LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: On 9/11, who and what brought down the World Trade Center?
Al Qaeda terrorists flying hijacked planes, following only Al Qaeda's plan 20 58.82%
Something else. 14 41.18%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-17-2017, 03:28 PM   #121
dugan
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 7,619

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 2948Reputation: 2948Reputation: 2948Reputation: 2948Reputation: 2948Reputation: 2948Reputation: 2948Reputation: 2948Reputation: 2948Reputation: 2948Reputation: 2948

Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
One thing for sure: if the 3 buildings collapsed purely through the effects of burning jet fuel + office furniture + plastics, they shouldn't have passed any building safety regulations.
Didn't your country just have a massive fire in a building that shouldn't have passed any safety regulations?

Last edited by dugan; 10-17-2017 at 03:35 PM.
 
Old 10-17-2017, 04:31 PM   #122
dave@burn-it.co.uk
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Distribution: Puppy
Posts: 353

Rep: Reputation: 133Reputation: 133
It was the waterproof cladding that was added afterwards that was the problem. And it is in use in a lot of other places as well.
The main building was fine and conformed to all safety standards. It was when the original cladding design was changed without further testing and approval that the problem arose. The changed design was cheaper (in terms of money, but not lives). Heads need to roll on that - though they probably won't. --my opinion.
 
Old 10-17-2017, 05:48 PM   #123
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,606
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997
@eborbet, et al, I wish to herewith "yield the floor" to any-and-all objections and/or comments with regard to my chosen position ... in order to thereby "clear the air" to any and all other traffic. With your anticipated objections duly noted, let's both now set-aside this debate and both step back voluntarily, to see what else other people might have to say . . .

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 10-17-2017 at 05:50 PM.
 
Old 10-17-2017, 05:52 PM   #124
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 7,550
Blog Entries: 56

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugan View Post
Didn't your country just have a massive fire in a building that shouldn't have passed any safety regulations?
Yes, a very intense and long lasting fire. It didn't collapse, though. Like dave said, it was the cladding. It was about 5 per square metre cheaper than fire-proof cladding.
 
Old 10-17-2017, 06:06 PM   #125
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 7,550
Blog Entries: 56

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Remember it was only YOU that said/suggested that there where "traces of thermite" found. Only your own argument, that YOU cannot backup with any proof.
Only me? Remember that website? The one you did so much research on?
Friendly suggestion: stop using so many underlines and uppercase letters in your posts, it looks childish and petulant.
 
Old 10-17-2017, 07:30 PM   #126
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,498

Rep: Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
@eborbet, et al, I wish to herewith "yield the floor" to any-and-all objections and/or comments with regard to my chosen position ... in order to thereby "clear the air" to any and all other traffic. With your anticipated objections duly noted, let's both now set-aside this debate and both step back voluntarily, to see what else other people might have to say . . .
AFAIK as of 9/11 no buildings had ever collapsed in on themselves just from fires. Since then several have. I don't know if this is a result of new designs, new materials or anything else. It just seems real verifiable evidence keeps mounting on the Natural Implosion side while Mr. Mohr has produced some 235 point-by-point scientifically verifiable "myth busters" for demolition... BUT that still does not get us much past the 70%-80% or so area of certainty since much of the evidence is what COULD occur instead of what DID occur and I am still open to review data from either side and Occam's razor is but a guideline not a final say, so I am still in the discussion. I must say my interest is flagging since some of the impossibilities that should no longer enter into any serious discussion, having been ruled out, but yet we have those who either don't know that or refuse to know that so we keep going over ground already covered.

To be clear and for just one example, we still have people talking about thermite when no direct evidence of thermite has ever been discovered. So I can't promise to never post in this thread again but I do intend to show lessened interest in responding.
 
Old 10-17-2017, 08:57 PM   #127
jsbjsb001
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: hopefully somewhere on earth? ;)
Distribution: Whatever Linux distro that suits my needs!
Posts: 718

Rep: Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
for example:

the notion of "taking sides" in an issue as complex as this, with so much confusing, contradicting information and lack of hard facts, is a populistic simplification.

but you've been practicing that a lot in various threads.
seems to be a common thing on the other side of the big pond.

