# Skyscrapers on fire, not collapsing **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541 "2010-09-12T22:53:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/302 "2010-09-23T15:24:48Z")
[QUOTE=Mozart1220] So now the last target is a “logical ASSUMPTION”. Nice. And I don’t believe any cell phone calls were actually made from a plane going 600 mph at 37,000 ft, which would have been quite a trick in 2001. [/QUOTE] Why don’t you trot out a cite to back up you claim here, then? Of course, only 2 of the calls in question were made from regular cell phones, the rest were made from in flight air phones (a fact curiously left out by most Truthers). But let’s see a cite that making a call from an air plane using a regular cell phone would be impossible, or at least improbable. [This](http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html) would seem to contradict your assertion, and I’ve seen stats showing that every year something like 4-8 cell calls are made from air planes, despite the restrictions. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/303 "2010-09-23T16:49:29Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > > [@Cisco](#): > > > > Ok, here you go: > > > > Have you studied much science? If you have, then you know that the debate over the line of demarcation (what is and isn’t science) raged in the early 20th century. When the dust finally cleared, one of the few things that everybody could agree on was that science is falsifiable. If it can’t be falsified, it is not science. That’s why Freud’s theories are no longer accepted as scientific; how could you prove he was wrong? > > > > What can falsify your claims? What facts, observations, or data could be introduced to the argument that would invalidate your claims? And while we’re at it, why don’t you - clearly and concisely - state your claims. > > > > Put up or shut up. Don’t ask us to keep playing Calvinball with you. Give us the rules to play by and we will more than gladly play. > > So you are saying that if science is involved, it MUST be falsified, and thus you want me to prove myself wrong? > > Wow. Go back to college and tell whatever professor that taught you that way of thinking that Fox news is hiring. > > I have stated all the “claims” I’m going to make, other than if the governments story involves science, it could also be “falsified”. > > Are you claiming that the government’s explaination is NOT based on science? > > Wow. This represents a gross misunderstanding of a simple concept that was clearly explained to you. Do you ever stop to question yourself? Your beliefs, assumptions, conceptions, level of knowledge, etc? Are you a self-aware person at all, Mozart1220? Please ask yourself: “If I could so clearly, so thoroughly misunderstand such a fundamental concept that was plainly explained to me, what else am I capable of misunderstanding?” Do you think you could be wrong about this whole 9/11 thing, or is it religion to you? Could anything change your mind? ---
**Author:** ![Raygun99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Raygun99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raygun99)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/304 "2010-09-23T17:03:34Z")
In short, it is not that you must prove yourself wrong, but that you must prove that it is possible for you to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/305 "2010-09-23T17:21:06Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > So you are saying that if science is involved, it MUST be falsified, and thus you want me to prove myself wrong? > > Wow. Go back to college and tell whatever professor that taught you that way of thinking that Fox news is hiring. > > I have stated all the “claims” I’m going to make, other than if the governments story involves science, it could also be “falsified”. > > Are you claiming that the government’s explaination is NOT based on science? > > Wow. You misunderstood. What makes a claim scientific (on the view **Cisco** is expressing) is that we know what it would take, in terms of observation, to prove it wrong. Not that it _is_ wrong, but that, _if_ it’s wrong, we have a way to _show_ that it’s wrong. “Stealing is wrong” is not a scientific claim because there’s no way to prove that claim wrong by citing any set of observations. “Fire is cold” is a scientific claim because we know how to prove it wrong using observations. “Fire is hot” is a scientific claim because we know how to prove it wrong using observations as well. It turns out we _can’t_ prove it wrong–but what’s crucial here is we know how we _could_ prove it wrong if it were wrong. In this thread you’re claiming that good science is on your side. Good scientific claims make it clear how they could be proven wrong. So it is natural for us to ask you–how could your claims be proven wrong? By explaining how we could prove you wrong, you make it much more clear what you’re actually claiming in the first place. What would count as observational evidence _against_ your claims? If we want to prove you wrong, what should we be looking for? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/306 "2010-09-23T17:21:39Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > In short, it is not that you must prove yourself wrong …Since thousands or millions of people already did that… ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/307 "2010-09-23T19:33:29Z")
> [@Raygun99](#): > > In short, it is not that you must prove yourself wrong, but that you must prove that it is possible for you to be wrong. Instead, try to realize the truth… there is no wrong. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/308 "2010-09-23T20:05:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@Raygun99](#): > > > > In short, it is not that you must prove yourself wrong, but that you must prove that it is possible for you to be wrong. > > Instead, try to realize the truth… there is no wrong. I’d say that the truthers have proved beyond any doubt that there _is_ “wrong”. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/309 "2010-09-23T20:38:48Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > And I don’t believe any cell phone calls were actually made from a plane going 600 mph at 37,000 ft, which would have been quite a trick in 2001. If you’re serious, it shows the abysmal ignorance of your scientific knowledge. Do you really think the speed of the phone/plane and the height makes it impossible to conduct a telphonic conversation? In spite of the fact that line-of-sight communication works best for most radio signals and that’s exactly what they had? Then how did all the phone calls made from the planes happen? (Many calls, several planes) Were they faked by yet another conspiratorial crew that has kept their mouth shut along with the other million or so cohorts? I confess I’ve never made a phone call from a plane in the air, and haven’t travelled by air for a long time. But it would have been a shock to try to pick up one of those Airphones to make a call and find out they were only painted on, but none ever worked. What a fraud. Maybe the airlines hoped you’d never try one. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/310 "2010-09-23T21:35:43Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > > [@Mozart1220](#): > > > > And I don’t believe any cell phone calls were actually made from a plane going 600 mph at 37,000 ft, which would have been quite a trick in 2001. > > If you’re serious, it shows the abysmal ignorance of your scientific knowledge. Do you really think the speed of the phone/plane and the height makes it impossible to conduct a telphonic conversation? In spite of the fact that line-of-sight communication works best for most radio signals and that’s exactly what they had? Then how did all the phone calls made from the planes happen? (Many calls, several planes) Were they faked by yet another conspiratorial crew that has kept their mouth shut along with the other million or so cohorts? That would be the voice-morphing crew which somehow tracked down Mark Bingham’s mom and performed a flawless imitation of her son. ---
**Author:** ![Mozart1220](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Mozart1220](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mozart1220)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/311 "2010-09-23T21:44:41Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > > [@Mozart1220](#): > > > > And I don’t believe any cell phone calls were actually made from a plane going 600 mph at 37,000 ft, which would have been quite a trick in 2001. > > If you’re serious, it shows the abysmal ignorance of your scientific knowledge. Do you really think the speed of the phone/plane and the height makes it impossible to conduct a telphonic conversation? In spite of the fact that line-of-sight communication works best for most radio signals and that’s exactly what they had? Then how did all the phone calls made from the planes happen? (Many calls, several planes) Were they faked by yet another conspiratorial crew that has kept their mouth shut along with the other million or so cohorts? > > I confess I’ve never made a phone call from a plane in the air, and haven’t travelled by air for a long time. But it would have been a shock to try to pick up one of those Airphones to make a call and find out they were only painted on, but none ever worked. What a fraud. Maybe the airlines hoped you’d never try one. It has to do with the phone trying to find a “cell” while going by 200 towers at a time. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/312 "2010-09-23T21:47:24Z")
[QUOTE=Musicat] If you’re serious, it shows the abysmal ignorance of your scientific knowledge. Do you really think the speed of the phone/plane and the height makes it impossible to conduct a telphonic conversation? In spite of the fact that line-of-sight communication works best for most radio signals and that’s exactly what they had? Then how did all the phone calls made from the planes happen? (Many calls, several planes) Were they faked by yet another conspiratorial crew that has kept their mouth shut along with the other million or so cohorts? [/QUOTE] That’s exactly what the CT 9/11 Truthers are saying. Interestingly enough, the Loose Change bozos have backed off of this claim, since it’s fairly easy to prove that their assumption that you can’t make cell phone calls from a plane are just wrong. A lot of other Truthers, however, haven’t gotten the memo that, as with many of the things they ‘believe’ to be true, they are just flat out wrong. > [@](#): > > I confess I’ve never made a phone call from a plane in the air, and haven’t travelled by air for a long time. But it would have been a shock to try to pick up one of those Airphones to make a call and find out they were only painted on, but none ever worked. What a fraud. Maybe the airlines hoped you’d never try one. The biggest problem with using a phone while flying (aside from the fact that it’s banned by both the FCC and FAA, and that there is a non-zero chance that it might cause the instruments in the plane to be disrupted) is that the call connection might get dropped during the hand off from one cellular zone to the next (well, and the fact that it causes other problems from the FCC’s perspective). The funny thing is, even with the restrictions and announcements, a handful of people DO make cell phone calls every year while in flight. Contrary to the understanding of the Truthers, not all of these people are paid agents of the government… -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/313 "2010-09-23T21:50:58Z")
[QUOTE=Mozart1220] It has to do with the phone trying to find a “cell” while going by 200 towers at a time. [/QUOTE] 😛 You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Rain\_Soaked](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e19adc/32.png) [@Rain\_Soaked](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rain_Soaked)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/314 "2010-09-23T21:55:54Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=Mozart1220] > It has to do with the phone trying to find a “cell” while going by 200 towers at a time. 😛 You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? -XT [/QUOTE] As a telecommunications engineer, I would have to say, no. He does not know what he is talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/315 "2010-09-23T22:02:20Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > > Instead, try to realize the truth… there is no wrong. > > I’d say that the truthers have proved beyond any doubt that there _is_ “wrong”. Thanks, have a spoon. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/316 "2010-09-23T22:10:32Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > > [@Mozart1220](#): > > > > And I don’t believe any cell phone calls were actually made from a plane going 600 mph at 37,000 ft, which would have been quite a trick in 2001. > > If you’re serious, it shows the abysmal ignorance of your scientific knowledge. Do you really think the speed of the phone/plane and the height makes it impossible to conduct a telphonic conversation? Well, it doesn’t _now_, obviously, but in 2001, radio signals didn’t travel as fast, you see, so it would have been impossible to make a cell phone call from a plane. Luckily for us, Congress passed a law in 2005 making radio signals travel faster, so this is no longer a problem. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/317 "2010-09-23T22:22:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > I’d say that the truthers have proved beyond any doubt that there _is_ “wrong”. > > Thanks, have a spoon. I can always use another - though in threads like this I sometimes want a _shovel_. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/318 "2010-09-23T23:01:01Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > It has to do with the phone trying to find a “cell” while going by 200 towers at a time. Not with Airfone. It was designed to be used in the air, advertised for such, and used in 9/11, for most of the calls, IIRC. Besides, how many towers in the area do you think is a maximum to prohibit calling? 100? 10? 2? And do you have research to support your assertion or are you just making stuff up? > [@xistime](#): > > The biggest problem with using a phone while flying (aside from the fact that it’s banned by both the FCC and FAA, and that there is a non-zero chance that it might cause the instruments in the plane to be disrupted) is that the call connection might get dropped during the hand off from one cellular zone to the next (well, and the fact that it causes other problems from the FCC’s perspective). Maybe you, too, are confusing cellphones with Airfones, which are not cellular, but designed to be used from airplanes and are (or were) installed in airplanes. One reason I never used them is they were too expensive and my need for communication wasn’t that necessary. But they were in every seat back in some planes I flew on. I’m pretty sure they weren’t painted on. I think Miller has the best answer. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/319 "2010-09-23T23:32:14Z")
[QUOTE=Musicat] Maybe you, too, are confusing cellphones with Airfones, which are not cellular, but designed to be used from airplanes and are (or were) installed in airplanes. One reason I never used them is they were too expensive and my need for communication wasn’t that necessary. But they were in every seat back in some planes I flew on. I’m pretty sure they weren’t painted on. [/QUOTE] No. As I mentioned earlier, 2 of the calls during 9/11 were from regular cell phones…the rest were from the installed Airfones. I don’t think that the 9/11 Truthers are disputing that the Airfones can be used to make inflight calls (though, again as I said earlier, they tend to conveniently ‘forget’ this when they are discussing this topic). The contention is that the OTHER calls (namely, the 2 from regular cell phones) were ‘faked’ (and then they conflate that with ALL the calls, again not mentioning all the other calls from the in flight phone system). Sorry for the confusion…I mentioned all this earlier and figured you had read that part as well. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/320 "2010-09-23T23:59:11Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Sorry for the confusion…I mentioned all this earlier and figured you had read that part as well. > > -XT No problem..we’re straight! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541/321 "2010-09-24T00:17:22Z")
No worries then. 🙂 Just wanted to get that out before one of the 9/11 Truthers (the current one seems to be following the usual trajectory and losing steam…I don’t think he wants to play anymore) started whining about strawman arguments and the like. As I said, even the Loose Change morons have given up on this particular aspect of the CT (besides which, it’s simply vile to claim that the calls were faked, that the last words some of the victims families ever heard were from some sort government agents or some other nonsense). Not that it’s helped on other aspects, though IIRC Loose Change 3: Return of the Dead, didn’t do as well, since they had to back pedal on a bunch of stuff, and came out much more wishy washy from the perspective of the rabid CT loonies. -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skyscrapers-on-fire-not-collapsing/553541.md?page=17)