IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Tags 9/11 conspiracies , David Slesinger , newtons third law

Reply
Old 25th May 2016, 04:26 PM   #41
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
3/10 Needs more cowbell.
carlitos 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 25th May 2016, 05:47 PM   #42
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Thank you for the links.
FalseFlag 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 25th May 2016, 08:51 PM   #43
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... You have absolutely no evidence that Gage is a charlatan ...
Gage's lies prove he is a dumbed down charlatan; if he is not a charlatan, his dumber than dirt and believes his own claims - oops, he could be a unknowing charlatan.

Do you have evidence for his lie of CD? No. All DRG 9/11 stuff is BS, and you can't prove otherwise.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
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 26th May 2016, 12:02 AM   #44
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
3/10 Needs more cowbell.

Strictly speaking it's more like 3/12



If it wasn't for his health problems I imagine there would be 5 or 6 more on the list by now.

Last edited by Ape of Good Hope; 26th May 2016 at 01:32 AM. Reason: grammar
Ape of Good Hope 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 26th May 2016, 12:59 AM   #45
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Thanks - interesting - buuut: These are on the domain of Barry Krusch, with no indication that DRG himself authorized this publication. The books aren't even linked from the http://www.krusch.com homepage
I was expecting you'd show me that DRG is giving his material out for free rather than seeking income from the sale of books.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Either way, I strongly disagree with DRG on most things, his WTC 7 book is his best but it was nothing that anybody couldn't figure out for themselves. By "truth people", I meant AE911TRUTH.
I just skimmed the WTC7 book. Dedicated to Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan - the most notorious liars of the TM - and Niels Harrit, the most deluded scientist they have.
Didn't see anything that hasn't already been debunked, but several things that are irrelevant or misrepresented.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Oystein, that is physical media. Beyond Misinformation is available for free online,
It wasn't for several months!

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
and so is all of AE911TRUTH's documentaries.
I don't believe that this is true.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The material in Beyond Misinformation is just an organized booklet of material that you could just find on the AE911TRUTH website.
Not really - the website is pretty disorganized in that regard, and I think "BM" has a few slants added that Gage had not in his presentations previously.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The physical media and products are basically a donation to the organization.
I understand that - they are asking for money so they can pay salaries and travel amenities.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You have absolutely no evidence that Gage is a charlatan or is making more money than he would if he had a normal job in architecture (consider that AE911TRUTH was started 9 years ago).
I don't claim that, but he is selling woo for a living and enjoys the applause - that is the definition of a charlatan: "A charlatan ... is a person practising quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception."

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The material presented in the average Richard Gage presentation is well more than enough to warrant an investigation into inside job.
No. It is full to the brim with lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, false logic and irrelevancies blown out of proportions.
If anything, it warrants an investigation into to its eligibility for tax-exempt status.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton)
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 26th May 2016, 08:11 AM   #46
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Thanks - interesting - buuut: These are on the domain of Barry Krusch, with no indication that DRG himself authorized this publication. The books aren't even linked from the http://www.krusch.com homepage
I was expecting you'd show me that DRG is giving his material out for free rather than seeking income from the sale of books.


I just skimmed the WTC7 book. Dedicated to Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan - the most notorious liars of the TM - and Niels Harrit, the most deluded scientist they have.
Didn't see anything that hasn't already been debunked, but several things that are irrelevant or misrepresented.


It wasn't for several months!


I don't believe that this is true.


Not really - the website is pretty disorganized in that regard, and I think "BM" has a few slants added that Gage had not in his presentations previously.


I understand that - they are asking for money so they can pay salaries and travel amenities.


I don't claim that, but he is selling woo for a living and enjoys the applause - that is the definition of a charlatan: "A charlatan ... is a person practising quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception."


No. It is full to the brim with lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, false logic and irrelevancies blown out of proportions.
If anything, it warrants an investigation into to its eligibility for tax-exempt status.
Most of the evidence Richard Gage provides in his average presentation, to some extent, are legitimate reasons for an arson investigation. I disagree with some.

IMO it's silly not to have an investigation into inside job. In fact, IMO all catalyzing terrorist incidents should have an investigation into possible cover-up and inside job.

Last edited by MicahJava; 26th May 2016 at 08:12 AM. Reason: clarification
MicahJava 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 26th May 2016, 09:17 AM   #47
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Most of the evidence Richard Gage provides in his average presentation, to some extent, are legitimate reasons for an arson investigation. I disagree with some.


No they aren't, Gage is a liar scamming the gullible out of money.

Quote:
IMO it's silly not to have an investigation into inside job. In fact, IMO all catalyzing terrorist incidents should have an investigation into possible cover-up and inside job.
There was an investigation, in fact it was the largest in the history of planet earth. If you can't comprehend the outcome that's your problem.

Why should all terrorist incidents be investigated for being an inside job?

Was the London bombing an inside job? How about the Boston Marathon? The Paris bombings? What about all the thwarted attacks, were they just inside jobs that went wrong?
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag

Last edited by ProBonoShill; 26th May 2016 at 09:18 AM. Reason: Formatting
ProBonoShill 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 26th May 2016, 04:22 PM   #48
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
No they aren't, Gage is a liar scamming the gullible out of money.
You know what, you're absolutely right. He's tricking the gullible into thinking the controlled demolition hypothesis extends to a bald gymnasium architect reciting rehearsed talking points. There are actually a few notable recent peer-reviewed papers he should point out more.


Quote:
There was an investigation, in fact it was the largest in the history of planet earth. If you can't comprehend the outcome that's your problem.
The same tired one-liner! What investigation? No insider foul play in the destruction of the WTC was investigated, even though it should have. NIST never gave their own theory for the Twin Tower collapses, Their WTC 7 report is debunked, Bazant is debunked, Nordenson's WTC 7 analysis is debunked, and people who say it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers.

Quote:
Why should all terrorist incidents be investigated for being an inside job?

Was the London bombing an inside job? How about the Boston Marathon? The Paris bombings?
I would say that it depends on how major the tragedy is, but then again anybody could twist that meaning into anything they want, so yes, all major terrorist incidents should be investigated for possible coverup and inside job.

Quote:
What about all the thwarted attacks, were they just inside jobs that went wrong?
Who's to say what is and isn't "thwarted" or "went wrong"? There is some evidence that the Murrah Building bombing in 1995 was supposed to be even more destructive than it was, possibly intended to completely destroy the entire building.

Last edited by MicahJava; 26th May 2016 at 04:30 PM. Reason: formatz
MicahJava 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 26th May 2016, 04:37 PM   #49
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The same tired one-liner! What investigation? No insider foul play in the destruction of the WTC was investigated, even though it should have. NIST never gave their own theory for the Twin Tower collapses, Their WTC 7 report is debunked, Bazant is debunked, Nordenson's WTC 7 analysis is debunked, and people who say it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers.
Like who?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 26th May 2016, 06:39 PM   #50
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You know what, you're absolutely right. He's tricking the gullible into thinking the controlled demolition hypothesis extends to a bald gymnasium architect reciting rehearsed talking points. There are actually a few notable recent peer-reviewed papers he should point out more.
Really? Which ones?


Quote:
The same tired one-liner! What investigation?
The biggest criminal investigation in the history of the planet. That one.

Quote:
No insider foul play in the destruction of the WTC was investigated, even though it should have.
Why would they investigate that???? No one died? I asked you before why would they would wait 7 hours to collapse a building and save everyone's lives when they could've done it much earlier and killed hundreds of people? Are you going to answer this time?


Quote:
NIST never gave their own theory for the Twin Tower collapses, Their WTC 7 report is debunked, Bazant is debunked, Nordenson's WTC 7 analysis is debunked, and people who say it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers.
What is the NIST tasked with? Please answer.

Please explain in detail how any of the above is debunked? Use the search function and find the appropriate threads, we can discuss there.

Quote:
I would say that it depends on how major the tragedy is, but then again anybody could twist that meaning into anything they want, so yes, all major terrorist incidents should be investigated for possible coverup and inside job.
Why? Do you think just because you're paranoid and delusional precious resources should be wasted on fruitless investigations? Who is conducting these investigations. Who is paying for all of this?

Quote:
Who's to say what is and isn't "thwarted" or "went wrong"? There is some evidence that the Murrah Building bombing in 1995 was supposed to be even more destructive than it was, possibly intended to completely destroy the entire building.
The law enforcement agencies around the world that's who. Were all the prevented attacks inside jobs or not? Answer the questions and stop dodging.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 26th May 2016, 07:47 PM   #51
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Like who?
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
Really? Which ones?
http://www.challengejournal.com/inde...rticle/view/50 (read for free on page)

http://www.challengejournal.com/inde...rticle/view/36 (read for free on page)

http://prs.sagepub.com/content/4/2/117.abstract (read for free here)

Last edited by MicahJava; 26th May 2016 at 07:48 PM. Reason: formatting
MicahJava 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 27th May 2016, 08:22 AM   #52
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Most of the evidence Richard Gage provides in his average presentation, to some extent, are legitimate reasons for an arson investigation.
Stupid nonsense. *********** 767s flew into the towers with 10,000 gallons of accelerant. That's your arson right there. Open your eyes and your mind!

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I disagree with some.
All of Gage's arguments are deceptive nonsense.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
IMO it's silly not to have an investigation into inside job. In fact, IMO all catalyzing terrorist incidents should have an investigation into possible cover-up and inside job.
I am glad you so openly admit that you don't want investigations to go where the evidence leads but to where your prejudice leads you.


I am also glad you completely abandoned the fact that DRG and Gage are making money with their charlatanery. I think you accepted this fact eventually.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (Gilbert Keith Chesterton)

Last edited by Oystein; 27th May 2016 at 08:24 AM.
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 27th May 2016, 02:13 PM   #53
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Most of the evidence Richard Gage provides in his average presentation, to some extent, are legitimate reasons for an arson investigation. I disagree with some.
In strict legal pedantry you are partially correct.
The "Most" is wrong - but "Some" could be a partial truth.

The real issue - from a legal perspective - is weight and status of evidence. The fact that a building had a fire is evidence which goes on the side of the balance saying "could be arson". BUT the other side of the balance is far too heavily loaded with reality.

The reality of course - whether in a legal setting or talking to intelligent lay persons on the internet - is that there is simply overwhelming evidence for the primary reasons that an arson investigation would be conducted. Those are to (a) determine the cause of the fire and (b) the probable identity of the perpetrators. The first was known from the moment the events happened and preliminary investigation confirmed the second.

Can you identify any valid reason for more investigation into arson - other than satisfying the whims of a minority lobby group which is both dishonest and cannot formulate a valid reason for further investigation?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I disagree with some.

IMO it's silly not to have an investigation into inside job.
Whilst you persist in partial truth lies by innuendo and other debating tricks you will not persuade anyone here - let alone build a legitimate argument for further investigation.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
IMO all catalyzing terrorist incidents should have an investigation into possible cover-up and inside job.
Agreed. And it happened in accordance with due process within the relevant jurisdictions of a country which operates under rule of law and the provisions of a Constitution.

Whatever basis there may be for further investigation into mis/mal/nonfeasance by US persons or agencies you can be assured that such investigation will not happen whilst ever dishonest minority groups such as AE911 premise their call for further investigation on the easily proven lies about CD at WTC.

IF truthers drop the lies about those major technical events - CD at WTC, not the plane at Pentagon and shoot down at Shanksville - there could be a basis for additional investigation. However I doubt that there is sufficient weight of evidence to garner the political critical mass for such a process.

But present a politician with a demand that s/he investigate the behaviour of politicians based on lies such as CD at WTC and most politicians would show you the door.

Get the truth movement to clean up its act and there may be a chance. I doubt it would work because the issues are essentially dead ...but it will not go forward hampered by technical lies.


Personally I have zero doubt that there were lots of bits of LIHOOI, LIHOP and probably MIHOP at both agency and individual person level. Both "sides" of the debate have consistently failed to recognise the structure of such behaviours - most treating it a single control single homogeneous process of MIHOP or LIHOP. Totally at odds with reality which could not be "one single thing" BUT had to include lots of little and medium sized "bits". You can bet money that lots of individuals under pressure were victims of LIHOOI and that some agencies out of inter-agency rivalry or agency "arse protection" would LIHOP - maybe even MIHOP - BITS of the overall picture.

