The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[Weaver]

Right. Who should we believe, the assembled professionals in the field, or a bunch of plucky amateurs with no professional training and demonstrated ineptitude at discerning fact from fiction on the Interwebs?

I'll stick with the pros, thank you.

[psikeyhackr]

Right. Who should we believe...?

It's a middle school physics problem. You should not BELIEVE anybody!

Do the experiments and expect the "professionals" to do the experiments even better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

Have I ever mentioned that engineering schools that charge $100,000+ per year for education should be able to afford to do really good experiments? But somehow they have managed to not do any for FIFTEEN YEARS!

Of course they would look pretty silly if they did experiments now and could not produce collapses.

psik

[tolman]

As far as I'm aware, biology departments don't generally waste much money trying to demonstrate to adult creationists what the biologists already know.
Why should civil engineering departments be any different?
Their job is to educate people who have the ability to understand and are prepared to work and spend their own money in the process, not to try and educate a bunch of idle moaning tossers who would dismiss anything which didn't agree with their ignorance-based prior conclusions.

As I've already mentioned numerous times with no sensible response, if there really were vast numbers of people who don't believe the official 9/11 explanation, whose disbelief is more than just wanting to disbelieve for entertainment, sour grapes about not being experts themselves or other psychological reasons; who were sufficiently confident enough in their disbelief; and who actually cared to get off their backsides and do something rather than just whine; they could get together and fund their own large-scale physical experiments or demonstrations proving the inability of the 9/11 structures to fail, if they genuinely believed such physical experiments or demonstrations were actually feasible in practice.

If there are countless millions who are really confident the official explanation is wrong, but collectively they have done sweet fuck all of use in fifteen years, that would seem to say much more about the kind of people they are than about anyone else.

Of course, such people may well not trust someone claiming to want put together a demonstration to prove them right enough to make a contribution, whether from simple paranoia or other reasons.
But if so, they clearly wouldn't trust demonstrations from experts who had a different view to them, so why should any such experts piss away their own time and money?

[psikeyhackr]

As far as I'm aware, biology departments don't generally waste much money trying to demonstrate to adult creationists what the biologists already know.
Why should civil engineering departments be any different?

Biology departments give us stuff like this:

https://www.biologycorner.com/bio1/cell ... somes.html

Where can you find the distribution of mass in steel and concrete of any skyscraper?

Do you think that is as complicated as biology?

[445672]
psik

[tolman]

As far as I'm aware, biology departments don't generally waste much money trying to demonstrate to adult creationists what the biologists already know.
Why should civil engineering departments be any different?

Biology departments give us stuff like this:

https://www.biologycorner.com/bio1/cell ... somes.html

Well, that seems to be educational literature, produced at limited expense, and aimed at people with the intellectual and emotional capacity to learn, and the willingness to do so.

If you're unable to see the difference, or unwilling to admit it, that would seem a perfect example of why an engineering department spending even a dollar to try and teach you (or people like you) people like you anything would probably be a waste of money.

And that's before we even get to the frequently-mentioned issue of whether any physical model meaningfully less than full size could be faithful enough to give a conclusive answer even to people who trusted the model-makers, something you don't seem willing or capable of addressing, and the fact that even were such a model plausible, almost any conspiracy theorist suggesting (like you) that such a model should be made wouldn't seem likely to accept any results which disagreed with their ignorance-based prior beliefs.

It's abundantly clear that people who believe the WTC buildings were brought down by large quantities of hidden explosives placed by a Grand Conspiracy wouldn't trust a model of any size which someone else had made which did collapse. They'd just claim it had been sabotaged, and even if such a person inspected every inch for themselves before the experiment, they'd still likely just claim the model had somehow been designed to collapse, and in the unlikely event that they accepted the results, even if they had been previously been trusted and lauded by other conspiracy theorists, all that would happen would be that they'd then be accused by other conspiracy theorists of being part of the conspiracy themselves.
So what would be the point?

You want a model, and think making one is feasible?
Well, stop wasting your time here, and see if you can get enough conspiracy theorists to contribute to make one.
You could start by trying fundraising to get a professional opinion on whether a model could be made which would prove anything even if money were no object, and work from there.
Maybe doing that, you'd actually learn why no-one has made a large physical model, assuming you're actually capable of learning anything in that regard.

[felltoearth]

Here you go psi... dig into those pockets...

http://fusion.net/story/302936/paul-salo-9-11-hoax/

ETA. Oops, seems like it's been cancelled after raising $155. One would think all that dosh saved on rent living in mom's basement would free up some capital.

[psikeyhackr]

Well, that seems to be educational literature, produced at limited expense, and aimed at people with the intellectual and emotional capacity to learn, and the willingness to do so.

If you're unable to see the difference, or unwilling to admit it, that would seem a perfect example of why an engineering department spending even a dollar to try and teach you (or people like you) people like you anything would probably be a waste of money.

Where have I said that the Twin Towers were brought down by large quantities of explosives? I merely consider it the most probable explanation.

But it should not be that difficult to create experiments to prove that the top 15% or less of a 1300 foot skyscraper could fall and destroy the rest but it would certainly have to have a mass distribution similar to such a building. It would not be necessary to fly a 747 into a building though I do not doubt that plenty of dummies would find that more convincing.

I have not taken a biology course since high school. But I took the usual science stuff given in the US, Biology, Chemistry and Physics. I got straight A's in all of them. But solving problems in science involves figuring out what information is important to the solution. Only idiots cannot see that mass distribution is important when the lightest, weakest mass must fall through stronger and heavier mass in a supposed straight down collapse in less than triple free fall time.

When supposed opponents don't come up with anything besides shallow insults and faulty analogies I presume they suffer from intellectual bankruptcy.

psik

[Weaver]

Well, that seems to be educational literature, produced at limited expense, and aimed at people with the intellectual and emotional capacity to learn, and the willingness to do so.

If you're unable to see the difference, or unwilling to admit it, that would seem a perfect example of why an engineering department spending even a dollar to try and teach you (or people like you) people like you anything would probably be a waste of money.

Where have I said that the Twin Towers were brought down by large quantities of explosives? I merely consider it the most probable explanation.

You have stated that aircraft impact damage and uncontrolled fires could not have done it, and that you think explosive demolition is the most probably explanation - but you don't want people thinking you've said that the towers were brought down by explosive demolition?

What the actual fuck?

[psikeyhackr]

Well, that seems to be educational literature, produced at limited expense, and aimed at people with the intellectual and emotional capacity to learn, and the willingness to do so.

If you're unable to see the difference, or unwilling to admit it, that would seem a perfect example of why an engineering department spending even a dollar to try and teach you (or people like you) people like you anything would probably be a waste of money.

Where have I said that the Twin Towers were brought down by large quantities of explosives? I merely consider it the most probable explanation.

You have stated that aircraft impact damage and uncontrolled fires could not have done it, and that you think explosive demolition is the most probably explanation - but you don't want people thinking you've said that the towers were brought down by explosive demolition?

What the actual fuck?

I'm sorry, but there is a difference between Knowing, Suspecting and Believing. Are you familiar with the word DICTIONARY?

If it is proven that airliner impact and fire could not have done it then something else must have. But that does not mean I have evidence for it or even give a damn. After Fifteen Years the failure of engineering schools to invalidate the Official Story is more important than who did it and how.

[446061]
psik

[Weaver]

It has not been proven that aircraft impact plus resulting fires could not have done it.

The burden of proof is upon you denialists.

There is no reason for the engineering schools to invalidate the "official story" - they have no reason to, because the "official story" represents the consensus opinion of the experts in the field of what happened.

That you cannot accept this speaks volumes.

[psikeyhackr]

It has not been proven that aircraft impact plus resulting fires could not have done it.

The burden of proof is upon you denialists.

There is no reason for the engineering schools to invalidate the "official story" - they have no reason to, because the "official story" represents the consensus opinion of the experts in the field of what happened.

That you cannot accept this speaks volumes.

And they would look stupid after 15 years no matter what.

So everyone is supposed to just believe in the 9/11 religion.

STEM education is such a joke.

psik

[Xaihe]

Well, that seems to be educational literature, produced at limited expense, and aimed at people with the intellectual and emotional capacity to learn, and the willingness to do so.

If you're unable to see the difference, or unwilling to admit it, that would seem a perfect example of why an engineering department spending even a dollar to try and teach you (or people like you) people like you anything would probably be a waste of money.

Where have I said that the Twin Towers were brought down by large quantities of explosives? I merely consider it the most probable explanation.

You have stated that aircraft impact damage and uncontrolled fires could not have done it, and that you think explosive demolition is the most probably explanation - but you don't want people thinking you've said that the towers were brought down by explosive demolition?

What the actual fuck?

I'm sorry, but there is a difference between Knowing, Suspecting and Believing. Are you familiar with the word DICTIONARY?

If it is proven that airliner impact and fire could not have done it then something else must have. But that does not mean I have evidence for it or even give a damn. After Fifteen Years the failure of engineering schools to invalidate the Official Story is more important than who did it and how.

[446061]
psik

Invalidate? Is that a typo?

[tolman]

Where have I said that the Twin Towers were brought down by large quantities of explosives? I merely consider it the most probable explanation.

All I pointed out was that the people who do say it, or things like it, would seem to be the ones who would be the supposed audience for an experiment/demonstration seemingly trying to show 'natural' collapse possible, yet they wouldn't trust such an demonstration if someone else did one and it gave a result they didn't like (or they would wave away the demonstration as not being a sufficiently faithful model of the WTC towers), and they appear to have no desire to put their hands in their own pockets to pay for their own showing that, despite hardly any experts seeming to think natural collapse is impossible, it actually is.

But it should not be that difficult to create experiments to prove that the top 15% or less of a 1300 foot skyscraper could fall and destroy the rest.

So why not go and try to find people to pay for one, if it's so easy to do?

As I said, you could start by paying someone who knows what they're talking about to explain to you what is and isn't feasible, whether anything which may be economically feasible would be similar enough to the actual structures to look convincing to a non-engineer like you, and whether anything which could be built physically would honestly count as an 'experiment' if anyone capable of building one would know in advance what such a physical model would do before they built it.

But I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't much like the answers.

It has been repeatedly explained why engineering schools would be likely to have little interest in trying to demonstrate much to people who are relatively ill-informed but nevertheless have strong opinions, since the basis for such opinions isn't engineering knowledge, and the opinions are relatively unlikely to be changed simply by attempting to add a little engineering knowledge.

You keep asking the same question, as if you are incapable of understanding or accepting the answer. However, I am highly confident that if, rather than asking the question repeatedly here, you actually asked those people directly why they don't do what you seem to think they should do, and got an honest answer, it would bear a striking similarity to mine.

Evidently, no-one can make you stop thinking that the reason why people haven't done what you think they should do is that they can't, if that is what you wish to think, yet it would seem rather silly to cling to that as the only possible explanation it has been explained to you over and over that from their perspective, such people have no obvious reason to do what you think they should do simply because you and maybe some people like you think they should do it

If you can't comprehend that people other than you have a different perspective on things, and that it's silly to pretend that if you were in their shoes you'd still have the same opinions you do now when to a significant extent you have your opinions as a result of not being like them, you seem destined to be disappointed by the world.

[tolman]

STEM education is such a joke.

Do I detect the whiff of sour grapes from someone who didn't get into engineering school?

[felltoearth]

STEM education is such a joke.

Do I detect the whiff of sour grapes from someone who didn't get into engineering school?

I detect the whiff of someone who hasn't moved out of his mother's basement.

[The_Metatron]

!

GENERAL MODNOTE Proudfootz, this post that you made contains a personal attack: [Reveal] Spoiler: your reported post, relevant text in bold red font Tons of explosives would be needed for a controlled demolition of a building which did not suffer fatal structural damage from the aircraft impacts and subsequent unchecked fires - the core claim of conspiracy theorists, who deny that the plane impacts and fires could have dropped the building. Well, that is a bone of contention - was the damage 'fatal'? You claim it was. And that local collapses in the impact zones caused the 'global collapse'. Presumably only gravity was required after the local collapses. A few columns cut, a few trusses fail. That's it. You are being serially dishonest - as is your wont, as expressed in years of your trolling posts. Why is it every time your lack of critical thinking is exposed you resort to wild accusations of trolling? Plus some faux outrage. Oh, and reckless accusations of lying. This seems to be your standard technique of trying to wriggle out of your self-contradictions honed by your many more years of trolling threads like these. The plane impacts and the fires dropped the buildings. That and that alone. Here you go again - tons of explosives not needed to drop the buildings... Controlled demo WOULD require tons of explosives and ancillary equipment... Followed immediately by the claim that tons of explosives would be required. If you sincerely believe both of these mutually contradictory ideas, you are indeed clueless. Keep going with your lying, circular reasoning - keep going with your claims that you're consistent - keep going with your bullshit trolling and with your pretending that I'm wrong. You do dishonor only to yourself. You are an embarrassment. Making personal attacks against other forum members is not allowed, as is spelled out in our Forum User's Agreement, paragraph 1.2.c, to which you agreed when you joined our forum. [Reveal] Spoiler: relevant section of the Forum User's Agreement Members of rationalskepticism.org agree to: 1.2. not post or transmit defamatory, abusive, threatening or illegal material, or any other material with the intent to purposely mislead or harm others or infringe on the ability of others to enjoy rationalskepticism.org. This includes but is not limited to: c. post personal attacks or insults towards other members. Please keep this in mind when you make your posts, to make our forum a better place, and to avoid possible sanction. The_Metatron Please do not discuss this modnote or moderation in this thread as it is off-topic. If you need clarification or want to appeal this decision, please PM me or a senior moderator.

[Newstein]

As far as I'm aware, biology departments don't generally waste much money trying to demonstrate to adult creationists what the biologists already know.
Why should civil engineering departments be any different?
Their job is to educate people who have the ability to understand and are prepared to work and spend their own money in the process, not to try and educate a bunch of idle moaning tossers who would dismiss anything which didn't agree with their ignorance-based prior conclusions.

As I've already mentioned numerous times with no sensible response, if there really were vast numbers of people who don't believe the official 9/11 explanation, whose disbelief is more than just wanting to disbelieve for entertainment, sour grapes about not being experts themselves or other psychological reasons; who were sufficiently confident enough in their disbelief; and who actually cared to get off their backsides and do something rather than just whine; they could get together and fund their own large-scale physical experiments or demonstrations proving the inability of the 9/11 structures to fail, if they genuinely believed such physical experiments or demonstrations were actually feasible in practice.

If there are countless millions who are really confident the official explanation is wrong, but collectively they have done sweet fuck all of use in fifteen years, that would seem to say much more about the kind of people they are than about anyone else.

Of course, such people may well not trust someone claiming to want put together a demonstration to prove them right enough to make a contribution, whether from simple paranoia or other reasons.
But if so, they clearly wouldn't trust demonstrations from experts who had a different view to them, so why should any such experts piss away their own time and money?

Well, there is some millionare who is willing to buy a Boeing and send it into scyscrapers. Look it up.

[Newstein]

Here you go psi... dig into those pockets...

http://fusion.net/story/302936/paul-salo-9-11-hoax/

ETA. Oops, seems like it's been cancelled after raising $155. One would think all that dosh saved on rent living in mom's basement would free up some capital.

What?? It was cancelled? Yes, it is him I was talking about.

[Newstein]

Where have I said that the Twin Towers were brought down by large quantities of explosives? I merely consider it the most probable explanation.

All I pointed out was that the people who do say it, or things like it, would seem to be the ones who would be the supposed audience for an experiment/demonstration seemingly trying to show 'natural' collapse possible, yet they wouldn't trust such an demonstration if someone else did one and it gave a result they didn't like (or they would wave away the demonstration as not being a sufficiently faithful model of the WTC towers), and they appear to have no desire to put their hands in their own pockets to pay for their own showing that, despite hardly any experts seeming to think natural collapse is impossible, it actually is.

But it should not be that difficult to create experiments to prove that the top 15% or less of a 1300 foot skyscraper could fall and destroy the rest.

So why not go and try to find people to pay for one, if it's so easy to do?

As I said, you could start by paying someone who knows what they're talking about to explain to you what is and isn't feasible, whether anything which may be economically feasible would be similar enough to the actual structures to look convincing to a non-engineer like you, and whether anything which could be built physically would honestly count as an 'experiment' if anyone capable of building one would know in advance what such a physical model would do before they built it.

But I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't much like the answers.

It has been repeatedly explained why engineering schools would be likely to have little interest in trying to demonstrate much to people who are relatively ill-informed but nevertheless have strong opinions, since the basis for such opinions isn't engineering knowledge, and the opinions are relatively unlikely to be changed simply by attempting to add a little engineering knowledge.

You keep asking the same question, as if you are incapable of understanding or accepting the answer. However, I am highly confident that if, rather than asking the question repeatedly here, you actually asked those people directly why they don't do what you seem to think they should do, and got an honest answer, it would bear a striking similarity to mine.

Evidently, no-one can make you stop thinking that the reason why people haven't done what you think they should do is that they can't, if that is what you wish to think, yet it would seem rather silly to cling to that as the only possible explanation it has been explained to you over and over that from their perspective, such people have no obvious reason to do what you think they should do simply because you and maybe some people like you think they should do it

If you can't comprehend that people other than you have a different perspective on things, and that it's silly to pretend that if you were in their shoes you'd still have the same opinions you do now when to a significant extent you have your opinions as a result of not being like them, you seem destined to be disappointed by the world.

Seriously, can somebody read this shit you are saying? This is uncomprehensible. I've read 5%, because I know only 0% is the truth.

[Newstein]

Proudfootz got a warning for insulting Mr Santa.
Omg that was not pretty.

Proudfootz added to list of dangerous people to reveal the truth. CHECK!