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.
Tags ae911truth , J. Leroy Hulsey , wtc 7

Reply
Old 12th December 2015, 11:43 AM   #681
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
You've looked at the drawings
You referenced drawing S-8-10 in your video as the drawing that supposedly shows shear studs on every floor? S-8-10 was the drawing for the 10th floor, Here is the title block for that drawing:


How could you think that S-8-10 was for every floor?
Gamolon 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 12th December 2015, 11:45 AM   #682
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Gamelon, you were repeatedly told that there were studs on that beam. It's an obvious one.
You were so sure it was almost funny.

It's a matter of court record now, so you can go and make your case to some of the worlds experts. Let me know how you get on with telling them there are no shear studs on that girder. They won't suffer you as long as I did.
See above post.

How did you get that S-8-10 showed shear studs for every floor?! Are you going to answer that question or continue to run?
Gamolon 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 12th December 2015, 11:47 AM   #683
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
It's a matter of court record now, so you can go and make your case to some of the worlds experts.
Who gerrycan? I'm looking at drawings and you've got people who assume that there were shear studs on those griders? What proof do they have? Or is it just the thought that they think it "would be stupid not to have them"?
Gamolon 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 12th December 2015, 11:48 AM   #684
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
You referenced drawing S-8-10 in your video as the drawing that supposedly shows shear studs on every floor? S-8-10 was the drawing for the 10th floor, Here is the title block for that drawing:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...pschugl3b6.png

How could you think that S-8-10 was for every floor?
How could you think that the girder didn't have any studs?

You repeated this position loudly and clearly, and now you're trying to distance yourself from your claim because you are realising how wrong you were.
You were told time and time again that there would have been studs on the girder. You're just running for cover yourself now that you realise your mistake. Understandable really.
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 11:52 AM   #685
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Who gerrycan? I'm looking at drawings and you've got people who assume that there were shear studs on those griders? What proof do they have? Or is it just the thought that they think it "would be stupid not to have them"?
Gamelon. Sometimes it's best to stop digging.

ETA - I just did a quick search. Not only did you state that position again and again when talking to me, you went all over repeating it.
CTRL + Z ain't gonna clear that one up.

Last edited by gerrycan; 12th December 2015 at 11:56 AM.
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 11:58 AM   #686
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Who gerrycan? I'm looking at drawings and you've got people who assume that there were shear studs on those griders? What proof do they have? Or is it just the thought that they think it "would be stupid not to have them"?
No Gamelon, this is a highly qualified expert in a court of law who actually came back and changed his statement to indicate that information had come to his attention indicating that there were shear studs on that girder on each floor of wtc7.
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 12:00 PM   #687
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
How could you think that the girder didn't have any studs?

You repeated this position loudly and clearly, and now you're trying to distance yourself from your claim because you are realising how wrong you were.
You were told time and time again that there would have been studs on the girder. You're just running for cover yourself now that you realise your mistake. Understandable really.
Answer the question gerrycan.

How did you interpret S-8-10 as showing shear studs for every floor when it was clearly for the 10th floor only?
Gamolon 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 12th December 2015, 12:01 PM   #688
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
No Gamelon, this is a highly qualified expert in a court of law who actually came back and changed his statement to indicate that information had come to his attention indicating that there were shear studs on that girder on each floor of wtc7.
Who was this expert and what information was he referring to that changed his mind?
Gamolon 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 12th December 2015, 12:04 PM   #689
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Answer the question gerrycan.

How did you interpret S-8-10 as showing shear studs for every floor when it was clearly for the 10th floor only?
Gamelon, you were told repeatedly that there would be studs on the girder, You disagreed and made no secret of it. If you'd kept up with the topic, you probably would be avoiding me.
I had the good grace not to come and seek you out to rub your face in it when I read the testimony, but now you're here........
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 12:09 PM   #690
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Gamelon, you were told repeatedly that there would be studs on the girder, You disagreed and made no secret of it. If you'd kept up with the topic, you probably would be avoiding me.
I had the good grace not to come and seek you out to rub your face in it when I read the testimony, but now you're here........
You screwed up gerrycan! You used drawing S-8-10 in your video as a reference to ALL FLOORS having shear studs on that girder. You were repeatedly told that the drawing you referenced was for the 10th floor yet never changed your video or admitted the error.

Why not?
Gamolon 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 12th December 2015, 12:10 PM   #691
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Gamelon, you were told repeatedly that there would be studs on the girder,
Told by whom? And backed by what information?
Gamolon 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 12th December 2015, 12:10 PM   #692
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
You screwed up gerrycan! You used drawing S-8-10 in your video as a reference to ALL FLOORS having shear studs on that girder. You were repeatedly told that the drawing you referenced was for the 10th floor yet never changed your video or admitted the error.

Why not?
Gamelon, just for the record. Were there shear studs on the girder spanning C44-79 at floor 13?
You've never been shy about stating your position clearly on this specific before. Why now?
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 12:13 PM   #693
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Gamelon, just for the record. Were there shear studs on the girder spanning C44-79 at floor 13?
You've never been shy about stating your position clearly on this specific before. Why now?
And you've never been shy about avoiding your mistakes. Answer my question gerrycan.

Does the drawing you reference in your video show shear studs on every floor?

Yes or no?
Gamolon 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 12th December 2015, 12:14 PM   #694
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Gamelon, just for the record. Were there shear studs on the girder spanning C44-79 at floor 13?
You've never been shy about stating your position clearly on this specific before. Why now?
According to the drawings, there were not. What evidence do you have gerrycan that you can provide here to back up your stance?
Gamolon 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 12th December 2015, 12:24 PM   #695
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
According to the drawings, there were not. What evidence do you have gerrycan that you can provide here to back up your stance?
Prof Colin Bailey (FREng, BEng, PhD, CEng, FICE, FIStructE, MIFireE) says
"evidence discovered after June 15th 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information that I had reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed ON EACH FLOOR on the girder running between columns 79 and 44."
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 12:31 PM   #696
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 681
And why are these shear studs so important?
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2015, 12:34 PM   #697
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
And why are these shear studs so important?
You called them a "minor detail" on the previous page. Apparently people who are actually qualified in the field disagree with you.
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 12:38 PM   #698
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Prof Colin Bailey (FREng, BEng, PhD, CEng, FICE, FIStructE, MIFireE) says
"evidence discovered after June 15th 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information that I had reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed ON EACH FLOOR on the girder running between columns 79 and 44."
Tony Szamboti says explosives were used during the collapse of Wtc7

The trouble is...... No one believes him.
Spanx 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 12th December 2015, 12:39 PM   #699
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Tony Szamboti says explosives were used during the collapse of Wtc7

The trouble is...... No one believes him.
Are you saying that nobody will believe Colin ??
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 12:42 PM   #700
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Are you saying that nobody will believe Colin ??
What I am saying is, if people want to make claims, they need to back them up with evidence.

Which is something you are not doing, just like Tony
Spanx 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 12th December 2015, 12:44 PM   #701
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
What I am saying is, if people want to make claims, they need to back them up with evidence.

Which is something you are not doing, just like Tony
Yes, as stated above, this is evidence. Are you disputing it, or trying to cast doubt on it?
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 12:46 PM   #702
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Yes, as stated above, this is evidence. Are you disputing it, or trying to cast doubt on it?
So where is your evidence ?
Spanx 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 12th December 2015, 12:49 PM   #703
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
So where is your evidence ?
Are you seriously supposing that this guy walked into a court and CHANGED HIS STATEMENT to include a statement as specific as this, without being sure?

Wouldn't that be a really serious criminal offence?

The guy is from over this way, maybe I could arrange for you to relate your concerns to him directly.
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 12:51 PM   #704
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,801
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Not at all. If you look back, you'll see that the issue I originally came here with was that there were sheer studs on the girder spanning C79 and C44. A fact that most of you here still don't get.
And folks like me who are willing to hear you out on this idea would like to move onto the next step of determining that if NIST was wrong about the one girder not moving enough then what is a valid alternative failure point? And does it or does it not disprove the fire initiated collapse?. Going from your own words on that blog some years ago and your insistance on spending hours tugging at a single girder connection for no reason than to tell people they are wrong is indicative that my earlier remark is an accurate depiction of the position you have.

That the column failed is without question. The pertinent discussion is, does disproving that one girder affect the entire conclusion that fire was the proximate cause of the collapse? Could no other mechanism related to the fires have resulted in the same sequence?

Thats the discussion you and Tony et al NEVER explore and for that mTter some in the debunking community are guilty of same to an extent
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 12th December 2015 at 12:57 PM.
Grizzly Bear 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 12th December 2015, 12:51 PM   #705
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Are you seriously supposing that this guy walked into a court and CHANGED HIS STATEMENT to include a statement as specific as this, without being sure?

Wouldn't that be a really serious criminal offence?

The guy is from over this way, maybe I could arrange for you to relate your concerns to him directly.
No, what I am asking for, is for you to present the evidence for your claim.
Spanx 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 12th December 2015, 12:52 PM   #706
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,710
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
No Gamelon, this is a highly qualified expert in a court of law who actually came back and changed his statement to indicate that information had come to his attention indicating that there were shear studs on that girder on each floor of wtc7.
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
Who was this expert and what information was he referring to that changed his mind?

I'd like to know this as well. What was the court case in response to?
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 12:52 PM   #707
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,491
My guess:

This will pretend to prove, by using a much more restricted simulation than that of NIST, that NIST's probable sequence was not so probable, which will be spun, as it has so far, as meaning that the whole NIST report is completely wrong and therefore we need a new investigation.

Which will be as wrong then as it is now.
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 12th December 2015, 12:54 PM   #708
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'd like to know this as well. What was the court case in response to?
Yeah I imagine you would. But the point is, so you agree with the expert or not?
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 12:56 PM   #709
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
No, what I am asking for, is for you to present the evidence for your claim.
This is evidence from a US court of law given under testimony from a world expert who has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth movement.
If you disagree with the court record, then you have to substantiate that.
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 12:58 PM   #710
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,710
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
Yeah I imagine you would. But the point is, so you agree with the expert or not?
Is the court case and expert a secret?
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 12:59 PM   #711
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
This is evidence from a US court of law given under testimony from a world expert who has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth movement.
If you disagree with the court record, then you have to substantiate that.
I think the idea is that you show us this evidence.

Or is it a secret that only the truth movement know about?
Spanx 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 12th December 2015, 01:02 PM   #712
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
You called them a "minor detail" on the previous page. Apparently people who are actually qualified in the field disagree with you.
You are avoiding the question. I believe they are a minor detail, and would have not prevented the global collapse of WTC 7, or the girder walk off.

What do you believe they are so important?
__________________
I dont look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell. Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2015, 01:03 PM   #713
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Is the court case and expert a secret?
i gave you his name and qualifications above. CASE 1:04-cv-07272-AKH
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 01:04 PM   #714
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
I believe they are a minor detail
I wonder why someone might avoid engaging that lol
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 01:06 PM   #715
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,710
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
i gave you his name and qualifications above. CASE 1:04-cv-07272-AKH
I'm sorry, I missed it. Was that so hard? I'll read the documents later. Thanks.
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 01:19 PM   #716
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I'm sorry, I missed it. Was that so hard? I'll read the documents later. Thanks.
No problem. the pertinent bit is where he changes his statement to.... "evidence discovered after June 15th 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information that I had reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed ON EACH FLOOR on the girder running between columns 79 and 44."

It's not up for debate any more.
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 01:26 PM   #717
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,710
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
No problem. the pertinent bit is where he changes his statement to.... "evidence discovered after June 15th 2009 revealed that, contrary to the information that I had reviewed prior to that date, some shear studs were ultimately installed ON EACH FLOOR on the girder running between columns 79 and 44."

It's not up for debate any more.
A quick search does not find any reference to sheer studs in the court case. I looked "above" and I didn't see the persons name mentioned. I'd just like to see the context of the statement.

In the case itself there was no finding of negligence in construction and the case was dismissed.
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 01:30 PM   #718
gerrycan
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,981
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
A quick search does not find any reference to sheer studs in the court case. I looked "above" and I didn't see the persons name mentioned. I'd just like to see the context of the statement.

In the case itself there was no finding of negligence in construction and the case was dismissed.
You do accept the guys expertise though I presume?

Remember this is a CHANGE to his original statement. He thought it pertinent enough to change his original statement to reflect the information that he had received in the interim.

Negligence has nothing to do with this unless you are talking about NIST.
gerrycan 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 12th December 2015, 01:33 PM   #719
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,710
Originally Posted by gerrycan View Post
You do accept the guys expertise though I presume?

Remember this is a CHANGE to his original statement. He thought it pertinent enough to change his original statement to reflect the information that he had received in the interim.

Negligence has nothing to do with this unless you are talking about NIST.
I have not found his original statement or the reason for him making one. It appears it doesn't mater because he doesn't say the building shouldn't have collapsed due to reasons presented in the case.

Do you agree with the decision in the case?
__________________
"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 12th December 2015, 01:49 PM   #720
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
He is not hard to get hold of if anyone feels like contacting him ?

Last edited by Spanx; 12th December 2015 at 02:23 PM.
Spanx 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 01:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.