Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Mobyseven]

let me be clear the "large fuel laden commercial aeroplanes" is responsible up to and not beyond the point of initial collapse. it is not presented as the reason why we observed total collapse according to the official story.

So the planes were responsible for the initial collapse?

Is it your position then, the the buildings should have halted their collapse once they had begun? On what physical basis do you claim this? Do you have any calculations you could present us with?

 

[thewholesoul]

promised myself i wouldnt respond to this particular aspect of our debate but i couldnt resist.

I said

#3: because the official hypothesis is more widely accepted does not in itself constitute proof according to the scentific method.

Soul, I think you're confusing what I'm saying with what you want me to say. I said that it's acceptance amongst experts makes it the DEFAULT theory. YOU are challenging it, YOU must bear the burden of proof

Thats the first time you said “default theory”. I want the CD hypothesis to be tested through experimentation and/or computer modelling. Alas only the official hypothesis has ever been investigated and if i suggested that the CD hypothesis be investigated you would say no it should not be.

Your position is an example of complete double speak: you claim that truthers must prove their theory yet you would object to it being officially investigated and tested. in other words truthers have the burden of proof yet truthers are denied the means to prove their hypothesis. sweet.

I said

#4: obviously your confusing the observed phenomena with experimentation.

No, experimentation IS an observed phenomena. Haven't you ever seen a building collapse?

Of course experimentation is an observed phenomena – but terrorists crashing planes into the towers WAS NOT AN EXPERIMENT. If it was an experiment why do you think NIST conducted experiments to determine how the fireproofing was displaced by the plane impact? According to you since the terrorists flew planes into the towers therefore no further tests or experimentation was required since the terrorist attack itself was the experiment. That is an absoluletly absurd position my firend.

I said

#5: avoiding the issue. The truth is you cannot provide one example when the total collapse of the twin towers was tested according to the scientific method.

Actually, the truth is that I told you it was unnecessary .

Hahahahahha – let me refresh your memory
I said

You are arguing that it is NOT NECESSARY, that the scientific method is not applicable to the official hypothesis

Belz before

I never said this. You are lying .

Belz after “i told you it was UNNECESSARY”
I said

#6: a hypothesis is a rational explanation for a given phenomena see definition no.4 above dictionary.com. but my point is that the official explanation has not been proven by the scientific method.

You keep fighting that strawman

Hahahahha - now im fighting a strawman!!

A strawman argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

(wikipedia)
Question: what is my opponents position????? Let me refresh his memory.
I said -

do you accept that the burden of proof also rests on the official hypothesis?

No, for two reasons: a.) It is not a hypothesis.
b.) It has already been proven.

So belz states that the official hypothesis has been proven.
I said -

do you accept that to date the total collapse has not been proven through the scientifc method

No

belz states on a second occassion that the official hypothesis has been proven by the sceintific method.

Now when i argue that - the official explanation has not been proven by the scientific method. I am fighting a strawman because this is a misrepresentation of Belz’s CURRENT position. Before he stated that the official hypothesis was proven by the scientific method. Now he states that its unnecessary!!

I said

#7: first thing to notice here is that that Belz fails to provide just one example or experiment when the total collapse of the wtc was tested.

Also notice that he doesn't need to.

I said -

do you accept that to date the total collapse has not been proven through the scientifc method

Belz before said

No

Belz after - i dont need to provide one example or experiment when total collapse was tested.

i said -

The problem is that none of these assumptions have been proven by the scientific method.

Please demonstrate the the Earth is spherical, Soul.

No need - It has already been proven
I said -

Ok belz this is the last respeonse i am sending you on this particular issue. If you believe that the total collapse has been proven through the scientific method – and if what your saying is true – then i am positive you can present just one of the actual tests, experiments, and/or compuer modelling of the total collaspe of the twin towers. So its either put up or shut up!

What part of "doesn't need to" don't you understand ?

Hahahahahah –
What part of - you change you position like a comellian changes its colours - dont you undertsand???
Heres the deal: you stated clearly and definitely that the official hypothesis was proven by the scientific method. I then said provide one actual test, experiment, and/or computer modelling of the total collapse of the twin towers. Obviously if you were speaking truth you could have provided just one example. so I said either put up or shut up.
Amazingly you did neither!!!

