response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks

Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon May 10, 2010 12:29 pm

Galaxian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Galaxian wrote:6) That 3 towers, of 110 floors & 47 floors, fell within minutes or hours, supposedly due to a fire, even though that fire was low intensity, and secluded, and no tower in history had collapsed due to fire, even when the whole tower was engulfed in the conflagration.
1. ...not SOLELY due to a fire.
2. ...fire was not "low intensity."
3. ...the fires were not "secluded."
4. ...the towers were not just set on fire, but had been impacted and severely damage by airplanes flying into them at high rates of speed...
Not content with having lost the first 5 rejoinders.
What does everyone here think? Have I lost the five (5) rejoinders?
Galaxian wrote: You now proceed to arm-wave over the sixth.
You're so obsessed with denying the bleedin' obvious to serve your masters' agenda that if you had any decency you'd be severely contrite by now. But decency is apparently not in your lexicon:
Coming from someone who swallows bunk whole, like it's People's Temple Kook-Aid, I can only laugh at your suggestions. When you do something besides cut and paste, without attribution, screeds from conspiracy websites, I'll take you a bit more seriously.
Galaxian wrote: 1) The collapses were allocated as being due to fire (NIST).
In part, yes.
Galaxian wrote:
2) The fires were low intensity & of brief duration at any particular spot. As noted by the black smoke, paucity of visible flames, movement of burning areas, and reports from firemen that the fires were not an issue.
No, they were not. The fires burned and spread from the time of the impact of the planes. Brief duration is a relative term. How long do you consider "brief" in this instance? Give us a couple of example fires that you claim were brief. How long did they burn?
Galaxian wrote:
3) The fires were secluded, and often as a new fire emerged, an old one petered out.
And, you say that based on......what, exactly?
Galaxian wrote: 4) Towers 1 & 2 had only selective, eccentric damage near the top that they hardly noticed; watch the videos & you'll see
I have watched, and it doesn't support your claim.
Galaxian wrote:
(I take that back, YOU won't see, 'cause you don't want to)
Just like a Christian....I won't believe until I sincerely want to believe....

Well, what I "want" has nothing to do with it. If the facts lead to George Bush twirling his mustache and pressing down on a detonator to down the towers to serve his nefarious purposes, fine. But, that's not where the evidence leads, as far as I can tell (including based on everything you've presented). There were no bulky attachments, for example. Yet you still claim there were. We have PROVEN that the images do not show bulky attachments. There were some conspiracy theorists who claim that the planes fired missiles in to the buildings - even you reject that, apparently. The buildings did not drop at or near free fall speed, unless 40 to 45% slower than free fall speed is somehow considered "at or near." Yet you keep making those bogus claims. The buildings falling do NOT look anything like any controlled demolition anywhere, and there is no evidence in existence of sufficient explosive material present to take down the buildings, of the buildings being rigged for demolition, etc. None. Zero.

What I "want" has nothing to do with that. I realize that your beliefs on this issue are based on your wants - your desire for there to be some masters-of-the-universe group hiding in the background, of which you and a select few have inside knowledge and the smarts to puzzle out the "Truth," but I don't operate that way. I don't let what I "want" get in the way of the facts. Try it some time. You might like it.
Galaxian wrote:
Galaxian wrote:
that when the planes impacted the towers (especially the 2nd impact which has several good videos), the towers hardly budged;
You're kidding, right?
Galaxian wrote:
it was as if the plane hit a solid cliff.
To someone not watching it, perhaps it would seem so. But, it looks like a very violent and dramatic hit to me, which rocked the buildings to the very core. I recall my first reaction that day, when I saw the images of the raging infernos and the gaping holes in the buildings. I thought - damn those buildings are fucked - they're coming down today. I hope they get the people out fast. But, then again, I went to school for civil engineering so I'm biased in favor of the laws of physics.
Galaxian wrote:
Tower 7 had patchy fires that also should have ensured that collapse would be haphazard & messy.
Can you show me examples of haphazard and messy building collapses that approximate how tower 7 should have fallen?

