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 debate , tfk , tony szamboti

Reply
Old 26th June 2016, 11:35 PM   #241
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You still refuse to perform your own experiment, and you think I can't see through this. You are wrong, as usual. I can see through your lame tricks. I don't even know why you waste your time anymore.
tfk, has examined the "experiment" that Chandler and femr2 conducted and found their methods of analysis to be flawed. How is it that you cannot grasp that concept?

Quote:
In order to perform your own experiment, you would need videos of the collapse and software that can analyze the videos. Your own experiment would need to show where you think the collapse of the north-facing wall begins, and what point you choose to measure throughout the collapse. You would then need to determine the position of your reference point throughout the collapse.
Oh Really?
Tell me, where does Chandler say the "collapse of the north-facing wall begins, "?
Or did you mean "when" it Begins?
Quote:
The distance the reference point travels with respect to time is the velocity. Your experiment needs to show us what the velocity is at whatever points you choose to measure.
Yes and no. It gives you the average velocity over that time period. Got that straight Yet?

Quote:
Can you do this? Can you perform this experiment and just show us the data?
Again, the issue is how it was performed by Chandler or femr2, and especially how it was interpreted.
You don't understand, do You?

Quote:
I don't think you can, because you know you will get the same results as Chandler and NIST (within an insignificant margin of error). If you get different results, and you post the data you used, the real experts will be able to see the fraud and call you on it. That's why you won't perform a real experiment. You know what will happen.
Nope you don't understand. This paragraph underlines that.

Quote:
Also, in regards to your slope/constant acceleration argument, I have this to say: no **** Sherlock. This issue is not that there was constant acceleration. The issue is that the slope of best-fit line that connected the dots for approximately 2.25 seconds (i.e., a) just so happened to be equal (or nearly-equal) to g. To be clear, I am referring to WTC7 and NIST's and Chandler's observations.
Fine. If that "best fit" gives a slope equal to 'g' then some data points must indicate less than 'g' , while others indicate greater than 'g'.
If the only interpretation is a strict Newtonian mass consideration then gravity cannot be the only force involved.
Yet gravity IS the only force involved.
Therefore the interpretation that all locations on the structure must behave as strict Newtonian point mass must be in error.
Therefore free fall does not equal controlled demolition.


Quote:
Prove me wrong. Post your experiment that shows the measured velocities at each reference point are wrong. Post your data so that others can duplicate your experiment.
Poor poor Falsie still doesn't get it.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2016, 11:42 PM   #242
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Gawd I hate autocorrect. I note a few oddities in a previous post. Correction below:
.
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post

I repeat,,, so what? Explain yourself.
I would note that the most common occurrence of a UPS meltdown and puddles of lead, would be obvious as the remains of the UPS chassis would be in that puddle. Obviously that cannot be the case in this case.


..........


Yes Mr. Nessman , I will think about it.

.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 01:54 AM   #243
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
17 seconds is a pretty short span of time in the mind of the public... I think for a high rise to collapse. The public may be naive about such things... but it is probably understandable that they are. Whatever the rate of collapse... to the public they were shockingly fast.
I agree.

I like to post a certain video depicting WTC Tower debris falling at free fall speed, which are outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower. In fact, debris are striking the ground as the collapse continues many stories above ground level.
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 27th June 2016, 05:41 AM   #244
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Back to the topic of this thread, it looks like Tony went with his standard thermite line, even the paint chip and microspheres nonsense, Hey Tony how many freaking microspheres do you freaking want?
Easy to produce them in competent experiments, your whole freaking CD is based on incompetence, Of Jones, Cole, Chandler, anyone want to mention any other incompetent nonscientific truther's?

Point a Jones never attempted to recreate the actual fires, or reactions in them.

Point Two Cole's experiments are over simplified.

Point Three Chandler is wrong, and that is evident in his own math.

A debate on the merits of stupid why?
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 27th June 2016, 09:18 AM   #245
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Back to the topic of this thread, it looks like Tony went with his standard thermite line, even the paint chip and microspheres nonsense, Hey Tony how many freaking microspheres do you freaking want?

Tony lost that battle. For an example, thermite consist of aluminum power and iron oxide (rust). Now, let's take a look here.


Aluminum & Gray Epoxy-Mastic Primer

* Coating Section Dry Film Thickness mils
* Aluminum Epoxy-Mastic Primer 1045.8 5.0 min.
* Gray Epoxy-Mastic Primer 1045.9 5.0 m

Corothane I - MIO Aluminum

COROTHANE I MIO-ALUMINUM is a single component, VOC compliant, moisture curing, aluminum and Micaceous Iron Oxide (MIO) filled, urethane primer, intermediate coating, or finish. It has excellent surface wetting properties and provides extended recoatability.


What can be expected from a structural primer?

http://www.nucorbuildingsystems.com/...uralprimer.pdf


As far as microspheres are concerned, anyone with a barrel of wood, a match and steel beams can create microspheres in the backyard. In fact, microspheres can even be created using a hydrocarbon flame and steel wool.


Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLyYv5Y2YSM


Tony was unaware of the rest of the story.
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 27th June 2016, 10:58 AM   #246
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Back to the topic of this thread, it looks like Tony went with his standard thermite line, even the paint chip and microspheres nonsense, Hey Tony how many freaking microspheres do you freaking want?
Easy to produce them in competent experiments, your whole freaking CD is based on incompetence, Of Jones, Cole, Chandler, anyone want to mention any other incompetent nonscientific truther's?

Point a Jones never attempted to recreate the actual fires, or reactions in them.

Point Two Cole's experiments are over simplified. do not model the collapse processes in play and are irrelevant.

Point Three Chandler is wrong, and that is evident in his own math.

A debate on the merits of stupid why?
Fixed one point, imho.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 11:03 AM   #247
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
I could have sworn that FF was touting a "constant acceleration of "g", but he now says its not about constant acceleration at all.
Might someone tel me if my recollection is correct?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 01:43 PM   #248
Bitca
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Why do you refuse to stop wasting time on this nonsense?

If the acceleration is g for 2.25 seconds, then it is not wrong to say there is constant acceleration over that time period. His words are not wrong. You simply nitpick them because that is all you have.
Is the acceleration in the highlighted phrase constant? If so, then it's a tautology. If it's derived from fitting a line through measured velocities, if any of the data points isn't on the line, then there isn't constant acceleration. Even if they all fall on the line, you can't say there's constant acceleration unless the time interval is sufficiently small.

Chandler doesn't understand this and it matters, because he uses his false claim that there was constant acceleration to bootstrap his claim that there were no collisions.
Bitca 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 June 2016, 01:49 PM   #249
Bitca
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I could have sworn that FF was touting a "constant acceleration of "g", but he now says its not about constant acceleration at all.
Might someone tel me if my recollection is correct?
I think he's claiming both in different posts. That's easy to do if you're only here to argue and not to think.
Bitca 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 June 2016, 02:16 PM   #250
Richard the G
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 247
There is plenty of free fall on WTC 1 and 2 as well. !

I am pretty sure that when the structure on the facade was blown off that it fell at free fall
Richard the G 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 June 2016, 02:50 PM   #251
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Richard the G View Post
There is plenty of free fall on WTC 1 and 2 as well. !

I am pretty sure that when the structure on the facade was blown off that it fell at free fall
Few are disputing that it reached 'g' at times, perhaps even various locations on the facades reached over 'g'.
The dispute is that it was ever , for any significant time period, a constant acceleration of 'g'. The graphs of velocity vs. time indicate that no, that never occurred. If it never occurred then there was never a time when ALL lower section 'resistance' was removed in a fashion that would suggest a coordinated, controlled demolition as truthers would have us believe, and indeed state unequivocably was the case. Tony says, and he's is far from alone on his side of the debate, that the demolition of WTC 7 and the towers is patently obvious. Apparently less so than would be noticed by the bulk of structural engineers in N.America and around the world, though.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 02:51 PM   #252
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
OK. Fair enough.
LMAO.
Finally…

I guess if someone else says it …

Are you going to take back all the snarky, clueless comments you’ve made?
Didn’t think so…

Seriously, don’t bother.
Really. Don't do it.
It’ll ruin all this fun for both of us.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Why then does NIST agree with Chandler? Careful, don't trash NIST, and then argue you don't want a new investigation.
I already told you why.
They had a little less than a month (IIRC) between the end of Public comment (where Chandler’s nonsense camp up) and the date the finished report had to get to the publisher, in order for them to make a politically pressured release date.

There is nothing the slightest surprising about the numbers that Chandler got. Except that:
1. This is important. Please answer it. Chandler screwed the pooch by not acknowledging the sources and magnitude of the error in his own regression. Do you see that “± 0.456” in the box in the lower right of waypastvne’s screen grab? What do you think that number means??


2. Given the fact that Chandler knows nothing about NTSC broadcast, interlacing, video compression, etc., do you (in your amateur imagination) think that Chandler would be justified in claiming mean ± 1 standard deviation, mean ± 2 standard deviations, or mean ± 3 standard deviations, for his answer?

3. Given the PROPER attachment of the PROPER error associated with his "linear approximation", what is Chandler's REAL result for his measured acceleration?

I'll give you a little assistance:
It is NOT 9.88 m/sec2.
It is NOT 9.81 m/sec2, the actual value of "G".

What is Chandler's calculated acceleration?
I firmly believe, for reasons that you won’t understand or believe, that NIST stuck some junior engineer on the project. They did this, I believe, because none of the experienced engineers gave a rat’s ass about this issue.

NO competent engineers cares "how fast" a building collapses. They only care whether it does, or does not, collapse.

NIST's engineers were simply attempting to explain a non-issue to non-technical readers. it never occurred to them that there were morons out there who thought that they'd lie about these topics.

The engineer who did this analysis started out fine, saying “the acceleration of the model was approximately equal to G.” Which is true.

But then, the kid got a little sloppy with his language. He got careless in stating whether he was talking about the acceleration of the model or of the building.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Second, if NIST could use tfk's argument …
LMAO. You haven’t the slightest idea what my argument is.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
… why didn't they?
As usual, you've got it backwards.
I used their argument.

You see, those guys are, what’s the word again … oh yeah … “the structural engineering experts”.

...snip... I’m not a moron.
I don’t think that I know more than the experts in their own subject.
I listen to them, very carefully, and then pass what they say thru the filter of my own education & knowledge.

And guess what … the experts make complete sense.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Is it because the videos don't provide the ability to get an exact measurement of what actually happened?
LoL.
OF COURSE the videos do not provide exact measurements.

NO instrument on the planet provides “exact measurements”.
Every single measurement device … every . single . one … has error associated with it.

Just another thing that you’re unaware of.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Is it possible that that the videos are not as accurate as we want them to be over extremely short periods, but when we use larger time intervals their accuracy is not as much of an issue?
VCR’s and ENG videocameras were NEVER designed to be scientific instruments. That ain’t their job.

They make pictures for TV. Pictures that have all sorts of errors in them that don't matter to people viewing a TV image. Videogrammetry experts (another field that you know nothing about) know that they are not precise recorders of "the true images", but have all sorts of distortions to them. Distortions that don't matter when one is not holding a ruler up to one's TV screen.

And since, like Chandler, you have no idea of the way that they really work, you have no idea of the limitation of their measurements.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I don't know. I'm not an expert.
Understatement of the year.
It’s pretty DAMN funny when you forget this, tho, and start bloviating about stuff you don’t understand.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I do know that Chandler and NIST agree on something. If they both agree, then what they agree on is likely to be correct.
No, as a matter of fact, NIST & Chandler disagree completely.

NIST knows the limitations of the recording devices, their models & the analysis, i.e., that they are all approximations.
Chandler thinks his crude approximations are exact.

NIST knows that the acceleration is “approximately G” over a short interval.
Chandler thinks the acceleration is “indistinguishable from G" over a much longer interval.

NIST knows that there is no surprise whatsoever that the acceleration should be “approximately G” over a short interval.
Chandler thinks that it is shocking, "SHOCKING, I tell you!", and a violation of Newton’s laws that the acceleration is “indistinguishable from G”.

NIST knows that an acceleration of “approximately G” undermines none of their conclusions.
Chandler thinks that an acceleration ‘indistinguishable from G" proves all of NIST’s findings to be a fraud.

NIST knows that the progressive collapse of WTC7 is undoubtably the result of unfought fire & design weaknesses in the building.
Chandler thinks that the only viable explanation are Hush-A-Boom silent explosives or magical pixie-dust nanothermite.

NIST knows what the word "approximately" means.
Chandler & Gage think that it means "virtually the same".

NIST knows that they, & the hundreds of engineers that assisted them, did a superb, honorable, rigorous job in analyzing the reasons that those buildings collapsed, not the least because of patriotism & their outrage that our country was attacked & innocent people killed in the most horrible manners.
Chandler thinks that the vast majority of NIST engineers are liar, frauds & traitors.

NIST knows what it’s talking about.
Chandler doesn’t.

You see, NIST & Chandler don’t agree at all.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
It's also common sense to know that a 47 building is not going to collapse in such a short time from normal office fires.
LMFAO.
Once again, Mr. "I Am Not An Expert" forgets that ... he is not an expert, while making laughable, baseless & wrong proclamations.

It was once “common sense” that “heavier than air machines could not possibly fly”.

It took more than common sense, it took engineering to prove that “common sense was wrong”.

You are ignorant of ALL of the pertinent facts, knowledge, reason & sense.

it is also common sense to listen to experts when they are discussing topics within the field of expertise.

LIKE NIST’s STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS.

You REFUSE to do this.
You INSIST on listening to clueless, ignorant amateurs.

LIKE DAVID CHANDLER, a high school physics teacher, who knows nothing about structural engineering or structural mechanics!!

Exactly like you are ignorant of those same topics.

And a person who deceitfully ignores, & refuses to talk about that number in the lower right corner of his analysis, that “±0.456”.

Tell me, Mr. “I’m Not An Expert”, what percent of an 8 story column, which is made up of multiple 2 story bolted-together segments, goes away when it buckles?

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
It's lunacy to ignore this just to support your own personal fantasy.
Look in the mirror when you say this.

Edited by jsfisher:  Edited for compliance with Rule 0 of the Membership Agreement.

Last edited by jsfisher; 28th June 2016 at 06:17 PM.
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 27th June 2016, 04:32 PM   #253
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Richard the G View Post
There is plenty of free fall on WTC 1 and 2 as well. !

I am pretty sure that when the structure on the facade was blown off that it fell at free fall

Apparently, videos and photos have proven the WTC Towers did not fall at free fall speed and it is amazing that Truthers have overlooked the falling debris outpacing the collapse.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 27th June 2016 at 04:42 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 27th June 2016, 04:57 PM   #254
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Apparently, videos and photos have proven the WTC Towers did not fall at free fall speed and it is amazing that Truthers have overlooked the falling debris outpacing the collapse.
Old news, Even Steven E. Jones admitted the towers did not fall at free fall.
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 27th June 2016, 05:06 PM   #255
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Can you prove it?
What do I need to prove?
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 27th June 2016, 05:08 PM   #256
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
LMFAO.
It doesn't get any funnier than this...
I guess you never read your own posts.

I understand why you choose to mock my statement. I can even see, and understand, your argument. The issue is that it's nitpicking.
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 27th June 2016, 05:26 PM   #257
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
I already told you why.
They had a little less than a month (IIRC) between the end of Public comment (where Chandler’s nonsense camp up) and the date the finished report had to get to the publisher, in order for them to make a politically pressured release date.
Proof?

If this is true, then why don't you support a new investigation where competent, credible experts are given the time and resources to do their jobs correctly?

Quote:
NO competent engineers cares "how fast" a building collapses. They only care whether it does, or does not, collapse.
Proof? Wait. Don't even bother. You can't prove it, because it is nonsense.

Most competent engineers would care about how fast a building collapsed because the collapse time would help to indicate what collapse mechanisms were at work.

Quote:
But then, the kid got a little sloppy with his language. He got careless in stating whether he was talking about the acceleration of the model or of the building.
So NIST is made up of hundreds of competent, credible engineers, but you just posted that.

You do a better job of destroying your own credibility far better than I can.

Quote:
You haven’t the slightest idea what my argument is.
Do you?

Quote:
You see, those guys are, what’s the word again … oh yeah … “the structural engineering experts”.
Go back a few lines and look at how you describe the experts.

Quote:
...snip... I’m not a moron.
Edited by jsfisher:  Moderated text redacted.

Wait for it...

Quote:
I don’t think that I know more than the experts in their own subject.
I listen to them, very carefully, and then pass what they say thru the filter of my own education & knowledge.
Translation: ...snip...
Edited by jsfisher:  Edited for compliance with Rule 0 of the Membership Agreement.

Quote:
NIST knows that they, & the hundreds of engineers that assisted them, did a superb, honorable, rigorous job in analyzing the reasons that those buildings collapsed
...hundreds of engineers, plus a sloppy kid who was able to get something into the NIST report with no editorial review.

Yeah, right.

So NIST is made up of experts when they say something you agree with, but NIST is nothing more than "sloppy kids" when the subject is something you don't like.


Last edited by jsfisher; 28th June 2016 at 06:20 PM.
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 27th June 2016, 05:35 PM   #258
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
So much verbiage contained within one 'non-answer'.
HotRodDeluxe 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 June 2016, 06:05 PM   #259
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,607
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What do I need to prove?
Read the post you replied to. I know this is just another one of your stall tactics. All anyone has to do is click the link to see your integrity.
__________________
"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 27th June 2016, 06:12 PM   #260
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
LMAO.
<.....>
Quote:
It's lunacy to ignore this just to support your own personal fantasy.
Look in the mirror when you say this.
Like vampires that can't see their image in the mirror because they have no soul,
Truthers can't see their image in the mirror because they have no truth.

In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 27th June 2016 at 07:05 PM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2016, 06:42 PM   #261
Bitca
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 34
[quote=FalseFlag;11354538]Why do you refuse to stop wasting time on this nonsense?

This reply is only my 15th post. What are you going on about?
Bitca 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 June 2016, 10:38 AM   #262
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,607
Whatever happened to the "debate"?

__________________
"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 28th June 2016, 10:46 AM   #263
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Whatever happened to the "debate"?

I'm taking my time responding to Tony.
Perhaps if I take 5 days PLUS 5 minutes, he'll declare my response invalid, and declare himself "Da Winnah"!!!

Especially if I use 1005 words ...!

I'm actually waiting to see if I can get a response from Lerner-Lam regarding Rousseau's comments. It's much better coming from an expert in seismology.

Of course, the NWO knows this, and they're tracking every single post written about 9/11, on every blog in the world, so they probably paid him a visit 10 minutes after Tony posted his reply...
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 June 2016, 10:14 PM   #264
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
This seems to be your “one-trick pony”.

The published eyewitness accounts about observing “molten metal” at WTC Ground Zero, came from people who attended for professional reasons.
Why has 9/11 truth never bothered to confirm the statements they liberally quote-mine? Is it because confirmation would expose the scams behind 9/11 truth? We are all familiar with their intellectual dishonesty, so I suspect that any confirmation would be AVOIDED at all costs by those pulling the strings at AE911T.

No-one has the capability of identifying a molten metal's composition without more information. Can you supply test results that confirm this point?

Quote:
Can you provide links to similar-quality eyewitness observations that provide support for your 'muddy-the-waters' mantra that; “molten metal in many other fires is common”?
Surely you know this is correct. I mean really? Someone has to prove this to you?

Quote:
The orange-glowing liquid flowing out of the corner of WTC2 was a molten metal other than lead or aluminum.
Can you supply a credible source for this claim? I don't believe anyone can identify the material conclusively based upon the video evidence. I call this BS.

Quote:
Very soon after that molten discharge stopped, the upper section began to topple.
I hope you realise the 'discharge' was insignificant and that the footage you've observed is highly magnified.

Last edited by HotRodDeluxe; 28th June 2016 at 10:20 PM.
HotRodDeluxe 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 June 2016, 04:43 AM   #265
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post

Most competent engineers would care about how fast a building collapsed because the collapse time would help to indicate what collapse mechanisms were at work.
Exactly how does that work? How does knowing how fast a building collapses tell you what caused it to collapse?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2016, 05:09 AM   #266
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Exactly how does that work? How does knowing how fast a building collapses tell you what caused it to collapse?
If a building fell very rapidly without impact or fire, you would know, someone forgot to bolt and weld it together, apart from that speed tells you nothing about the disunification that occurs in any collapse.
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 29th June 2016, 05:30 AM   #267
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,843
Speed... a pre occupation of the young and restless.
JSanderO 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 June 2016, 10:26 AM   #268
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Exactly how does that work? How does knowing how fast a building collapses tell you what caused it to collapse?
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
If a building fell very rapidly without impact or fire, you would know, someone forgot to bolt and weld it together, apart from that speed tells you nothing about the disunification that occurs in any collapse.
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Speed... a pre occupation of the young and restless.
Spot on. The truther line has always been
Speed/momentary acceleration/average acceleration over time directly indicates the use of demolitions and spevifically rules out any other mechanism of collapse.

While II will agree that it is possible to rig for a demolition that could mimic the collapse observed, I fail to see how the second part of the meme works out.

How does the rate of movement of the structure rule out all mechanisms of collapse other than explosive use demolition?

No one has ever explained that.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2016, 11:02 AM   #269
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
For Truthers who believe that only CD explosives can bring down steel frame buildings.


Video: Cables Commence Collapse of WTC Buildings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2yud3aCGQ

Last edited by skyeagle409; 29th June 2016 at 11:04 AM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2016, 12:24 PM   #270
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,102
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Speed... a pre occupation of the young and restless.
Yup.

In the case of WTC7, the collapse started 20 minutes before the final plunge that Truthers get excited about.

In a way, #7 represents everything that James Randi has fought against. We only see the collapse from one side, and from a distance. We have limited imagery of the damaged side, and nothing showing the collapse from that angle. The only people who saw it were FDNY, NYPD, and assorted federal agents, not one saw evidence of explosives.

It's literally Magician 101. The audience only sees one side of the box, and with a little misdirection they never see how the trick works.


Last edited by Axxman300; 29th June 2016 at 12:26 PM.
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 29th June 2016, 01:44 PM   #271
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
For Truthers who believe that only CD explosives can bring down steel frame buildings.


Video: Cables Commence Collapse of WTC Buildings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2yud3aCGQ
at 1:50 the top right corner is in free fall!!!!!! The wires are a ruse, there were hush-a-booms planted in (the wreckage of) the building.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2016, 06:02 PM   #272
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
at 1:50 the top right corner is in free fall!!!!!! The wires are a ruse, there were hush-a-booms planted in (the wreckage of) the building.

Demolition mufflers attached to the explosives really worked. Did you notice the water hoses cooling down the molten steel in the rubble? I am going to review the video to see how many jolts there were.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 29th June 2016 at 06:04 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 30th June 2016, 11:36 AM   #273
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Video: Cables Commence Collapse of WTC Buildings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2yud3aCGQ
Anyone else notice that they were pulling it & pulling it, from one side only, and yet, when it fell ... it fell straight down.

Right smack dab thru the middle of its (stupid meme #17) "path of most resistance".
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 30th June 2016, 12:28 PM   #274
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
For Truthers who believe that only CD explosives can bring down steel frame buildings.


Video: Cables Commence Collapse of WTC Buildings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2yud3aCGQ
A train pulled down WTC 6. it sounded like. Tony needs to change his realcddeal from silent explosive planted by invisible men, to invisible cables which pulled the WTC complex down on 9/11, big invisible massless cables.

OMG, pyroclastic flow. It must of included thermite. How can a building fall without thermite and silent explosives. CD claims from the 9/11 truth movement, a celebration of overwhelming ignorance.
__________________
"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 30th June 2016, 01:22 PM   #275
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
A train pulled down WTC 6. it sounded like. Tony needs to change his realcddeal from silent explosive planted by invisible men, to invisible cables which pulled the WTC complex down on 9/11, big invisible massless cables.

OMG, pyroclastic flow. It must of included thermite. How can a building fall without thermite and silent explosives. CD claims from the 9/11 truth movement, a celebration of overwhelming ignorance.

Yes indeed!

Notice the CIA agents dressed up to look like non-government demolition experts.

The reason why no demolition explosions are heard is because there were mufflers attached to the CD explosives in order to cover up the government cover up, and the cables were used to tie CD explosives together and detonate them all at once.

Notice that a one-dollar bill was handed out. That may explain the missing $1.00 the government could not account for and why the buildings were ordered demolished.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 30th June 2016 at 01:24 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 30th June 2016, 02:23 PM   #276
Criteria
Critical Thinker
 
Criteria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 455
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
”Whatever happened to the "debate”?”
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
”I'm taking my time responding to Tony.
Perhaps if I take 5 days PLUS 5 minutes, he'll declare my response invalid, and declare himself "Da Winnah"!!!

Especially if I use 1005 words ...!

I'm actually waiting to see if I can get a response from Lerner-Lam regarding Rousseau's comments. It's much better coming from an expert in seismology.”
After all your constant bravado, where I come from, they call such lack of preparation; “chisporroteo sin la carne”.
Criteria is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2016, 02:37 PM   #277
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,607
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
After all your constant bravado, where I come from, they call such lack of preparation; “chisporroteo sin la carne”.
I'm thinking it's a lack of urgency.

Do you think Tony's responses so far have be inspiring?

How many people do you think are hanging on this? I really see nothing on social media.
__________________
"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; 30th June 2016 at 02:39 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 30th June 2016, 03:41 PM   #278
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,607
I'm starting to think this "debate" is showing more about how weak the "truth movement" is then any context in this debate. Tony Sz is a heavy weight in the "truth movement" and tfk is an anonymous engineer. Where is the response to tfk delaying responding to Tony? Where are the legions of supporters pointing out the fact this "debunker" can't keep up with the pace of this debate?

I think the fact is, there are no legions of supporters and there are only a handful of people that know anything about this. Facts seem to be in my favor on this.

Is there really any buzz created here?
__________________
"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 30th June 2016, 03:52 PM   #279
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
After all your constant bravado, where I come from, they call such lack of preparation; “chisporroteo sin la carne”.
14 years and your side of woo has no evidence. With zero evidence there is only BS, and since you can spew the fantasy, there is no lack of preparation; Tony and 9/11 truth followers make it up as they go. Fantasy needs no preparation, it flows freely from 9/11 truth CD fantasy pushers.

14 years of failed CD fantasy mocking the murder of thousands by 19 idiots for UBL. What do you have? You have Balsamo as your aviation expert. 14 years, and no clue CD is a fantasy. Tony showed up with BS as the "realcddeal", and never offered evidence.

Do you have evidence? No.
__________________
"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 30th June 2016, 04:30 PM   #280
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
After all your constant bravado, where I come from, they call such lack of preparation; “chisporroteo sin la carne”.

Let's take a look here.


9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites.

Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm


WTC Seismic Spikes

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

Translation: no bombs.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...#ixzz2KqzSYIVW
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
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:19 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.