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.
Tags Dave Thomas , Kim Johnson , Niels Harrit , richard gage

Reply
Old 12th August 2010, 06:39 AM   #1
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,261
AE911Truth, physicists to debate Coast to coast

I hope they do a through job of decimating the Truthers





World Trade Center destruction on 'Coast to Coast AM'


A highly anticipated debate between two members of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and two physicists is scheduled for August 21, 2010. The debate will air on the popular late night talk show Coast to Coast AM with host Ian Punnett between 10pm - 2am Pacific time.
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth and an architect for over twenty years, has delivered over 150 presentations in 17 countries, including Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and throughout the United States. He will be joined by Danish scientist, Niels Harrit, Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen—a chemist and university teacher with expertise in organic chemistry, photochemistry, fluorescence, and nanotechnology.


More http://www.examiner.com/x-36199-Cons...st-to-Coast-AM
Steve001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 06:41 AM   #2
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Any idea who the two physicists are?

Who wants to lay odds on how much actual physics will be covered versus non scientific DRG regrugitation?

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 06:52 AM   #3
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Any idea who the two physicists are?

Who wants to lay odds on how much actual physics will be covered versus non scientific DRG regrugitation?

TAM
Sure. Dave Thomas and Kim something-or-other.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 07:22 AM   #4
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
The physicists opposing Gage and Harrit are myself (Dave Thomas) and colleague Kim Johnson. We had a weekly science radio show for a few years in the Albuquerque area, and you can check out a few podcasts if you like.

When I debated Gage back in October 2009 at NM Tech, I was pretty much a newbie re 9/11, and made a few mistakes (which I've corrected since then). Gage, smelling a desirable opponent, has been after me to debate on Colorado PBS, and at the National Press Club in D.C. on Sept. 9th. (I see Gage is still begging for $$ for the "Debate" at the national press club on Sept. 9th. Gage was so sweet and positive with me till he finally understood that when I said "Go ahead with your media circus, just don't expect us to show up to be the clowns", we were indeed refusing his rigged debate in Washington. Nary a peep from Gage since then, and I expect I won't hear from him till the Aug. 21st Coast-to-Coast AM debate. Last I heard, no one has signed up to represent the "Official Story" at the Sept. 9th 'debate'.)

Since October, however, I've developed and validated several physics models for the towers' collapse, and have been doing some basic experiments with the help of NM Tech, high-speed cameras, and so on. The Coast-to-Coast debate was delayed so many times, I've been able to finish my models and analysis.

I've benefited much from the discussions here at JREF, and look forward to making Gage and Harrit squirm for four hours. Honestly, they have no idea what they're getting into. Should be an interesting evening!

Cheers, Dave
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 09:38 AM   #5
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Dave,

I can say with almost 100% certainty that they will try to shift the discussion to a political or certainly nonscientific topic. My advice....go read 911myths and mark roberts websites....even a brief read of the main topics there will leave you with a reasonable arsenal to combat the topic shifts that will occur.

Good luck.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 10:08 AM   #6
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Dont let him talk over you. If he does, admonish him and talk over him

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Dave,

I can say with almost 100% certainty that they will try to shift the discussion to a political or certainly nonscientific topic. My advice....go read 911myths and mark roberts websites....even a brief read of the main topics there will leave you with a reasonable arsenal to combat the topic shifts that will occur.

Good luck.

TAM
And be sure to ask poor Richard why he spices up his oratory with dramatic hyperbole.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 12th August 2010 at 10:10 AM.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 10:27 AM   #7
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,703
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Sure. Dave Thomas and Kim something-or-other.
The founder of Wendy's?

Love me a double-bacon cheeseburger






Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 10:31 AM   #8
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
So harritt is going to be there. He has no physics background....what is his purpose in being there, given both his opponents are physicists....don't you smell a rat here?

TAM

Dave. This would be a perfect opportunity, in public, to ask harrit why neither he nor jones have submitted their samples for independent analysis by an independent lab. They will likely answer that they have, but they havent. They submitted it to two other truther scientists. Corner him on how unscientific it is to not have ones result, as groundbreaking as they potentially are, not verified by independent labs.

Last edited by T.A.M.; 12th August 2010 at 10:34 AM.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 11:08 AM   #9
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
So harritt is going to be there. He has no physics background....what is his purpose in being there, given both his opponents are physicists....don't you smell a rat here?

TAM

...
It's a long story, actually. Pop open a cool one and sit back for a second.

Gage initially wanted two whole teams on each side. Truthers on his initial team lineup were Gage, Kevin Ryan (Chem.), Michael Donly (P.E.), Niels Harrit (Chemistry), and Erik Lawyer (Firefighter). We were supposed to come up with an equal number of debaters on our side. That would have been a little hard - I didn't get positive responses from many I asked (Roberts, Mackey, Bazant, Romero etc.).

However, Ian Punnett of Coast-to-Coast AM came down against having 10 people arguing at once, and told us to limit partners to One Each.

Even then, Gage was still pleading for twice that, pummeling Punnett with demands to alternate between his chemist (Harrit) and his firefighter (Lawyer). We did have our own firefighter waiting in the wings. Had I chosen the firefighter, Gage pledged to choose Lawyer over Harrit. I decided to just go with my physicist colleague Kim Johnson, who has examined many 9/11 truth claims. Thus, Gage went with Harrit accordingly.

And that's how the Great Debate came to be between an architect and a chemist, and two physicists.

As to where Gage & Harrit will try to steer the conversation, Gage anted up with a huge list of 16 topics divided up for the four hours, with his team introducing ("framing") each and every topic, and with responses timed down to every single minute.

This prompted Punnett to tell Gage that he didn't tell Gage how to design buildings, then asked why Gage was telling C2C how to do their radio show.

FWIW, here's Gage's list of original topics. We have no intentions of letting Gage and Harrit do the steering.

Quote:
  • Segment #1: 10 minutes – Introduction
    9/11 review, 2 airplanes - 3 WTC High-rises brought down,
  • Segment #2: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Introduction & Fires
    Intro, No plan impact, etc., NIST Fire Simulation, Photo & Video Evidence

    Q: What are the (radial, vertical, ownership) probabilities
    that WTC 7 was the only building to suffer extensive damage
    and extensive fires leading to complete “collapse”?
  • Segment #3: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – In Free-fall
    Sudden, Symmetrical, into Neat Pile, No Resistance

    Q: How long for floor 47 to reach ground ?
  • Segment #4: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – FEMA Report
    Conclusions; FEMA BPAT Appendix C – melted steel, etc.
  • Segment #5: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – NIST Report
    Fire theory, computer simulations; Refusal to test for explosives;
    Omitted evidence; normal procedures (National Standards) ignored;
    Whistleblowers fired

    Q: Has linear “thermal expansion” ever occurred before, and could it ever occur again?
    Q: How long could fires have occurred in any given location (how much fire load/area)?
  • Segment #6: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Fires:
    “Normal office fires”
    No precedent
    extraordinary hypothesis
  • Segment #7: 10 minutes - WTC 7 – Previously Molten Iron Microspheres found in all Dust Samples
    RJ Lee report (with vaporized lead, aluminosilicates); USGS Results,
    EPA WTC dust signature; (Gas) temperatures given by official reports,
    (solid) temperatures required to explain evidence
  • Segment #8: 10 minutes - WTC 7 – Molten Metal found by numerous witnesses
    Firemen, contractors, photos, videos;
    Fires raged for months and could not be put out at ground zero
  • Segment #9: 10 minutes – Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples
  • Segment #10: 10 minutes – WTC 7 - Destruction of evidence
  • Segment #11: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Foreknowledge of Destruction
    BBC, CNN, etc.
  • Segment #12: 10 minutes – WTC Twin Towers – Introduction
    The Official Story Supporter, asymmetric Fires, asymmetric damage (<15% of columns),
    Buildings designed for airliner impact (“would still be there” per Skilling)
    Rapid on-set of Destruction, No Jolt, WTC1 antenna moved first
    2/3 Free Fall
  • Segment #13: 10 minutes – WTC Twin Towers - NIST Report
    Destruction of evidence
    Test results compared to official hypothesis (Steel Temps, Floor tests, Fireproofing loss)
    UL involvement in investigation and in producing the WTC fire resistance plan
    No Analysis of Collapse
    Evidence omitted
  • Segment #14: 10 minutes – WTC Twin Towers - Explosiveness
    Hundreds of Witnesses of Explosions
    Pile Driver Destroyed in “mini CD”
    Isolated explosive ejections (squibs)
    Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of Concrete
  • Segment #15: 10 minutes
    Lateral Ejection
    Concrete/Metal floors not found in photos/videos
    Total Building Destruction
  • Segment #16: 10 minutes – Overall Concluding Remarks
Cheers, Dave
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 11:18 AM   #10
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,554
I hope Gordon Freeman calls in with questions.........
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 11:22 AM   #11
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Segment #1 - the title alone tells me there will be no science involved. It will be the old "noone paid attention to wtc7 even though never before in hisotry had a skyscraper colapsed due to fires. Why was it not mentioned by the commission...blah blah blah.

Segment #2 - also no science likely, except some probability calculations. Once again, all speculation to gear up the audience....nothing of substance.

When i get home from clinic, ill address the rest.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 11:46 AM   #12
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
The physicists opposing Gage and Harrit are myself (Dave Thomas) and colleague Kim Johnson. We had a weekly science radio show for a few years in the Albuquerque area, and you can check out a few podcasts if you like.

When I debated Gage back in October 2009 at NM Tech, I was pretty much a newbie re 9/11, and made a few mistakes (which I've corrected since then). Gage, smelling a desirable opponent, has been after me to debate on Colorado PBS, and at the National Press Club in D.C. on Sept. 9th. (I see Gage is still begging for $$ for the "Debate" at the national press club on Sept. 9th. Gage was so sweet and positive with me till he finally understood that when I said "Go ahead with your media circus, just don't expect us to show up to be the clowns", we were indeed refusing his rigged debate in Washington. Nary a peep from Gage since then, and I expect I won't hear from him till the Aug. 21st Coast-to-Coast AM debate. Last I heard, no one has signed up to represent the "Official Story" at the Sept. 9th 'debate'.)

Since October, however, I've developed and validated several physics models for the towers' collapse, and have been doing some basic experiments with the help of NM Tech, high-speed cameras, and so on. The Coast-to-Coast debate was delayed so many times, I've been able to finish my models and analysis.

I've benefited much from the discussions here at JREF, and look forward to making Gage and Harrit squirm for four hours. Honestly, they have no idea what they're getting into. Should be an interesting evening!

Cheers, Dave
Dave I see an assembly of 13 single floors falliing on a bigger assembly of 97 single floors. As the two assemblies meet they do so floor-by-floor (one from above and one from below). According to Newton the top floor of the lower assembly will reciprocate exactly whatever kinetic energy the bottom floor of the upper assembly imparts on it. Both floors are shattered leaving 12 floors above and 96 below and so on and on until the top assembly is no longer able to impart a force sufficient to prevent collapse arrest.

How would you deal with that in the debate ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 11:49 AM   #13
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
As I understand it, a mass of 13 floors is falling not on a bigger assembly of 97 floors, but on a single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor until there is no "bigger assembly of 97 single floors" left.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 11:54 AM   #14
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
As I understand it, a mass of 13 floors is falling not on a bigger assembly of 97 floors, but on a single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor. As that floor fails, its mass is added to the mass above and it falls on the next single floor until there is no "bigger assembly of 97 single floors" left.
No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 11:55 AM   #15
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.
No, at the point of impact the entire mass of the upper portion is meeting the single floor of the lower mass. That ain't exactly equal.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 12th August 2010 at 11:56 AM.
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 11:56 AM   #16
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Seriously. If I can understand this ANYBODY can.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 11:59 AM   #17
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
No, at the point of impact the entire mass of the upper portion is meeting the single floor of the lower mass. That ain't exactly equal.
NO--only the one single lowest floor makes initial contact . Whatever force it brings to bear is EXACTLY reciprocated by the well-supported topmost lower floor.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:01 PM   #18
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,703
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.
So you're implying that the floor below should have held up the one above?

If that understanding of physics were true, a billiard ball on a pool table would not be able to move another ball(s).
Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:06 PM   #19
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
Quote:
Segment #5: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – NIST Report

Fire theory, computer simulations; Refusal to test for explosives;
Omitted evidence; normal procedures (National Standards) ignored;
Whistleblowers fired

Q: Has linear “thermal expansion” ever occurred before, and could it ever occur again?
Q: How long could fires have occurred in any given location (how much fire load/area)?
Sorry to interject... but seriously? He wants to debate whether this happens at all?


Anyway seems you'll an easy ride through this if these are the kinds of things he plans to discuss.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:09 PM   #20
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
No, at the point of impact the entire mass of the upper portion is meeting the single floor of the lower mass. That ain't exactly equal.
Now you are behaving like an idiot savant (or is it bazant). You see you can't have a block above and an assembly of single floors below as you might think. It is either a block falling in a much larger and stronger block or it is an assembly of 13 single floors falling on a much larger and stronger assembly of 97 single floors. No mixing and matching I'm afraid.

PS. I was more interested in how Dave would have tackled this softball question.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 12th August 2010 at 12:33 PM.
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:09 PM   #21
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
NO--only the one single lowest floor makes initial contact . Whatever force it brings to bear is EXACTLY reciprocated by the well-supported topmost lower floor.
This is totally wrong bill. The entire mass of the upper portion makes contact with the single floor below it. Seriously, NOBODY who knows anything about physics would agree with you about that.

Again, if I understand this ANYBODY can.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:10 PM   #22
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Now you are behaving like an idiot savant (or is it bazant). You see you can't have a block above and an assembly of single floors below as you might think. It is either a block falling in a nmuch larger and stronger block or it is an assembly of 13 single floors falling on a much larger and stronger assembly of 97 single floors. No mixng and matching I'm afraid.
You are wrong bill. Wrong as hell. Ask this of ANY physics teacher on earth and report back his response.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:16 PM   #23
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
The above 6-8 posts are completely off topic. Please stop the derail. There are tonnes of threads where this dead horse can be beaten up again.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:22 PM   #24
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Yes, I agree. This horse is not only dead but in the fossil record. Sorry for the derail
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:26 PM   #25
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Yes, I agree. This horse is not only dead but in the fossil record. Sorry for the derail
Me too though Dave may appreciate having had the question fleshed out a little for him. It IS legit to ask him this question you know ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:40 PM   #26
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Quote:
# Segment #3: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – In Free-fall

Sudden, Symmetrical, into Neat Pile, No Resistance

Q: How long for floor 47 to reach ground ?
SO here is where he is gonna do TWO things.
1. He will bring up the "characteristics of Controlled Demolition Collapse" and then compare those to the observations of WTC7
2. He will likely bring up Chandler's 2.25 seconds of Free Fall, which we all know was not free fall of the entire building but only a portion of it.

Be prepared on the above.

Quote:
# Segment #4: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – FEMA Report

Conclusions; FEMA BPAT Appendix C – melted steel, etc.
Haven't read the FEMA report in a while, but most of its findings are over-ridden by the more recent and much more thorough NIST report.

Quote:
# Segment #5: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – NIST Report

Fire theory, computer simulations; Refusal to test for explosives;
Omitted evidence; normal procedures (National Standards) ignored;
Whistleblowers fired

Q: Has linear “thermal expansion” ever occurred before, and could it ever occur again?
Q: How long could fires have occurred in any given location (how much fire load/area)?
1. Fire Theory - I suppose he is referring to the theory that the unfought uncontrolled fires are the suggested reason for the collapse of column 79, and the global collapse that occurred.
2. Computer simulations - no comment
3. Refusal to check for explosives? Well first of all prove they REFUSED to do so rather then DIDN'T BOTHER due to lack of physical evidence such as det cord, etc...
4. Omitted evidence? Omitted from what? And what was this evidence?
5. Standards ignored? What standards, who ignored them, and how?
6. Whistleblowers fired? Who? What was there claim? How long after their "whistleblowing" were they fired?

Thermal Expansion stuff...what the hell does he mean, "has it ever occurred before"? I she mentally retarded?

