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 14th December 2016, 02:41 AM   #121
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
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 much should have been obvious from the outset Tony. Your narrow limitation of the target group to join you in "debate" clearly prevents me and any others of like mind offering to join in discussion. I stopped relying on the "official story" back in 2007. I will support NIST on the things they got right. I will disagree on the bits they got wrong. I will continue to disagree with you whenever you assert that NIST is globally wrong AND you refuse to identify which bits you are claiming are wrong.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
Of course - actually it is a truism. Your definition excluding those like me who may otherwise have been prepared to joint in the "interaction". (Note I am avoiding playing the evasive trick of refining "debate" to suit my preferred limits on topic OR process. I understand and agree with your intended process of "interaction" via forum posts. I will NOT resort to evasive tricks either by re-defining words OR suggesting another medium. I see no problem with your preference for "discussion" on "internet forum" as a process.)

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
More or less agreed. I would say "tfk who saw himself as a star and leader..." - others may have agreed - I didn't for reasons that should be obvious. He appeared to be making a play for the crown left unclaimed since Ryan Mackey departed.
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
That is probably viewed as a gamble that didn't work out and won't be tried again.
Certainly not within the limitations of the rules that BOTH you and tfk drafted. I would insist on the relevant principles of "scientific method" and the related discussion protocols before I would engage. And there will always be the issue of "who is the judge" when it is a discussion process on forums.
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
A lot of presumptions in that set of assertions Tony. If I was to engage with you you would need to cease relying on lies by partial truth or innuendo. And that would be a big step for you or any of the prominent currently active "truthers".

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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 really do need to stop relying on denigration of your opponents when you should be publishing counter arguments.

Whether or not they also play "dirty and dishonest" is not the issue. On the school buses I drive - retirement hobby job - about once every week or three I wil get grade/primary school kids fighting. They don't realise that "He hit me first" is a confession NOT a defence. "He does it also" is NOT a tactic of adult reasoned rational discourse.

Last edited by ozeco41; 14th December 2016 at 02:46 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 03:26 AM   #122
WilliamSeger
Graduate Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,534
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Oh, and one other thing: As has been repeatedly stated by numerous posters here on many occasions, and answering what I have no doubt is your unstated agenda here, Tony, there is a crucial difference between finding faults with the NIST model - which is intended to determine the most probable collapse sequence with a view to proposing modifications to building codes that will alleviate the damage in future occurrences - and establishing any doubt that the collapse was due entirely to the damage sustained by the building due to debris impact from other collapses and fires within the building. The latter would require either that any possible debris and fire related collapse sequence, rather than the specific sequence outlined by NIST, be shown to be at the very least highly implausible, or that specific and credible evidence be produced of some other cause of collapse; this does not include quote mining, vague, ambiguous or unverified eyewitness accounts, or speculation. In short, even if someone were foolish enough to take up this challenge and fail at it, it would not produce the result you want it to.

Dave
Yep, exactly. The argument that Tony would like to use is that it must have been a CD because it couldn't have been anything else, but then all we really get is "NIST is wrong about this and left out that" ad nauseam. But even winning those points doesn't work; "anything else" is a very long list, and you'll never get very far into it. Clearly, Tony doesn't understand why that argument will never work, so there's no point in doing laps around the barn about it.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 04:56 AM   #123
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,807
As all this ground has been covered countless times and been proven to be baseless, I skipped the last couple of pages knowing it would be posturing and goading by the usual suspects. If I missed anything substantive, please update me.

Am I correct in thinking that the NIST findings have been codified and are now part of building codes in many countries? IIRC a new building in China that was engulfed in flames from a fireworks mishap did not collapse because it was constructed using new guidelines inspired by the NIST report.

As an aside, if truthers could each contribute one US dollar apiece (as there are billions of truthers world wide, I am lead to believe) they could buy the BOK Tower ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOK_Tower ) in Tulsa OK, buy an airliner of the types used on 9/11, wire them for remote piloting (or hire ex-Mossad pilots that can steer the plane towards the Tower then exit through the wheel wells) and show the world that plane crashes and their resultant fires cannot bring down a skyscraper. Hell, they could even rig the building with CD explosives, thermite, mininukes, and fire a DEW after the crashes.

That would show 'em!
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab 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, 05:13 AM   #124
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
That much should have been obvious from the outset Tony. Your narrow limitation of the target group to join you in "debate" clearly prevents me and any others of like mind offering to join in discussion. I stopped relying on the "official story" back in 2007. I will support NIST on the things they got right. I will disagree on the bits they got wrong. I will continue to disagree with you whenever you assert that NIST is globally wrong AND you refuse to identify which bits you are claiming are wrong.

Of course - actually it is a truism. Your definition excluding those like me who may otherwise have been prepared to joint in the "interaction". (Note I am avoiding playing the evasive trick of refining "debate" to suit my preferred limits on topic OR process. I understand and agree with your intended process of "interaction" via forum posts. I will NOT resort to evasive tricks either by re-defining words OR suggesting another medium. I see no problem with your preference for "discussion" on "internet forum" as a process.)

More or less agreed. I would say "tfk who saw himself as a star and leader..." - others may have agreed - I didn't for reasons that should be obvious. He appeared to be making a play for the crown left unclaimed since Ryan Mackey departed.
Certainly not within the limitations of the rules that BOTH you and tfk drafted. I would insist on the relevant principles of "scientific method" and the related discussion protocols before I would engage. And there will always be the issue of "who is the judge" when it is a discussion process on forums.
A lot of presumptions in that set of assertions Tony. If I was to engage with you you would need to cease relying on lies by partial truth or innuendo. And that would be a big step for you or any of the prominent currently active "truthers".

You really do need to stop relying on denigration of your opponents when you should be publishing counter arguments.

Whether or not they also play "dirty and dishonest" is not the issue. On the school buses I drive - retirement hobby job - about once every week or three I wil get grade/primary school kids fighting. They don't realise that "He hit me first" is a confession NOT a defence. "He does it also" is NOT a tactic of adult reasoned rational discourse.
Ozeco41, Tony already had a debate sort of on the 9/11 forum in which he lost, he admitted that debris raining down inside building 7 could have caused the facade failure, as observed.
Then have covered his tracks with an excuse, the columns could not have stood long enough to allow the observed collapse, do to earths spin.
I would think the spire standing taller than building 7 after the towers collapsed, would prove Tony's statement of earths rotation preventing the columns from standing totally false.
But what do I know, I am not an Engineer, how could I possibly win an Argument against the Great Tony S.

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 14th December 2016 at 05:14 AM.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 08:03 AM   #125
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Yep, exactly. The argument that Tony would like to use is that it must have been a CD because it couldn't have been anything else, but then all we really get is "NIST is wrong about this and left out that" ad nauseam. But even winning those points doesn't work; "anything else" is a very long list, and you'll never get very far into it. Clearly, Tony doesn't understand why that argument will never work, so there's no point in doing laps around the barn about it.
Tony has been playing that false dichotomy for the past year or so. "I have proved XYZ's explanation is wrong THEREFORE mine is right."

Begging the question of whether he has or has not "proved XYZ wrong" - no matter how many wrong uns he finds it will NEVER prove him right. Proof that he is right requires affirmative proof.

(And of course - also begging the question that "proof" is the wrong word.....but it is easier than using the proper scientific method terminology about "hypotheses" and "falsification". )

Also the false structure of logic has been with us a long time.... the standard "truther claim for CD" goes like this:
"I don't understand the collapse physics THEREFORE it was CD..." -- and adding the mandatory reversed burden of proof -- "...you prove me wrong!"

Last edited by ozeco41; 14th December 2016 at 08:07 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 09:03 AM   #126
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
You mean they care not to enter into discussion with people who have repeatedly called them liars and frauds, and part of a vast conspiracy and cover up? I am shocked!
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, 09:41 AM   #127
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,600
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.
Why do you make up nonsense?

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... (2007)
You have lost the argument as to whether or not the collapse of WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence proves it most certainly was and now you are ridiculously trying to redefine well used and long accepted terms, instead of being a man and just admitting you were wrong. I have to say you look pretty bad stooping to this inane level and I feel sorry for you.
You failed to produce evidence for this lie, and it has been years. Unable to face the fact you are evidence free for years, and never will have the evidence for the lie of CD.

Two lies. A lie of CD. A lie there is evidence for CD.

A debate method of saying there is evidence...
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
...

I have provided plenty of evidence to show those buildings came down via controlled demolition. The reason you simply deny it is because it goes against your obvious agenda to cover up that fact.
But plenty of evidence is never presented. Then the old people who know it was CD, are in some cover up. 19 terrorists did 9/11, they did not plant silent explosives, or product free thermite; Tony, they used planes and started the biggest office fires in history, using jet fuel. Kind of ends the debate... Video evidence proves it was planes, evidence proves it was 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, twice. Evidence proves no explosives, video evidence. The CD claim remains a fantasy, picking NIST as a scapegoat is not engineering, it is BS. Where is the "plenty evidence"?
__________________
"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

Last edited by beachnut; 14th December 2016 at 10:10 AM.
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 14th December 2016, 10:02 AM   #128
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
<<sigh>>
While there is the concept of symmetry in Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerance, it has nothing to do with the events of 9/11.
Referring to the collapse of WTC7 as "symmetric" would require an extremely lax tolerance for the concept to apply.
The eastern mechanical penthouse (it's called "eastern" because it is not in the center) falls in first then the rooftop caving progresses westward, the north face appears to fail before the south face, the split in the north face occurs at ~1/3 the distance between east face and the west face, the eastern section leans in to the initial facade failure line (kink), the western section(twice the size of the eastern section) does as well, the facades then fail and the entire structure then falls, the eastern section twists and falls to the NE while the western 2/3rds falls to the south.

In all of this the only "symmetry" that could be applied is the part I have in red above.

This reminds me of the truther woo that WTC7 collapsed in 6 seconds. No, it collapsed in 16-20 seconds, but truthers do not care to think too much about anything other than the final 25-30% of that sequence.

Blinders much?
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, 10:06 AM   #129
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
You mean they care not to enter into discussion with people who have repeatedly called them liars and frauds, and part of a vast conspiracy and cover up? I am shocked!
The only person championing Tony is Stundie, I take you too a dark place a dark place indeed the inside of Stundie's head.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/lo...-t789-660.html

Let him speak so all shall know him Bat S. Crazy!
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 14th December 2016, 10:13 AM   #130
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,541
LOL
That *********** moron thinks you need to be a structural engineer to see that an elevator car was dislodged?
__________________
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 14th December 2016, 10:34 AM   #131
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 430
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 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.
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
”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.”
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
As skyeagle409 has confirmed, a significant part of the internal structure of WTC 5 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
I would have no difficulty accepting what you and skyeagle409 are promoting about WTC 5 if the evidence was not so contradictory.

The 10 story WTC 5 was so impacted by large crushing structural steel debris from the 110 story WTC 1 which loomed over it, that major internal damage obviously had to occur. A finding of localized collapses would not be at all surprising.

Photos reveal this damage in excellent detail.

Considering it also suffered from long lasting major fires, the fact that the 10 story WTC 5 dramatically resisted global collapse is absolutely amazing, especially considering your ready acceptance of the total high speed global collapse of the more distant, far less damaged 47 story WTC 7.
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 14th December 2016, 10:36 AM   #132
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
does anyone here want to support the NIST reports commonly accepted engineering opinion that a combination of factors, impacts, fire and design, caused three of the structures destroyed in Manhattan on 9/11/01 to suffer global collapse, in a one-on-one debate with me

Fixed that for the thread
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, 10:39 AM   #133
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
Considering it also suffered from long lasting major fires, the fact that the 10 story WTC 5 dramatically resisted global collapse is absolutely amazing, especially considering your ready acceptance of the total high speed global collapse of the more distant, far less damaged 47 story WTC 7.
Again, what structural design differences between WTC 5 and WTC7 just might have played a role in the difference in how they reacted to the damage each received?
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, 10:51 AM   #134
traxy
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 124
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?
REKT.

Hey Tony, is this what the "truth movement" has been reduced to? Trolling forums and trying to pick fights with anonymous posters in some desperate attempt to validate your existence?

Is this how little relevance your movement has?
traxy 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, 10:59 AM   #135
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Ozeco41, Tony already had a debate sort of on the 9/11 forum in which he lost,....
Sure - but you are "preaching to the choir" telling me that. The purpose of my post was NOT to categorise Tony's faults. I've confronted him many times of his foundation errors. So I was distancing myself from some of the false arguments made AGAINST Tony whilst picking his main debating tricks and outlining grounds for a discussion should he want to "debate" with me. He won't because he will not enter legitimate discussion even if I stick rigorously with appropriate protocols for the medium -- I've never seen him post legitimate argument.

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
But what do I know, I am not an Engineer, how could I possibly win an Argument against the Great Tony S.
I am an engineer and can out argue Tony in the engineering as he knows all too well. BUT the engineering is not the barrier - he simply will not engage in reasoned argument. So if he does on this occasion it will be a "first" and a massive shift for Tony.


If he intends to change his errant ways and join reasoned argument I could be interested. But as I have already said the procedural conditions include relevant aspects of "scientific method". And - since his claims overall comprise a few "house of cards" bits of logic - I would start with the base cards of his nonsense so (a) his "Missing Jolt" claim and (b) his reliance on "false generalisation" in his claims of error by NIST.

Dispose of those two "base level cards" and his full suite of Twin Towers claims is falsified. THEN think about WTC7.....maybe.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 11:18 AM   #136
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 traxy View Post
Hey Tony, is this what the "truth movement" has been reduced to? Trolling forums and trying to pick fights with anonymous posters in some desperate attempt to validate your existence?

Is this how little relevance your movement has?
It's about all it ever had.

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 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 14th December 2016, 11:47 AM   #137
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 13,980
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post



I would have no difficulty accepting what you and skyeagle409 are promoting about WTC 5 if the evidence was not so contradictory.

The 10 story WTC 5 was so impacted by large crushing structural steel debris from the 110 story WTC 1 which loomed over it, that major internal damage obviously had to occur. A finding of localized collapses would not be at all surprising.

Photos reveal this damage in excellent detail.

Considering it also suffered from long lasting major fires, the fact that the 10 story WTC 5 dramatically resisted global collapse is absolutely amazing, especially considering your ready acceptance of the total high speed global collapse of the more distant, far less damaged 47 story WTC 7.
Hahahahahahahaha "dramatically resisted".

Keep on framing, buddy, keep on framing.

I hear Trump might need a new spokesman. Look into it, you could meet the President of Goldman Sachs, maybe trade some 'spiracy stories.
__________________
"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 14th December 2016, 12:49 PM   #138
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by traxy View Post
Hey Tony, is this what the "truth movement" has been reduced to? Trolling forums and trying to pick fights with anonymous posters in some desperate attempt to validate your existence?

Is this how little relevance your movement has?
IE: Post 19
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
So, Tony, as for the value of debating on the internet:
The entire rason d'etre, it appears, of AE911T, is education about the events of 9/11.

EXACTLY how has the cause been advanced by having tfk withdraw from an internet forum debate?

EXACTLY how has tfk withdrawing from debate increased the technical veracity of the claims?

EXACTLY how would debating a different internet poster further the cause of AE911T, or increase the veracity of the claims that AE911T make?
Tony could debate each and every one of us on this forum, and it would do exactly what, to the veracity of the claims that AE911T makes? Note that for this question it matters not a whit what the outcome of said series of debates would be. Whether Tony came out on top of every single poster here, or was completely shot down by every poster here, or if it resulted in a tie, makes absolutely no difference to the furthering of the cause. Does anyone think that, for instance, the CTBUH, or the ASCE, or the AIA would be swayed to look more favourably on the claims of AE911T if Tony could say that he had debated, and won, each and every single ISF poster?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 14th December 2016 at 12:59 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, 12:50 PM   #139
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post



I would have no difficulty accepting what you and skyeagle409 are promoting about WTC 5 if the evidence was not so contradictory.

The 10 story WTC 5 was so impacted by large crushing structural steel debris from the 110 story WTC 1 which loomed over it, that major internal damage obviously had to occur. A finding of localized collapses would not be at all surprising.

Photos reveal this damage in excellent detail.

Considering it also suffered from long lasting major fires, the fact that the 10 story WTC 5 dramatically resisted global collapse is absolutely amazing, especially considering your ready acceptance of the total high speed global collapse of the more distant, far less damaged 47 story WTC 7.
Oh. We have a new unit of measure.

How many dramatics equal a hysteric?

What fraction of a dramatic is an indifferent?
__________________
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 14th December 2016, 12:51 PM   #140
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
...
[i]1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.
...
Hahahahahahahahahahaha






FAIL
(What you describe there is not a restriction to a debate - it is an invitation to wander endlessly in an effort not to come to a conclusion)




I declare Tony Szamboti the LOSER of this thread - reason: false start.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 01:00 PM   #141
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Oh, and one other thing: As has been repeatedly stated by numerous posters here on many occasions, and answering what I have no doubt is your unstated agenda here, Tony, there is a crucial difference between finding faults with the NIST model - which is intended to determine the most probable collapse sequence with a view to proposing modifications to building codes that will alleviate the damage in future occurrences - and establishing any doubt that the collapse was due entirely to the damage sustained by the building due to debris impact from other collapses and fires within the building. The latter would require either that any possible debris and fire related collapse sequence, rather than the specific sequence outlined by NIST, be shown to be at the very least highly implausible, or that specific and credible evidence be produced of some other cause of collapse; this does not include quote mining, vague, ambiguous or unverified eyewitness accounts, or speculation. In short, even if someone were foolish enough to take up this challenge and fail at it, it would not produce the result you want it to.

Dave

I declare Dave Rogers the WINNER of this thread, for he was the first to point out one of the many reasons why Tony's OP is a false start as a debate proposal.


In essence, Tony's hopelessly impossible debate proposal seems designed to fish for the stupidest person on ISF so Tony can score a browny point against the fool who'd take him up on the nonsense.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 01:02 PM   #142
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
In other words you lack the courage to discuss 9/11 as a whole.

Before any more useless debates can happen, you have to be prepared to tie all four plane crashes together in a manner that better explains them than reality.

Absent that, your pathetic little movement is just a joke.
HONORARY MENTION goes to Noah Fence for taking Tony's hopelessly wide debate topic to its logical end, which alone actually deserves being addressed and debated - and which never ever is by any 9/11 Truther at all (except for the totally nutty, which Tony, to his credit, isn't).
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 01:06 PM   #143
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 59,821
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post



I would have no difficulty accepting what you and skyeagle409 are promoting about WTC 5 if the evidence was not so contradictory.

The 10 story WTC 5 was so impacted by large crushing structural steel debris from the 110 story WTC 1 which loomed over it, that major internal damage obviously had to occur. A finding of localized collapses would not be at all surprising.

Photos reveal this damage in excellent detail.

Considering it also suffered from long lasting major fires, the fact that the 10 story WTC 5 dramatically resisted global collapse is absolutely amazing, especially considering your ready acceptance of the total high speed global collapse of the more distant, far less damaged 47 story WTC 7.
I have already responded to this earlier. Why did you ignore it?

It's not just a matter of saying "hey, this building was also very much damaged so your theory doesn't work!" Each building must be looked at individually, and some may survive worse damage because of how they're built, or because they are smaller and sturdier, or because the damage was different, etc. You're over-simplifying things and this is the source of the perceived "contradiction".

And even IF there was an oddity with WTC 5, the conclusion isn't automatically that WTC 7 was an inside job! That's a complete non-sequitur.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon 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 14th December 2016, 01:10 PM   #144
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,600
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
... the fact that the 10 story WTC 5 dramatically resisted global collapse is absolutely amazing, especially considering your ready acceptance of the total high speed global collapse of the more distant, far less damaged 47 story WTC 7.
High speed? Over 16 seconds to collapse, which started inside WTC 7. High speed, is that suppose to make the fantasy of CD real?

What rate to objects on earth fall at? There was nothing high speed about WTC 7. Why make up BS to support a fantasy which is based on nothing. CD is a fantasy claim with no facts. Ignore the failure of steel in WTC 5, it is what 9/11 truth does, ignore evidence, and make up lies.

Did they fight WTC 5 and 6 fires?

Wow, when you fight fires may prevent global collapse, a know fire science thing, ignored by the cult of 9/11 truth.

15 years, and the fantasy of CD remains evidence free forever, and ever, amen. Case closed - 9/11 truth followers have no evidence, never will.
__________________
"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 14th December 2016, 01:14 PM   #145
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
...
If you don't like the ground rules tfk and I used ...
It has been pointed out to you numerous times that the the ground rules tfk and you used were what doomed that debate from the start.

Perhaps this information - that we here at ISF (the more organized thinkers anyway) already rejected your previous debate as being "set up to fail" - prompted you to repeat the proposal, and thus set someone here up to fail, or if you can't find anyone stupid enough to take your bait, set your debate proposal up to fail - and then blame the failure on us?
Let's see:

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.
By golly! That was the plan!

Tony, how dishonest of you - once again.



ETA: Mark F caught this dishonest scheming before I did:
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?
This earns Mark F another HONORARY MENTION.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 14th December 2016 at 01:19 PM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 01:23 PM   #146
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
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.
Tee hee

Let me search that old box over there for a BRONZE MEDAL...
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 01:26 PM   #147
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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. ...
This could be a topic for another deba... urrr *glancing at myriad* argument: Arguably, AE911T has emerged as the strongest 9/11 Truth group precisely because Gage is so staunchly committed to ignoring almost everything important that happened on 9/11 (except for the twin tower collapses) and focus on something very unimportant - the totally expected WTC7 collapse.
Remember the one time when he decided to support "plane at Pentagon" proposal, how he got flak from the "Pentagon no-planers" and paddled back?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 01:42 PM   #148
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,990
Setting up the T&Cs in such a way is no different than any religion. Load the dice before the game is played. Then set a venue which is sympathetic to ones cause.

Spanish Inquisition did the very same thing.
__________________
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 14th December 2016, 01:59 PM   #149
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,541
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Setting up the T&Cs in such a way is no different than any religion. Load the dice before the game is played. Then set a venue which is sympathetic to ones cause.

Spanish Inquisition did the very same thing.
Spectral evidence?
We'll allow 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 14th December 2016, 02:43 PM   #150
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
...
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. ...
I am looking at that report for the first time just now - thanks!

Tony is gonna looove it: Abboud proves Nordenson and Bailey wrong. Oh, and he surely proves NIST wrong, too, for he has a different collapse initiation scenario (beams zip off the girder between c80 and c81 on floor 9).
Look at this refutation of Nordenson's floor-impact calculation - Tony convinced me and ozeco of it earlier this year, six years after Abboud found it in 2010:
Originally Posted by NN Abboud
There is practically no allowance for the significant deformations (especially considering the degradation and deformations due to heating) of the upper floor that would occur upon impact. They have effectively treated the upper floor as a rigid impactor; this is erroneous, and contrary to reality, because it assumes that the floor cannot deform in any way upon impact and absorbs no energy.
...
These assumptions demonstrate that Mr. Nordenson’s assessment of the energy of the collapsing floor can be considered neither accurate nor “conservative” [Nordenson, 2010a, Appendix B, p. B2] and his conclusion, that collapse propagates when a single fire-damaged floor impacts an undamaged lower floor, is demonstrably false.
Now I make a bold claim:
Abboud's theory is wrong, too!
Wow.
Well, something about his scenario is wrong - I am totally convinced of this.

NIST wrong
ARUP wrong
Weidlinger Ass. wrong

But the wrongest of all: AE911Truth and their darling TSz.

Why?
NIST, ARUP and WAI all show that fires of the sorts that raged through WTC7 on 9/11/2001 are well enough to bring that building down.
There were multiple structural failures in the fire-affected floors! Many many structural failures! This could not be any different, for those were the largest office building fires in the history of the world!
Some structural failure in addition to the many many that already had accumulated broke the camel's neck.

All studies agree that once the floor system in the east part of the building rushes down, total collapse as seen (more or less) will occur.


No criticism of any detail of any simulation can nullify these results.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2016, 03:00 PM   #151
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,069
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Setting up the T&Cs in such a way is no different than any religion. Load the dice before the game is played. Then set a venue which is sympathetic to ones cause.

Spanish Inquisition did the very same thing.

NOBODY expects the ...


... er, let me try again.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele 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, 04:20 PM   #152
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,417
I re-downloaded the NIST WTC 7 report, and like all mystery novels I skip to the end to see who dunnit.

Their recommendations spell it out:

- More robust connections and framing systems to better resist the effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.

- Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse.

- Better thermal insulation (i.e. reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel strength, and minimize both thermal expansion, and heating effect.

- Automatic fire sprinkler systems with independent and reliable sources for the primary and secondary water supply.

- New building be designed to ensure structural performance under maximum credible design fires where the active fire suppression has failed.

- Connection designs (especially shear connections) that cannot accommodate thermal effects.

Then they come right out and say that the "... effects of restraint of free thermal expansion of the steel on the framing systems, especially for the long spans on the east side of WTC7, were not considered in the structural design, and lead to the initiation of the building collapse".

They also come out and say that fire-codes for insulation need to be rethought as they were clearly inadequate to prevent the weakening of the steel at lower temperatures.

I'm not an engineer, what am I missing here?

I'm seeing a fire ignited across multiple floors, caused by a spectacular on-time event, where the fires were not engaged by fire fighters, and left to burn for 8 hours. I'm seeing a building designed to meet the minimum safety standards, in a building complex where city building codes were altered to allow constructing - thus pushing back those minimums to the barest forms.

I'm also seeing a building which took (after its 8- hour burn) 20 minutes to collapse, not 11 seconds (or whatever).

The last thing I am not seeing here is Controlled Demolition in any form whatsoever.

So what did I miss?
__________________
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 14th December 2016, 05:07 PM   #153
willim
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Nogales Norte
Posts: 53
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.
It's been 15 years now. There is no more debate. 9/11 was not an "inside job". That's just the way it is.

I know it sucks that so much time and effort was wasted, but seriously, it's time to move on.

You know, there are a myriad of real world problems and issues happening right now that could benefit from the dedication and expertise of a person such as yourself.

Perhaps you should consider changing your cause, and your focus. Why not end your day by actually helping someone, rather than concluding it with yet another hopeless circular argument within a dead cause that means nothing now, and will continue to mean absolutely nothing come tomorrow, and the next day, and the next?

Last edited by willim; 14th December 2016 at 05:56 PM.
willim 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 15th December 2016, 01:24 AM   #154
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: 1,316
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
NIST FAQ
Q. Was the WTC debris tested for traces of explosive residues ?
A. No

Fonebone < Now you know
Aha! Fonebone, have a look at this.
The dust was tested for thermite: none was found.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...Morphology.pdf

The nature of the collapses, and the debris itself, were examined for evidence of controlled demolition: none was found.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf

Now, about that positive evidence you have....Any luck finding it yet?
__________________
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 15th December 2016, 03:26 AM   #155
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Illuminator
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: All Over You
Posts: 3,401
Tony, you're not interested in finding the 'truth', or furthering anyones understanding of events that day; you're not even really bothered about bringing anyone to 'justice'; you're only interested in a restricted debate where you can claim some sort of 'victory' over 'JREFers', in front of the one or two deluded fools who support you that would actually be interested in watching.

This is about your ego, not truth or science.

ANY debate you engaged in with ANYONE wouldn't change one single thing about the facts of that day, it's just digital hot air on the internet. The 'Truth Movement' - even at its height - amounted to nothing but a group of people united in being completely wrong, and now it's a tiny group of people still determined to be just as wrong. You're basically reduced to trolling (what used to be) JREF, shouting "Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough", when it's not US you need to convince, but you're obsessed with claiming ANY kind of victory over 'us'.

Let me put it in terms you will understand; It's over - you lost and the facts won. Nobody even cares what you think anymore. It's OVER. Sorry Buddy - time to get a new hobby.
__________________
The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress. - Joseph Joubert

Do not believe hastily. - Ovid

There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it. - William James
SatansMaleVoiceChoir 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 15th December 2016, 05:46 AM   #156
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 13,980
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
NOBODY expects the ...


... er, let me try again.
Comfy pillows, all around!
__________________
"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 15th December 2016, 06:44 AM   #157
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,541
Just dropping by to see if Tony wants to debate or not.

It appears he does not.

<---- My shocked face.
__________________
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 15th December 2016, 06:49 AM   #158
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 13,980
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Just dropping by to see if Tony wants to debate or not.

It appears he does not.

<---- My shocked face.
Thanks for dropping by, though. Have a comfy pillow, no one else is falling for Tony's rigged game.
__________________
"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 15th December 2016, 09:49 AM   #159
Mark F
Muse
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 966
It occurs to me that any debate with Tony - no matter how broadly or narrowly Tony or anyone else wishes define the terms and conditions - is doomed to failure and not just for the usual reasons described above.

Tony's entire case against NIST has always been premised on the logical fallacy that if NIST was wrong about a detail, their overarching conclusion of fire-induced collapse must also be wrong(plus something, something, something) means it was CD.

But if that logic works for NIST - one detail wrong all wrong - then the same logic can be applied to Tony and his claims: One detail wrong means no CD = something, something, something,... must have been fire-induced collapse.

And since I think every one of us can point to at least one detail Tony has got wrong,...

__________________
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 15th December 2016, 10:37 AM   #160
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
It occurs to me that any debate with Tony - no matter how broadly or narrowly Tony or anyone else wishes define the terms and conditions - is doomed to failure and not just for the usual reasons described above.

Tony's entire case against NIST has always been premised on the logical fallacy that if NIST was wrong about a detail, their overarching conclusion of fire-induced collapse must also be wrong(plus something, something, something) means it was CD.

But if that logic works for NIST - one detail wrong all wrong - then the same logic can be applied to Tony and his claims: One detail wrong means no CD = something, something, something,... must have been fire-induced collapse.

And since I think every one of us can point to at least one detail Tony has got wrong,...

While true, do you really think TS will remotely have anything to do with it?
__________________
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
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 10:47 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.