(no doubt you'll ask now "where did i do that? show me, i'm from missouri!")...
So now I'm not even allowed to make observations, because in your mind, with so much "confusing, contradicting information and lack of hard facts" it's just "populistic simplification".

And by me particpating in "other threads", it seems to be a "common thing on the other side of the big pond" and next I'll ask "where did i do that? show me, i'm from missouri!"?

Your first problem:

If it's a theory it's not a fact, therefore cannot be relied upon as evidence, therefore it is once again called theory, in the absence of evidence (as other members have noted themselves - not just me). That's what you call the "burden of proof" not "populistic simplification". Also I'm not the only person here who doubts 9/11 conspiracy theory's - some members have even refused to partake in the debate as they find such debates pointless (and I can see why).

Quote:
evidence

noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
verb (used with object), evidenced, evidencing.
4.
to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest:
He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5.
to support by evidence:
He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
Idioms
6.
in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous:
The first signs of spring are in evidence.
Above quote from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence

Second problem:

Not only do I have every right to partake in other threads (which is suppose to be what this site is about - being discussion), now you wish to stereotype me because I happen to live "on the other side of the big pond". This says a lot more about yourself than myself. Also, didn't you say in other threads, that you live in Finland? Do you have a state in Finland called Missouri?

Personally I think your a sad and spiteful man, sad. (for yourself, that is)

Last edited by jsbjsb001; 10-17-2017 at 09:20 PM. Reason: typo
 
Old 10-17-2017, 09:18 PM   #128
jsbjsb001
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: hopefully somewhere on earth? ;)
Distribution: Whatever Linux distro that suits my needs!
Posts: 718

Rep: Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Only me? Remember that website? The one you did so much research on?
Friendly suggestion: stop using so many underlines and uppercase letters in your posts, it looks childish and petulant.
Oh, so now other people are at fault and not yourself? As you were not the only one saying it, what a cop-out, if ever I've heard one! Isn't it just as well one of us actually bothered doing any research, instead of just believing something blindly? I'd say YES!

Friendly suggestion? Who are you try to fool, yourself? If so, great work!

Oh, I take it you have gone cold on the "traces of thermite" theory?
 
Old 10-17-2017, 09:23 PM   #129
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,606
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
AFAIK as of 9/11 no buildings had ever collapsed in on themselves just from fires.
You are entirely correct: no buildings ever "collapsed into their own footprint(!)" on that day ... "(just) from fires."

Nor: "(just) from airplanes."

...

... and as the awful enormity of the implications of this statement begin to fully sink in ...
 
Old 10-18-2017, 10:18 AM   #130
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 7,550
Blog Entries: 56

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Friendly suggestion? Who are you try to fool, yourself? If so, great work!
No idea what you mean by that. Please express yourself more clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 View Post
Oh, I take it you have gone cold on the "traces of thermite" theory?
You take it wrongly. I still believe in the controlled demolition using thermite theory.
 
Old 10-18-2017, 10:38 AM   #131
jsbjsb001
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: hopefully somewhere on earth? ;)
Distribution: Whatever Linux distro that suits my needs!
Posts: 718

Rep: Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381Reputation: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
No idea what you mean by that. Please express yourself more clearly.
Ok, I seriously doubt it was just a "friendly suggestion". And if I'm wrong, so be it.

Quote:
You take it wrongly. I still believe in the controlled demolition using thermite theory.
But, you have still have not shown any proof, that it was a "controlled demolition" or that any "traces of thermite" were found. Which therefore means that it is still just a theory.

But in any case, and particularly given that no one who's voted for "Something else" wants to show any proof, of any kind, I think I'm going to take a similar stance to this one below;

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
...To be clear and for just one example, we still have people talking about thermite when no direct evidence of thermite has ever been discovered. So I can't promise to never post in this thread again but I do intend to show lessened interest in responding.
@dugan, while it's far from your fault (and I do not assign any blame to yourself what-so-ever), I agree with enorbet's above statement.

