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, 08:58 PM   #241
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Come on, Tony, tell us the answer to these questions.
You debate here all the time. I am just asking to do the debate one-on-one to eliminate all of the noise from other posters and allow time for more thoughtful responses.

I am trying to show you and others that the present official story explanations for the collapses of the three WTC high-rises do not withstand scrutiny and in a more serious debating situation that can be done, where on a fast paced forum with a lot of different posters arguments get drowned out.
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, 09:01 PM   #242
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
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.
Any New investigation would only be another hypothetical theory, these were never before seen event fires like these have never before occurred in the history of mankind.
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, 09:03 PM   #243
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You debate here all the time. I am just asking to do the debate one-on-one to eliminate all of the noise from other posters and allow time for more thoughtful responses.

I am trying to show you and others that the present official story explanations for the collapses of the three WTC high-rises do not withstand scrutiny and in a more serious debating situation that can be done, where on a fast paced forum with a lot of different posters arguments get drowned out.
That's because all the simulations are too conservative on the fires and effect.
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, 10:41 PM   #244
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,161
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.
It's all very simple. We have evidence that fires raged out of control for hours and we know that temperatures were high enough to weaken structural steel. What we don't have evidence for is that the destruction of WTC7 involved explosives, thermite, or nano-thermite, but it would have been impossible to pre-weaken its steel structural, which is required, and wire WTC7 with explosives in secrecy anyway.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 17th December 2016 at 10:43 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2016, 11:11 PM   #245
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I am just asking to do the debate one-on-one to eliminate all of the noise from other posters and allow time for more thoughtful responses.
Various WTC collapse videos have made it very clear why a debate is pointless.
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 17th December 2016, 11:47 PM   #246
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I am saying we need a new investigation that does replicate and explain the observations.


It is a waste of time considering that it has been determined that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, and it has been determined that the collapse of those buildings had nothing to do with CD.
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 18th December 2016, 12:31 AM   #247
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,161
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Actually they haven't. You are just saying they have. .
Let's take a look here. Investigation assistance from:

* Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)

* The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)

* The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

* The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)

* The Council Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)

* The Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).

Last edited by skyeagle409; 18th December 2016 at 12:33 AM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 12:50 AM   #248
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
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).



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.
Interesting. I did a quick google of this, and couldn't find a single university offering such a thing.
I'd like to add my voice to those asking if you have such a qualification, and, if so, where you obtained it. I'd also like to know if Tony Szamboti has one and, if not, whether you consider him qualified to engage in this debate.
__________________
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 18th December 2016, 03:40 AM   #249
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
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 ...
Add: "... that I, T.Sz., allow into my personal filter bubble; not in the real world though".
Then we can agree
__________________
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 18th December 2016, 03:42 AM   #250
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, you are just an anonymous internet poster with no credentials.
T.Sz. SOP.
__________________
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 18th December 2016, 03:57 AM   #251
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... I am just asking to do the debate one-on-one ...
You really haven't made a stringent point that you wish to debate.

We understand that you think there is something wrong in the NIST report, that you disagree with their "probable" collapse sequence.
That's an average "D'oh".

I think every smart person here agrees that there is something wrong in the NIST report.
I think most smart persons here will agree that the word "probable" introduces the idea that possibly, the probable collapse sequence is not the actual one.
Which is a lame "D'uh".
The smart ones here understand easily that it is difficult, and quite probably impossible, to know with certainty just how and where the collapse initiated. However, all the scholarly work done so far converges on a few common conclusions, such as
  • Long beam spans can cause problems when subject to unusual fires on a scale that previously had not been taken into account sufficiently
  • It is almost certain that failure of a floor system somewhere in the eastern lower 14 stories triggered the global collapse
  • Loss of lateral support for columns 79-81 over enough stories will lead to global collapse
  • Fires raged through at least six of the candidate floor areas
  • It is certain beyond reasonable doubt that these multifloors fires damaged the floors enough to trigger the collapse
You'd need to explain why you think that refuting one detail in one of the reports that have been done changes these facts one bit.

We all know that you are married by religious faith to the silly idea that there were huge explosive charges on all the core columns somewhere in the middle of the raging fires that magically survived the heat (Danny Jowenko explained ten years ago that demolition charges cannot survive fires) and then magically exploded without sound, magically leaving no cut marks on the steel. You don't fool us. You know that we know that this IS your hypothesis, and that it is spectacularly at odds with observed reality, and unsupported by any study whatsoever.
__________________
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 18th December 2016, 04:26 AM   #252
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You really haven't made a stringent point that you wish to debate.

We understand that you think there is something wrong in the NIST report, that you disagree with their "probable" collapse sequence.
That's an average "D'oh".

I think every smart person here agrees that there is something wrong in the NIST report.
I think most smart persons here will agree that the word "probable" introduces the idea that possibly, the probable collapse sequence is not the actual one.
Which is a lame "D'uh".
The smart ones here understand easily that it is difficult, and quite probably impossible, to know with certainty just how and where the collapse initiated. However, all the scholarly work done so far converges on a few common conclusions, such as
  • Long beam spans can cause problems when subject to unusual fires on a scale that previously had not been taken into account sufficiently
  • It is almost certain that failure of a floor system somewhere in the eastern lower 14 stories triggered the global collapse
  • Loss of lateral support for columns 79-81 over enough stories will lead to global collapse
  • Fires raged through at least six of the candidate floor areas
  • It is certain beyond reasonable doubt that these multifloors fires damaged the floors enough to trigger the collapse
You'd need to explain why you think that refuting one detail in one of the reports that have been done changes these facts one bit.

We all know that you are married by religious faith to the silly idea that there were huge explosive charges on all the core columns somewhere in the middle of the raging fires that magically survived the heat (Danny Jowenko explained ten years ago that demolition charges cannot survive fires) and then magically exploded without sound, magically leaving no cut marks on the steel. You don't fool us. You know that we know that this IS your hypothesis, and that it is spectacularly at odds with observed reality, and unsupported by any study whatsoever.
There is presently no study which explains the observations in the collapse of WTC 7. Hence, a new investigation is necessary.

There is more than one major detail that has been shown to be wrong in the existing analyses, to the point where the hypotheses themselves are rendered impossible. No amount of babying them will allow them to be viable. Your argument doesn't hack it.

If you are so sure of what you believe you should be willing to debate me one-on-one. Are you?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th December 2016 at 04:33 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 18th December 2016, 04:34 AM   #253
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,662
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There is presently no study which explains the observations in the collapse of WTC 7. Hence, a new investigation is necessary.
Again: ALL studies converge on all the relevant results: Fires affected the long span floor bays around 79-81, made them collapse, and that triggered the global collapse.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There is more than one major detail that has been shown to be wrong/impossible in the existing analyses to the point where the hypotheses themselves are rendered impossible. No amount of babying them will allow them to be viable. Your argument doesn't hack it.
It's only you unsubstantiated OPINION that these details are "major".
__________________
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 18th December 2016, 04:41 AM   #254
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Again: ALL studies converge on all the relevant results: Fires affected the long span floor bays around 79-81, made them collapse, and that triggered the global collapse.


It's only you unsubstantiated OPINION that these details are "major".
Not being able to unseat a girder and not being able to break through the next floor down are most certainly major details.

Do you want to debate one-on-one? We can then explore these notions on both sides in a much more rigorous and serious way than what is possible here.

It is not reasonable to have to answer multiple posters (who can interject at any time) in a debate and that is why I prefer the one-on-one situation. It will not take up any more of your time than what you spend here, as there will be ample time to answer. What do you say?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th December 2016 at 04:49 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 18th December 2016, 05:02 AM   #255
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,035
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
No, I'm not. But I'm sure you'll continue to pretend I am.

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 18th December 2016, 05:05 AM   #256
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,035
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I am saying we need a new investigation that does replicate and explain the observations.
This is called the appeal to perfection, and is a classic staple of the conspiracy theorist. The principle is that, if the official story fails to explain the smallest detail of events, it must be replaced with an alternative theory that explains that small detail but fails to explain the overall majority of events. And that's the game Tony's been playing for the last decade.

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 18th December 2016, 05:07 AM   #257
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,035
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There is presently no study which explains the observations in the collapse of WTC 7. Hence, a new investigation is necessary.
There is presently no study which explains the observations in the collapse of the Tay Bridge, after 140 years. Are we to conclude that that too was demolished using thermite?

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 18th December 2016, 05:09 AM   #258
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,035
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Do you want to debate one-on-one? We can then explore these notions on both sides in a much more rigorous and serious way than what is possible here.
Since it's been pointed out a couple of pages back that you won't even follow the rules you've set yourself for such a debate, I can't see why anyone would bother. You've already failed the first and simplest test of integrity.

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 18th December 2016, 05:22 AM   #259
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Not being able to unseat a girder and not being able to break through the next floor down are most certainly major details.

Do you want to debate one-on-one? We can then explore these notions on both sides in a much more rigorous and serious way than what is possible here.

It is not reasonable to have to answer multiple posters (who can interject at any time) in a debate and that is why I prefer the one-on-one situation. It will not take up any more of your time than what you spend here, as there will be ample time to answer. What do you say?
What about the glaring obvious flaws in your analysis of the work done by others?

Change the fire dynamic, and collapse is assured, in all three case studies.

Your analysis have not proven even one of the collapse studies impossible.

Unlikely perhaps, not impossible, the fact you even use the word is very telling Tony,
an honest researcher wouldn't use 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 18th December 2016, 05:28 AM   #260
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,190
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
You debate here all the time. I am just asking to do the debate one-on-one to eliminate all of the noise from other posters and allow time for more thoughtful responses.

I am trying to show you and others that the present official story explanations for the collapses of the three WTC high-rises do not withstand scrutiny and in a more serious debating situation that can be done, where on a fast paced forum with a lot of different posters arguments get drowned out.
Really? Let's see how true that is.

I will discuss the matter with you under the following rules:
  1. It's not a debate, it's a forum discussion, just in a dedicated thread where no other posters are allowed.
  2. The forum will be ISF. I don't trust the911forum. It's known for having had people banned on a whim, and for having allowed edition of messages even years after posted. ISF, on the other hand, has a history of not allowing edition of posts past 2 hours, and of reasonably fair moderation.
  3. Since you want to prove that the collapses of 1, 2 and 7 WTC were controlled demolitions (per the 2nd rule of the debate you held with tfk), the title of the thread (and the main topic) will be: Evidence for controlled demolition.
  4. There's no restriction on the topics, even though a somewhat coherent line is expected in accordance with ISF's rule 11.
  5. The post length is unlimited. The number of posts per poster is unlimited. Just like in any other forum discussion.
  6. There's no obligation to respond to any of the points raised by the other.
  7. Breaking ISF's membership agreement rules, in particular rule 0, rule 10 and rule 12, is not allowed.
  8. After 30 days without a response, the discussion is over.
These rules are designed to be pretty much like those in any other forum discussion. If what you said above is true, there should be no problem for you to agree to them.

Are you game?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 18th December 2016 at 05:35 AM. Reason: add "rule" in front of the rule numbers
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 06:09 AM   #261
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
This is called the appeal to perfection, and is a classic staple of the conspiracy theorist. The principle is that, if the official story fails to explain the smallest detail of events, it must be replaced with an alternative theory that explains that small detail but fails to explain the overall majority of events. And that's the game Tony's been playing for the last decade.

Dave
The problems with the present official story are not small and the reports do not explain the collapses.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th December 2016 at 06:18 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 18th December 2016, 06:17 AM   #262
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
There is presently no study which explains the observations in the collapse of the Tay Bridge, after 140 years. Are we to conclude that that too was demolished using thermite?

Dave
The Tay Bridge failure had a couple of reasons, such as wind loading and oscillations due to vibratory loads. It was essentially a design which was not up to the task like many early bridge designs. It was also not unprecedented for a bridge like that to fail at that time.

While all aboard the train were killed, it was not falsely used to justify wars where upwards of a million innocent people were killed.

Do you want to debate one-on-one Dave?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th December 2016 at 06:23 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 18th December 2016, 06:21 AM   #263
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
The convention here where multiple posters can chime in against one poster and expect to be answered by that poster is ridiculous.

This is why I am asking individuals to debate one-on-one.

It is puzzling that no one here seems to be willing to do so, since if they think their beliefs in what caused the failures had merit they should be wanting to get those points out in a much more structured and followable situation.
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 18th December 2016, 06:22 AM   #264
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,527
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
There is presently no study which explains the observations in the collapse of WTC 7. Hence, a new investigation is necessary.

There is more than one major detail that has been shown to be wrong in the existing analyses, to the point where the hypotheses themselves are rendered impossible. No amount of babying them will allow them to be viable. Your argument doesn't hack it.

If you are so sure of what you believe you should be willing to debate me one-on-one. Are you?

Why, then, will you not debate a valid premise such as "A new investigation of the events of 9/11 should be performed?" Why do you instead insist on debating only about the NIST report and about unalterable past events that are just a few of many facets relevant to that premise?


This thread has been useful to me in another discussion elsewhere, about differences between effective and ineffective movements. Thanks partly to Tony's efforts, I've noticed one difference that seems very consistent. Advocates within effective movements debate about making the changes that are their goal to make. For example, gay rights advocates who wanted gay marriage legalized were able and willing to debate the premise "gay marriage should be legalized." They didn't limit debate to, for instance, whether the Bible was true or who should be blamed for 19th-century U.S. anti-miscegenation laws. They got to the point.

A contrasting example is the peak oil movement. That movement was united not by a single cause (something they wanted to happen or change) but by a single concern, an anticipated decline in global oil production. They could not be united on preventing peak oil from occurring because part of the basic point of peak oil is that it cannot be prevented. (The anti climate change arm of the environmental movement is gradually sliding toward the same problematic position as atmospheric carbon continues to build up unabated.) Instead, individual members of the movement advocated a diverse variety of post peak oil solutions, from massive alternative energy build-outs to doomsday prepping. Outside their own sites (including here), most peak oil discussion consisted only of "debate" about whether or not peak oil would inevitably happen. That was a trap; such debate leads (and led, in this case) nowhere.

A movement on the bubble is the Creationism movement. What they really want is for Creationism to be taught in schools (and/or for the theory of evolution not to be). But what they usually prefer to debate about is how the world began and how species came to be. Not the same thing! I don't support their cause, but I can tell them if they want changes in the school curriculum, they should be debating about schools and curricula, not about e.g. fossils and Noah's flood. As they focus more and more on the latter, it's a sign (either a cause or an effect or both) of their movement becoming ineffective.


Which brings us back to question in the start of this post. Why, oh, why? Why must Tony debate about the NIST report instead of about the new investigation he claims as his goal?

Is it a case of "searching over there, where the light is better"? That is, he sees the case against NIST as somehow more convincing than the case FOR a new investigation? Is it because a debate about a new investigation would allow for questions he doesn't want to address, such as who should conduct the investigation and under what legal authority would the new investigators compel testimony? Is it because of the ancient prophecy:

First must the NCSTAR fall from the firmament
Slain by words of power from a forum sent
Only then shalt the New Investigation arise
To sunder the evil ones' false flag disguise


…that I just made up? Tony knows, but we never will. It's a mystery deeper than all the historical unknowns of 9/11 put together.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 06:24 AM   #265
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,035
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The problems with the present official story are not small and their reports do not explain the collapses.
Wrong. The various investigations into the collapse of WTC7 fail to accurately predict the fine details of the collapse while agreeing on the major features. As they are based on modelling where the input values are not and cannot possibly be known, this is unsurprising. And what you falsely present as "the official story" is in itself a minor part of the overall story, which you've chosen to obsess over because you think a single piece of doubt can overturn a mountain of evidence. And this, of course, is why you're so anxious to hold a debate in which the flow of information is so strongly and artificially restricted; by only allowing three pieces of evidence to be presented by each side, for example, you seek to give the impression that the amount of evidence against you is minimal. Your agenda, as always for the conspiracist, is to try and prevent the case against you from being laid out in full, so as to give the suggestion that the minor detail you disagree with is the whole story. It's an attempt to create a false sense of equivalence between your fantasies and reality, and it's fundamentally dishonest. And this is why you'll reject, or at least try to modify, pgimeno's proposed terms; you simply can't risk playing on a level field.

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 18th December 2016, 06:26 AM   #266
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 23,035
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Do you want to debate one-on-one Dave?
No, why would I bother? You've already failed, long ago, to make your case in the real world.

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 18th December 2016, 06:31 AM   #267
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,527
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And this, of course, is why you're so anxious to hold a debate in which the flow of information is so strongly and artificially restricted; by only allowing three pieces of evidence to be presented by each side, for example, you seek to give the impression that the amount of evidence against you is minimal. Your agenda, as always for the conspiracist, is to try and prevent the case against you from being laid out in full, so as to give the suggestion that the minor detail you disagree with is the whole story. It's an attempt to create a false sense of equivalence between your fantasies and reality, and it's fundamentally dishonest. And this is why you'll reject, or at least try to modify, pgimeno's proposed terms; you simply can't risk playing on a level field.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
It's a mystery deeper than all the historical unknowns of 9/11 put together.

Or maybe not, after all...
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 06:31 AM   #268
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The Tay Bridge failure had a lot of reasons, such as wind loading, oscillations due to vibratory loads. It was essentially a design which was not up to the task like many early bridge designs. It was also not unprecedented for a bridge like that to fail at that time.

While all aboard the train were killed it was not falsely used to justify wars where upwards of a million innocent people were killed.

Do you want to debate one-on-one Dave?
You have not proven that the collapses of the towers were falsely used to justify warfare Tony!

You are now tied into the entirety of the event not just the collapses of three buildings!
Your expressing Fallacy, and trying to claim intellectual superiorities, none of the buildings
Collapses were not to be expected from the exsream conditions the buildings were subjected too.
Fact is Tony the buildings can not be separated from the total context of that day, and Cole himself though one of his dimwitted videos has debunked one of your hypothetical analysis of the collapse theories.
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 18th December 2016, 06:42 AM   #269
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
It is clear that the self appointed debunkers on this forum are scared to debate one-on-one with someone they claim to disagree with on the causes of the collapses of the three WTC high-rise buildings.

This shows these people can only operate in a group where they can gang up on someone who challenges them and obfuscate that person's points. They are clearly only here in an attempt to maintain a false image that the present official story has some credibility.

What a joke.
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 18th December 2016, 06:51 AM   #270
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 27,345
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is clear that the self appointed debunkers on this forum are scared to debate one-on-one with someone they claim to disagree with on the causes of the collapses of the three WTC high-rise buildings.

This shows these people can only operate in a group where they can gang up on someone who challenges them and obfuscate that person's points. They are clearly only here in an attempt to maintain a false image that the present official story has some credibility.

What a joke.
Probably just shills for the government. Maybe even employees of NIST. There are more than 5,000 people listed in their directory: https://www.nist.gov/about-nist/our-...e?name=&page=1

That's a lot of jobs.
marplots 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 18th December 2016, 06:58 AM   #271
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 395
Another day, another failure by Tony to substantiate his BS claim that the temperature model used by WAI was "provably" erroneous. About now is the time in these exchanges where Tony will run away for a few weeks. Maybe next he'll do another AMA on the restricted 911truth subreddit where no one will bother to ask him to actually back up his ridiculous claims because they, like he, just want to believe.

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 18th December 2016 at 06:59 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 18th December 2016, 06:58 AM   #272
Mark F
Muse
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 966
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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.
So if I read you correctly what you are saying is that because a government agency produces a report concluding with a Probable Collapse Scenario which is by definition not provable (because no single scenario can be absolutely proven under the circumstances), along with recommendations to prevent future catastrophe's - conclusions all supported by every other, private study - it needs a complete redo?

To achieve what?

More Probable Collapse Scenario's that you can object to because they aren't absolutely provable and don't support your pet cause- a cause which you refuse to support yourself because there is no support for it?

Honestly, why are we even still discussing any of this?!?!?!
__________________
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 18th December 2016, 07:08 AM   #273
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
You debate here all the time. I am just asking to do the debate one-on-one to eliminate all of the noise from other posters and allow time for more thoughtful responses.

I am trying to show you and others that the present official story explanations for the collapses of the three WTC high-rises do not withstand scrutiny and in a more serious debating situation that can be done, where on a fast paced forum with a lot of different posters arguments get drowned out.
You have been doing that here and elsewhere for years, to seemingly no avail. Why do you want to show me? Do you think I have the ability to grant a new investigation?

You have been quite vocal about tfk leaving the debate. Did you change his mind? I doubt it.
So,
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?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 18th December 2016 at 07:12 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 18th December 2016, 07:10 AM   #274
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It is clear that the self appointed debunkers on this forum are scared to debate one-on-one with someone they claim to disagree with on the causes of the collapses of the three WTC high-rise buildings.

This shows these people can only operate in a group where they can gang up on someone who challenges them and obfuscate that person's points. They are clearly only here in an attempt to maintain a false image that the present official story has some credibility.

What a joke.
The point is Tony you have nothing to debate, you have no valid evidence for CD.
The failure also may not even be shown by one of the three current hypothesis,
It could be a composite failure combining two of the hypothesised failures, or one of the Hypothesis, and another as of yet unknown failure.

There is no evidence for CD, and you can not and never have presented anything.
Some one would need a valid reason to believe that debating you would be of intellectual
Value or interest other than fits of exstream laughter.
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 18th December 2016, 07:11 AM   #275
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Let's take a look here. Investigation assistance from:

* Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE)

* The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE)

* The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

* The American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC)

* The Council Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH)

* The Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).
Tony, how many of these organizations, or others, have you convinced in the decade since you began, that a new investigation is required?
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 18th December 2016, 07:24 AM   #276
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 clear that the self appointed debunkers on this forum are scared to debate one-on-one with someone they claim to disagree with on the causes of the collapses of the three WTC high-rise buildings.

This shows these people can only operate in a group where they can gang up on someone who challenges them and obfuscate that person's points. They are clearly only here in an attempt to maintain a false image that the present official story has some credibility.

What a joke.
Still wanting answers as to why you want this debate. So far though it simply points to you wanting yet another soapbox. There is no other point to such a debate.

It follows the pattern that AE911T uses. It is not a real engineering organization, it is a perpetual speaking tour, funds generation machine. There has been no engineering study or research, no attempt to write, let alone publish a report or study, only weak, recent attempts to sway any true professional organization, in this case, the AIA, by means of yet another speech and a vote ( failed each time).

AE911T and the 911 truth movement in general , is a fringe minority relegated to endless internet discussion and debate, and seemingly with no plan to be anything else.

THAT, TONY, is why your debate is not worth my time, and I suspect the same goes for many others.
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 18th December 2016, 07:35 AM   #277
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 13,991
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The problems with the present official story are not small and the reports do not explain the collapses.
They only problem you and your compatriots have been able to uncover in the "official story" is a 1" discrepancy on a drawing.

Tony, I hate to break this to you, but in the real world, 1" is pretty small.

There really is nothing to debate. It settles nothing for anyone. This is no august deliberative body, in a wood panelled room deciding the fate of Mr. George W. Bush, (retired), and Mr. Osama bin Laden (deceased).

This is an obscure forum of a ragtag group of folks who share a desire to approach matters skeptically. Thankfully demonstrated skeptical ability is no condition of membership. So here you are, browbeating us as cowards, because we don't want to play your pointless rigged game, purposefully narrowed in scope by you to your comfort zone.

Wake up.
__________________
"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 18th December 2016, 07:46 AM   #278
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 convention here where multiple posters can chime in against one poster and expect to be answered by that poster is ridiculous.

This is why I am asking individuals to debate one-on-one.

It is puzzling that no one here seems to be willing to do so,,,,,,.
Why is it puzzling? Many have posted on exactly that issue.
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 18th December 2016, 08:19 AM   #279
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,640
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Why is it puzzling? Many have posted on exactly that issue.
Tony was involved in the Microspheres debate, With myself, Steven E. Jones, Dr. Frank Greening and others.

He knows Jones was dishonest and said nothing about that intellectual dishonesty, ever
Jones wanted to use the RJ, Lee report as an average, for all the spheres in all the dust.
The very fact The RJ Lee report was a damage report on the damage on a bank building, where checks, and magnetic credit cards were printed made that a fallacy, not to mention that, the building was exposed to cutting operations with Thermitic brand thermal lances, thermal lances that produce reduce iron Microspheres because they contained Aluminum wires with oxidizing steel.

Tony's known Lack of intellectual honesty is what makes a debate with him useless and meaningless, it would be just like debating Stundie, it would be a useless and pointless endeavor.

Only when Tony addresses and rejects the Intellectual dishonesty of his partners at AE/911 Truth, would I even consider debating him again, and we all know that will never happen!
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 18th December 2016, 08:33 AM   #280
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
”Again: ALL studies converge on all the relevant results: Fires affected the long span floor bays around 79-81, made them collapse, and that triggered the global collapse.

It's only you unsubstantiated OPINION that these details are "major".
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
If you are so sure of what you believe you should be willing to debate me one-on-one.

Are you?
Excellent suggestion Tony!

Oystein you have been given a golden opportunity to back up your 9/11 ‘schtick’.

I’m guessing that given the opportunity to test his claims in a disciplined debate, Oystein will do what he accuses ’truthers’ of doing; ‘running and hiding’.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:50 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.