does anyone here want to support the NIST reports in a one-on-one debate with me

pgimeno said:

Really? Let's see how true that is.

I will discuss the matter with you under the following rules:

1. It's not a debate, it's a forum discussion, just in a dedicated thread where no other posters are allowed.
2. The forum will be ISF. I don't trust the911forum. It's known for having had people banned on a whim, and for having allowed edition of messages even years after posted. ISF, on the other hand, has a history of not allowing edition of posts past 2 hours, and of reasonably fair moderation.
3. Since you want to prove that the collapses of 1, 2 and 7 WTC were controlled demolitions (per the 2nd rule of the debate you held with tfk), the title of the thread (and the main topic) will be: Evidence for controlled demolition.
4. There's no restriction on the topics, even though a somewhat coherent line is expected in accordance with ISF's rule 11.
5. The post length is unlimited. The number of posts per poster is unlimited. Just like in any other forum discussion.
6. There's no obligation to respond to any of the points raised by the other.
7. Breaking ISF's membership agreement rules, in particular rule 0, rule 10 and rule 12, is not allowed.
8. After 30 days without a response, the discussion is over.

These rules are designed to be pretty much like those in any other forum discussion. If what you said above is true, there should be no problem for you to agree to them.

Are you game?

Click to expand...

There will not be a one-on-one debate/forum discussion here. The 911 Free Forum is the place for it as there is already a precedent of non-interference. The moderator there did change the editing time to two hours like it is here to satisfy your complaint over their lack of a restriction before the debate between tfk and myself. He also said today, in response to your allegation of incessant banning, that there has only been five people banned on that forum.

The individual post length has to be limited to 1,000 words otherwise one might try to overwhelm with nonsense.

One post at a time per individual and the next post is in response. There also needs to be a limit on responses to one post so one person doesn't lead all the time.

I suggest you show the rules used for my debate with tfk and propose changes that you feel necessary by crossing out and adding. Your rules here are not comprehensive.

I'll debate.

Let's start with "we have some planes."

Your view on this?

Tony Szamboti said:

Well I have been known to say many of these alleged debunkers are talking out of their hat.

They usually just blindly support the present official story without an objective basis.

Click to expand...

Since you've implied that WTC 7 was the result of CD, tell us how explosives were placed in an occupied building in strict secrecy and why no one found such evidence after 15 years and then, explain why there were no secondary explosions observed in a building that suffered major impact damage and where fires raged for hours during which time no one heard demolition explosions.

Give me something that real demolition experts will take seriously.

Myriad said:

Is a debate with an ISF member a requirement for there to be a new investigation?

If not, then why are you fussing about it?

If so, then how did you end up in a position where you need cooperation from people who oppose your goals in order to achieve your goals?

I decided to try Tony's approach in other spheres of life. First I went to the central office of Chase Bank and stood in the lobby yelling, "Which of you unqualified financial ignoramuses has the guts to give me a million dollars free and clear with no obligation?" Then I went to Google's offices and yelled, "Which of you fraudulent computer-illiterate morons is self-assured enough to put me in charge of your biggest development project and pay me six figures a year for it?" Then I went to a meeting of Elite Model Management's top female talent and yelled, "Which of you ugly frumpish amateurs has the courage to marry me?"

I returned a few times a week for five years, each time repeating variations of "I see that none of you incompetent dishonest unworthy people has dared to meet my demands."

Surprisingly, my financial, employment, and marital status were in no way improved by these activities.

Click to expand...

Aren't you clever.

Oystein said:

Yes, focus.
You took your focus of a simple, straight question:

What did Danny Jowenko say in 2006 about explosive CD charges in burning buildings?

Click to expand...

No, I answered that the charges would not need to be on fire floors. The fires were on floors 7 ,8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30. There were plenty of floors without fires where charges could have been preset and avoided by arsonists.

Tony Szamboti said:

No, I answered that the charges would not need to be on fire floors. The fires were on floors 7 ,8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30. There were plenty of floors without fires where charges could have been preset and avoided by arsonists.

Click to expand...

All very well.
What's the damned problem with answering a straight question?

What did Danny Jowenko say in 2006 about explosive CD charges in burning buildings?

