Yep. I see you've mentioned the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline before. What perplexes me is, why are you bringing it up? I assume that you're doing so in older to bolster your claim that it supports the official story regarding something, but not sure what exactly. I think Tony put it best in his response to your link, though.
WTC Collapses
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
Yep. I see you've mentioned the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline before. What perplexes me is, why are you bringing it up? I assume that you're doing so in older to bolster your claim that it supports the official story regarding something, but not sure what exactly. I think Tony put it best in his response to your link, though.
Yep, I saw that.. just not sure what argument you were trying to make with that link. Anyway, perhaps Tony got the gist of it; he's responded anyway, let's see what you have to say about it.
ROFLMAO
It sure is. Morons that can't actually come up with an explanation for why something is incorrect but want to claim it is incorrect anyway can always say:
STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN
STRAWMAN
It doesn't bother me in the least bit because when people can't even come up with a feeble attempt to refute something that simple it means they can only defend their position by NAME CALLING. Either they aren't smart enough to figure out they are wrong or they are liars.
The ridiculous thing is that EVEN IF THE PLANES COULD DO IT we should have the information on the distribution of steel and concrete after SEVEN YEARS. So all of the people saying it is irrelevant are STRAWMEN. The have straw for brains.
psik
and what would you like for me to say about it? i have $400 f'ng dollars in the bank.
Tony Szamboti
Registered Senior Member
John, there isn't much you can say about it other than to realize there was a deception and support the push to go to Alternative energies. This will at least stop wars for resources and probably bring the United States back to being a leader with moral standing in the world. It will also help our balance sheet and reduce unemployment and poverty by keeping more of our money here and creating permanent living wage jobs.
The only people who will lose something are the oil barons with market share, since although they will share in the Alternative Energies scenario they aren't the kings there. In the end it will be a net gain for the American people and those here and in other countries who have suffered because of these deceptive wars.
Last edited:
John Skilling's 'missing' analysis and the Journal for 9/11 studies site, Round 2
This post is in response to shaman_'s post 650 in this thread.
No, I just don't have an encyclopedic memory. I now understand what you're saying, after backtracking 6 posts. Anyway, what evidence does Leslie have that the jet fuel wasn't taken into consideration?
Even NIST doesn't say that. Instead, it says that it couldn't be found. Funny how all this evidence that might contradict the official story either gets destroyed or goes missing, don't you think?
Well, -that's- certainly a view that the official story would like...
No one has denied that Skilling actually did an analysis on the effect a fully loaded 707 would have on one of the twin towers (except you?). For whatever reason, the analysis has apparently gone 'missing'. There is also no evidence that Leslie actually knew whether or not Skilling had taken the jet fuel into account other then his word. Has he even claimed to have -seen- the analysis?
Look, you can pigeonhole me as a conspiracist all you want, but at some point in time, I think you may do well to realize that if 9/11 -was- an inside job, the first thing the people in on it would want to do would be to cover their tracks. So when there's evidence that steel was destroyed prematurely and that analysis that looks as though it would have contradicted the official story's account of events dissapears, it's quite reasonable to wonder if perhaps a cover up is indeed taking place.
Sigh. I spent a few minutes on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and found a structural engineer who firmly believes that the collapses were controlled demolitions:
http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=995879
I bet I could find a few more. Personally I think the whole exercise is rather pointless and find that we could should be spending more time focusing on the arguments of the people involved, not the credentials. People in charge of the investigation could have lied even if they knew full well that the buildings couldn't have collapsed via NIST's faulty arguments.
Logic, based on things such as physics, can't lie.
This post is in response to shaman_'s post 650 in this thread.
No, I just don't have an encyclopedic memory. I now understand what you're saying, after backtracking 6 posts. Anyway, what evidence does Leslie have that the jet fuel wasn't taken into consideration?
shaman_ said:
Even NIST doesn't say that. Instead, it says that it couldn't be found. Funny how all this evidence that might contradict the official story either gets destroyed or goes missing, don't you think?
shaman_ said:
Well, -that's- certainly a view that the official story would like...
shaman_ said:
No one has denied that Skilling actually did an analysis on the effect a fully loaded 707 would have on one of the twin towers (except you?). For whatever reason, the analysis has apparently gone 'missing'. There is also no evidence that Leslie actually knew whether or not Skilling had taken the jet fuel into account other then his word. Has he even claimed to have -seen- the analysis?
shaman_ said:
Look, you can pigeonhole me as a conspiracist all you want, but at some point in time, I think you may do well to realize that if 9/11 -was- an inside job, the first thing the people in on it would want to do would be to cover their tracks. So when there's evidence that steel was destroyed prematurely and that analysis that looks as though it would have contradicted the official story's account of events dissapears, it's quite reasonable to wonder if perhaps a cover up is indeed taking place.
shaman_ said:
Sigh. I spent a few minutes on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and found a structural engineer who firmly believes that the collapses were controlled demolitions:
http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=995879
I bet I could find a few more. Personally I think the whole exercise is rather pointless and find that we could should be spending more time focusing on the arguments of the people involved, not the credentials. People in charge of the investigation could have lied even if they knew full well that the buildings couldn't have collapsed via NIST's faulty arguments.
Logic, based on things such as physics, can't lie.
Last edited:
You have me beat by about 400$ ;-).
where have i called you any names? besides sherlock that is.
leopold99 said:
ROFLMAO
It sure is. Morons that can't actually come up with an explanation for why something is incorrect but want to claim it is incorrect anyway can always say:
STRAWMAN...
It doesn't bother me in the least bit because when people can't even come up with a feeble attempt to refute something that simple it means they can only defend their position by NAME CALLING. Either they aren't smart enough to figure out they are wrong or they are liars.
The ridiculous thing is that EVEN IF THE PLANES COULD DO IT we should have the information on the distribution of steel and concrete after SEVEN YEARS. So all of the people saying it is irrelevant are STRAWMEN. They have straw for brains.
psik
I can understand your frustration psik, but that doesn't actually mean that your opponents have 'straw for brains', although perhaps they could in some metaphorical Ozlike sense ;-). I think the key is to try to keep one's cool. Your opponents, whatever their faults, are complex human beings. The main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is that 9/11 is not a simple issue. I believe that we are finally making some good headway with some of the opponents we have in this forum. But it's taken months and I'm sure there's still a long way to go.
I personally have found that the best way to persuade someone is to try to be as non defensive as possible. I believe shaman_ or someone else has called me immature. There is a truth to it, but it's not one that they have perhaps considered.
When I don't understand their reasoning, I don't call them strawmen. Sometimes I resort to subtler insults. But -sometimes- I do a tactic that is virtually unheard of. I act in a way that some might call 'childish'. I basically ask them -why- they believe this or that or whatever. I admit that I truly don't understand their train of thought. And you know, sometimes they really do start explaining their trains of thought and I think that I begin to understand them. It's only a beginning ofcourse. To truly understand them, I'd probably have to -be- them.
A little while ago, in another forum in sciforums, I played the part of an anonymous sock puppet called 'WhoamI?'. Sometimes, me and John99 are at loggerheads over 9/11 (ok, make that most of the time
), but in that forum, he didn't even know who I was. I did vaguely bring up that we disagreed about something, but that's pretty vague. I think he had some fun trying to guess who I was (he almost succeeded and may well have gotten it if another forum goer hadn't beaten him to the punch) and I certainly had fun answering his questions (and yes, John, Scott really is the name I go by and my second legal name; I just don't really like my first one and I grew up using my second).I think that moments like that are sometimes almost magical. Sometimes, in a forum like this one, enmities can develop and people begin to take on views as if their personal reputation is at stake. In point of fact, we are much more then what we believe regarding 9/11 and if we are mistaken about some aspects of it, it doesn't make us less of a person.
Anyway, here's to hoping that the new U.S. president can help pave the way for a brighter future for all americans, not just for the richest hundredth who apparently have half the wealth.
Last edited:
scott3x said:
ha ha. i never had more than a few K in the bank. i will send you $10
Lol
. Well fortunately for me, I have about 15$ in my pocket ;-). And I should be seeing my mother tomorrow I believe (she may help me out a little).My biggest problem is a cavity that was killing me early this morning. It's feeling better now but I'm being very careful concerning what I eat. My mother's said that she can help me with that as well, seeing as it really is hurting now. Thank goodness for nice mothers ;-).
Calling an argument a STRAWMAN without explaining what is incorrect about it is the same name calling technique of argumentation. It does not have to be about a person.
The FALL OF PHYSICS contains the calculations of conservation of momentum and gravitational acceleration and demonstrates that changing the distribution of mass changes the collapse time and is therefore relevant to the collapse time of the towers. We should have the distribution of mass of the towers in order to believe the less than 18 second collapse times are possible. If you are going to accuse FALL OF PHYSICS of being a STRAWMAN then explain what is incorrect about it or why it does not apply to the incident under discussion.
psik
This isn't about frustration. This is HILARIOUS!
People argue about this like it is religion. This is not about BELIEF. This is a physics problem. The difference between physics in real life and physics in school or a book is that in real life you are not told what data is necessary to solve the problem. In a book they must always supply it. The only thing they can do is throw in irrelevant data to confuse the issue.
R. MacKey on JREF has told me I should read the entire NCSTAR1 report.
ROFLMAO
I knew the distribution of steel and concrete had to be important to analyzing what happened within a few days of 9/11. I just noticed a few months ago that the WTC was destroyed 70 years after the Empire State Building was completed. So one of the grand daddy of skyscrapers outlasted its rival but for all of the skyscraper building experience in the last 77 years most of the people in the nation that put men on the Moon can't think to DEMAND TO KNOW the tons of steel on every level of the WTC.
This is far beyond ludicrous.
Cartoon Physics
What kind of people are teaching physics in high school in this country?
The man I had was somewhat of joke but I mostly ignored him. He was more interested in chess than physics. But if this had happened when I was taking the class I would have been all over him about this.
psik
Last edited:
I think ultimately it's about logic. The main problem with a fair amount of the physics is that it's not as easy to understand as you believe it to be. For this reason, most people see all that physics stuff as gobbledygook and move on.
True. Personally, however, I think there's enough data now to solve the problem of what brought the WTC buildings down (controlled demolitions) and I'm not alone in this belief. Headspin and Tony seem to share it. This doesn't mean, ofcourse, that it wouldn't be nice to have more.
Yes, but you knew something about the design of buildings even back then, didn't you? In any case, there are certainly a fair amount of architects and engineers who believe that 9/11 was an inside job as the site Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site make clear.
piskey, I think you really should realize something here. I'm a firm believer that 9/11 was an inside job. And yet even -I- don't seem to think that it's that important. Perhaps it would make things easier, but if the government wanted to make an investigation easier, they wouldn't have scrapped most of the steel before properly analyzing it either.
That was pretty good
. The implication in that video, however, is that there is already ample evidence that the official story doesn't hold water.I had no problem with my physics teacher. I think the main issue is that when you're in high school physics, you're not exactly learning all that much about buildings. My physics course certainly didn't cover any building structures and whether or not a plane would be able to get it to collapse at near free fall speed.
Well I'm a Canadian not an American, but personally, I remember high school as a place where the most important thing for me was rarely discussed- how to socialize better. I'm sure this type of issue was on the mind of many of my peers as well. I did alright in school and since when I learn things, I tend to learn things permanently, my math up to grade 11 advance/ grade 12 general (I just wanted to finish it at the ending) is fairly good. But we never applied this math to solving problems like what it would take to get a skyscraper to collapse at near free fall speed.
Here, physics is an optional course in high school, but I did take it. We did a few physics things but to tell you the honest truth, it didn't help much in figuring out whether or not the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions. That took reading a book from Jim Marrs on the subject. The one thing I had going for me is that it wasn't the first book from Jim Marrs that I'd read. Shortly after 9/11, I read his book "Rule by Secrecy", which talks about the types of secret societies that could have pulled something like 9/11 off. Only after having read that did I read his book "The War on Freedom", detailing many aspects of 9/11 that were definitely not covered in the mass media.
To tell you the truth, the physics aspect of things is something that still daunts me to some extent. However, I now get a fair amount more then I did when I started investigating all these issues and I think that I'm not alone in this forum when I say that.
Last edited:
This post is in response to Tony Szamboti's post 2494 in the 9/11 Conspiracy Thread.
There is in fact some evidence that some of this steel was affected by incendiaries. There were 2 New York Times articles, one written exclusively by James Glanz, who was appointed as Baghdad bureau chief of said newspaper in 2007, and another that he co-wrote with Kenneth Chang, wherein it was claimed that 2 prominent WTC investigators, Astaneh-Asl and Barnett, had claimed to find evidence of evaporated/vaporized steel.
Specifically, Kenneth Chang, with some help from James Glanz (though this is not apparent on the page .. I thought it was before anyway), wrote that Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl claimed that steel had vaporized, while James Glanz claimed that Jonathan Barnett had said that steel had evaporated. both claimed that steel had evaporated/vaporized. The temperatures required to do this are -way- beyond what office fires could reach. Official story supporters in this forum have claimed that the reporters in question never actually quoted these investigators and that their interpretation may have been mistaken. I countered that if that was the case, why hadn't this issue been clarified yet? But I didn't leave it at that.
I emailed Astaneh-Asl and Barnett concerning this issue, but neither of them ever replied. I tried to get in contact with Glanz as well, but he never responded either and I simply don't know how to get in touch with Kenneth Chang.
Perhaps with the coming in of a new administration, these issues will be finally be given the proper investigation they need.
There is in fact some evidence that some of this steel was affected by incendiaries. There were 2 New York Times articles, one written exclusively by James Glanz, who was appointed as Baghdad bureau chief of said newspaper in 2007, and another that he co-wrote with Kenneth Chang, wherein it was claimed that 2 prominent WTC investigators, Astaneh-Asl and Barnett, had claimed to find evidence of evaporated/vaporized steel.
Specifically, Kenneth Chang, with some help from James Glanz (though this is not apparent on the page .. I thought it was before anyway), wrote that Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl claimed that steel had vaporized, while James Glanz claimed that Jonathan Barnett had said that steel had evaporated. both claimed that steel had evaporated/vaporized. The temperatures required to do this are -way- beyond what office fires could reach. Official story supporters in this forum have claimed that the reporters in question never actually quoted these investigators and that their interpretation may have been mistaken. I countered that if that was the case, why hadn't this issue been clarified yet? But I didn't leave it at that.
I emailed Astaneh-Asl and Barnett concerning this issue, but neither of them ever replied. I tried to get in contact with Glanz as well, but he never responded either and I simply don't know how to get in touch with Kenneth Chang.
Perhaps with the coming in of a new administration, these issues will be finally be given the proper investigation they need.
Last edited:
where have i said fall of physics was a strawman? show it to me.
I agree. You stated his posts had been called strawmen; you made no specific mention of his fall of physics post as being a strawman even though you quoted the link to it. One could speculate that you meant to infer it, and perhaps you did (how would I know, I'm not you), but honestly, I think we can do better then go over such details.
The cruise speeds of the 707 vs. the 767 and what many experts say about the idea of jet initiated fires taking down the WTC buildings.
This post is in response to shaman_'s post 651 in this thread.
Not contesting something is not the same thing as agreeing with it; it's for this reason that I thought that perhaps you were trying to make the same erroneous point again.
That really had nothing to do with it. It was a simple mistake on my part, as I made clear above.
I won't contest that assertion. I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page regarding that issue.
I doubt it as I now feel that I know your position, whereas before I was merely fairly certain until you mentioned Leslie's statement that seemed to contradict the agreement we had on that point, but you're free to theorize that I will do so.
If it makes you feel more comfortable, go for it, laugh.
Prove it. Right now, the only substantial list that I've seen that in regards to people documented experts on buildings is the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site
The Architects and Engineers site now has 562 Architects and Engineers who have signed the following petition:
*******
Please Take Notice That:
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
*******
Yes, yes, some of the engineers are software engineers. I never said that their list was perfect. But even when you take out those engineers, I'm willing to be that when you compare this list to the list of (generally debunked) 'peer reviewed' papers supporting the official story, you'll find it to be substantially larger.
Also, you may not have noticed, but people like Steven Jones have certainly noticed that they all seem to have different ideas as to what happened regarding the Twin Towers.
And then, ofcourse, there's other 9/11 truth organizations, such as the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Firemen for 9/11 Truth. There are also other groups that have declared the official story to be riddled with fallacies.
This post is in response to shaman_'s post 651 in this thread.
Not contesting something is not the same thing as agreeing with it; it's for this reason that I thought that perhaps you were trying to make the same erroneous point again.
That really had nothing to do with it. It was a simple mistake on my part, as I made clear above.
I won't contest that assertion. I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page regarding that issue.
I doubt it as I now feel that I know your position, whereas before I was merely fairly certain until you mentioned Leslie's statement that seemed to contradict the agreement we had on that point, but you're free to theorize that I will do so.
shaman_ said:
If it makes you feel more comfortable, go for it, laugh
.shaman_ said:
Prove it. Right now, the only substantial list that I've seen that in regards to people documented experts on buildings is the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site
The Architects and Engineers site now has 562 Architects and Engineers who have signed the following petition:
*******
Please Take Notice That:
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
*******
Yes, yes, some of the engineers are software engineers. I never said that their list was perfect. But even when you take out those engineers, I'm willing to be that when you compare this list to the list of (generally debunked) 'peer reviewed' papers supporting the official story, you'll find it to be substantially larger.
Also, you may not have noticed, but people like Steven Jones have certainly noticed that they all seem to have different ideas as to what happened regarding the Twin Towers.
And then, ofcourse, there's other 9/11 truth organizations, such as the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Firemen for 9/11 Truth. There are also other groups that have declared the official story to be riddled with fallacies.
Last edited:
- Status