'What about building 7'?

[carlitos]

I'd be happy if you could at least show how your WTC7 CD speculation ties in with events at the Pentagon and Shanksville, in a way that builds a coherent alternative narrative to the commonly accepted one.

But I'm funny like that...

Add me to this list. I once started a thread on this, with very limited success. The only somewhat complete theory was posted by a holocaust-denying loony toon.

I think you may have made a tactical error at the outset when you publicly set out your gameplan

It does sort of give the game away.

 

[gerrycan]

I'd be happy if you could at least show how your WTC7 CD speculation ties in with events at the Pentagon and Shanksville, in a way that builds a coherent alternative narrative to the commonly accepted one.

Would you really?

But I'm funny like that...

No you're not.

Ah, my mistake. I was hoping for links to charged debate in an academic environment, or some kind of coalition of experts crunching the data, or maybe a think tank pushing relentlessly for meaningful action, or something.

Yeah you're looking for links. You said.
Tell you what. Why not boot up skype and chat with a group of engineers about it tomorrow?

To be honest, it's refreshing to be talking about feet, it makes a change from inches

Yeah. You guys are imperial over there. Here we do both.

Nobody needs to. You're doing it to yourself.

Be specific. Last time you whined on and on for days about me not answering some obscure stuff that you didnt understand. It was touching. Thanks.

I think you may have made a tactical error at the outset when you publicly set out your gameplan

This is a personal opinion about how to approach the issue and I stand by it.
you made a tactical error when you tried to discuss the technical aspects of WTC7 with me which is why you run like a scalded cat from anything specific.

 

[gerrycan]

It does sort of give the game away.

I am being open about how i prefer to approach the topic. Why do you think that is not a clever thing to do exactly ?

 

[jaydeehess]

Hot material doused with hot gypsum dust is still going to be hot. However let's examine it a bit. We have say a portion of an office desk burning away on the 90th floor of WTC1. Collapse ensues and the large amount of gypsum dust cuts off oxygen to this desk as it is being ejected from the building. You further note that dust density at the distance of WTC7 would be such that oxygen levels would again allow combustion. We also know of a few persons caught in the dust cloud much closer who survived by diving under vehicles. So dust density at ground level where the dust would be at its heaviest( it is the result of all 110 storeys of drywall) is still not sufficient to asphyxiate a human. So even IF gypsum dust on the 90th floor , at the moment of collapse, is enough to cause combustion to halt, there exists a distance from the office desk's original location at which oxygen levels are again such that it can reignite if it is still above ignition temp.
Your affirmative claim is that this material cannot reignite between its original location and WTC7. So far you have only your personal incredulity, and prejudiced conclusion of vast conspiracy to back this up.

That is in addition to your inability to back your claims that combusting material would have had that combustion halted due to flying gypsum dust, and your claim that hot embers or material from WTC1 could not reach WTC7, nor your claim that thermite was in the towers at all let alone in great enough quantity to ignite fires all around the WTC complex plus bring down the towers plus (another claim by truthers, perhaps not you) keep the underground hot for weeks, nor the fantastical fiction of arson spooks.

Never saw a response to this.
One notes that TSz had stated that the dust would have extinguished the fires in WTC1, not other buildings.
So where's the gypsum dust from and when is it created. Its from the walls of the offices on floors being destroyed in collapse. In the beginning moments of collapse those are the same floors as some of the fire floors. Collapse through any one floor was well under one second. In that time period we are to believe that the dust was created and coated objects on fire and cut off oxygen thus halting combustion. During this same time periid, Material is ejected from those floors and at a certain point away from the tower, dust is no longer dense enough to cut off oxygen. (According to TSz himself)
ANY material still hot enough to ignite will now , if it had been smothered a second or so ago, reignite. It took about a max of ten seconds for material from WTC1 to reach WTC7 but let's say its less dense and flutters a bit and takes twice that.
Tony's theory requires that:
A) This material is not hot enough to reignite upon getting sufficient oxygen again.
B) Cools sufficiently not to ignite paper or plastic in its transit between buildings, or to vehicles in the area.

One other note should be made as well. That drywall that is the source of the dust comes primarily from the floors suffering fires. When it is crushed to dust it is already at similar temperature as the fires themselves. It might cut off oxygen but its not going to cool that which it coats.

 

[DGM]

I am being open about how i prefer to approach the topic. Why do you think that is not a clever thing to do exactly ?

Because you only ask questions and make definitive statements with no support other than to ask another question.

NISTs collapse initiating event has been invalidated.

The issue is certainly being discussed elsewhere and I find that people take it very seriously.

Two examples.

 

[carlitos]

One notes that TSz had stated that the dust would have extinguished the fires in WTC1, .

He also said that the dust contained flaming thermite. It's like that Cheech and Chong bit about Santa Claus -- it's magic dust. It can do anything - stop fires, start fires, you name it.

 

[gerrycan]

Because you only ask questions and make definitive statements with no support other than to ask another question.





Two examples.

Are you supposing that NIST did not take some of the criticisms we put to them seriously?
They sounded serious to me. Though they did not acknowledge the implications of the errors pointed out to them. Some of which they admitted.

 

[carlitos]

Are you supposing that NIST did not take some of the criticisms we put to them seriously?
They sounded serious to me. Though they did not acknowledge the implications of the errors pointed out to them. Some of which they admitted.

We? Who's that?

 

[gerrycan]

We? Who's that?

An independent group of researchers that found errors in NISTs report.

 

[carlitos]

An independent group of researchers that found errors in NISTs report.

Do the members of this "independent group of researchers" have names? Are you one of those people?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

Would you really?

Yes, I honestly think I would. And I also feel it would be a step forward for you.

No you're not.

Well, truthers aren't known for their sense of humour...

Yeah you're looking for links. You said.
Tell you what. Why not boot up skype and chat with a group of engineers about it tomorrow?

Do you mean the debate?

Nope, not remotely interested. As I've told you before, it's the psychology of truthers that I'm interested in, not the circular arguments and pointless focus on irrelevent minutiae. However, other forum members reading this thread might be interested, so if you want to post their names and credentials and whatnot feel free to go ahead. Maybe even invite them to post here if you like.

Yeah. You guys are imperial over there. Here we do both.

Just out of interest, where do you think I live? I might be closer to you than you think. (cue spooky music)

Be specific. Last time you whined on and on for days about me not answering some obscure stuff that you didnt understand. It was touching. Thanks.

Now that's not what happened at all, is it. My tone was polite, and above all, jovial. you were adamant that the micro-topic in question was very important until you were found to be in error, and then you wandered off for a bit. And you still haven't addressed the issues raised, to the satisfaction of the interested parties.

This is a personal opinion about how to approach the issue and I stand by it.

And ultimately, you'll fall by it.

you made a tactical error when you tried to discuss the technical aspects of WTC7 with me which is why you run like a scalded cat from anything specific.

I think this last bit might have happened in your mind.

 

[Ziggi]

...I consider NIST to have been too conservative, and I still believe that there were likely fires on floors not specifically named by NIST. They set a high standard and were conservative, which is fine, but Glenn's picture and several videos I have dug up and eyewitness accounts by first responders on my YouTube videos tell me that in reality, it is likely that there were fires on more floors than NIST said... even with Oystein's caveat, which I also accept..

Yes Reverend Chris, you still believe. But you have not given any thought as to why NIST did not share your belief in this particular matter. Maybe NIST and Truthers agree on this one point for good reason, eh? Ever thought of that?

And are you now ready to use witness accounts to contradict NIST? You have ignored witness accounts for years that say explosions and flashes of light were seen and heard in the Towers, and that there was molten steel flowing beneath the rubble. Yet just a couple of days ago you were saying no evidence exists to support the use of thermitic materials.

Spanx, it is not true that I don't respond to Ziggi because of stupid things he says on other posts. Tony, Ziggi and MM are very intelligent, observant people whose posts I take seriously on a technical level. I choose not to engage with Ziggi because I consider him to be abusive, and I choose the people with whom I interact. Ziggi knows this, I have already wished him well in his research and said my goodbyes in private emails. I know there is plenty of nastiness on both sides on this rough playground of a forum, but when someone puts me down personally, it's bye-bye time.

Yes Chris, you said your good byes at the end, but that does not excuse your habit of repeating as facts matters that you KNOW have been debunked, such as things we debunked in our discussion before you said good bye, and your claim of no recorded temps above 1400F is a very good example, which you repeated here a couple of days ago, yet again, even though you KNOW that is not true.

And your excuse for ignoring me is ridiculous. If you were really so concerned about politeness vs abusiveness you would not be seen on this forum or base your research on your forum buddies which are famous for being abusive.

 

[Myriad]

Not at all. This discussion is enlightening in so far as it demonstrates just how little knowledge you and yours have about the building (LSSBB's earlier post was a golden example of this).
As for progress elsewhere, that's something that isn't relevant to this discussion and I am here talking for myself only. The issue is certainly being discussed elsewhere and I find that people take it very seriously.
Having said that. There does appear to be a huge amount of interest in this discussion. Maybe you should read up a bit and make a fight of it.

Did anyone else get a blast of 2006 nostalgia from this post? "You find my arguments unsupported and unconvincing here, but they're convincing everyone somewhere else where it really matters. I only discuss it here to strategically spy out the weaknesses of skeptical arguments."

By now, the file on the flaws in skeptical arguments must be enormous, and the ground swell of public support for a new 9/11 investigation and impeaching George W. Bush must be truly immense. No doubt the repercussions (mass demonstrations, new pro-Truth candidates swept into the highest offices, denunciation of NCSTAR by the engineering faculties of Russian and Chinese universities eager to undermine American credibility) will be appearing any time now.

 

[DGM]

Are you supposing that NIST did not take some of the criticisms we put to them seriously?
They sounded serious to me. Though they did not acknowledge the implications of the errors pointed out to them. Some of which they admitted.

No, You did succeed in getting some typos corrected. What implications did they admit to? Could it be they did not take your "implications" seriously?

 

[LSSBB]

Did anyone else get a blast of 2006 nostalgia from this post? "You find my arguments unsupported and unconvincing here, but they're convincing everyone somewhere else where it really matters. I only discuss it here to strategically spy out the weaknesses of skeptical arguments."

By now, the file on the flaws in skeptical arguments must be enormous, and the ground swell of public support for a new 9/11 investigation and impeaching George W. Bush must be truly immense. No doubt the repercussions (mass demonstrations, new pro-Truth candidates swept into the highest offices, denunciation of NCSTAR by the engineering faculties of Russian and Chinese universities eager to undermine American credibility) will be appearing any time now.

Notice how gerrycan latches onto my pluralization in a post and expands on that to discredit me, without actually presenting a solid engineering analysis including all relevant variables? It's because apparently the goal is to "bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution". This is why the Truther cause is stuck in 2006. Here we have a shining example..

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes Reverend Chris, you still believe. But you have not given any thought as to why NIST did not share your belief in this particular matter. Maybe NIST and Truthers agree on this one point for good reason, eh? Ever thought of that?

And are you now ready to use witness accounts to contradict NIST? You have ignored witness accounts for years that say explosions and flashes of light were seen and heard in the Towers, and that there was molten steel flowing beneath the rubble. Yet just a couple of days ago you were saying no evidence exists to support the use of thermitic materials.

So much for avoiding red flags...

 

[DGM]

And are you now ready to use witness accounts to contradict NIST? You have ignored witness accounts for years that say explosions and flashes of light were seen and heard in the Towers, and that there was molten steel flowing beneath the rubble. Yet just a couple of days ago you were saying no evidence exists to support the use of thermitic materials.

Quite the leap there.

You still have no evidence for thermetic materials. Nice try though.

 

[Ziggi]

So you are using "back of a napkin"?

Few things on this forum are as funny as your ilk making fun of math and your attempts to try to make others as confused as you are.

You are trying to dis people like Tony who are experienced engineers for making calculations that contradict NIST, while you accept the "analysis" of your leader REVEREND Chris Mohr when it comes to contradicting NIST..

The funniest of all is that you do not realize how ridiculous you look.

Oh what, you gonna cry now and report me to the mods

 

[LSSBB]

Few things on this forum are as funny as your ilk making fun of math and your attempts to try to make others as confused as you are.

You are trying to dis people like Tony who are experienced engineers for making calculations that contradict NIST, while you accept the "analysis" of your leader REVEREND Chris Mohr when it comes to contradicting NIST..

The funniest of all is that you do not realize how ridiculous you look.

Oh what, you gonna cry now and report me to the mods

No one else posting here is an experienced engineer?

 

[DGM]

Few things on this forum are as funny as your ilk making fun of math and your attempts to try to make others as confused as you are.

You are trying to dis people like Tony who are experienced engineers for making calculations that contradict NIST, while you accept the "analysis" of your leader REVEREND Chris Mohr when it comes to contradicting NIST..

The funniest of all is that you do not realize how ridiculous you look.

Oh what, you gonna cry now and report me to the mods

Who made fun of math? Do you agree with Tonys' assessment as to the only possible cause of fires in building 7?

Who do I look ridiculous to? You, why would I care?

Stick to the members agreement like a big boy and you won't get reported? Think you can do that?