Fire Duration etc.... that requires technical details as to the contents for a given area on a given floor...tough to do I would think.

Quote:
# Segment #6: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Fires:

“Normal office fires”
No precedent
extraordinary hypothesis
Shouldn't this have been covered in the previous segment? Anyway, What about normal office fires...he will likely go into the temps you could expect, and if such temps would have resulted in what we saw...speculation again.

No precedent - ok, but also the building was unique, the fire extinguishing systems failed, the fires were allowed to go unfought for hours, so there were no precedents to go by on all accounts...so what is the point of the "no precedent" argument.

Extraordinary Hypothesis? Oh hell, so if a column failure from unfought uncontrolled fires leading to global collapse is called "extraordinary" then what do you call the hypothesis, that "secret soundless explosives were planted in the building without anyone knowing or seeing, weeks and months in advance, to demolish a building because it contained documents that a simple shredder and sledgehammer could have taken care of"?

I think the latter hypothesis is MUCH MUCH more extraordinary then the former.

Quote:
# Segment #7: 10 minutes - WTC 7 – Previously Molten Iron Microspheres found in all Dust Samples

RJ Lee report (with vaporized lead, aluminosilicates); USGS Results,
EPA WTC dust signature; (Gas) temperatures given by official reports,
(solid) temperatures required to explain evidence
Easy one here. They found chips that NO ONE ELSE has been able to find in any of the other WTC samples. Their results have not been verified by independent labs. Their samples have a horrible chain of custody, and ended up in the hands of scientists with a well known bias agenda to prove that CD occurred on 9/11. Their paper is full of methodological errors, and they made a MINIMAL attempt to find more likely, more plausible answers for what their chips are.

Quote:
# Segment #8: 10 minutes - WTC 7 – Molten Metal found by numerous witnesses

Firemen, contractors, photos, videos;
Fires raged for months and could not be put out at ground zero
Even easier. Molten METAL. Lots of aluminum Lots of Copper Lots of other metals. Molten Glass can look orange at a given temperature. The reason the fires were going on for weeks and months is due to where the fires were...smoldering under tonnes of debris.

Quote:
# Segment #9: 10 minutes – Nano-thermite Chips found in Dust Samples
# Segment #10: 10 minutes – WTC 7 - Destruction of evidence
# Segment #11: 10 minutes – WTC 7 – Foreknowledge of Destruction

BBC, CNN, etc.
Segment 9 is covered above
Segment 10 is non scientific...so why do they want you to debate it?
Segment 11 - ditto

Quote:
# Segment #12: 10 minutes – WTC Twin Towers – Introduction

The Official Story Supporter, asymmetric Fires, asymmetric damage (<15% of columns),
Buildings designed for airliner impact (“would still be there” per Skilling)
Rapid on-set of Destruction, No Jolt, WTC1 antenna moved first
2/3 Free Fall

# Segment #13: 10 minutes – WTC Twin Towers - NIST Report

Destruction of evidence
Test results compared to official hypothesis (Steel Temps, Floor tests, Fireproofing loss)
UL involvement in investigation and in producing the WTC fire resistance plan
No Analysis of Collapse
Evidence omitted

# Segment #14: 10 minutes – WTC Twin Towers - Explosiveness

Hundreds of Witnesses of Explosions
Pile Driver Destroyed in “mini CD”
Isolated explosive ejections (squibs)
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of Concrete

# Segment #15: 10 minutes

Lateral Ejection
Concrete/Metal floors not found in photos/videos
Total Building Destruction

# Segment #16: 10 minutes – Overall Concluding Remarks
All of the WTC stuff is old, well debunked here. Read Mackey's White Paper on the subject. Understand the NIST report (unlike Gage and his minions) and you will be fine.

TAM

Last edited by T.A.M.; 12th August 2010 at 12:43 PM.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:48 PM   #27
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Dave I see an assembly of 13 single floors falliing on a bigger assembly of 97 single floors. ...

How would you deal with that in the debate ?
Sorry, Bill - I'm under no obligation to show my hand until the game is under way. You will have to tune in to Coast-to-Coast AM at 11:00 PM MDT on Aug.21st, just like everybody else.

If you're curious when the show runs in your locale, click here.

To listen in, you can find a list of stations that live-stream Coast to Coast AM, here.

Cheers, Dave
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:51 PM   #28
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
SO here is where he is gonna do TWO things.
1. He will bring up the "characteristics of Controlled Demolition Collapse" and then compare those to the observations of WTC7
2. He will likely bring up Chandler's 2.25 seconds of Free Fall, which we all know was not free fall of the entire building but only a portion of it.

Be prepared on the above.



Haven't read the FEMA report in a while, but most of its findings are over-ridden by the more recent and much more thorough NIST report.



1. Fire Theory - I suppose he is referring to the theory that the unfought uncontrolled fires are the suggested reason for the collapse of column 79, and the global collapse that occurred.
2. Computer simulations - no comment
3. Refusal to check for explosives? Well first of all prove they REFUSED to do so rather then DIDN'T BOTHER due to lack of physical evidence such as det cord, etc...
4. Omitted evidence? Omitted from what? And what was this evidence?
5. Standards ignored? What standards, who ignored them, and how?
6. Whistleblowers fired? Who? What was there claim? How long after their "whistleblowing" were they fired?

Thermal Expansion stuff...what the hell does he mean, "has it ever occurred before"? I she mentally retarded?

Fire Duration etc.... that requires technical details as to the contents for a given area on a given floor...tough to do I would think.



Shouldn't this have been covered in the previous segment? Anyway, What about normal office fires...he will likely go into the temps you could expect, and if such temps would have resulted in what we saw...speculation again.

No precedent - ok, but also the building was unique, the fire extinguishing systems failed, the fires were allowed to go unfought for hours, so there were no precedents to go by on all accounts...so what is the point of the "no precedent" argument.

Extraordinary Hypothesis? Oh hell, so if a column failure from unfought uncontrolled fires leading to global collapse is called "extraordinary" then what do you call the hypothesis, that "secret soundless explosives were planted in the building without anyone knowing or seeing, weeks and months in advance, to demolish a building because it contained documents that a simple shredder and sledgehammer could have taken care of"?

I think the latter hypothesis is MUCH MUCH more extraordinary then the former.



Easy one here. They found chips that NO ONE ELSE has been able to find in any of the other WTC samples. Their results have not been verified by independent labs. Their samples have a horrible chain of custody, and ended up in the hands of scientists with a well known bias agenda to prove that CD occurred on 9/11. Their paper is full of methodological errors, and they made a MINIMAL attempt to find more likely, more plausible answers for what their chips are.



Even easier. Molten METAL. Lots of aluminum Lots of Copper Lots of other metals. Molten Glass can look orange at a given temperature. The reason the fires were going on for weeks and months is due to where the fires were...smoldering under tonnes of debris.



Segment 9 is covered above
Segment 10 is non scientific...so why do they want you to debate it?
Segment 11 - ditto



All of the WTC stuff is old, well debunked here. Read Mackey's White Paper on the subject. Understand the NIST report (unlike Gage and his minions) and you will be fine.

TAM
Dave will have to debunk it again for a real audience . I wonder if he will come over as convincing and trustworthy as Richard Gage typically comes over ? That's where it's all at really. Forget the models Dave. they don't work on the radio.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 12:59 PM   #29
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Dave will have to debunk it again for a real audience . I wonder if he will come over as convincing and trustworthy as Richard Gage typically comes over ? That's where it's all at really. Forget the models Dave. they don't work on the radio.
You might as well stop trying to 'psych' me out on Gage's behalf, B.S. I've been getting some good advice for the debate, but only from people I respect. I haven't gotten any good advice from you.

EPIC FAIL!

Dave
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 01:02 PM   #30
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
You might as well stop trying to 'psych' me out on Gage's behalf, B.S. I've been getting some good advice for the debate, but only from people I respect. I haven't gotten any good advice from you.

EPIC FAIL!

Dave
I think the advice to steer clear of the models is sound. But your other advisors will no doubt be telling you the same either now or soon.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 01:03 PM   #31
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,939
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Dave will have to debunk it again for a real audience . I wonder if he will come over as convincing and trustworthy as Richard Gage typically comes over ? That's where it's all at really. Forget the models Dave. they don't work on the radio.
Interesting admission that truth and science don't matter to the twoof-movement, but it's about winning a crowd by whichever means necessary - which includes lying, of course.
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 01:09 PM   #32
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Wyoming, NY
Posts: 6,703
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Forget the models facts Dave. they don't work on the radio.
I'm pretty sure this is what he meant to say.
Sabretooth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 01:09 PM   #33
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,802
It would not be hard for Gage, an idiot on 911, to mistake a gravity collapse for CD since gravity is the main mover in each. Gravity, the part of CD he can't comprehend.

The super-nano-thermite is so far out! How do you debate fantasy? The fraudulent paper, call peer reviewed; how do you expose the fraud? No products from a thermite reaction were found at the WTC. No evidence of thermite reactions on steel. They will say the sparks streaming out of the WTC was thermite.

Yosemite has a thermite problem.

Truthers use their eyes to see something, and their wild imaginations to turn anything into their favorite delusional lie on 911.


Gage and his fellow liars (related to 911 issues) failed to make progress in 8 years. No Pulitzer Prize for what their biggest cover-up in history, which turns out to be delusions. Gage is traveling on other people's money, spewing nut case ideas about 911, based on nothing.


http://www.examiner.com/x-36199-Cons...st-to-Coast-AM

The people who believe the idiotic lies of Gage and Jones, are commenting, exposing their faith based ignorance on 911.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 01:43 PM   #34
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I hope Gordon Freeman calls in with questions.........
I'd prefer to see him in the studio with a crowbar.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 01:54 PM   #35
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Dave I see an assembly of 13 single floors falliing on a bigger assembly of 97 single floors. As the two assemblies meet they do so floor-by-floor (one from above and one from below). According to Newton the top floor of the lower assembly will reciprocate exactly whatever kinetic energy the bottom floor of the upper assembly imparts on it. Both floors are shattered leaving 12 floors above and 96 below and so on and on until the top assembly is no longer able to impart a force sufficient to prevent collapse arrest.

How would you deal with that in the debate ?
Are you retarded? Leaving 12 floors above and 96 below? What did the floors vanish into thin air?
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 03:49 PM   #36
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
So they want to start with WTC7 and finish up with WTC1 and 2? lol, they know all the silly WTC1,2 nonsense has been thoroughly debunked and want to start with a topic they can create the most confusion with. Unreal, I wonder what percentage of the public is even aware of WTC 7?

Keep to what matters, WTC1 and 2.

I'll be tuning in, it should be interesting.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 04:31 PM   #37
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
The physicists opposing Gage and Harrit are myself (Dave Thomas) and colleague Kim Johnson. We had a weekly science radio show for a few years in the Albuquerque area, and you can check out a few podcasts if you like.

When I debated Gage back in October 2009 at NM Tech, I was pretty much a newbie re 9/11, and made a few mistakes (which I've corrected since then). Gage, smelling a desirable opponent, has been after me to debate on Colorado PBS, and at the National Press Club in D.C. on Sept. 9th. (I see Gage is still begging for $$ for the "Debate" at the national press club on Sept. 9th. Gage was so sweet and positive with me till he finally understood that when I said "Go ahead with your media circus, just don't expect us to show up to be the clowns", we were indeed refusing his rigged debate in Washington. Nary a peep from Gage since then, and I expect I won't hear from him till the Aug. 21st Coast-to-Coast AM debate. Last I heard, no one has signed up to represent the "Official Story" at the Sept. 9th 'debate'.)

Since October, however, I've developed and validated several physics models for the towers' collapse, and have been doing some basic experiments with the help of NM Tech, high-speed cameras, and so on. The Coast-to-Coast debate was delayed so many times, I've been able to finish my models and analysis.

I've benefited much from the discussions here at JREF, and look forward to making Gage and Harrit squirm for four hours. Honestly, they have no idea what they're getting into. Should be an interesting evening!

Cheers, Dave
I am looking forward to it. Question though. I this available to listen live on the internet? I looked at your link, and I am kinda lost....

Last edited by triforcharity; 12th August 2010 at 05:21 PM.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 04:38 PM   #38
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
No, Newton says that there is an 'EQUAL and opposite reaction' at the point of impact. At the point of impact there are two single floors meeting with EQUAL force.
I know its off topic, but you keep magically getting rid of the two floors that were damaged. Where do they go Bill? They don't all magically go out of the perimeter.

That is where you fail. Bad. You keep forgetting about the rubble.

ETA: Not that it matters, because anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that you know absolutely nothing about anything scientific.

Last edited by triforcharity; 12th August 2010 at 05:22 PM.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 05:50 PM   #39
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
I am looking forward to it. Question though. I this available to listen live on the internet? I looked at your link, and I am kinda lost....
Not all stations that carry Coast to Coast AM (C2CAM) on the air also stream it live on the web. In fact, our Albuquerque NM affiliate does streaming of all content except Coast to Coast AM.

So, go to the link with the page on stations streaming C2CAM, and pick one of the stations it says streams C2C, say KCMO AM, AM 710, Kansas City, MO, (Last Tested: July 17, 2010 by Robrrt).

When you get to the website for the station, e.g. KCMO, look for a "Listen Live" button or link. Click it.

You can probably hear the station's regular programming 24/7. To listen to Coast to Coast AM, live, you have to tune in during the actual show (11:00AM MDT - 3:00AM MDT)

Hope that helps.
Dave
DaveThomasNMSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2010, 06:19 PM   #40
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,258
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
3. Refusal to check for explosives? Well first of all prove they REFUSED to do so rather then DIDN'T BOTHER due to lack of physical evidence such as det cord, etc...
Actually isn't the following contradicting the "refusal to check for explosives"?
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.
Source: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f..._qa_082108.cfm


Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
4. Omitted evidence? Omitted from what? And what was this evidence?
The most likely interpretation for this comes from what I've found from DRG. First the source:

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15201

A relevant quote:
Some of the evidence ignored by NIST is physical evidence that explosives were used to bring down WTC 7.

Swiss-Cheese Steel: I will begin with the piece of steel from WTC 7 that had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. Explaining why it called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” James Glanz wrote: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [15] Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about 1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt. [16]

The professors who reported this piece of steel in the appendix to the FEMA report said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused] this phenomenon is needed.”[17] Arden Bement, who was the director of NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” [18]

But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been recovered. [19]

This piece of steel, moreover, was only a small portion of the evidence, ignored by NIST, that steel had melted.
The piece of steel referenced is Sample #1 from FEMA's appendix C. Hope someone with more knowledge in the field can help here, but AFAIK that steel showed no signs of melting at all.

DRG continues:
NIST, however, did not mention either of [two studies showing iron particles in the dust], even though the latter one was carried out by another US government agency.
I've already seen in this forum that iron microspheres are ubiquitous, so not a proof of steel melting.

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
5. Standards ignored? What standards, who ignored them, and how?
Maybe this quote from the same DRG article helps:
But NIST, as a matter of routine, should have tested the WTC dust for residue of explosives, such as nanothermite. The Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations put out by the National Fire Protection Association says that a search for evidence for explosives should be undertaken whenever there has been “high-order damage.” Leaving no doubt about the meaning of this term, the Guide says:
High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. [27]
That description applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The next sentence – “Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet” – applied to the destruction of the Twin Towers, a fact that NIST had to admit in order to explain how fires were started in WTC 7. [28] So NIST should have looked for signs of explosives, such as nanothermite.
I don't know what to do with it. Ideas?

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
6. Whistleblowers fired? Who? What was there claim? How long after their "whistleblowing" were they fired?
I'd say that would be Kevin Ryan, and maybe Steven Jones. AFAIK Ryan was fired because he spoke in the name of his company (Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc.), talking conspiracy theories, without authorization. The Jones story is not too clear to me. If someone knows more please add to it.

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Thermal Expansion stuff...what the hell does he mean, "has it ever occurred before"? I she mentally retarded?
The argument would be if thermal expansion has ever brought a building down. I believe that's a reference to the long girders that triggered WTC7's collapse. Don't laugh so fast

Last edited by pgimeno; 12th August 2010 at 06:34 PM. Reason: Added KR's company
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 12:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.