Discussion: How did the WTC buildings collapse?

Status
Not open for further replies.
leopold99 said:
then why call it a "formal debate forum"?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because people in discussions here actually have rules as to how they will discuss a topic? Like no insults of a certain type, for instance; kind of like a boxing match; no hits below the belt. I know you got frustrated with psikeyhackr over in pseudoscience. I certainly got frustrated with people there as well. Maybe in this forum things could be done in a more civil manner.


leopold99 said:
that is one of the reasons i never accepted scotts challenge is because i felt i was not equipped to argue these points formally.
Click to expand...

Very few people here seem to be university debaters. I agree with Fraggle Rocker; the point is to get progress in a discussion, not follow inane rules of decorum. I'm simply hoping that in this forum, we can form a group that will follow the guidelines that I set out in the OP- that is, that certain insults are to be avoided.


leopold99 said:
scott,
you can drag my posts over here if you want but i will not respond to them.
Click to expand...

Well, that is, ofcourse, your choice. I reiterate that I wouldn't have responded to your post in this forum if I had felt that doing so would have jeopardized the SF Open Government thread it was originally in.

leopold99 said:
edit:
apparently we can use quotes from people we can't even prove exist.
Click to expand...

Are you speaking of someone in particular or is this simply a casual observation?
 
Couldn't they have had bombs with them in the planes, causing them to detonate and being the cause of the bangs heard, and perhaps also the definite cause of the collapse? If they were remote controlled they could have detonated them on the ground even. Or they could have self-detonated because of the fire.
 
Cyperium said:
Couldn't they have had bombs with them in the planes, causing them to detonate and being the cause of the bangs heard, and perhaps also the definite cause of the collapse? If they were remote controlled they could have detonated them on the ground even. Or they could have self-detonated because of the fire.
Click to expand...

I've heard of the idea of explosives being on the plane. I personally have no evidence against it. However, according to Gordon Ross, who is a mechanical engineer like Tony Szamboti (who has written several papers on the WTC Collapses and who also happens to post in this forum), the explosives were placed on every third floor; so explosives on the planes simply couldn't have brought the towers down the way they actually came down. Here's his 25 minute presentation that he made in the Indian YMCA, London:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/070707Ross.htm
 
scott3x said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Ross completely ignores the concept of dynamic buckling, which causes members to bow under compression under transverse loading. He ignores phase group velocity in compression waves.

Impressive work, indeed. He clearly has a poor understanding of the subject matter.
 
(Q) said:
scott3x said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...


Ross completely ignores the concept of dynamic buckling, which causes members to bow under compression under transverse loading. He ignores phase group velocity in compression waves.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard of the terms dynamic buckling or transverse loading. I'm sure Tony Szamboti could deal with these arguments, I'll try to get him in here. I know that Steven Jones and others have dealt with NIST's theories, which are the official ones; perhaps you're simply putting things in a different way that's got me off balance.
 
This is an observation: scott chose formal debates because James is desperate to get any kind of fomal debate going. scott is just a manipulator.
 
John99 said:
This is an observation: scott chose formal debates because James is desperate to get any kind of fomal debate going. scott is just a manipulator.
Click to expand...

No. I chose formal debates because it seemed the only forum wherein 9/11 issues could be discussed in a forum that (a) looks more serious then the pseudoscience forum (b) wherein you can lay out groundrules, such as no using certain insults and (c) because of the paucity of posters, there would be less complaints of the issue of 9/11 choking other debates.

I think that James likes the idea of formal debates (I certainly do, but by this I mean more civilized debates, vs. the hack and slash that's so frequent in some forums), but I haven't seen any sign that he's desperate to see any. I'm certainly interested in knowing what makes you believe he is, however. Perhaps you feel that you know how James' mind works just as you demonstrated that you 'knew' how insurance works? :rolleyes:
 
John99 said:
didnt i say it was an observation?
Click to expand...

I don't see much of a difference between an observation and a claim. Perhaps you're trying to say that you just had a 'feeling' regarding me. However, you didn't even back up this 'feeling' with any evidence. You can say you feel the sky is purple, or green. Unsubstantiated claims of feelings are equally easy to make. The hard thing is actually providing evidence for what you feel or believe.
 
scott3x said:
I haven't heard of the terms dynamic buckling or transverse loading.
Click to expand...

That statement speaks volumes, why would anyone bother listening to your uninformed assertions on the subject matter? Clearly, your opinion is based on sheer belief of others and is entirely irrelevant.

I'm sure Tony Szamboti could deal with these arguments, I'll try to get him in here. I know that Steven Jones and others have dealt with NIST's theories, which are the official ones
Click to expand...

So, while one of your so-called experts ignores fundamental issues, you turn to yet another so-called expert for support, and when we find the latter also ignores fundamental issues, will you then turn to yet another?

I'm now convinced beyond a doubt you're making a complete farce of this topic for whatever personal reasons not yet revealed. It's blatantly obvious you and your "Truth" friends have some sort of agenda, most likely in the form of $$$, at the expense of those who had personal attachments with this disaster.

You sir, are a charlatan, a fraud and a scoundrel.
 
Last edited:
(Q) said:
Ross completely ignores the concept of dynamic buckling, which causes members to bow under compression under transverse loading. He ignores phase group velocity in compression waves.

Impressive work, indeed. He clearly has a poor understanding of the subject matter.
Click to expand...

Q, perhaps you can explain to us how you feel lateral torsional buckling (which is what I believe you actually mean) is applicable here and how it could have made a difference in Gordon Ross' work on the subject.

Where were the columns in the towers under transverse loads? Are you talking about the perimeter columns being bowed inward?
 
Last edited:
I don't know about you Tony...but I'm popping popcorn waiting on Q's response...I love me some good technical talk. It's why I participate in these theads..to learn. I just had to google "lateral torsional buckling". :)
 
i used to love debating evolutionists who play scientist for that very reason. not because i care either way but once they start throwing terms around that they googled it become comical. i always leave the discussion thinking - dont you have to finish high school to be a scientist?
 
theyre doin' detective work.

m5.jpg


i am a plastic sergin and i learnt it on the internet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top