Do we agree the towers were designed to withstand jetliner crash?

[LSSBB]

Argument from incredulity, discounted.

Wow that is a piece of work. The top expert on the WTC says after a terroist bombing of the buildings in 93 that they did a study. Logic would seem to dictate that this would have been important back then and that if he was lying, mistaken, or misquoted that someone would have said something. But sure I am incredulous

I love this actually because it simply shows the degree of your bias that you cannot simply admit Skilling said this

I don't care what Skilling said.

 

[Non Believer]

Hans- What part of acknowledging facts as an important part of discussing reality are you not understanding?

 

[MRC_Hans]

So it remains unclear how many here believe the Skilling quote was a lie. Was all of it a lie or just the part about 600 MPH? The story also says that there were separate studies. Is this a lie? What facts do you have to confirm the details of the other study?

Speaking strictly for me, I haven't really given it much thought. Whatever was calculated or claimed before 911 was theory. 911 was practice. As always, the two may differ considerably.

Hans

 

[Non Believer]

I don't care what Skilling said.

Good that is more like, be open about your contempt for relevant facts and stop hiding behind some logical fallacy nonesense

 

[DGM]

I love this actually because it simply shows the degree of your bias that you cannot simply admit Skilling said this

You don't get it. Who cares what he said. How does this support a conspiracy? It doesn't. You simply say this guy said the buildings wouldn't collapse so they couldn't have without help. Well guess what, they did and there was no evidence of "help".

Now what?

 

[LSSBB]

I don't care what Skilling said.

Good that is more like, be open about your contempt for relevant facts and stop hiding behind some logical fallacy nonesense

I don't have contempt for the fact, I believe it has no bearing on what actually occurred that day. It may have bearing for historical accuracy, but as to its bearing on whether an airliner can crash through to the core of the building, set a fire, and the top of the building eventually crash through the floors below, I care not one whit.

 

[Spanx]

And what did John Skilling say after the attacks

My guess would be nothing, hence a 1993 interview being used as evidence

 

[Non Believer]

Hans- Again such theories have folks lives resting on them, so I would suggest a close evaluation of the history of such theories is vital to public saftey. Somehow i still have an appetite and am going to lunch. Thanks for something like a conversatio

 

[DGM]

And what did John Skilling say after the attacks

My guess would be nothing, hence a 1993 interview being used as evidence

He died in 1998. Could that be why they like to use his opinion instead of the one from the person that saw it?

 

[Non Believer]

One more LSSB- So I assume your disregard for Skillings statement comes from your analysis of later facts, kind of a retrograde interpretation of relevance.

 

[beachnut]

beachnut- So now apparently reporters were in on the 9/11 truth conspiracy before 9/11. Do you really think Skilling would have allowed a story to stand that misquoted him on something as important as this. Further where was Robertson in correcting the story? Sorry but your claim that the reporter liee about Skillings quote shows the depth of conspiratorial analysis you are willing to go to have the facts match your story

A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.

Skilling never said 600 mph, the reporter did. If you can't figure this out you are not able to figure out 911.

The reporter quotes a white paper not done by Skilling or Robertson.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Argument from incredulity, discounted.

Wow that is a piece of work. The top expert on the WTC says after a terroist bombing of the buildings in 93 that they did a study. Logic would seem to dictate that this would have been important back then and that if he was lying, mistaken, or misquoted that someone would have said something. But sure I am incredulous

I love this actually because it simply shows the degree of your bias that you cannot simply admit Skilling said this

I have no idea. Why does it matter?

OK, looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Skilling

Seems he did. Now what?

Hans

 

[Spanx]

He died in 1998.

It Just shows that the 1993 interview has nothing to do with 911

I guess truthers know what he would have said

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans- What part of acknowledging facts as an important part of discussing reality are you not understanding?

To the best of my knowledge, I understand all parts. Why are you asking? Did I deny any facts, in your opinion?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

I don't care what Skilling said.

Good that is more like, be open about your contempt for relevant facts and stop hiding behind some logical fallacy nonesense

Please explain how Skilling's statements are important for what happened on 911. (Or if they are not, in which context they are important)

Hans

 

[DGM]

It Just shows that the 1993 interview has nothing to do with 911

I guess truthers know what he would have said

It makes it easier when you can rely on someone that can't change their mind or clarify their position.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans- Again such theories have folks lives resting on them, so I would suggest a close evaluation of the history of such theories is vital to public saftey.

Of course they are. But they still don't always match fact. If they did, people would only ever die of old age.

Somehow i still have an appetite and am going to lunch. Thanks for something like a conversatio

Bon appetite, and thanks for all the fish.

Hans

 

[Spanx]

It makes it easier when you can rely on someone that can't change their mind or clarify their position.

Plus they enjoy p--sing on the graves of dead people

 

[Non Believer]

beacnut There was an interview with a Seattle times reporter and Skilling in 93 Yes or no?

 

[Non Believer]

Please explain how Skilling's statements are important for what happened on 911. (Or if they are not, in which context they are important)

It would seem obvious that when examining truth claims for any event that the preexisting understandings of the event occurring are important, and in particular when it is expert opinion guided by scientific understandings