CNN 911 poll

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

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

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!!!

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

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.

...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.

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.

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

Published in which journal?

Sid

It's at the bottom of the hamster cage.

It would insult his intelligence.

If not, who are you to call it garbage?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

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

I think you missed the pointed stick.

Let me know when you get a clue.

Sorry, BMUS, you now have a new nickname.



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

The Mighty Cthulu will smite the infidels!



I love H.P.Lovecraft!

Sid

Sid

to be published in a book.

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

Sid

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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...

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.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handste...

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

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?

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

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?

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

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?

"What's wrong with that?"




Okay, who are you?

Really.

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

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

You should write a book about it.

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

have a huge majority over them.

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?

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....

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

Save it.

from.

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

Has Rosie been coaching you?

Priceless.

debunkers are going to be mighty cross with you.

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.

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.

Career?

So you're a professional vulture.

That explains a lot.

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

you're threatened by skeptics.

Greed.

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.

This is fascinating.

The disconnect is much worse than I thought.

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=182276495959906...

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.

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-UVS...

How about chemtrails, crop circles and ufo's?

I do about it?

More scientists, more "evidence".

Your theory has even less credibility than those.

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...

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.

It just shows how completely clueless you are.

Skeptics ask questions.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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-0...

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.

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.

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"



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

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.

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.ph...

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.

911Myths is a wonderful site.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

provide some science based evidence that DU skeptics



I'll wait.

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."

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.ht...

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.

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."

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

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

Boy, do I feel silly now.

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.

: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*

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

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!

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

"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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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

three buildings?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

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.

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!

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.

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