Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
SanderO wrote:You are not aware of the history of the construction of the WTC. For one a bomber HAD struck the ESB and the engineers of the towers DID consider such a catastrophe. They made some effort to engineer the towers to withstand the impact.
SanderO wrote:This of course they did successfully. There was a lot of clamor about the height, the egress issues and so forth at the time. These structures were receiving a lot of scrutiny and the public and some professionals were not enamored of what they were doing at the time.
SanderO wrote:All the developer's PR was about how cool the towers were, how tall, how huge and fast the elevators were, how quickly they were built and how cleverly with an assembly line erector set approach.
SanderO wrote:The architectural community was mostly offended by the design.
SanderO wrote:I am not aware of what the engineering community was thinking.
SanderO wrote:The big concern was wind shear.
SanderO wrote:Recall that the CitiCorp tower was another ticking time bomb which WAS retrofit when the engineer who had a conscience admitted that he had not considered the forces from a 100 year storm and that the wind shear trusses would fail and the tower come down. The retro fit was a face against the hurricane season. Another crazy design over an existing structure which huge dramatic cantilevers...
SanderO wrote:We're not exactly talking hindsight here. Engineering and architecture are about PLANNING and that does involve a lot of *what if* examination.
Oystein wrote:Major_Tom wrote:Ozeco:So the burden of proof is on Major_Tom to show that these issues I have labelled "details" are significant.
Each "feature" could be thought of as individual threads within this forum.
You quote a tiny bit of ozeco's post. That's ok. This quote addresses the issue of significance, and who has to show it.
And then you go on, and ignore all of that, and again praise yourself for 2-3 years worth of heaping up detail upon detail.
Question still remains: How is any of this significant, and to whom?
Major_Tom wrote:...How about if we move the whole burning "range of interest" question to its own thread? In 2012, in this forum, I consider the question to be beyond stupid, but I'd like to give other posters the chance to clarify their arguments against poor ol' Major_Tom. What should we call the thread?....
ozeco41 wrote:...Stated generically (and at some risk of being misunderstood) a detail is only of significance at levels up to the system hierarchal level where it changes a conclusion. If it does not change a conclusion at the level of system under discussion it is not significant...
Major_Tom wrote:It is interesting that when the labels of truther and debunker are put aside, it all comes down to how each individual poster perceives contradiction.
If one doesn't see contradiction around the events, one will naturally take the position of debunker.
That person will see others who see major contradictions surrounding the events as "...too detail oriented? .......concerned about insignificant details?....... complaining over nothing??...
ozeco41 wrote:Major_Tom wrote:...How about if we move the whole burning "range of interest" question to its own thread? In 2012, in this forum, I consider the question to be beyond stupid, but I'd like to give other posters the chance to clarify their arguments against poor ol' Major_Tom. What should we call the thread?....
Please think l carefully what you are threatening here Major_Tom and recognise that you have a clear conflict of interest. Avoid the appearance that you are trying to use moderating powers to win an argument.
To do so would lower the standard of this forum down to or even lower than the JREF which you hold in such contempt. Moderation on JREF is fickle at best - don't set up a worse standard for this island of "Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues".
That said the core issue of recent contentions is the discussion process question of "significance" or "relevance" of details. With IMO "significance" being the closest to the problem and "relevance" risking being somewhat more emotive.
OneWhiteEye wrote:Let's not overlook a possible legitimate need to move a subdiscussion to its own topic.
OneWhiteEye wrote:Even if Major_Tom were to unceremoniously blow Oystein away, as unfair as that may seem or be, there would still be no danger of descending to those depths. We're talking about splitting a thread, for goodness' sakes; how many times was Major_Tom alone jacked by the moderators at JREF? Times how many people getting jacked that way?
OneWhiteEye wrote:Just trying to put it in perspective. Of course, when one wants to uphold a reputation of unbiased moderation, one has to continually act in accordance with that ideal. There's a huge difference between a thread split and the sort of shenanigans which have gone on at JREF unabated for years.
Oystein wrote:OneWhiteEye wrote:Even if Major_Tom were to unceremoniously blow Oystein away, as unfair as that may seem or be, there would still be no danger of descending to those depths. We're talking about splitting a thread, for goodness' sakes; how many times was Major_Tom alone jacked by the moderators at JREF? Times how many people getting jacked that way?
Oh the irony. Remember it was none other than I who officially protested the removal of M_T's thread from the 9/11 subforum. Ironic that you excuse administrative measures against me with things that other people do at another forum that I do not agree with.
This level of "argumentation" should be very much beneath you. I am really quite surprised.
Oystein wrote:Remember it was none other than I who officially protested the removal of M_T's thread from the 9/11 subforum.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests