The Physics of 911

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Focus on the big picture: why the planes?

What do planes have to do with unexplained melting of girders? What do planes have to do with the undamaged lower core structure of the WTC offering no resistance to speak of?

1 Reply

@centrox,

centrox, I wish you'd comment on the actual arguments instead of going ad hominum.

Just answer Olivier5's question.

Explain the planes. Please.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

What do planes have to do with unexplained melting of girders?

You don't get it, do you?

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

You don't get it, do you?

I do get that that's no answer. But I don't think you do.
____________________________________
What do planes have to do with the lower core structure offering no resistance to speak of?

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

ad hominum.

What language is that?

1 Reply

@centrox,

Quote:

The Ad Hominem Argument (also, "Personal attack," "Poisoning the well."): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s intelligence, morals, professional qualifications, personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "That so-called judge;" or "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says." See also "Guilt by Association." The opposite of this is the "Star Power" fallacy. Another obverse of Ad Hominem is the Token Endorsement Fallacy, where, in the words of scholar Lara Bhasin, "Individual A has been accused of anti-Semitism, but Individual B is Jewish and says Individual A is not anti-Semitic, and the implication of course is that we can believe Individual B because, being Jewish, he has special knowledge of anti- Semitism. Or, a presidential candidate is accused of anti- Muslim bigotry, but someone finds a testimony from a Muslim who voted for said candidate, and this is trotted out as evidence against the candidate's bigotry." The same fallacy would apply to a sports team offensively named after a marginalized ethnic group, but which has obtained the endorsement (freely given or paid) of some member, traditional leader or tribal council of that marginalized group so that the otherwise-offensive team name and logo magically become "okay" and nonracist.

0 Replies

You wrote "ad hominum". Great attention to detail.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

This was the question:

Olivier5 wrote:

Focus on the big picture: why the planes? Why even bother getting them in the picture if the CIA had already ladden the building with termites? What purpose do they play in your alledged conspiracy?

This was your non-answer:

Quote:

What do planes have to do with unexplained melting of girders? What do planes have to do with the undamaged lower core structure of the WTC offering no resistance to speak of?

As often happens on a long thread, other questions arise. If you can tell me why the hijackers were involved and and why the Pentagon wasn't similarly sabotaged it would do a lot to increase your credibility.

You can trot out as many engineers and metalurgists as you want — unless someone is a specialist and unless the descriptions of the site can be verified as accurate they just don't go very far to convince someone in the light of the perfectly believable explanation offered by the jihadists and their flaming jets.

1 Reply

@centrox,

Thanks for catching it; maybe I won't make that mistake again.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Actually, you appear to be trying to make the point that if someone can't explain why planes were used, then melting of girders and lack of resistance from the core structure means nothing. Explain how that works.

1 Reply

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

centrox, I wish you'd comment on the actual arguments instead of going ad hominum.

Just answer Olivier5's question.

Explain the planes. Please.

I don't need to, do I? I think these conspiracy theories are bullshit.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

I'm not an engineer — how am I to determine the veracity of the technical arguments put forward in the links and accounts you provide? How do I know the authors are even believable? Remember the researchers who denied a connection between smoking and cancer? I'm sure they had lots of letters after their names, too. So instead of going on the offense, just answer the question raised by Olivier5 and answer his question. You've obviously spent a good amount of time investigating this incident; I thought you might have some good insights into the terrorism angle.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

So instead of going on the offense, just answer the question raised by Olivier5 and answer his question.

We're talking about melted girders and a core structure that offered no resistance to speak of. Those are questions that you interpret as me going on the defensive. They're just questions.

The fact that you are not an engineer has nothing to do with me. Also, the topic has to do with physics, not the motivation, methods, and reasoning of terrorists.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

Those are questions that you interpret as me going on the defensive.

No. I interpret your dismissive treatment of Olivier5's question as offensive.

Look, as I said, I'm not an specialist. While I might be able to research the science and investigate the credentials of the engineers, this would require a big investment of time. So, before I commit to hours and hours of research I'd like to eliminate the "crazy jihadist" theory. I thought you might be able to help, that's all.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

No. I interpret your dismissive treatment of Olivier5's question as offensive.

I'll tell you one more time. The thread topic is the physics of 911. I have no idea why terrorists would use planes. If you are so concerned about someone being offended, do something about it! Have you considered answering him yourself? That might ease his discomfort. Perhaps you or he should start a thread concerning the issue of why terrorists use planes.

Also, he did not direct any question to me. So . . .

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

Also, he did not direct any question to me.

No, I did — it's still his question though. If he hadn't asked it, I would have.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Exactly. The undeniable presence of those planes makes any additional conspiracy logically impossible.

Let's call the conspiracy to torch the buildings with planes Plan A.

Plan B is the conspiracy to bring down the buildings with thermites.

Why oh why implement both plan A and plan B? They are redundant, as your brexiter says.

Therefore, there is no plan B. There's only one conspiracy's here: Plan A was implemented and led to the buildings' collapse.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You're not aware of it, but what you're saying is that if terrorists flew planes into the WTC, then that explains why there was melting of girders and also why the intact lower core structure offered no resistance to speak of. Explain that reasoning.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

Also, he did not direct any question to me. So . . .

So you decided to answer my question with something irrelevant about molybden. Thank you.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I'm not a civil engineer nor a specialist in the resistance of iron. I don't have any way to answer this question competently, and neither do you. But i'm ready to bet you a beer that there was no melting of girders at all.

2 Replies

The Physics of 911

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know