It was as messy a collapse as I would have expected, actually. The building fell towards the part of the building that had been damaged. But, you seem to have this view that buildings tip over. News flash: they don't. Gravity and the building structure sees to that.
Galaxian wrote:
But no, all 3 fall into neat concentric piles. Well, YOU swallow that official garbage, you're well able to.
How should they have fallen has they fallen due to impacts that caused the upper floors to collapse onto the lower floors?
Galaxian wrote:
So, you've FAILED in challenging my first 6 points. Want to keep going? Of course you do: you've got your 'ra-ra' cheerleaders wiggling their bums for you. Can't fore-go that titillating spectacle, can you? :toot:
That's total bull. Just because you keep mouthing the same tired, debunked bullcrap, and just because - as you said - you "want" to believe your stupid conspiracy theory, doesn't mean that it's true. When you get the idea in your head to present one shred of evidence of a controlled demolition, I'll take you seriously, until then, you're a joke.

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32528
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by charlou » Mon May 10, 2010 12:34 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: you're a joke.
Guidelines please ... his beliefs are a joke. :ddpan:
no fences

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Hermit » Mon May 10, 2010 12:51 pm

Galaxian wrote:I keep hoping for a serious discussion
If you want serious discussion, I suggest you stop skipping over posts like this one. And please do read the link before you reply.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Trolldor » Mon May 10, 2010 12:52 pm

Seraph wrote:
Galaxian wrote:I keep hoping for a serious discussion
If you want serious discussion, I suggest you stop skipping over posts like this one. And please do read the link if you reply.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Pappa » Mon May 10, 2010 12:59 pm

born-again-atheist wrote:
Seraph wrote:
Galaxian wrote:I keep hoping for a serious discussion
If you want serious discussion, I suggest you stop skipping over posts like this one. And please do read the link if you reply.
:hehe:
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon May 10, 2010 1:04 pm

Galaxian wrote: The towers were designed for plane impacts.

"Only the containment building at a nuclear power plant" is designed to withstand such an impact and explosion. -- Robert Vecchio, metallurgical engineer, Lucius Pitkin, Inc.

"...it appeared that the floor diaphragm, necessary to brace the exterior columns, had lost connection to the exterior wall." - Jon Magnusson, Chairman and CEO of Skilling, Ward, Magusson, Barkshire, Inc., successor firm to Skilling Ward Christianson Robertson, structural engineers who participated in the construction of the towers. He said that when the stability was lost, exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the floors above to drop down onto the floors below, overloading and failing each one as it went down.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon May 10, 2010 1:06 pm

Charlou wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: you're a joke.
Guidelines please ... his beliefs are a joke. :ddpan:
Well, I think you'll find my response was only in equal degree as his comments to me. Was what I said worse than what he said to me?

But, fair enough. His beliefs are a joke. That they are.

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Pappa » Mon May 10, 2010 1:09 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, I think you'll find my response was only in equal degree as his comments to me. Was what I said worse than what he said to me?
It would be better if you just reported any posts in which you felt there was a personal attack against you and just stuck to the rules when responding. Galaxian has been warned for the various remarks against other members he has made.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

User avatar
owtth
The Enchanter
Posts: 1674
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:21 pm
About me: Well y'know
Location: Barcelona
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by owtth » Mon May 10, 2010 1:24 pm

Galaxian wrote: No. Galaxian didn't ignore the clip or video. And Galaxian also DID notice TA's & your dishonest attempt to mislead the other members (as if they even needed that!). How does whistling in the dark placate you? Why does a lazy affiliation to ignorance satisfy you?
a) The flash is tiny compared with the 5m diameter flash of the airliner.
b) The flash comes a long time after the impact; not a short time before...did you notice that? The flash is infact at 13 secs, just ahead of the cockpit, long after the plane has already concertinaed into the concrete wall.
Didn't the above points impress themselves on you? Of course not. And they won't now. Youve an agenda you'd lie for. :eddy:
You have the gall to call me dishonest?

