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 ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 24th November 2015, 07:34 PM   #121
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,767
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There is a paradigm in engineering called "heritage". Historical data means something.
Well, I'm a big believer in 'never say never' notwithstanding, the historical data on material properties is very relevant to complex assemblies and assessments of their performance. It was sort of an important concept in college studies on basic design theory. Carry on.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 24th November 2015 at 07:35 PM.
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 24th November 2015, 08:01 PM   #122
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Well, I'm a big believer in 'never say never'
So does that open minded attitude extend to entertaining the possibility that NIST got it wrong to the point of negligence ?
gerrycan 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 24th November 2015, 08:06 PM   #123
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Is this all you can say?

It is obvious that you can't support the "fire did it" theory with anything of substance. It sounds like you just want to believe it no matter what evidence you are shown that the NIST theory has not been proven and that their analysis is fatally flawed.
Its obvious that fires existed in WTC7. Absent any other proven driver of damage it stands as the null hypothesis that "fire did it".
There is a paradigm in science, as in law, known as evidence. It may be direct or circumstantial. In this case at least "fire did it" has that circumstantial evidence. No other hypothesis has even that.

Furthermore, visible, thus documentary evidence, demonstrates that the first visible sign of collapse was the hole in the roof. It also indicates that this is a failure of col79.

NIST ran FEAs on a failure of col79 based on that documentary evidence. Those FEAs indicated that , yes, a col 79 failure could progress to global collapse.

In an effort to go deeper into the sequence of collapse NIST took the documented circumstantial evidence of fires in the building into account. Because there is no other driver of damage in any sort of evidence. The most probable fire location that could affect col 79 was that on floor 12.

You see, that is how a forensic investigation is done. By gathering evidence and, in many cases, working backwards from what is best known.

You otoh, deem it significant to attack the furthest point from what was best known. You also choose deliberately, to not bother detailing any other hypothesis , with evidence of any sort. Why do you choose to follow this path? Because you chose to immediately disbelieve that "fire did it" even despite no evidence tomthe contrary. You are on a witch hunt, pure and simple.

Thermite? Certainly in dispute. Fires, not so much.
High explosives? Certainly no definitive evidence of them. Fires, well yes, quite definite they were in existence.

So you might be advised not to go pooh-poohing "fire did it", advice I would lay bets you will not heed.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 24th November 2015 at 08:12 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 08:10 PM   #124
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,964
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Its obvious that fires existed in WTC7. Absent any other proven driver of damage it stands as the null hypothesis that "fire did it".
There is a paradigm in science, as in law, known as evidence. It may be direct or circumstantial. In this case at least "fire did it" has that circumstantial evidence. No other hypothesis has even that.

Furthermore, visible, thus documentary evidence, demonstrates that the first visible sign of collapse was the hole in the roof. It also indicates that this is a failure of col79.

NIST ran FEAs on a failure of col79 based on that documentary evidence. Those FEAs indicated that , yes, a col 79 failure could progress to global collapse.

In an effort to go deeper into the sequence of collapse NIST took the documented circumstantial evidence of fires in the building into account. Because there is no other driver of damage in any sort of evidence. The most probable fire location that could affect col 79 was that on floor 12.

You see, that is how a forensic investigation is done. By gathering evidence and, in many cases, working backwards from what is best known.

You otoh, deem it significant to attack the furthest point from what was best known. You also choose deliberately, to not bother detailing any other hypothesis , with evidence of any sort.

Thermite? Certainly in dispute. Fires, not so much.
High explosives? Certainly no definitive evidence of them. Fires, well yes, quite definite they were in existence.

So you might be advised not to go pooh-poohing "fire did it", advice I would lay bets you will not heed.
Who do you think you are kidding? When you have to leave pertinent structural features out of your analysis, to try and make your hypothesis work, you don't have a viable hypothesis. This is what was done with the NIST WTC 7 report.

Additionally, NIST tried to stay away from it but ultimately had to admit to the free fall. It is nothing short of amazing that they have thus far been able to wiggle out of having to explain how it could have occurred in their proposed fire initiated collapse.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 24th November 2015 at 08:14 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 08:15 PM   #125
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,375
Posted in Error.
...thanks Gerrycan

True comments - wrong building.

Last edited by ozeco41; 24th November 2015 at 08:34 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 08:18 PM   #126
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
NIST ultimately admitted but never explained the free fall, so they have not explained the observations and evidence.
What does that have to do with anything in the post you quoted?

Just trying to change the subject?
ETA: Even your revised post does not address anything I said in mine

Last edited by jaydeehess; 24th November 2015 at 08:20 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 08:18 PM   #127
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
AHHHHahhahahaha

The 'kink' that is a 'hung structure' occurred a few seconds before global collapse. Are you suggesting that in the period of a few seconds it was determined to be hung up and additional explosives loaded in?
The hung structure was WTC7 after WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed; after explosives had cut the stairwells a few floors below B.Jennings, after charges had demolished substantial portions of the lobby, after thermate had weakened core columns and possibly started fires throughout. That was the hung structure. This left the cut out teams approx six hours to either re-rig portions or fix unreacted ordinance.
Notconvinced 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 24th November 2015, 08:24 PM   #128
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
No.

The damage from the initial impact of the aircraft would cause load redistribution. But collapse did not progress at that stage.......The details don't change anything of importance.
Like the detail of talking about the right building ?
gerrycan 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 24th November 2015, 08:29 PM   #129
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Oh yes, the pre-weakening referred to recently in another thread. The thermite burn that either occurred at the time of WTC 1 collapse, when there were still people in WTC 7, including, supposedly, Jennings and Hess on the 8th floor already(with the myriad of problems with Jennings' timeline), or later when firefighters were walking through WTC 7, or later still when the building's fires were raging and the structure was full of smoke and hundreds of rescue workers and reporters were in the vicinity, and no one noticed!
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
The hung structure was WTC7 after WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed; after explosives had cut the stairwells a few floors below B.Jennings, after charges had demolished substantial portions of the lobby, after thermate had weakened core columns and possibly started fires throughout. That was the hung structure. This left the cut out teams approx six hours to either re-rig portions or fix unreacted ordinance.
So, according to you this happened while a dozen people were still on the third floor, or while firefighters were walking through WTC7, or while J&H were on the eight, or while firefighters were talking to J&H at the NE corner window, or while firefighters were rescuing J&H. All these people in and around a building that is having high explosives going off, and large thematic burns occurring yet no one noticed!! oh, except for Jennings, Hess says no explosion.

Not to mention, as I mentioned to TSz, while there IS evidence of multiple fires in WTC7, there isn't for high explosives or therm?te.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 24th November 2015 at 08:37 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 08:36 PM   #130
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,375
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Like the detail of talking about the right building ?

Thanks - fixed - I'll keep the comments till they are relevant.

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 08:38 PM   #131
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Ok, your chance to be clearer. Were you describing the 'kink' I refer to as being evidence of a hung structure? If not then why quote that part of my post? Why not address the issue of the kink instead.

If you are saying its evidence of hung structure then I suggest you view the collapse videos again(or for the first time, whichever suits best).
Sure, no problem. The evidence abounds at the entire WTC complex (all buildings) that the demolitions were carried out in an ordered, but chronologically dispersed manner.

Column 79 failed in some way, woohoo. It might have been previously degraded, it might have been blown out right then, it might have buckled due to other factors (I doubt this, but welcome FEA). What column 79 unequivocally didn't do, was cause simultaneous failure across 8 floors worth of other support columns resulting in free fall acceleration of that portion of the building. That required synchronized detonation, which even a casual observer can see occurring along the western edge of the north wall.
Notconvinced 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 24th November 2015, 08:42 PM   #132
Notconvinced
Critical Thinker
 
Notconvinced's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Can't wait to read the results. Will there be a tie into explosives if you succeed in showing the NIST hypothesis wrong? If so, will there be any supporting evidence (besides "it could only be because it looks like it")?
It doesn't have to be "explosives". You could have had a team of bulldozers placed adjacent to every core column and they might have all toppled their respective posts like synchronized swimmers. I mean, I don't think that's probable, but.... Possible? Sure.
Notconvinced 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 24th November 2015, 08:52 PM   #133
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,767
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
So does that open minded attitude extend to entertaining the possibility that NIST got it wrong to the point of negligence?
Why would it not? If you show beyond a reasonable doubt they did falter seriously I'm willing to entertain the idea. But if you're going to argue that this leads to some degree of a controlled demolition conclusion, you'll have to elaborate both how the NIST's alleged negligence is linked to that and what supports that alternative conclusion. Tony's suggestions that no building has ever collapsed before doesn't cut it in either case... and to take it further the entire reason his point is a fallacy is because quite literally if nothing ever happened for the first time we'd still be in the stone age.

If you want the nerdy Architect's reasoning, his "first in history" argument fails on the grounds that you can't treat any one particular design the same, because virtually every structure in the built environment has a difference that limits how far you can go with direct comparisons. You literally have to know about the specific case you're dealing with to draw an appropriate assessment. The only feature buildings share in common is that they are built using materials that have been studied, but those areas of commonality have to be applied accordingly - something his fallacy also omits.

Of course if you beg to differ you may want to explain why.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 24th November 2015 at 08:59 PM.
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 24th November 2015, 09:00 PM   #134
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Sure, no problem. The evidence abounds at the entire WTC complex (all buildings) that the demolitions were carried out in an ordered, but chronologically dispersed manner.
What you call evidence is actually "opinion". That plus a few dollars will buy you a cup of coffee.

Quote:
Column 79 failed in some way, woohoo. It might have been previously degraded, it might have been blown out right then, it might have buckled due to other factors
"Might", there's that opinion creeping in again, now in the form of pure speculation.


Quote:
What column 79 unequivocally didn't do, was cause simultaneous failure across 8 floors worth of other support columns resulting in free fall acceleration of that portion of the building.
No one has ever suggested it did. Nor did it happen.
Column 79 fails, debris from 40+ floors and the mechanical penthouse comes down, floors are failing. Lower structure, transfer trusses fail, north side of core is now without its eastern anchor structures and the columns along the core fail. The now overloaded columns of the original Con-Ed building fail.
This is pretty much what the FEA of collapse illustrates. You know the FEA that AE911T is deathly afraid of carrying out themselves.

Quote:
That required synchronized detonation, which even a casual observer can see occurring along the western edge of the north wall.
Weren't you asked for video that shows this western portion of the north façade? Did you provide a link? Sorry I missed it.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 10:10 PM   #135
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydeehess
The failure that occurred to directly and subsequently cause rooftop structures to fall inward would appear to be a failure of col 79.
.
Originally Posted by Redwood
Agreed, as being strictly true; but if you change the statement to "the first outward manifestation of the structural failure of WTC 7, the collapse of the East Penthouse, was almost certainly the result of the failure of column 79", then it's well-nigh undeniable, even by Truthers.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Yours is a much better way to say what I said.

As far as undeniable by truthers though, Tony Sz does in fact deny it. He puts forth the completely unsubstantiated fantasy of explosives taking out the columns just a few floors below the roof to make it look like the column failed lower down.
Thanks! Lots of my friends and family say I missed my calling by not becoming a lawyer. But it seems that even TSz concedes that the immediate cause of the collapse of the East Penthouse is the failure of column 79, whether by failure initiated at the lower levels, again for whatever reason, or at at one of the top storeys of WTC 7, even if done by invisible, silent high explosives!

That's Conspiracy super-competence! How could they ever have planned that long in advance? How did they even know WTC 7 would be hit by flaming debris?
Redwood 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 24th November 2015, 10:16 PM   #136
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Thanks! Lots of my friends and family say I missed my calling by not becoming a lawyer. But it seems that even TSz concedes that the immediate cause of the collapse of the East Penthouse is the failure of column 79, whether by failure initiated at the lower levels, again for whatever reason, or at at one of the top storeys of WTC 7, even if done by invisible, silent high explosives!

That's Conspiracy super-competence! How could they ever have planned that long in advance? How did they even know WTC 7 would be hit by flaming debris?
Ahh but that's why they planted incendiary devices to start a few office fires. Just to be sure everyone thought the fires were big they also installed military battlefield smoke generators. (yes that has been put forth by some truthers)
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2015, 11:12 PM   #137
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,225
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
The assertion is that NIST are wrong.
Your problem is that proving NIST's probable collapse sequence less probable, even impossible, doesn't invalidate the report, nor will it prompt for the sacrosanct New Investigation™ you're drooling about. You're investing a lot in something that will get you nowhere.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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
Old 24th November 2015, 11:13 PM   #138
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,137
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Can't wait to read the results.
I think there should have been a spoiler alert in the announcement.
WilliamSeger 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 25th November 2015, 12:31 AM   #139
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Gerrycan/Tonysz, this is a bit off topic for this thread. Assuming you are in contact with Richard Gage and AE911truth. Please can you confirm if Ziggi Zigum is acting on behalf of AE911truth with the Mark Basile "independent study"

It would be nice to get some clarity as to what is actually going on.
Spanx 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 25th November 2015, 12:32 AM   #140
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Column 79 was a corner column of the central core in WTC 7.
That sounds like a sophist trick.
The design of course recognized that it was NOT a corner column at all.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You may not know that the lateral support at each story to keep a column from buckling only needs to be about 0.6% of the axial load on the column. So the east and west girders were more than sufficient to laterally support column 79 and keep it from buckling.
This was perhaps the case before WTC1 smashed into 7 and fires had raged for hours.
I hope you don't mean to pretend that, after all that accumulated damage, such design figures were still applicable.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You may also not know that the NIST model was manually manipulated by removing things when they felt the item would have failed.
I asked you to direct me to the subsection of the NIST report that explains such juggling. I ask again. Perhaps NIST provides good reasons, and by not directing me to that subsection, you hope to keep me from discovering the good reasons?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 12:53 AM   #141
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,964
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
That sounds like a sophist trick.
The design of course recognized that it was NOT a corner column at all.
?

Quote:
This was perhaps the case before WTC1 smashed into 7 and fires had raged for hours.
I hope you don't mean to pretend that, after all that accumulated damage, such design figures were still applicable.
The damage to the southwest corner exterior was on the complete opposite corner of the building and would have had little to do with column 79's performance.

Quote:
I asked you to direct me to the subsection of the NIST report that explains such juggling. I ask again. Perhaps NIST provides good reasons, and by not directing me to that subsection, you hope to keep me from discovering the good reasons?
See the NIST WTC 7 report pages 395 and 537.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 25th November 2015 at 01:00 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 01:28 AM   #142
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
?
Care to write an actual question?
Column 79 was not a corner column at all - it had bracing from all four sides (although only indirectly from the east).
What's to question there?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The damage to the southwest corner exterior was on the complete opposite corner of the building and would have had little to do with column 79's performance.
The southwest corner wasn't the only bit impacted and damaged when WTC1 fell.
And you ignore the accumulated fire damage.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
See the NIST WTC 7 report pages 395 and 537.
Thanks.
Later.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 03:22 AM   #143
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,678
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Overload due to gravity.
That is a uninformed statement. Once the collapse was "progressing" any column above... that the coupling to the foundation was destroyed could not function as a column. It was simply falling and this would be MOST of the columns and they came apart at their joints from the dynamic load shearing those joints.

Only the columns which buckled or were misaligned can be thought of as failing... that is the were completely or partially coupled but there was inadequate capacity of the to carry axial loads.

The WTC spire columns collapsed, breaking at their joints from Euler forces and from swaying which fractured the splices.
JSanderO 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 25th November 2015, 03:30 AM   #144
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,678
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
Sure, no problem. The evidence abounds at the entire WTC complex (all buildings) that the demolitions were carried out in an ordered, but chronologically dispersed manner.

Column 79 failed in some way, woohoo. It might have been previously degraded, it might have been blown out right then, it might have buckled due to other factors (I doubt this, but welcome FEA). What column 79 unequivocally didn't do, was cause simultaneous failure across 8 floors worth of other support columns resulting in free fall acceleration of that portion of the building. That required synchronized detonation, which even a casual observer can see occurring along the western edge of the north wall.
That's an inaccurate description of what happened. There was a local collapse low in the tower in the NE region (interior) which propagated westward. As it did everything above collapsed down... leaving the moment frame of the exterior no support which then torqued, twisted, rotated and dropped. The proximate cause of it dropping was that all the support below it from the ground to floor 8 had collapsed as a result of the core down there pulling the perimeter columns inward. There were braced frames (trusses) on the east and west... an 8 columns on the north which were supported on the ends of cantilevers at floor 8. The lobby on the south spanned the entire width and was unbraced laterally for 5 stories. When axially coupling to the foundation was destroyed the facade dropped 8 stories with nothing to resist its descent.
JSanderO 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 25th November 2015, 09:13 AM   #145
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
It doesn't have to be "explosives". You could have had a team of bulldozers placed adjacent to every core column and they might have all toppled their respective posts like synchronized swimmers. I mean, I don't think that's probable, but.... Possible? Sure.

Suicidal bulldozer operators? Where do we get such men?
tsig 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 25th November 2015, 09:22 AM   #146
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by Notconvinced View Post
It doesn't have to be "explosives". You could have had a team of bulldozers placed adjacent to every core column and they might have all toppled their respective posts like synchronized swimmers. I mean, I don't think that's probable, but.... Possible? Sure.
For years now I have been preaching and proselytizing for a theory whereby platoons of midgets cut the columns with saws.
My evidence: Midgets exist, saws exist, steel can be sawed, midgets can saw.
So disprove my theory! It is at least as plausible as the nanothermite theory!

I never made any disciples, though. Needless to say, that leaves me feeling disappointed and slightly envious.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 09:40 AM   #147
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,137
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I never made any disciples, though. Needless to say, that leaves me feeling disappointed and slightly envious.
Au contraire! It's a movement that's -- er -- growing bigger ever day, thanks to discovering the all-important qui bono question:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=679705
Originally Posted by Flex500
Midgets behind 9/11 WOW
Anyway there was a story, on NBC news mind you, about how midgets were behind the 9/11 attacks. They were talking about how the other conspiracy theories are nonsense and the real thing that happened was that midgets planned the attacks becasue they are tired of they way they are treated. Some of the midgets they interviewed in a group called "midgets against terror midgets" think Bin laden is actually a midget. they thin that is why he always has a long robe on so you can't see the legs are fake.
WilliamSeger 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 25th November 2015, 09:55 AM   #148
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,432
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Suicidal bulldozer operators? Where do we get such men?
Simple. Since synchronised bulldozing has never been accepted as an Olympic sport, there must be a lot of depressed bulldozer drivers around.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 25th November 2015, 10:00 AM   #149
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,137
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Simple. Since synchronised bulldozing has never been accepted as an Olympic sport, there must be a lot of depressed bulldozer drivers around.

Dave
Yeah, those poor guys can't even book state fairs, since tractor pulling is so darn popular.
WilliamSeger 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 25th November 2015, 10:11 AM   #150
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,375
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
For years now I have been preaching and proselytizing for a theory whereby platoons of midgets cut the columns with saws.
My evidence: Midgets exist, saws exist, steel can be sawed, midgets can saw.
So disprove my theory! It is at least as plausible as the nanothermite theory!
WRONG - not really but your self assement is far too pessimistic.

Your hypothesis (not "theory") is more plausible than thermXte.

Each of your four factors is demonstrably TRUE.

Contrast with thermXte where each of the key factors is FALSE
ThermXte was not present, steel was not cut by thermXte, there was no CD anyway.

AND your logic combining the factors is no less valid than the logic for thermXte.

THEREFORE your midgets hypothesis is far better than any thermXte hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I never made any disciples, though. Needless to say, that leaves me feeling disappointed and slightly envious.
Your situation is sad - nearly as sad as mine.

My "Santa's Custard" hypothesis is based on both sound facts and irrefutable reasoning - must be - I developed the reasoned arguments.

And I've also failed to attract proselytes to the cause.

"A prophet is not without honour except....."

Last edited by ozeco41; 25th November 2015 at 10:13 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:18 AM   #151
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 459
Don't mean to spoil the fun but I don't think 'midget' is the preferred term nowadays, and joking about people with dwarfism is puerile.

Just my 2 cents. Not telling people what to do.
Georgio 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 25th November 2015, 10:24 AM   #152
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 627
I see our unlicensed mechanical engineer is still at at...
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 25th November 2015, 10:28 AM   #153
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,432
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Don't mean to spoil the fun but I don't think 'midget' is the preferred term nowadays, and joking about people with dwarfism is puerile.
But bulldozer drivers are still fair game, right?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 25th November 2015, 10:45 AM   #154
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
But bulldozer drivers are still fair game, right?

Dave
Oh no, it's just the same. I've seen bulldozer drivers walking along the street getting laughed at and made fun of. A very high number of bulldozer drivers suffer from depression due to this kind of social abuse and many commit suicide.
Georgio 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 25th November 2015, 10:52 AM   #155
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Au contraire! It's a movement that's -- er -- growing bigger ever day, thanks to discovering the all-important qui bono question:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=679705
I feel even worse now, seeing how this was revealed years before I even joined the NWO's 9/11 Disinfo Section. Why did nobody brief me on the confessions made in 2006??

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Simple. Since synchronised bulldozing has never been accepted as an Olympic sport, there must be a lot of depressed bulldozer drivers around.

Dave
Bulldozers are not known to swim particularly gracefully
(Nor are bulldozer drivers known to look graceful in one-piece swimsuits)

Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Don't mean to spoil the fun but I don't think 'midget' is the preferred term nowadays, and joking about people with dwarfism is puerile.

Just my 2 cents. Not telling people what to do.
Okay okay - platoons of vertically challenged citizens with saws. Satisfied now?


Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Contrast with thermXte where each of the key factors is FALSE
ThermXte was not present, steel was not cut by thermXte, there was no CD anyway.

AND your logic combining the factors is no less valid than the logic for thermXte.

THEREFORE your midgets hypothesis is far better than any thermXte hypothesis.
Well, I don't claim that midg... urrr vertically challenged people were present, merely that they exist!
However, the chance of finding mortal remains of vertically challenged people in the rubble must be considered vastly greater than the chance of finding nanotherm... urrrr evidentiary challenged dust specimens.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:56 AM   #156
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
But bulldozer drivers are still fair game, right?

Dave
Shouldn't that be cattledozer nowadays?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 10:59 AM   #157
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,137
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Don't mean to spoil the fun but I don't think 'midget' is the preferred term nowadays, and joking about people with dwarfism is puerile.

Just my 2 cents. Not telling people what to do.
Oops, sorry... wouldn't want to be puerile on the Internet.
WilliamSeger 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 25th November 2015, 11:02 AM   #158
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,375
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
However, the chance of finding mortal remains of vertically challenged people in the rubble must be considered vastly greater than the chance of finding nanotherm... urrrr evidentiary challenged dust specimens.
There was no testing for Custard. How can anyone assert that it wasn't Santa's custard when there were no tests performed?

I can understand that many of his fans would want to protect R Reindeer's reputation - he was the one who stumbled causing the custard spillage. Possibly due to over indulgence in the brandy sauce from the Xmas Pud*.

BUT scientific rigour MUST take priority over any possible embarrassment to Rudolph. We demand a new investigation which must include tests for custard.

* UK idiomatic usage - translation available on request.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th November 2015, 11:05 AM   #159
Georgio
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Okay okay - platoons of vertically challenged citizens with saws. Satisfied now?
Not really. I knew I'd get this sort of response - it's pretty standard, I just didn't want to say nothing as I do find it offensive and puerile. And you know full well that my criticism did not begin and end with the use of a particular word.
Georgio 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 25th November 2015, 11:07 AM   #160
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,375
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Shouldn't that be cattledozer nowadays?
I was also concerned about the gender bias.

It sneaks in quite often - should references to "BS" be replaced by "CS"?

OR is there a valid explanation that Cows do not spout nonsense and untruths whilst Bulls do?

I'm not aware of any single example of female cattle demanding equality of treatment.
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 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 06:32 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.