I have posted NIST's quotes. We disagree whether or not they were referring to more than collapse initiation, especially since NIST stated that they do not support the
"“pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers" (my emphasis).
Since they tell us exactly what they were referring to, you have a severe problem with reading comprehension, or you're deliberately misrepresenting. Which is it?
Agreed. My point all along was that NIST and PM don't agree. Next.
Now I get to call you a liar. You've been corrected and you've failed to produce any evidence that supports your claim. PM supports the NIST conclusions. Don't believe me? Read their articles, read their book, or call them. You will do none of these things, because you are compelled to lie.
Simple assertions. FEMA in particular is not a source I'd expect you to cite.
Why? Are all their observations and measurements invalid, their charts and graphs wrong, their photos illegitimate? Please explain.
I'm sure you're familiar with their often quoted conclusions about WTC 7.
Yes, I'm familiar with all their conclusions from their very brief study of WTC 7, the primary one being that more study was necessary. Or do you think the study should have ended with FEMA?
They say I'm wrong? For someone who demands accuracy, I'd expect you to dispense with the drama.
Suck it up. The expert researchers and expert witnesses disagree with you. Think I'm wrong? Prove it. With your next post, show me the work of your expert researchers and the accounts of you expert witnesses.
You won't.
Perhaps it is you who is ill informed. You sound defensive.
Present your evidence of Giuliani's involvement in removing WTC steel or retract your statement. That's what rational adults do. Will you try to be a rational adult? Then present your evidence with your next post or retract your statement.
Are you beginning to understand what rational people will always require of you?
What you've gotten wrong: You said there was a raging inferno in the towers. Smoke yes, fire yes, inferno no.
I'll highlight these quotes because you missed them, although this is the third time we've done this:
We were looking at two large bodies of fires that neither of us in our 33-year careers had ever seen anything that enormous. So it's pretty much, you know, I thought we would lose a company or two possibly. I didn't think we would come out of this unscathed at all. It was just too enormous. –
FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi
Got the nerve to present your case to Chief Turi? Give him a call and see what he says.
Or are you just another coward who enjoys disparaging people who risk their lives for others?
"It was the most unbelievable sight I ever saw, up until that point.
I had been in some very busy units during my time in the fire department. I broke in, in Engine 46 and Ladder 27 in the South Bronx when the South Bronx was burning down. I was in Rescue 3, which was extremely busy; they covered the Bronx and Harlem. And then as a lieutenant, I was in the Lower East Side when that was burning down. As a captain, I was in Chinatown. I saw some unbelievable fires in Chinatown.
What I saw pales in comparison to anything else I had seen previously." –
FDNY Captain Jay Jonas
Got the nerve to present your case to Jay Jonas? Give him a call and see what he says.
Or are you just another coward who enjoys disparaging people who risk their lives for others?
Here are some more for you:
Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition.
"About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. "It's inevitable."
Seconds later, another pilot reported: "I don't think this has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building."
Source
Perhaps you missed these photographs:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2795679&postcount=93
Please explain, using facts and science, why there is no inferno in the photos I posted.
You posted a photo of the north face of the north tower well after the impact of flight 11, although you know perfectly well that the majority of fire was on the south side and west sides then. Why did you do that? How does it benefit you to attempt to deliberately deceive people who you can't deceive?
Oh, and here's the north side of the north tower as the collapse begins. I guess it was nice and cool in there.
Ah, quite a difference. Let me rephrase, you accepted a difficult position. Your position requires extremely hot fires in three skyscrapers
You're not suggesting that the fires in the skyscrapers weren't hot enough to weaken steel, are you? How about just an office building fire that's fed by office materials alone: no jet fuel. Can that get hot enough to buckle large insulated steel columns?
Yes or no?
and an unprecedented global collapse that produces molten metal, or in the words of many on the scene, molten steel.
False. No investigator has claimed that the collapses produced molten metal, much less molten steel. Once again you have no idea what you are talking about. What happened: you watched Loose Change last week and decided you were informed about 9/11? Your performance here is absolutely pathetic.
I appreciate the invitation. I have many questions that I'd like to hear discussed. And you can expect that I will pick out any fallacies that I spot, as well, just not with any hostility. A blustering tone belies a defensive position.
There is no bluster in my statements. I don't suffer fools and liars gladly.
It's never too late to take responsibility for your learning and your behavior. Will you?
