Messages

Do you also acknowledge:
- the buildings fell too quickly

No. And I seem to recall that people have posted evidence and references showing this to be false several times earlier in the thread, which you have yet to acknowledge.

Indeed. To quote Cracked on it,

"When somebody tells you that the towers fell at "free-fall speed," they're more or less pulling that out of their ass. Or at least, they're referencing some other conspiracy theorists who pulled it out of their ass. They're not referencing any kind of scientific theory or measurement; they're just timing the fall as they watch YouTube videos and declaring that it looks different from how it plays out in their imagination. In other words, they don't actually know what they mean by "free fall" except that the buildings seem to be falling more quickly than they'd expect from the almost certainly zero controlled demolitions they've seen before."

"Most of the video of the actual collapse is filmed in Cloverfield-style shaky-cam, but if you watch any of the still-camera footage, you can debunk the free-fall claim simply from the fact that there's debris coming off the tower that's falling faster than the tower is. We've known that objects free fall at the same speed ever since Galileo dropped some balls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, so that more or less puts the kibosh on the whole free-fall business."

If people want to seriously participate in this discussion, start by making a serious effort to address these three points.

Monkey, you don't get to demand that people address your specific points when you've been systematically ignoring their points.

Also, your points are all based on false assumptions, since neither you nor Ms. Wood have knowledge of how demolitions actually work and what they should look like. You're basically saying "Science says X but my gut feeling says Y, and I demand that everybody acknowledge Y in order to participate". Clearly, a scientific discussion doesn't work that way; science is funny like that

You should definitely play Snail Quest.

[legal]

But if ISIS/ISIL manages to raise itself into statehood (as they are trying to do by capturing land, building schools, power plants, hospitals and infrastructure, raising political support, enforcing religious views and eliminating dissidents), then everything they have done will be considered legal within that new state and it's laws. Skip forward a decade or two and we might have to examine the whole situation again, but this time through the viewpoint that these people who travelled to Syria to fight were not, in fact, terrorists and criminals, but rather the noble volunteers who were ready to fight for a fledgeling nation and might have ended up bringing peace to the region (through massive bloodshed and murder and untold horrors, at least as seen by us westerners).

While it is true that the winner writes the history books, the victory of ISIS is hardly a fait accompli, and should not be treated as such.

An interesting read on red flags that an article is pretending to be scientific but is really bogus,

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-warning-signs-advertising-disguised-as-articles/

According to the crude approximation above the impact force of the plane was 200 times greater than the sheer strength of the hollow columns on the perimiter of the building.  According to the laws of physics a plane penetrating the WTC seems entirely plausible.

Where are Dr Wood's calculations?

I expect they're something like this:

A building is a big thing. A plane is a small thing. A small thing cannot destroy a big thing. Poof! QED.

You responded to the one thing that didn't relly warrant a response!

No, I responded to the foundation of your argument, as it makes assumptions that are clearly incorrect.

This means that "all that other stuff you talk about" is unsound, and doesn't deserve a response. Start with the premise; if your premise is wrong, there's no point to the rest of the argument.

Howdy y'all. I'm glad we're all having fun with this thread. I just want to thank you all for contributing. I think it's healthy to discuss the issues. Far from pointless. There are so many unanswered questions, so why not talk about it? Even if an idea sounds far fetched, we should have the courage to at least give it some thought.

That's a hilarious remark which completely misses everybody else's point.

No, there aren't actually "so many unanswered questions" - there are many answered and explained questions, and then there's conspiracy theorists that reject the given answers because they discredit their pet conspiracy.

Science is not about taking a far-fetched idea and trying to find support for that (and selectively ignoring any and all facts that don't fit). In fact, science is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

But yes, we're having fun.

I've found a site with several more sequels or sequels-in-progress here, http://www.zak-site.com/zak2.htm

Yeah, we had one hilarious guy who insisted that even though everybody else was paid in dollars, he should get the same amount of euros (at a time when that was roughly twice as much) since he lived in Europe; and then he ended up sending only half the lines until he was fully paid, and refused to do retakes. Guess who is now the sole entry on our "don't contact again" list?

I think a couple cents per word is reasonable. A dollar per word is pretty crazy unless you're a celebrity.

Here's Wonderwall: The Game!

My recommendation would be to only do a demo when you have established a release date, and have this demo two or three months in advance. Having a demo when the project is in the beginning stages and you have no idea when (or if) you're going to release it doesn't really accomplish all that much.

It is worth noting that the highly scientific documentary known as "age of ultron" shows an uncontrolled demolition that doesn't involve the building toppling over onto the next building like a set of dominoes...

From my angle of reading this thread Dr. Wood's silly theory has been systematically dismantled and shown to be completely ludicrous.

Don't you see? Because some scientific truths were laughed at when they were first proposed, that means that anything that's laughed at must therefore be a scientific truth! For reals!

Thank you for the completely inappropriate MuthBusters remark. I have never mentioned MythBusters, nor do I consider them doing (good or otherwise) science. I know they were mentioned, but not by me. I also know that you said this as a joke but at the same time - I feel - to belittle my (valid!) comments.

While Mythbusters has some issues, it at least follows the basic tenets of science (you know, exactly in the way that Mrs. Wood doesn't). So I actually find it hilarious that a disciple of Wood would look down upon Mythbusters. Basically, Miesja, in attempting to belittle your valid comments, he is actually complimenting them without realizing it

Yes, buildings can topple. Like this one in Shanghai.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ&autoplay=1

Did you notice (1) how this building is constructed in an extremely different fashion and from completely different materials than the twin towers, and (2) how it is called "amazing" that this happened, i.e. the very title of the movie you link already points out that this is not normal behavior for a building?

The WTC buildings that fell neatly and symmetrically into their own footprint is more reminiscent of a controlled demolition.

Are you a controlled demolitions expert? No? Thought not.
Actual controlled demolition experts have gone on record stating the exact opposite of what you claim. Simply put, expert analysis trumps amateur guesswork.

These are two good examples of preferring urban legends over fact checking.

"Buildings topple over". Yes, in cartoons they do, but to expect anything resembling a real-life skyscraper to topple over belies a complete ignorance of the structural physics involved. No, buildings do not topple like that.
"Wood burns easily". No, it actually doesn't. As anyone who has tried to light a campfire can attest, it's not exaclty easy to get wood to burn; that's why you use e.g. pieces of paper to start the fire.

Essentially, whenever you see a statement like "I'd expect X to happen but..." you know whoever said that hasn't bothered to do basic fact checking.

Also, in my opinion she does not work form the data, but towards a predetermined solution.

Yes, that is the key flaw here, and one of the main distinctions between science and pseudoscience.

Thank you all for giving me a case study to discuss in my Intro to Comm. Theory class today. We covered Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm, in which he states that we don't really accept arguments based on rational applications of logic, but rather that we hear stories and then decide whether or not they are coherent and ring true to us.

This article may be useful for you. It discusses, among other things, how people's belief is strengthened when they are shown evidence that their belief is provably wrong.

Speaking of which, the same site has an article on Conspiracy Theories That Are Shockingly Easy To Debunk, which actually includes this one as number three, and cites a number of interesting sources.