You posted a dodgy CGI video as proof of your arguments.
At least I'm housebroken.

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Trolldor » Mon May 10, 2010 1:26 pm

Does Galaxian call himself "The Galaxian" when talking to the ladies?
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Tigger » Mon May 10, 2010 1:35 pm

born-again-atheist wrote:Does Galaxian call himself "The Galaxian" when talking to the ladies?
You beat me to it: I was going to ask why he referred to himself in the third person.
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
Galaxian
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:11 pm
About me: Too old & too far away from the Beloved...
Location: Koreye-koor
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Galaxian » Mon May 10, 2010 2:10 pm

Seraph wrote:
Galaxian wrote:I keep hoping for a serious discussion
If you want serious discussion, I suggest you stop skipping over posts like this one. And please do read the link before you reply.
Well, the photos DO show something suspended from the bottom of the fuselage. Look at the shadow pattern! :coffeespray:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment._Sam Nejad
There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection! _Galaxian
The more important a news item, the more likely that it's a hidden agenda disinformation_Galaxian
"This world of sheeple has no hope!" Thus just 13 years left before extinction by AI_ Galaxian

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Coito ergo sum » Mon May 10, 2010 2:11 pm

Galaxian wrote:
Seraph wrote:
Galaxian wrote:I keep hoping for a serious discussion
If you want serious discussion, I suggest you stop skipping over posts like this one. And please do read the link before you reply.
Well, the photos DO show something suspended from the bottom of the fuselage. Look at the shadow pattern! :coffeespray:
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then. It looks like the bottom of a 767 to me, without anything suspended from it.

User avatar
Galaxian
Posts: 704
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:11 pm
About me: Too old & too far away from the Beloved...
Location: Koreye-koor
Contact:

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Galaxian » Mon May 10, 2010 2:14 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Galaxian wrote: The towers were designed for plane impacts.
"Only the containment building at a nuclear power plant" is designed to withstand such an impact and explosion. -- Robert Vecchio, metallurgical engineer, Lucius Pitkin, Inc.
"...it appeared that the floor diaphragm, necessary to brace the exterior columns, had lost connection to the exterior wall." - Jon Magnusson, Chairman and CEO of Skilling, Ward, Magusson, Barkshire, Inc., successor firm to Skilling Ward Christianson Robertson, structural engineers who participated in the construction of the towers. He said that when the stability was lost, exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the floors above to drop down onto the floors below, overloading and failing each one as it went down.
Those quotes are misleading. The designers specifically state the towers were designed to take a plane crash or two :read:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment._Sam Nejad
There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection! _Galaxian
The more important a news item, the more likely that it's a hidden agenda disinformation_Galaxian
"This world of sheeple has no hope!" Thus just 13 years left before extinction by AI_ Galaxian

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 att

Post by Tigger » Mon May 10, 2010 2:16 pm

Galaxian wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Galaxian wrote: The towers were designed for plane impacts.
"Only the containment building at a nuclear power plant" is designed to withstand such an impact and explosion. -- Robert Vecchio, metallurgical engineer, Lucius Pitkin, Inc.
"...it appeared that the floor diaphragm, necessary to brace the exterior columns, had lost connection to the exterior wall." - Jon Magnusson, Chairman and CEO of Skilling, Ward, Magusson, Barkshire, Inc., successor firm to Skilling Ward Christianson Robertson, structural engineers who participated in the construction of the towers. He said that when the stability was lost, exterior columns buckled outward, allowing the floors above to drop down onto the floors below, overloading and failing each one as it went down.
Those quotes are misleading. The designers specifically state the towers were designed to take a plane crash or two :read:
Big fuck off planes. Or Cessnas?
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests