The Bastard Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I don't know how you can be so sure in your views. I'm sticking with 'undecided' and 'insignificant evidence' with regard WTC7. That's because it's become a religion, rather than an objective viewpoint, in your case. No matter what evidence is presented, your belief system will not allow you to interpret it rationally, so your opinion can pretty much be discounted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I'm still baffled why a so-called engineer would be talking about "diesel fire" associated with aircraft. Aircraft don't use diesel fuel, they use kerosene-based blends that burn in a typical temperature range between 427 and 816 degrees celsius. Everyone is getting mixed up between WTC 1 & 2 and WTC 7. WTC 7 contained huge amounts of plant with emergency generators etc they had two 6000 gallon tanks of diesel associated with them. This was put into floor 5 which was windowless and even more amazingly sprinklerless. (Please don't say this was a building regs conspiracy from the 1970s designed to allow the disaster to happen!). If you seach on Youtube you can find video of the fires that broke out, they were huge and it is suspected that the diesel in floor 5 contributed to it ... the tanks were found fire scared, damaged and empty. The high pressure piping for this fuel was attached to the main columns in the building and as it burned it is suspected it cracked putting burning fuel directly onto the main support columns. As far as I know there are no pictures of the South face of the building, but this was extensively damaged with large amounts of debris from the North Tower falling on it and into the building in the area of the critical columns. WTC 7 had been altered with the addition of the East Penthouse ... again another plant area ... onto the building after it was built. The video of the collapse, AND the finite element analysis run on supercomputers, shows weakening in the columns under the east penthouse due to damage from debris from the north tower and fire causing the penthouse to collapse into the building taking out the other columns and creating a global collapse. WTC 7 from a building standards, health and safety point of view is more important because it wasn't hit by the planes. Its a normal building that was extensively altertered and with a 1970s sprinkler systems which caught fire. This happens all the time and so has implications for building regs in the future. However having a building on fire and have several hundred tonnes of debris falling into it from a collapsing supertower next door doesn't happen all the time and is the explanation of the collapse ... debris causing damage AND weakening from fire. Albert doesn't believe it ... Oh well ... I'll trust the 100's of Phd's who have worked on it for 5 years. Albert still hasn't explained why he doen't believe them, or why he thinks the collapse of this building makes it a conspiracy ... maybe because his justifications will make him look like an idiot ... but then again maybe he's other reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pod Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I don't know how you can be so sure in your views. I'm sticking with 'undecided' and 'insignificant evidence' with regard WTC7. Ok, We've given you the facts, we've shown that your beliefs are wrong or just plain illogical and yet you still stick to them. I've waited long enough to make sure you've read all thats been posted (you've still not acknowledged the bit about structural damage to WTC7 from the falling of the other buildings) We're all thinking it and its time to say it. You sir, are a moron. Pod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I don't know how you can be so sure in your views. I'm sticking with 'undecided' and 'insignificant evidence' with regard WTC7. That's because it's become a religion, rather than an objective viewpoint, in your case. No matter what evidence is presented, your belief system will not allow you to interpret it rationally, so your opinion can pretty much be discounted. On the contrary, I am not normally a conspiracy theorist and have looked rationally and objectively enough at this to say 'I remain undecided. My conclusion is - to have no conclusion. I don't know - there is not enough evidence.' What knowledge is your sure fired belief based on? You obviously have a problem with conspiracy theorists and the twaddle about belief systems is irrelvant when searching for facts. My 'undecided' view is based on a lack of facts and unrealistic probabilities, so I'm sticking with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I'm not sure that I'd go so far to call Albert a moron - I'm sure he's an intelligent bloke - he's simply chosen conspiracy theories as his religion. Once someone's accumulated a set of religious beliefs, be it iron-age mythology or conspiracy theory, they become unquestionable in their eyes, and no matter how rational the evidence against them, a believer won't be shaken. The "God-shaped Hole" can be filled in a variety of ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pod Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 My 'undecided' view is based on a lack of facts and unrealistic probabilities, so I'm sticking with it. No, your undecided view is quite clearly based on a lack of acceptance of the facts and plain fingers in ears 'lalala-ing' Pod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pod Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I'm not sure that I'd go so far to call Albert a moron - I'm sure he's an intelligent bloke - he's simply chosen conspiracy theories as his religion. Once someone's accumulated a set of religious beliefs, be it iron-age mythology or conspiracy theory, they become unquestionable in their eyes, and no matter how rational the evidence against them, a believer won't be shaken. The "God-shaped Hole" can be filled in a variety of ways. Not quite. religious beliefs cannot be disproved because in the end they use outerworldly (is that a word? ) explanations to cover errors or holes that people find in them. In the end you cannot ever say they are false and so people are justified to an extent to believe them even if we think their reasons are foolish This isn't really the case here. We're in the physical demain only and he's ignoring all the evidence thats been presented without coming out with real world proof that what we've said is wrong. He's just sitting back and doing the whole "I cant hear you" act. Perhaps I was a bit over zealous with my previous statement tho. A better one might be "you're being a moron" Pod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Whilst otherwordly influence does play a part on many major religions, it's not entirely necessary to include it in a religious belief system. In this case a simple statement at the beginning of a conspiracy theorist's dogma could often be "I believe that...", and the inability to argue against the fundamental set of beliefs, despite evidence that patently undermines the belief system, is indicative of a religious approach. Although Albert claims to be representing an undecided point of view, he's not, since his opinion can't be influenced away from his favoured direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 I don't know how you can be so sure in your views. I'm sticking with 'undecided' and 'insignificant evidence' with regard WTC7. Ok, We've given you the facts, we've shown that your beliefs are wrong or just plain illogical and yet you still stick to them. I've waited long enough to make sure you've read all thats been posted (you've still not acknowledged the bit about structural damage to WTC7 from the falling of the other buildings) We're all thinking it and its time to say it. You sir, are a moron. Pod 1. You haven't given me any 'facts' - only your opinion 2. I am entitled to my opinion. 3. Look at the videos of building WTC7 - there was relatively minor damage to one side. 4. I am not a moron. Your phrases 'we're all thinking' and 'we've shown' are clearly not true as you haven't given me sufficient evidence to change my mind. Moreover, there are many others on this forum and around the world who also have doubts. 5. Welcome to the forum - where it is better to debate than name call 6. 'Mobbing' me will not get me to change my mind, and I remain 'undecided' and with an open mind on the matter - until I see evidence to the contrary...just as any engineer or scientist would do so given insufficient information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurkah Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Do you think my recent change of address meant I lost the engineering associations' communiques with their subsequent orders that one should back up the demolition hypothesis and not the reality of the twin tower collapse? I'm worried now, maybe there was even an incentive cheque in there? Or do you think it would be more straight forward threats to health and family? If I call a few up will they put me through to shadowy government department automatically or is there a special codeword one must give? I'd hate to be missing out here. P.S. You're blatantly not an engineer or a scientist so let's not claim the burden of proof needs to hold up to any such examination eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 P.S. You're blatantly not an engineer or a scientist so let's not claim the burden of proof needs to hold up to any such examination eh? That is simply not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Dave Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 That is simply not true. I don't know how you can be so sure in your views. I'm sticking with 'undecided' and 'insignificant evidence' with regard to your engineering credentials. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 That is simply not true. I don't know how you can be so sure in your views. I'm sticking with 'undecided' and 'insignificant evidence' with regard to your engineering credentials. Dave Based on what? My saying there is not enough information to draw a conclusion? That actually makes me a better engineer, IMHO, and an experienced one that doesn't leave things to chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Dave Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Based on what? My saying there is not enough information to draw a conclusion? That actually makes me a better engineer, IMHO, and an experienced one that doesn't leave things to chance. Oh pchah, I'm just yanking your chain Albert! Personally, as a fellow scientist, I applaud your descision to ignore the accepted viewpoint and look deeper into this obvious mystery. Clearly, something more sinister is happening here, as evidenced by the fact that so many of the world's experts and commentators agree on what happened. When you throw in the huge weight of eye witness testimony and documented evidence, the plot only thickens and you can't escape from the inevitable conclusion that everything we know is wrong! Kudos on being a better engineer. A lot of so called "experts" wouldn't have the guts to make up a half-baked, inconsistent, poorly supported theory and they certainly wouldn't have the courage to ignore any new evidence as it came in! Well done you! Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted September 12, 2006 Share Posted September 12, 2006 Strange number of new accounts opened to batter this thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.