Common Sense

[28th Kingdom]

Are we to interpret this as saying that if NIST (or some other body with the relevant experience, time and resources) were to produce a "visual simulation" that backed the so called "Official Theory," that you'd accept it? And again: just because they haven't (or refuse to according to you), doesn't mean they CAN'T. Do you have any evidence for the assertation that they simply cannot (as opposed to say ... don't have the funding or mandate to do so)

Man, I would pay... money - GOOD MONEY to see someone create a visual simulation of the WTC 2 collapse. Wow, that would look so comical... you don't even know.

The simulation would have to show how those 37 non-severed (virtually undamaged) core columns failed (all the way to the ground...in just seconds) and how the walls managed to explode without anything touching them (WTC 2 tilting upper mass)

Don't you understand that the video footage...already proves the NIST theory to be false? NIST would have to tilt the top on WTC 2 in their simulation (because we can see that happened in the real footage) which would reveal the miracle collapse in all its glory.

 

[Skibum]

Man, I would pay... money - GOOD MONEY to see someone create a visual simulation of the WTC 2 collapse. Wow, that would look so comical... you don't even know.

The simulation would have to show how those 37 non-severed (virtually undamaged) core columns failed (all the way to the ground...in just seconds) and how the walls managed to explode without anything touching them (WTC 2 tilting upper mass)

Don't you understand that the video footage...already proves the NIST theory to be false? NIST would have to tilt the top on WTC 2 in their simulation (because we can see that happened in the real footage) which would reveal the miracle collapse in all its glory.

I'll do it, for 850,000 dollars. probably a bargain for what it would cost the government. We need to set up an account like Mr Randi has for the Challenge, as I doubt your ability to pay. Please PM me if you wish to discuss further details.

 

[Skibum]

Shall I start working on the contract?

 

[beachnut]

"no facts for you"

I don't cater to B.S.

Common Sense ironically tells us you are the personification of BS.

Your destiny is to be BS king of CT loons. The "soup NAZI" was the king of soup gratification or consternation. 28th is the "BS NAZI", the king of BS gratification and consternation. Notwithstanding the colossal simulation of space taking place between your ears, something in you is persistently producing the sensory broadcast for all, clearly sensed by your posts "no facts for you" !!!

 

[Skibum]

Or are you just lying... again?

 

[R.Mackey]

Man, I would pay... money - GOOD MONEY to see someone create a visual simulation of the WTC 2 collapse. Wow, that would look so comical... you don't even know.

(Taken from http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm, which contains an excellent summary for those, like yourself, who cannot possibly apprehend the entire NIST report.)

The simulation would have to show how those 37 non-severed (virtually undamaged) core columns failed (all the way to the ground...in just seconds) and how the walls managed to explode without anything touching them (WTC 2 tilting upper mass)

Don't you understand that the video footage...already proves the NIST theory to be false? NIST would have to tilt the top on WTC 2 in their simulation (because we can see that happened in the real footage) which would reveal the miracle collapse in all its glory.

The video footage was, indeed, one of the major inputs to the NIST study. You're making stuff up again.

What is it with you Troothers and your aversion to anything that's actually true, anyway?

Despite what you may believe, NIST isn't going to proceed beyond this, for two reasons:

1. Once collapse starts, the rest is academic. Nobody will ever build a skyscraper that will partially arrest its collapse, so there is nothing to be learned. Building codes are based on preventing collapse, not arresting them.
2. You can't model the full collapse in any detail anyway. Too many random variables. NIST knows that any such animation would be a guess, and they don't like to guess. They like to present that which they can rigorously estimate.

I know this is too difficult for you as well, so let me give a simple example.

Suppose you throw a six-sided die. Can you predict what side will come up? Just that, a die, an initial six degree-of-freedom state, and a hard, flat, perfect plane below. Can't do it, can you? Nope. Not even with the best computers in the world, not to any usable accuracy.

The WTC collapses are literally billions of times more complicated.

Dynamics are hard to simulate. Dynamics that hit things and spawn additional dynamics, i.e. any error early on leads to greater and greater errors over time, are inherently impossible to simulate, except to pose possible examples of what might happen. Reconstructing what did happen? Impossible.

I fail to see what NIST producing a cartoon for your benefit would achieve, anyway. Real science doesn't depend on cartoons.

 

[Paul]

The fact that explosives were used is the big picture... the exact details of how they were used is not.

So you won't mind showing us the actual evidence for this undisputed fact then.

I know it's a trivial detail, but how do you solve the logistical problems with explosive demolition?

As an example, in February 2006 two 65m tower blocks were demolished in Glasgow. This required 15 explosives experts using 100kg of explosives and 1,900 non-electric detonating charges on buildings that had been soft-stripped and pre-weakened. The twin towers were over 6 times the height and had a much greater footprint than these buildings; how do you suppose over 48500 detonating charges and over 2500kg of explosives were installed and wired together without anyone noticing?

 

[28th Kingdom]

I'm gonna find the video for freefall. You people think the debris hit the ground first... yet you can't see the tower, because it's obscured by the debris... so how do you know the building was still falling when the debris hit the ground... what from the steel beams sticking up after the dust settled? Yea, cus steel beams are a building... yea, yup...

...yup a couple steel beams are a building...

I really don't know how much time difference there was between the first debris hitting the ground and the buildings hitting the ground... but I know there is video footage, that probably has great angles which will give us a better idea than those overshots. Here is one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKzhlOdB-I

Notice the band that shows where the first section of the building meets the second section (the WTC towers were each made in three sections) the camera man turns away right before the collapse reaches that point... at this point - the building is 2/3 gone... meaning there is only about 400 feet still standing. If the collapse starts right when this video does... than it took 8 seconds for 2/3 of the building to collapse... meaning it took approx. 12 seconds for the entire thing to go... and according to you all, the collapse was picking up speed from the increasing force of the upper mass... so it might have went in 10 or 11 seconds.

Notice in the video how the falling building is still ahead or even with the debris around it...even down to the last 400 feet. Now, pause the video at 11 seconds in, and notice the debris is already touching the ground... did the debris shoot past the falling building in the last 400 feet or is the building on the ground at this point?

 

[babazaroni]

The "soup NAZI" was the king of soup gratification or consternation.

Thanks Beach, I've seen that Seinfeld episode many times, and until now did not fully understand that dichotemy.

 

[Skibum]

I fail to see what NIST producing a cartoon for your benefit would achieve, anyway. Real science doesn't depend on cartoons.

It woulda put 850k in my pocket, thanks. You won't mind if I screw up several of your business proposals would you?

 

[R.Mackey]

Nah, you know he'd have paid you off in tinfoil, copies of Terrorstorm, and surplus ammo...

 

[Paul]

meaning it took approx. 12 seconds for the entire thing to go... and according to you all, the collapse was picking up speed from the increasing force of the upper mass... so it might have went in 10 or 11 seconds.

Which, as has been adequately explained, is quite different to 9.2 seconds.

 

[28th Kingdom]

(Taken from http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm, which contains an excellent summary for those, like yourself, who cannot possibly apprehend the entire NIST report.)

"As I mentioned above, the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down and therefore NOT part of the NIST investigation. As I mentioned above, the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down and therefore NOT part of the NIST investigation. The NIST only studied the collapse until "Global collapse was inevitable."

Straight from the horses mouth. NIST didn't even investigate the events of the collapse... they focused entirely on the pre-collapse. Unbelievable. See, they assume the global collapse was inevitable, why... BECAUSE THE BUILDINGS FELL! How blinded can you be... see, that's what happens when you begin your investigation by eliminating suspects i.e. explosives - from your equations.

You wanna talk about FRAUD! NIST didn't even investigate the collapses.

 

[R.Mackey]

Straight from the horses mouth. NIST didn't even investigate the events of the collapse... they focused entirely on the pre-collapse. Unbelievable. See, they assume the global collapse was inevitable...BECAUSE THE BUILDINGS FELL! How blinded can you be... see, that's what happens when you begin your investigation by eliminating suspects i.e. explosives - from your equations.

You wanna talk about FRAUD! NIST didn't even investigate the collapses.

That's not what that quote means, dummy.

 

[Skibum]

You people think the debris hit the ground first... yet you can't see the tower, because it's obscured by the debris... so how do you know the building was still falling when the debris hit the ground... what from the steel beams sticking up after the dust settled? Yea, cus steel beams are a building... yea, yup...

http://one.revver.com/watch/?id=59686
You seen this one yet? At 19:42 into the video you will see that you are clearly extremely wrong.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Wait a second... my last post... really wasn't straight from the horse's mouth. THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH:

"NIST did not describe the specific sequence of events after global collapse initiated. The progression of global collapse was induced by the failure of the supporting structure (columns carry vertical loads; floors hold columns together, they do not carry vertical loads). NIST's investigation focused on the factors that led to the initiation of collapse, rather than the sequence of events after the collapse initiated.

Sincerely,

WTC Investigation Team"

(emphasis added)

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

FRAUD! They were paid to investigate the collapses... and they didn't even do that... the initiation of the collapse is NOT the collapse... the initiation happens right before the collapse begins... UNBELIEVABLE.

 

[LashL]

That's not what that quote means, dummy.

28th only posts his BS here so that he can pretend to have a raging clue and so that he can pretend to understand that which he clearly does not, in order that he can then go back to his usual tinhat haunts and say, "oh, look, oh look, oh look how smart i am, see what i wrote over at jref" because the tinhat audience he's pandering to is just as unintelligent and just as clueless as he is.

Pretty sad, really.

 

[uk_dave]

... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

YAY! At last 28K is admitting the limits of his imagination!!

There may be hope for him yet

 

[The Doc]

Wait a second... my last post... really wasn't straight from the horse's mouth. THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH:

"NIST did not describe the specific sequence of events after global collapse initiated. The progression of global collapse was induced by the failure of the supporting structure (columns carry vertical loads; floors hold columns together, they do not carry vertical loads). NIST's investigation focused on the factors that led to the initiation of collapse, rather than the sequence of events after the collapse initiated.

Sincerely,

WTC Investigation Team"

(emphasis added)

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

FRAUD! They were paid to investigate the collapses... and they didn't even do that... the initiation of the collapse is NOT the collapse... the initiation happens right before the collapse begins... UNBELIEVABLE.

28th this will be hard for you to swallow. So make sure you're sitting down.

The purpose of the NIST investigation was not to satisfy a few conspiracy theorists.

 

[28th Kingdom]

28th this will be hard for you to swallow. So make sure you're sitting down.

The purpose of the NIST investigation was not to satisfy a few conspiracy theorists.

What was the purpose? To investigate the collapses, right? Did NIST investigate the collapses? Yes or No? We will weed out the real loons with this one... cus we have NIST's statement that says they didn't focus on the events of the actual collapses...

Now... do you see why they refuse to provide a simulation for the collapses? BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! Here is where the NIST investigation stops:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-RzwmD8uB8g

NIST's report stops RIGHT WHEN THE COLLAPSE BEGINS! HOW convenient!