Last edited by ozeco41; 27th May 2016 at 02:18 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2016, 09:48 PM   #54
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do the authors of these papers believe in CD? Yes or No?

Why didn't you answer the rest of the questions?
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 27th May 2016, 10:33 PM   #55
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
Do the authors of these papers believe in CD? Yes or No?
"Believe"? The authors are skeptics. I don't think either of them except for Szamboti have come right out and said that they have no doubt the WTC was a CD.

"Our conclusion suggests that Newton’s laws of motion and energy conservation considerations would have had to have been violated to explain that building’s total collapse within a debris pile several storeys high."

"Based on the parametric study undertaken, our findings were that the fire-protected steel floor beam, identified as the initiator of the cascade of events that followed, could not have done so, virtually under any circumstance."

Those are fighting words around these parts.

Quote:
Why didn't you answer the rest of the questions?
I'm not entertaining the rest of the childish BS in this thread, using every foolish forum debating trick in the book. I do not "believe" in CD, but I do believe that inside job should be investigated and should have from day 1. I have already asked many genuinely good questions relating to the foreknowledge of WTC 7 in the other thread, and none of them were adequately answered. So, I know what responses to skip and ignore.
MicahJava 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 27th May 2016, 11:01 PM   #56
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do the authors of these papers believe in CD? Yes or No?

Why didn't you answer the rest of the questions?
I took a very quick preliminary look at the three papers.

1) The first one is a collection of straw-man arguments including confusions as to which buildings it refers to and all the usual misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Bazant & Zhou. As usual with these sort of papers it would take a significant effort to parse, analyse and rebut/confirm the mass of confusions.

2) The second one pursues a single straw-man.

3) The third is one I have found interesting since it first appeared. It is the Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns paper which makes some interesting points. Two of them are:
(a) They assert that Bazant and Zhou got the quantification sums wrong by an order of about two times. On the basis of that error if proven the original assertions that "global collapse was inevitable" were based on false argument Oops - make that "false numbers". BUT that is now of zero significance other than minor red face for some. We now know that progression was in fact inevitable for the Twins Towers based on understanding of the actual mechanism. So NIST was right but for the wrong reasons.
(b) The paper destroys one of the foundations of T Szamboti's infamous "Missing Jolt" (AKA "The Jolt that Never Could Be") - so once again we see T Sz self rebutting.

If anyone wants a serious review of any of those papers ask and I may spend an hour or two and summarise the key issues - right or wrong.

Last edited by ozeco41; 27th May 2016 at 11:10 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2016, 11:10 PM   #57
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I took a very quick preliminary look at the three papers.

1) The first one is a collection of straw-man arguments including confusions as to which buildings it refers to and all the usual misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Bazant & Zhou. As usual with these sort of papers it would take a significant effort to parse, analyse and rebut/confirm the mass of confusions.

2) The second one pursues a single straw-man.

3) The third is one I have found interesting since it first appeared. It is the Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns paper which makes some interesting points. Two of them are:
(a) They assert that Bazant and Zhou got the quantification sums wrong by an order of about two times. On the basis of that error if proven the original assertions that "global collapse was inevitable" were based on false argument. BUT that is now of zero significance other than minor red face for some. We now know that progression was in fact inevitable for the Twins Towers based on understanding of the actual mechanism. So NIST was right but for the wrong reasons.
(b) The paper destroys one of the foundations of T Szamboti's infamous "Missing Jolt" (AKA "The Jolt that Never Could Be") - so once again we see T Sz self rebutting.

If anyone wants a serious review of any of those papers ask and I may spend an hour or two and summarise the key issues - right or wrong.
See if the Challenge journal takes rebuttal papers, or write the authors of the two papers to get answers.
MicahJava 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 27th May 2016, 11:22 PM   #58
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
See if the Challenge journal takes rebuttal papers, or write the authors of the two papers to get answers.
Why?

My interest in 9/11 matters lies in explaining the engineering forensics of WTC collapse mechanisms to interested honest persons. Either in on-line forum discussions OR - occasionally - face to face.

There are dozens of wrong papers out there. From both "sides" of the great divide. Why should I waste effort rebutting them?

My only interest arises when someone in a forum such as this misuses or misunderstands the technical papers - or the paper is itself wrong. Either side BTW - there are more false explanations coming from the "debunker" or "official version favouring side" than from the truth movement. I've copped more flack in recent years from debunker side members who cannot even contemplate that Bazant may have made errors than from "Truthers".

If you post serious attempts as discussing the issues - referencing such papers - I am likely to give you a serious response. BUT not whilst you persist in trolling trickery. Try me. Make a serious reasoned argument for some significant point.

Try responding to my recent post #53 as a first step. I'm the closest you are likely to get to support for further investigation of political mis/mal/nonfeasance.

Last edited by ozeco41; 27th May 2016 at 11:25 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2016, 09:54 AM   #59
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Why?

My interest in 9/11 matters lies in explaining the engineering forensics of WTC collapse mechanisms to interested honest persons. Either in on-line forum discussions OR - occasionally - face to face.

There are dozens of wrong papers out there. From both "sides" of the great divide. Why should I waste effort rebutting them?

My only interest arises when someone in a forum such as this misuses or misunderstands the technical papers - or the paper is itself wrong. Either side BTW - there are more false explanations coming from the "debunker" or "official version favouring side" than from the truth movement. I've copped more flack in recent years from debunker side members who cannot even contemplate that Bazant may have made errors than from "Truthers".

If you post serious attempts as discussing the issues - referencing such papers - I am likely to give you a serious response. BUT not whilst you persist in trolling trickery. Try me. Make a serious reasoned argument for some significant point.

Try responding to my recent post #53 as a first step. I'm the closest you are likely to get to support for further investigation of political mis/mal/nonfeasance.
I have posted links showing that the NFPA 921, on many occasions, eerily describes the case of the WTC destruction and that these descriptions are signs of foul play. Also, I have posted links showing that "people who think it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers". That was my purpose.
MicahJava 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 28th May 2016, 10:33 AM   #60
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You turn to an ex-Theology teacher as your engineering “expert”.
LMAO.
You just refuse to learn.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Either way, I strongly disagree with DRG on most things, his WTC 7 book is his best but it was nothing that anybody couldn't figure out for themselves. By "truth people", I meant AE911TRUTH.
You “strongly disagree with him on most things”, but you cite his trashy books.
Wow.
Confused much?

“his WTC 7 book is his best”
LoL.
What, it’s “only” 95% wrong, as opposed to the others being 98% wrong?
That’s called “damned by faint praise.”

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You have absolutely no evidence that Gage is a charlatan …
Wrong.

  • He speaks outside of his field of expertise = Charlatan.
    (He PROPERLY should lose his license for this.)
  • He throws the imprimatur of the AIA on everything he can … until he gets caught, again, & is forced to remove it = Charlatan.
  • He refuses to bring his trash to real, independent experts (structural engineers) = Charlatan.
  • He brings his trash to amateurs (college kids, architects, etc.) without first having it reviewed by real experts = Charlatan.
  • He has 95% of his trash prepared by clueless amateurs (Sarns, Adam Taylor, Jonathan Cole, etc.) = Charlatan.
  • He asks for donations at every opportunity = Charlatan.
I'm sure that there are a dozen other things that could be added. These are just the first that came to mind.
tfk 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 28th May 2016, 10:34 AM   #61
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I have posted links showing that the NFPA 921, on many occasions, eerily describes the case of the WTC destruction and that these descriptions are signs of foul play. Also, I have posted links showing that "people who think it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers". That was my purpose.
The 9/11 truth papers are not peer reviewed, they are reviewed by 9/11 truth nuts, idiots for 9/11 truth; big fail for 14 years.

The WTC towers were foul play by terrorists in two planes. You have proved it was an act of terrorism, it is in NFPA 921, terrorists did. 19 terrorists did all the damage on 9/11, if you disagree, you are wrong.

All the other BS you posted related to NFPA 921 reflects a great ignorance of steel, fire, physics, and science in general.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
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 28th May 2016, 10:52 AM   #62
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
If you post serious attempts as discussing the issues - referencing such papers - I am likely to give you a serious response. BUT not whilst you persist in trolling trickery. Try me. Make a serious reasoned argument for some significant point.

Try responding to my recent post #53 as a first step. I'm the closest you are likely to get to support for further investigation of political mis/mal/nonfeasance.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I have posted links showing that the NFPA 921, on many occasions, eerily describes the case of the WTC destruction and that these descriptions are signs of foul play. Also, I have posted links showing that "people who think it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers". That was my purpose.
No problem. If ever you decide to get serious and drop the evasive nonsense - let me know.

I'm not interested in troll feeding - many other members will do that for you.

Cheers.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2016, 11:57 AM   #63
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
No problem. If ever you decide to get serious and drop the evasive nonsense - let me know.

I'm not interested in troll feeding - many other members will do that for you.

Cheers.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 29th May 2016, 04:19 PM   #64
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"Believe"? The authors are skeptics. I don't think either of them except for Szamboti have come right out and said that they have no doubt the WTC was a CD.

"Our conclusion suggests that Newton’s laws of motion and energy conservation considerations would have had to have been violated to explain that building’s total collapse within a debris pile several storeys high."

"Based on the parametric study undertaken, our findings were that the fire-protected steel floor beam, identified as the initiator of the cascade of events that followed, could not have done so, virtually under any circumstance."

Those are fighting words around these parts.



I'm not entertaining the rest of the childish BS in this thread, using every foolish forum debating trick in the book. I do not "believe" in CD, but I do believe that inside job should be investigated and should have from day 1. I have already asked many genuinely good questions relating to the foreknowledge of WTC 7 in the other thread, and none of them were adequately answered. So, I know what responses to skip and ignore.
That's nice, so if you don't believe in CD, what brought the buildings down then?
No wonder truthers have had so much fail in 15 years.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 30th May 2016, 06:25 PM   #65
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The 9/11 truth papers are not peer reviewed, they are reviewed by 9/11 truth nuts, idiots for 9/11 truth; big fail for 14 years.

The WTC towers were foul play by terrorists in two planes. You have proved it was an act of terrorism, it is in NFPA 921, terrorists did. 19 terrorists did all the damage on 9/11, if you disagree, you are wrong.

All the other BS you posted related to NFPA 921 reflects a great ignorance of steel, fire, physics, and science in general.
You think the International Journal of Protective Structures and the Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics have been infiltrated by truthers? I think you have a problem with conspiratorial thinking.
MicahJava 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 30th May 2016, 06:32 PM   #66
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
You turn to an ex-Theology teacher as your engineering “expert”.
LMAO.
You just refuse to learn.



You “strongly disagree with him on most things”, but you cite his trashy books.
Wow.
Confused much?

“his WTC 7 book is his best”
LoL.
What, it’s “only” 95% wrong, as opposed to the others being 98% wrong?
That’s called “damned by faint praise.”
I was not the one who brought up the name of DRG, nor did I cite him for anything. Is your attention span so deteriorated that you can't even process the comment which you have quoted in your actual reply? Perhaps you should stop calling others "junior" and others should start calling you "old-timer".


Quote:
Wrong.

  • He speaks outside of his field of expertise = Charlatan.
    (He PROPERLY should lose his license for this.)
  • He throws the imprimatur of the AIA on everything he can … until he gets caught, again, & is forced to remove it = Charlatan.
  • He refuses to bring his trash to real, independent experts (structural engineers) = Charlatan.
  • He brings his trash to amateurs (college kids, architects, etc.) without first having it reviewed by real experts = Charlatan.
  • He has 95% of his trash prepared by clueless amateurs (Sarns, Adam Taylor, Jonathan Cole, etc.) = Charlatan.
  • He asks for donations at every opportunity = Charlatan.
I'm sure that there are a dozen other things that could be added. These are just the first that came to mind.
Almost all the talking points Gage brings up in his presentations are and have always been considered evidence of arson. The NFPA 921 passages I have quoted a few times confirm that.

Last edited by MicahJava; 30th May 2016 at 07:21 PM. Reason: words
MicahJava 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 30th May 2016, 06:56 PM   #67
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... Almost every talking point Gage brings up in his presentations are and have always been considered evidence of arson. The NFPA 921 passages I have quoted a few times confirm that.
The only evidence for arson is Flight 11 and 175 each having 66,000 pounds of jet fuel ignited by their impact from active engines.

There is no evidence for arson except that done by 10 terrorists in two planes. Your NFPA 921 card fails to support anything but terrorism.

Your inside job fantasy, and Gage's CD fantasy, self-debunking claptrap.

No evidence after 14 years, poor showing = failure
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
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 30th May 2016, 07:23 PM   #68
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The only evidence for arson is Flight 11 and 175 each having 66,000 pounds of jet fuel ignited by their impact from active engines.

There is no evidence for arson except that done by 10 terrorists in two planes. Your NFPA 921 card fails to support anything but terrorism.

Your inside job fantasy, and Gage's CD fantasy, self-debunking claptrap.

No evidence after 14 years, poor showing = failure
What is your evidence that IJoPS and CJoSM is infiltrated by malicious truther peer-reviewers?
MicahJava 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 31st May 2016, 09:13 AM   #69
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What is your evidence that IJoPS and CJoSM is infiltrated by malicious truther peer-reviewers?
Which papers do you think have valid conclusions? List them. The papers by 9/11 truth are great examples of nuts waving their hands wildly and making up nonsensical conclusions which paranoid conspiracy theorists fall for. Lies of an inside job fool a fringe few who fail to do reality based research.

The peer review of 9/11 truth papers, reviewed by 9/11 truth nuts. The conclusion in the papers, the false conclusions of CD and thermite are certified by 9/11 truth nuts to be 9/11 truth lies dumbed down to fool the gullible inside job faith based believers. It must be the pattern of thinking, the failed logic which fools the faith based followers in the 9/11 truth church of overwhelming woo. 911TCoOWW

14 years with zero evidence of the inside job, is evidence of fantasy.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
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 31st May 2016, 05:50 PM   #70
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Which papers do you think have valid conclusions? List them. The papers by 9/11 truth are great examples of nuts waving their hands wildly and making up nonsensical conclusions which paranoid conspiracy theorists fall for. Lies of an inside job fool a fringe few who fail to do reality based research.

The peer review of 9/11 truth papers, reviewed by 9/11 truth nuts. The conclusion in the papers, the false conclusions of CD and thermite are certified by 9/11 truth nuts to be 9/11 truth lies dumbed down to fool the gullible inside job faith based believers. It must be the pattern of thinking, the failed logic which fools the faith based followers in the 9/11 truth church of overwhelming woo. 911TCoOWW

14 years with zero evidence of the inside job, is evidence of fantasy.
I already listed three peer-reviewed papers from the last five years that aren't discussion papers. Explain your conspiracy theory about how truthers have infiltrated mid-tier engineering journals.
MicahJava 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 31st May 2016, 05:56 PM   #71
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I already listed three peer-reviewed papers from the last five years that aren't discussion papers. Explain your conspiracy theory about how truthers have infiltrated mid-tier engineering journals.
Overall, how well do these papers represent the "truth movement"?

Do they make a definitive case for controlled demolition (if yes, please explain how)?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

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

Last edited by DGM; 31st May 2016 at 05:57 PM.
DGM 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 31st May 2016, 06:15 PM   #72
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I already listed three peer-reviewed papers from the last five years that aren't discussion papers.
Did you? Where? The only reference in this thread is to three books.

Do you mean books or papers?
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2016, 08:46 PM   #73
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Overall, how well do these papers represent the "truth movement"?

Do they make a definitive case for controlled demolition (if yes, please explain how)?
The authors don't believe in CD, except for Tony Sz who has about as much credibility as used car salesman.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 31st May 2016, 09:04 PM   #74
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
The authors don't believe in CD,
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"Believe"? The authors are skeptics. I don't think either of them except for Szamboti have come right out and said that they have no doubt the WTC was a CD.

"Our conclusion suggests that Newton’s laws of motion and energy conservation considerations would have had to have been violated to explain that building’s total collapse within a debris pile several storeys high."

"Based on the parametric study undertaken, our findings were that the fire-protected steel floor beam, identified as the initiator of the cascade of events that followed, could not have done so, virtually under any circumstance."

Those are fighting words around these parts.
Quote:
except for Tony Sz who has about as much credibility as used car salesman.
Where's your peer-reviewed paper?

Also, if he wasn't competent, then ASCE could have came up with a better reason to not accept his discussion paper. I guess the CD theorists could consider that "the one that got away", but the silver lining is a straightforward example of how the mainstream engineering community wants to actively censor criticism the official explanations.

Last edited by MicahJava; 31st May 2016 at 09:04 PM. Reason: typo
MicahJava 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 31st May 2016, 10:53 PM   #75
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I already listed three peer-reviewed papers from the last five years that aren't discussion papers. Explain your conspiracy theory about how truthers have infiltrated mid-tier engineering journals.
Which papers? You lost them again? 9/11 truth's CD claims, or is it the inside job for you? Which fantasy do you have, and why have you failed to get a Pulitzer for all your evidence to support your claim? You don't have evidence.
You lost it with the three paper you can't remember.

Which papers, which journals? Did they pay to publish?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
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 1st June 2016, 04:44 AM   #76
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,323
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Where's your peer-reviewed paper?

Also, if he wasn't competent, then ASCE could have came up with a better reason to not accept his discussion paper. I guess the CD theorists could consider that "the one that got away", but the silver lining is a straightforward example of how the mainstream engineering community wants to actively censor criticism the official explanations.
LOL, Why would I need any papers? I'm not one of the mentally challenged dolts that believes in CD.

You've had 15 years of failure, why can't you do better?
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill 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 1st June 2016, 04:49 AM   #77
Stamuel
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
For those who are interested, I read the first linked paper. The authors argue that WTC 7 did not have enough gravitational potential energy to crush all the concrete floors (they use what they argue is a conservative assumption about the distribution of chunk/particle size after crushing) and bend all the columns on every floor through 0.9pi radians of plastic hinge rotation.

Since we already know that nothing remotely like this happened to building 7, even if the calculations are right, they are of little significance to discussions of how building 7 collapsed.
Stamuel 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 1st June 2016, 05:13 AM   #78
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
And I've taken a look at the second one. It makes the same mistake as truthers here have made, namely that it focuses on the beams' maximum elongations, failing to consider column displacement and geometry factors that a FEA like the one NIST carried out did consider.
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 1st June 2016, 05:16 AM   #79
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: 34,249
Yuk, just read the abstract of the first one. Every time a truther says he's applying Newton's Laws in what purports to be a serious scientific discussion, an alarm bell rings. It's like citing Darwin in a biology paper, or Euclid in a maths paper - knowledge so basic that it's assumed that it's universally known within the subject and so doesn't need to be referenced, but used by people ignorant of the field as an attempt to appeal to the ultimate authority.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
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 1st June 2016, 05:50 AM   #80
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
Originally Posted by BenjaminTR View Post
For those who are interested, I read the first linked paper. The authors argue that WTC 7 did not have enough gravitational potential energy to crush all the concrete floors (they use what they argue is a conservative assumption about the distribution of chunk/particle size after crushing) and bend all the columns on every floor through 0.9pi radians of plastic hinge rotation.

Since we already know that nothing remotely like this happened to building 7, even if the calculations are right, they are of little significance to discussions of how building 7 collapsed.
Exactly. Crushing the concrete to their chosen range of particle sizes is an arbitrary requirement that they've imposed in order to demonstrate the lack of sufficient PE to do that much crushing. If the floor connections fail at each impact then the concrete could theoretically have ended up lying there relatively unscathed.

A house of cards springs to mind - it isn't necessary to shred the cards to get the structure to collapse.

In short, they're trying to give the impression of doing proper science.
__________________
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury
GlennB 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

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 02:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.