I found the missing Jolt.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Wow. Thanks. I now have a textbook example of denial I can post whenever someone brings up the issue.

He is describing the shock wave, and the Bleve fuel air blast of the Jet Fuel.
We know from experience your not the least bit interested in the truth.
LMAO,

 

[NoahFence]

No. If the first investigation was flawed then the conclusions are flawed. If the conclusions are flawed, then we don't know what caused WTC7 to collapse. That is why we need a new investigation.

The only people who think it's fatally flawed are you people. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but you don't matter.

Could there be some minutiae in the report that is questionable? Sure - it's a big report. But there is nothing that would change the conclusion.

Damage caused fire, fire caused collapse.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The only people who think it's fatally flawed are you people. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but you don't matter.

Could there be some minutiae in the report that is questionable? Sure - it's a big report. But there is nothing that would change the conclusion.

Damage caused fire, fire caused collapse.

In the History of humanity one thing has always been true, there has always been a village idiot, despite the best effort of evaluation's attempts to eliminate the flawed DNA, from the gene pool. Mutations have always acted to keep at least one around.
Oh that sounds like the making of a great comedy, follow one village idiot though evolution,
From single celled ameba, to hyper drive star ships.
Today the internet just allows, for a larger village and more idiocy.

 

[jaydeehess]

What really happend and whether the NIST report is correct are two separate issues.

If the NIST report had said 'Nothing collapsed at WTC on 9/11' it wouldn't make it true.


...tho I've advocated that outcome of truther logic and its converse.

What gets me is that NIST is not the only investigation that deduced that fire effects on steel initiated the collapse and that design allowed propagation to global collapse.

In, afaik, the only court case directly questioning the collapse of WTC7, the Nodenson report agrees with NIST on this. So along comes TSz to then make the claim that not only is the NIST report flawed, but so too is the Nordenson report, and thus we need a new investigation.

That court case involved insurance payouts. Insurance co.'s are not in the business of handing out money for fraudulent claims. Had there been evidence that Silverstein had colluded with the FDNY or others to have WTC7 completely demolished it would have saved the insurance companies a $billion!

 

[tfk]

It’d be no contest.
Loiseaux was on site, at Ground Zero, 3 days after the attack, and stayed there for months.
Danny Jowenko never set foot at GZ.

Are you really claiming an expert can't look at a video and tell that a building was brought down by CD?

You’re “logically incompetent”.
That’s not what I wrote.
Please address what I do say, not your inept re-phrasing of my statements.
You are not honest enough to accurately re-phrase what I write.

I wrote,

Jowenko idiotically proclaimed WTC7 a CD … solely based on a doctored video that a couple of Twoofers showed him. The “doctoring” was removing the sound.

A PROPER re-phrasing of my statement would be, “Are you really claiming an expert can't look at a video and whether a building was, or was not, brought down by CD?”

And the answer to this question is an unequivocal, “Absolutely, they can NOT tell, just by looking at a video as bereft of actual evidence as any to which Jowenko had access.”

In order to tell if anything happened according by any mechanism, you have to look at ALL the evidence. Not just non-definitive, doctored ones like the deceitful Twoofers provided to Jowenko.

And that is exactly why I wrote the very next sentences in my post:

At that point in the investigation, every single real expert in the world is going to say, “Wait until the investigation concludes to see what caused the collapse.”

Only a clueless moron would say, “this was the cause” while knowing nothing beyond seeing a doctored video.

Why are you so incompetent at reading & understanding simple concepts, when they are laid out in such a simple fashion for you?

And ALL the evidence proves that it was NOT brought down by CD.
__

Nonetheless, I can not only assert, I can prove, that your misinterpretation of my statement, “Are you really claiming an expert can't look at a video and tell that a building was brought down by CD?”, is also true.

Jowenko looked at a video and concluded that it (WTC 7 collapse) was a CD.
Mark Loiseaux, Brent Blanchard, Van Romero, (and every other demolitions expert) have looked at the same videos, and concluded that it was not a CD.

If multiple experts look at the same video & come to opposite conclusions, then it is proven that the video is insufficient to give a definitive answer.

QED.

Of course, all those other experts had the good sense to look at all the evidence, not just one doctored video.
One might accurately say “those experts showed far, FAR greater expertise than Jowenko did.”
__

He looked at a video in which he could neither HEAR any sounds of explosions, nor SEE any direct evidence whatsoever of CD. His only basis for concluding that it was a CD was 1) the upper part of the building fell nearly straight down and 2) the collapse initiated “somewhere below the 27th floor” (because the the lowest floor visible on the video was the 28th).

Further, Jowenko could not see the area (around the 1st floor) that he assumed contained the explosives, because the building was invisible to him below the 27th floor in that video.

So, he could neither hear (because of he video’s doctoring) nor see any evidence FOR CD.
His conclusion was amateurish & wrong.
__

Jowenko idiotically proclaimed WTC7 a CD … solely based on a doctored video that a couple of Twoofers showed him. The “doctoring” was removing the sound.

Proof? And are you really claiming that sound is the only way you can tell if a building was demolished by CD?

Why are you so “logically illiterate”?

The very next text in my post was the following:

A mountain of proof exists that there could not possibly have been a CD.

• no blast sounds.
• no shrapnel injuries.
• no windows broken on the BACK sides of the nearby buildings.
• Most compelling proof: zero columns or girders in the debris pile that show the “visible from 15 feet away” characteristics of either melting or explosive cutting. Every single column end, in the thousands of pictures of GZ & Fresh Kills, shows a clean machined column end. Even if the end is distorted by being crushed in the collapse. This is evidence that anyone who wanted to really know the truth can check TODAY. Those photographs are available for download. (And hundreds more, for purchase in books.)
BTW, the “swiss cheese” I Beam is unmistakeable NOT from melting. If it had melted, it would not have the remnant shape of the I Beam left in the remaining steel. It’s look like a melted candle.
• Zero giant ingots of steel, with thousands of pounds of embedded debris (the inevitable consequence of “rivers of molten steel flowing down the channel rails”), had to be lance cut & hoisted out of the rubble & trucked away.
• The meteorite was provably NEVER melted steel. Or aluminum. Or any other metal. There is legible paper sticking out of it. That means that it never got above about 150°C (the charring temperature for paper).
• The rubble piles were examined in fine detail by experts trained in detection of explosives, both human & dogs. Not a single thing indicating explosives was found.
• The debris from GZ was sorted & examined down to the size of dime. No initiators, no det cord, no “thermite holding ceramics”, none of the accessory equipment required for CD was found.

That's off the top of my head. There are 4 or 5 more.

Does the above indicate, in any way, that I consider ’sound’ to be “the only way you can tell if a building was demolished by CD”??

Why, after I listed all that info in the very post to which you were responding, did you write something as clearly false & deceitful as, "are you really claiming that sound is the only way you can tell if a building was demolished by CD?"

Do you have a comprehension disability that we should know about?
Or is it an "honesty disability"?
__

All of the above has revealed a pathological flaw in your hapless reasoning.

Why do you ONLY think about, write about, and consider “evidence that it WAS a CD”?
Why do you adamantly refuse to consider “evidence that it was NOT a CD”?

In everything that I’ve written, I’ve gone to great lengths to look, very carefully, for any evidence that it was a CD.
I’ve found none.
Not one thing that holds up to 2 minutes of scrutiny.

You, in contrast, and as shown by your bizarre phrasing of your questions above, have shown that you adamantly refuse to even think about any “evidence that it was not a CD”.

Why is that?
__

You’ve got a serious memory malfunction.
Just a week ago, we PROVED that you haven’t the slightest clue about the laws of physics.

How? I must have missed this, or you have a serious issue with the definition of "proof".

You don’t remember anything about me asking you a couple of trivial physics questions …
… and you being able to answer none of them?

As I said. You’ve got a memory deficiency.

Once again, you are invited to state the law of physics that you THINK was violated.

Once again, the laws of physics can never be violated. You can ignore them, as you have chosen to do, but they can never be violated.

Yes, I’ve known, likely longer than you’ve been alive, that the laws of physics are never broken.

Why don’t you read MY question again, and attempt to answer it.
Do NOT bother to answer the dumb, incompetent MIS-statement that you chose to answer.

Read my invitation to you.
Carefully.
Starting with “Once again, you are invited to state …”

Try answering MY question this time.
Not the voices in your head.

 

[tfk]

I guess the term "hypothetical example" is also a new term for you.

No, it is not new to me.
It appears to be new to you, though.

A proper hypothetical example contains "potentially true" conditions.

YOU don't understand - because you're a clueless amateur - that there is no more possibility of any building in the US being erected using 3/5" diameter bolts as there is of someone driving around in a car with 7 wheels.

The problem here, is NOT that you don't know American Universal Thread Standards.

The problem is that you THINK that you're opinions on these matters carries any weight.

Some idiot MIGHT set up the hypothetical postulate, "suppose person A thinks the car has 4 wheels, and person B thinks the car had 7 wheels, then how are we going to decide who is correct."

While, at the same time, the person making hypothetical claimed to have knowledge of automobile design.

The hypothetical says nothing about the possible issues in dispute.
It says everything about "extent of knowledge" of the person stating the clueless hypothetical.

I'm not surprised at your response, though. You have to take every opportunity you can to attack me. It's part of your game.

I started out responding to you exactly the same way that I start out responding to everyone: politely.

If someone responds to me politely, no matter how clueless their statements might be, I stay polite. I've done exactly this with every single truther with whom I've interacted.

If they're talking about mechanical or structural engineering (my field), I'll remain polite while explaining why they are wrong.

Your toxic combination of ignorance, arrogance & passive aggressive (& occasionally active-aggressive) confrontations - while playing in my sandbox - is the exact cause of the toxic state of our monologues.

Look in the mirror.

If you want to change the situation, change your ways.
Stop writing stupid, wrong nonsense.
Stop claiming to knowledge that you do NOT possess.
Stop being such a consummate dick.

If you do this, I'll reciprocate.
If you don't, I'll keep smacking about the head & shoulders, as you continue to flail away, cluelessly, in my sandbox.

 

[tfk]

LMFAO.

Merry Pason strikes again...!

From your link:

"design of connectors & switches, including the failure analysis & process re-spec for the main power transfer switch for the space shuttle & Inertial Upper Stages.

We can include "NASA subcontractors" to the long list of topics about which you are clueless.

NASA gets the vast majority of its components from civilian contractors.

Boeing was NASA Prime Subcontractor for the Shuttle. Boeing gave the contract for the power transfer switch to the company I worked for, a tiny division of Teledyne group.

Our principle customers were Hasbro, Mattel, (toy companies, looking for cheap, custom electronic connectors for their games) & other electronics companies companies for edge-board & the very first surface mounted connectors.

No, no part of that company was "Gubbamint controlled".

design of fuel metering valves for large turbine generators, including explosion-proof electronics."

A question for you: what sort of electronics do you think are required for generation of electricity in remote locations like ocean oil-rigs or East ButtRam, Africa? Do you think that they buy lots of 100' extension cords & run them to shore or the nearest village?

I can assure you that they don't. They put electric generators on the rig or at the site, and turn them using Turbine engines. There are lots & lots & lots of gas & oil fumes floating around an oil rig and oil refineries.

Do you think that "explosion proof enclosures for the electronics in these environments" might be desirable?

It was a small division of Bendix, who, back then, was mostly an automotive electronics company.

Nope, no "Gubbamint controlled".

There you go. You have a background working for the government in some capacity. That is how "they" got to you.

Other than tax refunds, I've never once received a check from Da Gubbamint. Or the US Government. Or any state government.

I've never worked in any capacity for the DoD.

ALL of your fantasizing about me & my background has been exactly the same delusional fantasizing as your baseless delulusions about NIST engineers being "controlled by Da Gubbamint".

Can I prove this? No. Even though I can't prove it, I am going to make the claim.

LMAO.

When has "actual knowledge of any situation" ever had any impact on "the claims that you make"??

And this claim is PRECISELY as truthful, as accurate as your claim that you "understand physics".

You outted yourself, buddy, not me.
Oops.

Yeah.

"Oops" is hilariously correct.

 

[FalseFlag]

Since you're apparently having trouble identifying hyperbole, I think it's safe to assume you can't identify a textbook either.

Wait. What? Are you actually agreeing that he experienced explosions first-hand? If so, then just say it.

 

[FalseFlag]

Popper just rolled over in his grave.
,,,and now Newton is spinning too.

Newton's first law of motion says you are wrong.

And you keep claiming I know nothing about physics.

 

[TJM]

Wait. What? Are you actually agreeing that he experienced explosions first-hand? If so, then just say it.

No. I'm not.

 

[skyeagle409]

Wait. What? Are you actually agreeing that he experienced explosions first-hand? If so, then just say it.

There were no demolition explosions at ground zero. Experts have stated that fact and lack of demolition explosions on audio/video and seismic data backs them up.

 

[FalseFlag]

Let's listen to one of the world's top demolition expert.


An interview with explosives expert Brent Blanchard

Undicisettembre: Talking about the three collapses that occurred on 9/11, are conspiracy theories that claim they were controlled demolitions even vaguely reliable?

Brent Blanchard: No. There's no evidence. We see the same material being presented year after year, over and over. We are not judge and jury but we do work in the industry and we see it all the time. We do see telltale signs of what to look for, we did work on the cleanup, I was personally on the 9/11 site later in the fall because we were documenting the clean-up effort by multiple demolition crews. My engineering company is not tied to any political organization, we are not even tied to those demolition teams. We are just a contractor, and that was one of our jobs.

We have a trained eye and none of us saw any indication of wiring, or cuts, or pre burning or any of the things we see hundreds of times a year on explosive demolition sites. Given the amount of time we worked there, if we had seen some of it we would have taken note of it. We would have seen if something didn't look right. Not only my team, but all demolition teams….not a single man saw anything that looked suspicious or that looked like it needed further investigation related to explosive demolition.

This all came from conspiracy theorists who are not expert in controlled demolitions at all.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2014/10/an-interview-with-explosive-expert.html

He claims that, "not a single man saw anything that looked suspicious or that looked like it needed further investigation related to explosive demolition." Are these statements documented, or is it one man's claim?

Let's say he's right. I don't think he is, but let's just agree that he is correct for a moment. If the buildings were not brought down by CD, then what explains the motions observed during the collapse? NIST didn't discuss this. If NIST hasn't explained it, then we need a new investigation.

My personal opinion is that Blanchard is just another "expert" committing fraud for financial gain, or he's doing it because he has no other choice.

 

[FalseFlag]

I'm sure they produced many computer models.

Where are they? How many did they produce? How many did they release? If they only released two, then those are the ones that count.

Your lazy and flippant response does not prove the NIST report is flawed.

Translation: HotRodDeluxe can't argue against facts.

 

[FalseFlag]

No. I'm not.

Then how is hyperbole involved? Are you out of tricks so you have decided to make nonsensical statements? Well, more nonsensical than usual.

 

[FalseFlag]

There were no demolition explosions at ground zero. Experts have stated that fact and lack of demolition explosions on audio/video and seismic data backs them up.

I believe that you have convinced yourself of this.

 

[FalseFlag]

What really happend and whether the NIST report is correct are two separate issues.

Wow. It's been a few weeks since a skeptic posted something worthy of a sticky.

Wait for it...

No. Your post is just so sticky-worthy this is required right now.

LOL.

No. That is not enough.

ROFLMAO.

There. That's better.

If the NIST report had said 'Nothing collapsed at WTC on 9/11' it wouldn't make it true.

Two sticky-worthy posts in a row.

So, you're saying NIST has no credibility and just because they say something it is not true?

If so, we agree.

 

[FalseFlag]

Actually, "gotten" is perfectly grammatical.

The English language, another subject you know nothing about.

Do you get points from other skeptics each time you come up with a meaningless attack?

 

[FalseFlag]

He is describing the shock wave, and the Bleve fuel air blast of the Jet Fuel.
We know from experience your not the least bit interested in the truth.
LMAO,

Sure he is.

 

[skyeagle409]

He claims that, "not a single man saw anything that looked suspicious or that looked like it needed further investigation related to explosive demolition." Are these statements documented, or is it one man's claim?

Let's do a review.

9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition.

My personal opinion is that Blanchard is just another "expert" committing fraud for financial gain, or he's doing it because he has no other choice.

That won't work in your case because your comment does not reflect reality.

 

[FalseFlag]

The only people who think it's fatally flawed are you people. I don't mean to rain on your parade, but you don't matter.

You're right. I don't matter, but the truth does matter. As long as telling the truth pisses you skeptics off I'm going to keep doing it.

Could there be some minutiae in the report that is questionable? Sure - it's a big report. But there is nothing that would change the conclusion.

Freefall is not minutiae. The computer models that don't match reality are not minutiae. Failing to describe the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 after initiation are not minutiae. Omitting relevant structural details is not minutiae.

Wait, are you sure you understand the word "minutiae"? The significance of your understanding, or lack thereof, is not minutiae.

Damage caused fire, fire caused collapse.

OK. What explains the motions observed during the collapses?