So the short answer to the question in the title of this thread really does appear to be: No, there’s no genuinely scientific evidence for the fire-induced collapse theory at all, at least as far as the Center for Inquiry’s forum members are concerned.
So the short answer to the question in the title of this thread really does appear to be: No, there’s no genuinely scientific evidence for the fire-induced collapse theory at all, at least as far as the Center for Inquiry’s forum members are concerned.
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 19 March 2013 04:16 PM
So the short answer to the question in the title of this thread really does appear to be: No, there’s no genuinely scientific evidence for the fire-induced collapse theory at all, at least as far as the Center for Inquiry’s forum members are concerned.
Nope, that’s not the answer.
Sorry.
Just going on what’s been offered so far on this thread to offer credible support to the fire-induced collapse theory.
Wrong again. This has been discussed and explained many times and not just here. To imply or claim otherwise is head in the sand denialism as well as cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 20 March 2013 03:34 PM
Which is, let’s face it, nothing really.
Wrong again. This has been discussed and explained many times and not just here. To imply or claim otherwise is head in the sand denialism as well as cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.
Excellent. I’ve read through this entire thread and found absolutely nothing that can be called credible scientific evidence to support the fire-induced collapse theory, but perhaps I’ve missed something that you can quote back to justify your claim that it’s been properly explained here.
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 20 March 2013 03:34 PM
Which is, let’s face it, nothing really.
Wrong again. This has been discussed and explained many times and not just here. To imply or claim otherwise is head in the sand denialism as well as cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.
Yes it is, as well as selective reading (or understanding) of the dialog. We’ve been around and around with this one with psiky, over the same ground over and over and over…..same results…
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 20 March 2013 03:34 PM
Which is, let’s face it, nothing really.
Wrong again. This has been discussed and explained many times and not just here. To imply or claim otherwise is head in the sand denialism as well as cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.
Yes it is, as well as selective reading (or understanding) of the dialog. We’ve been around and around with this one with psiky, over the same ground over and over and over…..same results…
Good, good. But since there’s nothing on this thread that comes close to addressing its subject, perhaps you could link to the part of the discussion with psiky that’s been had elsewhere which you think most clearly shows why scientific skepticism on the question is ill-founded. Many thanks.
Yes it is, as well as selective reading (or understanding) of the dialog. We’ve been around and around with this one with psiky, over the same ground over and over and over…..same results…
Yeah, they go around and around but can’t actually say anything scientific.
Where has anyone built a physical model that can collapse while damaging its components? Where has Asanta said anything about the Conservation of Momentum or anything else actually involving physics? How are we supposed to do decent physics on a structure when we don’t even have accurate data? What was the distribution of steel down the building? What was the total amount of concrete? The NIST couldn’t supply that in 10.000 pages.
But they go around and around because they don’t really want to think objectively about the subject.
Experiments don’t matter in science anymore. LOL
But after 11 years our scientists do have a problem for not resolving this. But we are supposed to care about Higgs Bosons and robots on Mars when they can’t explain three destroyed buildings on Earth.
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 20 March 2013 03:34 PM
Which is, let’s face it, nothing really.
Wrong again. This has been discussed and explained many times and not just here. To imply or claim otherwise is head in the sand denialism as well as cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.
Yes it is, as well as selective reading (or understanding) of the dialog. We’ve been around and around with this one with psiky, over the same ground over and over and over…..same results…
Good, good. But since there’s nothing on this thread that comes close to addressing its subject, perhaps you could link to the part of the discussion with psiky that’s been had elsewhere which you think most clearly shows why scientific skepticism on the question is ill-founded. Many thanks.
Easy enough to find with the search bar… I beg to disagree that the ‘skepticism’ is even close to being scientific.
Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 20 March 2013 03:34 PM
Which is, let’s face it, nothing really.
Wrong again. This has been discussed and explained many times and not just here. To imply or claim otherwise is head in the sand denialism as well as cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.
Yes it is, as well as selective reading (or understanding) of the dialog. We’ve been around and around with this one with psiky, over the same ground over and over and over…..same results…
Good, good. But since there’s nothing on this thread that comes close to addressing its subject, perhaps you could link to the part of the discussion with psiky that’s been had elsewhere which you think most clearly shows why scientific skepticism on the question is ill-founded. Many thanks.
Easy enough to find with the search bar… I beg to disagree that the ‘skepticism’ is even close to being scientific.
As I said, there’s nothing in this thread that comes close to addressing its subject. You insist that the question has been adequately and repeatedly answered elsewhere in this forum, yet you’re apparently unable to find a single example. That in itself is a cause for skepticism.
As I said, there’s nothing in this thread that comes close to addressing its subject. You insist that the question has been adequately and repeatedly answered elsewhere in this forum, yet you’re apparently unable to find a single example. That in itself is a cause for skepticism.
There are endless threads about 9/11 conspiracies on the forum, most of them started by or taken over by Psikey. I REFUSE to waste MY time looking through that septic tank of conspiracy and innuendo, especially since nothing presented by those arguing against a conspiracy is likely to sway you, especially since nothing has managed to do so in the intervening 12 years since its occurrence. Look for it yourself. It is there, but it will change nothing in YOUR mind.
As I said, there’s nothing in this thread that comes close to addressing its subject. You insist that the question has been adequately and repeatedly answered elsewhere in this forum, yet you’re apparently unable to find a single example. That in itself is a cause for skepticism.
There are endless threads about 9/11 conspiracies on the forum, most of them started by or taken over by Psikey. I REFUSE to waste MY time looking through that septic tank of conspiracy and innuendo, especially since nothing presented by those arguing against a conspiracy is likely to sway you, especially since nothing has managed to do so in the intervening 12 years since its occurrence. Look for it yourself. It is there, but it will change nothing in YOUR mind.
I’ve had a look in this forum, and I haven’t found “any scientific evidence to support [the] official WTC 7 fall theory”. You insist it’s there but you’re evidently unable to back even this simple claim up with one link, so now you’re trying to pass the buck for your claim and are reduced to ad hominem and misrepresentation of the question/my position! As if you’ve been discussing the question with me for 12 years
That’s okay. Reading the posts on this thread about the subject, I feel as if I have been discussing it with you for 12 years.. That you ‘searched’ the forum and found no ‘evidence’ confirms it. I’m not biting….go fish elsewhere.
That’s okay. Reading the posts on this thread about the subject, I feel as if I have been discussing it with you for 12 years.. That you ‘searched’ the forum and found no ‘evidence’ confirms it. I’m not biting….go fish elsewhere.
Don’t make claims you can’t back up, my friend. That should be basic.
I beg to disagree that the ‘skepticism’ is even close to being scientific.
Look for it yourself. It is there, but it will change nothing in YOUR mind.
That you ‘searched’ the forum and found no ‘evidence’ confirms it. 
I’m not biting….go fish elsewhere.
