Question for the twoofers about why NIST is wrong

[Wizard]

1985 to be exact

although at that time a player cost more than my first (and second) car

I had cassette tapes before that

 

[defaultdotxbe]

No I haven't. I have only ever had CD's. So I ask again, why do NIST claim steel is a good conductor of heat?

I had cassette tapes before that

let me guess....somehow, some way, on some planet you werent lying?

 

[Wizard]

let me guess....somehow, some way, on some planet you werent lying?

I wasn't lying. CD's are thye only thing comparable to LP's as they are both a disc. Keep trying

 

[Bell]

let me guess....somehow, some way, on some planet you werent lying?

On Planet X, we lie about everything.

It's true

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I wasn't lying. CD's are thye only thing comparable to LP's as they are both a disc. Keep trying

i think a normal person would have replied "no, i never had a record player"

 

[Wizard]

i think a normal person would have replied "no, i never had a record player"

If you ever considered me normal that would be my cue to change, immediately or sooner.

Why you focusing on record players in a NIST thread? Stop trying to score childish points

 

[defaultdotxbe]

If you ever considered me normal that would be my cue to change, immediately or sooner.

Why you focusing on record players in a NIST thread? Stop trying to score childish points

very well

do you have any peer reviewed articles from relevant experts stating there is anything wrong with the NIST report?

 

[Wizard]

very well

do you have any peer reviewed articles from relevant experts stating there is anything wrong with the NIST report?

Again you are being childish. You know the answer to that question is no, but the lack of them proves nothing.

I suggest the lack of articles is a sure sign that engineers don't know why it collapsed and won't touch it.

Show me any peer reviewed article by a structural engineer that explains total collapse after initiation

 

[WildCat]

Show me any peer reviewed article by a structural engineer that explains total collapse after initiation

Huh? By definition, total collapse follows collapse initiation.

Do you know of any papers contending that the collapse shouldn't have occurred?

 

[Wizard]

Huh? By definition, total collapse follows collapse initiation.

Do you know of any papers contending that the collapse shouldn't have occurred?

So you think it is enough just to state that initiation leads to total collapse without any actual justification? Oh my, that's really good science.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Again you are being childish. You know the answer to that question is no, but the lack of them proves nothing.

I suggest the lack of articles is a sure sign that engineers don't know why it collapsed and won't touch it.

wrong, if they had no clue there would still be articles criticising the NIST report and pointing out problems in it

Show me any peer reviewed article by a structural engineer that explains total collapse after initiation

total collapse after initiation is expected, unless you think the towers should have fallen up, once again, if there was any problem with this there would be dozens of articles on why it shouldnt have happened

 

[WildCat]

So you think it is enough just to state that initiation leads to total collapse without any actual justification? Oh my, that's really good science.

If a structure has a bigger load bearing down on it than it can handle, it collapses. And you're disagreeing with that?

 

[The Almond]

Again you are being childish. You know the answer to that question is no, but the lack of them proves nothing.

I disagree. Among the myriad of engineers who have read the report, not a single one of them has found sufficient evidence to discredit the report. Consider the difference between that and Loose Change.

I suggest the lack of articles is a sure sign that engineers don't know why it collapsed and won't touch it.

And I suggest that the lack of articles suggests that the engineers are satisfied with the NIST report and have felt no need to comment on it.

Show me any peer reviewed article by a structural engineer that explains total collapse after initiation

Having failed in your point about thermal conductivity, it's interesting that you're reverting to TruthSeeker1234's old standby. Suffice it to say, I find this objection logically vapid.

What would a detailed explanation of collapse after initiation prove? What would it show? What information would be contained in such a document that would circumvent, overturn or change the self-initiated collapse theory?

 

[Wizard]

If a structure has a bigger load bearing down on it than it can handle, it collapses. And you're disagreeing with that?

Could you quantify the bolded part? Please define your terms like "handle"

 

[WildCat]

Could you quantify the bolded part? Please define your terms like "handle"

Is this a joke?

 

[Wizard]

total collapse after initiation is expected, unless you think the towers should have fallen up,

Nice false dilemma. You suggest they either fall up or totally destroy themselves.

How about a partial collapse?

 

[Wizard]

Is this a joke?

No i'm being serious.

In the opening post a skeptic requested that actual science was used not phrase like "because it does"

 

[WildCat]

No i'm being serious.

In the opening post a skeptic requested that actual science was used not phrase like "because it does"

I'll re-phrase it for you: Will a structure collapse if subjected to a load it can not bear? Yes or no.

 

[Arus808]

I wasn't lying. CD's are thye only thing comparable to LP's as they are both a disc. Keep trying

And everyone knows that LP's sound better than cd's. equating them just alone on being "discs" is a subpar comparisson.

 

[kookbreaker]

Could you quantify the bolded part? Please define your terms like "handle"

'handle' = Load bearing capacity.

Nice false dilemma. You suggest they either fall up or totally destroy themselves.

How about a partial collapse?

Not with the masses we have been dealing with.