Discussion: How did the WTC buildings collapse?

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by scott3x, Jan 25, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Perhaps because people in discussions here actually have rules as to how they will discuss a topic? Like no insults of a certain type, for instance; kind of like a boxing match; no hits below the belt. I know you got frustrated with psikeyhackr over in pseudoscience. I certainly got frustrated with people there as well. Maybe in this forum things could be done in a more civil manner.


    Very few people here seem to be university debaters. I agree with Fraggle Rocker; the point is to get progress in a discussion, not follow inane rules of decorum. I'm simply hoping that in this forum, we can form a group that will follow the guidelines that I set out in the OP- that is, that certain insults are to be avoided.


    Well, that is, ofcourse, your choice. I reiterate that I wouldn't have responded to your post in this forum if I had felt that doing so would have jeopardized the SF Open Government thread it was originally in.

    Are you speaking of someone in particular or is this simply a casual observation?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    Couldn't they have had bombs with them in the planes, causing them to detonate and being the cause of the bangs heard, and perhaps also the definite cause of the collapse? If they were remote controlled they could have detonated them on the ground even. Or they could have self-detonated because of the fire.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I've heard of the idea of explosives being on the plane. I personally have no evidence against it. However, according to Gordon Ross, who is a mechanical engineer like Tony Szamboti (who has written several papers on the WTC Collapses and who also happens to post in this forum), the explosives were placed on every third floor; so explosives on the planes simply couldn't have brought the towers down the way they actually came down. Here's his 25 minute presentation that he made in the Indian YMCA, London:
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/070707Ross.htm
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Ross completely ignores the concept of dynamic buckling, which causes members to bow under compression under transverse loading. He ignores phase group velocity in compression waves.

    Impressive work, indeed. He clearly has a poor understanding of the subject matter.
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I haven't heard of the terms dynamic buckling or transverse loading. I'm sure Tony Szamboti could deal with these arguments, I'll try to get him in here. I know that Steven Jones and others have dealt with NIST's theories, which are the official ones; perhaps you're simply putting things in a different way that's got me off balance.
     
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    This is an observation: scott chose formal debates because James is desperate to get any kind of fomal debate going. scott is just a manipulator.
     
  10. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    No. I chose formal debates because it seemed the only forum wherein 9/11 issues could be discussed in a forum that (a) looks more serious then the pseudoscience forum (b) wherein you can lay out groundrules, such as no using certain insults and (c) because of the paucity of posters, there would be less complaints of the issue of 9/11 choking other debates.

    I think that James likes the idea of formal debates (I certainly do, but by this I mean more civilized debates, vs. the hack and slash that's so frequent in some forums), but I haven't seen any sign that he's desperate to see any. I'm certainly interested in knowing what makes you believe he is, however. Perhaps you feel that you know how James' mind works just as you demonstrated that you 'knew' how insurance works?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Perhaps i know how con men work and to be honest you sure seem like one to me. That is just from debating with you, could be wrong but it isnt that important.
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Please, regale me with more of your unsubstantiated claims

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    didnt i say it was an observation?
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I don't see much of a difference between an observation and a claim. Perhaps you're trying to say that you just had a 'feeling' regarding me. However, you didn't even back up this 'feeling' with any evidence. You can say you feel the sky is purple, or green. Unsubstantiated claims of feelings are equally easy to make. The hard thing is actually providing evidence for what you feel or believe.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    i guess your bad habits are rubbing off on me.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You are now apparently suggesting that I make unsubstantiated claims about you.

    Well, if you'd like to provide any evidence for your claim, by all means

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    That statement speaks volumes, why would anyone bother listening to your uninformed assertions on the subject matter? Clearly, your opinion is based on sheer belief of others and is entirely irrelevant.

    So, while one of your so-called experts ignores fundamental issues, you turn to yet another so-called expert for support, and when we find the latter also ignores fundamental issues, will you then turn to yet another?

    I'm now convinced beyond a doubt you're making a complete farce of this topic for whatever personal reasons not yet revealed. It's blatantly obvious you and your "Truth" friends have some sort of agenda, most likely in the form of $$$, at the expense of those who had personal attachments with this disaster.

    You sir, are a charlatan, a fraud and a scoundrel.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2009
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
  20. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Q, perhaps you can explain to us how you feel lateral torsional buckling (which is what I believe you actually mean) is applicable here and how it could have made a difference in Gordon Ross' work on the subject.

    Where were the columns in the towers under transverse loads? Are you talking about the perimeter columns being bowed inward?
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2009
  21. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    I don't know about you Tony...but I'm popping popcorn waiting on Q's response...I love me some good technical talk. It's why I participate in these theads..to learn. I just had to google "lateral torsional buckling".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    i used to love debating evolutionists who play scientist for that very reason. not because i care either way but once they start throwing terms around that they googled it become comical. i always leave the discussion thinking - dont you have to finish high school to be a scientist?
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    theyre doin' detective work.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    i am a plastic sergin and i learnt it on the internet.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page