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.
Reply
Old 16th August 2016, 02:30 PM   #201
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Dog Town View Post
What year is this?
I note that now its supposedly been pulverized, when in the past the OMG bit was that a "50 ton" press had been thrown across the room.
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 16th August 2016, 02:36 PM   #202
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
Fire, in conjunction with impact damage, is the most logical explanation and I can point to steel frame buildings that collapsed due to fire alone.
Let's take a look at two examples, one where a building withstood multiple bomb strikes, yet remained standing.


Chinese Embassy Photo

http://www.paulmidler.com/wp-content.../2009/05/a.jpg


Next, where fire destroyed steel frame buildings.


Kader Toy Factory Fire

.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory_fire
I might have chosen the Delft University fire induced building collapse. After all how the ech-ee-double-toothpicks can a fire in a coffee machine cause half a classroom and office building 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 16th August 2016, 02:48 PM   #203
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,080
50 ton press, 500 pounds of stupid

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... The collapses were powerful enough to destroy 420 cubic yards of concrete, a 50 ton hydraulic press, and every electric transformer in the building, it is enough to simply speculate that any such demolition fittings may have been lost in the collapse. ...
You understand the 50 ton hydraulic press weighs just over 500 pounds? lol, you repeat tag-lines from a failed movement based on a delusional CD fantasy. http://www.globalindustrial.com/p/me...FU5lfgod87QKSA

The 50 ton press - pretty much sums up 9/11 truth followers knowledge on 9/11 - below zero.

As for energy in the collapse of a WTC tower>? It is equal in energy to 130 2,000 pounds bombs.

Thus the damage to the WTC complex was due to E=mgh released.

9/11 truth failed to do the physics, and added idiotic claims of some inside job based on paranoia and overwhelming ignorance.

Is that the total of all concrete in the WTC? BTW, the floors of the Towers were light weight concrete... no big deal, but you don't seem to understand physics.

Failed tag-lines, and repeating the 50 ton press stuff?
What does the 50 ton press, which weighs 500 to 600 pounds mean? Do you have any idea what a press does? lol, this can't keep repeating;;; okay, that is a lie, 9/11 truth lies will repeat as long as people fail to use critical thinking skills.

Originally Posted by Dog Town View Post
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... a 50 ton hydraulic press...
What year is this?
the legacy of nonsense in reruns
__________________
"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

Last edited by beachnut; 16th August 2016 at 02:52 PM.
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 16th August 2016, 04:31 PM   #204
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,859
I never claimed silent explosives, just pointing out that demolition theorists have tended to think that something exotic was used, like a hypothetical device where the weld point of the columns are directly heated to extremely high temperature before a final explosive blow is delivered.

Quote:
Odd, I see the expulsion of material flowing around the corner column. At no point at all do I see the corner column pushing outward.
How does this fit into a coherent explanation that includes the bright flashes of light (which aren't fire), and apparent dismemberment of the actual steel structure (not just gypsum wallboard)?

Quote:
The only light I see is the brightening of the existing fires as air is pushed through the combusting material when the upper floors and upper section begin coming down. Start a bonfire and blow on it and marvel that it gets brighter!
To understand the unlikelihood of your argument, we must examine video footage. First, check out this opposite angle showing the explosion on the NE corner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPB9MHgHWB

Here's a compilation of South Tower collapse footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

This is an online utility to watch Youtube videos frame-by-frame: http://rowvid.com/?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

Pay close attention to the upper portion, going through footage frame-by-frame, to see the flashes of light in the windows.

Quote:
What of it? Yes, a floor collapses lower down, loads shift in the structure and collapse ensues. Is there some reason why it would have to begin at the 89th floor where, it would seem, the 90th floor collapsed?
Dust needs time to move through the building.

Quote:
I simply don't see the corner column being "dismembered". What I see is expulsion of material around the corner column leading the exterior collapse zone where the building exterior is coming apart.
There are no slender "corner columns". There are large spandrel plates that are welded and bolted on the corners to join the perimeter wall units.

Quote:
I see, cutting through the massive columns of WTC 1, 2, & 7 are "small jobs". Whatever you need to float your boat I suppose.
Not like you're saying. See further above.


Quote:
From the Federal building you say. New smoke from a building that's been burning for hours you say. Colour me aghast! At what time on Sept 11/01 did the federal building collapse?
It IS NOT UNUSUAL for stuff to blow up in fires, fire extinguishers, transformers, CRT screens, propane bottles......
The footage was taken right after the North Tower collapsed.

Quote:
Yeah I do. You do know what the NIST and ARUP and others say is the most probable sequence of collapse is, right? Column 79 fails low down in the structure and floors begin failing above that point as col 79 draws down. You for some reason expect that a) column 79 failing shouldn't be noisy, and b ) that it's failure should instantaneously transmit to the roof and cause the EPH to fall immediately.
If the east corner of WTC 7 was gutted in a progressive collapse, the noise of this event should not have been louder than the noise of the entire rest of the structure falling to the ground.

Quote:
BTW you did not answer the question, you do know what a 50 ton press is and that you could put one in your garage. I suppose I should also ask how you know for certain that no one found a badly damaged 50 ton press that you claim was in WTC7? (or was it in WTC1 or 2?)
What?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2016, 04:52 PM   #205
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
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 16th August 2016, 05:08 PM   #206
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The footage was taken right after the North Tower collapsed.
No that footage was taken 46 minuets after the collapse of the North Tower.

It's the 11:15:04 explosion he is talking about. The building shadows in the video confirm it.
waypastvne 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 16th August 2016, 05:35 PM   #207
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I never claimed silent explosives, just pointing out that demolition theorists have tended to think that something exotic was used, like a hypothetical device where the weld point of the columns are directly heated to extremely high temperature before a final explosive blow is delivered.



How does this fit into a coherent explanation that includes the bright flashes of light (which aren't fire), and apparent dismemberment of the actual steel structure (not just gypsum wallboard)?



To understand the unlikelihood of your argument, we must examine video footage. First, check out this opposite angle showing the explosion on the NE corner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPB9MHgHWB

Here's a compilation of South Tower collapse footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

This is an online utility to watch Youtube videos frame-by-frame: http://rowvid.com/?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

Pay close attention to the upper portion, going through footage frame-by-frame, to see the flashes of light in the windows.



Dust needs time to move through the building.



There are no slender "corner columns". There are large spandrel plates that are welded and bolted on the corners to join the perimeter wall units.



Not like you're saying. See further above.




The footage was taken right after the North Tower collapsed.



If the east corner of WTC 7 was gutted in a progressive collapse, the noise of this event should not have been louder than the noise of the entire rest of the structure falling to the ground.



What?
...four publicly available independent wtc 7 forensic collapse investigations later and we're back to the same nonsense. let's just pretend such things didn't happen and the reports don't exist and that this entire thread isn't based on the only active engineer in the entire truther movement essentially conceding he hasn't done the analyses necessary to raise fundamental questions about any of them, let alone all of them together. let's just rehash stupid conjecture instead.

or let's watch some more videos of WAI getting the prestigious ACEC grand award for its independent forensic study of WTC 7 collapse scenarios:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VGD...utu.be&t=1m16s

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 16th August 2016 at 05:37 PM.
benthamitemetric 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 16th August 2016, 05:39 PM   #208
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I never claimed silent explosives, just pointing out that demolition theorists have tended to think that something exotic was used, like a hypothetical device where the weld point of the columns are directly heated to extremely high temperature before a final explosive blow is delivered.

No matter how you look at it, CD explosives make a lot of noise that can be heard miles around.


Quote:
How does this fit into a coherent explanation that includes the bright flashes of light (which aren't fire),

What bright flashes? Nothing to do with explosives.


Quote:
... and apparent dismemberment of the actual steel structure (not just gypsum wallboard)?

Talk about dismemberment, take a look at this photo and the condition of a steel frame building that collapse without the aid of explosives.


