful at worst.

How much time have you spent trying to disprove the theories you have adopted as truth/ being plausible? I'm assuming either not a great deal or you don't know where to look. Maybe you should provide some balance to your research especially as many people pretending to present the 'truth' are really just promoting their own agenda, whether that be self-promotion or something else.

Like yourself, I wish some of the responders here (sadly this includes yourself) would not be so dismissive/ rude but I can sympathise with the members here as they've gone over this many times and nothing new has been presented to them in a number of years.

Here is a link which might be relevant to some of what you have been discussing, How does a building crush itself?.

First, just at a glance, the probability of 2 planes crashing into the WTC and 3 buildings coming down in virtually perfect uniformity is very low in my estimation. There is simply too much chaos involved for there to be such a neat outcome. The Twin Towers were designed to withstand 707 crashes and analyzed to withstand such crashes at 600 mph, a comparable kinetic output to the 9/11 crashes. The head structural engineer of the Twin Towers said the fires wouldn't be a problem either, that fires wouldn't cause collapse.

Continuing at a glance, WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane. It had some noticeable debris damage, limited to the south face of course. The predominance of its fires were also isolated to the south face. Small isolated fires were seen elsewhere, however in collapse videos I've never seen a fire. This was a large building comprised of 58 perimeter columns and 25 core columns, yet it fell like a house of cards, like someone pulled a rug out from underneath it. It certainly appears as if the overwhelming majority of its columns never experienced any weakening from fire, but the building still came down in perfect uniformity very close to free fall acceleration, and for some time, at free fall. My instincts alone send up a red flag, but since I like to learn, I instigate discussion on the science behind it.

And these are just the facts surrounding the collapses. There are countless other anomalies and improbabilities. There's also a motive. There's a history of false flag planning in the US. Frankly, looking at it objectively, I think the likelihood of the US being involved is very high. I haven't seen much to dissuade me from this opinion. Dick Cheney shot his friend with a shotgun and never apologized to him. I put nothing past such breed of man.

And really, that the members have heard this information before is irrelevant to me. Perhaps they should hear it again. Men more qualified than they have outlined detailed arguments as to why they're wrong, so to be so rude and dismissive is rather juvenile. There's the distinct possibility that they're wrong.

 

[tempesta29]

Do they encourage you for calling them "Government Agents/Plants, Shills, Liars, ect. ect. ect." that you Truthers accuse them of?

Admit it, they don't "encourage" you, they despize you.

I believe you mean "etc." And I've never called any 9/11 family members such things. What a sad post this is.

and there are plenty more victim's families, who find your work to be offensive and insulting.

They are humans and have formed opinions. I can't please everyone, nor is it my intention to please at all. Isn't this "a place to discuss skepticism"? I realize some of these people feel that I should just accept these events as the majority have accepted them, but how does that reflect on the principle of "critical thinking"?

Frankly, the two above posts are rather laughable. I understand that people on this forum may be tired of hearing the same argument over and over (even though this is the 9/11 forum), but to pull out the "you're insulting the 9/11 families" card is just low.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Thanks doctor. Truly riveting stuff this evening. Will this be your last lecture of the year or can we expect to see you demonstrating your vast knowledge at a few more children's pre-schools?

Your snarky comment notwithstanding, I find it a continual source of amusement (and sadness for our education system) that a collection of individuals have, for years, gone bleating about some form of "inside job." Something that, in order to devise, plot, fund, implement, and cover up for all time, would be so near impossible to carry off successfully it's a distinction without a difference. Too, the complete lack of follow-through re: planting WMD in Iraq, or even maybe one or two follow-up incidents in the US (including anything leading up to the 2004 and 2006 elections). So...

It. Could not. Be done.

No higher math involved. No great understanding of principles of physics. No knowledge of fire or building construction or even consideration of witness testimony.

What this means (if you've made it this far, terrific) is that each Truth Movement member falls into one of three categories: 1) Ignorant of the basics, though teachable if interested; 2) Willfully ignorant, usually with an inflated self-regard; and 3) Agenda-driven, for which conspiracy ideas, no matter their likelihood, are cover.

Which are you?

 

[beachnut]

Well actually, "their crap" is worth looking into. Both Twin Towers collapsed at a constant rate of acceleration, meaning crash zones, which we have been told caused the collapses, offered no less resistance than undamaged sections of those buildings, which isn't possible.

Also, WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds even though steel offers a minimum amount of resistance to collapse. This is also not possible if only the only dead load is WTC 7's own components.

Two physical impossibilities are most definitely worth looking into.

Could it be the Senator ignores the lies of failed 911 truth liars and failed followers repeating without thinking? Based on physics (called reality) the WTC towers fell exactly like they should and you can calculate the fall speed of the collapsing floors using physics. Physics? Yes! Why does 911 truth not do the math and physics?

Could it be the Senator knows the interior of WTC7 was collapsing before the facade fell. I doubt 911 Truth knows what free fall is or if they can present the equation to describe it. Why do you support the moronic claims and delusions? There is nothing 911 Truth can do to bring their failed delusion into the real world. Could the Senator know unfought fires destroy buildings, whether they collapse or not?

The idiotic claims, and the failure to use physics, math and engineering are why the Senator does not reply to the idiotic delusions of 911 truth. You support people who make up lies and have failed to join reality for over 9 years. Maybe Santa will bring an understanding of physics for 911 truth as a Christmas present. One can hope.

 

[kerikiwi]

I don't have a background in engineering or physics. I know what I know, and from what I know, the collapses don't make sense.

Excuse me for jumping in at this point, but I just love this post.
No background in engineering or physics but you know what you know?
Is that painful?