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 wtc collapse , wtc7

Reply
Old 19th May 2014, 06:39 AM   #2201
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,710
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
MHM, your comment is nothing but rhetoric.



Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Wait, You want them to show the exact mechanism, down to an inch,
3/4" actually. 47 stories tall, but the "truth" people need to know exactly what happened to the tune of less than an inch.

ETA - And they pretend that the planes in DC and Shanksville are irrelevant. Insanity.

Last edited by carlitos; 19th May 2014 at 06:40 AM.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2014, 09:11 AM   #2202
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,191
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Where is your basis for your claim that the NIST conclusion is possible when the omitted structural features are included in the analysis?
I posted a rather lengthy essay on that subject several pages back and several weeks ago, which you assiduously ignored.

Quote:
Of course, the answer is obvious that you don't have one. NIST couldn't do it, so it is no surprise that you can't. All you have is rhetoric and that will not work.
The obvious reason you won't address the answers that were given is because you cannot. That hypothesis is supported by your inability to get any of your claims regarding NIST and WTC 7 analysis published in, and addressed by, any of the relevant engineering community. Since you are clearly an outlying voice on this point among your peer engineers, it is bold of you to claim that everyone who disputes you has nothing but rhetoric to offer.

Publish your claims in a mainstream, peer-reviewed structural engineering journal. Otherwise it's just noise.
JayUtah 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 19th May 2014, 02:06 PM   #2203
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
More unsurprising rhetoric proving my point about the bias here to simply continue supporting the NIST WTC 7 report conclusions, even when confronted with evidence showing its conclusions are impossible when the omitted structural features are included.

Unfortunately, for your point of view, nobody has been able to show how the building collapsed due to fire.

The simple minded statement that it did because there were fires in it does not satisfy NIST's mandate to explain how it collapsed.
I think Jay, Carlitos, and LSSBB summed it up nicely while I was a busy beaver at work.

I only see one side of this debate shilling rhetoric and it's not debunkers.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 July 2016, 07:31 AM   #2204
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
With all that has come out, anyone who still says girder A2001 could have walked off its seat at column 79 is only fooling themselves or trying to fool others.
How come, after almost 15 years and thousands of conspiracy backing engineers (including you) looking at this, did everyone miss what ARUP found in their analysis?

Will you retract your statement above?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2016, 11:27 AM   #2205
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Unfortunately, for your point of view, nobody has been able to show how the building collapsed due to fire.

Anyone knowledgeable about structures and structural steel would have known the collapse of WTC 7 was fire-induced.

That was evident as witnesses observed WTC 7 buckling and upon hearing noises from within WTC 7 that were signs of structural weakening as fires raged out of control for hours, which eventually led to structural failure.

There were no secondary explosions from explosives observed as debris from WTC 1 slammed into the south wall of WTC 7 and no secondary explosions from explosives observed as fires raged out of control for hours and no secondary explosions from explosives as WTC 7 collapsed.

No physical evidence of explosive hardware was ever found within the rubble of WTC 7 because the use of explosives to destroy WTC 7 was nothing more than a fabrication, yet a number of truthers took the bait because they are not in the habit of doing homework or doing it properly when they did.

There is not a shred of evidence after 15 years that explosives were used during the 9/11 terrorist attack.

.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 29th July 2016 at 11:31 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
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 05:33 AM.
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.