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 15th December 2016, 10:38 AM   #161
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,011
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
And since I think every one of us can point to at least one detail Tony has got wrong,...
I certainly did, but that's years ago. The debate has moved on since then.

But I have to agree with you. The question that's important to me is what happened on 9/11. I don't think any one study is universally comprehensive and accurate, but I think there's enough in aggregation to build up a general picture that confirms the conventional narrative as the most plausible explanation. That said, I think the mark of a rational person is being open to hearing alternative theories. In other words, the general goal of open-mindedness is met by not dismissing claims on their face but rather by hearing them waiting to judge them on their merits. We've done that for Tony, and have ample reasons to reject his claim on the merits.

But what we get from Tony et al. is not so much an alternative theory for the events of 9/11 as it is a fairly narrowly-tailored "NIST is bad" theory. This is similar to the most common practice among JFK conspiracy theorists: it's a "Warren Commission was wrong" theory, not so much a "who killed Kennedy?" theory. And here as there, the conspiracy theorist always wants the debate to look like someone stepping up to be the proxy for his designated enemy. And more importantly, he wants the proxy to have the burden of proof to defend the designee. (I believe this is usually because the designated enemy generally won't give conspiracy theorists the time of day.)

So it becomes a quest for personal validation, which most of us seem unwilling to satisfy. That manifests itself in the paradoxical approach of expressing disdain for critics for their unwillingness to debate, insinuating it's because they know they'll lose as opposed to their having seen through the ploy. The other side of the paradox is the implied value of such a debate as the sine qua non of the issue. The claimant needs to believe his interlocutor is a credible proxy. But he also needs to believe we're a bunch of irrelevant low-lifes for not wanting to engage on his terms.
JayUtah 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, 12:29 PM   #162
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,023
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
While true, do you really think TS will remotely have anything to do with it?
But now I'm almost tempted to say the magic words 'sure, why not', just to get the opportunity to tell Tony; "since you are wrong about this detail you are globally wrong about CD, therefore it must have been fire-induced collapse. Prove me 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, 01:49 PM   #163
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,817
"This detail" = reality.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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, 02:33 PM   #164
FFTR
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 43
Tony you always want to discuss the NIST report. When are you going to publish your CD explanation? It would be interesting to read to see how you came to the conclusion on
Who did the CD, Why they did it, What was used, ho they implemented the CD, and how "they" avoided having the planes disrupt the CD.

Of course we would like to see evidence and explanation on why the other CD explanations are wrong. For example, Prager's mini neutron bomb explanation.

Your theory of CD should stand on its own merits. You shouldn't need NIST explanation.
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2016, 02:59 PM   #165
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
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:


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.
Exactly what many here have said in the past. While NIST and others may have gotten the initiating event details wrong, each and every study done so far concludes that fire damage led to a cascade of floor failures and that this then led to column instability resulting in further progressive failure and global involvement in the collapse.

I find it almost epiphany to see Abboud note that in common office fire situations the lower floor burns for a time and then the next upper floor, while in the case of WTC7 both 8th and 9th floors were involved with the lower lagging (rather than leading) the upper.
It is not too unlije the situation in the towers where an extreme amount of liquid acellerant was spread over several contiguous floors igniting simultaneous wide area fires on those floors.
Both were situations that were not, and only in hindsight could be, considered.

While NIST, Nordenson, ARUP, WAI all performed extensive study and computational analyses, AE911T has done........ nitpicking of those initiating event details, very little study, and minor computational analyses. Of course when I refer to AE911T, I am referring to a single individual from the supposed expertise pool of 2000+ engineers.


But Tony wants to debate the NIST report. Tony wants to continue the nitpick about initiating event. He has gone so far as to claim fires could not have started in WTC7 as a result of debris from WTC1. ( The initial, initial event.....)
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 15th December 2016, 03:19 PM   #166
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
Tony you always want to discuss the NIST report. When are you going to publish your CD explanation? It would be interesting to read to see how you came to the conclusion on
Who did the CD, Why they did it, What was used, ho they implemented the CD, and how "they" avoided having the planes disrupt the CD.

Of course we would like to see evidence and explanation on why the other CD explanations are wrong. For example, Prager's mini neutron bomb explanation.

Your theory of CD should stand on its own merits. You shouldn't need NIST explanation.
Noooooooo, AE911T will never do that.
Let us pretend they have. They would have a most probable location for thermite and/or high explosives. That would simply and loudly, beg the questions about when, who and how these were installed and how they were kept from being discovered, not to mention that biggee question of why?

If, if, if,,, this was a inside job, false flag, whatever label you wish to call this supposed operation, it would necessarily be the single most despicable act of treason and mass murder in the history of the USA. That would require the greatest of caution wrt discovery, and yet here we supposedly have these traitors blithely planting explosives in not one, not two, but three structures in Manhattan (one of which lacks the cover of being a result of direct aircraft impact), more at the Pentagon ( nightmarish scenario for discovery there aside one would deduce), and, we are told, patsy hijackers/remote controlled aircraft/surreptiously swapped aircraft/aircraft modified to be able to extraordinarily exceed design speeds.


Oooh that last one really would bring a belly laugh if it were the plot in a bad action movie. Here we have a building laden with explosive charges designed to cause a global collapse under the guise of being the result of aircraft impact. But despite the extreme requirement for non-discovery, the perps , for some ridiculous reason, arrange for an aircraft that has to fly faster that it should be able to..........

Sure that later is a PFT fever dream, the explosives at the Pentagon the lunatic ravings of the CIT, but they share an underlying complete lack of a cohesive scenario.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 15th December 2016 at 03:23 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 15th December 2016, 06:24 PM   #167
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,469
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
But now I'm almost tempted to say the magic words 'sure, why not', just to get the opportunity to tell Tony; "since you are wrong about this detail you are globally wrong about CD, therefore it must have been fire-induced collapse. Prove me wrong."
No, do not get sucked into that BS. I would rather cut off my own leg.
__________________
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 15th December 2016, 06:28 PM   #168
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,469
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
Tony you always want to discuss the NIST report. When are you going to publish your CD explanation? It would be interesting to read to see how you came to the conclusion on
Who did the CD, Why they did it, What was used, ho they implemented the CD, and how "they" avoided having the planes disrupt the CD.

Of course we would like to see evidence and explanation on why the other CD explanations are wrong. For example, Prager's mini neutron bomb explanation.

Your theory of CD should stand on its own merits. You shouldn't need NIST explanation.
Welcome. Good luck with that. Tony is not interested.
__________________
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 15th December 2016, 07:47 PM   #169
FFTR
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Welcome. Good luck with that. Tony is not interested.
I know that. In another forum Tony ignored questions, or answered with insults. Tony does not accept that any explanation should stand on its own merits. It is good enough to have the opinion it was not fire induced. The only conclusion then for Tony is it was CD.

Last edited by FFTR; 15th December 2016 at 07:48 PM.
FFTR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2016, 08:30 PM   #170
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 14,469
Originally Posted by FFTR View Post
I know that. In another forum Tony ignored questions, or answered with insults. Tony does not accept that any explanation should stand on its own merits. It is good enough to have the opinion it was not fire induced. The only conclusion then for Tony is it was CD.
I really could not say why TS resorts to outright abuse at the drop of a hat. Probably I could but that would break the board rules.

Far more interesting is that he is not even conscious of it. He is happy to castigate anyone except himself.

911 is a dead duck. Mostly, I took a watching brief, rarely posting. The volume of TS vitriol is stunning.

That said, we do talk about all manner of things hereabouts in a civilised manner. Here is my opinion, there is your opinion, what does the evidence show? and so forth. Minds may be changed. Mine has. And I have learned things in my time here. Maybe you can too. I hope so.
__________________
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 16th December 2016, 01:03 AM   #171
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: 1,468
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.
He hasn't posted any evidence for CD either.
I am as stunned as you are.
__________________
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 16th December 2016, 01:35 AM   #172
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
...And since I think every one of us can point to at least one detail Tony has got wrong,...

Yes. I can point to detail errors also...

BUT...

as you know Mark I prefer to focus on false premises and false foundation arguments. Because if the premises, assumptions and main foundations of his argument are wrong ALL the detail stuff is moot. And chasing details is a waste of effort.

Remember "Missing Jolt" - Tony's foundation premise was wrong. There never could be such a jolt - missing or not - because the scenario at the foundation of his "argument" NEVER existed. Yet we saw all sorts of measurements looking for different scaled jolts. Utter nonsense - the foundation premise was wrong.

And reliance on false premises was Tony's main SOP trick from 2007 thru last year 2015 when he switched to his current favourite tactic - false dilemma's. "Since I have proved Nordenson wrong - I AM RIGHT" -- and the same folk fall for the trap - discussing whether or not Nordenson was right. When it is irrelevant. (Add the list of "experts who Tony claims to have proved wrong" - I'm only using Nordenson as an example.)
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 16th December 2016, 02:51 AM   #173
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
It is incredible to see some of the silly comments here when the reality is that we do not have an official analysis which even remotely explains the collapse of WTC 7.

The NIST WTC 7 report and Nordenson's report, for the Con Edison vs. WTC 7 Properties court case, have provable fatal errors and assumptions.

The Weidlinger Associates report has a provably unsupportable and ridiculous assumption of two floors being heated to 850 degrees C simultaneously through 4 hour long preheating.

A new investigation which explains the observations is needed period. Those who would deny a new investigation have either not looked into the matter sufficiently or are part of a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue and obstruct it.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 16th December 2016 at 02:56 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2016, 04:02 AM   #174
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,674
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is incredible to see some of the silly comments here when the reality is that we do not have an official analysis which even remotely explains the collapse of WTC 7.

The NIST WTC 7 report and Nordenson's report, for the Con Edison vs. WTC 7 Properties court case, have provable fatal errors and assumptions.

The Weidlinger Associates report has a provably unsupportable and ridiculous assumption of two floors being heated to 850 degrees C simultaneously through 4 hour long preheating.

A new investigation which explains the observations is needed period. Those who would deny a new investigation have either not looked into the matter sufficiently or are part of a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue and obstruct it.
No investigation into phantom explosives needs to be conducted Tony no CD, evidence was ever found. Fire driven collapse is the only scientificly valid theory, the rubble falls and kicks out the columns as it spreads.
We have nothing from you that is indicative of anything worthy of a scientific inquiry when do you propose a testable CD theory?
Regardless of whether NIST is wrong or Right the fire induced collapse theory is the only proposed theory of merit.
Why should anyone pay attention to the open Huckstering of AE/911 truth?
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 16th December 2016, 05:34 AM   #175
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: 1,468
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is incredible to see some of the silly comments here when the reality is that we do not have an official analysis which even remotely explains the collapse of WTC 7.

The NIST WTC 7 report and Nordenson's report, for the Con Edison vs. WTC 7 Properties court case, have provable fatal errors and assumptions.

The Weidlinger Associates report has a provably unsupportable and ridiculous assumption of two floors being heated to 850 degrees C simultaneously through 4 hour long preheating.

A new investigation which explains the observations is needed period. Those who would deny a new investigation have either not looked into the matter sufficiently or are part of a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue and obstruct it.
That's lovely, Tony.
Now, do you have any evidence for CD? That might just be the thing you need to get a new investigation off the groud.
__________________
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 16th December 2016, 05:48 AM   #176
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is incredible to see some of the silly comments here when the reality is that we do not have an official analysis which even remotely explains the collapse of WTC 7.
Yes they all agree, global collapse after floor failures.
Btw, do YOU have an analysis of the detail of any of tge ones discussed here, that does explain collapse? I only recall the breeze of your handwaving.

Everyone else is wrong, Tony is right.
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 16th December 2016, 05:53 AM   #177
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,674
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
That's lovely, Tony.
Now, do you have any evidence for CD? That might just be the thing you need to get a new investigation off the groud.
I would like first to see actual evidence he is a working engineering professional, because based on his pattern of nonsense I significantly doubt he could design a latrine for Kangaroos.
He only tries to prove others wrong, never doing original work, he would start such a project,
By attempting to prove Kangaroos don't excrete.
Thus he saves time and money making the project unnecessary, but watch where you step.

Tony is it to much to ask, for an original thought that doesn't involve nitpicking someone else's work?

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 16th December 2016 at 06:24 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 16th December 2016, 07:23 AM   #178
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
I would like first to see actual evidence he is a working engineering professional, because based on his pattern of nonsense I significantly doubt he could design a latrine for Kangaroos.
He only tries to prove others wrong, never doing original work, he would start such a project,
By attempting to prove Kangaroos don't excrete.
Thus he saves time and money making the project unnecessary, but watch where you step.

Tony is it to much to ask, for an original thought that doesn't involve nitpicking someone else's work?
Yep!
On the off chance that a professional engineering group managed to produce a report that Tony could not find fault in, he would simply fall back on his claim that fires could not have been started in WTC7 by the debris + impact of WTC1. Prove beyond a doubt that they could, he will fall back on tower CD, and on and on.

pick away at the most difficult part of collapse sequence to pin down, and ignore that every single study produced has multiple floor collapses progressing to global collapse.

Tony would be better off simply claiming [truther mode on] that the floor collapses were brought about by placing a few pounds of thermite on girder connections on two floors just above the ones actually on fire. They would be above the heated levels and thus protected. The fires would have been started by the perps. These floors would then collapse onto the fire weakened floors. In such a scenario WTC now has 3-4 levels of unbraced columns and 3-4 levels worth of debris moving down towards the core bracing. Progression then advances as per NIST, Nordenson, WAI.[/truther mode off]

No big booms required, no progression study required, no ridiculous claim that FF=CD, etc.
BUT, of course no true Scotsman truther can ever allow that any part of any 'official story' could be true, beyond the date of the event.

(thus also the 'modified' aircraft, swapped aircraft, patsy hijackers, space-a-beam weapons, mini-nukes, unseen flyover, swapped aircraft, thermite/nano-thermite/explosive-super-duper-nano-thermite, pods, vicsims, empty towers, concrete tower cores, etc, etc., etc. post 166)

Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th December 2016 at 07:29 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 16th December 2016, 07:51 AM   #179
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is incredible to see some of the silly comments here when the reality is that we do not have an official analysis which even remotely explains the collapse of WTC 7.

The NIST WTC 7 report and Nordenson's report, for the Con Edison vs. WTC 7 Properties court case, have provable fatal errors and assumptions.

The Weidlinger Associates report has a provably unsupportable and ridiculous assumption of two floors being heated to 850 degrees C simultaneously through 4 hour long preheating.

A new investigation which explains the observations is needed period. Those who would deny a new investigation have either not looked into the matter sufficiently or are part of a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue and obstruct it.
Remind me again where the bolded was proven, Tony? Last time you brought it up, you could not articulate any basis for the timeline being incorrect. It is also consistent with the fire model timeline used by ARUP, NIST, and Bailey. As far as I can tell, even Hulsey is using a similar timeline for his temperature model. Yet we are to believe it is wrong because Tony says so? And why does Tony say so? As far as I can tell, it's because Tony needs an excuse to dismiss the work of people who have studied the collapse far more seriously than Tony.

You ever reach out to Dr. Abboud to talk to him about it, Tony? How does it feel to get recognition from the dozens of non-engineers who fervently want to believe what you peddle, all while knowing there are true professionals out there who have done work that dismantles your castle of BS? Building the walls higher won't stop everyone outside the castle from seeing the BS--quite the opposite.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 16th December 2016 at 07:56 AM.
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 16th December 2016, 08:07 AM   #180
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 13,011
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
A new investigation which explains the observations is needed period. Those who would deny a new investigation have either not looked into the matter sufficiently or are part of a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue and obstruct it.
Or are properly trained and qualified and see through this rubbish for what it is. Your inability to garner even a modicum of interest and support among the relevant professional community is quite telling, and bears on the real reason you lurk in backwater web forums and berate people you seem to despise.

I was serious earlier. You say you have some free time on your hands. Great, write up a scholarly paper expounding your theory, have it peer-reviewed (not friend-reviewed) at get it published in one of the flagship journals on structural engineering, forensic engineering, fire-protection engineering, or the like. That will put your theory to a proper test among the relevant professionals in a forum they would find hard to ignore. It will also promote the discussion to the attention of people who can make a new investigation happen, if you manage to convince them. I simply fail to see how it's so helpful to your stated cause for the people here whom you write off as losers to engage with you here and now, on your foisted terms. Even if you were to win the debate here hands down, how would beating a bunch of obscure anonymous laymen in a rigged game lay groundwork for a new investigation?
JayUtah 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 16th December 2016, 08:08 AM   #181
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Quote:
The Weidlinger Associates report has a provably unsupportable and ridiculous assumption of two floors being heated to 850 degrees C simultaneously through 4 hour long preheating.
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
Remind me again where the bolded was proven, Tony? Last time you brought it up, you could not articulate any basis for the timeline being incorrect. It is also consistent with the fire model timeline used by ARUP, NIST, and Bailey. As far as I can tell, even Hulsey is using a similar timeline for his temperature model. Yet we are to believe it is wrong because Tony says so? And why does Tony say so? As far as I can tell, it's because Tony needs an excuse to dismiss the work of people who have studied the collapse far more seriously than Tony.

You ever reach out to Dr. Abboud to talk to him about it, Tony? How does it feel to get recognition from the dozens of non-engineers who fervently want to believe what you peddle, all while knowing there are true professionals out there who have done work that dismantles your castle of BS? Building the walls higher won't stop everyone outside the castle from seeing the BS--quite the opposite.
Indeed, Abboud refers to the lower floor fire progression lagging the fire on the floor above and that this lag was part of the issue that allowed a rapid two storey local floor collapse.

ETA: AFAIK the only fire intensity/spread study done by anyone associated with AE911T is Chis Sarns. So I am at a loss as to how TSz comes to his conclusion that all of the previous such studies are all wrong.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th December 2016 at 08:11 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 16th December 2016, 08:16 AM   #182
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I was serious earlier. You say you have some free time on your hands. Great, write up a scholarly paper expounding your theory, have it peer-reviewed (not friend-reviewed) at get it published in one of the flagship journals on structural engineering, forensic engineering, fire-protection engineering, or the like. That will put your theory to a proper test among the relevant professionals in a forum they would find hard to ignore. It will also promote the discussion to the attention of people who can make a new investigation happen, if you manage to convince them.
A sentiment expressed by myself and others over and over again, and ignored over and over again by TSz and his ilk at AE911T.

Quote:
I simply fail to see how it's so helpful to your stated cause for the people here whom you write off as losers to engage with you here and now, on your foisted terms. Even if you were to win the debate here hands down, how would beating a bunch of obscure anonymous laymen in a rigged game lay groundwork for a new investigation?
from post 138
Quote:
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?
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 16th December 2016, 08:24 AM   #183
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Bolds mine:
Quote:
The key conclusion at this stage of the collapse sequence is that the initial
failure of the 10th floor would have been arrested, and would not have
progressed further, were it not for the presence of the unchecked,
travelling, nearly simultaneous fires on contiguous levels. Our analyses
show, in direct contradiction to the plaintiffs’ conclusion, that collapse of
one floor of WTC 7 onto the floor below does not trigger the collapse of
the impacted floor unless that floor also has already been weakened by a
closely lagging fire in the same area exactly one floor below, prior to
impact.
To test this conclusion, we analyzed the scenario where the 9th floor is
undamaged by fire at the time that the 10th floor collapses. The results
show that, in its ordinary condition, the floor had sufficient capacity and
robustness to arrest the debris from the collapsing floor. Thus the initial
collapse propagates only in the particular situation in which there are fires
on two sequential floors, with fire leading on the top floor, nearly
simultaneous in the same area of the floor plate. Fire on a single floor
would not have led to global collapse. Likewise, sequential floor fires in
the classic pattern, in which the fire on the lower floor leads, would most
likely result in only a single floor collapse.
As Dr. Beyler [Beyler, 2010]
explains, the particular circumstances that led to collapse in WTC 7, of
unchecked, travelling, nearly simultaneous fires on contiguous floors,
would not be expected in a classical fire scenario and are a direct
consequence of the highly unusual circumstances of September 11.
The Weidlinger Associates report has a provably unsupportable and ridiculous assumption of two floors being heated to 850 degrees C simultaneously through 4 hour long preheating.
Here's the support they utilized. Perhaps Tony has produced a full report demonstrating something different? No, only Chris Sarns, AFAIK.
Quote:
3.2. Temperatures
The steel temperatures have been derived by Hughes Associates, Inc. (HAI) as
described in the report by Dr. Beyler [Beyler, 2010]. These steel temperature timehistories
have been calculated by HAI for each floor framing member and include
temperatures at a number of points across the section of each member. Because the
variation of temperature through the depth of the steel beams is considerable (due to
heat-sink effects of the slab), temperatures are applied distinctly for each top flange,
bottom flange, and web in the model based on the average temperature for each
provided by HAI.
HAI also performed three-dimensional heat transfer calculations for each of the typical
connection types (knife, fin, seat, etc.) in WTC7 in order to establish the representative
temperature of the connection relative to the temperature of the connected components.
These results were:
• Finplate and seated web clip connection temperatures achieve 95% of the
temperature of the web of the connected secondary beam
• Knife and header connection temperatures at columns achieve 50% of
temperature of the connected girder web
• Seated connection temperatures at columns achieve 50% of the temperature of
the connected girder flanges (top clip and bottom seat are heated
independently).
Based on the modeling work of Huang et. al. [Huang, 1999], shear stud and concrete
temperatures were taken to be 75% of the peak top-flange temperature.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 16th December 2016 at 08:39 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 16th December 2016, 02:06 PM   #184
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,653
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... A new investigation which explains the observations is needed period. ...
At least you have the vast support of less than 0.1 percent of All Engineers. A failed youtube video has more hits.

Fire, gravity collapse. It only takes a grade school education to figure it out, not the years we earned our engineering degree with honor... (we wasted money on our degrees if this was our goal, to figure out fire did it)
__________________
"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; 16th December 2016 at 02:09 PM.
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 16th December 2016, 05:07 PM   #185
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,462
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Criteria
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 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.

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.

Indeed. Real engineers are more concerned with the collapse of WTC 5 than anything else. Unlike the WTC skyscrapers, WTC 5 employed a more traditional "Gerber Beam Design" with the gridwork of columns hidden behind walls. Yet it appears that the collapse occurred some two hours into the fire. This has obvious implications for firefighting and evacuation efforts in major fires. https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Availab...ed/LaMalva.pdf
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2016, 05:27 PM   #186
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,023
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is incredible to see some of the silly comments here when the reality is that we do not have an official analysis which even remotely explains the collapse of WTC 7.
Well that's just not true - and why does it have to be "official"?

We have a number of reports from different sources - both "official" and not - all of which describe the same proximate cause. None deviate from that same proximate cause, the same proximate cause that has been known and understood since the 7 was still upright, burning and unstable. The proximate cause of the loss of 7 WTC has never been a mystery except to a special few who need it to be.

Quote:
The NIST WTC 7 report and Nordenson's report, for the Con Edison vs. WTC 7 Properties court case, have provable fatal errors and assumptions.
So do all CD claims. Indeed, all CD claims are composed entirely of provable fatal errors and assumptions yet this seems not to phase you in the least.

Quote:
A new investigation which explains the observations is needed period. Those who would deny a new investigation have either not looked into the matter sufficiently or are part of a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue and obstruct it.
Why?

I may have mentioned this before but the proximate cause of the loss of 7 WTC was well understood even before the building fell. That it was going to fall was not a surprise to those who were there, at the scene witnessing the condition of the building and experienced in the stability of fire damaged structures because their lives depend on it.

There is no hope of any new investigation finding anything different than what has already been found. There is no new evidence. No one was in the building when it came down, watching and record which bits failed in what order and where. Any new investigation will have to rely out of necessity on unproven assumptions to fill in the many blanks.

You want to nitpick those details and depend upon the absurd idea that if one detail is off the whole conclusion falls apart as positive proof of a different case entirely.

That's a bit silly.

But maybe because that is because you don't really want a conclusion. You want all this to keep going endlessly. You no more want to really prove CD any more than you really want to disprove fire + time + gravity. You just want to keep this train rolling in endless circles of debate over largely irrelevant minutia.
__________________
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 16th December 2016, 05:39 PM   #187
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,523
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is incredible to see some of the silly comments here when the reality is that we do not have an official analysis which even remotely explains the collapse of WTC 7.
If you think that is silly, how about invisible and noiseless explosives that do not leave behind seismic data evidence, hardware evidence, or physical effects on structural steel?

What does it mean when a steel-framed building, which suffered massive impact damage while exposed to the direct effects of fires that raged out of control for hours, begins to buckle as firefighters reported creaking sounds emanating from within WTC 7? Firefighters added it all up and determined that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing, a decision that saved many lives.


Quote:
The Weidlinger Associates report has a provably unsupportable and ridiculous assumption of two floors being heated to 850 degrees C simultaneously through 4 hour long preheating.
I've annealed 4130 steel for 30 minutes at 900 only degrees F. to the point where it was unable to carry structural loads for which it was designed. How long did fire take to demolish the steel-framed Kader buildings in Thailand? How long did it take fire to collapse a steel-framed hangar in California? How long did it take fire to collapse the outer steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain, which left the concrete core standing?

Quote:
A new investigation which explains the observations is needed period. Those who would deny a new investigation have either not looked into the matter sufficiently or are part of a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue and obstruct it.
What was observed was the gutting of the south wall of WTC 7 from falling debris of WTC 1, whereas fire was observed raging for hours within WTC 7? What was not observed nor observed was an explosive event involving explosives.
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 16th December 2016, 05:58 PM   #188
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,462
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.
Oy vey. You must have failed high school physics. Surely you otherwise would have learned that a baseball that is simply dropped from a certain height and a baselball that is thrown horizontally to the earth hit the ground at the same time because their velocities relative to the surface of the earth are identical.

So the only thing affecting the velocity would be the difference between the height on WTC 1 that the debris fell from, and the height of the impact area. And you don't know what that is. For all you know, WTC 5 may have been hit by debris from much lower down on WTC 1 than the debris which hit WTC 7.

Actually, the damage would also depend on the mass of the debris. And it certainly appears that WTC 7 was struck by a large mass of debris, sufficient to have scooped out a large section of the south face.

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
It also suffered from long lasting major fire activity.
So did WTC 7. Your point?

Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
It did not collapse and was later 'pulled down' with cables.
Actually, WTC 5 suffered a major internal collapse. More distressingly for engineers, it appears that the collapse occurred early in the fire, about two hours, rather than after burning all day as with WTC 7. (https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Availab...ed/LaMalva.pdf) WTC 5 may well have been pulled down with cables, but the only documentary evidence of one of the wrecks being handled thusly was WTC 6.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg WTC 7 Gash and Fire.JPG (31.0 KB, 2 views)
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2016, 06:11 PM   #189
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
...But maybe because that is because you don't really want a conclusion. You want all this to keep going endlessly. You no more want to really prove CD any more than you really want to disprove fire + time + gravity. You just want to keep this train rolling in endless circles of debate over largely irrelevant minutia.


EXACTLY and well spotted Mark.

I've been holding back from repeating what seems obvious. Several members are seeking to impose their own values, their own frames of reference onto Tony. Whether in the form of "What they would do" OR their opinion as to "What Tony should do" with the assumption that Tony shares the same objective. He doesn't.

IMNSHO Tony's purpose is to keep the pot simmering. To keep his name "out there". He is not interested in persuading any sector of informed professionals - he has not changed in that regard since I first confronted examples of his work back in 2007 when I said this in my first internet post:
Originally Posted by Me-Nov2007
...The paper referenced as Engineering Reality by Tony Szamboti is typical of many which look impressive in detail to the non-engineer. The complex calculations may even be correct but the base premises are faulty and the resulting conclusions can readily be demonstrated to be totally wrong.
He is still playing the same "grand strategy" 9 years later - make some false claims then post gobbledegook to fool the lesser informed. His target is those gullible uninformed persons who will fall for the nonsense. The only change in the 9 years since 2007 being that he now resorts to insults far more and earlier than in previous years. But no change of the topic aspects of his claims - his technical content is as wrong now as it was in 2007.

He is not interested in publishing "scholarly papers" for the scholarly audience - BUT he relies a little on the apparent prestige of "peer reviewed" to impress the gullible.

He is not interested in whether or not his rebuttals of Nordenson et simile are correct or not - provided he can play the "false dichotomy" trick on gullible persons. "Nordenson (or similar) is wrong THEREFORE I am right."

We who are well informed recognise both levels of trickery - the details where he is almost certainly wrong in the technical topic AND at the higher level where his overall logic is fallacious.

So suggestions that he publish or seek professional support are of zero interest to him - other than as measures of how much he has misled some of us who should be more discerning.

His purpose here and in these "debates" is marketing to his gullible audience. Discerning professionals will not be misled by his false technical claims - even those who would prefer if he had a more legitimate professional objective. His purpose is marketing to a gullible audience NOT professional level quality explanations.

Last edited by ozeco41; 16th December 2016 at 06:16 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2016, 06:57 PM   #190
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,023
I will go a step further (and a bit more off-topic) and state that the current AE911T marketing,... er... engineering effort, the Hulsey study will be more of the same.

For years we debunkers have been harassing AE911T in particular with calls to do your own damn study if you have so many experts and have raised so much money. Of course, now they finally have (sort of). But even there I think I can probably safely predict what will happen.

Hulsey will reach a different conclusion over details from NIST. This will in turn be spun by AE911T as our crack team of one obscure professor and two engineering students with thousands of dollars and incomplete data have shown conclusively that NIST was wrong (about a detail) therefore,... (wait for it)... we need a new official investigation with subpoena power and peer review and yada, yada, yada,...

Even their conclusions are just designed to keep the train circling and the donations rolling in.
__________________
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 16th December 2016, 07:50 PM   #191
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,755
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
:
His purpose here and in these "debates" is marketing to his gullible audience. Discerning professionals will not be misled by his false technical claims - even those who would prefer if he had a more legitimate professional objective. His purpose is marketing to a gullible audience NOT professional level quality explanations.
Yes, which is why I never get an answer to the below. It would be admitting the true purpose, to lure more gullible donors.
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?
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 16th December 2016, 08:09 PM   #192
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
I will go a step further (and a bit more off-topic) and state that the current AE911T marketing,... er... engineering effort, the Hulsey study will be more of the same.

For years we debunkers have been harassing AE911T in particular with calls to do your own damn study if you have so many experts and have raised so much money. Of course, now they finally have (sort of). But even there I think I can probably safely predict what will happen.

Hulsey will reach a different conclusion over details from NIST. This will in turn be spun by AE911T as our crack team of one obscure professor and two engineering students with thousands of dollars and incomplete data have shown conclusively that NIST was wrong (about a detail) therefore,... (wait for it)... we need a new official investigation with subpoena power and peer review and yada, yada, yada,...

Even their conclusions are just designed to keep the train circling and the donations rolling in.
AE911 is both - I still think Tony is deluded but genuine and not driven by money.

Actually I would accept the offer to "discuss" issues of claim provided the goal is "agree as to truth" AND the process is legitimate by the bits of scientific method which are applicable.

The chance of Tony agreeing to "discuss" with me and in a valid process is near zero.

AND the issue of "judgement" would remain - no umpire or referee even in The911Forum setting despite the other advantages of that venue.

I would play hard but honest and fair as Tony is well aware.

And - as I have already said - all of his claims are "houses of cards" built on insecure foundations. Missing Jolt as a starter because the false foundation for his Twin towers claims is that he doesn't understand Twin Towers collapse mechanisms. And MJ is a short cut to falsify his claims without the complications of trying to drag him through territory he has never understood - AKA the full explanations of collapse mechanisms.
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 16th December 2016, 08:16 PM   #193
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Yes, which is why I never get an answer to the below. It would be admitting the true purpose, to lure more gullible donors.


As per previous post - I think Tony's goals are more driven by "win converts" from the ranks of the gullible - NOT so much about "donations". If I'm right on that AE911 is more of a "flag of convenience" for him rather than a heartfelt desire to support the Gage Retirement Fund.

Whichever it is his goals are assisted by getting a lot of "trolling feeding responses" whether or not they are on or off target. Tony "wins" on quantity not content quality. Esp if we remember that his followers are those "gullibles" who will only see their "hero" performing before the dreaded heathen. They by definition will not understand the arguments whether technical or procedural. So from his perspective it is worth the effort.##




## mmmm... on second thoughts that must be a truism. If he didn't think it was worth the effort -- he wouldn't keep posting..
....think before you type ozeco

Last edited by ozeco41; 16th December 2016 at 08:19 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2016, 02:49 AM   #194
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,674
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post


As per previous post - I think Tony's goals are more driven by "win converts" from the ranks of the gullible - NOT so much about "donations". If I'm right on that AE911 is more of a "flag of convenience" for him rather than a heartfelt desire to support the Gage Retirement Fund.

Whichever it is his goals are assisted by getting a lot of "trolling feeding responses" whether or not they are on or off target. Tony "wins" on quantity not content quality. Esp if we remember that his followers are those "gullibles" who will only see their "hero" performing before the dreaded heathen. They by definition will not understand the arguments whether technical or procedural. So from his perspective it is worth the effort.##




## mmmm... on second thoughts that must be a truism. If he didn't think it was worth the effort -- he wouldn't keep posting..
....think before you type ozeco
Ozeco41 we should wish Tony lots of luck, he and Gage, the more money they take from Twoofers the less money they will have for foolish things like food.
If they starve to death, then they will not breed and maybe the Human Race will be saved from super stupid people.
Evolution at work don't knock it until you try it.
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 17th December 2016, 03:31 AM   #195
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 12,438
As with all dedicated Conspiracy Theorists they don't want to win. They just want to keep it going.
If anyone won they would have to find a new conspiracyl
Captain_Swoop 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 17th December 2016, 05:36 AM   #196
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
It is contemptible to say that anyone questioning the official explanations for what occurred in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001 is simply a conspiracy theorist who just wants a conspiracy theory to squawk about.

There is no question that there are very serious problems with the official reports on how the three high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) collapsed. In reality, it is the officials who are stonewalling the discussion and trying to deny a new investigation, by propping up these obvious whitewashes, who are prolonging the matter.

To put out reports as problematic as the NIST WTC reports and not expect serious questions and backlash is ridiculous. One should not expect to be able to put out a non-explanatory report and simply have the public accept it.

Those who support these reports are either being intentionally ignorant of their problematic and non-explanatory nature, because they simply don't want to go there, or they are part of a deliberate attempt to deny a new investigation.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 17th December 2016 at 05:49 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2016, 06:00 AM   #197
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,674
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is contemptible to say that anyone questioning the official explanations for what occurred in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001 is simply a conspiracy theorist who just wants a conspiracy theory to squawk about.

There is no question that there are very serious problems with the official reports on how the three high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) collapsed. In reality, it is the officials who are stonewalling the discussion and trying to deny a new investigation, by propping up these obvious whitewashes, who are prolonging the matter.

To put out reports as problematic as the NIST WTC reports and not expect serious questions and backlash is ridiculous. One should not expect to be able to put out a non-explanatory report and simply have the public accept it.

Those who support these reports without showing they understand their problematic and non-explanatory nature are either ignorant or part of a deliberate attempt to deny a new investigation.
Bull the theories proposed are simply investigations to improve public safety, that was the goal, and in all the nit picking nonsense you have done you have not found one fault in the safety recommendations of NIST!

You can not propose an honest theory, into your proposed ideas of CD, and your work so far is intellectually and Scientificly irrelevant!

Given that you support people using experiments obviously designed to give a predetermined false result, why should anyone put trust into anything you say?

You know Tony that the top block representation is wrong, You know that Cole's Experiments are ridiculous, so what is keeping you if you are a truther from simply telling the truth?

There is so much actual science, against you and AE9/11stupidest Twoofers on the planet, that no one with actual knowledge could take you seriously.

Tony I merely set a hollow beach tree on fire, and got flash heating temperatures of over 1300C, can you even Imagine what Chimney Stack effects would have done to those buildings?

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 17th December 2016 at 06:11 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 17th December 2016, 06:16 AM   #198
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Bull the theories proposed are simply investigations to improve public safety, that was the goal, and in all the nit picking nonsense you have done you have not found one fault in the safety recommendations of NIST!

You can not propose an honest theory, into your proposed ideas of CD, and your work so far is intellectually and Scientificly irrelevant!

Given that you support people using experiments obviously designed to give a predetermined false result, why should anyone put trust into anything you say?

You know Tony that the top block representation is wrong, You know that Cole's Experiments are ridiculous, so what is keeping you if you are a truther from simply telling the truth?

There is so much actual science, against you and AE9/11stupidest Twoofers on the planet, that no one with actual knowledge could take you seriously.

Tony I merely set a hollow beach tree on fire, and got flash heating temperatures of over 1300C, can you even Imagine what Chimney Stack effects would have done to those buildings?
It is fully demonstrable (and far from just nitpicking) that the reports done by NIST do not explain the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 and a new investigation is needed.

You are simply not being honest. Whether that is conscious or not I can't say, but I can certainly say the things you say here are not true.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 17th December 2016 at 06:17 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2016, 06:38 AM   #199
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,817
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is fully demonstrable (and far from just nitpicking) that the reports done by NIST do not explain the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 and a new investigation is needed.

You are simply not being honest. Whether that is conscious or not I can't say, but I can certainly say the things you say here are not true.

Maybe we're just going to quick for you to absorb it all. So let's start really small so we know what we're working with.

Tony. How many planes crashed on 9/11?

I'll follow up after you answer. Take all the time you need.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 17th December 2016, 06:38 AM   #200
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,674
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is fully demonstrable (and far from just nitpicking) that the reports done by NIST do not explain the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 and a new investigation is needed.

You are simply not being honest. Whether that is conscious or not I can't say, but I can certainly say the things you say here are not true.
You have proven them true Tony.

If you make a knowledgable verifiable claim I will support it but I will not support any false claim or false science or down right Huckstering.

Regardless of the failure mode there is zero evidence Of any form of CD, or criminal activity, on the part of the investigation teams or the government, other than some political coverups of stupidity.

I can see how and why Cole designs his experiments I have done the same and mine produced results Cole's can't, they are designed failures.

I mean Tony think the thermite cutter first posted by Jones in 2005 used bottle oxygen O2, to increase cutting efficiency, Cole didn't think of that.
In his thermite explosion experiment he simply built a closed container and allowed internal pressure to rupture it.
I can see right though the garbage Tony, I can't be tricked by such easy to see though deception.
The Dog and Pony show will not work with me Tony, the wagon wheel broke and you need to abandon the 19th century patent medicine show.
The Snake oil isn't selling any more!

I have no problem with swindling the sucker Tony, they deserve it, but your not going to pass it off as Science or Engineering.
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
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 03:51 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.