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 ae911truth , richard gage , wtc 7 , wtc 7 report

Reply
Old 2nd April 2011, 10:39 AM   #241
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The NIST hypothesis of a progressive collapse cannot and did not result in a period of free fall acceleration. That much Chris and I have agreed on.
Cannot? Didn't they talk about multi-story buckles due to virtually no lateral support?
__________________
"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 2nd April 2011, 11:00 AM   #242
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
I typically refrain from doing much more than reading some of these silly discussions by truthers but I have to jump in here....

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
People have been claiming that it could not be done because they have no imagination and will not accept that the military has demolition devices and techniques that we don't know about. The main point Jon makes is that just because the public doesn't know all that is possible doesn't mean it isn't possible.
And what branch of the military or what government agency do you believe is involved in "SECRET demolition devices and techniques"?

It absolutely AMAZES me when truthers talk about topics they know very little about...but even more so when they invoke the "It's SECRET technology that we don't know about".

Here is a little clue for you....if it's so obvious that even a truther can figure it out then it's hardly a secret.....and linking to documents or (ROFL) youtube videos that never were classified or have been declassified don't really do much to support the "BUT ITS SOOPER SEKRIT" argument.

This is why folks in the government just laugh truthers off when you start discussing the military or Intel agencies....cause you don't know what you are talking about.

And the same is true of Engineers when you discuss Engineering, Firefighters when you discuss firefighting, etc.

The idea that there are SECRET "techniques or technology" for demolishing a building is ridiculous.
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 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 2nd April 2011, 11:13 AM   #243
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Chris and Eric,...So your position is: "I could have not done it without leaving evidence so therefore it cannot be done." That is because you are not thinking "outside the box". Have you seen this video by Jon Cole? He invented a device that cuts columns using regular thermite....
Nice try but I'm not that gullible. What do you suggest was cut by invisible in action thermXte? Who put it there? When? How was it not discovered? In brief all those aspects which add up to impossibility and are routinely ignored by truthers.
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...People have been claiming that it could not be done because they have no imagination and will not accept that the military has demolition devices and techniques that we don't know about. The main point Jon makes is that just because the public doesn't know all that is possible doesn't mean it isn't possible....
Try that one one the unknowing public please. Implicitly suggesting that I share your incredulity - see the following where you make it explicit:
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...The only known mechanism that can remove all the supporting columns in a synchronistic manner that will allow for implosion is some form of explosives....
the only mechanism known to you AND circular logic
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...Implosion is a fine art and could not happen as the result of the failure of a single column or demolitions companies would not go to all the trouble of rigging most or all the support columns...
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...
"It can't be because . . . ." is a denial position and requires ignoring the reality that the only explanation for building 7 imploding and/or falling at free fall acceleration is removing all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors in a controlled sequence using some kind of explosive and/or incendiary device....
Hogwash as you switch from my assessment to your incredulity.
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
....With all due respect...
I wont call that sarcasm - I think you mean it so it probably truthfully reflects your unclear thinking and fixed position of denial which you falsely attribute to me.

The central point of your incredulity is that you can only conceive of one possibility - or can only afford to admit one given your need for a pre-determined outcome - that one possibility is use of explosive or incendiary demolition. It isn't the only one and no amount of snide reflections on my reasoning will eliminate the multiple other possible mechanisms.

My position simply stated is that I accept the reality of the multitude of possible structural failure mechanisms even though I cannot specify them to the level of "column x failed by reason y taking out beam z". There was no demolition and the only reason none of us can specify the exact failure mechanism is that with the WTC7 collapse it was hidden from clear view. As I said the main reason truthers choose WTC7 is just that. Sufficient evidence is abundantly clear for WTC1 & WTC2 so truthers pick WTC7 where the exact detail of the structural failure cannot be discerned. And you choose to misread the overwhelming evidence against demolition which I briefly summarised. So be it. Your call - I for one do not fall for the part truth trickery and evasions.
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 2nd April 2011, 11:16 AM   #244
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
I typically refrain from doing much more than reading some of these silly discussions by truthers but I have to jump in here....



And what branch of the military or what government agency do you believe is involved in "SECRET demolition devices and techniques"?

It absolutely AMAZES me when truthers talk about topics they know very little about...but even more so when they invoke the "It's SECRET technology that we don't know about".

Here is a little clue for you....if it's so obvious that even a truther can figure it out then it's hardly a secret.....and linking to documents or (ROFL) youtube videos that never were classified or have been declassified don't really do much to support the "BUT ITS SOOPER SEKRIT" argument.

This is why folks in the government just laugh truthers off when you start discussing the military or Intel agencies....cause you don't know what you are talking about.

And the same is true of Engineers when you discuss Engineering, Firefighters when you discuss firefighting, etc.

The idea that there are SECRET "techniques or technology" for demolishing a building is ridiculous.
And layered on that is the ridiculous notion that these devices could have been delivered to a building in lower Manhattan, received into the building, transported to the required floors, installed, the damage repaired, the furniture replaced with not one person noticing, .in a building that was occupied 24/7, in a building where use of freight elevators required several days notice, in a city that never sleeps, in a city that nothing is delivered or moved without several different unions being involved.

Add to that the fact that not ONE piece of the supposed devices was ever found....despite the multiple layers of inspection of the debris that recovered over 50,000 personal effects.

The number of people that would have been required to carry out such a plan without ONE person spilling the beans makes the idea of "controlled demolition" more than ridiculous
Animal 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 2nd April 2011, 11:23 AM   #245
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
Nice try but I'm not that gullible. What do you suggest was cut by invisible in action thermXte? Who put it there? When? How was it not discovered? In brief all those aspects which add up to impossibility and are routinely ignored by truthers.
.
You're not thinking "outside of the box". This is the freaking US military, they could do SOMETHING to make this happen.

Come on........think Playstation!



__________________
"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 2nd April 2011, 11:24 AM   #246
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
I typically refrain from doing much more than reading some of these silly discussions by truthers but I have to jump in here....



And what branch of the military or what government agency do you believe is involved in "SECRET demolition devices and techniques"?...
And he has the gall to tell me, the military engineer that, as if detection of demolition devices depended on them being the specific ones available to an Aussie Army engineer.
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
...It absolutely AMAZES me when truthers talk about topics they know very little about...but even more so when they invoke the "It's SECRET technology that we don't know about"...
Similar comment to my previous. As if qualified engineers could not detect use of devices with which they were not yet familiar. Truther logic all over again - take the element of concern to the truther. Take it totally out of context. Then claim it is wrong. The contextual setting shows the lie.
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
...The idea that there are SECRET "techniques or technology" for demolishing a building is ridiculous.
except that he claims that this engineer has no imagination

...partly true - my imagination is NOT limited to what is plausible BUT I choose to not propose implausible "magic" as a solution.
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 2nd April 2011, 11:27 AM   #247
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...partly true - my imagination is NOT limited to what is plausible BUT I choose to not propose implausible "magic" as a solution.
It appears you have identified your "debunker" problem...now if you would please fix that you would no longer be a "sheeple" and could finally learn the TRUTH of what happened on 9/11...(inside jobby job)
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 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 2nd April 2011, 11:29 AM   #248
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You're not thinking "outside of the box". This is the freaking US military, they could do SOMETHING to make this happen.

Come on........think Playstation!



True. In an ironic sort of way.

I am accused of staying in the nine dots. By someone whose perspective is one dot or at most four dots.

When in fact I have considered and identified all twenty five dots....

....and most of the forty nine dots.

But I wont stay with the metaphor 'coz someone will point out that I am still accepting a two dimensional matrix.

...and it gets hard to visualise beyond three dimensions....

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 2nd April 2011, 11:32 AM   #249
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
it appears you have identified your "debunker" problem...now if you would please fix that you would no longer be a "sheeple" and could finally learn the truth of what happened on 9/11...(inside jobby job)
baa, baa.....

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 2nd April 2011, 11:34 AM   #250
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
And layered on that is the ridiculous notion that these devices could have been delivered to a building in lower Manhattan, received into the building, transported to the required floors, installed, the damage repaired, the furniture replaced with not one person noticing, .in a building that was occupied 24/7, in a building where use of freight elevators required several days notice, in a city that never sleeps, in a city that nothing is delivered or moved without several different unions being involved.

Add to that the fact that not ONE piece of the supposed devices was ever found....despite the multiple layers of inspection of the debris that recovered over 50,000 personal effects.

The number of people that would have been required to carry out such a plan without ONE person spilling the beans makes the idea of "controlled demolition" more than ridiculous
See my several times repeated comment.

You have to ignore all that context stuff OTHERWISE you scheme becomes impossible.

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 2nd April 2011, 12:28 PM   #251
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
See my several times repeated comment.

You have to ignore all that context stuff OTHERWISE you scheme becomes impossible.

Years ago I did work in NYC, including a project in the Empire State Buiding and one in the mall of the WTC. These troofers have no clue what it is like gettign anything done in NYC.
Animal 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 2nd April 2011, 12:54 PM   #252
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
What do you suggest was cut by invisible in action thermXte? Who put it there? When? How was it not discovered?
I don't know how or why the building was rigged for demolition but I can look at the results and see that it was.

Quote:
The central point of your incredulity is that you can only conceive of one possibility - or can only afford to admit one given your need for a pre-determined outcome - that one possibility is use of explosive or incendiary demolition. It isn't the only one
Provide another way of removing all the supporting structure on 8 floors in a synchronistic manner that results in free fall acceleration or stop claiming that there is.


Christopher7 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 2nd April 2011, 01:09 PM   #253
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I don't know how or why the building was rigged for demolition but I can look at the results and see that it was.
Should you really say "think it was"? Remember to be truthful.

__________________
"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 2nd April 2011, 01:10 PM   #254
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Chris, I may be in the minority on this forum when I agree with you that free-fall means no structural resistance.
Thank you

Quote:
Maddening though it is to spend time on 8 out of 47 floors in free-fall, I'm going through the exercise. So let's say you're right when you say " the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance."
That is what Shyam Sunder said and we agree on this part:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . ."

Here he is saying that their model provided resistance as can be seen in the video captures and Figure 12-63.
"there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

Last edited by Christopher7; 2nd April 2011 at 01:16 PM.
Christopher7 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 2nd April 2011, 02:24 PM   #255
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I don't know how or why the building was rigged for demolition but I can look at the results and see that it was....
Should you really say "think it was"? Remember to be truthful.

Not far enough DGM. You're being too easy. To be truthful it should be "...and think that it was one of the plausible options." At this stage he has been made aware of other plausible options for explaining collapse which have been put by me and others and he has not eliminated those other options.

In addition I have outlined some of the case against demolition which he also has not legitimately addressed. To be truthful those outlined facts or the fully detailed explanations backing those outlines must also be addressed.
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 2nd April 2011, 02:42 PM   #256
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Not far enough DGM. You're being too easy. To be truthful it should be "...and think that it was one of the plausible options."
No, this can only be a CD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w

Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance.

Quote:
At this stage he has been made aware of other plausible options for explaining collapse
What plausible options?
ETA: You keep saying that but you have not provided any plausible options.

Quote:
In addition I have outlined some of the case against demolition which he also has not legitimately addressed. To be truthful those outlined facts or the fully detailed explanations backing those outlines must also be addressed.
Thinking up reasons to believe that what clearly looks like a CD is not a CD demonstrates a desire not to believe the obvious.

Last edited by Christopher7; 2nd April 2011 at 02:58 PM.
Christopher7 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 2nd April 2011, 02:45 PM   #257
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
Not far enough DGM. You're being too easy. To be truthful it should be "...and think that it was one of the plausible options." At this stage he has been made aware of other plausible options for explaining collapse which have been put by me and others and he has not eliminated those other options.

In addition I have outlined some of the case against demolition which he also has not legitimately addressed. To be truthful those outlined facts or the fully detailed explanations backing those outlines must also be addressed.
Should we add "and I can't come up with a plausible reason anyone would do this in the first place"?

__________________
"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 2nd April 2011, 03:02 PM   #258
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No, this can only be a CD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w
But, for some reason your best explanation for why is random youtube videos. You really don't wonder why people don't pay attention to you, do you?
__________________
"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; 2nd April 2011 at 03:03 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 2nd April 2011, 03:04 PM   #259
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No, this can only be a CD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w
2 minutes and 19 seconds, you'd think they could at least spare a few more seconds to show the entire collapse.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance.
I agree entirely. However, there were no implosions on 9/11.



Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Thinking up reasons to believe that what clearly looks like a CD is not a CD demonstrates a desire not to believe the obvious.
We don't need to think up any reasons. We already know it wasn't a controlled demolition.


Two aircraft struck each tower at about the same place, causing massive structural damage and a raging inferno. Roughly the same time they collapsed in strikingly similar fashion. To normal people, this makes sense. Two identical things resulted in to identical collapses.

Where's the beef?

Last edited by NoahFence; 2nd April 2011 at 03:06 PM.
NoahFence 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 2nd April 2011, 03:13 PM   #260
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No, this can only be a CD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w

.
In your video you say that "by 5:20 PM all the fires were extinguished". Is it your contention that the FDNY lied when they claimed no firefighting efforts were used? (Your video= your claim) You wouldn't link a video that has lies? Would you?
__________________
"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; 2nd April 2011 at 03:15 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 2nd April 2011, 03:55 PM   #261
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
"by 5:20 PM all the fires were extinguished".
That is incorrect. Many of the fires had burned out, including the one that supposedly started the collapse.
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

* * * * * * * * * *

Chris,

Did you know that the Fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse?
Christopher7 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 2nd April 2011, 04:04 PM   #262
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No, this can only be a CD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1u6qZyQ4w

Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance.

What plausible options?
ETA: You keep saying that but you have not provided any plausible options.

Thinking up reasons to believe that what clearly looks like a CD is not a CD demonstrates a desire not to believe the obvious.
The primary mover used in CD is gravity. Physics is required; got physics?

CD looks like a gravity collapse, I have physics you have, your opinion. Good luck collecting the Pulitzer Prize, don't think there is a category for what your claims is. On track for 10 years of failure, and eternal failure if you insist on keeping anti-intellectual claims of CD based on zero evidence.

What did CBS say?
What did 20/20 say?
When is 48 hours covering your discovery of woo?

Why has Gage failed to break through to reality? Gage is making money selling lies; what a nice guy.
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 2nd April 2011, 04:12 PM   #263
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
That is incorrect. Many of the fires had burned out, including the one that supposedly started the collapse.
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

* * * * * * * * * *

Chris,

Did you know that the Fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse?
But the video you posted states "extinguished". You wouldn't post videos with known errors, would you?
__________________
"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 2nd April 2011, 04:15 PM   #264
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Should we add "and I can't come up with a plausible reason anyone would do this in the first place"?

Don't "add it" - just leave it in -- I had that aspect covered in my original comment that we are following up. See the bold italic bit:
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
...However the strategic - or "why do it" arguments plus the stronger "it could not be achieved without discovery" AND "it was ridiculously close to impossible" arguments carry the day for me. That is "no demolition".

(the Aussie response here would be to call me a "Smart arse" )
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 2nd April 2011, 09:43 PM   #265
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
So the same old people are still deceptively using the NIST L instead of using the full report? You are wasting your time with C7 gents.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 3rd April 2011, 03:44 AM   #266
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
That is incorrect. Many of the fires had burned out, including the one that supposedly started the collapse.
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

* * * * * * * * * *

Chris,

Did you know that the Fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse?
Did you know that once the Fire on floor 12 expanded the floor beams and pushed the girders off their column seats, the column lost bracing? And that once the Fire on floor 12 had burned out, the column remained unbraced?
__________________
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; 3rd April 2011 at 03:49 AM.
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 3rd April 2011, 08:16 AM   #267
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Hi all, a couple things: my view of the freefall collapse is evolving nicely. I'll post it for critiques when I finish the first draft, before tagging it to the end of my Richard Gage debate.

At this point the one way I agree with Chris is to say, "Don't just blow off free fall of Building 7." But looking at it as a case of zero net resistance, I think a reasonable explanation can be made. Since I gave over 100 reasons NOT to accept controlled demo as a workable hypothesis in my debate, we'll see how my first draft hypothesis of natural freefall collapse (really, a boiled down summary of the help I got here from both sides) flies.
chrismohr 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 3rd April 2011, 09:05 AM   #268
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
That is incorrect. Many of the fires had burned out, including the one that supposedly started the collapse.
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.

* * * * * * * * * *

Chris,

Did you know that the Fire on floor 12 had burned out at least one half hour before the collapse?
North face?

How about relating what we saw on the SOUTH side? The one engulfed in flames practically from top to bottom? You can actually see this in the video you provided.
NoahFence 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 3rd April 2011, 09:37 AM   #269
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Did you know that once the Fire on floor 12 expanded the floor beams and pushed the girders off their column seats, the column lost bracing? And that once the Fire on floor 12 had burned out, the column remained unbraced?
I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.
Christopher7 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 3rd April 2011, 09:41 AM   #270
dc1971
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.
Evidence?
dc1971 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 3rd April 2011, 09:45 AM   #271
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.
What report did you read?

__________________
"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 3rd April 2011, 09:55 AM   #272
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.

Even if it had, so what? The damage was done.
Free hint, look up the term structural creep.
Animal 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 3rd April 2011, 10:01 AM   #273
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Even if it had, so what? The damage was done.
Free hint, look up the term structural creep.
Personal attacks are not allowed on the forum.


__________________
"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 3rd April 2011, 10:11 AM   #274
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
North face?

How about relating what we saw on the SOUTH side? The one engulfed in flames practically from top to bottom? You can actually see this in the video you provided.
That is incorrect. There were fires on floors 19, 22 29 and 31 at the south west corner but they burned out by about 1:00 PM. [NCSTAR 1A pg 19] The only other fire reported on the south face was on floor 12 near the center between 11:30 and 2:00 PM. [Part IIC pg 21] The smoke from WTC 6 was being drawn up the side of WTC 7 by a low pressure area caused by the breeze from the NW. [NCSTAR1-9 pg 118] The same phenomenon occurred at the NE corner. There were no fires above the 13th floor yet the smoke was drawn up the corner and there appeared to be fire on every floor. just like the SW corner.



This is the last part of the east end of floor 12 to burn and it was on fire at 3:15 and had burned out by about 3:45 PM.

Part IIC also contains the statement about the fire on floor 12 being burned out by about 4:45. [pg 22]
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
Christopher7 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 3rd April 2011, 10:32 AM   #275
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
To prove there was no fire on the South side of the building, you produce a photo of the East edge of the North face.

Okee doke.
NoahFence 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 3rd April 2011, 10:47 AM   #276
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hi all, a couple things: my view of the freefall collapse is evolving nicely. I'll post it for critiques when I finish the first draft, before tagging it to the end of my Richard Gage debate.

At this point the one way I agree with Chris is to say, "Don't just blow off free fall of Building 7." But looking at it as a case of zero net resistance, I think a reasonable explanation can be made.
Only if you ignore the fact that the irregular buckling of the exterior moment frame provides resistance and Sunders acknowledgment that "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it."

The core columns pulling down on the floor beams pulled the exterior columns down but could not pull them at free fall acceleration because they provided resistance.
ETA: As can be seen in the collapse video captures and Figure 12-63
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7...video14s16.jpg
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1...ngvnothing.jpg

Quote:
Since I gave over 100 reasons NOT to accept controlled demo as a workable hypothesis in my debate, we'll see how my first draft hypothesis of natural freefall collapse (really, a boiled down summary of the help I got here from both sides) flies.
The fact that you thought of 100 reasons not to believe something clearly demonstrates a deep seated desire not to believe the obvious. The videos of WTC 7 collapse look like a CD and were it not for the ramifications no one would dispute that it was a CD.

* * * * *
The fire that supposedly started the collapse had gone out over one half hour before the collapse. In other words, the NIST hypothesis of a progressive collapse never started.

Last edited by Christopher7; 3rd April 2011 at 11:46 AM.
Christopher7 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 3rd April 2011, 10:51 AM   #277
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
irreducible delusion noted.
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
TruthersLie 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 3rd April 2011, 10:55 AM   #278
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
the collapse put the office fires out.
Really? You honestly believe that?

Horse ****.
triforcharity 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 3rd April 2011, 11:31 AM   #279
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by C7
I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What report did you read?

All the NIST reports on WTC 7. In the final report the two time references are explained on pg 572 [1-9 Vol.2 pdf pg 234] The "collapse time" is 0.0 when the kink in the roof line of the east penthouse was observed. Figure 12-42 on pg 573 says floors 13 and 14 collapsed in the NE region 6.5 seconds before the kink in the east penthouse was observed.

Last edited by Christopher7; 3rd April 2011 at 11:37 AM.
Christopher7 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 3rd April 2011, 11:47 AM   #280
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
All the NIST reports on WTC 7. In the final report the two time references are explained on pg 572 [1-9 Vol.2 pdf pg 234] The "collapse time" is 0.0 when the kink in the roof line of the east penthouse was observed. Figure 12-42 on pg 573 says floors 13 and 14 collapsed in the NE region 6.5 seconds before the kink in the east penthouse was observed.
You should publish your findings of CD in a journal. Wow, 9 years and now we are going to find out the truth. When can you have your paper ready? How did they make silent explosives? Will Gage have you speak at his events, as his guest, like pay your travel expenses? This is terrific stuff. When will you take action?
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
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 04:03 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.