Don't check your common sense...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

...at the door, folks, use it, it's really all you need here.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=ajQSgE-XgbI


http://youtube.com/watch?v=9TLDnKx32kQ





"And remember, folks, aluminum planes melt into steel and concrete skyscrapers ONLY in cartoons."

[SDuderstadt]

1. "common sense" is often wrong...

ever heard of something being "counterintuitive"?

[balantz]

2. Anyone who doesn't yet understand this

or wants to prove it wrong

may want to smash beer cans into their forehead

until the cans pass through,

or until the cows come home.

[Bassman66]

3. My head is not 43% glass

So smashing beers cans into it proves nothing.

[SidDithers]

4. Can I fire a pressurized beer can at your forehead at 500 mph?...

Would you expect it to crush flat and bounce off?

Sid

[Flatulo]

5. Can I smash a FULL can of beer into your head? At 500 MPH?

[Flatulo]

6. Some time back I posted some scale factors to get a sense

of how the WTC towers were in actuality relatively thin skinned. The perimeter columns were fabricated from steel plates that were 1/4" thick at the upper levels (this is in the NIST report). They formed 14" rectangular boxes.

The towers were about 208 feet on a side, so if you scaled the tower down to the size of a beer can, the reduction factor would be 208/.3 or 693.

So if you now scale down the 1/4" thick box columns by a factor of 693, you are left with a skin of about .020", five human hairs. In other words, the WTC towers were about the same proportions as a beer can in terms of the ratio of wall thickness to depth. When you look at itinthese terms, it appears not so much as a solid block as a thin membrane.

I also posted a simple thought experiment that Mr_jefferson_24 was unwilling to address, preferring instead to accuse me of being a spammer. The experiment is this:

If you accept that there is some minumum thickness of steel that a fuel-laden jumbo jet *could* penetrate while going 500 MPH, say something on the order of aluminum foil, or .003", and then assume that there is some thickness of steel that the same plane would absolutely NOT penetrate under any circumstances, say 100 feet of solid steel, then where is the point that the plane transitions from being able to penetrate to not being able to penetrate, and how do you calculate it? How do you know where the WTC towers sit within this range?
I would pose the same thought experiment to you and we'll see if you have the integrity to at least think about it.

[wildbilln864]

43. core columns! 47 of them. Not quarter inch steel. nt

:eyes:

[vincent_vega_lives]

7. I can't view the videos

but please don't tell me someone is still arguing the "no hollow aluminum can could punch through a steel wall" analogy in regards to the airliners hitting the WTC...please?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

18. No, Vince...

...someone is still simply trying to appeal to our basic common sense and ability to reason -- I doubt that it would interest you, but thanks for dropping by just the same.

Say, why don't you tell Grandma you'll cut the lawn and take out the trash if she'll have a cable hookup installed in her basement? -- that way you can watch with the rest of us.

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. That's a pretty poor & condescending attitude there, Mr. Jefferson..

"Say, why don't you tell Grandma you'll cut the lawn and take out the trash if she'll have a cable hookup installed in her basement? -- that way you can watch with the rest of us."

I'll tell ya what, buddy... I live in a very rural area where cable, and even DSL, is unavailable, as in "nowhere to be found". Period. I had Direcway Satellite internet for over 2 years, but as a single father living on a limited income, I had to scale back recently and go back to dial-up, so I can't watch your movies either. You have something you want to say to me about it?

Hey, I know.... how about if someone told you that *you* should take that $60/mo you pay for cable and spend it on the mental health care that "no planers" so obviously need? I told you once before that I don't bash people for their opinions and/or views, but comments like the one you made above make it hard for me to bite my tongue...

Ghost

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

29. Wow, will the REAL Ghost please show himself ?

... here's your response in a recent thread when asked for your thoughts on September Clues:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x204337#207582

Gee, Ghost, your assessment of "no planes" seems to have undergone a pretty radical change over an astonishingly short time -- or could it be that somebody's having a little problem with their honesty?

"No planers" need mental health care? You seem to be the one with the split personality -- what's it gonna be tomorrow, Ghost, 19 Arabs with box cutters?

Interesting that condescension/ridicule doesn't seem to bother you when it comes from the nuisance/distraction brigade -- why is that, Ghost?

[Ghost in the Machine]

30. What part of

"I told you once before that I don't bash people for their opinions and/or views, but comments like the one you made above make it hard for me to bite my tongue..."

did you not understand, Mr Jefferson? Did you read my whole reply to you?

I firmly believe that 9-11 was an inside job, planned and carried out by perpetrators within our government (PNACers). I think the "no planes" theories are a little 'out there', but if someone can ever prove them, I'll happily admit I was wrong.

Ghost

[Bassman66]

8. Lap it up OCTer's

No planes is easy meat.

But then it's supposed to be.

[Flatulo]

9. Is it your contention that no one is stupid enough to really believe this?

[SidDithers]

13. Letting it go unanswered, IMO, is worse...

than lapping up the easy meat.

Sid

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

25. Then answer "no planes," Sid -- enlighten us.

[balantz]

10. It really doesn't matter how an aluminum plane at 500 MPH would have interacted

with the building because there was no plane or planes, just like there were none at the other sites.

It was missles covered up with video images.

[Bassman66]

11. Faking a second impact 20 minutes after the first

is not a sensible thing to do when you're drawn such massive attention after the first one!
There were planes.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

19. You claim "no planes" is easy meat...

...and then offer us the "not sensible" argument as proof? Can't be, wouldn't be sensible?

:rofl:

Are you for real?

[SDuderstadt]

12. Yet no witness saw a missile...

imagine that.

[Flatulo]

14. That's wierd, because I happen to know someone who saw a plane

hit WTC2.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

16. Of course you do...

...and the reason you were late for school is that a bear chased you up a tree, and if we don't believe you you'll even show us the tree -- right, Flatulo?

[Flatulo]

20. This is why no one takes you seriously.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

31. Aren't you supposed to be ingoring me?

Why aren't you following your own advice to the brigade?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x204337#207041

[SDuderstadt]

32. I don't know about anyone else, but...

I kind of regard you as the "mascot" of the dungeon. It was a toss-up between that and a hood ornament.

[Flatulo]

33. I usually do, but you're making such a complete fool of yourself

that I thought I'd join in the fun.

All work and no play you know...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

34. I see...

...so if I post in such a way as to make only a partial fool of myself I'm put back on ignore?

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Flatulo]

35. I would treat you with respect if only you acted with civility.

Instead, you consistently respond to any posts with derision and insults.

Seatnineb made a very good presentation regarding errors in September Clues. Rather than address his points, you treated him like a piece of shit, and then did not even defend your own OP, which was prefaced with "Truth bubblin' up all over - watcha gonna do", which most normal people would take to mean that you support the work cited in the post.

But no. Rather than defend your own OP, you resort to snide remarks and question the motives of anyone who disagrees with you.

That is not debating, or even discussing. That is acting like a petulant child who will never be taken seriously. If you act like this in real life, you must be a lonely guy.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Well said, Flatulo...

It's not a problem with all "truthers", but it is with many of them.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

37. I treat obvious nuisance/distraction brigade members with all...

... the civility they deserve, and you don't like this, understandably, as you are among the most egregious, and prolific spammers among them.

That's the truth of it, and you know it.

[SDuderstadt]

38. In other words...

"I can't keep up with you in the debate, so I'll just dismiss you as the "nuisance/distraction" brigade". Flatulo's posts are far more substantive than yours unless your trying to claim endlessly posting the latest debunked YouTube video is substantive. This is why people think you're largely a joke.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

39. The debate?

that's rich, Sdude.

Your mission here has as much to do with debate as our mission in Iraq does with spreading democracy.

[SDuderstadt]

40. At least I don't flood this place with stupid...

YouTube videos. You don't debate, Mr. J...you post nonsense, then take offense when even your own side debunks you roundly. It's a hoot to watch.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

41. Once again you prove yourself to be...

...a useful, though not terribly bright, tool in keeping my thread kicked, and I thank you for it.

:hi:

[SDuderstadt]

42. I do it so people will see...

how goofy your claims are. And, it's really funny when you claim I'm not too bright. I think it's funny how you always claim, no matter what the outcome, it's what you wanted to happen. What a hoot.

[Flatulo]

15. Considering that the 'no plane' videos have been thoroughly debunked,

that's a mighty strong claim. What do you base it on?

How do you counter the umpteen witnesses who saw Flight 175 hit WTC2 with their own eyes?

[SDuderstadt]

17. You're wasting your time with Mr. J.....

trying to reason with him is like the Monty Python skit about the dead parrot ("It's not dead...it's just stunned!"). A total waste of time. No critical thinking skills whatsoever.

[Flatulo]

21. I would say that his problems go much deeper than that...

[SDuderstadt]

23. I was being charitable n/t

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

22. If what you say is true about time waste, and we were to go back and dig up...

...all my OPs in the 9-11 forum to examine your input, what might we reasonably conclude about how you use your time?


Here's a fairly recent example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x204337

and there are many more.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Oooooh....

post wars. How silly.


With all due respect, you're a no-planer, which means you are, to put it bluntly, out of touch with reality. Even many of your fellow "truthers" are losing patience with you. Some even claim that you (and fellow no-planers) are a plant to create credibility problem for the "truth movement".

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

26. "Umpteen?" That doesn't sound...

...like quite as big a number as I usually hear claimed by OCTers -- it's usually "what about the thousands of eye witnesses who saw the planes hit."

Umpteen -- how many is umpteen anyway? Is that less than twenty? But greater than 12?

What happened to the "thousands?"

[SDuderstadt]

28. As opposed to the numbers of direct witnesses who saw the impact but no plane hit....

which is exactly zero.

[wildbilln864]

44. thoroughly debunked!?

Where? I myself do believe planes were involved though there are many unanswered questions about them. But you claim the video fakery contention has been thoroghly debunked. Could you pease provide a link to support that assertion? Thanks. :hi:

[Flatulo]

45. You must have missed this thread... see seatnineb's posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=204337&mesg_id=204337

[wildbilln864]

46. well that's a thread addressing/debating one video right?

Your claim "Considering that the 'no plane' videos have been thoroughly debunked,", is plural. So all of them have not been debunked? Did you mis-speak?
:popcorn:

[Flatulo]

47. It is a fact that YouTube videos have been heavily compressed.

This leads to the inescapable fact that information is lost, and false information is created from noise.

This is an unavoidable consequence of the MPEG algorithm. Finding variations between individual pixels in heavily compressed videos from unknown sources is absolutely meaningless.

This whole well has been tainted.

[wildbilln864]

48. "Considering that the 'no plane' videos have been thoroughly debunked,"

Okay. But tainted does not equal debunked!

[Flatulo]

49. Fair enough Bill. nt

[quicknthedead]

52. I have read many, many witness reports...

...of people who claim they saw the planes hit the towers. These were common, ordinary people with nothing to gain and no reason to make this up. Yet the "no planers" continue in this nonsense of video fakery that goes against all facts, reason and logic. This position is foolishness based in irrationality, and is way too stupid. Many saw AA Flt 11 hit WTC1. However, we know for sure many, many more people saw UA Flt 175 hit WTC2 (and I don't mean on TV, because the World Trade Center area that morning had countless pairs of eyes looking up at those towers after WTC1 had been hit).

"Video Fakery" is so moronic it is inconceivable why anyone would persist in such a ridiculous claim. It has to be one of the dumbest things ever expostulated; it is so bad it doesn't even need to be debunked.

It is amusing the OP uses these words: "Don't check your common sense at the door, folks, use it, it's really all you need here."

That's sound advice for the OP. Too bad he doesn't try it himself--he might like it.

[Realityhack]

50. 'Common Sense'

Common sense is what tells you the earth is flat and optical illusions are real.

How about we try not to check our skeptical inquiry at the door?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

51. Your common sense tells you Earth is flat? Not mine.

As for your claim that it is our common sense that tells us optical illusions are real, you have it backward. Case in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8CUnWkGr0w

Here the visual illusion is the plane melting into a building, and it is our common sense knowledge of the real world that should tell us such a thing is simply not possible.

As to skeptical inquiry, that's what the Truth movement is about, and what the 9-11 Commission failed to do.

[quicknthedead]

53. If your common sense is telling you...

...there were no planes at the WTC, this means your common sense is actually...

Uncommon Nonsense
:popcorn:

[Realityhack]

54. No.

That would be your education. 'Common sense' prevailed for centuries while people thought the world was flat because they didn't have the benefit of that education.

regarding common sense and optical illusions. When you have two lines and the background makes you think they are different lengths... that is the 'common sense' response. Skeptical inquiry is not believing it fully until you measure and find out they are the same length.

What makes you think that video shows anything besides a 'trick' of the light?

Skeptical inquiry would suggest we should look for other evidence before making a decision based on our visual sense from a single vantage point as we KNOW the mind is easily tricked by optical illusions.

So does other footage/photos show a 'pod' in that position?

[LARED]

55. No-planers and common sense, never shall the twain meet - nt

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

56. Nuisance/distraction spammers and truth -- never the twain meet.