Let us have a fact check.

[apathoid]

Nobody would do that huh? You are very naive. You obviously have a narrow view of morality. I guess nobody has ever used deseased love ones to profit for themselves, or put the deseased in a heroic light, that never happens either. I bet if you grew up in the 20's-40's you would be one saying that the mafia doesn't exist. That is just a bunch a crazy nonsense is what a majority of Americans thought back then. You are no different.

I say again. You are very sick. Please seek help.

 

[Without Rights]

Dinners waiting, talk amongst yourselves for a while, you seem to have a lot in common.

 

[T.A.M.]

Nobody would do that huh? You are very naive. You obviously have a narrow view of morality. I guess nobody has ever used deseased love ones to profit for themselves, or put the deseased in a heroic light, that never happens either. I bet if you grew up in the 20's-40's you would be one saying that the mafia doesn't exist. That is just a bunch a crazy nonsense is what a majority of Americans thought back then. You are no different.

I am sure you are correct that there are individuals like you have described. The issue to me, is you have not provided proof she is such, or that she did this. You have provided your opinion. Now in all honesty, it is a hateful opinion to assume someone has lied about recieving a call from their child, so that they may profit from such a thing. It is even hateful to assume she did believe it was him, and then purposely used her fame to gain financially. If it were true, it would be deplorable that she did so.

On a related note, while I do not agree with the assessment, many have accused Cindy Sheehan of doing what you have accused Hoglan of doing.

TAM

 

[DavidJames]

Yeah scientist don't look for evidence, unless they are forensic, which in that case they provide evidence. Scientist has a method and none say collect evidence. Science is used to test theories and create evidence.

sorry, had to pop in to say, I've nominated this for the March Stundie award. I've got my fingers crossed, but I smell a winner.

 

[apathoid]

I am sure you are correct that there are individuals like you have described. The issue to me, is you have not provided proof she is such, or that she did this. You have provided your opinion. Now in all honesty, it is a hateful opinion to assume someone has lied about recieving a call from their child, so that they may profit from such a thing. It is even hateful to assume she did believe it was him, and then purposely used her fame to gain financially. If it were true, it would be deplorable that she did so.

On a related note, while I do not agree with the assessment, many have accused Cindy Sheehan of doing what you have accused Hoglan of doing.

TAM

Obviously I agree that many people are unscrupulous and might take part in the murder of a loved one for financial gain. But what I find disturbing is that WR is accusing someone of this with absolutely zero evidence. It's disgusting.

 

[HyJinX]

Yeah scientist don't look for evidence, unless they are forensic, which in that case they provide evidence. Scientist has a method and none say collect evidence. Science is used to test theories and create evidence.

Possibly...Just possibly...The MOST ridiculous and retarded thing ever published on the internet. I'm stundied beyond belief with this statement. As Conspiracy Smasher would say "I've been bukkaked with stupid".

 

[firecoins]

Lets not confuse scientific process with judicial process ok. Scientists do not look for evidence prosecutors do.

excuse me? scientists look for evidence!!!

facts are backed by evidence!!!

there is no evidence of bombs in any building of the WTC!!!

 

[apathoid]

Possibly...Just possibly...The MOST ridiculous and retarded thing ever published on the internet. I'm stundied beyond belief with this statement. As Conspiracy Smasher would say "I've been bukkaked with stupid".

Agree, this might be the March Stundie winner.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, Without Rights is playing the equivocation game. He has changed his use of "evidence" to be used strictly in the legal sense without telling anyone or clarifying it.

 

[JimBenArm]

Nobody would do that huh? You are very naive. You obviously have a narrow view of morality. I guess nobody has ever used deseased love ones to profit for themselves, or put the deseased in a heroic light, that never happens either. I bet if you grew up in the 20's-40's you would be one saying that the mafia doesn't exist. That is just a bunch a crazy nonsense is what a majority of Americans thought back then. You are no different.

Excuse me. You are making accusations of her motives and morality, with absolutely no evidence other that it would make your theory less odious. You do not know this woman, yet you feel free to make these kind of statements after her son died. You have no dignity. If there is some evidence that what you say is true, present it, otherwise be a man and retract this awful statement.

 

[beachnut]

No it did not. the upper portion of the building collapsed on the lower portion held strong. Steel and all.

It looks like the top 9 floors to me, looks like the steel at the bottom is intact.

That is why class?

The fire hoses did what? The fire hoses were able to save the lower floors because they shot water all night on the lower floors like they did on WTC5 and WTC6. WOW good job class.

Now mister undereducated fellow. Firemen fought the Madrid fire. Are you really this challenged to find one single fact and make so many mistakes?/

What grade level did you complete?

 

[T.A.M.]

I think a more accurate statement is that Scientists investigate issues, produce theories/hypotheses, and then create and carry out experiments to prove/disprove their theories/hypotheses via the collection of data to USE as EVIDENCE in this proving/disproving exercise, known as "Methods" "Discussion" and "Conclusions".

TAM

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Tower one was hit between floors 93-99/ WTC2 77-85, That means tower 1 had only 15% of the floors fall onto 85% of the floors. The higher the floor the thinner the steel. How many tons of solid intact structure is that. How did it become "dynamic" especially since it initially tilted.

Have you ever been in an office building? Apparently not. If you had, you would know that office buildings consist of floors and walls and lots of open space. They are NOT solid objects. Tower 1 had 15% of the floors fall on the floor below. Then 16% falling on the floor below that. DUH!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Tower one was hit between floors 93-99/ WTC2 77-85, That means tower 1 had only 15% of the floors fall onto 85% of the floors. The higher the floor the thinner the steel. How many tons of solid intact structure is that. How did it become "dynamic" especially since it initially tilted.


And apparently it can not offer any resistence at all either.


Did you generate that all on your own? Since I said;


It did more than not bear your "dynamic load" theory it offered so little resistence that it barely slowed it down, only a few seconds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
Height (m) 417
Height (ft) 1,368
Stories 110
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf Section
2.2.1.1
American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north face of WTC 1 approximately between the 94th and
98th floors
2.2.1.5
Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x10^11 joules of potential energy over the
1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x10^9 joules of potential energy were stored in the
upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact.
2.2.2.1
United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 approximately between the 78th and 84th
floors.

For WTC 1, the top 12 floors of the tower translates into 8x10^9 joules of the total 4x10^11 joules. So, the top ~10.9% of WTC 1 contained ~2% of the entire PE of WTC 1. Extrapolating this on to WTC 2 (since the above mentioned report does not specify the amount PE contained above the WTC 2 impact point) we get the following:
WTC 2 => top 26 floors => ~23.6% of WTC 2.
If ~10.9% of WTC 1 translates into 8x10^9 joules PE
Then ~23.6% of WTC 2 translates into N joules PE
Therefore 10.9/8*10^9 = 23.6/N
=> 10.9*N/8*10^9 = 23.6
=> 10.9*N = 23.6*(8*10^9)
=> N = 23.6*(8*10^9)/10.9
=> N = 17321100917.431192660550458715596
=> N = 17.3*10^9 joules PE
=> ~34.7% of the entire PE of WTC 2
What does this mean? It means for WTC 1, that ~2% (8x10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 94-98. It means for WTC 2, that ~34.7% (17.3*10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 78-84.

http://arkanwolfshade.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!9E151F6EB6C7A35D!304.entry

 

[Puggy]

Is that a fact or is that just what you think because it supports your theories? If it is a fact can I please have that link, genius.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

ETA: Just in case You don't want to read TFA...

Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire. Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.

 

[FactCheck]

No it did not. the upper portion of the building collapsed on the lower portion held strong. Steel and all.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_15017460aaed6e1ea9.jpg[/qimg]
It looks like the top 9 floors to me, looks like the steel at the bottom is intact.

What part of steel reinforced conctete do you not understand? Was the WTC 7 steel covered in concrete?

FACT I'VE PROVEN ON THIS THREAD: Concrete is the best insulator for Steel buildings. (As an aside, the FACT is the new freedom tower will be built with a light weight concrete core as even the NIST points out the Windsor holds up better in fire. That was one of the code recomendations made from the WTC investigation.)

FACT I'VE PROVEN ON THIS THREAD: The only part of the windsor which collapsed was NOT COVERED IN CONCRETE.

FACT we all KNOW: NONE of the WTC buildings had concrete covering the steel where fires were seen.

FACT I'VE PROVEN ON THIS THREAD: You are misrepresenting the FACTS by trying to say the windsor tower can be compaired to ANY of the WTC buildings.

Now that you know the FACTS, I bet you'll still misrepresent them. The dishonesty in the "truth" movement is legendary!

 

[Arus808]

No it did not. the upper portion of the building collapsed on the lower portion held strong. Steel and all.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_15017460aaed6e1ea9.jpg
It looks like the top 9 floors to me, looks like the steel at the bottom is intact.

when are you plan on using something as evidence, you had best first learn what that evidence will tell us:

Steel above the 17th floor were not covered in fire protection. Fire started on the 21st floor and spread through the entire building.

Fire Protection System
The Windsor Tower's original structural design complied with the Spanish building codes in 1970s. At the time of the construction, the Spanish codes did not require fire protection to steelwork and sprinkler fire protection for the building.
As a result, the original existing steelwork was left unprotected and no sprinkler system was installed in the building. The gap between the original cladding and floor slabs was not firestopped as well. In fact, these weak links in the fire protection of the building was being rectified in the refurbishment project at the time of the fire.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...Study/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095






http://cruachan.televisual.co.uk/as...ATABASE=e2&LABEL=emap2&RECORD=190376&SEARCH=1

RADIANT HEAT from flames leaping up from lower floors was the key factor that triggered last February's partial collapse of Madrid's Torre Windsor, its original structural designer claimed last week. ​

No-one was killed in the blaze which spread to 30 of the tower's 32 fl oors. An absence of fire stops was initially blamed for the fire's rapid spread (NCE 17 February).
But speaking exclusively to NCE in Madrid last week, original designer Pedro Jaun Blanco said the collapse was speeded by absence of fire protection.
"I believe the fire broke out through the windows very quickly", said Blanco, project team leader for Otep International.
"The low thermal mass of the light section steel perimeter columns caused them to heat up rapidly to around 600°C as the flames burned around them, " said Blanco.
He confirmed that none of the structural steel in the original structure had been fire protected.

