1 of 91
1
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 01 July 2012 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01

Can anyone here provide any scientific evidence whatsoever to support the official explanation that WTC 7 fell on 9/11 2001 due only to fire damage? If not, why does CFI and most of its members favor an explanation with absolutely no scientific supporting evidence and reject the only explanation with scientific supporting evidence?

In the following page:

http://www.cficanada.ca/ontario/events/9_11_truth_debate_and_discussion/

it is claimed that 9/11 skeptics such as myself make “few attempts at public debate”. However, I have been trying to get someone with a science background to debate me with no success as all. All CFI groups I have contacted but one have completely ignored my proposal for scientific debate.

http://vernon911truth.org/wtc7debate.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2012 08:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4291
Joined  2010-08-15

Oh gordy, here we go again,

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2012 08:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4291
Joined  2010-08-15

Hey, so Michael Fullerton, whatcha think about us f^&%‘n up our atmosphere with so much extra greenhouse gases that the planet is warming up, way fast, and weather keeps getting weirder all the time… think about it, all this stuff we’ve taken for granted, suddenly being battered.  Whatcha think of those incoming news stories for the past few years?  Hasn’t let up, has it?

I know it’s changing the subject but I’m more scared about the real world today, than pretending there ain’t rooms full of actual evidence, and very plausible reasons for WTC 7 failing and collapsing.  Really aren’t any grand mysteries remain with that one.  The world has been there, done that, settled it as much as can be hoped, we got other more important real time problems going on.

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 03:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3159
Joined  2011-08-15

Not true CC, Obama hasn’t shown us his real birth certificate yet. I think he was born in Kenya and is a muslim in cahoots with that Ahmahgratebignutjob guy in Iran. I have proof cause my buddies Iheard and Theysaid told me Fox news revealed the whole thing.

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4812
Joined  2007-10-05
Michael Fullerton - 01 July 2012 07:16 PM

All CFI groups I have contacted but one have completely ignored my proposal for scientific debate.

We already have a thread on this topic. Please go there so we only have one to ignore.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 08:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01

Again I’m looking for scientific evidence for an explanation CFI supports. I’m not looking for attacks or red herrings.

I’ve looked at all the 9/11 threads here and none mention any scientific evidence to support the official WTC 7 fall hypothesis. Can I get a link to this magical thread or does it not really exist? Empty pronouncements just don’t cut it for me.

CFI is supporting a hypothesis with as much scientific backing evidence as flat earth theory or the notion of a Earth-centric solar system, none at all. Why?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 08:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Why are people still obsessed with this?  I mean, who cares?  It fell over.  Get on with your life.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02

Funny how structural damage to a building and uncontrolled fires burning for the better part of an entire day makes it completely implausible that it collapsed on that basis.

Michael, the reason you’re not going to find a ‘scientist’ to debate you is because they have much better things to do with their time.

You want to get scientific attention and debate? Write a paper about the collapse of building 7 that is scientifically accurate, backed by empirical evidence and then submit it for peer review in the scientific community.

Until that point, you pounding your chest and ‘challenging’ scientists is nothing more than a childish, immature and ignorance based position and it impresses no one.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 02 July 2012 09:32 AM

Funny how structural damage to a building and uncontrolled fires burning for the better part of an entire day makes it completely implausible that it collapsed on that basis.

Michael, the reason you’re not going to find a ‘scientist’ to debate you is because they have much better things to do with their time.

You want to get scientific attention and debate? Write a paper about the collapse of building 7 that is scientifically accurate, backed by empirical evidence and then submit it for peer review in the scientific community.

Until that point, you pounding your chest and ‘challenging’ scientists is nothing more than a childish, immature and ignorance based position and it impresses no one.

So Robert are you saying that structural damage cased by fire is scientific evidence that the building fell due to fire? A logical fallacy (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc - because event one (fire) preceded event two (the fall), event two caused event one), a conclusion supported by illogic, is evidence? CFI preaches support for critical thinking by engaging in uncritical thinking?

Funny how you are telling me to present scientific evidence to support my position (that your position has no evidence) but require no scientific evidence at all to support your position. Such childish, immature and ignorance-based contradictions are examples of the critical thinking CFI encourages?

3000 people died on 9/11. Over a million people have died in the resulting wars over an event where the US government’s version of what happened to one building has absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it. That is not a silly waste of time. Scientists regularly debate theists and creationists. Both these issues are regularly regarded as silly yet dangerous issues that must be dealt with.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 02 July 2012 10:00 AM

So Robert are you saying that structural damage cased by fire is scientific evidence that the building fell due to fire?

I’m saying initial structural damage and uncontrolled fires that burned for the better part of a day producing additional critical structural damage caused the building to collapse. Very simple and easy to understand.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 10:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 02 July 2012 10:09 AM
Michael Fullerton - 02 July 2012 10:00 AM

So Robert are you saying that structural damage cased by fire is scientific evidence that the building fell due to fire?

I’m saying initial structural damage and uncontrolled fires that burned for the better part of a day producing additional critical structural damage caused the building to collapse. Very simple and easy to understand.

Yet you have absolutely no evidence that these fires caused such damage or that the initial structural damage in any way contributed to the fall (Note that NIST says it didn’t). See how simple and easy to understand science is?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 02 July 2012 10:15 AM

Yet you have absolutely no evidence that these fires caused such damage or that the initial structural damage in any way contributed to the fall (Note that NIST says it didn’t). See how simple and easy to understand science is?

And you have absolutely no evidence goblins didn’t take magical hammers and knock out support structures to bring the towers down either.

Appeals to Ignorance and Burden of Proof fallacies are not the way to discuss an issue.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  33
Joined  2012-07-01
Robert Walper - 02 July 2012 10:19 AM
Michael Fullerton - 02 July 2012 10:15 AM

Yet you have absolutely no evidence that these fires caused such damage or that the initial structural damage in any way contributed to the fall (Note that NIST says it didn’t). See how simple and easy to understand science is?

And you have absolutely no evidence goblins didn’t take magical hammers and knock out support structures to bring the towers down either.

Appeals to Ignorance and Burden of Proof fallacies are not the way to discuss an issue.

The burden of proof is on those making a claim. CFI by supporting the official WTC 7 explanation is implicitly making this claim and is supposed to provide evidence of their claim. So it is actually you who is shifting the burden of proof and committing this fallacy.

An appeal to ignorance states that there is no evidence for P therefore not P. I did not state that because there is no evidence for the official WTC 7 theory it is false. So you fabricated a position for me to knock down. You committed the straw man fallacy.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  766
Joined  2012-04-25

The problem you’ll confront Fullerton is that there’s so much more to the 911 debate than mere science. I’d say it’s more about personal psychology and politics than any technical discussion. Smart people, scientists and engineers, on all sides of the issue will go to extreme lengths to prove their pre-conceived personal opinions.  You’ll find Engineer X from super-great University says A. Then you’ll read about Engineer Y from another super great school say Not-A. And on and on ad infinitum. 

I think you’re best bet is to stop trying to convince anyone of your viewpoint on the matter and just act upon what you believe (assuming your actions are peaceful!).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
Michael Fullerton - 02 July 2012 10:33 AM

The burden of proof is on those making a claim. CFI by supporting the official WTC 7 explanation is implicitly making this claim and is supposed to provide evidence of their claim. So it is actually you who is shifting the burden of proof and committing this fallacy.

I just finished pointing out that uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 for the better part of a day brought it down. This is consistent with the proven observation ‘fires destroy things, including structures’ and the observation of multiple uncontrolled fires taking place in WTC 7.

An appeal to ignorance states that there is no evidence for P therefore not P. I did not state that because there is no evidence for the official WTC 7 theory it is false. So you fabricated a position for me to knock down. You committed the straw man fallacy.

The current explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is uncontrolled fires burning for the better part of a day, causing critical support structure failure and bringing the building down.

This requires no greater understanding than ‘fires destroy things, including large structures’.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2012 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  766
Joined  2012-04-25
Robert Walper - 02 July 2012 10:42 AM
Michael Fullerton - 02 July 2012 10:33 AM

The burden of proof is on those making a claim. CFI by supporting the official WTC 7 explanation is implicitly making this claim and is supposed to provide evidence of their claim. So it is actually you who is shifting the burden of proof and committing this fallacy.

I just finished pointing out that uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 for the better part of a day brought it down. This is consistent with the proven observation ‘fires destroy things, including structures’ and the observation of multiple uncontrolled fires taking place in WTC 7.

An appeal to ignorance states that there is no evidence for P therefore not P. I did not state that because there is no evidence for the official WTC 7 theory it is false. So you fabricated a position for me to knock down. You committed the straw man fallacy.

The current explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is uncontrolled fires burning for the better part of a day, causing critical support structure failure and bringing the building down.

This requires no greater understanding than ‘fires destroy things, including large structures’.

See my post right before yours.  I should stay away but your comment about no greater understanding than “fire destroys things…” is just so silly.  Therefore even buildings designed to resist long term fires are destroyed simply because “fire destroys things”?  Or (non-911 related example) ceramics designed to withstand 1000F will be destroyed by 500F fire because “fire destroys things”.  I mean that’s almost caveman logic. Fire bad, do bad things!  I don’t agree or disagree with Fullerton, but geez your logic is goofy.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 91
1