• What Happened to WTC Building 7 on 9/11?
    1,009 replies, posted
[QUOTE=EcksDee;24985614]Right, what you have there is speculation now isn't it? Until you provide evidence that it was in fact brought down by controlled demolition, you don't have a leg to stand on. And in fact, why don't you present your findings to the dozens of people who worked on the NIST article. You don't have evidence that it was a controlled demolition. When you provide ACTUAL evidence of a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, not "Well fires couldn't have done it so that means it was a massive conspiracy involving thousands of people", I, for one, will join you in your 'quest for truth', so to speak.[/QUOTE] Here's a [URL="http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf"]scientific article[/URL] to back up my claims. Any questions?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24985748]Here's a [URL="http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf"]scientific article[/URL] to back up my claims. Any questions?[/QUOTE] I'm gonna have to read it tomorrow, past midnight. I'll read a bit now then see if there is anything to comment on.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24985748]Here's a [URL="http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf"]scientific article[/URL] to back up my claims. Any questions?[/QUOTE] What journal is this from? [editline]10:17PM[/editline] Oh I see, the "Journal of 9/11 Studies." Find an article from a real scientific journal and then we'll take it seriously. Some examples are [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29]Nature[/url] and [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28journal%29]Science[/url].
[QUOTE=EcksDee;24985772]I'm gonna have to read it tomorrow, past midnight. I'll read a bit now then see if there is anything to comment on.[/QUOTE] Actually, the article is increeeeedibly tiny, could probably go through it in a bit. E: I'm gonna try to take this one seriously, but when it's from something like the aforementioned journal, eh. E2: Is Thermite even used in demolition? I remember reading that it was too slow and unevenly burning to be used effectively.
[QUOTE=TH89;24886867]It kind of blows my mind that a lot of the posters on here aren't old enough to remember 9/11 :psyduck:[/QUOTE] Some people here honestly don't remember it? Goddamn, time for an idiot cull to weed out the 11 year olds.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;24985894]Actually, the article is increeeeedibly tiny, could probably go through it in a bit. E: I'm gonna try to take this one seriously, but when it's from something like the aforementioned journal, eh.[/QUOTE] Save the effort. If the science was sound, it would be published in a real journal.
Seriously? This argument again? "Derp it says 9/11, therefore shouldn't be taken seriously" :rolleyes: You might as well exclude yourself from the discussion if you're not even going to bother looking at evidence provided by the other side.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24903557]Ok mr. 'I'm 15 and know more about building physics and demolitions than experts' Atleast when SOME of us were watching on 9/11 we weren't pooping our pants and sucking our thumbs still.[/QUOTE] You pooped your pants and sucked your thumb at age 7? Goddamn, you must have been a complete social outcast. No wonder you're being such a jerk.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986062]Seriously? This argument again? "Derp it says 9/11, therefore shouldn't be taken seriously" :rolleyes: You might as well exclude yourself from the discussion if you're not even going to bother looking at evidence provided by the other side.[/QUOTE] I'm reading it, and though my bullshit-ometer is going up, which I will explain tomorrow, I will continue to read it through.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986062]Seriously? This argument again? "Derp it says 9/11, therefore shouldn't be taken seriously" :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] You don't know how science publishing works, do you?
I'm sorry I didn't realize you had a more educated viewpoint on the evidence than Dr. Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archaeometrist. edit: please enlighten us oh omnipotent TH89, all knowing of all sciences, architecture, and politics.
sighhhhh
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986111]I'm sorry I didn't realize you had a more educated viewpoint on the evidence than Dr. Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archaeometrist.[/QUOTE] Do you know how science publishing works? Please answer yes or no. If you don't, I am going to explain it to you.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24985446]Try post #458 (right before: guess who?) I responded thoroughly to someone's evidence and since then no one has refuted me.[/QUOTE] No, TH89 brought up 50 points and backed them with evidence, then you targeted one of those points and copy-pasted something very vague with no factual support whatsoever in reply
[QUOTE=cccritical;24986256]No, TH89 brought up 50 points and backed them with evidence, then you targeted one of those points and copy-pasted something very vague with no factual support whatsoever in reply[/QUOTE] TH89 didn't exactly post 'factual support' either. lol
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24985748]Here's a [URL="http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf"]scientific article[/URL] to back up my claims. Any questions?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]WTC7.net was created by Jim Hoffman to address the suspicious silence surrounding the total collapse of the 47 story skyscraper known as WTC 7, or Building 7. Except for reports of the collapse on the day of the attack, most conspicuously lacking footage, mention of Building 7 has been essentially non-existent in the mainstream and even alternative press. [/QUOTE] It's not an unbiased source if the source exists solely to challenge the universally agreed upon conclusion. I imagine that WTC7 doesn't get as much press about it because there wasn't anybody in it when it collapsed, and that it was not hit by a plane...
Despite having been a major hub of business, as was the rest of the WTC, for more than a decade...
But again, nobody died in it, and it collapsed as a result of the damage enountered by the taller, populated buildings.
Oh god, symmetrical fall? The inside of the east side of WTC7 was basically hollowed out before the visible part of the building began to fall, as seen in the NIST and everywhere else. And it's now saying the smoke from WTC7 was all intentional? And here we go with the 6.5 second fall rate. THE FALL TOOK LONGER THAN 6 SECONDS. Even if you don't count the fact that the east side of the building collapsed first, even then the first 18 floors fell in around 6 seconds. And now the writer isn't even dealing with any evidence, just sarcasm. I'm done with this. [editline]09:43PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986111]I'm sorry I didn't realize you had a more educated viewpoint on the evidence than Dr. Steven E. Jones, Physicist and Archaeometrist. edit: please enlighten us oh omnipotent TH89, all knowing of all sciences, architecture, and politics.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to listen to anything that one scientist has to say, ever. Even if he is correct. Until his hypothesis goes through peer-review and actually gets published in a good journal, not "9/11 truth conspiracy super-research journal".
[QUOTE=EcksDee;24986426]Oh god, symmetrical fall? The inside of the east side of WTC7 was basically hollowed out before the visible part of the building began to fall, as seen in the NIST and everywhere else. And it's now saying the smoke from WTC7 was all intentional? And here we go with the 6.5 second fall rate. THE FALL TOOK LONGER THAN 6 SECONDS. Even if you don't count the fact that the east side of the building collapsed first, even then the first 18 floors fell in around 6 seconds. And now the writer isn't even dealing with any evidence, just sarcasm. I'm done with this.[/QUOTE] What are you on about? The article is clearly heavily sourced at the end of the paper, and all of his claims have citations to reaffirm them (which are sourced at the end). Even video and imagery are provided, where are you drawing these conclusions?
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986508]What are you on about? The article is clearly heavily sourced at the end of the paper, and all of his claims have citations to reaffirm them (which are sourced at the end). Even video and imagery are provided, where are you drawing these conclusions?[/QUOTE] Since you still haven't answered me, I'm going to assume that you [i]don't[/i] know how science publishing works. This is how it works: Scientific papers are submitted for publication in [b]scientific journals[/b]. If you've ever taken a class in information research or something similar you may have heard of them. [img]http://www.uib.no/imagearchive/produktbilde_science_journals.jpg[/img] The important thing that distinguishes scientific journals from very specialized magazines is a process called [b]peer review[/b]. When a paper is peer-reviewed, a number of respected scientists from relevant fields analyze the data and conclusions, and make sure the science and reasoning is sound. If it is, the paper gets published. If the paper's reasoning or data collection is flawed or incomplete, the paper doesn't get published. [img]http://www.cetla.howard.edu/teaching_resources/images/PeerReview.jpg[/img] Peer review is important, because it helps science journals balance the need for credible science with the need to publish groundbreaking, newsworthy studies. Naturally, fringe theorists such as creationists have a difficult time getting their papers published in credible scientific journals, because their "science" doesn't pass muster. In order to make themselves seem more credible, they [url=http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451382b.html]create and fund their own "scientific" journals[/url], allowing them to publish their own papers with the illusion of having been thoroughly reviewed. The "Journal of 9/11 Studies" is exactly the same thing--a faux journal created to publish dodgy papers under the guise of science, to lend credibility to people who would otherwise have none.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;24986426] I'm not going to listen to anything that one scientist has to say, ever. Even if he is correct. [/QUOTE] It's like arguing with a religious person. Oh god. :silent:
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986508]What are you on about? The article is clearly heavily sourced at the end of the paper, and all of his claims have citations to reaffirm them (which are sourced at the end). Even video and imagery are provided, where are you drawing these conclusions?[/QUOTE] His claims have more quotes than citations from the research other scientists have made. Granted, I am reading quite awfully with my sleepy brain, but my sleepy brain can tell that this man is not entirely truthful. [editline]09:48PM[/editline] [QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986542]It's like arguing with a religious person. Oh god. :silent:[/QUOTE] How about you read the rest of what I fucking said. If one scientist says that "9/11 was 100% an inside job", I'm not going to believe him until the scientific community has reached consensus. And the current consensus is most definitely not from a 4x page article published in a journal for 9/11 research. A site which is blatantly biased. I can go back and quote you the exact same way, but I'm not going to. I listen to the scientific community, not "some guy" who publishes an article in "some paper" with other "some guys" backing his claim. The key word in your quote mine is "one". Find me an article supporting a conspiracy theory in a GOOD SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, that has gone through PEER REVIEW by people who can actually find mistakes in what that person is writing. If you start a book club called "The Twilight club" You're going to be hated by every normal book club out there, but when you talk to people who are clueless about Twilight, they will look up to you because you're in a "book club". It is a car analogy, yes, but it works.
