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 13th December 2016, 02:23 AM   #81
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,377
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is clear that no individual here, who supports the present official story for how the three high-rises in NYC collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, is willing to leave the security of this group and defend what they claim to believe in a one-on-one situation.

That basically says that those of you who fit the above description have no faith in what you are actually saying and know it will not hold up to the heavy scrutiny which can and will be applied in a one-on-one situation where there is sufficient time for thoughtful responses.

I think one can guarantee that none here who fit the above description will venture out on their own after seeing what happened to the first to do so (tfk), who was a star and leader here. That is probably viewed as a gamble that didn't work out and won't be tried again.

The NIST has been contacted relative to the serious problems with the reports on the WTC they published. They will not engage in an honest discussion and simply say they stand behind their work while being protected politically and not forced to address the issues.

It would seem the function of the activity here is to maintain the charade that there is still support for the NIST explanation in the population and to denigrate those who have raised the serious problems with it.
Well, now that you have that sorted out, what's next? Any other areas of interest you intend to pursue?

I'd hate to see a good mind with a penchant for investigative inquiry go to waste.
marplots 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 13th December 2016, 02:29 AM   #82
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,172
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Flapdoodle ! You got a minute ?

exhibit A
http://themindrenewed.com/in-the-media/713-news156
documented accounts of explosions

exhibit B
An ABC television reporter N.J. Burkett was standing on west street
broadcasting LIVE with the two WTC twin towers in the background.
Suddenly he screamed into the camera--
--HUGE EXPLOSION !!! ...raining debris down on all of us --
as the WTC2 tower began to collapse.
https://vidsn.com/v/liveleak-9-11-fo...Tf5Q4Gc60.html
at 03:40

exhibit C
Firemen report explosions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
No one heard explosions from explosives. Firefighters later attributed the sounds they heard to things that had nothing to do with explosives. During an NBC news interview, some of the explosions they heard were attributed to exploding gas lines, and I am very sure that burning vehicles in the area still had fuel in their gas tanks as they burned. Molten aluminum from the aircraft coming in contact with water is a very explosive mixture and there was lots of water in those buildings.

Falling bodies were reported as sounding like explosions and even falling elevators were reported as sounding like explosions. In fact, the sound of explosions was still being reported long after the WTC buildings collapsed. As far as the reporter reporting the sound of an explosion, the sound he heard was the breakup of the WTC Tower, not from explosives. An explosion would have have been evident to me since I have been in war zones to know what real explosions sound like and I neither saw nor heard anything the could have been attributed to explosives as the WTC buildings collapsed.
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 13th December 2016, 02:35 AM   #83
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,172
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is clear that no individual here, who supports the present official story for how the three high-rises in NYC collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, is willing to leave the security of this group and defend what they claim to believe in a one-on-one situation.

Are you willing to prove your case by addressing my list? If not, you have no case for a debate and its that simple. You have to show me the money before I buy your product, otherwise, it is just a waste of time because I expect some real change back as I don't accept play money. It is like this, I don't give the opposition wiggle room to interpret facts and evidence as he sees fit. I have presented undeniable facts and evidence, so let's see your undeniable evidence that CD explosives were used and do so in the absence of visual, audio, seismic, and hardware evidence and then explain why demolition experts and the majority of structural experts do not support your case after 15 years.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 13th December 2016 at 02:42 AM.
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 13th December 2016, 03:10 AM   #84
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,172
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Beyond "It looks like CD", "mumble, mumble freefall mumble" and "ITS OWN FOOTPRINT!!!!!", has this ever actually been done?
After 15 years, AFAIK, we have
  • No trace of explosives in the debris.
  • No sound of explosives.
  • No witnesses who saw the buildings being prepped for demolition.
  • No whistleblowers who were involved, and who have now come forward.
  • No coherent explanation of how both thermite and explosives were used.
  • No explanation of how the thermite, explosives and all the associated fuses etc. survived 7 hours of being in an uncontrolled fire.
Tony, did I miss something? What evidence do you have for CD? I'm serious: I'd really like to know.
I would also like Tony to provide evidence on type of explosives used, how explosives were placed in secret in crowded, occupied buildings, how structural pre-weakening was performed in secret before explosives were placed in those crowded, occupied buildings, and for what reason the U.S. government would have for the destruction of the WTC buildings and four airliners and do so in light of the fact that countries around the world had warned the United States beforehand, including warnings issued by Afghanistan and Russia, that OBL and al-Qaeda would be responsible for their attack on the United States. Next, Tony would have to explain OBL's admission for the 9/11 attack and explain al-Qaeda's martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers after the attack.

It is 15 years and counting and yet, there is not one single piece of evidence that explosives and/or thermite and nano-thermite was used to demolish the WTC buildings.

Short of adequately addressing the facts above and my list that I have provided, Tony has absolutely no case for a debate with anyone. I want clear-cut details from Tony, not speculation nor misinterpretation of facts and evidence currently revealed. If explosives were used to take down the WTC buildings, I would have seen and heard the evidence on video, which I did not.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 13th December 2016 at 03:14 AM.
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 13th December 2016, 03:23 AM   #85
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,172
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
WTC 5 & 6 stood between WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.

Though suffering far more impact damage than WTC7, as well as suffering from long lasting major fires, WTC 5 & 6 did not collapse.
Investigators were amazed that WTC 5 had suffered an internal collapse due solely to fire. In fact, I've posted photos of the internal collapse of WTC 5 from time to time.

Fire and impact damage did to WTC 1, WTC 2, WTC 5 and WTC 7 what a vehicle bomb explosion failed to do to WTC 1 in 1993.
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 13th December 2016, 04:00 AM   #86
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is clear that no individual here, who supports the present official story for how the three high-rises in NYC collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, is willing to leave the security of this group and defend what they claim to believe in a one-on-one situation.

That basically says that those of you who fit the above description have no faith in what you are actually saying and know it will not hold up to the heavy scrutiny which can and will be applied in a one-on-one situation where there is sufficient time for thoughtful responses.

I think one can guarantee that none here who fit the above description will venture out on their own after seeing what happened to the first to do so (tfk), who was a star and leader here. That is probably viewed as a gamble that didn't work out and won't be tried again.

The NIST has been contacted relative to the serious problems with the reports on the WTC they published. They will not engage in an honest discussion and simply say they stand behind their work while being protected politically and not forced to address the issues.

It would seem the function of the activity here is to maintain the charade that there is still support for the NIST explanations in the population and to denigrate those who have raised the serious problems with them and shown they are non-explanatory.
If you can't debate the event in its entire scientific context, then there is nothing to debate.
One might as well debate Santa with a Four year old, as debate you.
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 13th December 2016, 05:40 AM   #87
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: 23,035
Tony, all I can suggest is that you contact the proper authorities and say, "Nobody on the International Skeptics' Forum is prepared to debate whether the building collapses on 9/11 were caused by explosives, therefore it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were, in accordance with the scientific method as understood by universal consensus. Please therefore carry out an investigation immediately that will identify and punish the people responsible." I don't see how they could possibly refuse to act on a request like that.

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 13th December 2016, 06:05 AM   #88
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Tony, all I can suggest is that you contact the proper authorities and say, "Nobody on the International Skeptics' Forum is prepared to debate whether the building collapses on 9/11 were caused by explosives, therefore it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were, in accordance with the scientific method as understood by universal consensus. Please therefore carry out an investigation immediately that will identify and punish the people responsible." I don't see how they could possibly refuse to act on a request like that.

Dave
The difference is Dave between wanting an intellectually stimulating debate, and an intellectually Boring debate of nonsense, and Fraud.
Regardless of whether NIST is right, Tony is absolutely wrong.
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 13th December 2016, 06:37 AM   #89
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,546
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Oh, I am certainly interested in showing that those who rabidly defend a fraudulent story are full of s..t.
Feel free to do so right *********** here.

All you need to do is start at the beginning. An overview of the entire day's events and how they unfolded that will be able to convince just one person that what the rest of us call "reality" is wrong.

19 Hijackers, 4 planes. 3 Sites.

You need to include that in your opening statement and I'm a go.

How about it?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 13th December 2016, 06:39 AM   #90
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,546
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
A debate won't work in your case because you have failed to produce a single shred of evidence that CD explosives were used to demolish WTC 7. You have to address the following facts before any debate is forthcoming.

For an example, you have:

1. Failed to produced video evidence that CD explosives were used

2. Failed to produced seismic evidence that explosives were used

3. Failed to produce audio evidence that explosives were used

4. Failed to produce CD explosive hardware evidence

5. Failed to produce direct physical evidence on steel structures that CD explosives were used

6. Failed to understand that demolition experts and cleanup crews found no evidence that CD explosives were used

7. Failed to account for the audible structural stress loads as stated by firefighters on the scene

8. Failed to account for structural load redistribution after the south facade of WTC 7 was gutted by debris from WTC 1 (no secondary explosions from explosives observed during that event)

WTC 7 did not fully collapse are free fall speed and the fact that WTC 7 tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse was an indication that the structural integrity of WTC 7 was seriously compromised

9. Failed to account for additional structural load redistribution as uncontrolled fires continued to rage for hours within WTC 7 (no secondary explosions from explosives observed at any time as fires raged for hours)

10. Failed to address structural buckling of WTC 7 prior to its collapse, which should have told you that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse due to structural overload, which was clearly audible to firefighters on scene

11. Failed to produce visual evidence of explosive residue on structural steel

12. Failed to address how explosives could have been placed inside WTC 7 under strict secrecy

13. Failed to address how structural pre-weakening, which is required before explosives are attached to steel beams, could have been achieved in strict secrecy

14. Failed to understand why WTC 1 remained standing despite the detonation of a vehicle bomb beneath the building in 1993, which provides an indication just how ridicules the 9/11 CD theory is.

I may add to the list, but I think that you now have your hands full for the moment.

To sum it up, and as you can clearly see, you have no wiggle room to interpret or misinterpret documented facts and evidence as you see fit. The ball is now in your court to provide undeniable evidence that explosives or thermite, were used to demolish WTC 7. Anything short of that, you have no debate.
Basically Tony's a massive failure.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 13th December 2016, 06:42 AM   #91
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,546
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is clear that no individual here, who supports the present official story for how the three high-rises in NYC collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, is willing to leave the security of this group and defend what they claim to believe in a one-on-one situation.

That basically says that those of you who fit the above description have no faith in what you are actually saying and know it will not hold up to the heavy scrutiny which can and will be applied in a one-on-one situation where there is sufficient time for thoughtful responses.

I think one can guarantee that none here who fit the above description will venture out on their own after seeing what happened to the first to do so (tfk), who was a star and leader here. That is probably viewed as a gamble that didn't work out and won't be tried again.

The NIST has been contacted relative to the serious problems with the reports on the WTC they published. They will not engage in an honest discussion and simply say they stand behind their work while being protected politically and not forced to address the issues.

It would seem the function of the activity here is to maintain the charade that there is still support for the NIST explanations in the population and to denigrate those who have raised the serious problems with them and shown they are non-explanatory.
Coward.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 13th December 2016, 06:58 AM   #92
Mark F
Muse
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 966
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is clear that no individual here, who supports the present official story for how the three high-rises in NYC collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, is willing to leave the security of this group and defend what they claim to believe in a one-on-one situation.

That basically says that those of you who fit the above description have no faith in what you are actually saying and know it will not hold up to the heavy scrutiny which can and will be applied in a one-on-one situation where there is sufficient time for thoughtful responses.

I think one can guarantee that none here who fit the above description will venture out on their own after seeing what happened to the first to do so (tfk), who was a star and leader here. That is probably viewed as a gamble that didn't work out and won't be tried again.

The NIST has been contacted relative to the serious problems with the reports on the WTC they published. They will not engage in an honest discussion and simply say they stand behind their work while being protected politically and not forced to address the issues.

It would seem the function of the activity here is to maintain the charade that there is still support for the NIST explanations in the population and to denigrate those who have raised the serious problems with them and shown they are non-explanatory.
This of course was likely the intention all along - Tony posts a dubious challenge he knew no one would be interested in, then proudly thumps his chest and declares yet another hollow and meaningless victory when nobody wants to play his little game.

And 9/11 Truth is now how much closer to busting the whole thing wide open?

Is this a narcissistic thing or what's the deal?
__________________
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 13th December 2016, 07:01 AM   #93
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
This of course was likely the intention all along - Tony posts a dubious challenge he knew no one would be interested in, then proudly thumps his chest and declares yet another hollow and meaningless victory when nobody wants to play his little game.

And 9/11 Truth is now how much closer to busting the whole thing wide open?

Is this a narcissistic thing or what's the deal?
A great moment in Hucksterous history for Tony.
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 13th December 2016, 07:06 AM   #94
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,546
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
This of course was likely the intention all along - Tony posts a dubious challenge he knew no one would be interested in, then proudly thumps his chest and declares yet another hollow and meaningless victory when nobody wants to play his little game.

And 9/11 Truth is now how much closer to busting the whole thing wide open?

Is this a narcissistic thing or what's the deal?
It appears so.
1) Knows little or nothing
2) Confident that he knows everything
3) Confident nobody else can challenge him.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 13th December 2016, 07:19 AM   #95
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have some time right now and am wondering if anyone here who supports the conclusions of the NIST reports, for the three high-rise collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001, would want to debate me one-on-one as I contend that these NIST reports have been shown to be non-explanatory and incorrect.

The debate would take place on the 911 free forum, like the one I did with tfk, and the rules would be the same as those for that debate shown below.

1. September 11, 2001, events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them as well as apropreately done experimental evidence.

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

3. Tony will go first after both participants make an opening statement.

4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.

5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited his turn & the other person will proceed with his next statement.

6. Individual posts are limited to 1,000 words. If it is deemed necessary to exceed that limit, justification shall be provided by the person wanting to exceed it and agreement to by the other participant received prior to doing so. This should be done by private messaging, so as not to interrupt the flow of the debate, and should be the exception rather than the rule.

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

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

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

10. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination, or whenever either participant decides to stop responding.
Fixed the debate post for you Tony, if you check I have never been a NIST defender!

Science Not NIST, wouldn't expect you to understand that.
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 13th December 2016, 07:22 AM   #96
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
This of course was likely the intention all along - Tony posts a dubious challenge he knew no one would be interested in, then proudly thumps his chest and declares yet another hollow and meaningless victory when nobody wants to play his little game.

And 9/11 Truth is now how much closer to busting the whole thing wide open?

Is this a narcissistic thing or what's the deal?
IMHO, it is AE911T in a nutshell.
Rather than DO engineering, they DO talk, talk, talk.
Gage wanders the world talking. Tony wants to talk, he wants to confront others with an opposing view, in talk. He goes as far as to claim that this is how science works! It's as if Einstein didn't write his theories out FIRST, then defend it. Tony would have Einstein having thought about G.R. then gone on a speaking tour, received a large backing and then wrote out his theory.

AE911T loudly touts its cadre of 2000+ engineers and architects. That is a good pool of expertise to draw on, even if you only take into account the structural or otherwise relevantly educated in that group. So what do they DO with that apparent expertise?
Talk! mostly.
Look at their 'papers'. Any detailed engineering reports there? Nope. Certainly nothing on the scale or detail of any of the NIST reports, or the Purdue U. aircraft impact study, or Nordenson Associates reports.
Why not?
Because AE911T and Tony Szamboti among them, don't want that. They prefer to stand aside from the engineering and snipe away.
AE911T and Tony, are all about discussing what they believe didn't happen, then proudly proclaiming, with nothing to back it up other than supposition, their own pet claims.

While NIST and Nordenson have studied the collapse of WTC7 and detailed a 'most probable' initiating event and progression to global collapse, those who push a controlled demolition have yet to detail what type of explosive, where these explosives were placed, how they were placed without detection, how they could be set off in sequence, or for that matter ANY detail at all.

It goes back and forth between thermite used to sever columns, to thermite as fuse for conventional explosives, through massive number of severed columns to only a few key columns being taken out. Just think about how many times thermite has changed over the years(thermite, nano-thermite, explosive thermite).

Why does AE911T concentrate on WTC7? Because there is no patently obvious initiating cause of collapse. The towers and the Pentagon had big freakin aircraft fly into them. Arguing that explosives and/or thermite were used there requires that one minimize the effect of ramming a 500 MPH, 300K pound aircraft with 10K gallons of fuel, into the buildings. That is inconvenient and sounds silly on the face of it to most people. How do they minimize this? By claiming the fires were jet fuel fires that could not burn for an hour, by claiming that the towers were supposedly said to be brought down solely by fire effects, and some, by actually backing the ridiculous Pilots for 911 truth contention that Flight 175 was a 'modified' aircraft.

Does anyone really wish to debate such lunacy?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 13th December 2016 at 07:32 AM.
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 13th December 2016, 07:30 AM   #97
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
IMHO, it is AE911T in a nutshell.
Rather than DO engineering, they DO talk, talk, talk.
Gage wanders the world talking. Tony wants to talk, he wants to confront others with an opposing view, in talk. He goes as far as to claim that this is how science works! It's as if Einstein didn't write his theories out FIRST, then defend it. Tony would have Einstein having thought about G.R. then gone on a speaking tour, received a large backing and then wrote out his theory.

AE911T loudly touts its cadre of 2000+ engineers and architects. That is a good pool of expertise to draw on, even if you only take into account the structural or otherwise relevantly educated in that group. So what do they DO with that apparent expertise?
Talk! mostly.
Look at their 'papers'. Any detailed engineering reports there? Nope. Certainly nothing on the scale or detail of any of the NIST reports, or the Purdue U. aircraft impact study, or Nordenson Associates reports.
Why not?
Because AE911T and Tony Szamboti among them, don't want that. They prefer to stand aside from the engineering and snipe away.
AE911T and Tony, are all about discussing what they believe didn't happen, then proudly proclaiming, with nothing to back it up other than supposition, their own pet claims.

While NIST and Nordenson have studied the collapse of WTC7 and detailed a 'most probable' initiating event and progression to global collapse, those who push a controlled demolition have yet to detail what type of explosive, where these explosives were placed, how they were placed without detection, how they could be set off in sequence, or for that matter ANY detail at all.

It goes back and forth between thermite used to sever columns, to thermite as fuse for conventional explosives, through massive number of severed columns to only a few key columns being taken out.

Why does AE911T concentrate on WTC7? Because there is no patently obvious initiating cause of collapse. The towers and the Pentagon had big freakin aircraft fly into them. Arguing that explosives and/or thermite were used there requires that one minimize the effect of ramming a 500 MPH, 300K pound aircraft with 10K gallons of fuel, into the buildings. That is inconvenient and sounds silly on the face of it to most people. How do they minimize this? By claiming the fires were jet fuel fires that could not burn for an hour, by claiming that the towers were supposedly said to be brought down solely by fire effects, and some, by actually backing the ridiculous Pilots for 911 truth contention that Flight 175 was a 'modified' aircraft.

Does anyone really wish to debate such lunacy?
So nothing has Changed since Loosed Change, Twoofers, are continuing to be nothing more than hit and run stupid.
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 13th December 2016, 07:32 AM   #98
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,843
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
This of course was likely the intention all along - Tony posts a dubious challenge he knew no one would be interested in, then proudly thumps his chest and declares yet another hollow and meaningless victory when nobody wants to play his little game.

And 9/11 Truth is now how much closer to busting the whole thing wide open?

Is this a narcissistic thing or what's the deal?
Conspiracy theories aren't about busting anything open. The chest-thumping is the goal.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 13th December 2016, 07:36 AM   #99
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
So nothing has Changed since Loosed Change, Twoofers, are continuing to be nothing more than hit and run stupid.
It is not technically driven, instead it is paranoid political world view driven. It REQUIRES acceptance of an extra-governmental cabal that manipulates world opinions and events.
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 13th December 2016, 07:37 AM   #100
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,527
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You have made it clear that you aren't genuinely interested.

I have indeed made it clear, year after year, that I'm not interested in a pointless "debate" over matters that are much better addressed by a detailed and mathematically rigorous technical analysis. Such as, by a group of engineers interested in supporting their stated position on the matter. (Perhaps someone should start such an organization, and see what it can accomplish.)

What I'm interested in, and what I (as a citizen in good standing of a township, county, commonwealth, and republic) am qualified to debate about, is what can or should be done. I assume that the reason you want to argue about NIST is that ultimately you want some sort of action to be taken by someone. (If that assumption is wrong there's no opportunity lost, because in that case there's no point to the exercise at all.) I'm saying, cut to the chase: propose the action you want taken, and we can debate about that.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 13th December 2016, 07:39 AM   #101
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 430
NIST Supporters Are Blowing Smoke

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
ĒWhy are the fires in these other structures [~WTC 5 & 6] not supposedly suspicious?Ē
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
WTC 5 & 6 stood between WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.

Though suffering far more impact damage than WTC7, as well as suffering from long lasting major fires, WTC 5 & 6 did not collapse.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
As I recall, WTC5 suffered a major internal collapse; due to its construction, the roof remained standing, so it wasn't obvious enough for anyone to pretend it was suspicious.

Dave
Unlike the 47-story WTC 7, the shorter 10-story WTC 5 sustained major rooftop penetration due to its closer proximity to WTC1 and WTC2 and the resulting greater velocity of the impacting debris.

It also suffered from long lasting major fire activity.

It did not collapse and was later 'pulled down' with cables.

Other than allowing opposing members to create a debating quagmire, for what reason does the debate have to start by swallowing the whole topic of the WTC on 9/11?

WTC 7 is the 'smoking gun'.

Until NIST supporters can credibly defend the legitimacy of the NIST's conclusions about why WTC 7 collapsed, it would seem totally unnecessary to broaden the debate.

A pre-planned controlled demolition of WTC 7 means that there had to be perpetrators 'on the ground' prior to 9/11.
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 13th December 2016, 07:41 AM   #102
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,843
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Unlike the 47-story WTC 7, the shorter 10-story WTC 5 sustained major rooftop penetration due to its closer proximity to WTC1 and WTC2 and the resulting greater velocity of the impacting debris.

It also suffered from long lasting major fire activity.

It did not collapse and was later 'pulled down' with cables.
And?

Are you of the opinion that every damaged building that has a fire in it must collapse for the WTC7 collapse to be believable?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 13th December 2016, 07:42 AM   #103
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,527
Originally Posted by Navigator View Post
But *shrug* my take on this is that even if 911 wasn't an 'inside job', it may as well have been for all the BS which is going on in relation to protecting investing in and supporting of systems of disparity...

I don't think your message of "It doesn't matter what the actual truth is; we should just promote the narrative that supports our ideological agenda" will resonate with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That's a bit too truthful for truthers to admit to.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 13th December 2016, 07:54 AM   #104
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: 23,035
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Unlike the 47-story WTC 7, the shorter 10-story WTC 5 sustained major rooftop penetration due to its closer proximity to WTC1 and WTC2 and the resulting greater velocity of the impacting debris.

It also suffered from long lasting major fire activity.

It did not collapse and was later 'pulled down' with cables.
As skyeagle409 has confirmed, a significant part of the internal structure of WTC5 did, in fact, collapse. This was a collapse of a steel framed structure, and just like the other three steel framed structure collapses that took place on that day, the consensus of sane and competent engineers is that it was caused by fire damage, aided to a greater or lesser degree by impact damage. Your disinclination to accept this does not make it untrue.

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 13th December 2016, 07:58 AM   #105
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,546
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post


Unlike the 47-story WTC 7, the shorter 10-story WTC 5 sustained major rooftop penetration due to its closer proximity to WTC1 and WTC2 and the resulting greater velocity of the impacting debris.

It also suffered from long lasting major fire activity.

It did not collapse and was later 'pulled down' with cables.

Other than allowing opposing members to create a debating quagmire, for what reason does the debate have to start by swallowing the whole topic of the WTC on 9/11?

WTC 7 is the 'smoking gun'.

Until NIST supporters can credibly defend the legitimacy of the NIST's conclusions about why WTC 7 collapsed, it would seem totally unnecessary to broaden the debate.

A pre-planned controlled demolition of WTC 7 means that there had to be perpetrators 'on the ground' prior to 9/11.
LOL
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 13th December 2016, 08:00 AM   #106
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post


Unlike the 47-story WTC 7, the shorter 10-story WTC 5 sustained major rooftop penetration due to its closer proximity to WTC1 and WTC2 and the resulting greater velocity of the impacting debris.

It also suffered from long lasting major fire activity.

It did not collapse and was later 'pulled down' with cables.
You were also asked whether or not the way it was constructed versus the way WTC7 was constructed might have played a part in this. You skipped merrily past that.

Quote:
Other than allowing opposing members to create a debating quagmire, for what reason does the debate have to start by swallowing the whole topic of the WTC on 9/11?
Care to expand that thought so that it makes some sense.


Quote:
WTC 7 is the 'smoking gun'.
Yeah, we have been hearing that quip from truthers for a decade now. How odd that no professional organization at all sees it the way you do.


Quote:
Until NIST supporters can credibly defend the legitimacy of the NIST's conclusions about why WTC 7 collapsed, it would seem totally unnecessary to broaden the debate.
Why? What do you have to offer in the way of an engineering report of the scope and detail equivalent to NIST's, that you use to counter it?


Quote:
A pre-planned controlled demolition of WTC 7 means that there had to be perpetrators 'on the ground' prior to 9/11.
,, and yet pre-planned controlled demolition remains a bald claim with no more veracity than any work of fiction.
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 13th December 2016, 08:11 AM   #107
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post


Unlike the 47-story WTC 7, the shorter 10-story WTC 5 sustained major rooftop penetration due to its closer proximity to WTC1 and WTC2 and the resulting greater velocity of the impacting debris.

It also suffered from long lasting major fire activity.

It did not collapse and was later 'pulled down' with cables.

Other than allowing opposing members to create a debating quagmire, for what reason does the debate have to start by swallowing the whole topic of the WTC on 9/11?

WTC 7 is the 'smoking gun'.

Until NIST supporters can credibly defend the legitimacy of the NIST's conclusions about why WTC 7 collapsed, it would seem totally unnecessary to broaden the debate.

A pre-planned controlled demolition of WTC 7 means that there had to be perpetrators 'on the ground' prior to 9/11.
Ten story structure are not as gravitationally loaded as 47 story, or 110 story structures so floor failure induced collapses are not as prone to Collapse the Facades DA.

Simply not enough energy stored in the structures height.
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 13th December 2016, 09:21 AM   #108
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,600
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... (those involving WTC 1, 2, and 7) and what the public domain evidence points to as the reason for the collapses of these buildings. ...
Public domain evidence points to fire, and gravity. Debate is over. Next.


Unless you intend on bringing in fake evidence, fantasy evidence, and nonsense, the debate ended on 9/11 as to evidence pointing to the gravity collapse of buildings on fire. Learn what simile is, and look up probable, it might help you understand NIST, and the fake evidence based on simile.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 10:09 AM   #109
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,190
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It looks like there are no takers and tfk seems destined to be the one and only JREF'er to ever have the nerve to leave the nest here and debate in a one-on-one situation.

Not really surprising that none of you are confident enough to venture outside of the moral support of the gang after seeing what happened to him. He was a star here.
Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970s particularly in the United States. Given the lack of evidence for the evolutionary paradigm and the abundant evidence for biblical creation, this is not surprising.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Creatio..._evolutionists

Congratulations for your win. You're now on par with creationists.
__________________
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 13th December 2016, 10:50 AM   #110
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,050
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is clear that no individual here, who supports the present official story for how the three high-rises in NYC collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, is willing to leave the security of this group and defend what they claim to believe in a one-on-one situation.

That basically says that those of you who fit the above description have no faith in what you are actually saying and know it will not hold up to the heavy scrutiny which can and will be applied in a one-on-one situation where there is sufficient time for thoughtful responses.

I think one can guarantee that none here who fit the above description will venture out on their own after seeing what happened to the first to do so (tfk), who was a star and leader here. That is probably viewed as a gamble that didn't work out and won't be tried again.

The NIST has been contacted relative to the serious problems with the reports on the WTC they published. They will not engage in an honest discussion and simply say they stand behind their work while being protected politically and not forced to address the issues.

It would seem the function of the activity here is to maintain the charade that there is still support for the NIST explanations in the population and to denigrate those who have raised the serious problems with them and shown they are non-explanatory.
It's clear you have nothing but 15 years of pathetic failure.

Let me know when you you're ready to put on those big boy pants and we can get started.

Shanksville- you go first...
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 13th December 2016, 11:46 AM   #111
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post

Shanksville- you go first...
A point generally ignored by truthers of all stripes.
AE911T, and in point of fact one poster recently just above, are fond of saying "WTC7 is the smoking gun", yet have no scenario that is coherently inclusive of all the events of 9/11/01.
If WTC7 is the smoking gun, what scenario does it point to? Was Shankesville crash also faked, the Pentgon? If so then it begs the questions on how. If WTC7 is the smoking gun then explain coherently, how the towers, and the aircraft that hit them fit into this scenario. If not then why fake the Manhattan events?

I asked above why the fires in #3 ,4,5,&6 that rendered these structures complete write offs, which would have utterly destroyed the contents of them, are not suspicious. The answer,,, "just 'cuz" .

No truther wants to tie this altogether because the supposition and odd twists of logic just pile up and add up to sounding like lunacy.
You end up with remote controlled aircraft, a covered up shoot down, modified aircraft. As with explosives in #1,2&7 those also are absolute fiction with absolutely no evidence to support them.

What does the commonly accepted history of events have to tie this all together?
A history of both suicide attacks and aircraft hijackings. In the 1960s one such hijacking involved simultaneous take overs of several aircraft, but truthers would tell us that 9/11 was a first.
History has OBL publicly declaring war on the USA & the west in general.
We have OBL publically declaring 9/11 an AlQada operation.
We have the African embassy suicide bombings and the USS Cole suicide bombing.
We have photos of the 9/11 hijackers at airports on that day. We have cockpit audio, we have a couple of DFDRs.
So, motive, opportunity and means and confession, not to mention a pile of forensic evidence.

It all makes this commonly accepted history the null hypothesis. It would take extraordinary evidence to overturn the null but what is put up against it is truly weak.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 13th December 2016 at 11:50 AM.
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 13th December 2016, 12:04 PM   #112
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,172
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post


WTC 7 is the 'smoking gun'.
The available evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 7.

Quote:

A pre-planned controlled demolition of WTC 7 means that there had to be perpetrators 'on the ground' prior to 9/11.
The use of explosives to bring down the WTC buildings is not supported by the overwhelming visual, audio and seismic evidence, which is underlined by the lack of physical and hardware evidence.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 13th December 2016 at 12:08 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 13th December 2016, 12:35 PM   #113
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,991
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is clear that no individual here, who supports the present official story for how the three high-rises in NYC collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, is willing to leave the security of this group and defend what they claim to believe in a one-on-one situation.

That basically says that those of you who fit the above description have no faith in what you are actually saying and know it will not hold up to the heavy scrutiny which can and will be applied in a one-on-one situation where there is sufficient time for thoughtful responses.

I think one can guarantee that none here who fit the above description will venture out on their own after seeing what happened to the first to do so (tfk), who was a star and leader here. That is probably viewed as a gamble that didn't work out and won't be tried again.

The NIST has been contacted relative to the serious problems with the reports on the WTC they published. They will not engage in an honest discussion and simply say they stand behind their work while being protected politically and not forced to address the issues.

It would seem the function of the activity here is to maintain the charade that there is still support for the NIST explanations in the population and to denigrate those who have raised the serious problems with them and shown they are non-explanatory.
You had two offers both of which you reject out of hand for some reasons.

We all know what those reasons are. You want to artificially restrict and bias the entire argument, pure and simple.

When that is your starting point, why would anyone have any interest in a debate with a dishonest opponent? We already know from your posts here that your are entirely willing to fling bovine fecal matter and insults around. Who want's that? Why should anyone on any side put up with such nonsense?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Oh, I am certainly interested in showing that those who rabidly defend a fraudulent story are full of s..t.
Straight out violation of the MA you signed up to. Doesn't bother you apparently, so why should we expect any other dishonesty would?

I could report it and have it consigned to AAH, but I won't. I prefer to leave it so that people can see whence your baseless opinions come.

You might argue, sure. But nobody can help how you self present. How you self present is up to you, not me, not anyone. It is entirely up to you.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 13th December 2016, 02:46 PM   #114
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,600
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yup, total fraud. No better way to describe it. The fact that their website still promotes it as factual and complete proves that they are hucksters. Also recall how they took out the shear studs after Shayam Sunder said "We're having trouble getting a handle on Building 7".
Another claim of fraud based on a fantasy of CD. 9/11 truth has failed to come up with proof of fraud. Thus another post filled with lies, and nonsense.

Another post exposes zero knowledge of engineering, and no clue why.

NIST report is done, where is 9/11 truth proof of fraud, proof of CD, proof of anything? There is no evidence for 9/11 truth claims, and CD remains forever a fantasy which fools a few gullible believers, followers.

No evidence for fraud, no substance for 15 years.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2016, 05:51 PM   #115
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 395
Tony--why don't you invest your free time into studying fire science so you can understand the answer to the question you posed re fire simulations here? It looks like you ran away from that thread when you started to realize the answer, but now's as good a time as any to buckle down and learn something.

You could also spend your free time grabbing a coffee with Dr. Abboud of Thornton Tomasetti. He lives and works in NYC just like you but, unlike you, he has completed an award winning independent study of the WTC 7 collapse for Weidlinger Associates in connection with the Aegis Insurance litigation. Have you ever reached out to him--engineer to engineer--to ask about your issues with his fire simulations or anything other aspect of his collapse model? It seems you've already missed a great opportunity to invite him to the AE911Truth forum you had in NYC this fall. Why is that?

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 13th December 2016 at 05:54 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 13th December 2016, 06:48 PM   #116
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,054
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Tony--why don't you invest your free time into studying fire science so you can understand the answer to the question you posed re fire simulations here? It looks like you ran away from that thread when you started to realize the answer, but now's as good a time as any to buckle down and learn something.

You could also spend your free time grabbing a coffee with Dr. Abboud of Thornton Tomasetti. He lives and works in NYC just like you but, unlike you, he has completed an award winning independent study of the WTC 7 collapse for Weidlinger Associates in connection with the Aegis Insurance litigation. Have you ever reached out to him--engineer to engineer--to ask about your issues with his fire simulations or anything other aspect of his collapse model? It seems you've already missed a great opportunity to invite him to the AE911Truth forum you had in NYC this fall. Why is that?
hell the airlines had at least 1.2 billion reasons to show that it was an inside jobby job. Curious that they did not ask Tony to "debate" this with the plaintiffs' experts that they settled with.
__________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of Religion.
The Big Dog 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 13th December 2016, 07:44 PM   #117
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,007
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Tony--why don't you invest your free time into studying fire science so you can understand the answer to the question you posed re fire simulations here? It looks like you ran away from that thread when you started to realize the answer, but now's as good a time as any to buckle down and learn something.

You could also spend your free time grabbing a coffee with Dr. Abboud of Thornton Tomasetti. He lives and works in NYC just like you but, unlike you, he has completed an award winning independent study of the WTC 7 collapse for Weidlinger Associates in connection with the Aegis Insurance litigation. Have you ever reached out to him--engineer to engineer--to ask about your issues with his fire simulations or anything other aspect of his collapse model? It seems you've already missed a great opportunity to invite him to the AE911Truth forum you had in NYC this fall. Why is that?
It's funny how the AE911 Truthers keep trying to narrow things down to a battle they think they can drag out, NIST and WTC 1/2/7, and purposefully ignore anything else. They even use slurs like "NIST defenders", which fools no one here and thus must only be employed to rally their own troops.
__________________
"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 13th December 2016, 08:15 PM   #118
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
hell the airlines had at least 1.2 billion reasons to show that it was an inside jobby job. Curious that they did not ask Tony to "debate" this with the plaintiffs' experts that they settled with.
Airlines!!! How about the insurance Companies? You would have thought they would contest claims,,,,,, oh wait,,,, yeah,,,,,

Last edited by jaydeehess; 13th December 2016 at 08:17 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 14th December 2016, 12:07 AM   #119
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
The topic "In or on its footprint for the three towers -wtc1 wtc2 wtc7-" was illuminated in threads five and a half years ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...98#post7378798
I had a quick look back at that thread. Beyond the semantic bickering about the difference between 'onto' and 'into', is there any actual evidence that this shows CD? Photos and videos clearly show that debris fell some distance from the towers. How does this support the idea of demolition?
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
NIST FAQ
Q. Was the WTC debris tested for traces of explosive residues ?
A. No
Skyeagle409 has repeatedly linked to all the other agencies which did test the debris for explosive residue, and found nothing. I'll try to find the links when I get a bit more time. However, I'm surprised you missed this.
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Fonebone < Now you know
No, I don't think so. I asked if I'd missed the evidence for explosives and thermite, or the installation of such. Your post contains no evidence of this.
Do you have any? Tony seems to be ignoring me.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 14th December 2016, 12:28 AM   #120
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
[
WTC 7 is the 'smoking gun'.



A pre-planned controlled demolition of WTC 7 means that there had to be perpetrators 'on the ground' prior to 9/11.
Excellent. This means you must have evidence for this. Do please show me this "smoking gun". You are convinced it was CD, so can you show me what convinced you? tfk is not my leader, and I have no connection or affiliation with NIST. I am open to persuasion.
Show me the perps on the ground, show me the explosives, and I'll be convinced like you.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 08:02 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.