• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Best skeptic posts

Coritani

Critical Thinker
Coritani
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
317
Well, we already have 2 threads about stupid Truther quotes. So I figure we need something to outweigh the stupidity, so let's try to post some good posts, quotes or arguments by skeptics. I suppose that, theoretically, we could have good arguments by truthers as well, but seeing as good arguments from truthers don't exist, I decided to just limit it to skeptics.

I'd first like to submit This post by R.Mackey:

R.Mackey said:
R.Mackey said:
DAMN are you lazy!

You can't add a speed to a length! Do you understand this or not??

At the moment, you are flirting with a failing grade.
Click to expand...
KillTown said:
No I don't, so you gonna give YOUR figures or not? If not, I'll wait until some other OCT can since you can't seem to be able too.
Click to expand...
Quoted in entirety for posterity.

If you are honestly that ignorant of physics, then it is going to be extremely difficult to explain all of the steps that go into a full calculation. I am willing to walk through it, if you are willing to listen. But this is absolutely proof positive that your feelings on what the smoke plume represents are totally incorrect, and not based on any science at all. Your claims to have "calculated" and "double checked" are a fraud, plain and simple.

I cannot convince you to apologize for your actions based on your misplaced beliefs. Only you can make amends. All that I can do is attempt to educate. I will do so now.

You cannot add two quantities of different types. This is commonly referred to as "apples and oranges." I cannot add five pounds to twelve gallons to get seventeen feet.

Speed and distance are related quantities but they are not the same. Speed is distance divided by time. Meters per second (or m/s) is a measurement of speed. Meters by itself is a measurement of distance. You attempted to add the speed of the aircraft, let's call it 500 knots (you can look up the actual Flight Data Recorder number at your leisure, this is close enough) to the length of the wings, let's call that 40 meters (also not quite right but close enough).

Note I am keeping the units: knots and meters. It's a good idea to keep the units whenever you calculate. That way you can check to see if it's safe to add numbers together. Since knots and meters are totally different, we can't just add these numbers.

I looked up in Wikipedia that one knot = 0.514 meters / second. Therefore 500 knots = (500) x (0.514) meters / second = about 257 meters per second.

Now I have meters per second (speed) and meters (wing size). They're closer, but they're still not the same. We can't add them. We need to think about what we're doing.

What I really want to calculate is a distance, specifically how far I think fuel might travel after the plane hits the ground and splatters, but before it ignites. I need a time. I need to guess how long it might be before ignition. I mentioned this in the first post where I challenged you to solve the equation.

Obviously the time will not be very long, but remember, we are estimating a maximum size this time. The minimum would be for time = 0, i.e. instant initiation of every single drop of fuel, but the maximum will be more. I chose to take one second as the initiation time. Note: I am making an assumption. There is nothing wrong with making an assumption, so long as I declare it. Others may challenge my assumption, and I should take their objections under consideration, or change my assumption if faced with new information.

The distance the fuel will splatter in one second is equal to how fast the fuel is traveling, times the amount of time. In this case, the fuel might splatter at the speed of the aircraft before collision. It might travel slower, too, maybe even a lot slower, but it's not likely to go faster. We're after the maximum, so we take the speed of the plane as the speed of the fuel. Thus, in the one second we assume before ignition, we compute:

Fuel splatter distance = speed x time = 257 meters / second x 1 second = 257 meters second / second = 257 meters

We further make the assumption that the fuel splatters equally in all directions on impact. Again, this is probably an overestimate, but we want the maximum. This means that fuel sprays 257 meters on both sides of the wings. Therefore, the maximum initial fireball size is the following:

Fuel spray size = spray (ahead) + spray (behind) + size before spraying

= 257 meters + 257 meters + 40 meters (the width of the wings) = 554 meters

There you go. That is an estimate of the maximum initial fireball size.

Do I think this number is reasonable? It's probably too big. In my opinion, the fuel would probably not spray equally in all directions. I also believe that the fuel rapidly decelerated as it hit the open air, but it would depend on whether the fuel tanks completely crumbled into small pieces, or whether larger fragments (which would fly farther) scattered, entraining fuel with them. We might even have had several distinct fires, well separated, contributing to a single larger fireball. Large chunks might fly very far indeed.

In my opinion, an initial fuel distribution size of about 200 meters seems reasonable. But I would believe numbers as small as 50 meters, and as large as 500 meters, depending on exactly what happened. Unfortunately, there is only one static photo long after the blast, so we will never know.

Remember, this is the size of the fireball at ignition. It will rapidly get larger after it ignites, and convection will spread it further still.

Now, was any part of that unclear? There is no shame in asking for help.
Click to expand...
 
There are so many good posts!
I especially like posts where technical issues are explained so that a layperson (with some reasoning skills, a normal understanding of the "laws of physics" and minimal common sense (:))) can grasp the issue.

I will submit three very different posts.

The first one from Architect, explaining the mechanism of collapse of WTC 1/2.

Architect said:
Non Believer

This is quite simple, and I don't see why you have difficulty with it (barring the fact that you clearly have no experience whatsoever of structural design).

1. Buildings are designed to accommodate dead (i.e. self weight) and live (people, furniture, wind, etc) loadings. These design values are then subject to safety factors based on credible risks, set out in various design codes and standards.

2. Design of framed buildings such as the tower is complex; I do not intend to discuss in any depth the various jointing and connection techniques however a joint - welded or bolted - will only be designed to take specific loadings. These loadings will be for specific directions.

3. Lest anyone doubt how complex this all is, then remember the case of the Citicorp building. If you have no idea about Citicorp without having to Google, then do not trouble this board with any claims of structural expertise.

4. It may be helpful if you consider the complete tower structure - floors, inner core, and outer facade - as acting together as a large girder, or space frame (you must be familiar with both of these). Damage to or loss of one element can and will have an effect on the overall stability of the "girder".

5. The towers were built with spare structural capacity, however a significant part of this was compromised in the initial impact. Further damage was cause dby the fires. Although the designers claim that the design was built to accommodate an aircraft impact, no calculations have ever been produced to show the extent of this (I refer you again to Citicorp); there were (a) no applicable design codes or guidance at the time and (b) limited computer modelling techniques available at the time.

6. The fire weakened the floor trusses, causing sag. This in turn led to deflection of the outer structural envelope (or facade). The steel could not accommodate the required loadings at this point (a buckled structural member will be weaker, even before we consider the impact of buckling on joints and risk of their failure). The hat trusses probably served to redistribute loads, but ultimately exceeded design capacity and failed.

7. At this point, failure of the supporting structure for the upper part of the building is inevitable and what is frankly a massive amount of material begins to move downwards at a 9.8ms/-2. The momentum and mass are substantial.

8. The structure below is not intact, because the hat trusses are no longer doing their work and the bracing effect of the upper structure has been lost. It is overly simplistic to suggest that this portion of the building is sound, a point usually overlooked by "alternative" theories.

9. The steel joints, etc. are not designed to accommodate the loadings imposed by the impact of this massive mass and momentum. They are deisgned to accommodate normal loadings, which will be many magnitudes less. They will fail; there is absolutely no doubt about this, from a structural perspective. The time involved with be absolutely minimal. Although not a NIST document, Greening's paper (again you should be familiar with this) gives you a very basic idea of the kind of issues we're talking about.

10. At this point the collapse becomes progressive and self-perpetuating.

Let me give you a simple analogy (not my own, I hasten to add, but a rather a very good, simple way of looking at the problem posted elsewhere).

If you put a brick on your head, there will be no problems. You will be able to walk around (subject to balance), suffer no injuries, and so on. The additional dead lead of the brick (together with minimal live load for wind, etc. on it's faces) is well within the "design" load of your skeleton.

If we drop that brick from just 0.5 metres (far less than the floor-ceiling height of wtc) then you will suffer major head injuries. If we drop it 2.5 metres, you will suffer severe head and spinal injuries. Realistically, you will die.

Now as far as I can see, the ol' canard you're attempting to pull out of the hat is the one about the resistence of each floor sufficiently slowing down the collapse in order to markedly influence total collapse time.

I have to tell you that the sheer mass and momentum of the upper (mobile) structure is such that it's going to make bugger-all difference. We're talking about tiny fractions of a second each floor, not seconds.

This is what we, as trained professionals, would expect. Number crunching is irrelevant.

Now if you want to prove differently, don't demand that other people do your work for you. Go and find out how each joint was formed. Calculate the design loadings, then look at the imposed loadings from the collapse. Calculate the length of time to failure. THEN come back and tell us if there's an issue or not.

And this, I believe, is where YOU have a problem. You don't understand structures in any competent manner. Hell I work on tall structures every day of the working week and I have to get a team of real experts from Arup do the number crunching for me on a tall buildings project, so what hope has a lay person got?

Intead you try to claim that NIST have been remiss in not calculating something wholly irrelevant.

You cherry pick facts and soundbites, other (wholly irrelevant) cases such as Windsor. Tell me, NB, do you really know about the Citicorp Building without looking it up on Google? Have you ever heard of Ronan Point? How much do you understand about the actual performance of fires without going to Wiki?

Have you read the Sheffield University research papers? Were you even aware that Sheffield University (it's in the UK, btw)has a highly respected fire engineering unit?

Did you know that Edinburgh University (that's in the UK too) had published a paper suggesting through fire modelling that the trusses would have failed even withouth the aircraft impact? Likewise have you seen the Arup papers which seperately came to the same conclusion?

When considering the susceptibility of steel buildings to fire, were you aware that every single building standards/regulatory code in the West (and I suspect elsewhere) had identified the problem for at least 20 years (when I started training) and probably a lot longer? Were you aware that steel firms such as Corus publish extensive advice on this?

Do you know how we protect steel against fire? Are you aware of the different systems available and fire ratings? Hell, do you even know what intumescent means without looking it up on Google?

Have you looked at the various engineering media reports on the collapse (NCE would be a good start, but I suspect you've never heard of that either) in order to try and understand how we as an industry have viewed and understood the collapse.

I can go on all day with a list of architectural, structural, and fire engineering issues which you have to understand before you can even begin to comment on the NIST report with any degree of confidence. Each of these disciplines requires between 5 and 7 years of a university education, with intensive study across a whole range of specialist topics. This is then followed by practical, on-the-job training.

So with the deepest respect, don't read a few general web sites and then come back and start chucking about structural theories or "common sense".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The second post, from LashL, is one that makes me jealous, the kind of post that after I read it, I think: "Why didn't I write that"?

LashL said:
It makes no sense that you would bother to come here to deliver that little message, no. As long as you twoofers spout BS to people, we will be here to counter your BS. If you've come here to tell those of us who rely upon facts and evidence - instead of woo - to leave you poor little misguided twoofers alone, I fear you're on a fool's errand as it appears you have no idea about why we do what we do.

Skeptics here do what we do for a myriad of reasons, some of which follow. I do not purport to speak for others, and I'm not likely to touch upon all of the reasons of all of the members here, but you'll get the idea and others will correct me or add to what I say if I've left something out or misrepresnted anything. (Because around here, that's what we do. We don't just jump on a bandwagon and cheerlead like the vast majority of the twoof movement adherents are wont to do.)

We do this because we don't like to see people misled by BS, which is all that the twoof "movement" feeds people. We do this because we don't like seeing twoofers disparage the family members of those who died that day. We do this because we will not leave unchallenged the attempts of the twoof "movement" to label everyone who doesn't buy into their unsubstantiated nonsense as "disinfo", "agents", "government shills", etc. We do this because critical thinking is important, so vitally important, and the twoof movement encourages the exact opposite - mindless followers who do not think at all.

We do this because thinking, research, facts, and evidence are important - vitally important - and the twoof movement waves away facts and reality and science and critical thinking as though they matter not a whit.

We do this because we don't like seeing woowoos trying to convince people that they should blindly follow morons like those that are embraced by you twoofers as demi-gods. We do this because lurkers and fence sitters need to see twoofers exposed for what they are, and because we want lurkers and fence sitters to see that facts, evidence, science, proof, expertise, knowledge and experience not only matter but are orders of magnitude above the alternative espoused by the twoof movement (blind belief, blind following, lack of ability or incentive to think, lack of ability or incentive to research, lack of ability or incentive to consult experts, lack of ability or incentive to become experts, etc.)

And mostly, we do this because we find the behaviour of twoofers utterly despicable when they accuse innocent people of mass murder; because we find it utterly despicable that twoofers suggest that firefighters and other first responders were "in on it" or that they are too scared to speak up for their deceased brothers and sisters; because we find the lies of the twoof movement morally repugnant; because we find it reprehensible that twoofers laugh - literally - at the heroic efforts of thoroughly decent people who died that day, in order to further the twoofers' own goals, financial and otherwise; because we never lose sight of the fact that real people died that day. Not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, not just a number on a piece of paper, but real people. And because the deceased left behind other real people, also victims - not cartoon characters, not abstract non-entities, but real people. Twoofers disparage these innocent victims and their families every day.

That last paragraph is reason enough all on its own for skeptics and critical thinkers to take it upon themselves to rail against twoofers. I'm surprised you had to ask.

There is much more, of course, but it's late and that will have to do for now.
Click to expand...
 
I made a thread like this, do a search, maybe there is a few good ones in there too!

I think the one, i'm not entirely sure how it went but it was like:

Killtown: What do you think I'm doing with this picture?

Gravy: Masturbating?
 
Last edited:
I loved Gravy's post about witnesses hearing explosions. It had how many heard an explosion, etc etc. I'm sure some people remember it.

Now I've just got to find it...
 
Does it have to be from this forum? There is the famous lettuce post over at screw loose. The authors fingers were not keeping up his brain, to much chuckling from both side :)
 
The Doc said:
I loved Gravy's post about witnesses hearing explosions. It had how many heard an explosion, etc etc. I'm sure some people remember it.

Now I've just got to find it...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the mention. This post is an update, with a link to the post you're referring to.
 
Wow, there are so many but this from Gravy simply summed it up.

Why people fight.

Originally Posted by Gravy
– So that on September 11, 2007, people can go to Ground Zero without running into a crowd of uniformed "patriots" marching behind a ranting charismatic leader to shout "Murderer!" outside the business of a wealthy Jewish "conspirator."

– Because these creeps have the nerve to call themselves a "truth movement."

– Because they choose to spread their excrement at Ground Zero.

– Because it's a bad idea to ignore – or to deny the existence of – terrorists who say they want to kill me.

– Because it's difficult for people who were more seriously affected by the attacks to debate the creeps with dignity.

– Because firefighters thanked us for learning about what they do and standing up for them. Because the creeps make it necessary to defend the people who would enter the maws of hell to save them.

– Because this isn't just about 9/11. It's about reason vs. deliberate ignorance, the joys of learning vs. intellectual cowardice, professionalism vs. hacksterism, the scientific method vs. blind faith, compassion vs. blind hatred.

– Because the creeps have difficulty with reality, and when we confront them in the flesh, demand that they produce evidence to back their claims, and publicly demonstrate how arrogantly uninformed they are, it's undeniably real. Not only can they not ignore us, we aggravate the hell out of them.

– Because I believe that, except for a few of them, they are capable of learning and have learned and will continue to learn. It's a hard slog, because rather than taking an analytical approach to the information we present, their default position is adversarial. Very well. My position is that if they refuse to sit down to a civilized tea with the facts, they will be hammered with them. I have some projects in the works that I think will be very effective in that regard. They've been at this for years. We've taken a few small steps in a few months and have already made a big difference.

– Because ever since Abby told me that the creeps also protest outside the New York Public Library, I can't wait to go and expose that delicious irony. (and maybe read some poetry: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty...")

– Because it's fun to be mysterious when my old drinking buddies ask if I've found some new drinking buddies or something (most don't know I'm involved with this insanity: I release that information on a need-to-know basis only).

– Because the gubmint salary, health plan, and pension are highly satisfactory, our jobs are unlikely to be outsourced to Mumbai, and Dick Cheney is holding my cat at knifepoint.
Click to expand...

It simply dispells any doubt and is a post I have long remembered.
 
