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, 04:20 PM   #321
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
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.

The extreme heating of the steel on contiguous floors to 850 degrees C is only asserted in the Weidlinger structural analysis with a reference to Hughes Associates Craig Beyler's heat transfer analysis. No other specifics are given.

I do not believe there is any chance that one floor's steel could have been at 850 degrees C, let alone two contiguous floors simultaneously. It sounds like they made it as hot as it needed to be to get a failure of the floor below. It is about as likely as putting a man on Jupiter.

You had said you would try to get a copy of Beyler's analysis. Have you been able to?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th December 2016 at 04:27 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 04:22 PM   #322
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Not really. A BA logician would recognise that they're being invited to put their money where Tony decides their mouth is.
Well I have been known to say many of these alleged debunkers are talking out of their hat.

They usually just blindly support the present official story without an objective basis. That can be gotten away with when their group is ganging up on an individual poster who is challenging them but doesn't work well in a one-on-one debate.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th December 2016 at 04:25 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 04:24 PM   #323
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: 23,415
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I do not believe there is any chance that one floor's steel could have been at 850 degrees C, let alone two contiguous floors. It sounds like they made it as hot as it needed to be to get a failure of the floor below.
So you're admitting that all you have is an argument from incredulity plus the assumption that the study you disagree with is based on deliberate lies. I'm sure that's far more credible than, you know, actually doing the work.

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, 04:27 PM   #324
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: 23,415
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
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).
Ironically, that takes us straight back to the "Missing Jolt" nonsense of years ago, in which Tony, among his other fatal errors, made the same assumption about WTC1 and WTC2. Even more ironically, this was finally debunked by one T. Szamboti, in an exchange currently recorded in my signature.

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, 04:28 PM   #325
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
So you're admitting that all you have is an argument from incredulity plus the assumption that the study you disagree with is based on deliberate lies. I'm sure that's far more credible than, you know, actually doing the work.

Dave
No, the fuel will not last long enough and the heat will transfer to cooler areas long before 850 degrees C is achieved in the steel.

There is a technical basis for what I am saying.
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, 04:28 PM   #326
FFTR
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Well I have been known to say many of these alleged debunkers are talking out of their hat.

They usually just blindly support the present official story without an objective basis.
The "blindly support" is a unfounded assumption on your part. You cannot know what a poster has read or not read.

You also fail in lumping those who believe it was fire induced collapse, after damage), to that of only the official report. That is the same as saying CD could only take place using "thermite" and no other source of explosives.

That is why you and AE911T have failed to provide a concise explanation to the CD of WTC 1,2, 7. You know you can't.
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, 04:29 PM   #327
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: 23,415
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, the fuel will not last long enough and the heat will transfer to cooler areas long before 850 degrees C is achieved in the steel.

There is a technical basis for what I am saying.
No, there's just proof by assertion as usual. Shouldn't you start insulting people next? That's the normal progression.

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, 04:30 PM   #328
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Ironically, that takes us straight back to the "Missing Jolt" nonsense of years ago, in which Tony, among his other fatal errors, made the same assumption about WTC1 and WTC2. Even more ironically, this was finally debunked by one T. Szamboti, in an exchange currently recorded in my signature.

Dave
The load carrying capability of the floors below could have only been reduced by explosives. Otherwise, to defeat their reserve strength a jolt to gain load amplification is needed.

It sounds like you only understand half of what is discussed there.
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, 04:31 PM   #329
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, there's just proof by assertion as usual. Shouldn't you start insulting people next? That's the normal progression.

Dave
Dave, please explain how the steel could have been heated to 850 degrees C on two contiguous floors in WTC 7.
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, 04:33 PM   #330
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
Originally Posted by Oystein
What, exactly, does this guy claim that we could discuss and try to show whether he is right or wrong?
Right or wrong about whether the NIST part of the OFFICIAL STORY,
*MEEEEP*
Fail.

Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
which is the neo-skeptics lynchpin to their whole debuggery of 911,
*MEEEEP*
Childish babble.

Originally Posted by jakesteele View Post
actually holds water in a formal, moderated debate.
*MEEEEP*
The debate is supposed to be about the debate?!? What crazy thinking is that?
I asked you what, exactly, does "this guy" claim that we could discuss and try to show whether he is right or wrong? I see that you, too, could not detect a debatable claim in T.Sz.'s proposal. Thanks for playing.
__________________
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, 04:35 PM   #331
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
I knew Oystein would run from such a fair debate, but who would have expected such speed.
Good thing you didn't quote me.
That might keep some folks from noticing that you ran away from my response and resort to a lie instead.

Classy.

ETA:
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
Someone hasn't been paying attention
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
He's cherry picking what he pays attention to. What a totally dishonest performance.
Oops *MEEEEP* sorry, Criteria, some folks DID notice your dishonesty.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 18th December 2016 at 04:38 PM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 04:36 PM   #332
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Good thing you didn't quote me.
That might keep some folks from noticing that you ran away from my response and resort to a lie instead.

Classy.
So, it sounds like you don't want to do a one-on-one debate about the NIST WTC and WTC 7 reports and other public domain information such as the ARUP and Weidlinger reports, where things can be more clearly stated without interference from other posters.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th December 2016 at 04:38 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 04:40 PM   #333
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
...
I do not believe there is any chance that one floor's steel could have been at 850 degrees C, ...
Ah ok - you don't believe. That convinces me.

Hey guys! It's a false-flag thermite-nuclear inside jobby job after all!
__________________
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, 04:43 PM   #334
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The load carrying capability of the floors below could have only been reduced by explosives. Otherwise, to defeat their reserve strength a jolt to gain load amplification is needed.

It sounds like you only understand half of what is discussed there.
What did Danny Jowenko say in 2006 about explosive CD charges in burning buildings?
__________________
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, 04:44 PM   #335
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,232
Has it never occurred to you that you're not obligated to respond to interjections by other posters?
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
Old 18th December 2016, 04:46 PM   #336
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Dave, please explain how the steel could have been heated to 850 degrees C on two contiguous floors in WTC 7.
Uhm - to clarify: Is it important to explain the heating for two, not just one, floor? Do you agree that 850 °C could have been reached on one floor? Or do you actually want Dave to explain how the steel could have been heated to 850 degrees C on any one floor?
__________________
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, 04:48 PM   #337
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
So, it sounds like you don't want to do a one-on-one debate about the NIST WTC and WTC 7 reports and other public domain information such as the ARUP and Weidlinger reports, where things can be more clearly stated without interference from other posters.
Try quoting in full those of my posts where I am talking to YOU, not this Criteria person, so that anyone reading here can more easily see you run away and hide from my stated reasons why debating you under the conditions you outlines so far would be a fool's errand.

ETA to give you a chance to earn back a little respect:
Did you notice Criteria's dishonesty?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 18th December 2016 at 04:49 PM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 04:52 PM   #338
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
What did Danny Jowenko say in 2006 about explosive CD charges in burning buildings?
The fires in WTC 7 weren't on every floor and I think the evidence shows they were started by arsonists who could have known what floors the charges were on.
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, 04:53 PM   #339
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Uhm - to clarify: Is it important to explain the heating for two, not just one, floor? Do you agree that 850 °C could have been reached on one floor? Or do you actually want Dave to explain how the steel could have been heated to 850 degrees C on any one floor?
No, I do not believe the steel in WTC 7 could have been heated to 850 degrees C on even a single floor. It was protected and the fuel would have burned out long before those temperatures could be reached. I am sure Dave will not be able to explain how it could happen. I'll be surprised if he even tries.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th December 2016 at 04:56 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 04:57 PM   #340
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,148
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The fires in WTC 7 weren't on every floor and I think the evidence shows they were started by arsonists who could have known what floors the charges were on.

I assume the evidence for these arsonists is as strongly documented and convincing as the evidence for the hijackers.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 05:12 PM   #341
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The fires in WTC 7 weren't on every floor and I think the evidence shows they were started by arsonists who could have known what floors the charges were on.
Run run run away again, Tony? Really? Did you really think you would not get called out once more for evading a straight question - as always always always always always always ALWAYS ALWAYS?!? Grrrrr!!!!

What did Danny Jowenko say in 2006 about explosive CD charges in burning buildings?
__________________
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, 05:14 PM   #342
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
So you're admitting that all you have is an argument from incredulity plus the assumption that the study you disagree with is based on deliberate lies. I'm sure that's far more credible than, you know, actually doing the work.

Dave
I don't believe it/understand it therefore it can not be true is the fundamental basis of all CT (non)thinking. Such a startling admission is however rare.

God forbid the real problem is the limits of the believers knowledge or comprehension. Reality must be wrong.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 05:15 PM   #343
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, I do not believe the steel in WTC 7 could have been heated to 850 degrees C on even a single floor. ...
Ok. Just wanted to point out the sloppy way you ask questions.

Focus, Tony.

Oh, and as for the question you pose to Dave: We already know that all you offer for your answer is incredulity, and probably invite Dave to reply with bare assertions. You know he is too clever to take such ill-conceived bait. What do you hope to achieve with such guess-work?
__________________
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, 05:31 PM   #344
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, the fuel will not last long enough and the heat will transfer to cooler areas long before 850 degrees C is achieved in the steel.

There is a technical basis for what I am saying.
Does that include dirrect heating by all fuels, even those in dirrect contact with the steel at transported by fluidic actions induced in the fires?
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, 05:31 PM   #345
FFTR
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The fires in WTC 7 weren't on every floor and I think the evidence shows they were started by arsonists who could have known what floors the charges were on.
Please share a few of your sources that backs up the arsonists theory.
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, 05:43 PM   #346
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, I do not believe the steel in WTC 7 could have been heated to 850 degrees C on even a single floor. It was protected and the fuel would have burned out long before those temperatures could be reached. I am sure Dave will not be able to explain how it could happen. I'll be surprised if he even tries.
I am sorry Tony, I have to go the fits of Laughter, are making my sides hurt!
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, 05:49 PM   #347
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, I do not believe the steel in WTC 7 could have been heated to 850 degrees C on even a single floor. It was protected and the fuel would have burned out long before those temperatures could be reached. I am sure Dave will not be able to explain how it could happen. I'll be surprised if he even tries.
Fluidic movements of transportable fuels!
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, 05:55 PM   #348
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,963
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Ok. Just wanted to point out the sloppy way you ask questions.

Focus, Tony.

Oh, and as for the question you pose to Dave: We already know that all you offer for your answer is incredulity, and probably invite Dave to reply with bare assertions. You know he is too clever to take such ill-conceived bait. What do you hope to achieve with such guess-work?
Focus, LOL.

The comments by you and your like minded brethren here are ninny like and it seems none of you are willing to debate one-on-one because you know you will have your head handed to you.

I have time for a legitimate one-on-one debate taking place over a few weeks time but not this hit and run chicken s__t you guys want to play.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 18th December 2016 at 05:57 PM.
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 05:59 PM   #349
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,549
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
No, I do not believe the steel in WTC 7 could have been heated to 850 degrees C on even a single floor. It was protected and the fuel would have burned out long before those temperatures could be reached.
I disagree. The Windsor building burned for over 26 hours, which resulted in the collapse of its upper steel structure, leaving the concrete core exposed.
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, 06:04 PM   #350
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,662
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Focus, LOL....y.
Please explain how a fellow engineer insists on a debate based on your fantasy?

15 years, and all you have as evidence; simile. This is all you have. Oh, it looked like CD - simile. Oh, loud noises, sounded like explosives - simile.

Is OKC an inside job too? Bigfoot? JFK? LOL, you are a CTer from way back.

I think you think you have evidence, like Trump had a landslide, = landslide is 2.8 million votes less than what your opponent got? Have you tweeted trump for a new investigation? 15 years and no evidence.

I debated you, and your failure to produce evidence means you lost. What kind of explosives were used in the WTC? What, you can't say? Debate done. you lost again
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 06:10 PM   #351
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Could anyone please quote my post #260 for Tony? It seems he has me on ignore.
__________________
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, 06:10 PM   #352
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,547
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The fires in WTC 7 weren't on every floor and I think the evidence shows they were started by arsonists who could have known what floors the charges were on.
Oh man, I would have loved to have been at that planning meeting.

Evil Leader: Okay, the plan is to set #7 on fire and let it burn for eight hours and then we will set off explosives and collapse the entire building.

Black Ops Guy: Why not just blow the building with at the same time as the towers?

EL: Because we need devastation on live TV.

BOG: But...if you blow all three buildings at once you kill more people, and triple the devastation.

EL: No, we need it to look organic, so it has to be later.

BOG: But if it's later the building will be empty of people...wait, why are we blowing up WTC7 in the first place?

EL: *mumbles*

BOG: No, seriously, why flatten #7, why not Banker's Trust?

EL: That building has standard, traditional construction, and is less likely to collapse after an eight hour fire. #7 was a newer design, and will come down easier after a fire.

BOG: So why plant explosives?

EL: We need it to come down.

BOG: How long do you plan to burn it?

EL: Eight hours. Also, we're gonna need you and your men to go into #7 to set the fires.

BOG: Won't the collapse of WTC1 do that on it's own?

EL: We need to guarantee the fire, to cover the explosives.


...Yeah, a masterpiece of tactical and strategic logic for sure.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2016, 06:11 PM   #353
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,686
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Focus, LOL.

The comments by you and your like minded brethren here are ninny like and it seems none of you are willing to debate one-on-one because you know you will have your head handed to you.

I have time for a legitimate one-on-one debate taking place over a few weeks time but not this hit and run chicken s__t you guys want to play.
Soot. - National Institute of Standards and Technology
fire.nist.gov › bfrlpubs › fire93 › PDF
hydrocarbon fire. the total radiation intensity emitted by soot far exceeds that of gaseous emission. The total ..... a temperature range 1000—2000°C. In their analysis, they assumed that oxidation by OH 0 was negligible.
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, 06:11 PM   #354
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,549
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Focus, L
I have time for a legitimate one-on-one debate taking place over a few weeks time but not this hit and run chicken s__t you guys want to play.

What do you know about structural load redistribution after impact and fire damage? Explain why WTC 1 remained standing despite the detonation of a vehicle bomb. Did the huge blast leave the steel columns of WTC 1 standing within a large bomb crater? Did the 1993 WTC 1 explosion leave behind evidence that identified the bombers?

How many times has thermite/nano-thermite been used to demolish tall steel-framed buildings since 1930? Do demolition companies use thermite to demolish steel-framed buildings?

Did you know that a steel structure can fail at temperatures below 850 degrees C. and that contents within a steel-framed building will allow a fire to rage out of control long after the original fuel source has burned out?

I posed those questions because I know where you are going.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 18th December 2016 at 06:19 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 18th December 2016, 06:12 PM   #355
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Focus, LOL.

The comments by you and your like minded brethren here are ninny like and it seems none of you are willing to debate one-on-one because you know you will have your head handed to you.

I have time for a legitimate one-on-one debate taking place over a few weeks time but not this hit and run chicken s__t you guys want to play.
Quote the posts where I address your debate proposal if you want to comment on my ability or willingness to engage your debate proposal.

Everything else is transparently dishonest.
__________________
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, 06:17 PM   #356
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
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?
Tony,

in case you have pgimeno on your ignore list, he is game to debate you!

Here is is debate proposal:
I [pgimeno] 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?
(Pesonally, I, Oystein, think that this proposal is about as unfocused and infeasible as yours, but that shouldn't bother you, Tony, should it )
__________________
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, 06:24 PM   #357
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,549
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The fires in WTC 7 weren't on every floor and I think the evidence shows they were started by arsonists who could have known what floors the charges were on.

For the record, are you now implying that arsonists and bombers were working together in an effort to demolish WTC 7? What happens when explosives are exposed to fire?
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, 06:29 PM   #358
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Focus, LOL....
Yes, focus.
You took your focus of a simple, straight question:

What did Danny Jowenko say in 2006 about explosive CD charges in burning buildings?
__________________
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, 06:34 PM   #359
skyeagle409
Graduate Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 1,549
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The extreme heating of the steel on contiguous floors to 850 degrees C is only asserted in the Weidlinger structural analysis with a reference to Hughes Associates Craig Beyler's heat transfer analysis. No other specifics are given.

I do not believe there is any chance that one floor's steel could have been at 850 degrees C, let alone two contiguous floors simultaneously. It sounds like they made it as hot as it needed to be to get a failure of the floor below. It is about as likely as putting a man on Jupiter.
What happened here?

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, 06:43 PM   #360
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,721
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Hence, a new investigation is necessary.

Is a debate with an ISF member a requirement for there to be a new investigation?

If not, then why are you fussing about it?

If so, then how did you end up in a position where you need cooperation from people who oppose your goals in order to achieve your goals?

I decided to try Tony's approach in other spheres of life. First I went to the central office of Chase Bank and stood in the lobby yelling, "Which of you unqualified financial ignoramuses has the guts to give me a million dollars free and clear with no obligation?" Then I went to Google's offices and yelled, "Which of you fraudulent computer-illiterate morons is self-assured enough to put me in charge of your biggest development project and pay me six figures a year for it?" Then I went to a meeting of Elite Model Management's top female talent and yelled, "Which of you ugly frumpish amateurs has the courage to marry me?"

I returned a few times a week for five years, each time repeating variations of "I see that none of you incompetent dishonest unworthy people has dared to meet my demands."

Surprisingly, my financial, employment, and marital status were in no way improved by these activities.
__________________
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
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:00 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.