Tony Szamboti said:

No, I answered that the charges would not need to be on fire floors. The fires were on floors 7 ,8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30. There were plenty of floors without fires where charges could have been preset and avoided by arsonists.

Click to expand...

Considering no explosions were seen or heard, either before, during or after the collapse of WTC 7, simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt there were no explosives placed within WTC 7 prior to its collapse.

Tony Szamboti said:

The extreme heating of the steel on contiguous floors to 850 degrees C is only asserted in the Weidlinger structural analysis with a reference to Hughes Associates Craig Beyler's heat transfer analysis. No other specifics are given.

I do not believe there is any chance that one floor's steel could have been at 850 degrees C, let alone two contiguous floors simultaneously. It sounds like they made it as hot as it needed to be to get a failure of the floor below. It is about as likely as putting a man on Jupiter.

You had said you would try to get a copy of Beyler's analysis. Have you been able to?

Click to expand...

Dr. Beyler's report never made it into the court record due to how the case unfolded procedurally. I obtained an affidavit of his from early in the litigation, but that was merely responding to Dr. Bailey and Dr. Mowrer re whether the photographic evidence provided in discovery proved the flutes were filled or unfilled; it does not provide any insight into his fire model beyond stating that his over all analysis (which is not otherwise detailed in the affidavit) "included detailed heat transfer modeling (both two dimensional and three dimensional) of beams, columns, floor assemblies and connections in the building."

In any case, as has been pointed out to you, your incredulity is not the basis for an argument. So far, the only authority on fire science you've even attempted to cite in support of your views is the Cardington study. You made the post linking to it here.

I actually read through that study and quickly found that it did not at all support your argument. The max temperature recorded in the Cardington study you linked was 1108 C, with many elements (including beams, bolts, end plates, etc. reaching temperatures of 800-1000 C). Given that the test structure (a narrow, 8 floor building) was a great deal smaller than wtc 7, and the fires in the test structure burnt for a far shorter time over all, it's really hard to compare the two. The study temperatures look in line with the WAI temperatures and the temperatures observed in the scale model test of the WTC 1 fires, in any case. (You do know they built a scale model of WTC 1 to get accurate fire observations, right? There is a peer reviewed paper that documents that experiment here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:6(414)).

So where are you getting these magical temperature limit numbers from? You aren't getting them from the only authority on the matter than you've claimed to have read so far.

Re how the fires could be on multiple floors--this was covered ad nauseum in the Aegis expert reports: the structural damage to the building allowed the the fire to start on, and spread around, multiple floors at once. This is just one of the many ways in which the WTC 7 fire was not a typical office fire.

It's ok to admit you are wrong. The truth shall set you free, Tony.

Tony Szamboti said:

No, I answered that the charges would not need to be on fire floors. The fires were on floors 7 ,8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30. There were plenty of floors without fires where charges could have been preset and avoided by arsonists.

Click to expand...

How do you know the fires were solely on those floors?

Tony Szamboti said:

No, I answered that the charges would not need to be on fire floors. The fires were on floors 7 ,8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30. There were plenty of floors without fires where charges could have been preset and avoided by arsonists.

Click to expand...

"Could have". This is not a statement of certainty. Seem even you are not convinced of what you post.

Once again, your evidence of arson is? Your evidence of planted explosives is?

Are you saying the "arsonist" was so sure of the expected fire behavior over many hours that the fires would not impact the explosives? Sometimes fires have a way of surprising even the best fire scientists. Seems the "planners" of the CD took a unnecessary risk. Explain how "they" the explosives would be safe. Provide evidence to back up what you state.

FFTR said:

"Could have". This is not a statement of certainty. Seem even you are not convinced of what you post.

Once again, your evidence of arson is? Your evidence of planted explosives is?

Are you saying the "arsonist" was so sure of the expected fire behavior over many hours that the fires would not impact the explosives? Sometimes fires have a way of surprising even the best fire scientists. Seems the "planners" of the CD took a unnecessary risk. Explain how "they" the explosives would be safe. Provide evidence to back up what you state.

Click to expand...

He can't he is flapping his arms and orbiting alpha prime by now.
Sorry just couldn't resist.

benthamitemetric said:

Dr. Beyler's report never made it into the court record due to how the case unfolded procedurally. I obtained an affidavit of his from early in the litigation, but that was merely responding to Dr. Bailey and Dr. Mowrer re whether the photographic evidence provided in discovery proved the flutes were filled or unfilled; it does not provide any insight into his fire model beyond stating that his over all analysis (which is not otherwise detailed in the affidavit) "included detailed heat transfer modeling (both two dimensional and three dimensional) of beams, columns, floor assemblies and connections in the building."

In any case, as has been pointed out to you, your incredulity is not the basis for an argument. So far, the only authority on fire science you've even attempted to cite in support of your views is the Cardington study. You made the post linking to it here.

I actually read through that study and quickly found that it did not at all support your argument. The max temperature recorded in the Cardington study you linked was 1108 C, with many elements (including beams, bolts, end plates, etc. reaching temperatures of 800-1000 C). Given that the test structure (a narrow, 8 floor building) was a great deal smaller than wtc 7, and the fires in the test structure burnt for a far shorter time over all, it's really hard to compare the two. The study temperatures look in line with the WAI temperatures and the temperatures observed in the scale model test of the WTC 1 fires, in any case. (You do know they built a scale model of WTC 1 to get accurate fire observations, right? There is a peer reviewed paper that documents that experiment here: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2007)21:6(414)).

So where are you getting these magical temperature limit numbers from? You aren't getting them from the only authority on the matter than you've claimed to have read so far.

Re how the fires could be on multiple floors--this was covered ad nauseum in the Aegis expert reports: the structural damage to the building allowed the the fire to start on, and spread around, multiple floors at once. This is just one of the many ways in which the WTC 7 fire was not a typical office fire.

It's ok to admit you are wrong. The truth shall set you free, Tony.

Click to expand...

The Cardington test data does not support the assertion that the steel in two contiguous fire protected floors in WTC 7 would be able to reach 850 degrees C (1,562 F). That is really a non-starter based on the short time frame a fire in any one area is active, due to fuel limitations, and the heat transfer characteristics of the fire proofing material.

You should realize there are photographs of fire areas having been burned out in WTC 7 prior to its collapse. The fire on another side of the building is not heating the already burned out area or anything 70 to 100 feet away in any significant way.

Thanks, Oystein.

Oystein said:

in case you have pgimeno on your ignore list, he is game to debate you!

Click to expand...

See my First Rule!

Oystein said:

(Pesonally, I, Oystein, think that this proposal is about as unfocused and infeasible as yours, but that shouldn't bother you, Tony, should it )

Click to expand...

Infeasible in what sense?

Tony Szamboti said:

T...the assertion that the steel in two contiguous fire protected floors in WTC 7 would be able to reach 850 degrees C ...

Click to expand...

Tony, we just established that the "two contiguous" bit is entirely irrelevant to your question - sloppy wording. Why do you blow this smoke again?

(This apart from the fact that you failed to substantially address the point benthamitemetric made - that the Cardington test showed that 850 °C can be reached in some structures on fires - they actually did in the Cardington tests -, and that you thus cannot conclude that this would be impossible in WTC7 from the Cardington tests. If anything, the opposite os suggested by the Cardingon tests: They make the the assertion that the steel in two contiguous fire protected floors in WTC 7 would be able to reach 850 degrees C plausible.)

pgimeno said:

...
Infeasible in what sense?

Click to expand...

Very unlikely to terminate after a bearable duration and after having covered all necessary bases.

Dave Rogers said:

Do we still have that smilie image of an exploding irony meter?

Dave

Click to expand...

I got your irony image right here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

Just like politicians in trouble; "It wasn't me, it was theirs/his/hers/thems fault.

Tony Szamboti said:

The Cardington test data does not support the assertion that the steel in two contiguous fire protected floors in WTC 7 would be able to reach 850 degrees C (1,562 F). That is really a non-starter based on the short time frame a fire in any one area is active, due to fuel limitations, and the heat transfer characteristics of the fire proofing material.

You should realize there are photographs of fire areas having been burned out in WTC 7 prior to its collapse. The fire on another side of the building is not heating the already burned out area or anything 70 to 100 feet away in any significant way.

Click to expand...

Can you see Soot burning in day light?

Tony Szamboti said:

There will not be a one-on-one debate/forum discussion here.

Click to expand...

There have been moderated threads in past. I suggest to start with unmoderated and if someone interferes, request moderation for the thread (if that's still possible - maybe ask first). But I don't think anyone will interfere, since they can comment in a separate thread created to the effect.

Tony Szamboti said:

The 911 Free Forum is the place for it as there is already a precedent of non-interference. The moderator there did change the editing time to two hours like it is here to satisfy your complaint over their lack of a restriction before the debate between tfk and myself. He also said today, in response to your allegation of incessant banning, that there has only been five people banned on that forum.

Click to expand...

I didn't say incessant. I said on a whim.

Tony Szamboti said:

The individual post length has to be limited to 1,000 words otherwise one might try to overwhelm with nonsense.

Click to expand...

That's a risk you run in about every forum discussion.

Tony Szamboti said:

One post at a time per individual and the next post is in response. There also needs to be a limit on responses to one post so one person doesn't lead all the time.

Click to expand...

There's no such need. If I feel I want to add or correct something after the editing period has passed, I want to be able to do so, like in any other forum discussion.

Tony Szamboti said:

I suggest you show the rules used for my debate with tfk and propose changes that you feel necessary by crossing out and adding. Your rules here are not comprehensive.

Click to expand...

You want this to become something other than a forum discussion. I want to keep it as a forum discussion. Forum discussions don't have these limits. That's why I put that as the very first rule: it's not a debate, it's a forum discussion.

But if you prefer me to propose changes, here they are. They are mostly the consequence of removing the limits that you set in the other discussion. As you can see, I've been about as comprehensive as you were in the other rules.

Oystein said:

Very unlikely to terminate after a bearable duration and after having covered all necessary bases.

Click to expand...

Thanks. In my view, it's just another thread*, there's nothing to terminate. I don't know of many threads which have been discussed up to a termination point.

(*) With the small peculiarity that it's between two people instead of many, that is. In that, I agree with Tony that so many people intervening at the same time makes the thread too chaotic.

jakesteele said:

...
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] ...

Click to expand...

Coincidentally, I have here at my fingertips this psychological study:

https://kar.kent.ac.uk/26187/1/Douglas & Sutton 2011 BJSP.pdf

From the abstract:

Douglas + Sutton said:

We advance a new account of why people endorse conspiracy theories, arguing that individuals use the social-cognitive tool of projection when making social judgments about others. ...

... These results suggest that some people think “they conspired” because they think “I would conspire”.

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers
No, there's just proof by assertion as usual. Shouldn't you start insulting people next? That's the normal progression.

Dave

Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:

Dave, please explain how the steel could have been heated to 850 degrees C on two contiguous floors in WTC 7.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Do you believe the fires were restricted to one floor only? (Screenshot is for reference purposes; best to watch the complete video.)

pgimeno said:

Thanks. In my view, it's just another thread*, there's nothing to terminate. I don't know of many threads which have been discussed up to a termination point.

(*) With the small peculiarity that it's between two people instead of many, that is. In that, I agree with Tony that so many people intervening at the same time makes the thread too chaotic.

Click to expand...

Well, my criticism used the subjective criterion of what I or you find "bearable"
I wouldn't take you up on your challenge. Which is no problem; I trust you would not call me a coward for it, or other language to that effect.

Originally Posted by Oystein
What did Danny Jowenko say in 2006 about explosive CD charges in burning buildings?

Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:

The fires in WTC 7 weren't on every floor and I think the evidence shows they were started by arsonists who could have known what floors the charges were on.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Were the fires to the north of WTC 7 set by arsonists, too? What about the fires in WTC 5 and WTC 6?

If the answer is "no", did the NWO expect that fires would ignite in WTC 7, but they had to bring in an elite team of arsonists when no fires actually ignited?

Or were the fires to the north of WTC 7 and in WTC 5 and WTC 6 also set by this elite team of Stealth Ninja Arsonists? If so, did they carry out their operations unnoticed by the E.P. on the scene, or were they protected and assisted by the E.P.? About how many people, IYO, were involved?

Tony Szamboti said:

The Cardington test data does not support the assertion that the steel in two contiguous fire protected floors in WTC 7 would be able to reach 850 degrees C (1,562 F). That is really a non-starter based on the short time frame a fire in any one area is active, due to fuel limitations, and the heat transfer characteristics of the fire proofing material.

You should realize there are photographs of fire areas having been burned out in WTC 7 prior to its collapse. The fire on another side of the building is not heating the already burned out area or anything 70 to 100 feet away in any significant way.

Click to expand...

Did you ever even look at the temperature graphs accompanying the WAI report? They show temperature spikes at the key locations in question that are entirely consistent (both in terms of intensity and duration) with the temperatures reached in the Cardington tests that you cited. I hope your fellow travelers are paying attention to this chutzpah. Your entire theory now rests on it being impossible for the fires on two floors of WTC 7 to relatively simultaneously have reached the peak temperatures expected per the Cardington test's results for the duration expected per the Cardington test's results. Not improbable, but impossible.

Wake up, Tony. I know you see how tenuous and flawed your own premise is.

benthamitemetric said:

Did you ever even look at the temperature graphs accompanying the WAI report? They show temperature spikes at the key locations in question that are entirely consistent (both in terms of intensity and duration) with the temperatures reached in the Cardington tests that you cited. I hope your fellow travelers are paying attention to this chutzpah. Your entire theory now rests on it being impossible for the fires on two floors of WTC 7 to relatively simultaneously peaked at temperatures expected per the Cardington test's experimental results and for a duration expected per the Cardington test's results. Not improbable, but impossible.

Wake up, Tony. I know you see how tenuous and flawed your own premise is.

Click to expand...

Don't mean to discourage you, but your wasting your time, and intellect trying to wake Tony,
he is permanently asleep, in his nonsensical dream universe.

jakesteele said:

Right or wrong about whether the NIST part of the OFFICIAL STORY, which is the neo-skeptics lynchpin to their whole debuggery of 911, actually holds water in a formal, moderated debate. On this forum, a CIVIL, formal, moderated debate is as rare as a unicorn, and you know what neo-skeptics say about unicorns, paranormal, UFOs, et al., if you believe one, you got to believe all of them.

I don't need a degree in formal logic to see, "Mud on your face, big disgrace, kickin' your can all over the place. Singing 'We will rock you, rock you.'"

It's simple. You are being challenged to put your money where your mouth is; the gauntlet has been thrown. I'm just sitting on the sideline hoping for a long overdue just comeuppance, a hoisting by their own petards, good old fashioned ass kicking. But that's just me.

So how 'bout it? Are you going to take the battle between the light side and the dark side of the force to them goofy nutter, gosh darnedtroofers?

Click to expand...

I get ut now. You are suffering from the delusions that this is still an issue in the engineering community, and that retreading truther arguments here or elsewhere on the internet will help establish tge much vaunted "new investigation".

Tony Szamboti said:

The Weidlinger Associates report has a provably unsupportable and ridiculous assumption of two floors being heated to 850 degrees C simultaneously through 4 hour long preheating.

Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:

The extreme heating of the steel on contiguous floors to 850 degrees C is only asserted in the Weidlinger structural analysis with a reference to Hughes Associates Craig Beyler's heat transfer analysis. No other specifics are given.

I do not believe there is any chance that one floor's steel could have been at 850 degrees C, let alone two contiguous floors simultaneously. It sounds like they made it as hot as it needed to be to get a failure of the floor below. It is about as likely as putting a man on Jupiter.

You had said you would try to get a copy of Beyler's analysis. Have you been able to?

Click to expand...

Provably unsupportable and ridiculous but you haven't even seen the cited fire study.

Is that how your search for truth works? Arrive at conclusion without actual study?

Tony Szamboti said:

No, I do not believe the steel in WTC 7 could have been heated to 850 degrees C on even a single floor. It was protected and the fuel would have burned out long before those temperatures could be reached. I am sure Dave will not be able to explain how it could happen. I'll be surprised if he even tries.

Click to expand...

Because Chris Sarns performed serious forensic fire study?

Oystein said:

Again: ALL studies converge on all the relevant results: Fires affected the long span floor bays around 79-81, made them collapse, and that triggered the global collapse.

Click to expand...

Criteria said:

Oystein you have been given a golden opportunity to back up your 9/11 ‘schtick’.

I’m guessing that given the opportunity to test his claims in a disciplined debate, Oystein will do what he accuses ’truthers’ of doing; ‘running and hiding’.

Click to expand...

jaydeehess said:

What?
Is there any doubt that all of the wtc7 studies converge on floor bay failure due to fire, that lead to a progressive collapse involving the entire structure?

Click to expand...

Tony? Criteria? Jakesteele?

I have seen responses, but so far nothing that actually addresses this question, which itself is directly begged of a comment that Critetia made.

While I am at it, so far nada addressing this yet either....

And it actually directly relates to the thread.

jaydeehess said:

So, Tony, as for the value of debating on the internet:
The entire rason d'etre, it appears, of AE911T, is education about the events of 9/11.

EXACTLY how has the cause been advanced by having tfk withdraw from an internet forum debate?

EXACTLY how has tfk withdrawing from debate increased the technical veracity of the claims?

EXACTLY how would debating a different internet poster further the cause of AE911T, or increase the veracity of the claims that AE911T make?

Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:

No, I answered that the charges would not need to be on fire floors. The fires were on floors 7 ,8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 29, and 30. There were plenty of floors without fires where charges could have been preset and avoided by arsonists.

Click to expand...

Let's take a look at WTC 7.






Eyewitness Accounts of WTC 7 Fires


FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

* We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors.

–FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco


FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

*...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down.

–FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn


FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

* When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.

–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers


PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade

* Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable.
–PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade


Capt. Chris Boyle

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it.

-Capt. Chris Boyle


FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.
–FDNY Chief Frank Fellini


FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale

We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of[ the building.

– FDNY Captain A

Anthony Varriale


FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

pgimeno said:

There have been moderated threads in past. I suggest to start with unmoderated and if someone interferes, request moderation for the thread (if that's still possible - maybe ask first). But I don't think anyone will interfere, since they can comment in a separate thread created to the effect.



I didn't say incessant. I said on a whim.



That's a risk you run in about every forum discussion.



There's no such need. If I feel I want to add or correct something after the editing period has passed, I want to be able to do so, like in any other forum discussion.



You want this to become something other than a forum discussion. I want to keep it as a forum discussion. Forum discussions don't have these limits. That's why I put that as the very first rule: it's not a debate, it's a forum discussion.

But if you prefer me to propose changes, here they are. They are mostly the consequence of removing the limits that you set in the other discussion. As you can see, I've been about as comprehensive as you were in the other rules.

Add this:

1. It's not a debate, it's a forum discussion, just in a dedicated thread where no other posters are allowed.

1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.

2. Each person shall make an opening statement (of no more than 500 words) explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefly stating what they believe are the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition, as "Controlled Demolition vs. No Controlled Demolition" is the heart of the debate.

Substitute 1 and 2 with:

2. Since you want to prove that the collapses of 1, 2 and 7 WTC were controlled demolitions (per the 2nd rule of the debate you held with tfk, reproduced in stricken form in the previous paragraph), the title of the thread (and the main topic) will be: Evidence for controlled demolition.

(And see 6 below)

3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.
I don't care who goes first. Since it's a free-form discussion, there's no clearly defined opening statement. Obviously both will make a first post each, and that's all.

4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited his turn & the other person will proceed with his next statement.
6. Individual posts are limited to 1,000 words. If it is deemed necessary to exceed that limit, justification shall be provided by the person wanting to exceed it and agreement to by the other participant received prior to doing so. This should be done by private messaging, so as not to interrupt the flow of the debate, and should be the exception rather than the rule.

Substitute the limits imposed by 4, 5 and 6 with:

4. The post length is unlimited. The number of posts per poster is unlimited. The time between posts is unlimited, just like in any other forum discussion, except that after a month without a post from either poster the discussion is considered to be over.

7. Each post will discuss one princip[al] topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters, and that topic is closed. Person B then leads off the next sequence.

8. Every point that either person brings up must be addressed in some manner by the other. Both parties will do their best to stay focused on the original topic point.

Substitute the limits imposed by 7 and 8 with:

5. There's no obligation to respond to any of the points raised by the other.

6. There's no restriction on the topics, even though a somewhat coherent line is expected in accordance with ISF's rule 11.

9. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Each person shall bring only technical arguments to the debate. If any derogatory comments are used they shall be addressed to arguments only, not to individuals.

Arguments don't have to be technical. The rest is already covered by the forum rules. Substitute 9 with:

7. Breaking ISF's membership agreement rules, in particular rule 0, rule 10 and rule 12, is not allowed.

10. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination, or whenever either participant decides to stop responding.

See 4.
​

Click to expand...

It sounds like you don't want a one-on-one debate with your insistence on it being a "forum discussion" and even having to consider the possibility of interference, which would then require a moderator's interaction. I am not going to subject myself to that kind of nonsense.

I do not want to be held to any of the ISF's rules and will not debate on this forum. The 911 Free Forum did not apply any of these types of restrictions and set up a special section for one-on-one debates. The ground rule about name calling etc. covered this type of thing sufficiently.

Rules concerning frequency and length of posts, and time for response are necessary. There can't be a debate without them.

The debate I proposed is about technical issues concerning the WTC Tower and WTC 7 collapses and any verifiable public domain information about them. If you want to talk about other issues you aren't even considering the debate I proposed.

I do not think your rules are conducive to an ordered and structured debate/discussion and I can't go along with them.

My counter is to debate on the 911 Free Forum with at least most of the rules set up for the debate I had with tfk. The differences can be: no opening statements, and no need to respond point by point if it isn't desired. If you can't do that I have to wonder what you really have in mind other than a straightforward discussion.

jaydeehess said:

Because Chris Sarns performed serious forensic fire study?

Click to expand...

No, just basic engineering where fuel load and fire protection and steel heat transfer values are known.

Axxman300 said:

BOG: So why plant explosives?

EL: We need it to come down.

BOG: How long do you plan to burn it?

EL: Eight hours. Also, we're gonna need you and your men to go into #7 to set the fires.

BOG: Won't the collapse of WTC1 do that on it's own?

EL: We need to guarantee the fire, to cover the explosives.

Click to expand...

BOG: Okay, I think we can do that. So it burns for eight hours, then the explosives go off, and the building collapses, right?

EL: No, it's not quite that simple. We need a whole series of explosive charges.

BOG: Sorry, what?

EL: We want a series of charges, each going off with split-second precision after the building's already started to collapse.

BOG: But you only need the charges to start the collapse. That's how demolition works.

EL: Not this time. We want the building to fall smoothly. We have to have a whole series of charges, so that each floor gets blown up just before the bit above reaches it.

BOG: Um... But it just increases the amount of work we have to do, and makes it more likely we'll get caught. Why would we want to do that?

EL: The same reason the villain never just shoots James Bond. Don't you go to the movies?

Dave

Tony Szamboti said:

Aren't you clever.

Click to expand...

We won't know until he's gone to Harvard and shouted, ""Which of you half-educated morons has the self-belief to give me a degree without me having to do any work?" for a couple of hours.

Dave

Dave Rogers said:

Your agenda, as always for the conspiracist, is to try and prevent the case against you from being laid out in full, so as to give the suggestion that the minor detail you disagree with is the whole story. It's an attempt to create a false sense of equivalence between your fantasies and reality, and it's fundamentally dishonest. And this is why you'll reject, or at least try to modify, pgimeno's proposed terms; you simply can't risk playing on a level field.

Dave

Click to expand...

Tony Szamboti said:

Rules concerning frequency and length of posts, and time for response are necessary. There can't be a debate without them.

Click to expand...

Man, I'm tired of being right.

Dave

Crazy Chainsaw said:

How do you know the fires were solely on those floors?

Click to expand...

Because the charges weren't on those floors of course.

Captain_Swoop said:

Because the charges weren't on those floors of course.

Click to expand...

Tony seems ignorant of basic fire science, his lack of knowledge is astounding.

Haven't checked into the thread in a while.

Has Tony been able to muster the answer to the question "How many planes crashed on 9/11" yet?

It's too bad no one will debate TS. I really wanted to find out if the NIST reports were valid or not.