[QUOTE=TH89;24986533]Since you still haven't answered me, I'm going to assume that you [I]don't[/I] know how science publishing works. This is how it works: Scientific papers are submitted for publication in scientific journals. If you've ever taken a class in information research or something similar you may have heard of them. The important thing that distinguishes scientific journals from very specialized magazines is a process called peer review. When a paper is peer-reviewed, a number of respected scientists from relevant fields analyze the data and conclusions, and make sure the science and reasoning is sound. If it is, the paper gets published. If the paper's reasoning or data collection is flawed or incomplete, the paper doesn't get published. Peer review is important, because it helps science journals balance the need for credible science with the need to publish groundbreaking, newsworthy studies. Naturally, fringe theorists such as creationists have a difficult time getting their papers published in credible scientific journals, because their "science" doesn't pass muster. In order to make themselves seem more credible, they [URL="http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080123/full/451382b.html"]create and fund their own "scientific" journals[/URL], allowing them to publish their own papers with the illusion of having been thoroughly reviewed. The "Journal of 9/11 Studies" is exactly the same thing--a faux journal created to publish dodgy papers under the guise of science, to lend credibility to people who would otherwise have none.[/QUOTE] This all makes very much sense to me, I am not oblivious to the wonders of peer review. However, you must agree with me that this is a special case. The difference is in the creationist case, they try to add credibility to reaffirm their own delusions. They are not hindranced by societal boundaries such as: losing their own credibility as a result of backing up the findings, etc... If you still feel that because of the fact that 'main stream' science publishers haven't jumped on board the idea means that you shouldn't even bother reading it... well I have nothing left to say to you because nothing I try to show you will ever convince you until it's way too late.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986728]This all makes very much sense to me, I am not oblivious to the wonders of peer review. However, you must agree with me that this is a special case. The difference is in the creationist case, they try to add credibility to reaffirm their own delusions. They are not hindranced by societal boundaries such as: losing their own credibility as a result of backing up the findings, etc...[/QUOTE] So, is it that hard for some truthers to write a study that will actually pass in peer review? I mean, they have plenty of degree-carrying people that should know how to write a study, if what you've been saying is true. Because if what you say is true, they've already lost all credibility. Which they have. Edit: Also, you don't need credibility to be in a journal, you just need a decent study.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986728]This all makes very much sense to me, I am not oblivious to the wonders of peer review. However, you must agree with me that this is a special case. The difference is in the creationist case, they try to add credibility to reaffirm their own delusions. They are not hindranced by societal boundaries such as: losing their own credibility as a result of backing up the findings, etc..[/QUOTE] I think the word you're looking for is hindered. Wouldn't proving that the government of the most influential country in the world intentionally framed a terrorist attack make you the most famous man in history? If they're hindered by losing their credibility, why not apply for publication in a good journal and see if what they're saying is actually true? I mean, if they ACTUALLY THINK that what they've found is TRUE and based on EVIDENCE, there shouldn't be a problem in publishing it in every single journal in the universe. Aaaalso, isn't what you're doing basically the same as what some people do with God? "There are these special rules that everyone and everything has to follow but I'm going to make a special exemption for GOD."
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24986728]This all makes very much sense to me, I am not oblivious to the wonders of peer review. However, you must agree with me that this is a special case. The difference is in the creationist case, they try to add credibility to reaffirm their own delusions.[/QUOTE] So what you're saying is "the difference between creationists creating a fake journal to publish their papers and 9/11 truthers creating a fake journal to publish their papers is that creationists are wrong"? Oh, and another thing? The "Journal of 9/11 Studies" was [i]co-founded[/i] by [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones]the guy who wrote that article[/url]. You think he's going to refuse to publish his own paper?
He's also forgetting that the world of science does exist outside of America. There are a myriad of respected scientific journals in countries where the USA has absolutely no influence (Or, alternatively, the government of that country would benefit greatly from making America look bad). There has been no ground breaking peer reviewed evidence the world over. So, any 'scientific' entry made outside of any respected source is not evidence. Also, hello again. I remember arguing about this two threads ago with you, and we're still going over exactly the same material. TH89, please, for the love of god ban him for being a troll.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24986940]He's also forgetting that the world of science does exist outside of America. There are a plethora of respected scientific journals in countries where the USA has absolutely no influence (Or, alternatively, the government of that country would benefit greatly from making America look bad). There has been no ground breaking peer reviewed evidence the world over. So, any 'scientific' entry made outside of any respected source is not evidence.[/QUOTE] Plethora is the wrong word. Myriad would fit better. A plethora would be an over-abundance or too much of something.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;24986977]Plethora is the wrong word. Myriad would fit better. A plethora would be an over-abundance or too much of something.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, my mistake. Thank you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.