ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 31st December 2016, 06:57 PM   #161
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
A court of law cannot ignore the structural buckling of WTC 7 as observed by a number of people just prior to its collapse, which is firm evidence that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7.

As pointed out on a number of occasions, there is absolutely no evidence the collapse of WTC 7 was a CD operation and that explains why after 15 years, investigations have found no such evidence.

To prove a valid point that CD explosives had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7, please point out video timelines where CD explosions are heard in the following video as WTC 7 collapses, and if you fail to post such times lines for everyone to see, the case will be closed due to lack of CD evidence. In case you missed it, here's the video.


WTC 7 Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A


.
The study I provided the link too is publicly available for a price, and lends support to NIST and shows Tony wrong.

It is only a matter of time until Tony self destructs, chocking on his own words.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 08:16 PM   #162
FFTR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You keep squirming trying to get there in areas you don't have enough detail on.

The reality is there is currently no valid publicly available analysis that shows WTC 7 collapsed due to fire.
Tony, is there currently a valid publicly available analysis, that would stand up in court, that shows WTC 7 collapsed due to a CD. If so, please provide a link.
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 08:20 PM   #163
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You are talking like a lawyer working for a client trying to nitpick and make your case no matter what the reality is. I am talking reality. Go get the Beyler analysis. I really don't have any more to say to you until you get it.
Tony, you took NIST to task and declared the entire report as fraudulent due to omission of stiffeners.
Yet now its just peachy that Korol ingores that he should start with steel at least at 200C rather than 20C.
Are we getting that right?
Or will you be calling for Korol to redo his analysis?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 08:23 PM   #164
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
Tony, is there currently a valid publicly available analysis, that would stand up in court, that shows WTC 7 collapsed due to a CD. If so, please provide a link.
Actually there us a valid current, publically available analysis that finds WTC7 collapsed dye to an initial failure caused by fire that DID stand up in court.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 08:54 PM   #165
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,096
Is Tony presenting himself as an "expert witness" in the legal sense?
If so, he is in for a shock. A semi-competent lawyer would take him apart. I am qualified in that I have the proper credentials. I am not qualified by temperament. My BS filter is set to way too small a notch, and my tolerance for idiocy is non-existent. Our side's lawyers reccomendations that we use my stuff presented by someone else (who participated fully in the preparation, in case you wondered about professional ethics).
Case never went to court anyway.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 11:02 PM   #166
Shiner
Motor Mouth
 
Shiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,796
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Even then direct radiation is where most of the energy transfer occurs and that only lasts for 25 to 30 minutes and the heat release rate isn't nearly high enough to get to any more than about 500 C on the girders and maybe 600 C on the beams due to mass and specific heat requirements.
I'm sure this has been pointed out, but I haven't seen it yet, and I'm curious.
If you're right, and those are the max temps the beams reached, do you not think that is enough to cause the collapse? I'm learning as I read along here, and just before you posted this assertion the first time, someone posted that at 400C the beams, girders, etc, are significantly reduced in strength. (45%). Why do you think that wouldn't cause structural failure?
Shiner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 31st December 2016, 11:52 PM   #167
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Is Tony presenting himself as an "expert witness" in the legal sense?
If so, he is in for a shock. A semi-competent lawyer would take him apart....
As an engieer half trained in law I would love to see "them" get the "New investigation" with "subpoena powers" AKA para judicial powers.

The Gage, Jones, Szamboti nonsense would not last the first minutes of cross examination.

I recommend to anyone who is interested that they read the transcript of Behe, M cross examination in Kitzmiller v Dover - one of the classic "creationists v evolutionary biology" cases.

He was committed to lie for his version of God and was carved to shreds. The same would happen for any 9/11 truthers who ever got before a para-judicial empowered investigation.

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
I I am qualified in that I have the proper credentials. I am not qualified by temperament. My BS filter is set to way too small a notch, and my tolerance for idiocy is non-existent. Our side's lawyers recommendations that we use my stuff presented by someone else (who participated fully in the preparation, in case you wondered about professional ethics).
Case never went to court anyway.
I was only in that situation once - the lawyers deliberately excluded me from their discussions to leave open the option of me being an expert witness. As I understand our AU legal system in common with UK is no where near as testing on quals as "expert witness" as the US courts...acceptance is easier than US.

But forget "expert witness" and all the extra rules. Just as a witness for one side the truther "leaders" would not last through the first session.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 12:17 AM   #168
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
As an engieer half trained in law I would love to see "them" get the "New investigation" with "subpoena powers" AKA para judicial powers.

The Gage, Jones, Szamboti nonsense would not last the first minutes of cross examination.

I recommend to anyone who is interested that they read the transcript of Behe, M cross examination in Kitzmiller v Dover - one of the classic "creationists v evolutionary biology" cases.

He was committed to lie for his version of God and was carved to shreds. The same would happen for any 9/11 truthers who ever got before a para-judicial empowered investigation.

I was only in that situation once - the lawyers deliberately excluded me from their discussions to leave open the option of me being an expert witness. As I understand our AU legal system in common with UK is no where near as testing on quals as "expert witness" as the US courts...acceptance is easier than US.

But forget "expert witness" and all the extra rules. Just as a witness for one side the truther "leaders" would not last through the first session.
Under the Daubert test in US federal court, it would be extremely easy to get Tony disqualified as an expert witness on any of the aspects of the wtc collapse. He simply doesn't have the experience, publication history, or professional accomplishment to opine on these matters in court. That said, however, if he were on the other side, I'd never move to disqualify him because he'd be too good a witness to cross. On this forum, Tony can and does constantly evade reasonable questions about his theories and the bases for them. Just look at the whole 99% heat transfer in 25 min argument and his claim that there is no significant heating in figure 10-1 for the first 4.5 hours. Such chutzpah is a litigator's dream. And all his theories boil down similarly--bald assertions that he cannot back with any actual analyses and that fall apart when he does try to tether them to reality, as when he thought he could cite NIST's fire model in support of his 25 min heat transfer theory.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 1st January 2017 at 12:19 AM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 12:40 AM   #169
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Under the Daubert test in US federal court, it would be extremely easy to get Tony disqualified as an expert witness on any of the aspects of the wtc collapse. He simply doesn't have the experience, publication history, or professional accomplishment to opine on these matters in court.
Understood and agreed.

Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
That said, however, if he were on the other side, I'd never move to disqualify him because he'd be too good a witness to cross.
Don't I - you - we - some of us - know it? It would be cruel fun.

Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
On this forum, Tony can and does constantly evade reasonable questions about his theories and the bases for them. Just look at the whole 99% heat transfer in 25 min argument and his claim that there is no significant heating in figure 10-1 for the first 4.5 hours. Such chutzpah is a litigator's dream. And all his theories boil down similarly--bald assertions that he cannot back with any actual analyses and that fall apart when he does try to tether them to reality, as when he thought he could cite NIST's fire model in support of his 25 min heat transfer theory.
Yes. Part of the reason for my personal opinion as to why Tony is here. He is playing for a different audience.

Saw a lot of that when I was moderating in a different setting - creationists v evolutionary science. The analogy to "trutherism" on 9/11 is strong. There simply are NOT "two sides".

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st January 2017 at 12:43 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 02:47 AM   #170
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Understood and agreed.

Don't I - you - we - some of us - know it? It would be cruel fun.

Yes. Part of the reason for my personal opinion as to why Tony is here. He is playing for a different audience.

Saw a lot of that when I was moderating in a different setting - creationists v evolutionary science. The analogy to "trutherism" on 9/11 is strong. There simply are NOT "two sides".
I think Tony would be justified using the insanity defense, to prevent him from going to jail for perjury.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 04:16 AM   #171
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by Shiner View Post
I'm sure this has been pointed out, but I haven't seen it yet, and I'm curious.
If you're right, and those are the max temps the beams reached, do you not think that is enough to cause the collapse? I'm learning as I read along here, and just before you posted this assertion the first time, someone posted that at 400C the beams, girders, etc, are significantly reduced in strength. (45%). Why do you think that wouldn't cause structural failure?
The factors of safety for the columns in WTC 7 was at least 3 and they never got hotter than 300 C where structural steel has lost almost no strength.

The floor framing factor of safety was well above 3 and at worst the beams and girders may have gotten to 600 C where structural steel loses about 50% of its yield strength.

At 400 C structural steel has still not lost much strength. Whoever said it loses 45% there wasn't right and in case you aren't aware, there is a lot of smoke blowing on this forum (no pun intended).

You can see the yield strength reduction in structural steel at elevated temperatures on the bottom of page 9 in the AISC publication here https://www.aisc.org/globalassets/ai...fire-facts.pdf

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 1st January 2017 at 04:36 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 04:40 AM   #172
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Under the Daubert test in US federal court, it would be extremely easy to get Tony disqualified as an expert witness on any of the aspects of the wtc collapse. He simply doesn't have the experience, publication history, or professional accomplishment to opine on these matters in court. That said, however, if he were on the other side, I'd never move to disqualify him because he'd be too good a witness to cross. On this forum, Tony can and does constantly evade reasonable questions about his theories and the bases for them. Just look at the whole 99% heat transfer in 25 min argument and his claim that there is no significant heating in figure 10-1 for the first 4.5 hours. Such chutzpah is a litigator's dream. And all his theories boil down similarly--bald assertions that he cannot back with any actual analyses and that fall apart when he does try to tether them to reality, as when he thought he could cite NIST's fire model in support of his 25 min heat transfer theory.
It wouldn't be a goofball situation like an argument on a silly forum like this. You won't even discuss this issue with me by e-mail. You obviously have to stay in a place like this to confuse the situation. You are not discussing things in a legitimate way and you know it.

The first two WTC 7 reports (NIST and ARUP) have been shown to have huge invalidating issues.

Your last hope is the WAI report and it too seems to have big problems with its extreme steel temperature claims. Interestingly, the heat transfer analysis it depends on is not publicly available.

The reality you want to evade in your defense of the WAI report is that direct radiation is the dominant method of heat transfer into protected steel, which that in WTC 7 was. Direct radiation needs to see the item to heat it and that means the fires would have to be under the steel to heat it in any significant way. Unfortunately for you, the fires can be shown to have lasted in a given area for only about 30 minutes. The fire protection with its low thermal conductivity would severely limit heating of the steel for much longer than that, and the temperatures of the steel framing would not reach anywhere near the extreme temperatures the WAI report claims.

You cannot say the WAI report is valid, as there is no way to substantiate its extreme steel temperature claims publicly. They are nothing more than unsupported assertions at the moment. I would bet the Beyler analysis will not be released to the public because it probably uses assumptions which can't be supported and can be shown to be erroneous.

You are trying to defend the indefensible. Simply put there is currently no valid analysis showing WTC 7 came down due to fire that is publicly available.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 1st January 2017 at 05:29 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 04:56 AM   #173
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,015
ballad of a failed CD fantasy - BS born in paranoid minds

The ballad is summarized by the evidence 9/11 truth offers - the empty set
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 05:26 AM   #174
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It wouldn't be a goofball situation like an argument on a silly forum like this. You won't even discuss this issue with me by e-mail. You obviously want to stay in a place like this allowing others to chime in here and there to confuse the situation. You are not discussing things in a legitimate way and you know it.

The reason you need to do it this way is that you are trying to defend the indefensible. That is that there is currently no valid analysis showing WTC 7 came down due to fire that is publicly available.

The reality you want to evade is that direct radiation is the dominant method of heat transfer into protected steel, which that in WTC 7 was, and the fires provably would only have lasted in a given area for about 30 minutes, the fire protection with its low thermal conductivity would severely limit heating of the steel for much longer than that, and the temperatures of the steel framing would not reach anywhere near the temperatures the WAI report claims.

You cannot say the WAI report is valid as there is no way to substantiate its extreme steel temperature claims publicly. They are nothing more than unsupported claims at the moment. I would bet the Beyler analysis will not be released to the public because it probably uses assumptions which can't be supported and can be shown to be erroneous.


Hey benthamitemetric, Tony seems to not know about the paper I link please inform him about soot, and black body radiation, or about conduction from convection gases.

If you PM me an email address I will try to send you some videos, where I stand exstreamly close to huge fires, burst into flames, and burn up alive, because we all know Tony has to be right about radiatant heating, being the dominant heat source in a fire.

There is no way a human being could take a sprayer of biodiesel, and super heat a huge green wet stump pile, or a leaf blower and burn a stump without bursting into flames!

Oh look how this poor man melts his leaf blower, and bursts into flames from the radiation!
Burning a stump with the leaf blower 2: http://youtu.be/gHMR-2HXBGE

Oh, and look at this poor fellow fried to bits by radiation!

Tree Stump Removal with Leaf Blower: http://youtu.be/7bTpmFGiuZ0

Tony do you actually realize how Stupid the claims you are making are?

Oh since I am a ghost having burned up alive, it is hard for me to find time to edit videos, and load them to YouTube. Too much Haunting of idiots to do!

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 1st January 2017 at 05:34 AM.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 05:51 AM   #175
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842


Hey Tony how many times do you want to make a fool of yourself?

The many of the stumps in that pile were trees 4 foot in diameter.
benthamitemetric. Come on down, I have a small brush pile ready to burn, about 200 Tons or so of stumps and brush, we can light it with a leaf blower and 20 gallons of Biodiesel, and just vaporize
Ourselves to prove Tony right!

Truther, Lurkers take note, Boy Scouts die every day roasting marsh mellows to make smores over campfires! Your best and brightest says so, so it must be true!

Tony go get help, you really need it!

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 1st January 2017 at 05:53 AM.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 07:55 AM   #176
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,096
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
As an engieer half trained in law I would love to see "them" get the "New investigation" with "subpoena powers" AKA para judicial powers.

The Gage, Jones, Szamboti nonsense would not last the first minutes of cross examination.

I recommend to anyone who is interested that they read the transcript of Behe, M cross examination in Kitzmiller v Dover - one of the classic "creationists v evolutionary biology" cases.

He was committed to lie for his version of God and was carved to shreds. The same would happen for any 9/11 truthers who ever got before a para-judicial empowered investigation.

I was only in that situation once - the lawyers deliberately excluded me from their discussions to leave open the option of me being an expert witness. As I understand our AU legal system in common with UK is no where near as testing on quals as "expert witness" as the US courts...acceptance is easier than US.

But forget "expert witness" and all the extra rules. Just as a witness for one side the truther "leaders" would not last through the first session.
I worded my post rather badly--
The case i told of was not me being an Expert Witness (I was involved and therefore couldn't be) but the advice of the lawyer during the discussions was that my attitude makes me a bad witness, and while at the time I had the credentials, I should not ever try to be an expert witness. Which is why they chose a colleague of mine to present. As I said, it never got to the point of actual testimony.
Even being right doesn't make one a good witness in court...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 08:38 AM   #177
FFTR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 62
What I found funny was when AE911T tried to get a High Rise safety initiative passed in NY. It was a way to get a new WTC7 investigation approved and funded.

Now that said, if they are so sure it was CD. What building design changes would come out of such an investigation to prevent future High Rise buildings from collapsing due to controlled demolition? The initiative failed, for good reasons.
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 08:55 AM   #178
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It wouldn't be a goofball situation like an argument on a silly forum like this. You won't even discuss this issue with me by e-mail. You obviously have to stay in a place like this to confuse the situation. You are not discussing things in a legitimate way and you know it.

The first two WTC 7 reports (NIST and ARUP) have been shown to have huge invalidating issues.

Your last hope is the WAI report and it too seems to have big problems with its extreme steel temperature claims. Interestingly, the heat transfer analysis it depends on is not publicly available.

The reality you want to evade in your defense of the WAI report is that direct radiation is the dominant method of heat transfer into protected steel, which that in WTC 7 was. Direct radiation needs to see the item to heat it and that means the fires would have to be under the steel to heat it in any significant way. Unfortunately for you, the fires can be shown to have lasted in a given area for only about 30 minutes. The fire protection with its low thermal conductivity would severely limit heating of the steel for much longer than that, and the temperatures of the steel framing would not reach anywhere near the extreme temperatures the WAI report claims.

You cannot say the WAI report is valid, as there is no way to substantiate its extreme steel temperature claims publicly. They are nothing more than unsupported assertions at the moment. I would bet the Beyler analysis will not be released to the public because it probably uses assumptions which can't be supported and can be shown to be erroneous.

You are trying to defend the indefensible. Simply put there is currently no valid analysis showing WTC 7 came down due to fire that is publicly available.
Just going to pretend we weren't talking about Korol's paper for 3 whole pages before you decided to switch the subject after I proved you to be 400 C wrong on pre-heating, eh?

The forum isn't the problem, Tony. You are the problem. You can't be intellectually honest if it means admitting that you or your fellow travelers could be mistaken, and, when you don't know what you're talking about, you just blatantly make stuff up and lie to try to win an argument. It's a sad spectacle and everyone can see exactly what happened in this thread and exactly when you tried to change the subject.

You know Korol's methodology is indefensible. If not, you'd actually try to defend it. You're still welcome to try and prove me wrong, Tony. You've had plenty of time to "coagulate" your thoughts offline.

I'm re-attaching the graph and chart we were discussing. Please tell me the 25-30 min in which you believe 99% of the heat transfer occurs or else admit you were wrong. If you can bring yourself to admit you were wrong, then you understand why Korol's approach is wrong. Everyone else in this thread already understands it, Tony. Just look at all the pre-heating you are missing on the floor 12 graph and look how hot the floor 13 beams actually were at 4:30 pm in the simulation. Korol missed all of that heating because he conflated the peak burn time in a particular area of a compartmental fire with the heating time in a compartmental fire or a traveling fire. Just acknowledge it and we can move on and discuss whatever you want.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 452.jpg (34.1 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 390 10-1 SZAMBOTI DELUSION.jpg (33.2 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 379 9-9.jpg (19.2 KB, 0 views)

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 1st January 2017 at 09:16 AM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 09:09 AM   #179
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Just going to pretend we weren't talking about Korol's paper for 3 whole pages before you decided to switch the subject after I proved you to be 400 C wrong on pre-heating, eh?

The forum isn't the problem, Tony. You are the problem. You can't be intellectually honest if it means admitting that you or your fellow travelers could be mistaken. It's a sad spectacle and everyone can see exactly what happened in this thread and exactly when you tried to change the subject.
You didn't prove anyone wrong. Most of the heating of fire protected structural steel that could take place would be by direct radiation and that can only happen when the fire can see the item. Convection won't do much in the case of insulated structural steel so there won't be much preheating.

NIST's fire simulation temperatures are on the high side with preheating exaggerated, although apparently not nearly as much as the analysis by Beyler must be.

Anyone who has some idea about heat transfer and fire protection of structural steel will understand what I am saying above and it can be shown mathematically, so you really can't win.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 1st January 2017 at 09:11 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 09:10 AM   #180
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I thought people here might have something to say about this

The ballad of the 911 shill

I help to keep the masses in the dark.
The way I do it is mostly with snark.
To keep the masses as sheep they must not know
how they are moved to and fro.
We are the ones who can proudly say
we perform this mission to minimize the fray.
Work on your meter - it's atrocious!!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 09:11 AM   #181
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I think it is probably pretty true. There has to be some rationalization for the deviation from reality.

The problem of course is that if you don't know what reality is you can't make good decisions, and ultimately that will hurt a society.
100% agreement
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 09:14 AM   #182
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You didn't prove anyone wrong. Most of the heating of fire protected structural steel that could take place would be by direct radiation and that can only happen when the fire can see the item. Convection won't do much in the case of insulated structural steel so there won't be much preheating.

NIST's fire simulation temperatures are on the high side with preheating exaggerated, although apparently not nearly as much as the analysis by Beyler must be.

Anyone who has some idea about heat transfer and fire protection of structural steel will understand what I am saying above
and it can be shown mathematically, so you really can't win.
People like Abboud and Beyler who do it for a living.
Or Quintere or any of the others you claim you are more expert than
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 09:22 AM   #183
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You didn't prove anyone wrong. Most of the heating of fire protected structural steel that could take place would be by direct radiation and that can only happen when the fire can see the item. Convection won't do much in the case of insulated structural steel so there won't be much preheating.

NIST's fire simulation temperatures are on the high side with preheating exaggerated, although apparently not nearly as much as the analysis by Beyler must be.

Anyone who has some idea about heat transfer and fire protection of structural steel will understand what I am saying above and it can be shown mathematically, so you really can't win.
Then show me on the graph where 99% of the heat transfer occurs, Tony. From when to when? And tell me exactly how hot the beams were at 4:30. NIST already did the math to show us the answers to these questions, and it is you and Korol who claim your ridiculous theory is based on their work. Do you not understand it, or are you lying about it?

Everyone, including you, knows you and Korol are wrong about the 25-30 min heat transfer model.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 452.jpg (34.1 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 390 10-1 SZAMBOTI DELUSION.jpg (33.2 KB, 0 views)

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 1st January 2017 at 09:26 AM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 09:39 AM   #184
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Then show me on the graph where 99% of the heat transfer occurs, Tony. From when to when? And tell me exactly how hot the beams were at 4:30. NIST already did the math to show us the answers to these questions, and it is you and Korol who claim your ridiculous theory is based on their work. Do you not understand it, or are you lying about it?

Everyone, including you, knows you and Korol are wrong about the 25-30 min heat transfer model.
The 99% was a figure of speech. I have been telling you that the vast majority of heating that can take place with fire protected structural steel will occur with direct radiation (not convection) and it only occurs with the fire being able to see the item being heated and its effect decreases with distance. So, the 25 to 30 minutes of active fire under fire protected structural steel in a building is when it would have most of whatever heating it experiences occur.

The NIST fire simulations are on the high side due to an exaggerated fuel load. The NIST report has been proven invalid due to other issues so its credibility is shot to begin with as it is clear it is embellished in favor of the conclusion. The interesting part here is that even an embellished report trying to reach the same conclusions that Weidlinger did doesn't provide the extreme steel temperatures on the 9th and 10th floors that the Weidlinger report wants to claim. I would call those super embellished and in fact surreal.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 1st January 2017 at 09:45 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 09:45 AM   #185
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The 99% was a figure of speech. I have been telling you that the vast majority of heating that can take place with fire protected structural steel will occur with direct radiation (not convection) and it only occurs with the fire being able to see the item being heated and its effect decreases with distance. So, the 20 to 30 minutes of active fire under fire protected structural steel in a building is when it would have most of whatever heating it experiences occur.
A specific, mathematical claim was a "figure of speech"????? Come on, Tony. This is so sad.

You keep making claims about how the fires would have pre-heated the beam, but you do understand that we don't have to guess about that, right? NIST built a comprehensive model to take into account all of those factors and they showed around 400 C of pre-heating. It's right there in the chart I've posted like 20 times and am posting again.

What math have you done to know you are right and NIST is wrong? What specifically did they do wrong, in your estimation?

How hot was the beam on floor 13 before the peak burn fire reached it?

Where's the math, Tony?

Or you could just admit that you and Korol have been conflating peak burn time and heating time and thus made a fundamental mistake. It's already obvious to everyone else. No need to keep lying.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 452.jpg (34.1 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 390 10-1 SZAMBOTI DELUSION.jpg (33.2 KB, 0 views)

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 1st January 2017 at 09:52 AM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 09:50 AM   #186
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,974
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
A specific, mathematical claim was a "figure of speech"????? Come on, Tony. This is so sad.

You keep making claims about how the fires would have pre-heated the beam, but you do understand that we don't have to guess about that, right? NIST built a comprehensive model to take into account all of those factors and they showed around 400 C of pre-heating. It's right there in the chart I've posted like 20 times and am posting again.

What math have you done to know you are right and NIST is wrong. What specifically did they do wrong?

How hot was the beam on floor 13 before the peak burn fire reached it?

Where's the math, Tony?

Or you could just admit that you and Korol have been conflating peak burn time and heating time and thus made a fundamental mistake. It's already obvious to everyone else. No need to keep lying.
Korol et al already gave you the math.

Where is your math to prove them wrong?

Oh, that's right you can only point to the proven to be invalid NIST report and an assertion from a report that has not been publicly released (Beyler 2010) that nobody has seen. You also naively claim that if gas temperatures are higher that extreme heating would be taking place, not understanding heating of protected structural steel by convection away from an active fire without a view is minimal.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 1st January 2017 at 09:52 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 09:56 AM   #187
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Korol et al already gave you the math.

Where is your math to prove them wrong?

Oh, that's right you can only point to the proven to be invalid NIST report and an assertion from a report that has not been publicly released (Beyler 2010) that nobody has seen. You also naively claim that if gas temperatures are higher that extreme heating would be taking place, not understanding heating of protected structural steel by convection away from an active fire without a view is minimal.
The source the Korol cites proves him wrong, Tony. It proves you wrong too. Here are the graphs again.

You and Korol made a fundamental mistake by conflating peak burn time with heating time. You thus attempt to ignore a very substantial period of heating, which NIST's simulation demonstrates increased the temperature of the beam to around 400 C. It's right there in the chart. That's your source. That's Korol's source. Do you not understand it, or are you trying to misrepresent it?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 452.jpg (34.1 KB, 2 views)
File Type: jpg NIST NCSTAR 1-9 pg 390 10-1 SZAMBOTI DELUSION.jpg (33.2 KB, 2 views)
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 10:06 AM   #188
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
We know plenty about fire, including the fact that it has never caused the complete straight down collapse of a steel framed high-rise building.

Now we have suspicious people telling us it did three times, ...
You should take that up with Richard Gage who claims the opposite for the twins - that they collapsed anything but straight down, rather were flung violently and wildly and far into all directions.

Unless of course you knew already that the phrase "straight down collapse" means nothing and you added it only with an intent to fluff-up the bloviation.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 10:16 AM   #189
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Figure 99 displays hourly snapshots of the upper layer temperatures predicted by the model. The simulations indicated that the clusters of workstations burned out in about 20 min to 30 min.
O my God! Tony! This is utterly utterly stupid!!!

You actually pretend that "cluster burning out in 25 minutes" translates 1:1 to "steel heated for 25 minutes"?!? Seriously?

I could explain to a 5 year old the several reasons why this is stupidly false. For starters:
There are many clusters in an office compartment
Hot gases do not stay confined to the area directly above the cluster
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 10:20 AM   #190
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Now you are just being plain silly. Figure 9-9 shows several workstation clusters and the fire moving over time. Steel which is 50 to 75 feet away from a fire is not being heated in any significant way by that fire. ...
When you get the Beyler analysis let me know. Until then good bye.
We know that Beyler says the exact opposite - that WTC7 beams were indeed heated to as much as 200-300 C before the fires arrived there. And that this is a major reason why the peak temperature exceeded that of fires in buildings (or test sites) with more conventional compartment sizes.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 10:26 AM   #191
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I would remind everyone here that Benthamitemetric is famous for being the first to post the Aegis Insurance Co. expert reports ...
Everybody can see that you painted yourself in a corner, and you know exactly that benthamitemetric has you by your balls.

And in that situation, you throw the goal posts out the window.

This is acually the moment of benthamitemetric's victory and triumph over you. You admit at this very point that no Cardington test, nothing NIST has produced, and no other fire science in the world can salvage your false claims and Korol's false methodology re: air and steel temperatures in large compartment fires.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 10:31 AM   #192
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
I worded my post rather badly--
The case i told of was not me being an Expert Witness (I was involved and therefore couldn't be) but the advice of the lawyer during the discussions was that my attitude makes me a bad witness, and while at the time I had the credentials, I should not ever try to be an expert witness. Which is why they chose a colleague of mine to present. As I said, it never got to the point of actual testimony.
Even being right doesn't make one a good witness in court...
Understood thanks.
Not sure if I posted my experience - on a 2003 tour in Scotland - coach tipped over due to road collapse. Me, as the 2IC tour guide and gopher, sitting in front "crew" seat. Qualified roads engineer, licensed in AU to drive Tour Coaches and had law degree. The Scottish lawyer's eyes lit up - looked at me and said "our own expert witness". Joking of course - I was a party to the action. BTW no "class action" under Scottish law.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 10:40 AM   #193
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, I believe the Korol analysis is the closest to reality ...
Korol's analysis re-inevts the wheel with made-up premises and computing from first principles, arriving at some surprisingly low peak temperature.

The 1993 large compartment Cardington test measured peak temperatures in excess of 700 C in protected steel beams.

If it doesn't agree with experiment...


Korol's analysis is on an intellectual level of fire sience scarcely higher than the back-on-the envelops I love doing an many issues, from estimating project cost to population effects of deseases to minimum size of explosive charges to propel large steel members to 60 mph.
The difference is of course that I know I am just an amateur in most pf these fields, and wouldn't dare submitting those for publication. I know to be skeptic of myself.

You however ... just believe what you desire to believe.

(The Korol paper in large part appears similar to the kind of work Frank Greening likes to do - I have a feeling that Greening did the bulk of the work, and that Korol appears as lead author because of his seemingly more relevant credentials.)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 10:42 AM   #194
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,412
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
O my God! Tony! This is utterly utterly stupid!!!

You actually pretend that "cluster burning out in 25 minutes" translates 1:1 to "steel heated for 25 minutes"?!? Seriously?

I could explain to a 5 year old the several reasons why this is stupidly false. For starters:
There are many clusters in an office compartment
Hot gases do not stay confined to the area directly above the cluster
It reminds me of the occasion when I said the same thing - and actually used my 5yo grandson to prove it. Let's see if I have the link.

Try this http://www.internationalskeptics.com...49#post9418049

Ooops - he was 6yo - does that invalidate the comparison?

BTW that example was NOT directly Tony - it arose out of a simple comment I made to Tony and another truther got on the bandwagon.

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st January 2017 at 10:44 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 10:47 AM   #195
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,209
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You are talking like a lawyer working for a client trying to nitpick and make your case no matter what the reality is. ...
OMG.
You haste from low point to low point at break-neck speed.

YOU, Tony Szamboti, justified your 25-minutes claim by citing NIST - a specific figure.
When Benthamitemetric shed light on the context, and asked you many times to use YOUR own citation to back up YOUR claim, you evaded, and turned around, and claimed that YOUR citation contains unreliable information.

benthamitemetric merely reminded you that it is YOUR citation that YOU pretended supports YOUR argument has been discredited by YOU.
That is not lowly laywer talk - that is an inescapable and damning fact!
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 11:07 AM   #196
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You are trying to defend the indefensible.

Like noiseless CD @ WTC?! You can only push the laws of physics just so far, Tony.


Quote:
Simply put there is currently no valid analysis showing WTC 7 came down due to fire that is publicly available.

You should have thrown in the towel when it was made clear to you that not one WTC video depicted CD explosions as those buildings collapsed.

It is also apparent that you lack the understanding to debate the collapse of WTC 7 because you do not understand the significance of structural pre-weakening, structural load redistribution, structural buckling, and the effects of fire on structural steel. You may think that you are an expert but you can't be ignorant of the facts and continue to still think of yourself as an expert.

I knew that you were trying to push CD @ WTC by the way you were ignoring the facts and evidence and your failure to answer questions posed to you, which made me suspicious. The temperature level of my suspicion was raised even further when I found your name with that of Steven Jones, the person who was caught pushing doctored photos as evidence of molten steel @ ground zero.

Quote:
9/11 CONSPIRACY GETS SUPPORT FROM PHYSICISTS’ STUDY

Europhysics magazine report finds Twin Towers brought down by ‘controlled demolition’ Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community, has published a report by four experts who say “the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition.”


Who Wrote it?

Four authors are listed, Steven Jones, Robert Korol, Anthony Szamboti, Ted Walter...

http://www.skeptical-science.com/cri...11-inside-job/

Tony, being a well-known 9/11 Truther helps explain why you continue to ignore facts and evidence as you continuously try to push your square CD theory into a round hole of reality where it obviously doesn't fit and it doesn't make any sense to try to pull your moth-eaten blanket over the eyes of those who know better.

You have to face up to the fact that the truth movement had lost the war a long time ago and there is nothing left for you to debate because you made it clear to me that you had made a wrong turn onto a dead-end street of denial.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 1st January 2017 at 12:19 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 12:08 PM   #197
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You didn't prove anyone wrong. Most of the heating of fire protected structural steel that could take place would be by direct radiation and that can only happen when the fire can see the item. Convection won't do much in the case of insulated structural steel so there won't be much preheating.

How much insulation can you point out in the following photo of WTC 7 structural steel?




You should have also noticed that WTC 7 did not collapse within its own footprint, which debunks the claim of AE9/11Truth

Last edited by skyeagle409; 1st January 2017 at 12:12 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 12:22 PM   #198
FFTR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 62
Tony what evidence do you have that this was not done by the NIST
https://www.nist.gov/el/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.

So what is your evidence that a CD took place?
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 03:33 PM   #199
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
The study I provided the link too is publicly available for a price, and lends support to NIST and shows Tony wrong.

It is only a matter of time until Tony self destructs, chocking on his own words.

I agree! I find it peculiar that Truthers who imply they are experts have claimed the destruction of the WTC buildings was due to explosives and/or thermite/nano-thermite. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that their claims are baseless especially when considering that explosive detonations create a lot of noise.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 1st January 2017, 05:27 PM   #200
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,812
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
I agree! I find it peculiar that Truthers who imply they are experts have claimed the destruction of the WTC buildings was due to explosives and/or thermite/nano-thermite. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that their claims are baseless especially when considering that explosive detonations create a lot of noise.
When the noise argument comes up, I always think of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL1mqlquZ3g&t=0m13s

That's the only video I could find of explosive noise abatement. That's 1980's company patented technology, in which 800 cubic feet of foamy material (9.28 ft edges, 16 ft diameter) was simply placed over 4 pounds of C-4. 4 pounds of C-4 was reduced to the sound of a quiet growl.

more info: http://www.aquafoam.com/BlastingExplosions.html

Collapse or Explosion? A Discussion of the WTC “Sounds of Explosions” Issue by Adam Taylor

That's proof enough to me that the sound issue is simply something that can not be known for sure. Nobody has even produced any way of knowing exactly how loud the WTC collapses were.

Last edited by MicahJava; 1st January 2017 at 06:20 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.