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 18th December 2016, 08:41 AM   #281
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,649
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
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’.
Truthers don't run and Hide, Criteria, Twoofers do.

No one need to debate either you or Tony until you acknowledge, recognize, and shed the intellectual dishonesty, and disavow those that are also intellectually dishonest such as AE/9/11truth.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 18th December 2016, 09:25 AM   #282
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
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’.
What?
Is there any doubt that all of the wtc7 studies converge on floor bay failure due to fire, that lead to a progressive collapse involving the entire structure?
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, 09:40 AM   #283
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
What?
Is there any doubt that all of the wtc7 studies converge on floor bay failure due to fire, that lead to a progressive collapse involving the entire structure?
The falling girder can't break through the next floor down. You saw that with my critique of Nordenson.
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, 09:42 AM   #284
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
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?!?!?!
It should have been called the improbable collapse scenario. That would be generous though as it is actually impossible.
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, 09:49 AM   #285
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,757
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.
You read the WAI report, didn't you.
You still assume that debunking some specific detailed hypothesis of which beam went first is somehow important, when it is pretty clear that it is unlikely we can ever know.
Again, six floors on fire. dozens of girders and many more beams and connections affected. Several candidated for "the one", several candidates for "the one" mechanism.
Your objections assume that the rest of the connection(s) and assembly was pristine - that the distance between columns was what it was before the fire; that strenght of the connections impacted remained unaffected.
In other words: Illicit assumptions.

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.
No, you cannot, Tony. You aren't thinking rigorously. You can't even formulate a feasible debate proposal, with a well-defined point of contention.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
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?
Try to formulate a rigorous, single point of contention that can be reasonable debated in finite time and space. Then we will see if you have any takers.

Your opinion that some issues you have with NIST are "major" and warrant "a new investigation" is an opinion. I see no point in debating it. I'd require something more specific and provable. Ideally you make a positive claim. As DGM pointed out yesterday, you failed that first step in your debate with tfk.

I will not be the taker of your debate proposal IF you manage to formulate some engineering proposition - I am not an engineer.
__________________
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, 10:00 AM   #286
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,757
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. ...
Not so much scared to death of you as annoyed to the brim with your irrelevant focus and inevitable dishonesty.
__________________
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, 10:03 AM   #287
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,757
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
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’.
You should sometimes read my posts, too, with your thinking cap on, and notice all the objections I raise, not least among them the observation that Tony has no feasible debate topic. No point of contention that raises to the level of "claim of fact". He just presents an unsubstantiated opinion.

Waste of time.
__________________
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, 10:13 AM   #288
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,757
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The falling girder can't break through the next floor down. You saw that with my critique of Nordenson.
Possibly true that.
Najib Abboud made the same obeservation.
But he also told you that there were consecutive floors on fires, rendering the impacted floor below pre-damaged. You did read his WAI report, didn't you?

As David said a few posts up, you commit the call to perfection fallacy. You pretend the circumstances of every micro-detail can be known and computed perfectly.

Perhaps it is true that the floor 13 girder 44-79 could not have knocked out his partner on floor 12. But perhaps their floor 11 partner could have knocked out the floor 10 partner, or the floor 9 beams zipped off the 80-81 girder and then knocked out floor 9.
Or perhaps the damage on the other side of the 79-80-81 row on floor 12 damaged the connections sufficiently to knock through that girder.

We don't know that in perfect detail.
Too bad.
And a major "D'oh".


So what did happen, huh? You saw columns 79-81 collapse ahead of the rest of the core, didn't you? What happened?

You know that 15 years after 9/11, and 10 years into Richard Gage's ministry, 2700 architects and engineers are as clueless as ever and have not even the roughest draft of a competing hypothesis.


Therefore, the "fires made eastern floors collapse" hypothesis stands unassailed.
__________________
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, 10:15 AM   #289
FFTR
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 43
Tony
I asked before. Please start a thread laying out your CD explanation. Let us look at in detail. Any explanation should stand on its own merit.

What will be interesting is to see your evidence on how "they" protected the explosives from the fire for hours.

Seems if it is such a slam dunk case for CD. You can provide the detail report.
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 18th December 2016, 10:22 AM   #290
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,757
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It should have been called the improbable collapse scenario. That would be generous though as it is actually impossible.
Suppose you have ten canditdate scenarios with 15%, 14%, 13%, 12%, 11%, 9%, 8%, 7%, 6%, 5% probability, respectively.

You see that each has a low probability of being true.
Yet one of them has to be true.

They all share a few common elements (such as "fires damaged floor assemblies"; "floor assemblies suffered cascading collapse"; "left columns 79-81 unbraced"; "total collapse ensued"). They merely differ on the details (which beam went first; did the connection fail in tension, torsiom or compression...).

Now you come along and show that the 15% scenario is actuall only 1%.
The 14% scenario only 2%
The 13% scenario fully impossible.

So what?

You have no other probable scenario - do you?

If in the end God intervenes and lifts the veil and lets you see True History, and you find that actually the 1% scenario was the true one, what's that to you?


tl;dr: It doesn't matter what the ex ante probability value of a scenario is. There is a host of low probability detail explanations on the table that all converge on the big picture: Fires did it.
And you have no competing theory. And you know it. No truther has a competing theory, and no, you can't use the excuse "but that's why we need a new investigation". You KNOW that your "explosives" proto-hypothesis is mortally flawed from the get-go.
__________________
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, 10:32 AM   #291
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,851
A proper debatable proposition would be
"WTC 1,2 and 7 collapsed due to controlled demolition”
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.
BasqueArch 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, 10:37 AM   #292
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: 23,263
Oh, and one other thing.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
While all aboard the train were killed, it was not falsely used to justify wars where upwards of a million innocent people were killed.
Neither, of course, was WTC7; one of the classic truther complaints is that the collapse of WTC7 was subjected to excessive secrecy in news reports about 9/11 and has been hushed up ever since. At the same time, miraculously, it now appears to be the major cause of the War on Terror, as if hijacking four airliners, crashing them and killing nearly three thousand people is merely strong enough to warrant a sternly worded diplomatic note, but the destruction of a building nobody outside New York had ever heard of after it's been evacuated is an outrage that can only be washed away in blood. Again, it's a classic example of obsessing over minor details because the big picture isn't what you want it to be.

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, 10:42 AM   #293
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,649
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The falling girder can't break through the next floor down. You saw that with my critique of Nordenson.
This video debunks that Tony.
For the Undying 9/11 MORONIC Replies: http://youtu.be/WgCtvTmshZ8
Crazy Chainsaw 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 18th December 2016, 10:42 AM   #294
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,657
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.
Yet here you are, day after day, hurling the same invective to no effect except amusement. Suppose that every single person at ISF really is terrified of debating you one-on-one. What effect does that have on whether a new investigation is conducted? You write the membership here off as unqualified laymen and try to make them feel ashamed both for that and for their supposed cowardice in not accepting your challenge on your terms. If your model of the controversy is true, it would be like a grown man standing on a playground ringed by a bunch of kindergartners and taunting them all for not wanting to fight him. Not even your invective is consistent, nor is it rationally related to your stated cause.

If there are no critics here who are up to your standards, find some elsewhere who are. Write a scholarly paper laying out your claims and theory, get it peer-reviewed by eminent practitioners in the field so there can be no question of its correctness and import, then get it published in one of the flagship journals of the relevant fields, so that no one in the field can have a reasonable excuse for not having seen it and dealt with it in some fashion. If you succeed, you will have a solid foothold from which to lobby for a new investigation, which is what you say you want.

What you say you want, anyway. You can make up whatever reasons you want for no one having accepted your debate terms. Pretend all you want that it's because you're such an indomitable researcher, such an incisive litigant, and such an illustrious professional that everyone is quaking in their boots at the thought of going one-one-one with you. But as you've seen, the membership here seems fairly impervious to that sort of gaslighting. They know that you've been conscpicuously unsuccessful at getting anyone in the real world to pay attention to you, and they rightly conclude it's probably not because everyone else is wrong and you alone are right. And they further conclude that it's more likely you come here not to build support for your theory, but rather to verbally beat up on people you consider beneath you, apparently hoping for some sort of validation. And the membership seems prudently unwilling to indulge you. Good for them.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 10:45 AM   #295
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,198
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, 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.
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.
You must have missed my post. I can't imagine any other honest reason for ignoring it so blatantly. Here it is again:
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
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.
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, 11:27 AM   #296
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,649
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Not so much scared to death of you as annoyed to the brim with your irrelevant focus and inevitable dishonesty.
He doesn't realize that to verify his claims of impossibility, of collapse in any hypothetical theory, he has to quantify the unknowables.
He loses any debate before it begins, he even lost the last debate with TFK, he is just not smart enough to realize that, or he is intentionally ignoring the illogic in his claims.
He can not possibility factor in all the unknowable quantities into his equations in his FEA, therefore his FEA's are self Falsified.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 18th December 2016, 11:33 AM   #297
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
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’.

Tony doesn't have anything to debate with, which would simply be a waste of time considering that he will continue to push his CD theory, a theory that has been debunked time after time using the laws of physics, facts, evidence and common sense. Even demolition and structural experts have trashed the CD theory.
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, 11:35 AM   #298
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,757
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
...Write a scholarly paper laying out your claims and theory, get it peer-reviewed by eminent practitioners in the field so there can be no question of its correctness and import, ...
__________________
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, 11:41 AM   #299
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,757
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
...he will continue to push his CD theory,
Huh??
The only thing that Tony totally avoids even mentioning is this ephemeral "CD theory".

Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
a theory that has been debunked time after time using the laws of physics, facts, evidence and common sense. Even demolition and structural experts have trashed the CD theory.
Which CD theory, pray tell?
I have not seen any CD theory pushed by any truther ever.
None that deserved the title "theory" anyway.
"Vage and timid insinuation, studiously void of any testable detail" is more like it.
I wish Tony would present a concise, comprehensive CD theory. That could be a great debate topic.
__________________
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, 11:50 AM   #300
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,402
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?

Waste of time. What caused the collapse of floors within WTC 5?

http://www.engineeringcivil.com/comp...-center-5.html
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, 11:51 AM   #301
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Huh??
The only thing that Tony totally avoids even mentioning is this ephemeral "CD theory".


Which CD theory, pray tell?
I have not seen any CD theory pushed by any truther ever.
None that deserved the title "theory" anyway.
"Vage and timid insinuation, studiously void of any testable detail" is more like it.
I wish Tony would present a concise, comprehensive CD theory. That could be a great debate topic.
Tony implies that the collapse of WTC 7 was 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, 11:53 AM   #302
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,649
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Huh??
The only thing that Tony totally avoids even mentioning is this ephemeral "CD theory".


Which CD theory, pray tell?
I have not seen any CD theory pushed by any truther ever.
None that deserved the title "theory" anyway.
"Vage and timid insinuation, studiously void of any testable detail" is more like it.
I wish Tony would present a concise, comprehensive CD theory. That could be a great debate topic.
Tony has always pushed Jones's theories, and always will, I believe he is one of those holding his breath waiting for the conclusion of Mark Basile's studies.

I have heard privately they are trying to get a release of dust samples from the government.
They are claiming that they will prove the thermite claim, if they have more dust to study.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 18th December 2016, 12:09 PM   #303
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The falling girder can't break through the next floor down. You saw that with my critique of Nordenson.
That does not address my question, nor the statement by Oystein that Criteria quoted.

Once again,
Is there any doubt that all of the wtc7 studies converge on floor bay failure due to fire, that lead to a progressive collapse involving the entire structure?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 18th December 2016 at 12:13 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 18th December 2016, 12:10 PM   #304
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Actually they haven't.
Let's take a look to see if you are correct.

Quote:
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

To reach the conclusions in its report, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with private-sector technical experts; accumulated an extensive collection of documents, photographs and videos related to the WTC events of 9/11.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/new...aused-collapse
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, 12:14 PM   #305
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,649
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Tony implies that the collapse of WTC 7 was CD.
Yes he does but he refuses to give a viable theory for how.

He wants to use mathematical modeling, that could never be exact, because all have a long list of unknowns, that can never be known.

That is why it is criticality important to insist that tony flesh out his theories.

Otherwise all we have are dry withered bones and very few of them.

So we can not know how they dinosaur died in the lake, weather it was old age or drowning.
all we know is it was in a lake when it drowned.

Tony shows us a couple of bones and wants to claim he knows who killed the dinosaur.

Sorry I am laughing so hard I can't think!
Crazy Chainsaw 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 18th December 2016, 12:16 PM   #306
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,757
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Tony has always pushed Jones's theories, and always will, I believe he is one of those holding his breath waiting for the conclusion of Mark Basile's studies. ...
I might debate him on that some day. Pending a properly, narrowly defined debate proposition.
The Jones&Harrit nonsense can and should be cleanly separated from pretty much all the rest of the 9/11 events and studies thereof: In case the chips are determined to be thermite, doesn't prove CD or disprove that fires caused collapses.
Conversely, if they are paint (or otherwise non-thermitic), that doesn't disprove CD or prove fires did it. However, that result would demonstrate that Truthers cannot distinguish facts from lies even after looking a hoax in the eye for over seven years.
__________________
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, 12:17 PM   #307
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,757
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Tony implies that the collapse of WTC 7 was CD.
Yes - shorthand for "Vage and timid insinuation, studiously void of any testable detail"
__________________
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, 12:24 PM   #308
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,753
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Tony implies that the collapse of WTC 7 was CD.
He waves his hands and claims CD.
Take the failure of the EPH, he implies, suggests, puts forth a hand waving argument that col 79 was CD'd high up in the building to make it look like it failed down where the fires were.
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, 12:30 PM   #309
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,074
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
Right or wrong about whether the NIST part of the OFFICIAL STORY, which is the neo-skeptics lynchpin to their whole debuggery of 911, actually holds water in a formal, moderated debate. On this forum, a CIVIL, formal, moderated debate is as rare as a unicorn, and you know what neo-skeptics say about unicorns, paranormal, UFOs, et al., if you believe one, you got to believe all of them.

I don't need a degree in formal logic to see, "Mud on your face, big disgrace, kickin' your can all over the place. Singing 'We will rock you, rock you.'"

It's simple. You are being challenged to put your money where your mouth is; the gauntlet has been thrown. I'm just sitting on the sideline hoping for a long overdue just comeuppance, a hoisting by their own petards, good old fashioned ass kicking. But that's just me.

So how 'bout it? Are you going to take the battle between the light side and the dark side of the force to them goofy nutter, gosh darnedtroofers?
__________________
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 18th December 2016, 12:32 PM   #310
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
This video debunks that Tony.
For the Undying 9/11 MORONIC Replies: http://youtu.be/WgCtvTmshZ8

I've noticed in the video that the conspiracy theorist misidentified annealed steel as melted steel. Such ignorance is one example of many as to why the truth movement is a joke.
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, 12:45 PM   #311
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Yes he does but he refuses to give a viable theory for how.

He wants to use mathematical modeling, that could never be exact, because all have a long list of unknowns, that can never be known.

That is why it is criticality important to insist that tony flesh out his theories.

Otherwise all we have are dry withered bones and very few of them.

So we can not know how they dinosaur died in the lake, weather it was old age or drowning.
all we know is it was in a lake when it drowned.

Tony shows us a couple of bones and wants to claim he knows who killed the dinosaur.

Sorry I am laughing so hard I can't think!

Simply amazing considering there are conspiracy theorist who actually believe him just as there were those who believed the hoaxed WTC 7 demolition video by Eddy Current. I can just imagine the numerous warning signs throughout WTC 7 before 9/11.


****BEWARE****


Detonation Cord Tripping Hazards
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, 12:54 PM   #312
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
He waves his hands and claims CD.
Take the failure of the EPH, he implies, suggests, puts forth a hand waving argument that col 79 was CD'd high up in the building to make it look like it failed down where the fires were.
And yet, Tony wants a debate, but can't provide a single video that depicts actual demolition explosions occurring before, or during the collapse of WTC 7.

I would think that a trigger person would get a bit tired as fires raged out of control within WTC 7 for hours before pushing the CD button.
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, 12:58 PM   #313
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 433
I knew Oystein would run from such a fair debate, but who would have expected such speed.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 01:07 PM   #314
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,000
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
It should have been called the improbable collapse scenario. That would be generous though as it is actually impossible.
And what, magical ferries sneaking through a fully occupied building that nobody had ever heard of or cared about planting super-secret totally silent hush-a-boom explosives that produce no sound, blast, supersonic pressure wave, or high velocity ejecta and leave no trace - all for no plausible reason - is sooooooo much better

If only you paid so much scrutiny to your own case.

Hey, you never answered my question from earlier. Why do you only care about buildings, not people? Nearly 3,000 people died on 9/11. You never mention them. You think the whole thing was about re-arranging the New York City real estate market.

Why is it that CT's never mention the human casualties and fixate on inanimate objects? Someone should do a study.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Mark F; 18th December 2016 at 01:10 PM.
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, 01:12 PM   #315
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,000
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I knew Oystein would run from such a fair debate, but who would have expected such speed.
Someone hasn't been paying attention
__________________
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, 01:29 PM   #316
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: 23,263
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
Right or wrong about whether the NIST part of the OFFICIAL STORY, which is the neo-skeptics lynchpin to their whole debuggery of 911,
Let me stop you there. No, it isn't any such thing. You seem to be deluded into thinking that nothing but the collapse of WTC7 happened on 9/11. In truth, it was a minor footnote, and it's only fantasists who feel the need to pretend otherwise.

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, 03:03 PM   #317
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,649
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I knew Oystein would run from such a fair debate, but who would have expected such speed.
Fair debate, Sounds more like twoofer Russian Roulette, with only Tony playing.
In a fair open debate Tony could never win, that's why it would never bee one.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 18th December 2016, 03:04 PM   #318
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,135
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Someone hasn't been paying attention
He's cherry picking what he pays attention to. What a totally dishonest performance.
__________________
"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, 03:25 PM   #319
benthamitemetric
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 406
Tony's lucky his fellow travelers checked their critical thinking at the door. He's been hiding from facing up to the WAI findings for months now. It's so painfully obvious to the few people who pay attention. He relished pointing out an error in Nordenson's floor collapse calculations, and now he realizes that WAI pointed out an error in his (to wit--assuming the lower floors were pristine). Tony--how long do you plan to keep hiding from the truth? Your fellow travelers may not be sharp enough to understand it--but you actually do understand it, which is why you are hiding from it.
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, 03:41 PM   #320
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,193
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
It's simple. You are being challenged to put your money where your mouth is...
Not really. A BA logician would recognise that they're being invited to put their money where Tony decides their mouth is.
Jack by the hedge 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 05:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.