If steel was so strong and can resist fire, why do they need to be covered in fire protection coating?

 

[VespaGuy]

Nobody would do that huh? You are very naive. You obviously have a narrow view of morality. I guess nobody has ever used deseased love ones to profit for themselves, or put the deseased in a heroic light, that never happens either. I bet if you grew up in the 20's-40's you would be one saying that the mafia doesn't exist. That is just a bunch a crazy nonsense is what a majority of Americans thought back then. You are no different.

It's obvious that you are P'doh, and you're using a sock.

Nobody would do that, huh? You are very naive. You obviously have a narrow view of the CT mindset. I guess nobody who has been banned has never rejoined a forum under a different name, or used a proxy, that never happens either.

See how silly that sounds?

Yes, people do exist that do what you claim. In my experiences, this is the exception - not the norm. If you are claiming that this particular woman " used [a] deseased love one to profit for themselves" then you better have some proof. Something much stonger than 'other people do it'. Otherwise it is nothing but (disgusting and despicable) speculation on your part.

 

[uk_dave]

Good grief.

I am constantly amazed that 'truthers' cannot grasp the concept that the wtc towers (or any other structure for that matter) were not designed to withstand floors from above falling onto floors below.

They seem to believe that because the structure supported itself on every other day, then the fact that a large amount of that structure was severely compromised by the impact of the plane and the fire has no bearing (ha!) on the structural stability of the building.

I keep trying to think of an analogy which might actually get the message through, but I'm so conditioned now to seeing the drivel of the CTers that I can already imagine the spin and lies they will try in order to avoid having to admit that they don't have a ****ing clue about which they type.

But, here goes.......

Imagine a house.

It's two storeys high and has a pitched roof.

The roof is tiled and has trusses for support.

(trusses are engineered structures. In other words, you could acheive the same loading capacity with a truss that you can with a solid beam, only the truss will be designed with thin members which are in tension and compression and as a whole behave very much like a solid beam)

Now, let's say something weird and wonderful happens and a meteor crashes down through the roof of this house.

As it passes into the roof space it breaks many of those members which are in tension and compression and form part of the roof trusses.

This damage means that some of the truses are no longer able to support the weight of the roof tiles.

Eventually the thin structural members which are undamaged are no longer able to maintain their integrity against the loads applied to them and they in turn fail.

Now the roof is collapsing.

Everything that was previously supported by the trusses is now crashing down into the second storey of the building.

Now the second storey floor of this building was designed to support what would be termed a 'domestic load', i.e people and furniture.

But all this debris crashing down from the roof is more than the floor can support, and so the floor boards are broken and the joists which supported them and splintered and damaged by this falling debris and they, in turn, begin to crash down onto the ground floor.

But while this is happening, something else is occuring too.

The remains of the roof which was not destroyed by the asteroid but was severely damaged is putting a stress on the outer walls.

You see the members in the roof which you thought were just there to give you something to fix the ceiling to were actually integral to the truss as a whole. In fact they were members in tension, as the rafters of the truss (being a triangle) were inclined to push downwards because of the weight of the roof tiles, and the ceiling joists which were connected to the feet of those rafters at the eaves were holding those feet back and stoppng them from moving outwards.

Imagine a piece of paper folded in the middle and placed on your desk like a tent. If you press down at the apex of this 'tent' the edges of the paper move outwards, until the paper is flat again.

So, likewise with a roof truss (or any other pitched roof construction). The rafters want to move outwards but the horizontal ceiling joists hold them in place.

But, take away those horizontal ceiling joists and suddenly you're putting an enormous stress on the walls of the house, because they are having to stay upright while the remains of the roof is trying to push the outwards.

And so, if the situation becomes bad enough, with the remains of the roof pressing out against the walls and the remains of the second storey floor unable to provide any restraint, the walls collapse outwards, the roof collapses completely and you're left with a pile of rubble on the ground.

And that is an analogy for how easily a structure can totally fail due to damage caused to one element of the structure.

 

[stateofgrace]

What have I revealed to you oh enlightened one?

Many people have already revealed your complete lack of understanding about this event, at any level, so there is nothing further to add, other than this.

I find your statement about the mother of Mark Bingham despicable, I do not say this because I disagree with your theories, and I say this as a human being. Your statement is shameful and if you had any ounce of humanity and dignity you would retract it immediately.