Official story: why believe it?

[Miragememories]

As Miragememories is also entitled to his point of view. He wants to make light of a hypothesis which has been published in a respected structural engineering magazine that's also fine. If he wants to believe the conspiracy industry when it hasn't published a single paper in ANY respected structural or civil engineering magazine in the world in over 6 years then that's also fine.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

It's also ironic and more laughable than what Newtons Bit thinks.

What I addressed was YOU "FactCheck"

You defended Newtons Bit based on one article that happened to parallel his beliefs.

I attacked the complete argument.

Newtons Bit has the bad habit of making idiotic assertions that don't hold an ounce of water.

If you wish to question my post, I suggest you do so in it's entirety and not attempt a lame cherry picking like your last attempt!

MM

 

[DGM]

Well don't laugh too loud..someone might hear you and ask you why?

That publication addressed the subject of WTC7 only.

Newtons Bit did not confine himself to a single building.

He claimed that single column failure collapse was an expectation for ALL non-government buildings!

MM

Where did he say that?

 

[twinstead]

What I addressed was YOU "FactCheck"

You defended Newtons Bit based on one article that happened to parallel his beliefs.

I attacked the complete argument.

Newtons Bit has the bad habit of making idiotic assertions that don't hold an ounce of water.

If you wish to question my post, I suggest you do so in it's entirety and not attempt a lame cherry picking like your last attempt!

MM

oh boy I actually thought you were going to address this whole thing about nobody in your movement producing a legitimately peer-reviewed paper, or even a paper published in any respected structural or civil engineering magazine instead of just insults.

Or that you indeed are making light of a hypothesis which HAS been published in a respected structural engineering magazine as if you are somehow better informed than they.

The list of contributers to the NIST report, the list of contributers to the Purdue study, in fact the list of every major legitimate study of the WTC collapses read like a who's who of eminent experts in their fields. All this can boiled down to "exactly who do you think you are, and why does your opinion hold more weight than the vast majority of experts from around the world?"

 

[FactCheck]

Well don't laugh too loud..someone might hear you and ask you why?

That publication addressed the subject of WTC7 only.

Newtons Bit did not confine himself to a single building.

He claimed that single column failure collapse was an expectation for ALL non-government buildings!

MM

Is that what you think he said? HAHAHAHA!!!

 

[LashL]

I attacked the complete argument.

Newtons Bit has the bad habit of making idiotic assertions that don't hold an ounce of water.

 

[DGM]

Well don't laugh too loud..someone might hear you and ask you why?

That publication addressed the subject of WTC7 only.

Newtons Bit did not confine himself to a single building.

He claimed that single column failure collapse was an expectation for ALL non-government buildings!

MM

Bump for MM. Where did he claim this?

 

[Miragememories]

Bump for MM. Where did he claim this?

I suggest you ask Trevor himself.

He's made that claim several times over in the Loose Change forums and while I could wade through the threads there and find it, I can't be bothered to at the moment.

Personally I think his shuttle re-entry friction being comparable to the friction of the collapsing towers was even more telling.

Again ask him if you don't believe me. He posted it over in LC some time ago.

I don't make these things up folks!

MM

 

[Mince]

I don't make these things up folks!

MM

Great! Now I can stop veryifying your evidence and accept it as fact merely because you say it. Why did you not say this before? You could have saved us a lot of work.

 

[DGM]

I suggest you ask Trevor himself.

He's made that claim several times over in the Loose Change forums and while I could wade through the threads there and find it, I can't be bothered to at the moment.

Personally I think his shuttle re-entry friction being comparable to the air friction of the collapsing towers was even more telling.

Again ask him if you don't believe me. He posted it over in LC some time ago.

I don't make these things up folks!

MM

I sent him a PM.

 

[Miragememories]

Posted by Newtons Bit in Loose Change
Arguing that heat from the friction generated by the collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 was sufficient to account for the long lasting molten metal at ground zero.

"Think of the re-entry of the space-shuttle. As it enters the atmosphere the ceramic underside of it turns red-hot. This is from friction of entering an atmosphere of air. Now imaging an object falling through an atmosphere of concrete. Then having lots of other thins pile on top of it, and having fires continue."

MM

 

[Mince]

Posted by Newtons Bit in Loose Change
Arguing that heat from the friction generated by the collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 was sufficient to account for the long lasting molten metal at ground zero.

"Think of the re-entry of the space-shuttle. As it enters the atmosphere the ceramic underside of it turns red-hot. This is from friction of entering an atmosphere of air. Now imaging an object falling through an atmosphere of concrete. Then having lots of other thins pile on top of it, and having fires continue."

MM

Could you, in scientific terms (get technical if you have to; I can handle it), demonstrate the alleged flaw in your quoted statement from Newtons Bit?

 

[FactCheck]

Posted by Newtons Bit in Loose Change
Arguing that heat from the friction generated by the collapse of WTC1 & WTC2 was sufficient to account for the long lasting molten metal at ground zero.

"Think of the re-entry of the space-shuttle. As it enters the atmosphere the ceramic underside of it turns red-hot. This is from friction of entering an atmosphere of air. Now imaging an object falling through an atmosphere of concrete. Then having lots of other thins pile on top of it, and having fires continue."

MM

Rewrite the text books! The space shuttles heat sheild is heated by thermite!!! What else can it be!!!

Heh!

 

[Miragememories]

Could you, in scientific terms (get technical if you have to; I can handle it), demonstrate the alleged flaw in your quoted statement from Newtons Bit?

What is the basis for comparison?

Are we to accept the legitimacy of comparing the frictional heat of a shuttle re-entry to that incurred by building materials in a cascading collapse (all falling close to the same speed unlike a high speed shuttle moving through static air) and other than supposedly brief, overwhelming collisions, continuing a relatively short distance to the ground (compared to the distance the shuttle travels).

In addition, the heat supposedly generated by this collapse is supposedly sufficient to account for ground zero high temperatures and molten metal for several months.

Does that sufficiently convey the flaw in Newton Bit's bizarre comparison?

MM

 

[defaultdotxbe]

In addition, the heat supposedly generated by this collapse is supposedly sufficient to account for ground zero high temperatures and molten metal for several months.

i would attribute that more to the fires that burned there for several months, im sure NB would agree

now a question i have for you is how does controlled demolition (be it by explosives, thermite, or space lasers) explain high temperatures for several months?

 

[DGM]

What is the basis for comparison?

Are we to accept the legitimacy of comparing the frictional heat of a shuttle re-entry to that incurred by building materials in a cascading collapse (all falling close to the same speed unlike a high speed shuttle moving through static air) and other than supposedly brief, overwhelming collisions, continuing a relatively short distance to the ground (compared to the distance the shuttle travels).

In addition, the heat supposedly generated by this collapse is supposedly sufficient to account for ground zero high temperatures and molten metal for several months.

Does that sufficiently convey the flaw in Newton Bit's bizarre comparison?

MM

The friction of the collapses combined with the existing fires and fed by everything in the pile.

It's a better explanation the some type of demolition. Or was there enough "thermite" on site to burn for months?

 

[Miragememories]

i would attribute that more to the fires that burned there for several months, im sure NB would agree

now a question i have for you is how does controlled demolition (be it by explosives, thermite, or space lasers) explain high temperatures for several months?

Well ask Newtons Bit.

Maybe a shuttle crashed there?

There are over 6 billion people on this planet.

Some of them don't believe the official story about 9/11.

Some believe in no planes, space rays and no doubt all kinds of other ridiculous notions.

Some of them amazingly believe that a building like WTC2 easily withstood an aircraft impact (as it was designed to do), had the aircraft fuel burn off in several minutes (around 4 minutes according to NIST) and then 56 minutes later succumbed to column and tress failure due to office furniture fires.

Excuse me for not saying "hot diggity dog that's right".

Skeptics love pouring on the questions and since the establishment (NIST) shows no interest in the answers, there's no need for them to go on the defensive.

Well defaultdotxbe, why don't you tell me how many shuttle crashes it would take to account for the extreme latent heat that persisted at the ground zero sites for WTC 1, 2 & 7???

Take your time.

Consider your reply carefully.

Billions have been waiting for the clarity that your answer will undoubtedly provide.

MM

 

[stateofgrace]

Well ask Newtons Bit.

Maybe a shuttle crashed there?

There are over 6 billion people on this planet.

Some of them don't believe the official story about 9/11.

Some believe in no planes, space rays and no doubt all kinds of other ridiculous notions.

Some of them amazingly believe that a building like WTC2 easily withstood an aircraft impact (as it was designed to do), had the aircraft fuel burn off in several minutes (around 4 minutes according to NIST) and then 56 minutes later succumbed to column and tress failure due to office furniture fires.

Excuse me for not saying "hot diggity dog that's right".

Skeptics love pouring on the questions and since the establishment (NIST) shows no interest in the answers, there's no need for them to go on the defensive.

Well defaultdotxbe, why don't you tell me how many shuttle crashes it would take to account for the extreme latent heat that persisted at the ground zero sites for WTC 1, 2 & 7???

Take your time.

Consider your reply carefully.

Billions have been waiting for the clarity that your answer will undoubtedly provide.

MM

A simple " I have no idea " would have been a far better answer MM.

 

[Miragememories]

A simple " I have no idea " would have been a far better answer MM.

Yeah well maybe I've enjoyed too much of that great scotch your country produces stateofgrace.

MM

 

[stateofgrace]

Yeah well maybe I've enjoyed too much of that great scotch your country produces stateofgrace.

MM

Hey make sure you don't drink too much of it MM, people tend to say silly things when they do, opps too late.

 

[Miragememories]

Hey make sure you don't drink too much of it MM, people tend to say silly things when they do, opps too late.

Ya I hear ya!

MM