21-Story Steel Frame Building Collapse Photo

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nt_Complex.jpg


No explosives and yet, that steel frame building collapsed. To sum it up, you either show us videos and audio depicting the sound of CD explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapse or simply, you have no case for explosives.

In case you have never heard CD explosions, you can take a look here and hear what you don't hear as the WTC buildings collapsed.



The Sound of Demolition Explosions


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65tzBUqxqd8

Last edited by skyeagle409; 16th August 2016 at 05:45 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 16th August 2016, 05:43 PM   #209
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,976
Originally Posted by benthamitemetric View Post
...four publicly available independent wtc 7 forensic collapse investigations later and we're back to the same nonsense. let's just pretend such things didn't happen and the reports don't exist and that this entire thread isn't based on the only active engineer in the entire truther movement essentially conceding he hasn't done the analyses necessary to raise fundamental questions about any of them, let alone all of them together. let's just rehash stupid conjecture instead.

or let's watch some more videos of WAI getting the prestigious ACEC grand award for its independent forensic study of WTC 7 collapse scenarios:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VGD...utu.be&t=1m16s
If you are speaking of me, I have certainly done analyses showing the NIST and ARUP reports have fatal flaws and are thus non-explanatory. Don't put words in my mouth either. I never conceded what you are saying. You are starting to spin things. Why?

We just got the Weidlinger report in June and that is being scrutinized and already has a controversial issue with its 4.5 hour heating.

You act as though you don't know these reports are highly controversial and that they are somehow beyond reproach. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

What is the fourth report on WTC 7 you are referring to? FEMA?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 16th August 2016 at 05:47 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 16th August 2016, 05:46 PM   #210
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,637
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I never claimed silent explosives, just pointing out that demolition theorists have tended to think that something exotic was used, like a hypothetical device where the weld point of the columns are directly heated to extremely high temperature before a final explosive blow is delivered.
Is there a working model of this device?

If not, isn't this just an appeal to magic?
__________________
"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 16th August 2016, 06:00 PM   #211
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,152
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
We just got the Weidlinger report in June and that is being scrutinized and already has a controversial issue with its 4.5 hour heating.

Controversial where? I haven't seen any disagreement about it on any news outlet, nor in any engineering journal. I could have missed the latter, though; can you point me to where the heated public disagreement is taking place?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 16th August 2016, 06:07 PM   #212
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,363
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
How could unfought office cubicle fires miraculously create the CD-kick that booted an ‘8-story chair’ out from under the upper portion of WTC7 resulting in an amazingly level ‘drop’, for over 2 seconds?
Heat induced deformation resulted in a collapse that yanked the building from inside to out, resulting in forces on the moment frame that yanked the camera visible parts down at accelerations up to and possibly over g. The collapse was somewhat uniform because the moment frame held the exterior intact through and past collapse initiation.

Oh and yes, explosive demolitions have distinctive high decibel explosions not in evidence.

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate on whether 4-4.5 hour fire simulations are valid. I think also that at this point, although never answered, we can all agree that MSPaintFire is unsuitable for this purpose.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 16th August 2016, 06:09 PM   #213
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,261
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
....the Weidlinger report ... is being scrutinized and already has a controversial issue with its 4.5 hour heating.
...
Tony,

please go back to August 9 in this thread, and find out that at least 3 posters have already tried to SCHOOL you on a simple error you committed:

the 4.5 hours do NOT refer to "fire duration in a single location".
They refer to the run time of a simulation.
During that runtime, modeled fires moved from location to location, and distribution of hot gases and radiation was tracked.

Please find at least MY posts from last week, quote them, and answer the questions I asked you, lest you create the impression you run away from those questions.

You have NOT scrutinized anything. You merely compared an apple with a computer simulation of an apple tree, and insinuated vaguely something sinister because the tree is older than the apple.
You never, however, really spelled out what your question is, your scope, your beef.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2016, 06:12 PM   #214
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,261
Guys,

could you please please please all refrain from entertaining Micah's and Criteria's derails of Tony's fail?

The topic is the duration of certain fire sims - NOT another general "all things WTC7" mole slap fest.

Unless you wish to provide Tony with an escape.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2016, 06:14 PM   #215
benthamitemetric
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 535
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
If you are speaking of me, I have certainly done analyses showing the NIST and ARUP reports have fatal flaws and are thus non-explanatory. Don't put words in my mouth either. I never conceded what you are saying. You are starting to spin things. Why?

We just got the Weidlinger report in June and that is being scrutinized and already has a controversial issue with its 4.5 hour heating.

You act as though you don't know these reports are highly controversial and that they are somehow beyond reproach. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

What is the fourth report on WTC 7 you are referring to? FEMA?
You keep claiming you've done the analysis, but you simply ignore requests to share it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt for quite some time, but I'm not longer going to simply take your word for it re your model.

And you claiming the heating model is "controversial" (let alone "highly controversial") without any actual articulable reason for saying that does not make it so.

There are four independent reports for which the collapse mechanism was fulsomely modeled:

1. NIST (which was subjected to a lengthy public comment period and which was peer reviewed and republished in the Journal of Structural Engineering)

2. Colin Bailey's Aegis expert report

3. ARUP's analysis for Nordenson's expert report

4. Weidlinger Associates' analysis in connection with the Aegis litigation defense, which they independently published and submitted to ACEC, winning themselves one of only eight Grand Awards awarded by a panel of ACEC's experts in 2015

Last edited by benthamitemetric; 16th August 2016 at 06:19 PM.
benthamitemetric 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 16th August 2016, 06:16 PM   #216
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Is there a working model of this device?

If not, isn't this just an appeal to magic?
I want to see how this magical device restaitened the ends of the columns after such heat deformation.
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 16th August 2016, 06:20 PM   #217
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,261
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
No matter how you look at it, CD explosives make a lot of noise that can be heard miles around.
You failed to answer my second question:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
@ skyeagle:
...
Do you believe you are debating on topic?
Please answer now: Do you believe you are debating on topic?

Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
What bright flashes? Nothing to do with explosives.
Do you believe you are debating on topic?

Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Talk about dismemberment, take a look at this photo and the condition of a steel frame building that collapse without the aid of explosives.
...
No explosives and yet, that steel frame building collapsed. To sum it up, you either show us videos and audio depicting the sound of CD explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapse or simply, you have no case for explosives.

In case you have never heard CD explosions, you can take a look here and hear what you don't hear as the WTC buildings collapsed.
Do you believe you are debating on topic?

Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
The Sound of Demolition Explosions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65tzBUqxqd8
Do you believe you are debating on topic?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2016, 06:54 PM   #218
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
If you are speaking of me, I have certainly done analyses showing the NIST and ARUP reports have fatal flaws and are thus non-explanatory. Don't put words in my mouth either. I never conceded what you are saying. You are starting to spin things. Why?

We just got the Weidlinger report in June and that is being scrutinized and already has a controversial issue with its 4.5 hour heating.

You act as though you don't know these reports are highly controversial and that they are somehow beyond reproach. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

What is the fourth report on WTC 7 you are referring to? FEMA?
Show us!
At the first request for even a free body, showing the loads and reactions, you bailed out and started questioning the fire analysis.

Professional ethics, anyone? Nothing to see here...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 16th August 2016, 08:24 PM   #219
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post

Controlled demolition is unquestionably the most logical explanation for what befell WTC7.
Only if you're a complete idiot.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2016, 08:28 PM   #220
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post

Snipped a bunch of useless drivel
You were asked a long while ago to produce a simple video that has the sounds of a controlled demolition, so far you've failed miserably. Care to try again?
There were thousands of videos captured that day. Why can't you find one with those sounds?????

Do better the lurkers are getting bored.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2016, 08:37 PM   #221
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,209
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Guys,

could you please please please all refrain from entertaining Micah's and Criteria's derails of Tony's fail?

The topic is the duration of certain fire sims - NOT another general "all things WTC7" mole slap fest.

Unless you wish to provide Tony with an escape.
My apologies, I won't participate in the derails any longer and just watch as Tony continues to dodge your posts yet again.
__________________
"CD does not prove 9/11 was an inside job. It only proves CD"- FalseFlag
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2016, 08:45 PM   #222
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,080
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
...

How could unfought office cubicle fires miraculously create the CD-kick that booted an ‘8-story chair’ out from under the upper portion of WTC7 resulting in an amazingly level ‘drop’, for over 2 seconds?
Add "level" the the long list of things 9/11 truth believers don't understand.

Why are 9/11 truth claims dumber than dirt. Is your fantasy CD silent explosives or thermite?

Got any evidence to help Tony's fantasy CD claims? No

Now an off topic grip about NIST is made because no CD evidence exists.
__________________
"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 16th August 2016, 10:26 PM   #223
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You failed to answer my second question:

Please answer now: Do you believe you are debating on topic?


Do you believe you are debating on topic?


Do you believe you are debating on topic?


Do you believe you are debating on topic?

Just responding.
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 16th August 2016, 10:26 PM   #224
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
Your belief that roaming office cubicle fires induced WTC7’s swan dive has never been proven beyond conjecture.

Controlled demolition is unquestionably the most logical explanation for what befell WTC7.
'Swan dive', I love the outrageous hyperbole you guys employ.

CD is an irrational idea which lacks any physical evidence. I'd say that pretty well disqualifies it immediately as a logical explanation.

I can't even understand how a rational individual could embrace such an unrealistic and illogical story. It is just silly.

Why is it that 9/11 truth hold onto such silly ideas in the face of other rational explanations? Is their hatred of 'da gubmint' so ingrained in their psyche that reason has become an irrelevance?
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 16th August 2016, 10:32 PM   #225
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
We just got the Weidlinger report in June and that is being scrutinized and already has a controversial issue with its 4.5 hour heating.

There seems to be a problem with what you say. Look what just one hour of fire exposure can do to steel.


Bending Steel Rails by Hand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrUBFDYe0U


Tell us who long it took for this steel beam to buckle due to direct fire exposure.


Video: What fire can do to a steel beam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q

Last edited by skyeagle409; 16th August 2016 at 11:05 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 17th August 2016, 03:04 AM   #226
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Guys,

could you please please please all refrain from entertaining Micah's and Criteria's derails of Tony's fail?

The topic is the duration of certain fire sims - NOT another general "all things WTC7" mole slap fest.

Unless you wish to provide Tony with an escape.
It appears that Tony, having lost this debate, is no longer posting in it.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2016, 06:37 AM   #227
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I never claimed silent explosives, just pointing out that demolition theorists have tended to think that something exotic was used, like a hypothetical device where the weld point of the columns are directly heated to extremely high temperature before a final explosive blow is delivered.
My mistake then. Rather than hush-a-boom explosives, you give credence to magic.

Quote:
How does this fit into a coherent explanation that includes the bright flashes of light (which aren't fire), and apparent dismemberment of the actual steel structure (not just gypsum wallboard)?
How does it not? Upper section comes down, expels air(it has to go somewhere)from an area that is on fire and rubblized. Smoke, dust and debris are expelled with said air which flows around the corner columns and out of the building. The upper section and lower sections collide while now wrapped in a cloak of dust. Connections break and the building comes apart at the collapse front.

To understand the unlikelihood of your argument, we must examine video footage. First, check out this opposite angle showing the explosion on the NE corner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPB9MHgHWB

Quote:
Here's a compilation of South Tower collapse footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
"That video does not exist"

Quote:
This is an online utility to watch Youtube videos frame-by-frame: http://rowvid.com/?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA
Ok I saw what you must be referring to. Sunlight glinting off of shattering windows or twisting window frames.
Quote:
Pay close attention to the upper portion, going through footage frame-by-frame, to see the flashes of light in the windows.
Not seeing what you refer to in the upper portion. However, again, sunlight glinting off of windows that are either changing their angle to the sun or simply shattering.

Quote:
Dust needs time to move through the building.
You apparently do not understand what I am saying. Why is it not possible for a floor to collapse further down and expel dust and air prior to, but not necessarily immediately prior to, full collapse initiation? The building was suffering from the effects of the fire over the course of time between impact and collapse. All the nasty stuff need not have occurred at the same time.
Quote:
jaydeehess
I simply don't see the corner column being "dismembered". What I see is expulsion of material around the corner column leading the exterior collapse zone where the building exterior is coming apart.
Quote:
There are no slender "corner columns". There are large spandrel plates that are welded and bolted on the corners to join the perimeter wall units.
How is your response in any way connected to what I said?



Quote:
Not like you're saying. See further above.
Spell it out for me please. What is your theory on where these smaller, quiet explosives placed?

Quote:
The footage was taken right after the North Tower collapsed.
Ok, and so what? Fires cannot ignite until after x number of seconds(minutes?). I also asked a question referring to the significance of smoke coming from the federal building. I asked when it collapsed?

Quote:
jaydeehess
You do know what the NIST and ARUP and others say is the most probable sequence of collapse is, right? Column 79 fails low down in the structure and floors begin failing above that point as col 79 draws down. You for some reason expect that a) column 79 failing shouldn't be noisy, and b ) that it's failure should instantaneously transmit to the roof and cause the EPH to fall immediately.
If the east corner of WTC 7 was gutted in a progressive collapse, the noise of this event should not have been louder than the noise of the entire rest of the structure falling to the ground.
As I said, that ONE video you posted does have a low rumble during collapse that isn't less loud than the low booms prior to the EPH falling in. Both are barely above street noise but one, the low booms, have silence before and after while the rumble of collapse has the much louder voice of the camera owner before and a continuous rumble.

At any rate you managed to simply ignore much of what you quoted of my post. Why do you expect a low failure to immediately transmit to an effect on the rooftop level?
For that matter explain to me why CD is a plausible counter to the several professional engineering firms which have prepared reports on the collapse of WTC7. You know of an equally detailed and concise paper on the collapse of WTC7 that includes an explosive demolition sequence?


Quote:
jaydeehess
BTW you did not answer the question, you do know what a 50 ton press is and that you could put one in your garage. I suppose I should also ask how you know for certain that no one found a badly damaged 50 ton press that you claim was in WTC7? (or was it in WTC1 or 2?)
Quote:
What?
What is so difficult about these questions?
Do you know that a 50 ton press does not actually weigh 50 tons? Easy question..........
Yes there was a press in one of the WTC building's basement levels. Do you know which one? Easy question.....
You brought it up and seemed to be implying that said press was pulverized and never found. Is that or is that not what you were saying? Easy question.....


Now I shall read the replies of others, should be sport.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 17th August 2016 at 06:47 AM.
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 17th August 2016, 06:39 AM   #228
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,097
You might read the topic, and knock it off with the *********** derail...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 17th August 2016, 06:47 AM   #229
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
There seems to be a problem with what you say. Look what just one hour of fire exposure can do to steel.


Bending Steel Rails by Hand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrUBFDYe0U


Tell us who long it took for this steel beam to buckle due to direct fire exposure.


Video: What fire can do to a steel beam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2TMVDYpp2Q
I see it now. Tony is questioning where or not a fire simulation run of 4.0 to 4.5 MINUTES is common. Somehow I kept reading that he was asking about 4.5 HOURS

<<sarcasm of course in case anyone cares to take me to task for the hyperbole.>>

Last edited by jaydeehess; 17th August 2016 at 06:52 AM.
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 17th August 2016, 06:49 AM   #230
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Guys,

could you please please please all refrain from entertaining Micah's and Criteria's derails of Tony's fail?

The topic is the duration of certain fire sims - NOT another general "all things WTC7" mole slap fest.

Unless you wish to provide Tony with an escape.
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
You might read the topic, and knock it off with the *********** derail...
True that. My bad.

Done and done.
@MichJava & @Criteria, if you want to discuss other aspects may I suggest a thread in which that is the topic.
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 17th August 2016, 06:51 AM   #231
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Tony,

please go back to August 9 in this thread, and find out that at least 3 posters have already tried to SCHOOL you on a simple error you committed:

the 4.5 hours do NOT refer to "fire duration in a single location".
They refer to the run time of a simulation.
During that runtime, modeled fires moved from location to location, and distribution of hot gases and radiation was tracked.


Please find at least MY posts from last week, quote them, and answer the questions I asked you, lest you create the impression you run away from those questions.

You have NOT scrutinized anything. You merely compared an apple with a computer simulation of an apple tree, and insinuated vaguely something sinister because the tree is older than the apple.
You never, however, really spelled out what your question is, your scope, your beef.
I do not recall Tony ever addressing this matter either.

May we get a comment from the only active engineer in AE911T, please.
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 17th August 2016, 06:51 AM   #232
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
If you are speaking of me, I have certainly done analyses showing the NIST and ARUP reports have fatal flaws and are thus non-explanatory. Don't put words in my mouth either. I never conceded what you are saying. You are starting to spin things. Why?

We just got the Weidlinger report in June and that is being scrutinized and already has a controversial issue with its 4.5 hour heating.

You act as though you don't know these reports are highly controversial and that they are somehow beyond reproach. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

What is the fourth report on WTC 7 you are referring to? FEMA?
You do understand that none of that drivel above, or anything you or any other twoofer has provided, comes close to proving controlled demolition, its even further away from providing a complete alternative narrative.

Why?
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 17th August 2016, 06:53 AM   #233
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Guys,

could you please please please all refrain from entertaining Micah's and Criteria's derails of Tony's fail?

The topic is the duration of certain fire sims - NOT another general "all things WTC7" mole slap fest.

Unless you wish to provide Tony with an escape.

It doesn't matter what anyone writes, or where they write it. Tony and his ilk will always invent an escape.
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 17th August 2016, 07:05 AM   #234
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
You do understand that none of that drivel above, or anything you or any other twoofer has provided, comes close to proving controlled demolition, its even further away from providing a complete alternative narrative.

Why?
Well, Tony may complain that he is only one person. That producing an in depth report on par with the detail of any of the other reports on WTC 7 requires more manpower. However, I note that there is at least an apparent pool of a few thousand other engineers he could request assistance from. ,,, and a carpenter or two.
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 17th August 2016, 08:07 AM   #235
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,363
Post

Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Well, Tony may complain that he is only one person. That producing an in depth report on par with the detail of any of the other reports on WTC 7 requires more manpower. However, I note that there is at least an apparent pool of a few thousand other engineers he could request assistance from. ,,, and a carpenter or two.
No, the carpenter uses MSPaintFire.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 17th August 2016, 11:49 AM   #236
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,319
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
We just got the Weidlinger report in June and that is being scrutinized and already has a controversial issue with its 4.5 hour heating.

You act as though you don't know these reports are highly controversial and that they are somehow beyond reproach. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.
1. What is the controversial issue with the 4.5 hour heating?

2. The furthest thing from the truth is CD.
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 17th August 2016, 01:28 PM   #237
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
1. What is the controversial issue with the 4.5 hour heating?

2. The furthest thing from the truth is CD.
The controversy arises from the absolute fact that if 99% of scientists find evidence supporting the earth being an oblate spheroid, and 0.001% state " year, verily, I say unto you that it is indeed flat like unto a pancake " then the controversy is real and must be reinvestigated...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 17th August 2016, 03:24 PM   #238
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,491
It only took 1 hr. for the steel roof beams of McCormick Place to begin to fail, even though the beams were 37 feet above the floor area.

http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-researc...t-of-the-ashes
Redwood 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 17th August 2016, 10:50 PM   #239
HotRodDeluxe
Muse
 
HotRodDeluxe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Seconded. SMH
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 18th August 2016, 09:33 AM   #240
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
delete
__________________
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; 18th August 2016 at 09:49 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
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 12:09 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.