• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

Video footage is an inconsequential tool in determining the physical movement of an object...video footage is a consequential tool in detailing the exact movements of an object.

...to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
 
woooohooo in yer face 28k...you only got nominated...but i won....for...ermmm...something :D
 
Video footage is an inconsequential tool in determining the physical movement of an object...video footage is a consequential tool in detailing the exact movements of an object.

...to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Do you have ADHD?
 
Video footage is an inconsequential tool in determining the physical movement of an object...video footage is a consequential tool in detailing the exact movements of an object.
please cite clear sources for each of these claims
 
Madrid didn't collapse...pieces of the building collapsed off of it....but after the fire was put out...there was still a very large structure that was standing. Thus, the building did not collapse. You know, like...the building is like you know the entire thing...and so the building didn't collapse...if a hurricane knocks off the side of a building...does that mean the building collapsed?

It's like I'm talking to the wall over here.

The core of the Madrid building did not collapse because it was concrete.

The new WTC 7 core has concrete for this very reason.

The steel portion of the Madrid building did collapse.

If the Madrid building did not have concrete in the core, the entire building would have collapsed to the ground.
 
Video footage is an inconsequential tool in determining the physical movement of an object...video footage is a consequential tool in detailing the exact movements of an object.

...to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Jesus H Christ 28th this is what YOU do.

You are certifiable and should seek help.
 
please cite clear sources for each of these claims

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185268#post2185268

I used video footage plus scientific laws to debunk NIST's theory. Look at what the ensuing comments attack about my analysis.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185430#post2185430

Presented as evidence of buckling on the WTC. Read the aftermath. Everyone says this video proves there was buckling. Interesting, considering grainy video footage is worthless in determining movement/position of an object.

So the only actual evidence any of the you have of the outer columns buckling is some pics and grainy video? I certainly hope you can do better than that. You aren't trying to play by your own rules are you? Maybe denying certain beliefs when they become inconvenient...and then summoning those beliefs back up when they benefit you?

Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs.
 
We're past that now. It's kittens and recepies now... or kitten recepies.
Yeah, I know. I was the first to punt after the 10K point. Now, I did not read every post in that gynormous thread but I did not see gumboot's illustrations there nor Christophera's response. I was just wondering if I somehow missed it.
 
Whats the over/under on the number of times 28th has posted the word(s): doubthink, doubletalk, doublespeak, or double* in his time here? I think its getting close to 100.
In fact, I'd be willing to bet that 28IQ has said it more than Christophera has said his favorite mantra(per post average, of course)....sheesh.
 
Last edited:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185268#post2185268

I used video footage plus scientific laws to debunk NIST's theory. Look at what the ensuing comments attack about my analysis.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185430#post2185430

Presented as evidence of buckling on the WTC. Read the aftermath. Everyone says this video proves there was buckling. Interesting, considering grainy video footage is worthless in determining movement/position of an object.

So the only actual evidence any of the you have of the outer columns buckling is some pics and grainy video? I certainly hope you can do better than that. You aren't trying to play by your own rules are you? Maybe denying certain beliefs when they become inconvenient...and then summoning those beliefs back up when they benefit you?

Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs.
neither of those posts (or the replies) seems to contain any references to the validity or lack thereof of video evidence

again, please cite clear sources for these claims:
Video footage is an inconsequential tool in determining the physical movement of an object...video footage is a consequential tool in detailing the exact movements of an object.
 
My example was perfect.
Only in your mind.
The air pressure of both spaces i.e. inside window/outside window - can determine (by itself) which way the air flows i.e. inwards/outwards. This is without the variable of a moving object i.e. swinging door.

Try running this by a high-school physics teacher. Bring a stopwatch and time how long it takes for him/her to bust out laughing.

You factor in the door, and it doesn't matter the air pressure of each space, the air current will ALWAYS move around the object i.e. the opposite direction.

Try running this by a grade-school science teacher. Bring a stopwatch and time how long it takes for him/her to bust out laughing.

I've just scientifically debunked the biggest piece of visual evidence you have for a buckling of the outer columns.

Only in your mind.
 
Last edited:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185268#post2185268

I used video footage plus scientific laws to debunk NIST's theory. Look at what the ensuing comments attack about my analysis.

Attacking your analysis =/= attacking the video of the collapse. Show me one post where someone says the video of the collapse, as opposed to the video of that stupid "simulation" , has no value.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185289#post2185289

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185291#post2185291

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185323#post2185323

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185347#post2185347

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185360#post2185360

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2185372#post2185372

I think that's all of them. Did I miss any? Do any of those attack the video of the actual collapse, or do they all address the stupid analysis?

After that, we went off on your "optical illusion" fantasy.

Seriously, dude, cut back on the smoke, okay? Too much causes paranoia.
 
Well, I think we've had an excellent session today.

Horatius got an outstanding new sig.

28K finally commented on the buckling video and gave us the "optical illusion" gem.

Good work all!
 
Still waiting

Can I remind eveyone that 28th has specifically avoided answering the following technical papers which explain - in real terms, not half-arsed assumptions and video interpretation - the engineering basis for the failure?

The Edinburgh one is quite interesting because it takes a slightly different slat on the failure, not that it helps the CTers one iota.

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf


For non-Brits, Sheffield University has a very well respected fire engineering unit who have looked at WTC on at least a few occasions and seem to have no great problems with the official theory. Edinburgh has a bit of a lead in general structures (arguably).

Of course 28th has me on ignore because I've had the temerity to highlight his evasion on this point. To be honest I'm amazed he's now started a new thread on it. :rolleyes:



I see that as ever he's rushing to respond, which is amusing given his recent postings claiming to have debunked the whole collapse of the trusses/columns theory.....again. :D
 
28th Kingdom said
Trust me....

Trust you?

This what you what people to believe.

NIST are purposefully lying to cover up mass murder.
NORAD stood down.
The USG authorized mass murder of 3000 of their own citizens
NORAD stood up to shoot down flight 93.
None of the passengers got on the planes.
Flight 93 was a drone plane.
Flight 93 was targeted at WTC 7 even though it was heading towards Washington.
Flight 11 was a drone plane.
Flight 175 was a drone plane.
Flight 77 was a drone plane.
All the phone calls were fake.
The black boxes recovered from the wreckage of Flight 93 were faked.
Al Quada does not exist.
Al Quada is a guy in a cave.
Al Quada is made up by the present US Government to scare everybody
Muslim Arab terrorists do not exist.
Nobody knows what UBL said on the video confessions because nobody can understand Arabic.
UBL did not authorize the attack; he is simply going along with the conspiracy.
The world’s media is in on it.
Soon people will be kidnapped off the street and executed.
Steel beams do not buckle when excessive loads are placed on them.
When they built the Towers they built the core first and all alone.
Therefore the core would stand by itself.
Even after the Towers collapsed around it.
WTC 1 was demolished
WTC 2 was demolished
WTC 7 was demolished.
Termite demolished these building.
This even though thermite has never been used to demolish a building, ever.
Even though Thremite actually welds metal together it was used to burn through steel.
Even though thermite can only burn down, it somehow produced diagonal and horizontal cuts in the Towers.
Even though thermite leaves a white residue, it actually left a black one when it cut the beams in the Towers.
The buckling of the external superstructure was actually an optical illusion
The only way to pancake the floors in the Towers is to slam an asteroid into them.
The Madrid buildings steel did not collapse due to the fires.

Trust you? Believe you?

Sure what ever you say, I’m right with you. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
The only way to pancake the floors in the Towers is to slam an asteroid into them.
actually he didnt claim this

he said the asteroid would drill the building down into the ground like a nail
 
Remember, how you said the outer columns failed...and the trusses remained attached to them? Well, here is NIST's own computer simulation...and looky at what happens when the outer columns break. Whoopsie.
And that simulation shows...

The trusses remaining attached to the outer columns, causing the outer columns to fail. That's what he said from the beginning!
 

Back
Top Bottom