Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by scott3x, Feb 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    they are verified facts tony regardless of what you call them.
    that WTC 7 was built over a con edison substation.
    the ground WTC 7 was built on was only reinforced to accommodate a 25 story building.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Tony, do you even realize just how stupid that statement is?

    Edit: Obviously not.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    * * * * NOTE FROM THE MODERATOR * * * *

    Actually we're all Moderators on this board, so I guess it's my turn today since somebody complained about this thread.

    This "formal debate" is going nowhere. The last two or three pages have been nothing but personal remarks. That's bad enough on the other boards but it is totally unacceptable on this one.

    I don't feel like deleting all of the offending posts, one at a time. I don't need the headache and it's not how I want to spend my evening. So I will just say THIS:
    • 1. Get this discussion back on topic.
    • 2. Cease the personal remarks.
    • 3. Make some bloody progress. Cover some new ground. Say something that hasn't already been said... six times.
    19 pages is long enough for any topic. If you can't find something new to say, and if you can't keep the discourse civil, I'm going to close this thread tomorrow. I do not want to have to read any more posts of this type in order to do my job!

    This is not the purpose of this website.


    --F. R.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Of course, you would think it is stupid John as, like Leopold, you think the fact that visibly identifiable evidence of explosives wasn't stumbled over by somebody is proof that there were no explosives.

    Sorry to break it to you but what you and Leopold are saying here would not hold up in court, if any other evidence showed the likelihood of it being used. For instance, the lack of deceleration of the upper block in WTC 1 and the eight story freefall at the start of the collapse of WTC 7. What you and Leopold are saying is a logical fallacy called an argument from incredulity. Just in case you two aren't sure what that means I have provided a link to an explanation below.

    http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2009
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i think no such thing tony.
    i merely state the facts as i know them.
    facts that can be verified, unlike your claims of a controlled demolition.
     
  9. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    No Leopold, you and John are simply incredulous. Your six points prove nothing in favor of or against controlled demolition. Whether they are facts or not they are irrelevant to the argument.

    Read the examples in the below link on argument from incredulity.

    http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity
     
  10. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    call it whatever you will tony they are still facts, facts that are verified.

    i can read till my eyes bleed but it still will not disprove my six points.
     
  11. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    No need to disprove your six points. They aren't relevant to the argument. You apparently don't understand that and it doesn't look like any logic can convince you. It doesn't matter, as you are wrong and would be shown that in a court of law.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    they are still facts tony, and they are indeed relevant.
    seems to me that you are desperate to lay these fact aside, why is that tony?
     
  13. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Explain their relevance.
     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you are being deliberately obtuse tony.
    i've explained my reasoning for stating those facts.
     
  15. dMx9 Registered Member

    Messages:
    25
    So should I enter "6," "300," "relevant," or "verifiable point" into the forum search function while loooking for them then, Leo?
     
  16. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    You never explained their relevance. You simply put them out there as facts saying they made your point, that the towers couldn't have been controlled demolitions. I showed you why they don't and gave reasoning due to their being arguments from incredulity in reference to whether or not controlled demolitions occurred in the WTC buildings.

    You need to show why they aren't arguments from incredulity, which could make them relevant.
     
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

    Figure L-20 on page L-16 suggests that although most diagrams cut the Con Ed substation off at the first floor (because they're diagrams of the building, not the substation), the substation itself extended for two levels below the first floor (and so other diagrams show only the half of the substation that was above ground level).
     
  18. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Trippy, neither the substation nor WTC 7 had a basement. The area between the subsurface concrete walls containing building steel columns down to grillages on caissons was filled.

    The foundation of both the substation and WTC 7 was as follows:

    L.1.4 Foundations
    WTC 7 and the electrical substation were supported on caisson foundations. When the substation was constructed in 1967, provision was made for a future office tower by including capacity to carry both the substation and the weight of a future building. Caissons were also installed in the property adjacent to the substation, for the proposed future building. When WTC 7 was constructed approximately 20 years later, it was significantly larger than the originally proposed building, and required additional caissons to be installed, as shown in Fig. L–3.

    The typical caisson consisted of several components: a 30-in., 36-in., or 42-in. diameter steel casing, a heavy rolled or built-up steel core shape, vertical reinforcing bars, spiral rebar, and concrete fill. At the base of the caisson core, a pattern of shear studs was placed to help transfer the load from the steel caisson core into the encompassing concrete, from which it passed into the rock. The caissons extended through the soil, and were socketed (seated) in the bedrock, approximately 60 ft below the surface. There were vertical caissons as well as battered (or sloped) caissons to carry the lateral load. Above the caissons were heavy grillages composed of built up steel girders. Grillages transferred loads between the building columns and the caissons.

    The distance between the caisson grillages and the first floor varied between 8 ft and 30 ft. This region was braced by reinforced concrete walls with thicknesses varying from 1 ft to 2.5 ft. Many of the WTC 7 steel columns were embedded in these walls, and supporting steel braces were made composite by the addition of shear studs along the height of embedment. Areas between the concrete walls were backfilled with compacted gravel fill and then covered with a concrete slab on grade or framed slab to form closed cells and bring the structure up to the required elevation. In some cases, the area was left unfilled and used to house fuel tanks.


    WTC 7 was not built over a hole in the ground as Leopold has suggested. He is apparently confusing the fact that the back half of it was built over the three story substation. When the substation was built a large number of caissons were put in place in anticipation of the erection of WTC 7 on the site. There were additional caissons which were put in when it was actually built. The unfilled fuel tank areas would have been a small percentage of the overall footprint which was filled to ground level.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2009
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    actually tony you need to just accept fact as fact.
    instead of throwing out words why don't you show my points as being untrue?
    oh i see, you can't show them to be untrue so you throw out words.

    but to oblige you,
    you seem to be having a problem with my last fact of no bomb debris was found in the pile, that people wasn't looking for it.
    let me list my facts:
    1.it was stated on TV "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions"
    2. in the hours and days after the collapse people from all over the US arrived at ground zero.
    3. these people included structural engineers, firemen, policemen, reporters, and doctors.
    4. ground zero was not "roped off" by the military or any other agency during this time.
    5. the rescue and cleanup was civilian directed.
    6. no bomb debris was ever found in the pile.

    when these are taken together it pretty well smashes the "bomb" theory.

    you say"just because no bomb debris wasn't found doesn't mean none was used."
    fine point tony but you've yet to prove it.

    you say"people wasn't looking for bombs."
    my first fact seems to suggest that they would have been.

    you say"it takes forensic testing to test for bombs"
    you don't need forensic testing to see that cutting charges were used.
    could you, as a structural engineer, tell whether a steel girder failed due to fatigue or was cut using a cutting charge?
     
  20. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    Hmmm. . .
    this is the first i heard of gravel backfill.
    the fact still remains that WTC 7 was built on a site that was only originally intended for a 25 story building, the weight restrictions was 1 million pounds i believe.
    the final design was for a building almost twice that height and weight.

    it doesn't take much intelligence on my part to see how WTC 7 could have failed catastrophically.
     
  21. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Leopold, what you are saying here is ridiculous. Read the NIST description of the foundation, that I posted above, which explains that since the actual building was bigger than that originally proposed they installed additional caissons. Engineers do not and can not build something on an insufficient foundation.

    You have no basis for what you are saying or blathering, as that might better describe it. You simply don't know and apparently haven't taken the time to look before you speak.

    Are you actually trying to say the entire building weight was restricted to 1 million pounds? Just one floor weighed more than that.

    There is an old saying which goes something like "if you aren't sure about something it is better not to say anything and maybe look like you might not know rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt".
     
  22. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    If you had read the definition and examples of the fallacy "Argument from Incredulity", from the link I provided, you would have learned that

    In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence. This is particularly true when the lack of evidence is merely personal incredulity and other potential explanations, are well-known to others.

    The way the columns were broken was with concussion charges placed near their welds and there is evidence of this on the columns. They weren't "cut" per se.

    You have been shown that there are several reasons why there was no bomb debris found by people who weren't looking for it to begin with. You also have no evidence of anyone saying they were looking for bomb debris so your comment saying they would have been has no basis in fact.

    I think I'll start addressing you as "Leopold the Incredulous".
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2009
  23. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you are correct in stating i don't know about the weight restrictions.
    that is why i said "i believe".
    the fact still remains the building was almost twice the size, and by inferrence twice the weight, the site was built for.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page