The only other comments I'll make (at least for the time being, if not for good, in this thread) is that, I also learned a lot myself, not just in relation to this topic, but also in relation to some members as well. And those are things I think are best left unsaid.

I am still not convinced from my original position (and vote) and have not seen anything in the way of proof, here in this thread, that does convince me.

I will admit that I have been surprised that so many voted for "Something else", as I originally didn't think there would be that many votes for "Something else".

So I guess to sum up, we probably all have learnt something or another here, therefore I agree with you that, it was worth asking the question.

Last edited by jsbjsb001; 10-18-2017 at 10:41 AM. Reason: proof not "prove"/typo
 
Old 10-18-2017, 10:47 AM   #132
TobiSGD
Moderator
 
Registered: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Distribution: Whatever fits the task best
Posts: 17,148
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 4852Reputation: 4852Reputation: 4852Reputation: 4852Reputation: 4852Reputation: 4852Reputation: 4852Reputation: 4852Reputation: 4852Reputation: 4852Reputation: 4852
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
... and as the awful enormity of the implications of this statement begin to fully sink in ...
The implications of that statement just are "it was the first time we observed something like that". That is all what you can conclude from it. Everything else is speculation.
 
Old 10-18-2017, 03:30 PM   #133
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 8,606
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997Reputation: 2997
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD View Post
The implications of that statement just are "it was the first time we observed something like that". That is all what you can conclude from it. Everything else is speculation.
Of course it is speculation, my speculation, based on my observation. The horror was quite genuine: "this is not simply a matter of airplanes hitting a building." It necessarily means completely compromising the security of three buildings, for a period of many days or weeks, including the security surrounding the anti-terrorism response center. In addition to compromising airline safety several times. An attack like this one has never been done before, and it implies the existence of groups of people who are capable of pure evil. I frankly don't want to believe that such people exist.

I freely acknowledge that there are those of you who prefer the Official Story, and who have accepted it. I would love to be able to accept it, because "hijacking an airliner and ramming it into a building" is just the stuff of an ordinary thriller movie. And, I'm not going to sit here and try to persuade you that my chosen interpretation is correct. But, my personal belief that it is correct is what leaves me horrified beyond measure.
 
Old 10-18-2017, 06:31 PM   #134
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware has beern Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,498

Rep: Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458Reputation: 1458
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
You are entirely correct: no buildings ever "collapsed into their own footprint(!)" on that day ... "(just) from fires."

Nor: "(just) from airplanes."...

... and as the awful enormity of the implications of this statement begin to fully sink in ...
Was I unclear? Did you misunderstand me? My point was that one reason for suspicion was that no buildings PRIOR to 9/11 had ever collapsed into their own footprint so there was no frame of reference. However since then additional modern structures have also collapsed "just from fires".

You proposed dropping out of this discussion yet here you are immediately back with assertions with no solid evidence, illustrating again how unassailable your initial impression made before any evidence had been gathered was and still is. That is your prerogative but I do hope you realize how stubborn and unlikely such views seem to people who require evidence and reason.

So now that everyone knows your personal conclusions all I ask is finish it... prove it. Repeating your conclusion serves no purpose after the 3rd or 4th assertion.
 
Old 10-19-2017, 05:54 AM   #135
colorpurple21859
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: florida panhandle
Distribution: slackware64-current, puppy, ubuntu
Posts: 2,189

Rep: Reputation: 319Reputation: 319Reputation: 319Reputation: 319
One way to test, is take a skyscraper with similar construction fill the upper levels with the amount of jet fuel needed, set it a fire, stand back and see what happens.

Last edited by colorpurple21859; 10-19-2017 at 05:58 AM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: London Stock Exchange smashes world record trade speed with Linux LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 10-20-2010 10:50 AM
LXer: Linux interoperability takes center stage at TechX World LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 11-04-2006 05:21 AM
Moment of silence - World Trade Center and Pentagon jeremy General 25 10-01-2001 05:20 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:37 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration