CNN 911 poll

[realisticphish]

if you guys didn't see this, check it out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x762353

84% of FIFTY THOUSAND PEOPLE think that the gov't covered up "what really happened."

[beam me up scottie]

1. I alerted on it.

It can join the other dozen or so in the dungeon.

I hate reading what passes for logic in those threads.

Just because most of us question the official report does not mean we joined the LIHOP/MIHOP roids.

It must be fun to live in their world.

BUT CHARLIE SHEEN SAID IT!!!

[realisticphish]

2. you're a braver person than I

since I have never ONCE been in the dungeon. Guess I'm a wuss :D

[beam me up scottie]

3. Not at all, I'm just a little slower on the uptake!

Nothing productive can ever be accomplished there.

Dissenters are attacked and accused of collusion and/or stupidity.

I'm quite convinced it's a cult.

The whole conspiracy industry is really fascinating though.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. A cult with Charlie Sheen as its spiritual figurehead, no less. n/t

[Rich Hunt]

11. they're accused of being Bush supporters

...or Republicans.

Over there, it's become a 'purity test', which is ludicrous.

It was always my impression that Democrats defended professional standards and ethics and defend the federal government (not the same thing as an individual administration). Those people appear to be unfamiliar with that concept.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Hi Rich.

Kudos for staying in there.

The few skeptics who post regularly in that forum really highlight the difference between science and magical thinking and/or pseudoscience.

[petgoat]

15. Tell it to Dr. Steven Jones.

Have you read his paper? Have you seen the video of his presentation at the Junior College?

[SidDithers]

17. Which paper?...

Published in which journal?

Sid

[salvorhardin]

18. I've got a paper

It's at the bottom of the hamster cage.

[beam me up scottie]

24. I wouldn't let my hamster read that garbage.

It would insult his intelligence.

[petgoat]

27. Have you read the paper? If so, tell us why it's garbage.

If not, who are you to call it garbage?

[beam me up scottie]

30. see my comment here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=4623&mesg_id=5206

[petgoat]

33. You characterize Dr. Jones's paper as porn? And that's how

you justify not reading it? And you pretend to be a rationalist?

[Random_Australian]

35. Oh yes, that's precisely what he's saying.

I think you missed the pointed stick.

[beam me up scottie]

37. You are dense.

Let me know when you get a clue.

[petgoat]

42. Sorry Mr. Smurf-Dragon, you're just too subtle for me. nt

[beam me up scottie]

44. Smurf dragon?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Taxloss]

93. "Mr Smurf Dragon"

Sorry, BMUS, you now have a new nickname.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Smurf Dragon. That's no way to speak of Mighty Cthulu.

[beam me up scottie]

94. He's not as bad as the one who thought it was Hello Kitty!

The Mighty Cthulu will smite the infidels!



I love H.P.Lovecraft!

[SidDithers]

83. Which paper? Published where? nt

Sid

[SidDithers]

82. Which paper? Published in which journal?...nt

Sid

[petgoat]

101. Published on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Website, and soon

to be published in a book.

[SidDithers]

109. Well, that's nice to hear...

but not quite up to the standard of peer review, though, eh?

Sid

[WoodrowFan]

114. they seem to think that "peer review"

means it's read by someone who already agree with them

[petgoat]

115. The papers are published where anyone who wants to

can read them, and Jones's email address is right there. I'm sure they will consider criticisms from
any qualified sources.

[SidDithers]

84. I believe Dr. Steven Jones is just plain wrong...

and it's not the first time a "respected physicist" has been spectacularly wrong. See Uri Geller and Harold Puthoff and Russel Targ. Or see Project Alpha and Peter Phillips.

Scientists are wrong all the time, that's why they publish their research in peer-reviewed journals, so that their peers can ask questions and try to find holes in their ideas.

Dr. Jones is a physicist. When do we see his paper in Phys. Rev. Lett. or any other journal of the APS?

Sid

[petgoat]

102. You believe. I thought this was a Science forum. nt

[Random_Australian]

107. Technically, the Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group.

Incidentally, scientists beleive stuff. Lots and lots of stuff.
In fact, did you know the entire scientific system in based on people beleiving it?

[SidDithers]

111. Yes, believe...

There's very few things in this world that i fully know. Is there a possiblility that Dr. Jones is correct? Sure, maybe new evidence will come forward supporting his theories, at which time I'll reevaluate his claims.

But at this time, with the "evidence" he's shown, I believe he's full of shite.

Sid

[petgoat]

116. Since your post provided no "evidence" (as you say) to support

your belief, it gave no impression of epistemological moderation.

You still give no "evidence" to support your "opinion" that Dr. Jones's
paper is less than rigourous.

[SidDithers]

120. Alright...

if this:


is the quality of the evidence used to support the theory that thermite was used to cut steel columns, then I don't believe that Dr. Jones is being rigorous in his research.

Sid

Edit: spelling

[petgoat]

121. That is the best picture that is available. Of course NIST has

6900 photos and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are petitioning Congress to get them released.

Sign here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399#body

Other evidence for use of thermate: the molten steel in the basement, the molten metal seen pouring from the building just before the collapse, and the sulfidation attack on the steel as revealed by
the FEMA Appendix C report.

[SidDithers]

122. Then there was this...

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

Which didn't exactly bolster my confidence in the good doctor either. It seems to me that Dr. Jones should stick to his expertise in charged particles.

Sid

[petgoat]

125. What's wrong with that? Dr. Jones hypothesized that

a visit from Christ should be recorded in the MesoAmerican art, he went out looking for
art about figures with hand damage, and by god he found it.

What is your problem with that?

[SidDithers]

128. You can't be serious...

My problem with Dr. Jones is that he is once again using dubious evidence to support a fantastical theory, just like he has done with his 9/11 "truth". Let me say again what I said upthread, physicists are not immune from being spectacularly wrong. Remember cold-fusion?

And your reply here speaks volumes about your willingness to uncritically support whatever Dr. Jones has to say. Or, you're being intentionally obtuse. Either way, I'm done with your participation in this forum. If, for some strange reason, I should feel the need to further comment on 9/11, I'll come visit you and the other "truth researchers" in the forum designated for 9/11 discussions.

Sid

[petgoat]

132. Dubious evidence? Do you dispute the authenticity of the

MesoAmerican art Dr. Jones cites?

Obviously Dr. Jones does not consider himself an expert on MesoAmerican art, so obviously it's
just a "hobby" paper. He developed a hypothesis and he tested it out with interesting results which
he reported. Your pretzeley attempt to make a light-hearted exercise into a tool for ad hominem
attack is indicative of desperation.

Why not advance the principle that any scientist who wastes two hours a week going to church is
not credible?

[Random_Australian]

137. It's only 'obviously a hobby paper' to you, because you begin with

the assumption Dr. Jones is correct.
Church has nothing to do with it.

[petgoat]

141. I begin with no assumptions at all. It is not necessary for me to

label the paper correct or incorrect.

Jones hypothesized the existence of certain data, he tested his hypothesis, and he found the
data he was looking for. That's all there is to it. What's correct or incorrect about it?

Do you think it's necessary to decide whether he proved or disproved the idea that Jesus visited
MesoAmerica?

[beam me up scottie]

144. ROFLMAO!!!

:rofl:

"What's wrong with that?"

:spray:


Okay, who are you?

Really.

Come on, which one of you guys still has a sock puppet?

[SidDithers]

145. My hypothesis is that a visit by aliens...

would be indicated by the presence of carrots in my fridge. I'm going to test my hypothesis by checking in my fridge.







See, I told you aliens were real.

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

146. Sid, your a truthines jean-yus!

You should write a book about it.

(pssst! I know of a forum where they'll buy ANYTHING)

[Taxloss]

4. The people who think they've been abducted by aliens

have a huge majority over them.

[Random_Australian]

5. Plane flew into building. Building falls down.

:shrug: perhaps this includes people who think that covering up the truth means "Bush didn't really do everything in his power like Cheney said, and they could have acted better on the intelligence had they the inclination"

Whaddya think?

[WoodrowFan]

6. you may be right

I think they're covering their incompetence, but if I vote "yes" I'm casting my lot in with the pod people. It's a very badly worded poll....

[progressoid]

8. That's what I said - the question is so open ended that it could mean

anything from GWB ignoring the PDB to Barbara Bush paying for the radio controlled drones.

[petgoat]

9. Two Planes, 3 Buildings. How did Osama do that? nt

[beam me up scottie]

13. What passes for logic in your forum won't impress anyone here.

Save it.

[petgoat]

14. So now I'm tarred with your ad hominum about the forum I come

from.

I can't believe you don't have some debunker debunkers on this board. Your arguments are lousy.

[beam me up scottie]

25. debunker debunkers ???

:spray:

Has Rosie been coaching you?

Priceless.

:rofl:

[petgoat]

28. Yes, you self-styled debunkers better watch out. The real

debunkers are going to be mighty cross with you.

[Random_Australian]

32. Oh no! Real Ones! Ghosts, Ghouls, and other figments of your twisted, sick

bizzare, fantasy orientated, reality rejecting psychosis.
One good thing: At least it is getting more creative than that gubmint shill BS.
Real debunkers. You mean people who agree with what you say, when you say it.

[petgoat]

34. Real debunkers. You mean people who agree with what you say

Not at all. I mean people who mount a rational counter-argument. In my 9/11 career,
I've encountered few. Mostly people rely on ridicule and satire, ad hominem, straw man,
illegtimate appeal to authority.

Oh please, doctor, explain the basis of your medical diagonosis. And please be more
specific than "psychosis". Generic terms are so boring.

[beam me up scottie]

38. In your "911 career" ?

Career?

So you're a professional vulture.

That explains a lot.

[petgoat]

43. you're a professional vulture.

I seek to pursue in a professional manner even things I'm not paid for.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Ah, just like everyone else who preys on people's fears

you're threatened by skeptics.

Greed.

[petgoat]

53. I'm not thratened by skeptics. I welcome skepticism. nt

[beam me up scottie]

56. Of course you do. I can tell how much, just look at your forum.

You welcome real engineers and scientists too, right?

:rofl:

[petgoat]

58. "You welcome real engineers and scientists too, right?"

We had only one real engineer that I know of, and that was Jane Doe. LARED ridiculed her
and said she could not possibly be a civil engineer as she claimed. She's a professor at
Clemson, and the work LARED ridiculed have been published at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth
website.

Dr. Jones has posted in the 9/11 forum sometimes. He's a physics professor at BYU.

Spooked is a professional scientist.

Real scientists and engineers would be welcome. Of course they'd be treated somewhat
skeptically at first. I spent my first night on DU debating someone who claimed to be a
mechanical engineerbut clearly wasn't. He got banned.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Of course, the ones who agree with you are legit, the rest aren't.

This is fascinating.

The disconnect is much worse than I thought.

[petgoat]

65. "the ones who agree with you are legit"

You're the disconnected one.

The ones who are not really engineers are not legit. If, for instance, some civil
engineer or materials scientist wanted to help spooked build a twenty-foot model that
would actually test something, that would be great.

What we get instead is people making illegitimate appeals to their own authority telling
us we have no business thinking about these things, and these people turn out not to be
engineers at all.

The truth is, most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell. As well they
should be. Those towers were built to withstand a hurricane.

If you want an engineer, watch the video of Jeff King entitled "MIT Engineer Explains WTC Controlled Demolition"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

[beam me up scottie]

68. Oh please. Knock it off with the links to 911 propaganda.

If you haven't figured it out by now, skeptics aren't impressed with your pathetic line up of crackpot scientists or ridiculous backyard experiments.

[petgoat]

71. Ah, so research is propaganda, scientists are crackpots.

How do you know you're not just protecting your illusions. That you get so disgusted and angered
at any challenge to your view of things suggests they're very important to you.

Have you watched the video of Dr. Jones's presentation at the college in Ephraim?

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Steven_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006/BYU_Professor_Steven_E_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006_911_9-11_Lecture_WTC-7_911TruthSeekers.org.wmv

[beam me up scottie]

72. Have you seen the video of Bigfoot?

How about chemtrails, crop circles and ufo's?

[petgoat]

74. No, I don't have time for that stuff. Even if it were true, what would

I do about it?

[beam me up scottie]

77. Those believers have more proof than you do.

More scientists, more "evidence".

Your theory has even less credibility than those.

[petgoat]

78. Maybe so. But then, nobody is suppressing the evidence for

those things, except maybe the UFOs. Have you seen the wish list the Scholars for
9/11 Truth are demanding from the government?

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399#body

How come the FBI won't release the securicam tapes from the Pentagon gas station and the
Sheraton Hotel and the VA DOT that should show flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

There's more evidence for Bigfoot than there is for the Official Story.

[beam me up scottie]

79. Why are you asking skeptics questions?

It just shows how completely clueless you are.

Skeptics ask questions.

Roids make up stories so you can pretend you know the answers.

[petgoat]

80. Skeptics ask questions.

I'm a skeptic. I question the holes in the official story. I want a new investigation.

I don't have to fulfil your expectations of a roid if I don't want to.

it just shows how clueless you are

I take it that means you can't answer the questions.

[beam me up scottie]

81. Skeptics don't make up stories and pretend they can answer the questions.

That's what paranoid conspiracy theorists do.

Repeatedly.

From the Illuminati to radiation-free mini-nukes, they make shit up so the 911 mental masturbators have something to do.

Well, everyone needs a hobby.

[petgoat]

104. Skeptics don't make up stories and pretend they can answer

And I, being a skeptic, don't either.

You guys seem pretty free with your jewish elves and bigfoots however.

[Random_Australian]

75. *ahem*

You now that old cliché about the two way street? Must I use it?

[frogmarch]

86. I watched Jones's

presentation, and I must say that, joining other skeptics here, I also pooh pooh any fact-based scientific hypotheses pertaining to the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, and wholeheartedly accept the 911 Commission's official conclusions. I am, after all, not only a True Skeptic who considers it a waste of time to examine all aspects of given problem or study, but a True Patriot as well.

Plane impact + fire-heated metal under 650 degrees C + Miracle = Collapse of Twin Towers, which were designed to withstand seven Boeing jets crashing into them

Fire-heated metal under 650 degrees C + Miracle = Symmetrical, straight-down collapse of Bldg. 7

Edited to clarify.

[WoodrowFan]

87. WOW

the fires were under 650 degrees huh? and they designed the towers to withstand being hit by 7 Boeing Jets (how many jets built by Airbus?) Golly, did you pull those numbers fresh out of your ass, or were you spoon feed them by Jones fantasy league? And the tinfoil heads wonder why we call them liars and koolaid drinkers.

Here you go, some reading by someone who's NOT a nutcase..

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

and oh, yes, they didn't consider the effect of a large fire AFTER being hit by jets.

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html

and this section from a report by professioanl engineers pretty much buries the tin foil crap you seem to love..

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml


bye bye toadie. come back when you get tired of spreading lies.

[frogmarch]

88. Way to go

getting all cocky and bent out of shape when someone dares to try to consider both sides of an argument.

Are you a physicist? If you aren't, then on what do you base your opinion that anyone who considers Jones's presentation plausible is a nutcase or a kool-aid drinker?

Tim Wilkerson, whose article you cite, wrote: (emphasis mine.)

"It is possible that the blaze, started by jet fuel and then engulfing the contents of the offices, in a highly confined area, generated fire conditions significantly more severe than those anticipated in a typical office fire. These conditions may have overcome the building's fire defences considerably faster than expected. It is likely that the water pipes that supplied the fire sprinklers were severed by the plane impact, and much of the fire protective material, designed to stop the steel from being heated and losing strength, was blown off by the blast at impact ."

Possible? May have? Likely? Sounds to me as if Wilkerson is hypothesizing too.

Thomas W. Eager and Christopher Musso, whose article you also cite, appear to put forth a good argument against Jones's theory. But I'm not a physicist, so I don't know. By the same token, I'm not qualified to judge whether Jones's arguments are valid, or if he's part of the lunatic fringe. If you aren't a physicist, neither are you.

I appreciate being enlightened by others and being given additional information to read, but I can do without smart alec name-calling and being accused of lying.

[beam me up scottie]

90. What a hypocrite.

You insulted us and now you're whining about how you're being treated?

Your post shows who's "cocky and bent out of shape"

I watched Jones's

presentation, and I must say that, joining other skeptics here pooh pooh any fact-based scientific hypotheses pertaining to the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, and wholeheartedly accept the 911 Commission's official conclusions.

Since no skeptic "wholeheartedly" accepted the official report, your post is as ridiculous as your indignation.

[frogmarch]

91. Yes,

you're right. I had it coming.

Now, would you please tell me why you think Jones is full of crap? I'd really like to know.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Okay

Sorry I jumped you like that, the disruptors are making me touchy.

Woodrow Fan has some good links to research but I'd like to add this one: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html

In addition you might want to read this thread in the 911 forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x77503#77526

Dr. Jones' paper has not been peer reviewed and based on their track record, I doubt the credibility of anyone who is considered a "911 scholar for truth".


I have to go soon, we have tornado watches and warnings in effect and I need to secure some stuff, but I'd just like to add that I was taken in by the slick presentations of MIHOPers at first until I started doing my own research-and by research I mean finding credible sources.

[WoodrowFan]

97. thanks BMUS

911Myths is a wonderful site.

[petgoat]

105. The section on WTC7 damage is dumb. They uncritcally

present three mutually contradictory accounts of structural damage to WTC7, and
fail to reveal that ASCE/FEMA ignored these accounts and concluded that the building
fell from fire.

[frogmarch]

98. Thanks for the links

I hope you have no tornadoes! It's twister season where I live too, which makes me edgy.

The 911 myths page was helpful and I appreciated the point-by-point responses to the most common rumors circulating about the disaster. I also read with keen interest Green's pdf article, and was especially taken with his response to Jones's non sequitur experiments. I'm going to re-read the info from all the links I've been given here and then watch Jones's presentation again - but with wiser eyes this time, I hope.

Thanks again.

[beam me up scottie]

99. You're welcome.

You sound like a true skeptic, for every question answered, you have ten more.

I don't know of anyone who doesn't question the official version and I doubt we'll ever have all of the answers. Unfortunately an independent and thorough investigation won't happen until this administration is out of office.

Personally, I think their negligence is much more damning than MIHIP and LIHOP.

I hope you guys don't get any of these storms, it's quiet here now but I think we're in for a long night.

[petgoat]

103. If you were taken in by In Plane Site you deceived yourself.

I was very skeptical in pursuing 911 truth. At first I assumed that all those pictures
of WTC squibs were photoshopped hoaxes.

[WoodrowFan]

92. I thought I was very restrained

I thought I was very restrained considering like most MIHOPers she was lying to my face.

[beam me up scottie]

96. They're lucky we don't alert on them.

Especially considering the fact that the only reason they're here is to disrupt.

[petgoat]

100. Eagar's article appeared in the 12/01 JOM. His hypothesis is that

flimsy truss "clips" fastening the floor trusses to the perimeter columns "unzipped", the floors fell,
and the perimeter columns buckled outwards. It's not clear whether Mr. Eagar had access to the WTC
blueprints in reaching this theory. Of course if the perimeter clips are so flimsy one has to wonder
why the core side clips were so strong that collapsing floors tore down the 47 14" X 36" steel core columns.

NIST completely inverts Eagar's theory. Now the perimeter truss clips are so strong that saggy floors
pulled on the perimeter columns strongly enough to buckle them inward. I haven't heard that anyone from
MIT has been willing to defend Eagar's theory from NIST, so I'll suppose Eagar has been consigned to the
dustbin of history.

Of course Woody, who knows all, will bravely champion Eagar when no one else will.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Okay, genius,

provide some science based evidence that DU skeptics

pooh pooh any fact-based scientific hypotheses pertaining to the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, and wholeheartedly accept the 911 Commission's official conclusions.

:eyes:
I'll wait.

[Ian David]

85. The majority of Americans believe in Creationism.

Doesn't mean they're right.

I'm certain that there was a conspiracy around 9/11, and that this administration was complicit in it.

But that conspiracy didn't involve invisible Jewish elves setting explosive charges while robot-guided empty planes vanished through quantum wormholes.

LIHOP- Let It Happen On Purpose.

They knew it was going to happen and they let it happen-- on purpose.

But nobody had to detonate the towers out of fear that hitting them with full-loaded 747 wouldn't pack enough "oomph."

[petgoat]

106. Where did you get the idea the towers were hit by 747s?

They were hit by 767s, which are not much bigger than the 707s they were designed to be hit by.

[Random_Australian]

108. 'Not much' non-linear systems here.

Expect stuff not to happen precisely as you'd expect. Or imprecisely.

[petgoat]

119. non-linear systems

That's why everything in construction is overbuilt by a factor of three to five. The WTC towers
were built to withstand a hurricane. Imagine a sail 200' wide and 1370 feet tall in a hurricane.

Most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

The current dogma that the collapse was regarded as inevitable and only a loon would question it
ascended only after now-discredited collapse theories and fraudulent drawings and computer animations
were circulated.

[Random_Australian]

126. Precisely. 3 to 5. Thats ratshit when compared to things

governed by powers (And by that I mean squares, cubes, fourth powers)* as was the point of my original post. Did you not expect me to take that into account? That post is a bit puzzling, Petgoat.
Meh. Must be a conspiracy, of course. And powers must mean 'Bush and his superman powers'.

*For example, KE=1/2 m v^2 and heat tranference is governed by the FOURTH power of the absolute temperatures. A small temperature difference makes for a system doing really unexpected things.

[petgoat]

136. So "exponential factors" are invoked as "mysterious

unmeasurable unpredictable powers" to justify something for which there is no physical evidence
because the authorities (who had much to gain by it) destroyed the physical evidence.

Unmeasurable exponential factors could explain spontaneous human combustion too.

They don't explain how the towers turned to dust in mid-air. How did concrete floors restrained
by carpet and vinyl pulverize and eject energetically? How was it that the contents of the building
were turned to confetti?

[Random_Australian]

138. WTF? What are you on?

they aren't unmeasured unpredictable, gimboid, what I said was that things react differently to what most people are used to.... got it?

And you go and pull this uncertainty crap out of your ass. You can cram it straight back where it came from, metaphorically speaking.

Now, repeat your claim that most structural engineers were suprised when it fell.... go on, that's a good petgoat.

[petgoat]

142. You are simply citing extreme complexity in the system while

making no effort to quantify that complexity. Yes, this I characterize as your "uncertainty
principle". It's just hand-waving. But none of your mathematical uncertainty explains why the
towers turned to dust in mid-air.

Jim Hoffman has analyzed the energy necessary to create those dust clouds and concludes that
10X the amount available as potential energy in the towers was necessary.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volume.html

[Random_Australian]

143. WTF? It isn't even complex. Simple: Things act differently to what

you expect. A few physics experiments involving a truck bieng mashed BY A CAR would demonstrate.

As for your paper: You're in trouble now!
"of the gravitational potential energy due to the tower's elevated mass" What about that explosion? What about the wind that high up? Air is travelling pretty much straight up when it hits a skyscraper!

"thermodynamic expansion of gasses due to increases in temperature, and expansion due to the vaporization of water" Jeez, when I throw a handful of dust in the air, I think the resultant cloud is from those two effects! See Brownian Motion.

" a feature several people found implausible" Who gives a shit. Honestly, people find it implausible that a spinning wheel manages not to fall when on an unbalanced pivot.\

"1000 K" weasel words. Using uncommon terms for pseudoscientific reasons.

"The WTC dust clouds inexorably advanced down streets at around 25 MPH. This is far faster than can be explained by mixing and diffusion" Yeah, I'm moving on to the rest of that crap paper now, but I'm out of time now. g2g, back to smack you in a bit.

[Ian David]

110. All those big jumbo jets look the same to me. n/t

[petgoat]

117. That's just the point. A 767 is not a jumbo. nt

[Ian David]

123. Well, I still wouldn't want one crashing into my office building. n/t

[petgoat]

124. The WTC was built to withstand hurricanes. Tom Eagar, who

developed the zipper/pancake theory that was official dogma until replaced by NIST's
"saggy floors buckle perimeter columns and collapse of any kind equals total progressive
collapse" theory....

er, Tom Eagar said the impacts of the planes was "like a bullet hitting a tree."

[Ian David]

129. Oh, well I'm convinced then. That explains everything (yawn)

[petgoat]

130. Not meant to explain everything, just to debunk the notion that

aircraft impacts were a factor in bringing the towers down. The official story
is fire brought them down.

[Ian David]

131. Wow. I thought it was reasonable to assume that...

hitting a building with a great big plane full of fuel might be dangerous.

Boy, do I feel silly now.

[petgoat]

133. Reasonable assumptions are routinely exploited by con-men and

criminals.

These points remain:

It was not 747s that hit the WTC.
The impacts imposed negligible structural damage. The vibrational period of the building was the
same after impact as before.
The planes had a fuel capacity of 23,000 gals. They were only carrying 10,000 gals.
At least half of the fuel burned up outside in the fireball.
The jet fuel burned off in ten minutes.
The core columns represented massive heat sinks.
The perimeter columns represnted massive radiators.
The pancake theory has been rejected by NIST.
NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C.
NIST theorizes that saggy floors buckled the perimeter columns, but has no physical evidence for this.

[Ian David]

135. You forgot to mention that the inertial compensators were offline. n/t

[Random_Australian]

41. Psychosis just means you've lost touch with reality.

:eyesroll:
We mount rational argument in the 9/11 forum. Nutters dismiss us as gubmint shills, for the crime of not agreeing with them.
Here, we laugh at you. 'Medical Diagnosis' My Reticulated Pants Python!
As for the diagnosis itself:
1) '(A) few' (my implication, but if you want to contest it go ahead 'buddy'). The number is chosen that you might convince yourself that you are logical. Even 'Creation Scientists' wankers have met 'a few' logical opponents.

2)'Ridicule satire (crap)' see above. Of course. Of course. Sure you don't need a lie down?
3)"Generic terms are so boring".... note that we use mostly (though, yes, with plenty of exceptions, especially in here) juxtaposition humour. You use superiority exclusive. Therefore you have a subconscious fear of inferiority, possibly stemming from.... *never mind*.
*ahem*

[petgoat]

45. You call retention of a dignified demeanor a "superiority" pose.

What could possibly be more of a superior pose than satiric ridicule (and pretty dumb satire
at that).

[Random_Australian]

48. See! Views self as dignified, above opponents,

calls into question opponent intellect!
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!
The best evidence is this "What could possibly be more of a superior pose than satiric ridicule" the fact that you assume that we seek to prove ourselves superior to you is the best proof thus far!
Gotcha! Snap! You assumed that because that's the way you operate!

Q.E.D.'ed your ass!

[petgoat]

54. Projection you call Q.E.D.

I didn't question your intellect, I said your satire (jewish elves) was dumb.

[Random_Australian]

60. ...

"Oh please, doctor, explain the basis of your medical diagonosis"
Hmmmmmm.... I'm willing to call this the fine line between calling me ignorant and calling me dumb, however the point is still valid. And not the main point.
Q.E.D. Holds.

[petgoat]

16. 2 Planes, 3 Buildings. Try answering the question. nt

[Random_Australian]

19. Again?

Here, we are trying to get away from the triple digit idjit wars.
See 9/11 forum for our take on the whole 2 planes 3 buildings thing.

P.S. Again was in reference to said forum, not this thread.

[petgoat]

20. Oh, the old "asked and answered" ploy. Got link? nt

[Random_Australian]

21. No. Find the 9/11 forum yourself!

Yuk yuk yuk. Just my little joke.
Seriously, do you expect me to invite nutsville's bogans in here?
We'd start up a huge debate EXACTLY like the one in there.

[petgoat]

22. I can find the 9/11 Forum. I don't recall having seen your posts

there ever. So your claim to have disposed of the building 7 question
seems rather flimsy.

[Random_Australian]

23. ...

cos I haven't posted in there. Aside from bieng a new member, every time a find a link in here, it's too the paranoia people getting flattened by the skeptics. One of your lot looked at engineering diagrams, and said 'that's just fancy graphs can you make them into confetti' ; my fellow skeptics did those claims over in the 9/11 forums. Of course, you don't beleive that, because if you did, I wouldn't be talking to you now.

Got milk? Or do I have to wander to the wonderful world of the nutcases and bogans before you are satisfied? Judging from your judging, I may well have to acknowledge you as the seat of all knowledge before you give up.

All hail PetGoat The Magnificent! He Whose Ego Is Inflated! Bow, mere humans, and pray!
----------------------
And in bieng serious rather than series for a second; for your WTC7 claims, just look around at the adequate links in this forum, to the Invisible Elve People and assorted gullible people getting axed by the skeptics.

Good Afternoon and All Hail;
R_A.

P.S. Got milk? Food does!

[beam me up scottie]

26. What kind of simpleton

reduces science to a question that Mr. Ed could answer with his hoof?

[petgoat]

29. All right, answer the question. How did 2 planes bring down

three buildings?

[beam me up scottie]

31. See my answer here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=247&topic_id=4623&mesg_id=5206

[petgoat]

36. That is not an answer. The question is, please explain how

2 planes brought down 3 buildings. To characterize the issue as pornography is
simply to engage in ad hominem attack.

You guys are disrupting your own forum.

[Random_Australian]

39. First we're not real skeptics/debunkers.

Then we're disrupting our own forum.
What next? Anyhing is possible in your world, my friend.
We don't hang out here to morbidly obsess over 9/11. Look down at the posts you've never seen. Pirates. Miracle Water. Quacks. Other people like you, who have distorted the truth as you, but in different fields. Not that I'll call you a narcissist (Oh heck no mate your as humble as the next of us), but there are even comments about you in there! See you there!

[petgoat]

46. You are not real debunkers, and your non-debunking stabs at humor

are disrupting your own forum. I understand that alternative 9/11 theories make people nervous. I felt
the same way at first. I thought everything was photoshopped.

there are even comments about you

Oh gee, I just HAVE to know what some pseudonymous internet poster is saying behind my back about
my pseudonym.

[beam me up scottie]

49. You mean alternative science.

It doesn't make people in here nervous, it pisses them off.

[petgoat]

55. "alternative science"

Tell it to Dr. Jones. Read his paper.

Tell it to Dr. Biederman, Dr. Sisson, and Dr. Barnett. Read their paper.

Tell it to Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF Ret.

Tell it to Dr. Griffin and Dr. Fetzer, both of whom have written books about
the epistemology of science.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Blah blah blah

Tell it to all of the scientists who didn't need to make a buck bad enough to jump on the 911 bandwagon.

[petgoat]

59. You think they're in it for the money? Jones is a tenured

professor. You think he makes a dime from his 9/11 work?

Same with Fetzer. Griffin's two books have never been reviewed in the mainstream media.
People sell them on card tables on the street. How much do you think he makes from that?

[beam me up scottie]

62. I have no idea what else would compel so-called professionals to

support and/or make up paranoid conspiracy theories.

Their reputation obviously isn't important to them.

[petgoat]

66. Truth is such a foreign concept to you?

[beam me up scottie]

69. No, truthiness is.

[petgoat]

73. Dr. Griffin's career has been as an epistimologist. He's

written or edited 20 books. He knows more about truth and truthiness than you'll ever know.
Have you read his books? "The New Pearl Harbor" can be read online.

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

[Random_Australian]

51. Nice one!

It doesn't make almost anyone nervous. Nerves fire when your subcoscious is preparing you to beleive something.

[beam me up scottie]

40. The question is

why do 911 truthiness dolts feel the need to convert others?

What's in it for you?

[petgoat]

50. why do 911 truthiness dolts feel the need to convert others?

We need a new investigation of 9/11 so we can get at the truth, because the
investigations we've had are so woefully inadequate. The way to do that is
to build a political movement of people demanding of their Congressional
Representatives that a new investigation be undertaken. That takes numbers.

The process of argument tests my ideas. I started in June of 2004 after I very
reluctantly went to see Fahrenheit 9/11. I was apolitical, and I'd read that the
movie was mean-spirited and full of lies. But I thought I ought to see what
everybody was talking about. And I was shaken. I saw that the fact-checking had
been done by a respected law firm. I didn't know what to think. So I went out to
the internets, and whenever I saw a discussion of F911 I joined in. And when
somebody said it was lies, I said "name the lies". They rarely could, and when
they did name a putative lie, I checked it out, and always found it was not a lie
at all. (Except one. Moore said Bush's inaugural motorcade was "pelted with eggs."
Only one egg has been verified.)

I went to see one of the 9/11 Commissioners speak, and people were handing out
pamphlets at the meeting. I took one home and read it and I said "If even half of
this stuff is true, we're in big trouble." Well it was all true. I took those
ideas out to the internets too, and nobody could mount a decent counter-argument.
All I got was ad hominem and straw man and illegitimate appeals to authority.

That's surely more than you wanted to know, but it was helpful for me.

[beam me up scottie]

52. Right, that's why you're trying to convince us that the boogie men did it.

:eyes:

People who are interested in the truth don't make it up as they go along.

What a roid.

[petgoat]

61. Who's making it up? Truth is something you discover.

And it seems to me the official story that fanatical Muslims did it fits the
"boogie man" label. Just what it gained for them seems kind of unclear.

But 9/11 greatly benefited the Bush administration. Without 9/11 Bush wouldn't
have had a second term.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Truthiness is what you guys make up in your forum.

It has nothing to do with truth.

Truthiness is using the fact that the Bush administration profited by the events on 9/11 as evidence that they were responsible for it.

[petgoat]

67. "the fact that the Bush administration profited"

I see, so when a detective is considering "motive, means, and opportunity" he's not allowed to
consider that somebody profited from a crime?

Interesting idea.

[beam me up scottie]

70. So now you think you're a detective?

:spray:

It's like watching pre-schoolers role play!
:rofl:

[petgoat]

76. I didn't say that. You said "motive" could not be considered

evidence. I demonstrated that in a crime-solving context it is considered such.

[Old and In the Way]

10. No shocker to me.

Bush would certainly have had a vested interest in the outcome of the findings of the Commission. Criminal negligence in the deaths of 3000 people.

Instead of a blueribbon panel to oversee the investigation, Bush did get to name the Commission heads, the timeline to investigate, and the funding level. That kind of spoils the results of the Commissions findings, no? Hard for me to believe that there could have been an objective and impartial outcome on the findings when the rules are gamed like that. GIGO.

[InsultComicDog]

112. It's an Internet poll

Most people do not believe MIHOP or LIHOP. And neither do I for that matter, but I can't really blame people too much for disbelieving this government's version of events on just about anything based on their record of untruthfulness. It's a fairly compelling argument to point out that PNAC had anticipated that it would take a Pearl Harbor-like event to get us moving in the right direction, so to speak.

I think it was more a matter of gross incompetence, and I think that a lot of that has been covered up or attempted to be covered up. And in that sense I would agree that the government covered up "what really happened".

[WoodrowFan]

113. I think you're correct

Well, I do blame people for thinking MIHOP because they go off into ever more elaborate conspiracys, none of which seem to have any evidence.. Houwever, while I disagree with LIHOP I think it's not an unreasonable position to take. I go with TSTDAR (Too Stupid To Do Anything Right) and think they're covering up how badly they bungled everything from prevention to response....

[petgoat]

118. If you would bother to look at the facts and consider the

number of warnings they got, and consider the obstruction of FBI investigations,
you'd find simple incompetence untrnable.

The New Pearl Harbor can be read online here:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

[Random_Australian]

127. *sigh* your link again fails standard. n/t

[petgoat]

134. *sigh* is a compelling argument only from a pretty woman.

Fails to meet what standard?
Fails how?
You have specifics on your assertion?
Have you read The New Pearl Harbor?

[Random_Australian]

139. The standard was peer reviewed, not publisher convinced it

would sell.

Failed how: See 'Fails to meet what standard'
Specifics: See 'Fails to meet what standard'

Have I read it: No. Wait, I'm dead wrong to criticise something I've not read *dearie me*, but allow me to put it like this.

I hear lots of creationist BS.
I've even read some creationist books, full of BS.
So, as a logical transference of the argument that I must read your book before bieng able to call BS, I cannot critisise the new creationist BS book until I've read it.

See the flaw? It isn't mine!

[petgoat]

140. The issue under discussion was knowledge of impending

attacks. Dr. Griffin's book amply demonstrates from mainstream news sources the nature and
number of the warnings the Bush administration received.

Dr. Griffin has written or edited twenty books, and his career as an epistemologist makes him
about the most qualified person in the world to write about 9/11. But you claim you can
judge his work without reading it.

Here is his accessible and irrefutable paper on the failings of the 9/11 Commission report:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

[Moderator]

147. Please do not refer to other DU threads

It is against DU Group rules.