Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 Anyone for 9/11?
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 13

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2006 :  16:11:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
AGain, conspiracy theorists are much like evolutionists. Its only a theory.

So I take it that you accept evolution nowadays?

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2006 :  17:23:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by wgvd

Jezu~s take a look at the thruth! See fahrenheit or rise of the policestate!
Damn American people are the most threathenig people of the world! So dumb

What an uninspired post! Perhaps, since you're obviously not American and thus not dumb, you could better explain "the truth" to the rest of us?
Go to Top of Page

verlch
SFN Regular

781 Posts

Posted - 05/17/2006 :  22:21:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send verlch an AOL message Send verlch a Private Message
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/140605tenquestions.htm

burning buildings that never collapsed.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/060405wtccollapse.htm


What came first the chicken or the egg?

How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?

There are no atheists in foxholes

Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4

II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!

Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?

Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.

We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.

"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  05:36:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/140605tenquestions.htm

burning buildings that never collapsed.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/060405wtccollapse.htm





Just shows where you got the unevidenced claim. Also, the Winsor tower had floor failure and was in danger of completely collapsing. TOP floors did, in fact, collapse. WTC1 and 2 had failures from floors 78 to 88 of a 110 story structure.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/13/spain.block.fire/

The extra significant weight killed the towers. Small fires on 78 (the lowest floor hit) was not representative of the whole structure.

The conspiracy site that you continually reference convieniently leaves these facts out of their analysis. After all, it might just refute them.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  05:50:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/140605tenquestions.htm

burning buildings that never collapsed.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/060405wtccollapse.htm


I liked this choice quote: "The World Trade Center was the first steel building to collapse from fire damage in history."

Really? Well, perhaps the authors are missing something. Because the WTC was also the first steel building to be hit with a Boeing 767 commercial passenger jet! In fact, we have exactly two such examples of this event. In both cases, the building collapsed.

My guess is that the significance of this is lost on conspiracy theorists.
Go to Top of Page

verlch
SFN Regular

781 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  09:35:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send verlch an AOL message Send verlch a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

quote:
Originally posted by verlch

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/140605tenquestions.htm

burning buildings that never collapsed.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2005/060405wtccollapse.htm


I liked this choice quote: "The World Trade Center was the first steel building to collapse from fire damage in history."

Really? Well, perhaps the authors are missing something. Because the WTC was also the first steel building to be hit with a Boeing 767 commercial passenger jet! In fact, we have exactly two such examples of this event. In both cases, the building collapsed.

My guess is that the significance of this is lost on conspiracy theorists.



The towers were meant to withstand planes flying into them.

People were seen shortly after the planes hit, jumping out the holes, they were not on fire.

From what I have seen the majority of fuel exploded on the side of the building, what was smoldering was the burning plane that caught the things on fire in the building. The things that penetrated.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?

There are no atheists in foxholes

Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4

II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!

Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?

Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.

We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.

"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  10:10:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
The towers were meant to withstand planes flying into them.

People were seen shortly after the planes hit, jumping out the holes, they were not on fire.

From what I have seen the majority of fuel exploded on the side of the building, what was smoldering was the burning plane that caught the things on fire in the building. The things that penetrated.



I'm curious. Can you substantiate the claim that the two WTC were made to withstand a Boeing 767 (or similarly-sized plane) travelling at the speeds those planes were travelling. And moreover, define "withstand" so we both are working from the same point of refernece. Did the engineers expect it could be rammed by a plane and suffer no damage? Some damage? What?

Your point about people jumping is moot. So what if they weren't on fire? It's difficult to know why someone would choose to die by leaping a few hundred feet to one's death rather than die via suffocation or whatever, but it doesn't mean anything.

And again, your anecdotal, uninformed observations-- made from watching blurry TV footage, no doubt-- about what you think should have happened is irrelevant. Do you have any training in mechanical or structural engineering? Physics? Besides perusing poorly put-together conspiracy websites, what kind of expertise do you have in this?
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  11:07:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
The towers were meant to withstand planes flying into them.

I did about 10 minutes worth of investigation and what I found was that the towers (any building for that matter) is not designed to with stand an airliner flying into it.

The only structures that are specifically designed to with stand that type of impact are the reinforced concrete containment buildings around nuclear reactors used for generating power.

So once again Verlich is full of .



If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Boron10
Religion Moderator

USA
1259 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  14:58:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Boron10 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Do you have any training in mechanical or structural engineering? Physics?
I have had formal training in Physics, Mechanical Engineering, and Materials Science, among other things, so that makes me something of an expert.
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I did about 10 minutes worth of investigation and what I found was that the towers (any building for that matter) is not designed to with stand an airliner flying into it.

The only structures that are specifically designed to with stand that type of impact are the reinforced concrete containment buildings around nuclear reactors used for generating power.
This is exactly true. Even the San Onofre Power Plant would suffer significant damage if something similar to a Boeing 767 crashed into it.
quote:
So once again Verlich is full of .
So it seems.

Verlch, please substantiate these claims of yours.
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  17:28:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
The towers were meant to withstand planes flying into them.


No they weren't.

No matter how many times you repeat this nonsense, it still won't be true.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

verlch
SFN Regular

781 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  20:04:53   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send verlch an AOL message Send verlch a Private Message
That is what I keep hearing. That the there is no way the fires were hot enough to melt steel. They did not even get to the core of the building. Say the floors had weakened, then the building would have fallen at that point, the stable intact parts below would have slowed the fall, or even had caused the building to topple over one side.

This is all I have read. I think you guys need to examine the evidence a tiny bit closer.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?

There are no atheists in foxholes

Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4

II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!

Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?

Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.

We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.

"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25973 Posts

Posted - 05/18/2006 :  20:16:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch

This is all I have read. I think you guys need to examine the evidence a tiny bit closer.
No, I think you need to read more. If all you've read is from paranoid conspiracy theorists, then you're not getting all the facts, and have no basis upon which to properly judge the evidence. But that's your M.O., ain't it? Learn from the ignorant, make up your mind, and then repeat the same falsehoods over and over again, regardless any attempts at showing you that you're wrong. You've done it with 9/11, with evolution, Freemasonry, and it even shows in your attitudes about women. For fuck's sake, verlch, you think that bats are actually blind! You've got some gall telling other people to examine the evidence about anything more closely.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2006 :  05:25:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by verlch

That is what I keep hearing. That the there is no way the fires were hot enough to melt steel. They did not even get to the core of the building. Say the floors had weakened, then the building would have fallen at that point, the stable intact parts below would have slowed the fall, or even had caused the building to topple over one side.

This is all I have read. I think you guys need to examine the evidence a tiny bit closer.

But Verlch! We've linked dozens of web pages saying the exact opposite! Pages with testimony from experts! With references to back up their claims!! To say that "all [you] have read" argues for the opposite is simply to show that you refuse to read anything that you know will disagree with you. What sort of pathetic way is that to go through life?

Have you read the posts in this thread? Every time you post a link to one of your conspiracy pages, you find a half-dozen replies from us discussing the contents of those pages and why they'e wrong! In other words, unlike you, we bother to read through your evidence and discuss it. We're trying to have an open debate. You're just talking.

Pathetic.
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2006 :  08:27:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
quote:
That the there is no way the fires were hot enough to melt steel.

HOLY CRAP, Verlich said something that is accurate!!!!

However, as has been told to you MANY times, the fire weakened the steel to less than 50% of it's original strength. That combined with the supports that were destroyed from the actual impact was enough to bring the building down.

I am sure that you are completely convinced by all of the evidence presented in this thread and you will now become a shining becon of skepticism.


If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

verlch
SFN Regular

781 Posts

Posted - 05/19/2006 :  10:41:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send verlch an AOL message Send verlch a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by furshur

quote:
That the there is no way the fires were hot enough to melt steel.

HOLY CRAP, Verlich said something that is accurate!!!!

However, as has been told to you MANY times, the fire weakened the steel to less than 50% of it's original strength. That combined with the supports that were destroyed from the actual impact was enough to bring the building down.

I am sure that you are completely convinced by all of the evidence presented in this thread and you will now become a shining beacon of skepticism.






THis video was pretty cool. The only thing that raises my interest in the video, is the helicopter in the clouds, and the 5 or 6 white lights that look like missile shots into the top of the building, then, one second later, the building wtc 2 collapses.

In WTC 1, there was an explosion at the base before its collapse.

WTC 7 fell faster than the speed of gravity, like it was in a vacuum.

It is interesting that there might have been evidence of a cover up inside the WTC 7 when it went down.

Marvin Bush ran the whole WTC 7 complex.

Before 9 11 there were numerous evacuations of people, along with no bomb sniffing dogs. Drills so to speak.

The Patriot act was drawn up, just waiting for a "reason" to push it through.

The debris burned for days after the collapse, just from Diesel fuel?, the building would have collapsed on itself and put most of the fire out. In my estimate other foreign material was burning, that wasn't present before the planes hit them.

Unless one of the fellas, with insider knowledge turn coats on the administration, or who ever was at fault, they will continue to paint those that are skeptics, with broad brushes.

I believe that nothing happens by accident, and if it does, it will be used for the powers that be, benefit.

What came first the chicken or the egg?

How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?

There are no atheists in foxholes

Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4

II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!

Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?

Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.

We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.

"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 13 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.45 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000