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
    Moderator note: It appears that a debate on this topic was started without clear agreement as to the debate format. Readers are warned that the resulting debate does not really fit the format of the Formal Debates forum. It is retained here for those who are interested, although the discussion thread is closed.

    [thread=90058]Proposal thread[/thread]. [thread=90071]Debate thread[/thread]. [thread=90070]Discussion thread[/thread]


    ----

    Ok, I'm going to temporarily wait for Macyver to open up the debate part of this, as he has already submitted his opening for it. This discussion is for everyone else to put in their 2 cents.

    Please note the following: I may not respond if you people do any of the following things:
    Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

    I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to leopold's post 1451 from the WTC Collapses thread over in pseudoscience.

    What I -meant- was that I would be the only one in the debate thread responding to his posts. At no point in time did I say that I wouldn't be able to confer with my colleagues.

    Hopefully with the above point I made you will now see the error of your ways and in fact apologize

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I've now transferred this discussion into the formal debates forum, so by all means, proceed.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to Q's post 30 on page 2 of the "Proposal- How did WTC buildings collapse?" thread.

    I suggest you take a look at Gordon Ross's videos, wherein he patiently explains the evidence for the explosive devices used; he includes photographic evidence in his videos. Here they are:
    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdtOFNgrkTg&feature=related
    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MQtwTvBfVE&feature=related
    Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok6OWr-JtrM&feature=related

    If you're of a technical mind, you may appreciate this page of his as well:
    http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html


    Clearly, the people who did this wanted to make it to superficially -appear- as if the planes had taken down the buildings. However, I would argue that a more thorough examination of the evidence, such as the impressive work of Gordon Ross, proves otherwise.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to Syzygys' post 35 in the "Proposal- How did WTC buildings collapse? " thread.

    I understood all this pretty much; -however-, I -didn't- know that once the rules for engagement were agreed upon, that any of the parties who were to engage in the debate could actually start it without moderator approval. A silly thing, but it meant that I was partial to essentially starting the debate right here, so we didn't waste time waiting for a moderator ;-).
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to leopold99's post 3 in the debate sister thread of this subject.

    I have now included the link to the letter in question. As to why he didn't put his name, perhaps he didn't want to be suspended from his work and/or fired, as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan were.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to tnerb's post 10 in the Let's be honest... thread in the SF Open Government forum.

    tnerb, I've moved this over here because there was already a request to move the WTC collapses thread from pseudoscience to Architecture and Engineering in the SF Open Government forum and it was closed. So putting it here where I think it can do fine. To anyone who would like to respond to this post, please take a look at the first post, which sets certain guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable as responses.

    Simple questions, but not simple answers...


    I agree. However, the admins decide on such things. -However-, it may just be that we can talk in this forum; this forum may actually be better; I'm hoping that the rules for the discussions that I'm putting hold- that is, that certain insults aren't used. I hope that this may lead to a more productive discussion environment.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Scott,

    If you haven't been to busy responding to Shaman's posts in the 9/11 thread from 500 posts ago..you might have noticed that I have asked the moderators to close the formal debate thread on 9/11. I figured you probably wouldn't understand, so I thought better explain it to you very simply.

    As you stated in your post above, you recently asked for the 9/11 thread to be moved from p.s. to architecture and engineering. You asked this because you thought the 9/11 thread was a respectable scientific argument, and should have it's place in a more respectable subforum than pseudoscience...you were flatly turned down.

    So you figured you could move the 9/11 thread to Formal Debates, by proposing a debate thread on 9/11..formal debates has to be better than pseudoscience, right? I guess you were thinking that a formal debate is just like a discussion thread, except everyone is more civil. But a formal debate takes on different form.

    I decided to take your challenge because I really wanted to see if you could put together a formal argument about your own position on the collapse.... or if you would do your same old thing and "quote mine" everything...reposting others thoughts that you agree with, and thinking that a response...offering no thoughts of your own.

    What worse is the sources that you quote mine from. You will literally quote anyone. Here is your response to my assertion that:

    Here is your rebuttal to this point:

    You offer nothing of your own...just the repost...and it's from an anonymous post from another 9/11 board. You completely lack the ability to understand why a source like this has ZERO credibility. There's no way to know who said it, where it got his data from or anything. When I confronted you with this, you told me "he said he got his data from the NIST report, you should look it up" or something like that. This was your source..it's not my job to prove he's not just some nutjob. This to you is evidence and you can't understand when people tell you it's not. I wasn't even sure what point the author was trying to make or what point you were trying to make by posting this. You mis-quoted the numbers 5.932 instead of 5,932..and I still don't know what point is being made..the author proposes something and doesn't follow through. He proposes that all of the fuel stayed in the impact area, then he gives that quantity in gallons and cubic feet. Then he notes how a 10 x 10 x 9 cubicle could hold this much. Then he gives an estimate on the total number of cubicles on one floor. Then he posts a picture of a swimming pool that hold approximately the amount mentioned before....and that's it! No point is made. What was the purpose of the data given? I said "thousands" of gallons started the fire. You seem to be confirming that with quote that mentions a number around 6000 gallons...which would definitely qualify as thousands.

    I specifically set out in the rules that this debate was between you and me. And instead of debating me directly. You took my arguments and asked Tony and the TS guys what they thought..and then reposted their thoughts. I wasn't debating Tony. I was debating you. I couldn't get you to give me the opinion on the color of the sky without you having to ask the TS guys first. When you signed on for this Formal Debate, I guess you thought it would shine a more respectable light on the 9/11. I guess you forgot that you don't know how to formally debate someone.

    I'm not going to waste my time anymore with it. You started a formal debate even though you had no pre-thought out argument to present, and no formal debate skills at all. I might drop in on the 9/11 thread from time to time, but this was a complete waste of time.
     
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to leopold99's post 28 in the "Let's be honest..." thread in the SF Open Government forum.

    As far as I know, he doesn't post his credentials on his site. However, although some JREF members have apparently decided that no Gordon Ross was born in Dundee since the latter part of the 19th century born, he assures us that he was, in fact, born there, along with his father and great uncle of the name. Seriously, why would he lie about something like that anyway? Some JREFers probably did a mediocre job of looking for Gordon Rosses in Dundee, just as you did a mediocre job of finding out more about Gordon Ross, and came to erroneous conclusions.

    Heck, even an official story supporter site that I found from a site that shaman_ frequently likes to quote (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/), has no quibble with saying that he's an engineer in the mechanical field. Do you really think he'd be giving presentations at the Indian YMCA, London if he didn't have some credentials to back up his claims? Anyway, here's another link, this time from prisonplanet.com, with the same video presentation, once again stating that he is, in fact, a Mechanical Engineer.

    He's also written a peer reviewed paper over at the Journal for 9/11 studies.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2009
  12. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    ok will do thx

    Yea. That's where you and I are at a threshold or cross-way. I'm sure there's been numerous threads devoted to the purpose of debating and many of the debates about what happend to the quality of the steel, evidence of set ups, etcetera, but as I see it it's a big hoax, intended for most people to discuss until they see fit. Many people don't like mass discussion (anyone?) about something they already know.

    The only thing we're missing is the evidence of possible suspicion to discuss in thread. In which I will read your guidelines.
     
  13. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    it is in formal debates afterall.
     
  14. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    If I may.

    twas because the thread in which you're quoted depends somuch on keeping the real threads safe from harm.

    Of course, I'm all down for someone proving 9-11 buildings didn't just blow up kuz planes :bugeye::bugeye:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response to Enmos' post 25 in the "let's be honest..." thread in the SF Open Government forum.

    This isn't a matter of whether or not one can afford a website- it's whether or not Gordon Ross felt it was worth getting a pay website. Apparently he didn't.
     
  16. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Apparently. I didn't draw any conclusions or take sides, I just said what I said

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Very funny

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Yep. The injustice of it all, sigh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    "thinking that a response... offering no thoughts of your own"? That is definitely syntactically incorrect. In any case, I have certainly offered my own thoughts as well as quoted the thoughts of experts in the field of the WTC collapses.


    I certainly haven't seen you provide any evidence that that is indeed the case.


    That's not true. But more important, it's also not the point. Whether I say something or whether someone else does, I think you should be focusing on the evidence presented.


    It's from a peer reviewed site that has gained a fair amount of respect; if it hadn't, why in the world would even debunkers take the time to write responses to papers written there by the likes of Gordon Ross, as http://911guide.googlepages.com/newtonsbit chronicles.


    MacGyver, I personally found where he got his data in one instance; from the NIST report he said he got it from. I even provided the link and the page number in NIST's report. I could check more of the NIST reports he cites, but I really would like you to acknowledge that the report I checked out -is- valid.


    You are right to some extent, which is why I -did- check out one of the reports he cites. Apparently you didn't notice though...


    There were many points made. Please quote something you don't understand and I will try to explain it to you better.


    In the case of the 5,932 gallons of jet fuel, it was how much fuel NIST estimated remained in the South Tower (WTC 2) after 20% of it was burned off in the fireball. The point was that there was a lot less fuel to do all the things this magical jet fuel did then some may have believed.


    The point is that it wasn't a whole lot of jet fuel relative to the building. When he said that there were about 300 10x10 cubicles on every one of the 110 floors of the Twin Towers, I think that this would be self evident. NIST itself has stated that the precise amount of fuel is rather irrelevant as it didn't seem to make much of a difference in their tests.


    No one is disputing that they started a fire. The dispute is whether the fires they started could have done much other then burn some office furniture and (unfortunately) people.


    At first, I wanted to have Tony and others directly in the debate. You didn't like this idea. But I made it -very]- clear that I would -not- isolate myself from their knowledge. To do so, in my view, would have been patently foolish.


    Come on MacGyver, I would expect this type of reasoning from John99 or from shaman_, but not from you. I drew on the knowledge of Tony when I was unsure of some points, that's all.


    My understanding of a formal debate is this:
    That 2 sides agree to certain terms to discuss an issue. I felt that we had done so. I thought that you understood that, though you didn't like it, I wasn't going to isolate myself from people who could advise me if I wasn't sure about something.


    I had many thought out arguments and I presented them in my very first rebuttal; they're here:
    http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/index.html


    Well, I felt that I made many good points, but to each their own.
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Leo: I received your complaint about Scott's posts. I wish one of the other moderators would respond who has any interest in this thread. I haven't even been following it.

    Nonetheless, after perusing it I'm not inclined to sympathize. Scott has explained why he felt it was permissible to bring material from those other threads here. Why not? They're on topic and it's not like you're being overwhelmed with contributors.

    If you're expecting the kind of "formal debate" where people are marked down for not slavishly following the rules, I think you're going to have to join a university debate club. Those debates are not won or lost on the basis of who makes the most compelling case for his side of the issue. It's strictly a matter of who has the discipline to never deviate from the rulebook. That's hardly the kind of arguing we'd like to foster on this website. We want to teach and learn, not keep score.

    In any case I don't see anyone here breaking new ground and illuminating the issue with information that was heretofore generally unknown. This reads more like a plain old argument than like a group of scientists trying to discover the explanation for a strange phenomenon.

    None of you has brought up the asbestos issue. Halfway through the construction of the WTC, the incredibly bright and caring people who run New York City decided to outlaw asbestos... without grandfathering in projects that were already under construction. It's been estimated statistically that that decision may have prevented three deaths from respiratory damage... over the course of the entire next century. One engineer whose report I saw quoted several years ago claimed that no other insulator is as effective, pound per pound, as asbestos. So in order to avoid overloading infrastructure in the lower floors, they had to settle for an inferior job of fireproofing the upper floors. He said that if the original specifications of the building had been fulfilled, it would not have collapsed, because after all the prospect of an airliner crashing into a building is exactly the sort of risk that a good architect would plan for. It was bound to happen some day eventually and nobody wants to be the guy who gets blamed for skimping on the fireproofing.

    People right here on SciForums are asking angrily why they've not heard or read any interviews with the pilots of that plane that just went down in the Hudson River. And nobody died in that one! Tell me how many interviews you've heard or read with the people who procured and installed the insulation on the WTC? Hmm?

    I don't know if this is true. Exactly one engineer has told me that it's not, so at this point it's one yes and one no. I would think that if you guys are really interested in this topic you would go to the trouble of tracking this down. I'm not, so I didn't.
     
  19. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    then why call it a "formal debate forum"?
    that is one of the reasons i never accepted scotts challenge is because i felt i was not equipped to argue these points formally.

    scott,
    you can drag my posts over here if you want but i will not respond to them.

    edit:
    apparently we can use quotes from people we can't even prove exist.
     
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    What's a big hoax?


    The evidence of possible suspicion? Again, not sure I know what you mean...
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Yep, they'd say it was off topic in SF Open Government and probably either shut the thread down or cart it off to pseudoscience, where a lot of people seem to think it's just peachy to use foul language as much as they please.


    Woot, another for the truth movement

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    !
     
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    True. I must admit it's nice being a fence sitter sometimes; just make a small comment here and there while everyone else gets hammered

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Thanks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I simply felt that Stryder would have closed the thread down in the SF Open Government forum; the original topic had to do specifically with the SF forum, but some participants veered off into the WTC collapses issue, and Stryder's already closed a thread on that topic in the SF Open Government forum, so I figured it would be best not to push my luck.


    Sounds good to me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . Besides, like you said, it's not like we have a plethora of university type debaters in this forum right now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    Aw c'mon

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    !


    There have been tests done on building steel where essentially no fireproofing was used and it still didn't collapse. Apparently NIST even did a test with no fireproofing at all; they claimed it was a 'calibration' test or something and never revealed the results.


    I haven't investigated this either because I think there is overwhelming evidence that there's no way in hell that the towers could have come down the way they did with anything other then explosives. However, I fully admit that persuading official story supporters of this is indeed quite challenging.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page