Instead of providing just one example when the scientific method was applied to the total collapse a position you stated was the case – you CHANGED your story – now you state that tests, experiments, and/or computer modelling are UNNECESSARY. Which means by implication that

The official hypothesis has not been proven by the scientific method – which is what i was arguing from the outset.

Heres a tip, read what you said in your previous post before you write a new one.

 

[thewholesoul]

So the planes were responsible for the initial collapse?

Is it your position then, the the buildings should have halted their collapse once they had begun? On what physical basis do you claim this? Do you have any calculations you could present us with?

according to the official hypothesis the planes were responsible to a large degree for the initial collapse. they were responsible for removing the fireproofing, for the fire, and because they removed the fireproofing the steel was exposed to the fires produced by the jet fuel in the planes - which led to the weakening of the core columns and the sagging of the floor trusses - which led to excess stress on the outer columns etc etc until the initial collapse occured.

so yes in relation to the twin towers - because tower 7 was not hit by a plane - the impact of the planes was to a significant extent responsible, according to the official hypothesis, for producing a chain of events which eventually resulted with the initial collapse.

my position - would question whether the plane crash would have led to the initial collapse. and that even if initial collapse had begun that it would not have resulted in a total collapse unless the resistance of the vertical structure was removed or cut by preplanted explosives or incendary devices.

in my post#1102 - you will find numerous links which provide the calculations and the physics that present the position i defend.

 

[thewholesoul]

hey guys - i know i promised to get into the evidence supporting the CD hypothesis but i think i cracked the official hypothesis. if i am right and the following cannot be possibly explained away - then that means i have eliminated the flamming debris, lighting and light switches as possible explanations behind the explosion in the basement. previously i eliminated the "plane impact" explanation presented by totovader. and the "elevator impact" is easy to refute. anyways....


Explosive atmosphere = fire triangle = fuel, oxygen, ignition source

We know that when the three conditions of the fire triangle are met between kerosene, air, and an ignition source, deflagration occurs.

When the plane hit the north tower we saw a fuel deflagration.

NIST agrees no fireball travelled down the elevator shaft from impact zone

NIST agrees that jet fuel travelled down elevator shaft from impact zone

Floor 90-80 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 80-70 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 70-60 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 60-50 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 50-40 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 40-30 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 30-20 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 20-10 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 10-0 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration

B2 - 3 = DEFLAGRATION!!!! several witnesses thought they heard a bomb!!

B3 – 6 = jet fuel + other ignition sources = no deflagration

How is this POSSIBLE? Does anyone in this room have the expertise or imagination to explain away this problem in a half-way convincing manner?

 

[funk de fino]

So what was your source? How do you know for certain what kind of switiches were actually inside the elevator shaft of the twin towers? How do you know for certain that they were positioned inside the elevator shaft and that they were located in an exposed position relative to the descending jet fuel? Your claiming that you know that the switches in the towers did not have special safeguards – ok source that claim please instead of "describing" your occuaption.

There are rules and regulations about what equipment can be used in areas that can have explosive atmospoheres present continuously or for long persiods. Areas such as oil rigs, gas plants, refineries etc etc. Equipment in these areas must be designes so as not to produce a spark or heat that could ignite this atmosphere. If you want to see the rules and regulations regarding these regulations then go to the IECEx website and read all about it. Normal offices and houses and indeed most factories will not have explosive atmospheres at any time. Their equipment comes under different regulations. They do not have to have this limits on sparks and heat for ignition of explosive atmospheres. The switches, lighting and mains voltages in the Twin Towers would have been to the same standards as the ones in your home because they are normal office enviroments.

When I set up electrical circuits in Zone 1 areas on an offshore oil rig, I mostly use 4-20mA, 24 VDC systems. Very low current and volts so low power. If there is a failure and a spark is produced then the spark is is of insufficient power to cause ignition. If I want to use higher power circuits then I have to use other types of protection for the circuits such as pressurisation, explosion proof enclosures etc etc.

In the towers the electrical circuits would have been mostly 110 volts AC, up to 13 Amp,normal USA mains voltage for the office power. There would also have been industrial electric circuits for the lifts etc that could have been uo to 415VAC. There are no limits on power potentila of sparks because there is not explosive atmosphere present in normal circumstances.

Now at this point I will try to tell you again. You are barking at the wrong tree here. You are concentrating on the switches. Switches will only cause ignition in normal circumstances when made or switched. These were not the only ignition sources. Lamps or relays are just as likely to have been an ignition source. The flaming debri also. What you really should be thinking of is the fire triangle again. You have ignition sources. You have jet fuel. you haave oxygen. What will normally be the crucial factor in this situation ifs the combination of the jet fuel and the oxygen into the range of the LEL and th UEL. If this occurs then this is when the ignition will take place. Asd the thousands of gallons of jet fuel are cascading down the elevator shafts then this ratio is not correct therefore any ignition source it encounters is moot. Only when the fuel and air can mix in the correct ratio will the ignition occur. If you ask me, in my opinion, I would say there is more likely to have been an explosion in the lower levels than the upper.

If you have a dish with a flammable liquid in it and you set light to it and observe the flame, where is the burning occuring? Surface of the liquid or just above where the liquid and air has mixed? Do you understand the concept of flooding your motor car in an older style carb engine?

Another point you ignore is this – using your common sense, and expertise in light switches – explain to me how the flammable jet fuel travelled down 90+floors without igniting into a fireball. If indeed the light switches were the cause and were alined all the way down the elevator shaft then surely the jet fuel would have deflagrated before it reached B2-3 because it must have been in contact with many many “non-special” light switches??

Again I am not sayimng the switches are the cause just that they are one of many that could have caused. See above for the comment about correct ratio of fuel to oxygen for why it did not ignite. If you have a small flame burning and you take a bucket of petrol and dump the petrol on the flame the flame will be extinguished because you have added too much fuel to the triangle. If however you have the same flame and you bring it near the surface of the petrol in the same bucket it will ignite. This is due to the relationship between the Fire triangle and the LEL and UEL.

Imagine a house 10 storeys high and each floor had several non-special light switches. Unfortunately and by accident there was a gas leak on the 10th floor. However eventhough each floor had several non-special light switches the gas travelled all the way down to the ground floor and despite having come into contact with many non special light switches it suddenly explodes when it reached the basement floor.
I look forward to your response on that one.

Again. You are obsessing on switches. If the gas and air mixture was correct and there was an ignition source present it would ignite at the source of ignition. However I have already told you that normal switches create a spark when they are made or operated. In your experiment if the gas travelled down the floors and there was the correct ratio available on each floor of gas and oxygen then it would ignite when one of the switches was made. It would not matter which floor this was on it would occur at the switch when operated. If a switch was made on the lower floor then it would cause the the explosion there. If it was the top floor, it occur there. You are making the mnistake of concentrating on one aspect of the fire triangle and also ignoring LEL and UEL. Remember the fire triangle states that you must have Fuel, Oxygen and heat (spark) for a fire to occur. It does not state that if you have all three then you will definately have a fire because the fuel and air must be in the correct mixture to allow the ignition to occur. Too much fuel or too much oxygen and the ignition caannot occur. Please tell me you see this?

I said

Nice dodge. The point was how did it gets past all the present and capable ignition sources before it reached the basement?

see above

Common sense.

try using it

I am not forgeting the LEL and UEL. If the entire shaft possessed an explosive atmosphere and that explosive atmosphere was progressing downwards then one would expect that the explosive atmosphere would have exploded into a fireball before it reached the basement after it past and came into contact with numerous ignition sources.

Yes you are. If the entire shaft contained the correct explosive atmosphere then indeed the first source of ignition would have ignitied it. The thousands of gallons of jet fuel cascading down the shaft just after impact does not mean you have this correct atmosphere present all the way down the shaft. See the bucket of petrol experiments above.

Ok – your the expert and the teacher on this subject. Now imagine i am one of your students.

Sorry pal, you are not bright enough to be one of my students but i will play your game anyway. You will recieve an F though

I ask you, excuse me sir, but how did the jet fuel not ignite into a fireball before it reached B2-3 in both towers? It seems strange to me given that the elevator shafts were the only way the jet fuel had access to the basement, given that all the ignition sources where present within the elevator shaft, given they were all capable, and given there was an explosive atmosphere progressing downwards through the elevator– then how is it possible that the jet fuel did not deflagrate sooner? Everybody knows – even NIST - that a fireball did not travel down the elevator shaft from the impact zone?

I would tell you that there was not necessarily and explosive atmosphere travelling down the shaft at that point. I would carry out the bucket of petrol experiment (I would make you pay as petrol is very expensive here) and try again to reiterate the relationship between the LEL, UEL and the fire triangle.

would you sent me out of your classroom for that question?

If you had already asked it before and continued to show a complete and utter failure to show that you could understand basic theories like these, then yes, I would throw you off anf inform your supervisor

Common sense experiments:
if you had a stream of jet fuel running along the road from point A to point B and you had a portable ignition source (flamming torch, a short cicuiting wire, etc) and you exposed the jet fuel to the ignition source starting at point A moving towards point B. I would expect that the jet fuel would ignite at point A, and that the probabilty of reaching point B would decrease as soon as one left point A.

This in different than what occured in the towers. You are correct in what would happen in your experiment because the flame or short circuit would ignite the fuel air vapour at the surface of the fuel on the road. It is possible however that if you shoved the flame into the fuel that you may, in fact, put the flame out. see the bucket experiment again for a more realistic and common sense experiment.

The same logic applies to jet fuel flowing downwards through a tunnel, funnel, or elevator.

No it does not. The fuel on an open road is different than fuel in an enclosed vessel. Also the fuel on the road is not in motion. It has started to create the fuel ratio mixture at the surface already.

Jet fuel vapour experiment:
if you left the gas on at home, and when you entered the room and switched on the lights i would expect that the explosive atmosphere would ignite at the source of ignition .

Correct

If you had the same room full of gas, and instead of switching on a stationary light switch you flicked a match across the room. Will the match ignite at the moment of contact? will it travel half way across the room before ignition? or will it reach the far end of the room before it ignites the explosive atmosphere?

It will ignite as you are striking it and you will be blown to smithereens. Bot these experiments will depend on the correct fuel/air mixture again. If these are not coirrect then the explosion will not occur in either case.

Therefore your experiments are duff for consideration in the case of the towers.

If you have an elevator shaft 100 metres and an explosive atmosphere was travelling downwards from point A to point B while contacting "non-special" light switches every 10 metres along the way. Would you expect the explosive atmosphere to ignite at the first light switch, the 2nd and so forth. Or would you expect the explosive atmosphere to reach the 10th switch before it ignited?

I have already told you that it was not an explosive atmosphere that was travelling it was the fuel in liquid form. the expolosive atmosphere had not been formed yet.

Try the same experiment as above except throw a flamming torch and debris into the explosive atmosphere and observe if the mixture can reach point B before deflagrating.

a repeat of your earlier duff experiment

I am saying that experiments are always possible with enough imagination and resources.

I agree it is not necessary that we discover the exact source of ignition – but i am saying that experiments could be performed to prove how an explosive atmosphere in contact with multiple and capable ignition sources can pass over these multiple ignition sources from point A to point B without exploding. I contend itsumpossible !!

Again you completely miss the whole point because you do not have the technical knowledge.

Thats a strong claim. Now if indeed it is impossible and cannot be proven by experimentation then we return to the question – what caused the “explosion” in the basement? An explosion some witnesses who were actually there in the basement that day, claimed was a bomb!!

ell we know what the evidence is for the jet fuel theory. You have yet to show any evidence for any other theory.

 

[funk de fino]

agreed.

So this is a retraction of youir earlier claims?

 

[I Am He]

Pray tell Soul, what credentials do you have? You've been making claims and when corrected you just make the same claims again like you know all the sciences involved. What degrees do you hold? What branch of science are you involved with? What degree in engineering do you hold? None, now how did I know that??

Oh? About paying for tests, how about you asking your Government to chip in? Surely some people from your country must have been victims of that attack too. But seeing that your Government isn't calling for new test might be saying something to you. But for some strange reason you can't hear it.


I Am He

 

[Norseman]

hey guys - i know i promised to get into the evidence supporting the CD hypothesis but i think i cracked the official hypothesis. if i am right and the following cannot be possibly explained away - then that means i have eliminated the flamming debris, lighting and light switches as possible explanations behind the explosion in the basement. previously i eliminated the "plane impact" explanation presented by totovader. and the "elevator impact" is easy to refute. anyways....


Explosive atmosphere = fire triangle = fuel, oxygen, ignition source

We know that when the three conditions of the fire triangle are met between kerosene, air, and an ignition source, deflagration occurs.

When the plane hit the north tower we saw a fuel deflagration.

NIST agrees no fireball travelled down the elevator shaft from impact zone

NIST agrees that jet fuel travelled down elevator shaft from impact zone

Floor 90-80 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 80-70 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 70-60 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 60-50 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 50-40 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 40-30 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 30-20 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 20-10 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration
Floor 10-0 = jet fuel vapor+flamming deris+other ignition sources = no deflagration

B2 - 3 = DEFLAGRATION!!!! several witnesses thought they heard a bomb!!

B3 – 6 = jet fuel + other ignition sources = no deflagration

How is this POSSIBLE? Does anyone in this room have the expertise or imagination to explain away this problem in a half-way convincing manner?

This is completely wrong thewholesoul. NIST does not agree with you. NIST has determined through their own interviews with survivors that fireballs erupted from the elevator shafts on numerous floors throughout WTC 1. You should read pages 75-78 and look at figure 6-1 on page 81 in NIST NCSTAR 1-7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communication

You should also read the second last paragraph on page 80 in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis (Chapters 1-8).

In addition to this we have numerous accounts from the media telling us the same thing. This also something Gravy tried to point out to you several pages ago if I remember correctly, while you ignored it.

It is also time to point out to you that the jet fuel going down the elevator shafts with very great certainty did not need to find any ignition sources on the lower levels, because it kept burning all the way down, but was oxygen starved as I have explained here.

You have cracked nothing, you have only shown your own incredulity in relation to the consequences of Flight 11's impact inside WTC 1. You should either admit that you were wrong, or if that is to hard on you, you should just leave this thread quietly.

 

[funk de fino]

Look if want to degenerate the debate into jones is a liar and 911 peer reviewed papers are not peer reviewed – fine.
But i disagree with you with sugar on top.

disgaree all you want but they are not correctly peer reviwed papers.

Wikipedia

experts? JONES experts for reviewing papers are who exactly?

Besides on what authority, may i ask, do you claim that their papers are not peer reviewed?

Scientific community. Give me a list of their reviewers. Now define a peer reviewed scientific paper?

Yes they were peer reviewed which means the statement above was correct and the site was telling the truth.

So, you claim WTC7 collpased in 6.5 secs?

You see your tactic. You say the peer reviewed papers of 911 scholars are not peer reviewed. Then you call the scholars liars. Then you pull out calculations supposting the official hypothesis and claim i have to refute these fine gentlemen who are not liars and have presented peer review papers. Give me a break.

You have clamied total collpase is not inevitable. There are many papers out there which are properly peer reviewed that show that this is in fact true. You have to disprove them. You have to show they are wrong. If somone fron the truthers at JONES writes a paper to try and do this then they have to put it out into the scientific community to be poeer reviewed not just get some of their mates at the same online site to say its OK.

The truth is mathematical calculations on a page are not the same thing as an actual experiment – why – because the former are theoretical by nature.
That is why i suggest the best way and perhaps the only way to prove whose calculations are right is through testing, experimentation, and/or computer modelling.
So you can drop waving your calculations supporting the official hypothesis as if to say they the official hypothesis is thereby proven by the scientific method.
I said

Do you think exepriments on progressive collaapse have never been carried out? Do you not think there is a knowledge base out there already about progressive collapse? If you want tp pay for a mock up of the Towers so that they can carry out experiments to satify you, then by all means go ahead. The problem is, the real experts, who know about these things, are happy with the claculation because they undertsand them. You do not.

You completely IGNORED the other half – how conveniant. Lets just repeat it then shall we.
Is - “total collapse was inevitable post inital collapse” - A CLAIM?
Is - “total collapse resulted from fire and gravity” – A CLAIM?
The above claims have to date not been tested. thats a fact you can accept or not. Based on this fact i can claim, confidently, that the official hypothesis has not been proven by the scientific method – and i defy anyone in this forum to produce any test, experiment, and/or computer model that proves TOTAL COLLAPSE of the twin towers was caused by fire and gravity.
So that the “stating a claim” covered, as for the “new theory”.

It has been claimed and proved in peer reviewed papers that the towers collapsed due to the terrosists attacks that day. There is no evidence for any other theory. Bring some we can look at it.

Controlled demolition of a steel framed skyscraper is NOT A NEW THEORY OR PHENOMENA – thats a fact you accept or not.

Secret controlled demolition, using thermite, on a skyscraper that had been extensively damaged by planes flying into them at approx 500 mph, with a load of fuel causing loss of fireproofing and unfought fires, with no distinct loud demoliton explosions noises, then vidoes subsequently show that the cores stood longer than the rest of the building, is indeed a new theory skip

Total collapse of a steel framed skyscraper IS A NEW PHENOMENA – thats another fact you already accepted

Not a new theory of collpase of steel framed buildings though is it? there is one right outside my window. Steel framed warehouse, caughtv fire on 22nd december. Contained normal houslehold and office equipment. Steel frame collapsed with only the weight of roofing sheets on top of it.

The steel frame of the windsor tower would have completely collapsed had it not been for the concrete core holding it up.

Now when you have a new phenomena your are going to need a new theory, or hypothesis to explain that phenomena. Do you agree?
Or perhaps you can provide an example of one new phenomena that did not require a new theory or hypothesis.

Steel frame buildings collapsing due to fire is not a new theory.

Like i said before – the official hypothesis remains unproven – and the burden of proof my friend rests on anyone proposing a new theory or stating a claim. That means that advocates of CD hypothesis AND advocates of the official hypotehsis have the burden of proof.

Wrong again.

I will concede however in light of another post you sent that may be i was wrong to say that progressive and global collapse was invented terminology. I would sure like if NIST provided their definition of a “global collapse” given that use the term often enough.

Good, you are ahead of the game you have admitted a mistake

What is controlled demoltion – it is basically when explosives or incendary devices are used to to cut the vertical support structure so a global collapse can occur.
Now perhaps the explosions did not sound like “conventional” demolition explosives that you are familiar with. That is not to say that explosives or secondary devices did not produce the explosions heard by witnessess there that day.

A new theory then. A CD that does not sound like a CD? What was that about burden of proof? And new theories?

Why would they use incendiarys in a CD? You do know what an incendiary is dont you? I know of one guy who carried out demolitions on buildings withour explosives and purposely drtopped them out of their footprint. You will have to show me who else uses incendiares to carry out CD.

Ok so they “thought” they heard and saw explosives like in a demolition. But you “know” that it was not explosives. so tell me what did they “actually” hear and see. Or are you going to provide some more speculation?

You want me to speculate on their specualtions? Is that scientific?

I would prefer if you presented your case. Explain why you think the speed of sound removes the possibility that the sound of explosions were recorded.

not faster than the speed of sound.

How long before collapse were these sounds?

Did you go to implosionworld and look at the videos? Did they look and sound like the towers that day? Why do we not see and hear the same things in all the videos that we have all watched thousands of times from that day?

 

[funk de fino]

Explosive atmosphere = fire triangle = fuel, oxygen, ignition source

We know that when the three conditions of the fire triangle are met between kerosene, air, and an ignition source, deflagration occurs.

When the plane hit the north tower we saw a fuel deflagration.

Again, if you were in my class you would be kicked out and reported to your supervisor

try your equation again.

Fire Triangle = fuel, oxygen, heat

Explosive atmosphere = Fuel and oxygen ratio being between the LEL and UEL for that fuel type

To use the Fire triangle correctly you must always take note that you can have all the elements in the fire triangle but you will not always have a fire. This is mostly with liquid or gaseous fires and to a lesser extent solids.

You are assuming that if we have all the elements present them we have to have a fire. A fire is a not certainty but it is possible.

Now, I do not claim to know the exact specifics of what happened that day as far as the explosions, fireballs etc, what I am trying to show you is that there are numerous explanations for what happened and none of them are out of the oridinary or new theories or miraculous happenings. I am trying to show you that you do not understand basic theories which is why you are struggling here and unable to understand the things that happened on that day.

 

[Belz...]

hahahahahahah - i knew you were a fellow gringo. hey listen you score a half-a-point for that victory.

And you get NOTHING because you're apparently unable to connect dots that are so obvious. There was only one explanation.

if the reason that YOUR taxes could finance investiagtions in america is because you are from canada you win. enjoy it while it lasts my firend.

That makes no sense, whatsoever. What the hell did it mean ?

 

[Belz...]

Thats the first time you said “default theory”.

And ?

I want the CD hypothesis to be tested through experimentation and/or computer modelling. Alas only the official hypothesis has ever been investigated and if i suggested that the CD hypothesis be investigated you would say no it should not be.

Are you saying that the official theory was investigated ?

And please stop using the word "hypothesis". It makes you look like a fool.

Your position is an example of complete double speak: you claim that truthers must prove their theory yet you would object to it being officially investigated and tested.

I don't object to it: I'm saying it already WAS. See how bad you are at reading ?

in other words truthers have the burden of proof yet truthers are denied the means to prove their hypothesis.

You're not denied. You can fund a private investigation at any time.

Of course experimentation is an observed phenomena – but terrorists crashing planes into the towers WAS NOT AN EXPERIMENT.

Perhaps not in the strictest sense of the word, but it was a spectacular demonstration of why buildings should be built as tough as possible. Gravity is relentless.

Hahahahahha – let me refresh your memory
I said
Belz before
Belz after “i told you it was UNNECESSARY”
I said

Hahahahha - now im fighting a strawman!!

(wikipedia)
Question: what is my opponents position????? Let me refresh his memory.
I said -
So belz states that the official hypothesis has been proven.
I said -
belz states on a second occassion that the official hypothesis has been proven by the sceintific method.

Now when i argue that - the official explanation has not been proven by the scientific method. I am fighting a strawman because this is a misrepresentation of Belz’s CURRENT position. Before he stated that the official hypothesis was proven by the scientific method. Now he states that its unnecessary!!

I said

I said -
Belz before said
Belz after - i dont need to provide one example or experiment when total collapse was tested.

i said -

No need - It has already been proven
I said -

Hahahahahah –
What part of - you change you position like a comellian changes its colours - dont you undertsand???

Once you're done masturbating your own ego, can we proceed ?

Heres the deal: you stated clearly and definitely that the official hypothesis was proven by the scientific method.

Nope.

Amazingly you did neither!!!

There's nothing amazing about it. I said that everybody in the industry knows what happens when a mass of this size comes crashing down.

I've been saying this since the beginning.

 

[twinstead]

The problem is that the wrong people are clamoring for a new investigation to test for CD--people who don't know what they are talking about.

There's are some actual experts-Quintiere comes to mind--who want a new investigation, but this has nothing to do with CD or an inside job. If he were to ever get his new investigation, the results of it would most assuredly be poo pooed by truthers because it also wouldn't prove their 'inside job'.

As long as the only cry for an investigation that concentrates on CD comes from those who have an agenda and from those who don't have a clue about what they are talking about, it will never happen.

There's the key. Truthers, find some people, some REAL experts within the system who's combined voices couldn't be ignored. You obviously think your evidence is compelling enough to do this otherwise you wouldn't be making fools of yourself trying to get your message out.

Step away from YouTube and the Internet. Publish papers in respected journals. And for God's sake Dump Jones, Wood et all NOW before it's too late.

 

[thewholesoul]

So this is a retraction of youir earlier claims?

it looks like i may have to. it seems that the terms might not have been invented for the first time post 911. although NIST does not define what global collapse means thus there may still be an opening if they define it differently from the defintions previously.

however if i were to make a rebuttal - i would argue that 911 exhibited a new phenomena i.e. first stell framed skyscraper to exhibit a total collapse due to fire and gravity - thus a new phenomena requires a new theory, or hypothesis to explain this phenomena.

but this aspect of our dialogue was about the burden of proof.
i am awaiting your response as to why - total collapse was inevitable post initial collapse - is NOT A CLAIM. a claim i might add had NOT been proven by the scientific method.

i still maintain the positon that the burden of proof rests on those who state claims or new theory's. contolled demolition is not a new theory. and if the burden of proof rests with us - then you should support an OFFICIAL investigation into the CD hypothesis. if i had to choose with was a new theory between the official hypothesis and contolled demolition i would say the former based on the fact that the phenomena which occured on 911 never happened previously to a steel framed skyscraper.

 

[thewholesoul]

And please stop using the word "hypothesis". It makes you look like a fool.

ok i look foolish.

why dont you present your REASONS why the official hypothesis is NOT a hypothesis and we will judge who looks foolish at a later point.

 

[Belz...]

my position - would question whether the plane crash would have led to the initial collapse.

10,000 pages seem to show that it should have.

and that even if initial collapse had begun that it would not have resulted in a total collapse unless the resistance of the vertical structure was removed or cut by preplanted explosives or incendary devices.

Soul, when are you going to realise that only one floor at a time needed to fail ?

i know i promised to get into the evidence supporting the CD hypothesis but i think i cracked the official hypothesis.

How ? By continual use of arguments from incredulity ?

 

[Dave Rogers]

however if i were to make a rebuttal - i would argue that 911 exhibited a new phenomena i.e. first stell framed skyscraper to exhibit a total collapse due to fire and gravity - thus a new phenomena requires a new theory, or hypothesis to explain this phenomena.

Would you please, please try to remember that 9-11 was the first (and second) time a steel framed building had been hit by a jet airliner, followed by the first time a steel framed building had been hit by debris from a collapsing steel framed building more than twice as high? You're arguing that there's something suspicious about unique consequences resulting from unique circumstances, which is patently absurd.

i still maintain the positon that the burden of proof rests on those who state claims or new theory's. contolled demolition is not a new theory. and if the burden of proof rests with us - then you should support an OFFICIAL investigation into the CD hypothesis. if i had to choose with was a new theory between the official hypothesis and contolled demolition i would say the former based on the fact that the phenomena which occured on 911 never happened previously to a steel framed skyscraper.

Your position here is absurd too. Controlled demolition of a steel framed structure without any prior weakening, with the charges having been installed in secret, with the sole point of collapse initiation more than half way up the structure, and using charges which were able to withstand a jet fuel deflagration and an hour's exposure to a major building contents fire, is such a radically new hypothesis that prior to 9-11 it had never been so much as hinted at. In that respect, it's a radically new theory, and one for which there is not a shred of plausible evidence.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

ok i look foolish.

why dont you present your REASONS why the official hypothesis is NOT a hypothesis and we will judge who looks foolish at a later point.

Are you still playing that stupid game of yours ?

And when are you going to adress my points about your youtube videos ?

 

[beachnut]

ok i look foolish.

why dont you present your REASONS why the official hypothesis is NOT a hypothesis and we will judge who looks foolish at a later point.

There is no hypothesis for 11 hitting WTC, 175 hitting WTC, 77 hitting Pentagon, 93 smashing into the ground in PA. Prove me wrong and you win a Pulitzer Prize! No prize for you, I am right.

Next, impact and fire brought down each WTC1, 2, 7. There is no hypothesis on this, it is fact proven on 9/11. If you can prove me wrong once again you get a Pulitzer Prize, but you can not prove me wrong. Go ahead try.

Any other doubts on this. Oh, 19 terrorist took 4 jets and used them as weapons on 9/11. Prove this wrong, prove me wrong, and again you get a Pulitzer Prize. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

You have no facts, you have no idea what happen on 9/11. There is only what happen on 9/11. Your posts have presented no facts, your ideas are failed 9/11 truth BS. There is no Pulitzer Prize for your non smoking gun zero ideas on 9/11. Just failed hearsay talk from 9/11 truth the false information movement pushing ideas for no good reason.

What happen on 9/11 is not a hypothesis; Prove me wrong and you have a prize. So far you have failed. You have to come up and prove it wrong. You can't. You can't even get started.

CD is a nut case idea only for the weak minded fools who buy the ideas of 9/11 truth. If you can prove CD you get a Pulitzer Prize, you can't, so you don't get the prize. You must come up with evidence; since fire did in the WTC, you will fail to find evidence, because there was no CD. Only lies come from 9/11 truth; please produce some facts, or keep the lies to yourself.

 

[thewholesoul]

If you ask me, in my opinion, I would say there is more likely to have been an explosion in the lower levels than the upper.

Why is it more likely in your opinion?