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 17th December 2016, 07:20 AM   #201
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
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.
Despite your protest it most certainly looks like all AE911T wants is to continue talking, talking, talking. In the 16 years since the event and over a decade since AE911T formed, there has been almost no actual research and study done by the organization. The bulk of funds raised via notations have give to Gage's globetrotting speaking tours.
If you balk at the characterization then please note that the organization, and druthers in general, have themselves to blame.

Quote:
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.
I see minor issues at best. Take the initiating event of progressive collapse in any of the few destroyed buildings that you care about. THAT is a minor issue. Minor because it is the most difficult to pin down. It can be deduced within a margin of error but progression through the building can be more certainly figured out.
BUT you don't even try!

Quote:
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.
Yet yours is the only, the sole, even remotely professional organization that characterizes the reports that way. YOU are in the fringe minority and have done very little to try to change that.

Quote:
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.
False dichotomy, I need say no more.
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 17th December 2016, 07:47 AM   #202
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Despite your protest it most certainly looks like all AE911T wants is to continue talking, talking, talking. In the 16 years since the event and over a decade since AE911T formed, there has been almost no actual research and study done by the organization. The bulk of funds raised via notations have give to Gage's globetrotting speaking tours.
If you balk at the characterization then please note that the organization, and druthers in general, have themselves to blame.


I see minor issues at best. Take the initiating event of progressive collapse in any of the few destroyed buildings that you care about. THAT is a minor issue. Minor because it is the most difficult to pin down. It can be deduced within a margin of error but progression through the building can be more certainly figured out.
BUT you don't even try!


Yet yours is the only, the sole, even remotely professional organization that characterizes the reports that way. YOU are in the fringe minority and have done very little to try to change that.


False dichotomy, I need say no more.
The omission of pertinent structural features from the NIST WTC 7 report, that would invalidate their failure initiation mechanism hypothesis, is not a minor point.

The simultaneous free fall collapse of all four corners of the roofline of WTC 7, which is not indicative of a progressive east to west interior collapse, is not a minor point.

The less than one second horizontal propagation, from the southwest to northeast corners, of the collapse initiation across the entire 98th floor of WTC 1, is not a minor point.

The lack of deceleration, in the measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1, is not a minor point.

These things have not been explained by NIST, or anyone else who supports the natural collapse by fire scenario, and they are elephants in the room which show that scenario to be impossible as an explanation.

Your former star (tfk) had no answers for solid points like these and that is why he dropped out of our debate. It is clear that none of you here can either, and that is why you will not debate one-on-one and continue to hang in a group where you can throw a barb and run for cover behind your like-minded brethren, while trying to overwhelm the individuals who come on here with superior arguments.

I will not engage in a full debate here. If you want to debate me it has to be one-on-one, with time for thoughtful responses. Otherwise, things just get lost in the noise, which may be an intentional facet of a forum like the ISF.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 17th December 2016 at 09:00 AM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2016, 08:32 AM   #203
FFTR
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 41
Tony
When are you going to present the detailed explanation of CD? The excuse of a need for another investigation doesn't cover it.

Please start a thread for CD. Let us look at it in detail. After all these years, AE911T has yet to provide such an explanation.

Question: Many have said the steel was recycled, thereby getting rid of the "evidence". If that is true, what would the "new" investigation look at? Vids, photos, etc. that have been available for years.

You keep bringing up WTC7. Have you given up on explaining CD brought down the twin towers?
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 17th December 2016, 08:33 AM   #204
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 611
Tony...no one cares!

The truther movement is dead, logic and reason killed it years ago.

Tony...I wish you a long and happy life, but stop wasting your life on these stupid ideas.
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2016, 09:03 AM   #205
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The omission of pertinent structural features from the NIST WTC 7 report, that would invalidate their failure initiation mechanism hypothesis, is not a minor point.

The simultaneous free fall collapse of all four corners of the roofline of WTC 7, which is not indicative of a progressive east to west interior collapse, is not a minor point.
Column Kicking as was explained to you on the 9/11 Forum, and which you agreed could create those observed conditions.

[Qoute]The less than one second horizontal propagation, from the southwest to northeast corners, of the collapse initiation across the entire 98th floor of WTC 1, is not a minor point.
[/quote].

Do I really have to explain the effect of a 1400C Chimney effect on steel bracing in the core, or can you figure it out?

Quote:
The lack of deceleration, in the measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1, is not a minor point.
You better go back to school and take a course on physics, specifically Maxwell's contribution to engineering!

The upper block and lower block have at that point insufficient strength to resist gravitational collapse, the speed of the buildings matches the resistance the buildings could provide!

Quote:
These things have not been explained by NIST, or anyone else who supports the natural collapse by fire scenario, and they are elephants in the room which show that scenario to be impossible as an explanation.
May be you just haven't been listening for 16 years now!

Quote:
Your former star (tfk) had no answers for solid points like these and that is why he dropped out of our debate. It is clear that none of you here can either, and that is why you will not debate one-on-one and continue to hang in a group where you can throw a barb and run for cover behind your brethren, while trying to overwhelm the individuals who come on here with superior arguments.
TFK was only a star to you, He showed he was way too full of bluster and lacked substance in the debate.
The fact you knew about and perticipated in a Fraudulent use of the RJ Lee report is enough to show your word can not be trusted!
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, 10:08 AM   #206
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post

The less than one second horizontal propagation, from the southwest to northeast corners, of the collapse initiation across the entire 98th floor of WTC 1, is not a minor point.

The lack of deceleration, in the measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1, is not a minor point.
Considering that dust plumes and debris are observed outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings, what does that mean to you? And, in the videos, there is no sound of explosions as the WTC buildings fall, which effectively debunks your CD theory and why demolition experts do not support your case.

Quote:
I will not engage in a full debate here. If you want to debate me it has to be one-on-one, with time for thoughtful responses. Otherwise, things just get lost in the noise, which may be an intentional facet of a forum like the ISF.
Since you continue to push your highly flawed CD theory in regard to 9/11 after the laws of physics have proven that you have nothing of substance to debate with, a debate with you is meaningless especially as you continue to ignore undeniable facts and evidence related to the WTC buildings.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that CD had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, and the internal collapse of WTC 5. In other words, you would be coming to the debate table empty-handed.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 17th December 2016 at 10:13 AM.
skyeagle409 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 17th December 2016, 10:33 AM   #207
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,600
9/11 truth proves over and over physics is prohibited, and once again, failure

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The lack of deceleration, in the measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1, is not a minor point.
Total BS. The momentum transfer of each floor failure is proved by the timing of collapse. It matches a gravity collapse of floors failing. Complete failure as the hogwash of "lack of deceleration" is proved by they speed of collapse. The fact the WTC is falling at a speed matching the momentum transfer, and less than g makes this proof you ignore science and prefer some fantasy inside job void of evidence, using BS.
__________________
"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 17th December 2016, 10:34 AM   #208
Mark F
Muse
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 966
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.
True dat. Good thing no one has actually said that because they would look pretty silly. Not sure why you even brought that up.

Quote:
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.
Ummmmm,... no.

The NIST Twin Tower Building Performance Reports are good enough, the 7 report probably about as good as is possible. There is no grounds for a new investigation. We have probably learned as much as there is to be learned given the available data insofar as future building safety is concerned, the recommendations given . And building safety is the point after all, is it not?

But lets not forget that 9/11 wasn't about buildings, it was about people. Why are you so obsessed with inanimate objects anyway?

Quote:
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.
This from the guy who gave us Missing Jolt.

I should point out that no actions by anyone on this or any other obscure interwebs forum have any impact at all on any investigation of anything. If you think someone should investigate something further than has been then it is on you to do a much, much better job of providing justification for such an endeavor.

So far you are woefully short and that is a you problem, not an us problem. Stop blaming others for your failure.
__________________
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 17th December 2016, 11:08 AM   #209
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,305
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I will not engage in a full debate here. If you want to debate me it has to be one-on-one, with time for thoughtful responses. Otherwise, things just get lost in the noise, which may be an intentional facet of a forum like the ISF.
If you're so disappointed with ISF then why do you keep coming back here to grovel for attention? It seems that you come here only to complain about how shabby it is. If you want a more elevated form of debate, why are you wasting time at a public forum crowded with laymen? If your goal is to bring about a new investigation, what makes you think anything that happens here at ISF will have the slightest effect on whether that happens? If you want time for thoughtful debate, why aren't you writing papers for peer review and publication in the best journals? That's debate at a fairly sedate pace.
JayUtah 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 17th December 2016, 11:15 AM   #210
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,072
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
There is nothing to debate IMO. It is futile. The few "truther" left can be left to their belief, they will be like those who STILL believe we did not land on the moon, or like holocaust denier. It does not matter how many evidence provided to them, they will deny it.

At this point the controlled demolition dank meme is just a belief so deep anchored it will only end when the person die of natural death.
bahahaha!!!!!! The thought of a formal, moderated debate is terrifying to the average neo-skeptic. For the most part, very few, if any neo-skeptic people, on this site have at least a B.A. in formal logic(nor do most other regular people). No cherrypicking of Wiki list-of-fallacies allowed in that room. No fellow neo-skeptics for backup allowed in that room!! Go on,give it a go all by your lonesome. If you have such pure truth, such intellectual certitude then you should be tripping on your untied shoelaces on the way out the door trying to get to that debate.

Your response is a psychological fallacy or cognitive bias, if you prefer. When I see this kind of response I can't help but think of that old adage, "Like the little boy who has to walk home after dark past a graveyard and he's trying to bolster himself psychologically whistling and jauntily high stepping on down the road to show that he ain't afraid of no ghosts...besides, there ain't no ghosts, is there mommy?"

If nothing else you will learn about formal logic and how it is applied in a REAL formal debate, not just a bunch of immature brats, on both sides of the fence, hurling insults and slurs at each other.

I've only read this first post but I'll bet it is the common response that I'll see in the rest of the post. So I challenge any neo-skeptic anywhere in the world to take this guy on and prove to him that you're right and they're wrong. Come on, do your people proud!! Step up to the plate and show them troofers once and for all!!!

p.s. I haven't read past this post so if I'm wrong to any degree, which I will be the judge of, I will openly stand corrected.
__________________
If you open you mind too far your brains will fall out

If you close your mind too tight you'll cut off the circulation.
jakesteele 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, 11:48 AM   #211
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,672
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
...So I challenge any neo-skeptic anywhere in the world to take this guy on and prove to him that you're right and they're wrong ...
Right or wrong about WHAT?

That guy came here to debate about a dozend buildings, half a dozend or so building performance studies, and uncounted (100+) academic papers on all these buildings.

So please help me: What, exactly, does this guy claim that we could discuss and try to show whether he is right or wrong?

When you got your B.A. in formal logic, did they teach you how to frame a debate proposal? Then please explain it to that guy
__________________
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 17th December 2016, 12:08 PM   #212
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,422
Explain the logic in debating a null point.
__________________
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 17th December 2016, 12:23 PM   #213
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,666
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Right or wrong about WHAT?

That guy came here to debate about a dozend buildings, half a dozend or so building performance studies, and uncounted (100+) academic papers on all these buildings.

So please help me: What, exactly, does this guy claim that we could discuss and try to show whether he is right or wrong?

When you got your B.A. in formal logic, did they teach you how to frame a debate proposal? Then please explain it to that guy
I'm kinda at a loss here.
What is there to debate? All the wishful thinking in the world will not turn 2.5 into 1, or pi into 3.
Fa>Ftu=failure. 1.0+1.0=2.0
How does a "Formal Logic" Degree help one overturn the laws of physics? they are blissfully indifferent to overwhelming opinion.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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, 12:39 PM   #214
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12

Last edited by kmortis; 19th December 2016 at 10:12 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, 12:50 PM   #215
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 omission of pertinent structural features from the NIST WTC 7 report, that would invalidate their failure initiation mechanism hypothesis, is not a minor point.
The focus on the initiating detail that started progression to global collapse IS a minor point. Why did you recharacterize what I said in my post? Are you training for politics?

There are now how many, say the words Tony, how many professional engineering studies that come to the conclusion that FIRE damage caused the initiating failure event AND that this progressed to global collapse? Here's a hint, it is greater than one and less than 10.

Quote:
The simultaneous free fall collapse of all four corners of the roofline of WTC 7, which is not indicative of a progressive east to west interior collapse, is not a minor point.
Why do you choose to divide out a near last moment in time from what IS clearly a progresive collapse taking close to 20 seconds?
Quote:
The less than one second horizontal propagation, from the southwest to northeast corners, of the collapse initiation across the entire 98th floor of WTC 1, is not a minor point.
Yes, it is. I again note that not one of the professional engineering organizations that studied WTC in detail expressed any incredulity at this point or any other. Neither did such organizations as the ASCE, CTBUH, or AIA.


Quote:
The lack of deceleration, in the measurements of the fall of the upper section of WTC 1, is not a minor point
Once again that ambiguous word "deceleration". <<sigh>>
But yes it is minor, the lack of your erroneously expected jolt has been listed in these page numerous times. Repeating you argument from incredulity doesnt make them any better with age.

Quote:
These things have not been explained by NIST, or anyone else who supports the natural collapse by fire scenario, and they are elephants in the room which show that scenario to be impossible as an explanation.
Mice, no make that voles, no on third thought make that dust mites.
Yours is the only, the sole, even remotely professional organization, that characterizes the reports that way. YOU are in the fringe minority and have done very little to try to change that.
You don't even try.]


What does rise to an elephantine level is that AE911T has performed no study whatsoever of the breadth and detail of those done by NIST, Purdue U., ARUP, WAI, or Nordenson & Associates, instead choosing to spend most of their funds on world speaking tours by Gage, specifically designed to avoid the professional engineering community.

Quote:
Your former star (tfk)
I had little issue with tfk beyond his strict Bazantian outlook and ascerbic manner. I would however not characterize him as my "star".

Quote:
had no answers for solid points like these and that is why he dropped out of our debate. It is clear that none of you here can either, and that is why you will not debate one-on-one and continue to hang in a group where you can throw a barb and run for cover behind your like-minded brethren, while trying to overwhelm the individuals who come on here with superior arguments.
I note that you respond to a post of mine now but not to the several instances of my asking these questions, which directly relate to such a debate:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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?
Quote:
I will not engage in a full debate here. If you want to debate me it has to be one-on-one, with time for thoughtful responses. Otherwise, things just get lost in the noise, which may be an intentional facet of a forum like the ISF.
I dont care.
I find no value in such an online debate.
ETA 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?
Tony? Do you think crushing everyone of us would garner you greater attention from such orgs?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 17th December 2016 at 01:13 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 17th December 2016, 01:15 PM   #216
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,672
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
I'm kinda at a loss here.
What is there to debate? All the wishful thinking in the world will not turn 2.5 into 1, or pi into 3.
Fa>Ftu=failure. 1.0+1.0=2.0
How does a "Formal Logic" Degree help one overturn the laws of physics? they are blissfully indifferent to overwhelming opinion.
Don't ask me - jakesteele brought these things up.
My question was the same: What is there to debate? Even "the guy" (T.Sz., the OP) could not, even after repeated queries, spell out a point to be debated. He truly thinks that a general debate about all things "WTC on 9/11", but excluding everything else that happened on 9/11, is somehow a good idea.
__________________
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 17th December 2016, 01:46 PM   #217
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
I note, with some mirth, that at one point AE911T was all up in arms that NIST would not release their input data for their FEAs, and that was what shut down any independant checking of the NIST computer runs for WTC7. Now that the Nordenson and WAI reports are out, complete with such computer analysis, AE911T has gone pretty silent on how not releasing data shuts down independant research.
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 17th December 2016, 01:50 PM   #218
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 23,901
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post

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

Quote:
I am a mechanical engineer by profession and initially started looking into the three building collapses in New York City on September 11, 2001 during the spring of 2006. The reason for it was hearing about a physics professor having written a paper talking about issues due to the finding of molten metal in the rubble of the collapsed buildings.

I had initially accepted the notion put forth by a civil engineering professor in September 2001 that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were due to dynamic impact loads, after the top sections of the buildings fell onto the lower sections at the aircraft impact points. The dynamic loads would be much greater than the static load and would overcome the reserve strength of the structure below.

Thus in the spring of 2006 I wondered if the molten metal issue was just a quirky anomaly, but felt I should read the physics professor’s paper first before deciding. In the paper the physics professor said it looked like the buildings had actually been taken down by controlled demolition charges. After reading this I could not simply allow myself to believe anything without at least looking into what public information there was about it. The NIST WTC report had already been released and I looked at that. I also watched some documentaries on the issue from both sides and read whatever journalistic information was available.

Unfortunately, my own research started to cause me to doubt the story we were told by our government. I was aghast when reading in the NIST WTC report that the NIST investigators received 236 pieces or just 0.25 to 0.50% of the steel from the twin towers for the investigation. This reaction was even stronger, when reading in the NIST WTC 7 report, that no metallographic analysis could be done on its steel, as no steel was salvaged from WTC 7.

In 2008 it was learned that WTC 7 had gone into full free fall acceleration for over 100 feet. The NIST was asked about this and later confirmed in their final report that this actually occurred. Unfortunately, there was no attempt made to explain it.

Also in 2008, measurements of the descent of the North Tower (WTC 1) showed it never decelerated and thus could not have produced the powerful jolt that the civil engineering professor had conjectured in his 2001 paper.

In early 2012 a large percentage of the WTC 7 drawings were released due to an FOIA from a structural engineer. Review of the drawings showed the WTC 7 report had omitted pertinent structural features, which when included in the analysis seemed to preclude the failures asserted in the report.

The continuing additions, over time, of things in the government story being shown to be seriously questionable have caused me to support a new investigation into the events which occurred in NYC on September 11, 2001. I now believe the controlled demolition hypothesis best fits the evidence and that it should be investigated.
I don't see you meeting the terms of your agreement so I must conclude you lost this debate in your first post. Basically put, you did not show 3 pieces of verifiable evidence in favor of controlled demolition.

If you can point out in your opening statement where you met the requirement I may reconsider.

ETA: I also loved that you chose to use your first post in reply to TFK to point out he went over 500 words.................

Link: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/de...nd-7-t768.html

<back to lurking>
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 17th December 2016 at 02:06 PM.
DGM 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 17th December 2016, 02:22 PM   #219
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 395
Still no response from Tony on why the fire simulation timelines used by WAI were erroneous. Tony--how do you even take yourself seriously at this point? You know you don't have an honest objection to WAI's simulations, so what compels you to pretend that you do? You're not stupid nor are you some impetuous young person. Come to grips with reality--you know the WAI did exactly what you've been for years requesting someone do: a fulsome, independent study of the WTC 7 collapse. And you know you actually respect and agree with their methodologies. Don't posture for the benefit of your ego and for whatever fanboys you think you need to feed that ego. Think carefully and be honest with yourself.
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 17th December 2016, 04:48 PM   #220
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,019
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
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.
It's because of the undeniable accuracy of MSPaintFireTM
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)

Last edited by LSSBB; 17th December 2016 at 04:50 PM.
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 17th December 2016, 05:12 PM   #221
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,019
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Yet yours is the only, the sole, even remotely professional organization that characterizes the reports that way. YOU are in the fringe minority and have done very little to try to change that.
I wouldn't even mention "professional organization" in connection with Gage's special interest club. A professional organization is like IEEE, ISTRUCTE, PMI, AMA, AVMA.
__________________
"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 17th December 2016, 05:31 PM   #222
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: 23,070
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
One should not expect to be able to put out a non-explanatory report and simply have the public accept it.
Which is, of course, why there have been no reports trying to outline a coherent alternative theory of the 9/11 attacks.

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2016, 05:35 PM   #223
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: 23,070
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
If nothing else you will learn about formal logic and how it is applied in a REAL formal debate, not just a bunch of immature brats, on both sides of the fence, hurling insults and slurs at each other.
Do we still have that smilie image of an exploding irony meter?

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

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2016, 06:08 PM   #224
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Do we still have that smilie image of an exploding irony meter?

Dave
I think it melted though the earth long ago, from Ironic critical melt down.
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, 06:15 PM   #225
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I wouldn't even mention "professional organization" in connection with Gage's special interest club. A professional organization is like IEEE, ISTRUCTE, PMI, AMA, AVMA.
A part of their membership has some credentials.
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 17th December 2016, 06:33 PM   #226
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
A part of their membership has some credentials.
BUT do any of their "arguments" have credibility?

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, 06:35 PM   #227
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,371
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Do we still have that smilie image of an exploding irony meter?

Dave
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, 07:26 PM   #228
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
BUT do any of their "arguments" have credibility?

Nope, not within that "remotely professional organization".

Last edited by jaydeehess; 17th December 2016 at 07:50 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 17th December 2016, 07:46 PM   #229
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Which is, of course, why there have been no reports trying to outline a coherent alternative theory of the 9/11 attacks.

Dave
You are saying that even if a provably non-explanatory report is put out by a government agency, which was funded to explain a catastrophic failure, you think that because no private citizen has come up with what you consider to be a coherent alternative theory that everything is fine.

You really can't be taken seriously. The twisted logic here is astounding and shows why the official WTC collapse explanation supporters on this forum are generally viewed with disdain in most other places on the Internet.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 17th December 2016 at 07:56 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2016, 07:54 PM   #230
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 twisted logic here is astounding and shows why the official WTC collapse story supporters on this forum are generally viewed with disdain in most other places on the Internet.

You are saying that even if a crappy non-explanatory report is put out by a government agency, which was funded to explain a catastrophic failure, you think that because no private citizen has come up with what you consider to be a coherent alternative theory that everything is fine.

You really can't be taken seriously.
But Tony, other private engineering organizations HAVE.
Why can't the one you associate with?
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 17th December 2016, 07:58 PM   #231
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
But Tony, other private engineering organizations HAVE.
Why can't the one you associate with?
Actually they haven't. You are just saying they have. There is no published analysis purporting to explain the collapse of WTC 7 that is consistent with observation.
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, 08:04 PM   #232
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 official WTC collapse explanation supporters on this forum are generally viewed with disdain in most other places on the Internet.
Really? Most places?
Disdain on the internet, oh my, how nasty, how embarrassing, how could I ever show my face in public. Wait, ,, , that's right, I remember now.
I and those of like mind, including all truly professional organizations concerned, are in the majority, and you are your like minded compatriots, are a fringe minority.
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 17th December 2016, 08:05 PM   #233
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
Actually they haven't. You are just saying they have. There is no published analysis purporting to explain the collapse of WTC 7 that is consistent with observation.
Actually they all do.
You don't.
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 17th December 2016, 08:10 PM   #234
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Actually they all do.
You don't.
Name one that explains the observations.
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, 08:13 PM   #235
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
Name one that explains the observations.
Show me yours.

You do have one? Published or squirreled away in a desk at home, something?
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 17th December 2016, 08:22 PM   #236
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Really? Most places?
Disdain on the internet, oh my, how nasty, how embarrassing, how could I ever show my face in public. Wait, ,, , that's right, I remember now.
I and those of like mind, including all truly professional organizations concerned, are in the majority, and you are your like minded compatriots, are a fringe minority.
No, you are just an anonymous internet poster with no credentials.
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, 08:24 PM   #237
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Show me yours.

You do have one? Published or squirreled away in a desk at home, something?
I am saying we need a new investigation that does replicate and explain the observations.

You obviously can't name one that has and thus are forced to agree.
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, 08:31 PM   #238
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
I am saying we need a new investigation that does replicate and explain the observations.

You obviously can't name one that has and thus are forced to agree.
I dont believe you when you say you want that.

What you want is validation of your ridiculous theory about incompetant, yet super techy, super secret , super planners working for a super secret cabal.
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 17th December 2016, 08:34 PM   #239
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
No, you are just an anonymous internet poster with no credentials.
Oh but I am part of the majority, Tony, and you are part of a fringe minority which cannot, or will not, work towards being anything other than a fringe minority inhabiting the internet.
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 17th December 2016, 08:36 PM   #240
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
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?
Come on, Tony, tell us the answer to these questions.
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
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 12:40 PM.
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.