• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

Wow, mods forced to split thread because of flood of comments; you have exceeded all expectations:
It has been predicted that the prominent defenders of NIST on this forum will find excuses to avoid the discussion, and that their troll friends will attempt to bury the discussion with BS, in an effort to divert attention.
Click to expand...

Thank you for playing.:p
 
Ziggi said:
Wow, mods forced to split thread because of flood of comments; you have exceeded all expectations:


Thank you for playing.:p
Click to expand...
You find this split "wow" worthy, why? Nothings "buried", you can read all your groups fail simply by clicking on the original. Maybe the fact you've not progressed in over 4 years confused you. :confused:

ETA: I wouldn't really consider 5,000 replies in over 4.5 years a "flood" (I know your use to forums with almost no traffic). :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
You find this split "wow" worthy, why? Nothings "buried", you can read all your groups fail simply by clicking on the original. Maybe the fact you've not progressed in over 4 years confused you. :confused:
Click to expand...


Poor lamb's trying to promote his blog again...
 
000063 said:
What sort of Internet Points do you think you're winning here? We can find the old thread in seconds. If there are any points you feel are neglected, you can Multi-Quote them over to this thread.
Click to expand...
There's even a link to the original in the first post...........
 
DGM said:
You find this split "wow" worthy, why? Nothings "buried", you can read all your groups fail simply by clicking on the original. Maybe the fact you've not progressed in over 4 years confused you. :confused:

ETA: I wouldn't really consider 5,000 replies in over 4.5 years a "flood" (I know your use to forums with almost no traffic). :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Here's one thread
With 2500 posts in 2.25 years. Must be that no one here could address the issues around Bigfoot.
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
Wow, mods forced to split thread because of flood of comments; you have exceeded all expectations:


Thank you for playing.:p
Click to expand...

Interested readers are encouraged to observe this debate, and see if NIST´s story is as utterly unscientific and wrong as suspected. In addition, it should be interesting for "people on the fence" to discover how little scrutiny NIST´s story has received on this supposed forum of hard-core skeptics, or in other words, see how pseudo-skeptics have managed to bury the problems under the rug for more than 6 years. Yes, NIST´s final report on Building 7 was published in 2008.
Click to expand...

Yes, and isn't it wonderful the strides you have made in just over six years. Back then in 2008 you were almost exclusively debating NIST report(s) with anonymous posters on the internet. Now, you are exclusively debating A NIST report with fewer anonymous posters on the internet.
Back then no professional organization would take AE911T seriously and now you at least have the CTBUH and the AIA specifically stating they want nothing at all to do with you.
Back then you had no papers appearing in mainstream, true peer reviewed journals and now you have no papers published in mainstream, true peer reviewed journals.

Yes , the advances produced by AE911T are certainly stellar. Someone will be getting a Nobel or Pulitzer any millennia now.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
There's even a link to the original in the first post...........
Click to expand...
And the reality hasn't changed:
1) The truthers are focussed on a detail;
2) That detail has not been shown to be significant;
3) The truthers allegation that an error in the detail falsifies NISTs explanation is nonsense;
4) They have not proved that NIST was wrong;
5) The original claim by T Sz used an unproven and almost certainly false starting premise;
6) Use of false premises is SOP for T Sz - e.g. his 2007(?) "Engineering Reality" and his "Magnum Opus" - "Missing Jolt" relied on false premises.

For some reason or other I think you are familiar with the statement:
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" ;)
 
ozeco41 said:
And the reality hasn't changed:
1) The truthers are focussed on a detail;
2) That detail has not been shown to be significant;
3) The truthers allegation that an error in the detail falsifies NISTs explanation is nonsense;
4) They have not proved that NIST was wrong;
5) The original claim by T Sz used an unproven and almost certainly false starting premise;
6) Use of false premises is SOP for T Sz - e.g. his 2007(?) "Engineering Reality" and his "Magnum Opus" - "Missing Jolt" relied on false premises.

For some reason or other I think you are familiar with the statement:
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" ;)
Click to expand...
The best part (acording to Tony Sz), we're the ones holding them back from achieving justice for the crimes of 9/11. :boggled:

For context: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10543696#post10543696

Tony Sz said:
I meant to say in earlier posts "shame on the knowing Styptics here who would help the criminals who committed 911 to evade justice and continue to harm the United States and others".

If you are just confused about what occurred on 911, or simply don't want to believe domestic players had something to do with it, please allow the law to work and don't help suspects evade justice.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It's odd that he now feels the need to call us names....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10543343#post10543343

Tony Sz said:
This forum would be more appropriately named the International Styptics Forum as it seems many on here are attempting to stop the hemorrhaging in the fraudulent stories and exposure of what actually happened to WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, in that they collapsed due to controlled demolition which could not have been a result of aircraft impacts and fires.
Click to expand...

Huge credibility boost there.............. Maybe if the called the NIST poopy heads they'd pay more attention................:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
ozeco41 said:
Welcome to the party.

I've been on his personal insults list for at least three years.
Click to expand...
Been there......................He liked to point out the fact I'm not an engineer (never claimed I was).......I never understood how that got him a pass to not answer my questions. ;)
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Been there......................He liked to point out the fact I'm not an engineer (never claimed I was).......I never understood how that got him a pass to not answer my questions. ;)
Click to expand...
You know my position.

If a non-engineer makes a true claim I will prefer it over a false claim made by an engineer.

Multiple masters and PhD's do not by magic make a false claim true.

AND I differ from most in that I don't see the "peer review" and "published papers" ethos as of much relevance to forum discussions.

The test of a claim is "Is it true?" NOT "How many and how big are the claimants degrees?" OR "Is it peer reviewed and published?"

All the Bazant WTC 9/11 papers are peer reviewed and published. And all of them after B&Z are simply wrong when they apply 1D alleged approximations including his crush-down crush-up model to WTC Twin Towers collapses. Note: not "inaccurate". Not "near enough approximation". Simply WRONG.

then as a humble engineer lacking any assurance of my own reasoning skills and too timid to say what I think..I rarely make forthright comments on forums..:rolleyes:



PS Plus there is a peer reviewed and published paper which makes an interesting case that Bazant (probably Zhou) got the sums wrong in B&Z. Grossly overstated the weight >> energy. So the NIST claim "global collapse was inevitable" was right but probably for the wrong reason.

For some reason no-one seems interested in that. ;)

IF it had been claimed and proved in 2002 the whole thrust of WTC collapse discussion would have been different. :boggled:
 
ozeco41 said:
All the Bazant WTC 9/11 papers are peer reviewed and published. And all of them after B&Z are simply wrong when they apply 1D alleged approximations including his crush-down crush-up model to WTC Twin Towers collapses. Note: not "inaccurate". Not "near enough approximation". Simply WRONG.
Click to expand...
Understatement, considering some of the claims are so blatant in that regard as to be posted either with an outright obvious statement contradicting them on the first page, completely ignoring other angles taken of the same area, or what shown in video directly... I hold recycling of claims in better regard personally than making a claim that's so easy to cross check with the person's expectation that nobody's going to see it.

ETA: Though T was correct, I have an agenda... just not the kind that I guess he was implying. (It keeps me away from CT's)
 
Last edited:
Ziggi said:
Thank you for playing.:p
Click to expand...

You and Gerrycan made it laughably explicit what game you're playing, which has the objective of recruiting converts into the "truther" cult, not figuring out What Really Happened. Gerrycan's "game plan" was to avoid the obviously irrational argument, "NIST got something wrong, so controlled demolition is the most probable cause." You both just want to focus on, "NIST got something wrong," knowing that some gullible cult candidates will jump to their own conclusions. In case you hadn't noticed, in that game you guys are just playing with yourselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom