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.
Reply
Old 7th January 2017, 11:56 AM   #81
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,258
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
It is at the heart of Tony's problems, there are no published experimental papers, that agree with Tony's conclusions, in forensic engineering.

All the published studies show Tony not to be correct in his FEA.
Tony's FEA is not incorrect. His FEA is not applicable to the application where he is using it.

In typical form, Tony has narrowed the scope of concern to the point it is no longer of any use.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 7th January 2017, 11:58 AM   #82
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Tony's FEA depends on bolt sheering to allow the stiffeners to wedge in and prevent walk off, neglecting that the stiffeners have the purpose also of preventing thermally induced bolt sheer.

I have two very good papers on the difference between using best fit models, vs FEA for forensic engineering.

Guess which is the perfered performance study program?
I took a deep dive with you when you brought up the experimental fire research database last week. I think I learned a lot from that. Tony was part of that conversation, but it doesn't seem like he's willing to try to take the dive and think through these problems from established first principles and data. It's too bad.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 12:02 PM   #83
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Hardly, both the NIST and ARUP WTC 7 reports have been shown to be fatally flawed in a major way and thus cannot be involved in any consilience.
Ummmmm,... no.

You have asserted this, over and over and over - as if doing so makes it so. But it doesn't and it hasn't.

This leaves us with 3 reports all in disagreement over unknowable details but all in complete agreement with the only plausible theory that has ever been put forward - fire induced collapse.

If you have a theory, a different theory other than fire then please bring it. Anything else is a colossal waste of time.

But we both know you won't and we both know why.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 7th January 2017, 12:26 PM   #84
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Tony,

I have an easy question for you - straight and honest, as usual, and I wish you will have the courage to answer it straight and honestly. The background is that you know our opinions - pretty much everyone here agrees that fires brought down WTC7. I am sure that no one here is shy to state this - straight and honestly - if you asked them.

So here is my straight question:
Tony, at this point in time, more than 15 years after 9/11, and after you have taken interest in WTC7 for more than eight years, what is, in your best judgement, the most probable ultimate cause of the collapse of WTC7?
A one-word answer could be entirely sufficient. Such as: "Fires". Or: "Explosives". A short sentence is definitely sufficient. You don't need to qualify anything - the qualifiers "judgement" "most probable" should take care of most vagueness you may wish to introduce. No need to mention mechanisms or reasons - "ultimate cause" is all I want at this time.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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 7th January 2017, 12:43 PM   #85
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is you who needs to explain with scientific detail how you see consilience involving the NIST, ARUP, and Weidlinger WTC 7 reports supporting your contention that WTC 7 came down due to temporary heating from fire.

As were cases where the multiple steel-framed Kader buildings, a steel-framed hangar, WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 5, WTC 7, and other steel-framed buildings collapsed due to fire. Even the steel-framed structure of the Windsor building collapsed due to fire leaving the concrete structure standing. You continue to ignore the hint regarding the internal collapse of WTC 5 due to fire as it relates to WTC 7.

You continue to avoid answering questions related to your claim regarding CD @ WTC. In doing so, I have to come to the conclusion that you have no CD evidence to present, otherwise, you would have presented CD evidence by now.

The collapse of the WTC buildings is not typical of the way demolition implosions are carried out. The name-of-the-game in a conventional CD operation is to make a building fall within its footprint. However, widespread damage has shown that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 did not fall within their own footprints. Furthermore, demolition implosions require that steel-framed structures are pre-weakened before explosive charges are placed, yet there is not one single piece of evidence their steel structures were pre-weakened. Demolition implosions are very noisy and yet, not one single peep of an explosion as those buildings collapsed and once again, no CD hardware was ever found.

Once again, you've failed to address questions related as to how the WTC buildings were pre-weakened before explosives are placed and you've failed to address questions in reference to the lack of audible explosions, structural physical evidence, and CD hardware evidence at ground zero.

You are placed upon a very high pedestal to prove your case with evidence, otherwise, your CD claim is simply without evidence and baseless and associating your name with discredited sources such as Steven Jones, and AE911T makes your job that much more difficult.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 7th January 2017 at 12:48 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 12:59 PM   #86
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,733
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
I took a deep dive with you when you brought up the experimental fire research database last week. I think I learned a lot from that. Tony was part of that conversation, but it doesn't seem like he's willing to try to take the dive and think through these problems from established first principles and data. It's too bad.
He doesn't have the motivation to step into the light, he prefers to cower in the shadows and when threatened with knowledge he will craw back into the cave of illocial subtrafuge, in which the ignorant dwell.

He at this point appears to be a lost cause.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 01:34 PM   #87
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Actually, FEA can be considered a virtual experiment and my analyses show there would be no collapse due to temporary heating from fire.

I disagree, and rightly so as you continue to ignore the significance of structural load redistribution as those fires to continue to rage. WTC 7 was already struggling to remain standing even before the collapse of the penthouse as indicated by major structural impact damage, structural buckling, and audible indications of structural weakening within WTC 7.

Firefighters and others had noticed the structural indications that WTC 7 would eventually collapse and a prudent decision was made to create that collapse zone around WTC 7 and as a result, many lives were saved.

You have no case for CD @ WTC and the fact that you have failed to provide CD evidence after all of these years only serves to prove the point that you have no CD evidence to present.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 01:36 PM   #88
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 467
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
No one has a problem with an academic investigation of anything investigate anything you want acedemicly with your own money and materials, but don't expect the public sector, to give you supena powers or public funding.

Also don't expect people to take you seriously when you only express your opinion.
Just as a general reminder--one need not be governmental entity to have subpoena powers. The legal teams working with the Aegis Insurance experts and WAI both had via federal civil procedures broad subpoena powers related to the discovery of information relevant to the claims at hand, which claims covered all information probative to how and why World Trade Center 7 collapsed. This is one of those beat-a-dead-horse points that often gets lost in the swirl of technical claims, but the plaintiffs in the case--a collection of domestic and international insurance and re-insurance companies--had every legal and financial incentive to use those powers to discover fraud or other intentional misconduct (such as the intentional destruction of the building) by the defendants, the building owners and designers. Yet the theory of the plaintiffs's forensic fire investigation experts, who had that subpoena power, was--drum roll please--fire induced collapse!

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 7th January 2017 at 01:44 PM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 01:51 PM   #89
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,733
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Just as a general reminder--one need not be governmental entity to have subpoena powers. The legal teams working with the Aegis Insurance experts and WAI both had via federal civil procedures broad subpoena powers related to the discovery of information relevant to the claims at hand, which claims covered all information probative to how and why World Trade Center 7 collapsed. This is one of those beat-a-dead-horse points that often gets lost in the swirl of technical claims, but the plaintiffs in the case--a collection of domestic and international insurance and re-insurance companies--had every legal and financial incentive to use those powers to discover fraud or other intentional misconduct (such as the intentional destruction of the building) by the defendants, the building owners and designers. Yet the theory of the plaintiffs's forensic fire investigation experts, who had that subpoena power, was--drum roll please--fire induced collapse!
Yes but Tony has no legal claim or actionable case no truther does. To gain a criminal investigation with supoena powers Tony would have to take his case to congress and testify under oath why he needs the investigation any why he needs to impose on the rights of his fellow Citizens.

I agree on the Aegis case, obviously they used logic, in preparing the case.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 02:16 PM   #90
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Beachnut, the NIST WTC 7 report does not explain the collapse of the building.
Oh but it does, as do the others. You are conflating initial failure with global collapse.

As pointed out many many times now, a definitive description of initial failure is simply not possible as there is not enough information.

More definite is the response of the structure if column(s) lose lateral support due to multiple floor collapses. Each study discovered their FEA described a path of progressive failures that led to global collapse.
THAT, dear boy is consilience.

Each of these professional engineering organizations did look for a probable initial failure, and each one used the ONLY known, and patently obvious, driving mechanism for initial failure. That being the multiple floor fires.

Each of these professional engineering organizations also agreed upon which few columns affected by loss of lateral support by multiple floor collapses must have been.

THOSE are a related concept to consilience, consensus.

Since you like analogies:
A man drops dead in the street, blood coming from a wound in his chest and another in his back. A puff of smoke was observed by witnesses drifting by three , side by side, doors next to where he dropped.

One detective says its a gunshot wound and that the killer shot from doorway number 1.
The other two dectectives also say it was a gunshot wound but each chooses different doors.

A beat cop comes along a says, no, it's a knife wound and someone must have set off a firecracker near the doors to make it look like he was shot since no one can find the bullet.
The detectives point out that there is no evidence of anyone being near the dead guy, and no one reported anyone running away or seeing anyone nearby afterwards with blood on them.

The beat cop retorts that all of the detective's reports are wrong because they don't take into account that the doors were locked and that they cannot agree on which door the shooter opened.
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 7th January 2017, 02:20 PM   #91
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 449
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Tony,

I have an easy question for you - straight and honest, as usual, and I wish you will have the courage to answer it straight and honestly. The background is that you know our opinions - pretty much everyone here agrees that fires brought down WTC7. I am sure that no one here is shy to state this - straight and honestly - if you asked them.

So here is my straight question:
Tony, at this point in time, more than 15 years after 9/11, and after you have taken interest in WTC7 for more than eight years, what is, in your best judgement, the most probable ultimate cause of the collapse of WTC7?
A one-word answer could be entirely sufficient. Such as: "Fires". Or: "Explosives". A short sentence is definitely sufficient. You don't need to qualify anything - the qualifiers "judgement" "most probable" should take care of most vagueness you may wish to introduce. No need to mention mechanisms or reasons - "ultimate cause" is all I want at this time.
Given the volume of arguments that Tony Szamboti has presented here and elsewhere that oppose ‘fires’ as a cause, is there really anything of substance to your post?

It looks like cpa trolling to me?
Criteria 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 7th January 2017, 02:30 PM   #92
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Given the volume of arguments that Tony Szamboti has presented here and elsewhere that oppose ‘fires’ as a cause, is there really anything of substance to your post?

It looks like cpa trolling to me?
Tony doesn't so much oppose fire as a cause (of the initial failure), as he does dismiss the only known mechanism that could be the cause(of initial failure).
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 7th January 2017, 02:32 PM   #93
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,808
A few other things AE911T ignores.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1069
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 7th January 2017, 02:35 PM   #94
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,360
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Given the volume of arguments that Tony Szamboti has presented here and elsewhere that oppose ‘fires’ as a cause, is there really anything of substance to your post?

It looks like cpa trolling to me?
Tony may have quantity, I'll grant that.

Math question for you, Criteria:
What does 1000000 x 0 = ?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 7th January 2017, 02:59 PM   #95
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Given the volume of arguments that Tony Szamboti has presented here and elsewhere that oppose ‘fires’ as a cause, is there really anything of substance to your post?

It looks like cpa trolling to me?
Excess of quantity does not excuse lack of quality plus ambiguity and evasiveness.

The point is Tony needs to stop circling around the issue and get to it.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 7th January 2017, 03:23 PM   #96
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
Even when asked Tony will not start a thread to discuss the CD explanation. He has failed to provide any source/report that proved CD. Seems his efforts should change and start to show the evidence of CD.

His only reply is that a new investigation is needed.
That is because the NIST WTC 7 report does not explain the collapse. That has been shown in an unambiguous way, yet there are still people here with their hands over their ears claiming it does, but providing no detail to back their argument whatsoever
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 7th January 2017, 03:24 PM   #97
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Excess of quantity does not excuse lack of quality plus ambiguity and evasiveness.

The point is Tony needs to stop circling around the issue and get to it.
The issue is that we do not presently have an official government report which explains the collapse of WTC 7. The present report from the NIST does not explain the collapse. That should be a concern to all.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 7th January 2017 at 03:26 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 7th January 2017, 03:24 PM   #98
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Given the volume of arguments that Tony Szamboti has presented here and elsewhere that oppose ‘fires’ as a cause[1], is there really anything of substance to your post?

It looks like cpa trolling to me?[2]
Those easy, straight questions really bug you, don't they?
[1] I know what Tony opposes - I am asking what he supports
[2] Wrong

Since I got your attention, here's a question for you, too:
Criteria, at this point in time, more than 15 years after 9/11, and after you have taken interest in WTC7 since at least September 2015, what is, in your best judgement, the most probable ultimate cause of the collapse of WTC7?
As usual, a straight and honest question would be very much appreciated
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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 7th January 2017, 03:27 PM   #99
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
That is because the NIST WTC 7 report does not explain the collapse.
What does?

Tony, at this point in time, more than 15 years after 9/11, and after you have taken interest in WTC7 for more than eight years, what is, in your best judgement, the most probable ultimate cause of the collapse of WTC7?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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 7th January 2017, 03:31 PM   #100
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The issue is that we do not presently have an official government report which explains the collapse of WTC 7.
Tony, are you uncapable of having an opinion unless a government official tells you what to think?

Tony, at this point in time, more than 15 years after 9/11, and after you have taken interest in WTC7 for more than eight years, what is, in your best judgement, the most probable ultimate cause of the collapse of WTC7?

Also: You are aware that there exists no hypothesis alternative to the "fires did it" one that pretty much all the private and public experts agree on, including all the published and unpublished private investigations. Right, Tony? If you disagree, please link to that alternative hypothesis!


ETA: The issue actually is that, after more than 15 years, neither you nor AE911Truth nor anyone else in the "Truth Movement" with its, we are lead to believe, hundreds of millions of adherents, has been able to outline even in the broadest terms any alternative hypothesis that is not immediately and easily recognized a being grossly at odds with the most basic of observations - such as the presence of large multi-story fires, or the ominous and obvious lack of explosion sounds consistent in timing, number, loudness and brisance with explosive CD devices.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 7th January 2017 at 03:35 PM.
Oystein is online now   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 7th January 2017, 03:38 PM   #101
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,733
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
What does?

Tony, at this point in time, more than 15 years after 9/11, and after you have taken interest in WTC7 for more than eight years, what is, in your best judgement, the most probable ultimate cause of the collapse of WTC7?
"THE PERFORMANCE OF STEEL FRAMED
STRUCTURES WITH FIN-PLATE CONNECTIONS IN
FIRE
By Mariati Taib
A thesis submitted to the Department of Civil and Structural Engineering in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy"

Thousands of actual experiments in structural steel, available on the internet including some from 2016.

My library now contains 872 still none that back up Tony's cclaims.

I asked him to link one he refuses.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 03:40 PM   #102
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
The Thread Title by Tony Szamboti asks a question. I answered that question in post #16:

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I do not bother reading the OP - the thread title suffices, for it is stupid.

Tony asks: "Can the Weidlinger WTC 7 report replace the NIST WTC 7 report?"

The answer is: Of course not!

The reason for the answer is simple, easy, and it boggles the mind why Tony is not perfectly aware of it: The reports served completely different purposes.


However, it is rather obvious that both reports, as well as the studies by ARUP, FEMA and others, augment the growing understanding of building performance.
I wish Tony Szamboti could muster at least the courtesy to acknowledge that his question has been answered.
If he disagrees with the answer, he needs to quote and address it.
Otherwise, I will assume he agrees with my answer - including the bit that alleges that the question by Tony Szamboti is stupid.


ETA: Please note that I have the habit of giving straight answers to straight questions.
Please also note that Tony Szamboti NEVER gives straight, let alone honest, answers to straight questions. Additionally, Tony Szamboti is obviously not interested in having his questions answered straight, or else he would acknowledge and address the answers!
This consitutes a major, perhaps defining, difference between Truthers and rational people: Truthers are decidedly enemies of having questions answered straight and honestly.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 7th January 2017 at 03:44 PM.
Oystein is online now   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 7th January 2017, 03:52 PM   #103
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,238
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Given the volume of arguments that Tony Szamboti has presented here and elsewhere that oppose ‘fires’ as a cause,...

I would like to interject. There were uncontrolled fire and major impact damage evidence that affected the structural integrity of WTC 7. What we don't have evidence for is CD evidence, which leaves behind hardware and other traceable physical evidence, none of which was ever found at ground zero.

The CD @ WTC claim is nothing more than a fabrication.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 04:30 PM   #104
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 467
Ok, welp, it looks like Tony's argumentation has hit a new low. He doesn't even pretend to have coherent critiques, let alone a coherent alternate theory. Three independent forensic investigations later and 9-11 truth would be dead if it could muster even an ounce of intellectual honesty. Instead, its main purveyors are reduced to dodging legitimate criticisms of the clearly erroneous underpinnings of their own half-baked understandings of the events that day while saying essentially nothing, as Tony has done this entire thread.

Tony--remember: none of these reports tests the same heating scenario. They all rely on different, but reasonable, assumptions about variables that cannot be known, and they all come to slightly different conclusions. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly for a long time. Once you understand this, you will understand why your question is just plain dumb. But you probably won't let yourself think clearly about these things because it means acknowledging that you've wasted 8+ years of your life. That sucks. You can't get them back. But you can wake up and move forward.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 04:41 PM   #105
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,733
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Ok, welp, it looks like Tony's argumentation has hit a new low. He doesn't even pretend to have coherent critiques, let alone a coherent alternate theory. Three independent forensic investigations later and 9-11 truth would be dead if it could muster even an ounce of intellectual honesty. Instead, its main purveyors are reduced to dodging legitimate criticisms of the clearly erroneous underpinnings of their own half-baked understandings of the events that day while saying essentially nothing, as Tony has done this entire thread.

Tony--remember: none of these reports tests the same heating scenario. They all rely on different, but reasonable, assumptions about variables that cannot be known, and they all come to slightly different conclusions. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly for a long time. Once you understand this, you will understand why your question is just plain dumb. But you probably won't let yourself think clearly about these things because it means acknowledging that you've wasted 8+ years of your life. That sucks. You can't get them back. But you can wake up and move forward.
He can't be a truther god if he wakes up and admits he is wrong, he has no real incentive to come back to reality. As was said by a Jrefer long ago, the farce is strong with this one!
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 06:37 PM   #106
FFTR
Scholar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
That is because the NIST WTC 7 report does not explain the collapse. That has been shown in an unambiguous way, yet there are still people here with their hands over their ears claiming it does, but providing no detail to back their argument whatsoever
So because you don't accept the NIST report for building 7 , you won't outline in detail your CD explanation.

Like I have stated. any explanation should stand on its own merits. Where is your detailed explanation for the CD of WTC7 that would produce the results that people saw that day?

Last edited by FFTR; 7th January 2017 at 06:42 PM.
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 07:01 PM   #107
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,118
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The issue is that we do not presently have an official government report which explains the collapse of WTC 7. The present report from the NIST does not explain the collapse. That should be a concern to all.
Sure it does.

NIST explains that 7 WTC collapsed due to fire and postulates a possible scenario which led to that collapse. Oddly enough, everyone else who has studied and issued a report on the collapse of 7 WTC also says it collapsed due to fire, but since they all use different variables and assumptions to fill in the unknowables they differ in the details of what precisely initiated the collapse.

None of this should be a surprise. The proximate cause of the collapse of 7 WTC has never been in doubt. Even before it collapsed fire experts and city engineers at the scene observing events up close and personal knew the building had suffered damage far beyond design limits and was dangerously unstable.

Since the precise point of initiation can only be speculated on and never known for sure, but there is absolutely no doubt that fire was the proximate cause what is it exactly that you expect some new official investigation to achieve? Yet another plausible but un-provable point of collapse initiation caused by fire?

And this serves what purpose exactly?

What changes?

If OTOH you have an ulterior motive (and we all know you do) then perhaps you should use your limitless expertise and all the many resources available to you through AE911T to produce a report that gets the results you want.

Da gubmint shure as XXXX isn't going to indulge you. After all, if da evil gubmint did it - which is what you always imply in your fantasy version - then why you expect and trust da gubmint to produce a new, self-incriminating report truly boggles the mind.

So why don't you man up and try doing it yourself and let us know how it all works out. If what you believe is really true it shouldn't be that hard. Nobody can hide something that big. It simply can not be done.

I eagerly await the results.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F 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 7th January 2017, 07:13 PM   #108
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,733
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Sure it does.

NIST explains that 7 WTC collapsed due to fire and postulates a possible scenario which led to that collapse. Oddly enough, everyone else who has studied and issued a report on the collapse of 7 WTC also says it collapsed due to fire, but since they all use different variables and assumptions to fill in the unknowables they differ in the details of what precisely initiated the collapse.

None of this should be a surprise. The proximate cause of the collapse of 7 WTC has never been in doubt. Even before it collapsed fire experts and city engineers at the scene observing events up close and personal knew the building had suffered damage far beyond design limits and was dangerously unstable.

Since the precise point of initiation can only be speculated on and never known for sure, but there is absolutely no doubt that fire was the proximate cause what is it exactly that you expect some new official investigation to achieve? Yet another plausible but un-provable point of collapse initiation caused by fire?

And this serves what purpose exactly?

What changes?

If OTOH you have an ulterior motive (and we all know you do) then perhaps you should use your limitless expertise and all the many resources available to you through AE911T to produce a report that gets the results you want.

Da gubmint shure as XXXX isn't going to indulge you. After all, if da evil gubmint did it - which is what you always imply in your fantasy version - then why you expect and trust da gubmint to produce a new, self-incriminating report truly boggles the mind.

So why don't you man up and try doing it yourself and let us know how it all works out. If what you believe is really true it shouldn't be that hard. Nobody can hide something that big. It simply can not be done.

I eagerly await the results.
Tony has staked his reputation on it being CD, and natural fire does not explain fly ash microspheres and red paint chips.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th January 2017, 07:48 PM   #109
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,013
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The ARUP experts report, done for the plaintiffs in the Aegis Insurance Co. v. WTC 7 Properties court case, suffers from the same paucity of impact force required to shear the seat of the girder below. This is true even if the girder below was heated to 500 C (932 F), as claimed in the NIST WTC 7 report.
Here's the case Tony didn't link to:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1651388.html

The report was done in support of the lawsuit, but what stands out is this:
Quote:
Con Ed filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 11, 2008. In November 2009, 7WTCo. moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had no duty to prevent the destruction of the Con Ed substation because the terrorist attack and its consequences were unforeseeable to 7WTCo. In the alternative, 7WTCo. argued that the events of September 11 were an intervening and superseding cause of Con Ed's injury. Con Ed opposed summary judgment, arguing that there were material questions of fact as to whether 7WTCo. negligently designed and constructed 7WTC. In district court, Con Ed offered two alternate theories to support its argument: (1) the building was designed and constructed in such a way that it lacked structural integrity, particularly in the northeast corner of the building; and (2) diesel fuel used in emergency backup generators systems, and stored in tanks throughout 7WTC, fueled the fires in the building, which in turn heated the transfer trusses bearing much of the building's weight. Aegis Ins., 865 F.Supp.2d at 382–83. Con Ed theorized that the heated transfer trusses expanded and failed, causing 7WTC to collapse into its center. Id. On appeal, Con Ed abandons its diesel fuel theory, and now argues only that it should be permitted to present its claim that 7WTC was negligently designed and constructed to a jury.
Why this is key is that this is what the NIST WTC7 report dances around, but implies in the recommendations. So if you're looking for a "conspiracy" perhaps design might yield real results.

The case write-up has extensive firsthand accounts of the damage witnessed by firefighters, and should be added to any semi-serious 9-11 history buff's library.

__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 8th January 2017, 05:33 AM   #110
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,860
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
...But you probably won't let yourself think clearly about these things because it means acknowledging that you've wasted 8+ years of your life. That sucks. You can't get them back. But you can wake up and move forward.


There is an old adage in the world of finance investments - I am not sure if it originated in German, or whether perhaps I am translating back to English:
Don't throw good money after bad money
The same can be said about life time. Don't try to salvage a junk investment gone bad by investing even more - count your losses and get rid of the bad investment ASAP.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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 8th January 2017, 05:40 AM   #111
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,733
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post


There is an old adage in the world of finance investments - I am not sure if it originated in German, or whether perhaps I am translating back to English:
Don't throw good money after bad money
The same can be said about life time. Don't try to salvage a junk investment gone bad by investing even more - count your losses and get rid of the bad investment ASAP.
It's an American saying, 19th century.
There is another one, Junk Science is a waste of body mind and soul.
8 years of Tony not only wasting his time but ours as well.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2017, 03:44 PM   #112
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 467
Tony starts a thread with a silly, open-ended question that he seems to believe will develop into an actual critique of the WAI WTC 7 report. He then has nothing substantive or even interesting to say about the topic he raised. And then he disappears without having made any point. Anyone else coming down with a case of deja vu?

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 9th January 2017 at 03:45 PM.
benthamitemetric is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post 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 04:27 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.