TAM 2011 WTC 7 debate

[femr2]

I would rather consider how the explosives were planted

Would you now. How very interesting. Go on then son...how were these explosives of which you speak planted ?

who planted them

And again, this is your *would rather*...who do you think planted these explosives you speak of ?

who gave the orders

Well ? Wasn't me. Any bright ideas ?

were the NYFD in on it

Oooh. I would have to assume that you think they did, or surely you would not ask me the question.

etc

Etc ? No, go on, have your full say. Just what is it that you are trying to say ? You want to talk about explosives, how they were planted, who was responsible for such action, etc. Go for it Get out of the valleys mate

You never seem to consider these matters

Is that so ? Hmmm. You sound really smart.

and I know why.

Cor. Dead smart. Why don't you share the joy and tell me then. Much more smarterer than I thou art. I'm not even sure what all these funny shapes are when I use this, what is the word, keyboard.

If you have nothing useful to say, best say nothing at all eh

 

[walkyrie]

In April 2007 I was astonished to find out that the WTC towers on 9/11 fell at nearly free-fall speed. After reviewing many many videos of the two towers falling symmetrically into the vertical path of greatest resistance I realized that the george bush official theory about 9/11 is very wrong

 

[The Big Dog]

In April 2007 I was astonished to find out that the WTC towers on 9/11 fell at nearly free-fall speed. After reviewing many many videos of the two towers falling symmetrically into the vertical path of greatest resistance I realized that the george bush official theory about 9/11 is very wrong

Gee in April of 2011 I'll bet you'll be even more astonished to learn that they didn't any where near free fall and the path of greatest resistance was horizontally against the force of gravity.

Nah, just kidding, you aren't bright enough to understand any of that.

Keep on truthering.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In April 2007 I was astonished to find out that the WTC towers on 9/11 fell at nearly free-fall speed. After reviewing many many videos of the two towers falling symmetrically into the vertical path of greatest resistance I realized that the george bush official theory about 9/11 is very wrong

You have unbelievably poor observational skills.

 

[dafydd]

Would you now. How very interesting. Go on then son...how were these explosives of which you speak planted ?


And again, this is your *would rather*...who do you think planted these explosives you speak of ?


Well ? Wasn't me. Any bright ideas ?


Oooh. I would have to assume that you think they did, or surely you would not ask me the question.


Etc ? No, go on, have your full say. Just what is it that you are trying to say ? You want to talk about explosives, how they were planted, who was responsible for such action, etc. Go for it Get out of the valleys mate


Is that so ? Hmmm. You sound really smart.


Cor. Dead smart. Why don't you share the joy and tell me then. Much more smarterer than I thou art. I'm not even sure what all these funny shapes are when I use this, what is the word, keyboard.

If you have nothing useful to say, best say nothing at all eh

I just would like to hear your version of the events of 911. The lists of numbers and the lines on the photos mean nothing to me.

 

[dafydd]

Would you now. How very interesting. Go on then son...how were these explosives of which you speak planted ?


And again, this is your *would rather*...who do you think planted these explosives you speak of ?


Well ? Wasn't me. Any bright ideas ?


Oooh. I would have to assume that you think they did, or surely you would not ask me the question.


Etc ? No, go on, have your full say. Just what is it that you are trying to say ? You want to talk about explosives, how they were planted, who was responsible for such action, etc. Go for it Get out of the valleys mate


Is that so ? Hmmm. You sound really smart.


Cor. Dead smart. Why don't you share the joy and tell me then. Much more smarterer than I thou art. I'm not even sure what all these funny shapes are when I use this, what is the word, keyboard.

If you have nothing useful to say, best say nothing at all eh

You make a habit of saying nothing useful,why can't I join in?

 

[cmatrix]

Please state those two sentences.
Please state your impression of the NIST WTC7 theory.

I asked you...

...and you responded with...


You don't have a two sentence theory, but what I'm pointing out is irrelevant to that theory that you just said you didn't have ? Slightly bizarre. I suggest proof-reading your posts before hitting submit.

I have no idea what your theory for WTC7 is. Indulge me...

Maybe if I ask you a couple of questions, it can become clear...

1) Does it involve explosives going off followed immediately by the building going down ?

Right. My mistake. I should have said "I don't have a two sentence theory of WTC7. Any such movement is completely irrelevant to the theory I do support. "

This thread is about my wishing to enter into a debate with JREF annointed "skeptics". I will not discuss the contents of that debate here unless a moderated and exclusive thread is setup.

 

[DGM]

In April 2007 I was astonished to find out that the WTC towers on 9/11 fell at nearly free-fall speed. After reviewing many many videos of the two towers falling symmetrically into the vertical path of greatest resistance I realized that the george bush official theory about 9/11 is very wrong

Thanks for sharing. Before April 2007 were you blind or just ignorant?

 

[WildCat]

And people say our airport security doesn't work.

lol, I may have to rethink my opposition to the body scanners.

 

[WildCat]

They will understand basic scientific concepts taught in middle school. That's all they need to understand my position.

What does your position have to do with "basic scientific concepts"? Aren't you a truther?

 

[DGM]

lol, I may have to rethink my opposition to the body scanners.

I don't like those scanners at all, I prefer a good grope.

 

[Sunstealer]

Cmatrix seems reluctant to tell us his theories on the WTC 7 collapse. He did, however, publish an article in February of this year entitled A Scientific Theory of the WTC 7 Collapse. You can read it here.

Edit:

Actually the article is very short and he doesn't really give much of a theory expect to say than NIST was wrong and the collapse was a CD using "explosive nano-thermite."

The seven footnotes are interesting. Three of them are to online videos (two of them on You Tube) and the nono-thermite claim is sourced by a link to a Benthan Open Journal pay-for-publish article by Niels H. Harrit, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, et al.

Yes just read it. Has this been stundied?

the largely symmetrical collapse into the building’s footprint, the roof line kink causing the building to fall in on itself, minimizing damage to other buildings

 

[TJM]

This thread is about my wishing to enter into a debate with JREF annointed "skeptics". I will not discuss the contents of that debate here unless a moderated and exclusive thread is setup.

Then the proper way to request a moderated thread is to PM the Admis/Mods with your request. Given the fact that you'll be asking them to do extra work by reading every single post submitted, and that you've already been debunked many times already, I can't see why they could be bothered to accommodate you.

 

[LashL]

Regarding moderated debate threads, what we can do - if requested and if all proposed parties to the debate agree - is set up a moderated thread permitting only the agreed participants to post, but there are preliminary steps that need to be taken first.

1) One party to the proposed debate must make a formal request to the Moderating Team seeking a moderated debate thread between two (or more) parties and the other party (or parties) must agree to participate in same;

2) The request must set out the proposed topic and the scope of the debate, both of which must be agreed to by the parties;

3) Any additional rules that the parties seek to impose will have to be agreed upon (For instance: which party posts first; posts to alternate between the parties; length/time limits (if any) that the parties wish to impose, etc.

The Moderating Team will then consider the request and, if approved, will set up the thread. **Please note that all of the rules in the Membership Agreement will apply and the parties will be expected to abide by them. If the parties cannot conduct themselves without breaching the M.A., the thread will be closed.

Posted By: LashL

 

[tsig]

In April 2007 I was astonished to find out that the WTC towers on 9/11 fell at nearly free-fall speed. After reviewing many many videos of the two towers falling symmetrically into the vertical path of greatest resistance I realized that the george bush official theory about 9/11 is very wrong

I didn't know that George Bush was a structural engineer.

 

[cmatrix]

Regarding moderated debate threads, what we can do - if requested and if all proposed parties to the debate agree - is set up a moderated thread permitting only the agreed participants to post, but there are preliminary steps that need to be taken first.

1) One party to the proposed debate must make a formal request to the Moderating Team seeking a moderated debate thread between two parties and the other party or parties must agree to participate in same;

2) The request must set out the proposed topic and the scope of the debate, both of which must be agreed to by the parties;

3) Any additional rules that the parties seek to impose will have to be agreed upon (For instance: which party posts first; posts to alternate between the parties; length/time limits (if any) that the parties wish to impose, etc.

The Moderating Team will then consider the request and, if approved, will set up the thread. **Please note that all of the rules in the Membership Agreement will apply and the parties will be expected to abide by them. If the parties cannot conduct themselves without breaching the M.A., the thread will be closed.

Posted By: LashL

Cool. Thank you LashL. OK. Mackey and Thomas have already stated that they are unable to refute my arguments so they are out. Does anyone know any MSc or PHds in science here? I will go out looking for some and try personally contacting everyone in the OP. Couldn't JREF do the latter for me since those people are going to be at TAM anyway and JREF will have contact information for all of them? JREF is supposed to be interested in science and skepticism aren't they?

Here are the debate particulars:

Topic: The most scientific alternative to the completely unscientific NIST WTC 7 collapse theory is the explosive controlled demolition of WTC 7 using atypical techniques.

Scope: Discussion will be limited only to determining which theory of the WTC 7 fall best conforms to scientific principles. That is, the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 fall. No personal attacks, other logical fallacies or diversion will be allowed.

Other rules: I wish to post first.

 

[LashL]

Well, first, Mr. Mackey and Mr. Thomas have not said what you claim, but that's beside the point (although it does reflect rather poorly on you to preface your post with a fib).

Second, you need to do all of the leg work yourself and once you have agreement from the other Forum members who will be party to the proposed moderated thread debate, send a PM with a formal request and an outline of the scope and ground rules, etc. to a member of the Moderating Team, and then a moderated thread will be considered by the Moderating Team.

Third, no, nobody here is going to contact anyone on your behalf. The people you've mentioned in your OP aren't even members of the Forum so far as I know [ETA: aside from James Randi, of course, but I am 100% certain that he will not be even remotely interested in discussing this with you]. You seem to be conflating the JREF Forum with the JREF itself, but they are two different things.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Cool. Thank you LashL. OK. Mackey and Thomas have already stated that they are unable to refute my arguments so they are out.
...
Scope: Discussion will be limited only to determining which theory of the WTC 7 fall best conforms to scientific principles. That is, the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 fall. No personal attacks, other logical fallacies or diversion will be allowed.

Other rules: I wish to post first.

For the record, I never said I was "unable to refute (cmatrix's) arguments."

Rather, I said that

I have no interest in a sham "debate" with cmatrix. Like I explained on his malformed JREF "debate challenge,"

On one occasion, I again pointed out that you [cmatrix] were attacking a strawman model of your own creation, and, most importantly, you admitted to that.

In other words, there's no need to debate someone who commits logical fallacies and admits it.

Not at all the same thing as "unable to refute (someone's) arguments."

K?

 

[dafydd]

Right. My mistake. I should have said "I don't have a two sentence theory of WTC7. Any such movement is completely irrelevant to the theory I do support. "

This thread is about my wishing to enter into a debate with JREF annointed "skeptics". I will not discuss the contents of that debate here unless a moderated and exclusive thread is setup.

Who asked you for two sentences? A full theory with many sentences would be welcome. I have a long attention span and I can cope with long documents.

 

[ozeco41]

...Here are the debate particulars:

Topic: The most scientific alternative to the completely unscientific NIST WTC 7 collapse theory is the explosive controlled demolition of WTC 7 using atypical techniques....

Nothing like a bit of good old fashioned "poison the well" to set the scene cmatrix. Followed by "deny the opposition a place in the starting line-up"

So this is the scope of debate you propose:

Define the "most scientific alternative" to what you describe as the "completely unscientific NIST WTC 7 collapse theory"

Your pre-determined emotive qualifiers ("completely unscientific") do not change the subject of that phrase which is the "NIST WTC 7 collapse theory"

So you want to debate the best alternative which automatically denies the NIST explanation being considered?

Why not simply deny any explanation that you disagree with?