MG1962 said:
Does it have to be from this forum? There is the famous lettuce post over at screw loose. The authors fingers were not keeping up his brain, to much chuckling from both sides.
Click to expand...
If someone can find this, I'd love to see it.
 
As requested by Perry :)

Post #47 of this thread

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1275&st=40



Let's look at the concept here.

Let's suppose I have a head of lettuce held up with 4 long sticks.

Now, I break one stick.

The head of lettuce falls over.

One head of lettuce is 1 foot up, the other is 3 ft up.


If the sticks are 3 feet long they are easier to break (if I push in the middle) but the GPE is 3 times as much as the one foot sticks.

Now apply the concept of the conserved energy. It doesn't work. It doesn't apply at all.
 
MG1962 said:
Let's look at the concept here.

Let's suppose I have a head of lettuce held up with 4 long sticks.

Now, I break one stick.

The head of lettuce falls over.

One head of lettuce is 1 foot up, the other is 3 ft up.


If the sticks are 3 feet long they are easier to break (if I push in the middle) but the GPE is 3 times as much as the one foot sticks.

Now apply the concept of the conserved energy. It doesn't work. It doesn't apply at all.
Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out what this person was supposed to prove here, but my brain hurts too much...
 
Debating the 'lateral ejection of debris proves CD' nonsense:
WildCat said:
link
You can't compare a piece of wood with a 5k+ lbs steel module.
Click to expand...
The forces on the structure of the WTC during collapse are orders of magnitude greater than my example. I bet the debris in the WTC collapse would have traveled even farther if other buildings hadn't been in the way. And it is my belief that the debris ejected the farthest was from this method.
But I very much resent you claiming that most truthers "don't really believe it". What do you mean by that? Do you mean that we are intentionally lying, or just lying to ourselves?
Click to expand...
If you really believed it you'd be taking up arms or hiding from a gov't that would surely kill you for finding them out, just as they snuffed out nearly 3,000 people on 9/11 alone. And deep down, most truthers realize they're in no danger, it's just a safe little fantasy they can indulge in. But it's fun to play the great crusader, toppling the shadow world government and their entire military/industrial complex isn't it?
If this is all such a big joke what is your motivation for posting here?
Click to expand...
Because the nearly 3,000 people that died that day deserve to have their deaths put in the proper context, w/o laptop crusaders all over the internet spreading deceit, inuendo, bad science, and outright lies about the facts of the day. This is no joke LP, you guys have no evidence or facts, just an endless supply of mud to throw at the memories of those who died that day, or lost a loved one, or who tried but failed to prevent the attacks or their toll.

Facts and evidence LP, you got any of those?
Click to expand...
 
MG1962 said:
Does it have to be from this forum? There is the famous lettuce post over at screw loose. The authors fingers were not keeping up his brain, to much chuckling from both side :)
Click to expand...

Nope - they can be from any forum.

JAStewart said:
I made a thread like this, do a search, maybe there is a few good ones in there too!

I think the one, i'm not entirely sure how it went but it was like:

Killtown: What do you think I'm doing with this picture?

Gravy: Masturbating?
Click to expand...

This one?
 
I regret to say some of the more technical posts are beyond me--but that's just my personal tragedy...

Here's a fine entry from David Wong:
David Wong said:
You also have to have a plane that strikes perfectly at the levels where your charges are set to go off, to make it look like the impact from the plane did it (since collapse started there).

Then you have the problem of the plane impacting right in the spot where your timers and detonators and wiring is. Remember, if some of your bombs are damaged and don't go off, and the building doesn't fall, you'll have unexploded bombs sitting around for rescue workers to find and report.

That's the rub right there, beyond all the details about engineering and architecture. There are so many things that could go wrong with the plan it's ludicrous. Any slight misstep (including the plane accidentally striking just 10% further down the building) would ruin the plan and make it blatantly obvious to the world and would end the lives of every powerful person supposedly involved.

Not to mention the danger of being caught wiring up just those nine floors. That's still a HUGE number of charges, to place without being caught by security or maintenance or police or bomb sniffing dogs or casual witnesses walking by. You've got to get the charges and the crews inside the building, you've got to cover up their work every day so that the thousands of people walking past the next day don't notice it...
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2256559&postcount=6
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom