9/11 demolition theory debunkers

reply to post by Jezus


Thank you for interpreting my statements to mean what you want them to mean. I don't know if having this talent leads one to be a truther or if beng a truther develops this talent.

Originally posted by pteridine
For some reason I suspected that you were big into philosophy or psychology.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

You try to analyze my motivation and do not come close.

Oh, I come too close.


So what's up with debate is good, but you won't debate Turbo?

Don't tell me you don't have time, because I know you'll be back tomorrow! Hell you could start typing your posts right now and plan out everything you're going to say. I'm getting an awfully yellow "vibe" from you pterry.


Need another song to strengthen your resolve?



[edit on 22-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by pteridine
For some reason I suspected that you were big into philosophy or psychology.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

At one time, a large fraction of psychology majors were pre-meds who flunked organic chem. I have to admit I profiled you as a technophobe.

You did miss the motivation completely but, true to psychobabble form, you claim that you came "too close."

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Jezus

 

Thank you for interpreting my statements to mean what you want them to mean. I don't know if having this talent leads one to be a truther or if beng a truther develops this talent.

Changing the subject?

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by pteridine
If you can define the official story in all its glory, I will be able to answer you. There doesn't seem to be just one comprehensive official story but rather many reports from many sources.

You actually did answer the question.

You believe the "official story" so blindly that you refuse to call in that and instead call it the "true" story.

Your way of saying this is claiming that the "official story" matches up with "many reports and many sources".

This is false, but the question remains.

Are you lying or do you really just assume it to be true without doing the research?

Like I said, if you want to believe the "official story" without being critical of the evidence, that is your right, but to pretend that you actually considered the possibility that it was not true is dishonest.

You still haven't really explained why you spend such a large amount of your time telling delusional people they are delusional.

i've made two requests in this thread. First for a genuine piece of research carried out by a forum member, and second for an example of the research done by "Jezus". Both were in response to posters telling me that they had seen or done large quantities of original investigation themselves.

Most odd that no one is able to come up with an answer. Perhaps because the "research" in question involves clicking on 911blogger or P4T and seeing what's the plat du jour.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I'm not going to debate someone that is not interested in the truth.

The evidence is easily found with some critical thinking and research.

Dodge.

That's not the point. You said specifically that you had carried out research yourself, and that it proved beyond doubt that the "OS" is untrue. I'm simply asking you to back up that statement.

Apparently you're unable to do so.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm simply asking you to back up that statement.

If you were interested in comprehending the truth, the slightest bit of effort would reveal my statement to be true.

I don't care what you think because you are not interested in the truth.

It is obvious that you want to distract, derail, argue, and run around in circles.

These issues have been discussed thoroughly already, if you have not looked into it yet that is your own problem.

Luckily ATS has a great search function for you to fix that...

reply to post by Jezus


You're completely misunderstanding me. I know that there are web pages I can google which agree with you. That's not in doubt.

I'm asking you to show me some of the original research that you say you did.

Perhaps you've spoken to the Shanksville coroners? Someone must have, surely? Maybe you've contacted some of the victims' families to ascertain whether they're real or not, or check out those cellphone calls? Or you've talked to some of the ATC operators who were allegedly so confused by the "exercises" taking place?

Or maybe your research just consists of surfing a few Truth Movement sites and swallowing what they write.

At the moment it look strongly like it might be the latter.

I would like to second that. Whoever referrs to his "own research" in a thread and then fails to produce said research when asked seems sligthly dishonest to me.

And coping-out with the "I won't tell you because you don't already know" seems really, really lame too.

I have no stake in this argument but I was following the thread and I do wonder... So many people mention "research" into 9/11 - but just clicking on 9/11 blogger is not research just as reading a blog about Nazi Ufo's is not "researching" Nazi Ufos.

The critique seems fair to me. Sorry for derailing. I was just excite to see this supposed "research" for myself. I haven't seen anything substantial and new coming from the "OS skeptics" side for years now, so it got me interested.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by pteridine
For some reason I suspected that you were big into philosophy or psychology.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

At one time, a large fraction of psychology majors were pre-meds who flunked organic chem. I have to admit I profiled you as a technophobe.

You did miss the motivation completely but, true to psychobabble form, you claim that you came "too close."

It is both curious and annoying how this problem gets into psychological bullsh!t.

But a lot of people that are supposedly into physics are devoted to proving how smart they are rather than solving problems. The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about psychology. Are psychologists too dumb to handle Newtonian Physics? How much math is necessary to understand Newtonian Physics? When an outcome is close and teetering on a knife edg then math may be important but the building was over 2000 times the mass of the plane. So what is the problem with having accurate info on the steel and concrete?

But it is also psychologically intresting that so many people on both sides aren't making a big deal of having accurate information on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. NINE YEARS of Physics without Data! Are they more interested in debating ad infinitum?

Truly disgusting!

And we are supposed to listen to these people talk about Black Holes and Big Bangs.

psik

CEASE AND DESIST!!

Attacking each other rather than debating the topic will stop NOW!

Further attacks, name-calling and derailing of the topic will be removed, edited and/or warned.

Please read the following before further posting:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The exact masses of individual floors is likely not known.
If you need a mass for your calculations, use 4" of concrete and estimate the mass of trusses from the drawings. Add some fractional amount for the office furnishings and interior partitions. Assume all sheathing is 5/8 core drywall and you should get an estimate that will suffice for a simple model.
It is also important to have the strengths of the floor trusses, and the shear strengths of their bolts. The column strength in compression is not important because of the mode of failure.
Alternatively, you could do a sensitivity study that would predict what loads would be needed to shear the bolts and see what floor mass would be required to provide the K.E. to shear the first set of connectors.
As I remember, data is available on live load and static load operating limits. Use a safety factor of three as your first guess unless some of the structural engineers posting here have better information.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Jezus

 

You're completely misunderstanding me. I know that there are web pages I can google which agree with you. That's not in doubt.

I understand you completely.

You want me to get into a debate with you so you can defend the "official story".

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm asking you to show me some of the original research that you say you did.

I'm not going to get into a debate of the details with someone that is not trying to learn.

This has all already been done MANY times before.

If you were actually concerned with comprehending what happen on September 11th you would do some critical thinking yourself.

That's really not a very effective response. But so be it.

You're unable to show any original research, despite claiming that you have done some. Therefore I have to say - I simply don't believe you.

Best of luck.

Edit to add:

Particularly amusing that you write that I am "not trying to learn". I am specifically trying to learn what research you were referring to!

[edit on 23-8-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The exact masses of individual floors is likely not known.
If you need a mass for your calculations, use 4" of concrete and estimate the mass of trusses from the drawings. Add some fractional amount for the office furnishings and interior partitions. Assume all sheathing is 5/8 core drywall and you should get an estimate that will suffice for a simple model.

But why haven't the people who claim to know physics been demanding information about the masses?

The floor outside the core was poured on corrugated pans consequently the thickness varied between 4 and 5 inches. I have seen pictures of the edge of the pans and use 4.33 as the average thickness. I compute the floor slab outside the core was 600 tons. I figure the steel was less than half of that so maybe 800 tons for a standard floor assembly. The sheer strength of the bolts is irrelevant.

In order for the north tower to come down in less than 18 seconds all of that mass had to be accelerated to more than 50% of G. So why haven't the clowns claiming to understand physics been demanding to know the mass? They have painted themselves into a STUPID CORNER.

If they admit the information is important now then why weren't they asking for it NINE YEARS ago. So now they need to keep people from comprehending Newtonian physics because it is obviously important.

The steel columns in the core had mass too and they had to be bent and dislocated to cease supporting the mass above to allow its acceleration. Grade school physics is so EASY!

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

If they admit the information is important now then why weren't they asking for it NINE YEARS ago. So now they need to keep people from comprehending Newtonian physics because it is obviously important.

Uh, obviously not. You just computed it. So did they. But it is still irrelevant. Really, you are the only person in nine years, going on ten, who thinks this imaginary data is somehow related to why the towers collapsed on 9/11.

The weight of the floors had to vary from floor to floor depending on waht was on each floor.

Again, please tell me what the range of steel and concrete distrubution would be that would allow for the collapse as described in the NIST study. If you hold that there is no distribution ratio that will allow the NIST scenario then your "data" is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Jezus

 

You're completely misunderstanding me. I know that there are web pages I can google which agree with you. That's not in doubt.

I understand you completely.

You want me to get into a debate with you so you can defend the "official story".

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm asking you to show me some of the original research that you say you did.

I'm not going to get into a debate of the details with someone that is not trying to learn.

This has all already been done MANY times before.

If you were actually concerned with comprehending what happen on September 11th you would do some critical thinking yourself.

Anytime someone calls you out for your lack of evidence, you dodge the question, so maybe you aren't the best spokesperson for critical thinking. The "Official Story" may not be perfect, but it's still the most reasonable. Controlled Demolition is based on nothing more than a gut feeling (Similar to Moon Hoaxers), and No Planes is based on nothing more than paranoia. Until you guys start pointing out actual inconsistencies in the Official Story, instead of just saying "Oh they're there, you just aren't looking hard enough" or provide actual evidence for alternative theories instead of well...doing the exact same thing you guys have been doing with the "Official Story's" inconsistencies , no one is ever going to take 9/11 Truthers seriously.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You're unable to show any original research, despite claiming that you have done some. Therefore I have to say - I simply don't believe you.

I don't believe that you care about factual information.

Either you don't care enough to find the information yourself.

Or you ignore any information presented to you.

Otherwise you would have already proven it to yourself.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Particularly amusing that you write that I am "not trying to learn". I am specifically trying to learn what research you were referring to!

Attempting to argue is not trying to learn.

A little bit of research and critical thinking will reveal the truth.

Originally posted by technical difficulties
Anytime someone calls you out for your lack of evidence, you dodge the question, so maybe you aren't the best spokesperson for critical thinking.

I never dodged anything.

I repeatedly said that I am not going to waste my time trying to prove something to someone that won't take the time to do some research and use some critical thinking.

This debate has been done OVER and OVER again MANY MANY times.

If you don't comprehend it by now it must be a personal issue.

Originally posted by technical difficulties
The "Official Story" may not be perfect, but it's still the most reasonable.

The "Official Story" is by no stretch of the imagination reasonable.

It is idiotic and ridiculous and the slightest bit of critical thinking reveals this.