I found the missing Jolt.

tfk said:
No, it's not the Dan Rather Video.

There are 2 videos that are very, very similar.

The one I used is this link from NIST's website: CBS-Net Dub5 24.avi
You may have to log into NIST's website before that link will work.
For this video, you'll notice that the top of WTC7, prior to collapse, is well below the horizon.


The Dan Rather video looks very similar, but...
For this video, you'll notice that the top of WTC7, prior to collapse, is directly aligned with the horizon.
Click to expand...
I've never seen that video. Looks like some structures on the far left might be on the same plane as building 7.

Maybe a new thread is in order so people with better video chops then myself can weigh in?
 
Georgio said:
Those conditions would also be satisfied with a thread hosted here. Surely it doesn't make any difference where the thread is hosted. :confused: tfk has agreed to your terms - just say the word and I (or someone else) will start the thread.
Click to expand...

I said up front that the debate needs to take place on a neutral forum.

The 911 free forum will provide the neutrality required as the debate will not be moderated, will be write accessible only to the participants, and read only accessible to all on the Internet.

I am told that tfk's ban on the 911 free forum will be lifted for the debate thread.

Separate comment threads can be started on any forum by anyone.

I would like the topic to be restricted to the collapse of WTC 7 and the NIST report on it and any other information in the public domain on it.

There is a ground rule I think is necessary and it is a one post per day limit with some length limitation I will discuss with tfk. This will allow a reasonable response time and prevent lagging.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I would like the topic to be restricted to the collapse of WTC 7 and the NIST report on it and any other information in the public domain on it.
Click to expand...

Why bring the NIST report in to this? Wouldn't you want to start fresh with your own theory?

That seems to be where TFK wants to start. What's wrong with that?
 
DGM said:
Why bring the NIST report in to this? Wouldn't you want to start fresh with your own theory?

That seems to be where TFK wants to start. What's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

I think your concern will be addressed. Below are the proposed ground rules and format I sent tfk by PM tonight. See #2. There is a need to have the NIST report involved as tfk seems to accept it and I do not.

Tom,
I am proposing the following ground rules and format for our debate on the 911 free forum.
1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of WTC 7, the NIST report on it, and any additional information and analyses in the public domain about it.
2. Each person should make an opening statement explaining what they believe caused the collapse and briefing saying why they believe that.
3. A coin toss of sorts can be made to see who posts first, after the opening statements, by predicting a score for a sporting event with the closest having the choice of going first or second.
4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited.
6. Posts are limited to 500 words.
7. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Only the subject material shall be discussed. If any of the above occurs the participant involved shall be considered to have forfeited the debate.
8. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
I think your concern will be addressed. Below are the proposed ground rules and format I sent tfk by PM tonight. See #2.

Tom,
I am proposing the following ground rules and format for our debate on the 911 free forum.
1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of WTC 7, the NIST report on it, and any additional information and analyses in the public domain about it.
2. Each person should make an opening statement explaining what they believe caused the collapse and briefing saying why they believe that.
3. A coin toss of sorts can be made to see who posts first, after the opening statements, by predicting a score for a sporting event with the closest having the choice of going first or second.
4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited.
6. Posts are limited to 500 words.
7. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Only the subject material shall be discussed. If any of the above occurs the participant involved shall be considered to have forfeited the debate.
8. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination.
Click to expand...
Why not just this:

tfk said:
I'd suggest we get right to the heart of the matter: CD or no CD.

So something on the order of, "state your 3 or 4 strongest pieces of evidence for, or against, CD" as a start.
Click to expand...

You want to continue to argue what the NIST got wrong. Let's get to the meat. Sound good to you?
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Why not just this:



You want to continue to argue what the NIST got wrong. Let's get to the meat. Sound good to you?
Click to expand...

If you want to debate someone you are free to do it your way. I am not going to continue answering your comments about how the debate should be structured.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
... The 911 free forum will provide the neutrality required ...
Click to expand...

Wow, it is neutral, and so intellectual... wowzer

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/smart-idiots-t525-75.html

You guys could debate neutrally in "smart-idiots", or gee

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/just-plain-idiots-split-from-smart-idiots-t576.html

"just-plain-idiots" would be great for Tony's fantasy of CD...

Wait, or we could go to the extra credit paranoid thread for the fantasy of CD...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/jref-funded-by-military-contractors-t739.html

Darn, they figured out we are paid by the NWO... shills, just like Tony thinks....

The debate can take place here, to move it, paranoia on Tony's part.

Plus the debate has to flesh out the "aircraft were a ruse" fantasy.

Debate here, the free forum is not so free, but full of BS.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If you want to debate someone you are free to do it your way. I am not going to continue answering your comments about how the debate should be structured.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to argue anything other than your own theory? What does the NIST have to do with this?

TFK seems to want to debate you, not the NIST, nor do I think he wants to represent the NIST.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
If you want to debate someone you are free to do it your way. I am not going to continue answering your comments about how the debate should be structured.
Click to expand...

Wow, you could just plain continue this thread...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/tony-szamboti-errors-lies-and-distortions-t710.html

Your CD fantasy... evidence free based on what? Paranoia, or what?

Debate here, why move to your thread, "Tony Szamboti - Errors, Lies and Distortions"
?

14 years, and you are stuck right where crazy CD fantasies belong.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Dave, NIST did mud cracking of the paint and spheroidization tests to check the steel for temperatures experienced and the report says only three pieces were above 250 degrees C, and they weren't beyond 600 degrees C.

I think one can rightfully say they found no evidence of high temperatures on the steel with that information.

The inference in the fire simulation basis you are going on is extremely tenuous. The guy you are agreeing with here (Jaydeehess) also says they couldn't identify the steel, so how can you do inference?

I am sure you know they couldn't pull the south face of WTC 1 in with the floor trusses no matter how much they sagged in their model. There they had to add an artificial 5,000 lb. lateral load to the columns to get them to buckle.

On top of this we are told NIST only got 236 pieces of steel from the towers and none from WTC 7. That is nothing short of amazing. NIST report author John Gross admits he was in the yards not long after the collapses to pick what to save. Why was so little saved?

There is speculation that much of the steel actually had experienced temperatures that were much too high to have come from fires. This would match with the molten metal in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings. This also sounds like a reason the steel wouldn't be saved if you were going to use a pre-ordained conclusion that fire caused the collapses.

You need to provide a basis for your comments, especially when you want to say someone is not being honest, and you certainly are not doing that here.

Other than the aircraft impacts the NIST simulations are not trustworthy and were highly manipulated. They also do not explain the free fall of WTC 7 or the lack of deceleration in the descent of WTC 1. Although that was brought up well after their report it is pertinent to their conclusions and since it would change them they should be revising the report. I would understand not revising if it made no difference to the conclusions, but that is not the case here.
Click to expand...
Temperatures within the WTC buildings never exceeded 2000 degrees, which is far below the melting point of steel. However, structural steel under load will weaken to the point of failure at temperatures of ordinary office fires, which is why steel protection is applied to modern steel frame buildings. It also explains how steel frame buildings around the world survived fires unlike the WTC buildings which had their fire protection dislodged during the impacts.

Aerospace steels can be soften at temperatures of only 900 degrees F. in order to be formed into complex shapes.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
This video can be found on that page - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

At 47 seconds you can clearly see that edits have been made at the moment WTC7 starts to collapse.

I wonder why?

LOL. Cue the skeptic BS...
Click to expand...
The total collapse times for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither of those buildings collapsed at free fall speed.

Here are the collapse times for each of the WTC buildings.

WTC 1 = 22.02 seconds

WTC 2 = 15.28 seconds

WTC 7 = 17 seconds
 
skyeagle409 said:
The total collapse times for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither of those buildings collapsed at free fall speed.

Here are the collapse times for each of the WTC buildings.

WTC 1 = 22.02 seconds

WTC 2 = 15.28 seconds

WTC 7 = 17 seconds
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Forum Skyeagle409, hope you enjoy it, and yes most of us paid shill, complicit, in murder government paid shill agents know all that, by now, thanks for the comments, anyway though.
Sit back and relax you too can be a paid shill, do you want you pay in gold or platinum?
Also remember Shill pay is tax free with a great retirement plan, you never retire, we just dip you in the fountain of youth and recycle you back to a teenager.:D
 
Tony Szamboti said:
If you want to debate someone you are free to do it your way. I am not going to continue answering your comments about how the debate should be structured.
Click to expand...

Yes we already know you are a coward to debate your own theory, because you have none,
(Argument from ignorance) is not worth debating and that is the only argument you are capable of.
 
skyeagle409 said:
Temperatures within the WTC buildings never exceeded 2000 degrees, which is far below the melting point of steel. However, structural steel under load will weaken to the point of failure at temperatures of ordinary office fires, which is why steel protection is applied to modern steel frame buildings. It also explains how steel frame buildings around the world survived fires unlike the WTC buildings which had their fire protection dislodged during the impacts.
Click to expand...

There's very little point telling all this to Tony. As you can see, if he gets presented with evidence he doesn't like, he'll declare it doesn't exist and then hotly deny he was lying when he made that declaration. What's particularly impressive here is that he is claiming (a) that he wasn't lying when he said NIST found no evidence for high temperatures in the steel, (b) that he fully understands the inferential evidence NIST found for high temperatures in the steel but disputes it, and (c) that NIST may indeed have found direct evidence for high temperatures in the steel but suppressed it. So when he says NIST found no evidence for high temperatures in the steel, he's made it perfectly clear that not only does he know that statement to be false, but also believes that statement to be false. Yet for some reason he thinks that's a defense against a charge of lying. The only possible conclusion to be drawn is that he doesn't even understand the difference between truth and lies. Not exactly a good advertisement for the truth movement, but from my experience a very appropriate one.

Dave
 
First, these are guidelines, not straightjackets.

Tony Szamboti said:
I said up front that the debate needs to take place on a neutral forum.

The 911 free forum will provide the neutrality required as the debate will not be moderated, will be write accessible only to the participants, and read only accessible to all on the Internet.
Click to expand...

Not the slightest bit "neutral", IMO.
But that's of no consequence. My arguments will be exactly the same, no matter where posted.

Tony Szamboti said:
I am told that tfk's ban on the 911 free forum will be lifted for the debate thread.
Click to expand...

Fine.
I'd like their promise that they keep the ban lifted for the duration of the discussion.

Tony Szamboti said:
Separate comment threads can be started on any forum by anyone.
Click to expand...

Fine.

Tony Szamboti said:
I would like the topic to be restricted to the collapse of WTC 7 and the NIST report on it …
Click to expand...

“… restricted to the technical / engineering aspects of the collapse …”
No interest in the politics or philosophy.

“… of WTC 7 …”
And this strikes me as just plain silly. And not particularly useful.
Include any technical / engineering aspect of collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7.

All of the events of 9/11 fit together into one giant whole, and therefore require a single, overarching & self-consistent narrative.

WTC7 was, in essence, an innocent by-stander to the attacks on WTC 1&2.
The only reason for WTC7 domination in Truther discussions os the fact that some events are less visible or understandable to amateurs than the events in WTC 1&2.

Tony Szamboti said:
… and any other information in the public domain on it.
Click to expand...

“… and any other objectively verifiable info in the public domain …”
Not interested in getting into arm-wrestling over the subjective interpretation of eyewitness similes.
There is plenty of hard evidence in the video record & NIST reports.

Tony Szamboti said:
There is a ground rule I think is necessary and it is a one post per day limit with some length limitation I will discuss with tfk. This will allow a reasonable response time and prevent lagging.
Click to expand...

Reasonable.

I made a suggestion about:
1. first post: 3 strongest pieces of evidence for or against CD.
2. then 3 back & forths, one each addressing each topic.
3. previous “other person’s topic” must be addressed. No ignoring points.
4. After addressing old topic, then 1 new topic per post. Alternate bringing up new topics.
5. we should try to finish with one topic before moving on to next. (say, 2 posts each on any one topic.)
6. While we should try to be complete with each topic, short embellishment on earlier comments is allowed.

Each person must address, to some degree or other, all issues brought up by the other.
Neither one can merely ignore issues.

And we’re focusing on technical & engineering issues, not politics.

And all of these “rulez” seem silly for 2 alleged adults …
 
Last edited:
skyeagle409 said:
The total collapse times for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither of those buildings collapsed at free fall speed.

Here are the collapse times for each of the WTC buildings.

WTC 1 = 22.02 seconds

WTC 2 = 15.28 seconds

WTC 7 = 17 seconds
Click to expand...

Welcome.

This level of precision in all 3 durations seems unsupportable.

How do you propose the end point in each event was so accurately determined?
 
OK, just saw this after posting response to your first comments.
Tony,

My replies in red.

Tony Szamboti said:
I think your concern will be addressed. Below are the proposed ground rules and format I sent tfk by PM tonight. See #2. There is a need to have the NIST report involved as tfk seems to accept it and I do not.
Click to expand...

Yes, NIST Report is definitely in.

Tom,
I am proposing the following ground rules and format for our debate on the 911 free forum.
1. The topic is restricted to the collapse of WTC 7, the NIST report on it, and any additional information and analyses in the public domain about it.

I’d prefer to include WTC 1&2. For the reasons listed in my previous post.

2. Each person should make an opening statement explaining what they believe caused the collapse and briefing saying why they believe that.

Good.

3. A coin toss of sorts can be made to see who posts first, after the opening statements, by predicting a score for a sporting event with the closest having the choice of going first or second.

You’re free to go first. Or second.
Whichever you want.

4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.

OK. I’ll be doing a fair amount of traveling over the next 2 weeks. It might take 2 days to respond.

5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited.

"forfeited"? Weird. OK.

6. Posts are limited to 500 words.

WAY too restrictive.
Use as many words as needed to get your point across.
No word count restriction. (maybe 3000 words, max)
Questions can be very short. Competent answers take lots more words.

But shorter is better.

7. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Only the subject material shall be discussed. If any of the above occurs the participant involved shall be considered to have forfeited the debate.

Gonna take ALL my fun away, aintcha?
OK.

“Forfeited the debate”??
Because of snarkiness?
Damn silly thing to say.

The quality of the engineering arguments has absolutely nothing to do with the gentility of the prose. Engineers are supposed to have thicker hides than this.

That being said, I shall endeavor to behave.
You can help by showing a little respect for the engineers who put together the NIST Report.
You’re free to call them “wrong”. You’ll be expected to provide proof of that.

But for the duration of the debate, can the “lying, fraudulent” crap, unless you can substantiate it. Which I’ve never seen you do.

8. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination.

Fine.
I’ll be impressed if we can get thru 20 …
 
Last edited:
skyeagle409 said:
The total collapse times for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that neither of those buildings collapsed at free fall speed.

Here are the collapse times for each of the WTC buildings.

WTC 1 = 22.02 seconds

WTC 2 = 15.28 seconds

WTC 7 = 17 seconds
Click to expand...

One can't visually see when the last bit dropped because of dust obscuring the site. One would need to use sound... but then you have to link that to the sound of the start... not so so easy or correlate sight and sound. I don't think using the Lamont Doherty seismic data can be correlated to the beginning of the collapsed for multiple reasons.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom