DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[TexasJack]

but i could even entertain you and agree that planting explosives is highly improbable - but its not impossible. the hypothesis you bury your head into is IMPOSSIBLE and I will choose improbable over impossible every single time and so should any rational human being

And any rational human being will choose the probable over the highly improbable every single time. The hypothesis you bury your head into is the highly improbable.

 

[e^n]

in NIST's FAQ's they explain why they were unable to explain the total collapse. so my claim (also NIST's claim) that they were in fact unable to explain total collapse is TRUE ACCURATE and CORRECT.

No, it is out of context. Do I really have to provide the context for you?

how on gods green earth does explaining why you cannot explain something somehow remove the fact that you were unable to explain that something???? what breed of nonesense are you talking man?????

NIST was not tasked with simulating or explaining the collapse post initiation. It has no scientific merit that I can see and would cost an extremely large amount of money if it were even possible.

the TRUTH is NIST - for whatever reason - were unable to explain total collapse (their words not mine) so it IMPOSIIBLE to claim that the total collapse has been proven since it is absurd to claim that total collapse has been proven while at the same time admiting that it cannot be explained.

Nothing in science is proven.

I spent a reasonable amount of time putting together an explanation to your post above, please show me some courtesy and respond. Thanks.

 

[applecorped]

No, it is out of context. Do I really have to provide the context for you?


NIST was not tasked with simulating or explaining the collapse post initiation. It has no scientific merit that I can see and would cost an extremely large amount of money if it were even possible.


Nothing in science is proven.

I spent a reasonable amount of time putting together an explanation to your post above, please show me some courtesy and respond. Thanks.

Nothing in science is proven? How so?

 

[e^n]

Nothing in science is proven? How so?

"Proven" in science means essentially "without disproof". Science only deals with what we currently know, so to say anything is proven means that it has so far held up to all tests. Evolution is proven because it has an overwhelming amount of evidence for it and little or none against it. This does not however mean it is 100% correct, and the theory is constantly being refined as we learn more about the mechanisms.

The same applies to every attempt to understand the world, yes we can simulate the WTC fires and not the collapses, in the future it may be possible to do the collapses too with improved FEA modelling and quicker computers but this would still not result in any unquestionable proof, just evidence in favour of the theory.

This is why personal incredulity is such a powerful driving force in the truther community. "I can't understand it so I don't consider it proven" is valid, but irrelevant. There is no universal level of proof to attain, simply as much evidence as can be gathered.

Sorry if that's a bit hard to understand, I am rambling and distracted

 

[Par]

Nothing in science is proven? How so?

There are entire books devoted to this subject. Put briefly, however:

Take, for instance, the fairly uncontroversial notion that acids turn litmus paper red. This paradigm belief is rooted in experimental inductivism – each and every time we have placed litmus paper in contact with acid, it has turned red. However, if you were to claim that, in light of this, science had proven that acids turn litmus paper red, then you would be making an argument like this:

• Litmus paper x₁ turned red when placed in contact with acid on occasion t₁.
• Litmus paper x₂ turned red when placed in contact with acid on occasion t₂.
• Litmus paper x_n turned red when placed in contact with acid on occasion t_n.
• Therefore, litmus paper always turns red when placed in contact with acid.

The problem is that the conclusion can never logically follow from the premises. The best we can say is that the notion that litmus paper always turns red when placed in contact with acid – even though it has been subjected to extremely rigorous and numerous tests – has never been falsified.

 

[applecorped]

Is there nothing science has proven? The Earth isn't flat? Gravity?

Anything?

 

[e^n]

Is there nothing science has proven? The Earth isn't flat? Gravity?

Anything?

You are mistaking observation with theory. We observe the earth to be flat, we observe gravity to act. These tell us nothing except the existence of this force. The theory of planetary formation is not proven, neither is any theory of gravity. We know that Einstein's predictions match our observations, but this in no way proves his equations correct, simply correct as far as we know.

 

[Norseman]

Is there nothing science has proven? The Earth isn't flat? Gravity?

Anything?

Maybe the earth is flat, though not in the sense we normally think of the concept:

In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on a boundary surface, and that the three dimensions we observe are illusory.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

 

[applecorped]

This is getting a little too philosophic. Sorry for the derail. Back to "proving" that WTC7 was not brought down by a CD.

 

[thewholesoul]

I spent a reasonable amount of time putting together an explanation to your post above, please show me some courtesy and respond. Thanks.

hey e'm

sorry about delay, as you can probably tell i have a lot of fan mail in here to respond to. and this is not the only thread i am in.

that said i do intend to respond to your mail i have half of it done already. i just want to finsih my post for the new thread on molten metal, then respond to Par which i have also half finished and then to yours truly.

rest asured i will respond to all your posts but i am a little fatigued these days. hopefully tommorrow i will have your response

peace

 

[stateofgrace]

So was the thermite charge cutting an intended column? Assuming the molten metal was a thermite reaction and assuming it was located beside a column then yes it was cutting a column intentionally. It is a fact that just moments after the reaction the building began its descent and cutting vertical columns would assist in this process. But why do we see only one discharging on the north east corner and not elsewhere? Its a good question. My pennies worth is the following: a thermite incendary charge was positioned on the northeast corner to cut the outer perimeter (and perhaps some core columns?) in order to assist in the “toppling effect” we all witnessed. The “toppling effect” in my opinion was arranged to create an illusion of an asymetric-natural collapse.

There is also the possibility that the reaction was premature and was meant to have occured during the collapse and not before?

The following links address the queston as to where the thermite charges were positioned. http://www.physics911.net/thermite, http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=16&MMN_position=25:25,

How did the charges survive the impact? Presumably the terrorists who planned the event knew which direction the planes would enter the towers. With this information they could have placed the cutter charges on the blind side of the core columns. So columns that the plane did not cut through, the cutter charges would have remained and finished the job off later.
peace

Are you just making this up as you go along?

 

[applecorped]

hey e'm

sorry about delay, as you can probably tell i have a lot of fan mail in here to respond to. and this is not the only thread i am in.

that said i do intend to respond to your mail i have half of it done already. i just want to finsih my post for the new thread on molten metal, then respond to Par which i have also half finished and then to yours truly.

rest asured i will respond to all your posts but i am a little fatigued these days. hopefully tommorrow i will have your response

peace

Truth! Who needs the truth! I have fan mail!!!!

 

[e^n]

that said i do intend to respond to your mail i have half of it done already. i just want to finsih my post for the new thread on molten metal, then respond to Par which i have also half finished and then to yours truly.

rest asured i will respond to all your posts but i am a little fatigued these days. hopefully tommorrow i will have your response

No problem, I look forward to reading it. Happy Birthday!

 

[pomeroo]

Are you just making this up as you go along?

Am I just running out patience or are the liars getting dumber and dumber?

 

[thewholesoul]

•the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron

While this is true, this is somewhat irrelevant when you are not talking about pure aluminium. Glass for example will both melt and glow appropriately at this temperature. Lead will melt and does not glow spectacularly, but if contained for a duration will certainly heat up enough to glow. The argument that it could only be molten iron is not convincing, not least because we see no perturbation of the aluminium fascia, nor any degradation in the perimeter column between the two emission windows. I hope that answers your question.

(i)It is not irrelevant because it proves that the molten flow could not have possibly been aluminium. Unless you can provide an experiment with published photos of aluminium falling bright yellow-orange in daylight I see no reason to change my position and question the grounds upon which you maintain yours.
(ii) Here steven jones proves that NIST’s claim, that the molten flow could have been pure aluminium or aluminium mixed with organics, was wrong.
(iii)I never stated “it could only be molten iron”, that’s a strawman. I claim that

the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron

and you have not provided any reason to refute the visual-identification between the molten metal flowing from the south tower and molten iron produced from a thermite reaction seen here .
(iv)By the way, do you have any plausible explanation for the bright flame, pressure pulses, and puffs of white smoke that accompanied and preceded the molten metal? Because NIST don’t.

•the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low

We can discuss design all you like, I personally am not convinced they were designed to handle either the speeds involved or the fire resulting. Either way the probability is irrelevant. If you deal out a deck of cards, the odds against the arrangement you deal are astronomical, but yet you dealt it.

(i)How can you possibly be unconvinced that the towers were unable to handle the speeds of the jet impact when in fact they did handle the speeds of impact as seen by everyone on television? If they could not handle the speeds they would have fallen immediately. This one-hour-later knock-out-punch scenario is absurd.
(ii)The reason I claim that the towers were designed to survive the impact of a jetliner with a combustible fuel load is because that is what those who actually designed the buildings have said. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html Presumably you have not designed the buildings so I’m afraid I will have to take their word over yours.
(iii)Probability is not irrelevant and your analogy is false. We are talking about three buildings designed to survive all the damage they received failing on the same day; we are talking about something historically never seen before occuring three times in the same day; we are talking about 1/10 of a structure pulverising 8/10 of a structure and then itself; we are talking about the probability of the official explanation i.e. a sequence of events being true, as opposed to an explosives based explanation i.e. parallel explanation being true.
(iv)But if you really wish to use the card analogy would you say that dealing the same combination of 52 cards THREE times in the same day has a (a) very high (b) high (c) low or (d) very low probability of occurance?
(v)The Truth is, 911 aside, it is far more probable to totally destroy a steel framed skyscraper with explosives rather than with fire and aysmetrical structural damage. Correct?

The entire NIST report save for some subsections deals with the proof of this. Of course I know what you are requesting by experimentation, but this is irrelevant, you can easily demand even greater levels of experimentation until you reach a full reproduction (which has been requested believe it or not).

(i)Expecting NIST to prove their own hypothesis through experimentation is irrelevant? They had 4 years and 20 million dollars to do so. And by not doing so their hypothesis remains unproven. Correct?
(ii)Of course full reproduction is not necessary (even possible) however half scale models were made and tested. I would have expected more such experiments along those lines.

This is a false dilemma. Steel can fail much more quickly than one hour, but individual elements form part of a composite structure. Not only this but we are as of this point quite unaware of any specific details of fire progression and potential fireproofing damage within WTC7. Your hasty attempt to create only two options is at odds with your previous requirements of rigorous experimental verification.

(i)Only when there are no other available options can it be called a false dilemma and I note that you have failed to provide any alternative option. When you find one let me know.
(ii)Assuming (1) the intensity of fires in wtc 1, 2 and 7 were similar (2) assuming all the fire proofing was knocked off the trusses in wtc 1 and 2 by jet impact and in wtc 7 by exposure to fire (3) assuming the sprinkler system was inoperable in wtc 1, 2 and 7 (4) assuming the trusses in wtc 1,2 and 7 were of similar quality (5) assuming trusses in at least one floor of wtc 1,2 and 7 were under constant exposure to an office fire, then; (a) because uninsulated steel trusses in wtc 1, 2 failed in an hour its steel must be much weaker than that in wtc 7, or (b) because uninsulated steel trusses in wtc 7 did not fail until several hours despite exposure, its steel must be much stronger. I reiterate (a) or (b), you choose – or provide an alternative option.
(iii)The fact you state that “Steel can fail much more quickly than one hour” only makes the behaviour of wtc 7 and every other skyscraper in history that has not collapsed after an hours exposure, all the more strange.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

•NIST’s claim that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches has not been proven by a representative experiment.

Firstly, why do you believe NIST should conduct an experiment to back up their hypothetical scenario?

(i)because if they dont their Pre-collapse hypothesis will remain unproven
(ii)because 3000 people died on 911 and they deserve that NIST’s hypothesis is backed by experiments whenever possible.
(iii)A better question would ask why you dont think they should prove their hypothesis?
(iv)In any event your response pleases me because you are essentially admitting that NIST has not proven their hypothesis through experimentation which is precisely the claim I wished to establish

Leaving aside the lack of any sort of proper facility to conduct this test

(i)“The Underwriters Labratories of Canada fire testing facilities in Toronto, has a furnace with nominal dimensions of 35ft by 14ft. Thus, full – or – large scale tests of floor assemblies can be tested in this furnace.” P33 202 http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6B.pdf
(ii)But even if NIST hadnt the facilities that would not infringe on the point I was making

there is nothing surprising that a truss of 60ft in length can sag by under 4 feet surely?

(i)I agree there is nothing surprising that a floor truss will sag. I just want to see an experiment that proves unprotected steel, like that in the towers, will sag 42inches in 45 mins just like they display in their computer simulation.
(ii)Note that out of simulations only one exhibited inward bowing of the perimeter columns and this one involved the trusses sagging 42 inches.
(iii)They tested 4 floor assemblies with fireproofing one of them had as little as 0.5 inch insulation. There is no reason why they could not have tested a floor truss completely unprotected. The reason they did not is because if the truss in an actual experiment did not sag 42 inches, they could not use the 42 inches in the only simulation that worked?

Perhaps you would believe a simulation conducted by professionals from another country?

(i)If I dont believe a simulation by NIST sending me another simulation is hardly going to quench my scepticism.
(ii)The new simulation does not specify the amount of fireproofing used
(iii)It must have exaggerated the temperatures; I know this because in NIST’s simulation a non-insulated floor truss sags 42 inches after 45 minutes. Seen here, figure 6-11 . But in the new simulation a non-insulated floor truss sags 42inches after just 13minutes of exposure.
(iv)In 1975, with only 0.5 inch fireproofing (NCSTAR 1-6 p282 PARA 12) the steel trusses in the north tower did not fail. Nor were they removed or replaced eventhough the fire lasted 3hours. So how come they did not sag 42+inches? Now if what you said was true –in all cases -

Steel can fail much more quickly than one hour.

Then i would have expected the trusses to fail in the 1975 fire, sooner in the wtc 7 fire, and in every steel framed skyscraper fire in history. But because this did not happen, I have good reason to doubt the simulations and suggest that real life experiments should have taken place.
(v)In the FEMA report (Appendix A)."In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
(vi)Why is it that any real experiment or incident seems to contradict the NIST hypothesis?

Secondly, the 42 inch sagging is not "supposedly responsible". The sagging is a result of a loss of load bearing ability which results in the upper truss chord hanging in tension. This is what causes the inward bowing shown and as has already been linked, Newtons Bit has shown the maths behind this.

(i)Look what you just said is a more nuanced understanding of the mechanisms however what i said is not untrue because I took it directly from NIST’s collapse sequence http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf p68/470“the floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the exterior columns”; “floors sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the exterior columns to bow inward and buckle – a process that spread across the faces of the buildings”; “collapse then ensued.”

This is a critical lack of thinking, you have failed to consider that the tests you require may not be worthwhile or even needed at all.

(i)A representative experiment is needed because otherwise the 42inch sag displayed in NIST’s simulation and responsible for the inward buckling which led to the initial collapse - remains unproven
(ii)It is needed because clearly not all steel behaves the same as noted in the experimentation with British steel, and the behaviour of the wtc 7 steel, and the resistance of the steel trusses in the 1975 north tower fire
(iii)It is only worthwhile if NIST considers proving their own hypothesis worthwhile. Obviously they dont and they avoid any representative experimentation in fear that it may contradict their PRE-determined conclusions. Poor science.

I understand the point you are attempting to make, but you seem to assume that truss sagging is some sort of bizarre unknown phenomenon that NIST should carefully dissect. It is not and in fact the trusses are designed to sag a certain amount when in normal use.

I dont. But given the pivatol role this 42inch sagging plays in their simulation it should be proven through experimentation. All they had to do was make a 5th floor assembly and leave it without fireproofing – thats it ! – and if the 42inch sagging after 45 minutes is as common place as you seem to imply then they had nothing to worry about. The fact that the trusses did not fail in 1975, and in the Bristish steel experiments, and took over three hours in wtc 7 is reason enough to test even the smallest assumptions.

I do, please explain your requirements for an appropriate experiment. This should include:
• Precise steel makeup
• Precise weld strength information
• Precise bolt makeup
• Precise fireproofing condition
• Precise load due to office furnishings and/or debris
• Precise fire distribution and atmospheric temperature
• Precise radiative heat emission
I doubt you can provide these, and NIST cannot provide perfect or precise data for any point. This is the point of FEA modelling, to solve these many variables as simultaneously as possible and as accurately as the data will allow. This type of modelling saves lives and saves a huge amount of money it seems you would misspend on experiments which are simply unable of being representative.

So your seriously telling me that it is impossible to construct an identical floor truss half-scale, like the other four floor trusses they did test in toronto, and expose it to fire without insulating fireproofing? Your telling me that we could build the twin towers but 30 years on we can not build an identical floor truss of WTC even with the blueprints? As for the other parameters there is nothing insurmountable, one could always over estimate and underestimate if and when necessary.

Another false dilemma, did NIST really shoot 15 rounds of a shot gun into a plywood box? Are you misrepresenting their experiments? Why would you do such a thing and yet require such an extreme amount of proof from your opponent? Hardly an even bias I would say.

It is only a false dilemma if there are no other available options. I noted that you fail to provide any. Besides I thought you were familiar with the NIST report? Yes that was the experiment they conducted in order to prove that the fireproofing was “widely dislodged” (i.e. that ALL the [upgraded] fireproofing was removed on 5 floors). They fired 15 rounds into a plywood box containing flat steel plates. This is not representative because (a) there is no evidence that a jet turns into bullets on impact and (b) the fireproofing was removed from floor trusses and columns not a flate steel plate (c) et cetera.
.

It does not, this is an illusion as the upper section of WTC 1 rotated to the south as it collapsed. It's true enough that a reasonably large section on the north face did collapse but I don't see that this is incredibly unexpected given the amount of impact damage. This is the only reasonably clear video I know of the north tower from the south:

It does visibly disintegrate before the intact structure below the impact zone begins to violently explode, scroll down a little and see. http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html
Please look again at the video clip and tell me the truth in your next post – even if it did rotate does the upper section above the impact zone not significantly disintegrate before the intact structure below begins disintegrating? You see if you can answer this honestly you can or should nolonger believe the “piledriver theory”.

1/10 of a building is never going to crush the 8/10 below and then itself. Thats the bottom line. On top of that because the towers fell in essentially freefall speed you must conceive the intact structure below as a vaccum of air offering little to no resistance to a smaller, weaker, disintegrating, collapsing upper section.

Probably not, nothing as large as WTC 1 or 2 has ever collapsed before to my knowing.

It pleases me that you can not find one single example in the natural world when 1/10 crushes 8/10 of the same object and then itself.

Admit? I think you'll find a better word would be 'explain'. If you quote the relevant sections NIST explain nicely why they are unable. This is not something you can blame on NIST I am afraid.

(i)Explain? I think you’ll find a better word would be ‘admit’. I have read NIST’s explanation why they were unable. I am not blaming NIST obviously there hypothesis has its limitations – but tell me my friend how does explaning why they were unable in any way alter the fact that they were unable to explain the total collapse?
(ii)To put it another way imagine i asked you a math question in class but you were unable to answer the question. You then proceeded to explain to me the perfectly valid reasons why you were unable to answer the question e.g. you didnt have a calculator, the dog ate your math book, you find toofers an irratating bunch etc. These reasons x, y and z do not alter the fact that you were unable to answer the intial question.
(iii)Now because NIST are unable to explain total collapse means (a) their theory is a PRE-collapse theory (b) total collapse remains unproven (c) they should step aside because CT’s can explain the total collapse.

Indeed, perhaps you should read the first pages of the reports. NIST were not investigating to satisfy the requirements of conspiracy theorists. They were investigating to determine what caused the collapse and how to prevent it in future. Once the building has begun collapsing they have failed.

(i)Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and how and why WTC 7 collapsed. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf

By your standards of evidence then any theory will remain unproven.

Really? Sure in your next post that's your ‘new’ position

Nothing in science is proven

Peace

 

[Par]

By your standards of evidence then any theory will remain unproven.

Really? Sure in your next post that's your ‘new’ position

Nothing in science is proven

I thought you might do that. I suspect it was merely a passing act of opportunism. However, I will briefly address it regardless.

• You say that by my standards of evidence any theory will remain unproven.
• But you also say that nothing in science is proven.
• Therefore, you are being inconsistent.

The problem is that the meaning of the term “proven” has shifted between the first and second premise. This is the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[thewholesoul]

I'm afraid not, it has been accepted by the majority of the international engineering community. Your personal disagreement or the disagreement of a group of people is pretty much irrelevant unless you have some good scientific basis for it.

The amount of people who endorse a given theory is irrelevant as to the merit of that theory. There are professionals on both sides and truthers are ignored, stigmatized and threatened with their lives by radio talk show hosts. But we are growing in numbers and will never stop despite these minor obstacles.
Good science? One example is the molten metal from the south tower. Jones provides experiments with published photos of the results – NIST provides WORDS with no experiments or photos. NIST lacks experiments period and when they do experiments they are unrepresentative.
Here is the NIST sequecne of events:

1. The aircraft severed "a number of columns": no hard evidence but simulates how south tower has more columns severed than north
2. Loads were redistributed (from -20% to +25%)
3. Insulation (fireproofing) was widely dislodged: no hard evidence + unrepresentative experiment
4. High temperatures softened columns and floors: no hard evidence
5. Some floors began to sag: very lttle photographic evidence and no representative experiment
6. Sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward causing them to buckle: no hard evidence no experimentation
7. Instability spread around entire building: simulation with parameters adjusted
8: collapse then insued: no explanation as to why the intact structure below offered no resistance. NIST never even attempts to explain the near free fall speeds that we all witnessed.

I have not read Dr Jones' latest papers, but I am confused by your attitude. Thermite is Iron and Aluminium, with various other elements added in in various different versions. Iron and Aluminium are what the towers were made out of. Of course thermite was in WTC dust.

So there was COMMERCIAL thermite in the WTC? Who’d have thought. Becuase jones compared the unignited samples of thermite he found with commercial thermite and got a match. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

Here is another paper you may wish to familiarize yourself with. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

I hope I have answered your questions.

Indeed and all my points remain uncontested
Post #907
• the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron
• the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low
• NIST’s claim that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches has not been proven by a representative experiment.
• NIST’s claim that the fire proofing was widly dislogded has not been proven by a representative experiment
• NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the imapct zone, so
• Taken together the official hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven 7 years after the event
peace

 

[applecorped]

The amount of people who endorse a given theory is irrelevant as to the merit of that theory. There are professionals on both sides and truthers are ignored, stigmatized and threatened with their lives by radio talk show hosts. But we are growing in numbers and will never stop despite these minor obstacles.
Good science? One example is the molten metal from the south tower. Jones provides experiments with published photos of the results – NIST provides WORDS with no experiments or photos. NIST lacks experiments period and when they do experiments they are unrepresentative.
Here is the NIST sequecne of events:

1. The aircraft severed "a number of columns": no hard evidence but simulates how south tower has more columns severed than north
2. Loads were redistributed (from -20% to +25%)
3. Insulation (fireproofing) was widely dislodged: no hard evidence + unrepresentative experiment
4. High temperatures softened columns and floors: no hard evidence
5. Some floors began to sag: very lttle photographic evidence and no representative experiment
6. Sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward causing them to buckle: no hard evidence no experimentation
7. Instability spread around entire building: simulation with parameters adjusted
8: collapse then insued: no explanation as to why the intact structure below offered no resistance. NIST never even attempts to explain the near free fall speeds that we all witnessed.



So there was COMMERCIAL thermite in the WTC? Who’d have thought. Becuase jones compared the unignited samples of thermite he found with commercial thermite and got a match. http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

Here is another paper you may wish to familiarize yourself with. http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

Indeed and all my points remain uncontested
Post #907
• the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron
• the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low
• NIST’s claim that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches has not been proven by a representative experiment.
• NIST’s claim that the fire proofing was widly dislogded has not been proven by a representative experiment
• NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the imapct zone, so
• Taken together the official hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven 7 years after the event
peace

ahem,.......OH really!!!!!!!

 

[thewholesoul]

I thought you might do that. I suspect it was merely a passing act of opportunism. However, I will briefly address it regardless.

• You say that by my standards of evidence any theory will remain unproven.
• But you also say that nothing in science is proven.
• Therefore, you are being inconsistent.

The problem is that the meaning of the term “proven” has shifted between the first and second premise. This is the fallacy of equivocation.

just a quick reply,

it was just a passing act of opportunism.

i understand what unproven means in science.

all sceince claims and conclusions must be either verifiable or falsiable in the physical world, if not, then they are not scientific claims but metaphysical ones. e.g. i cannot verify or falsify my claim that God exists.

E'm shoots himself in the foot when he writes

so to say anything is proven means that it has so far held up to all tests.

i argued that certain claims in the NIST sequence to collaspe initiation have not held up to any tests becuase they were not tested or were tested with unrepresentative experiments. moreover the total collapse has not been tested and some would argue that it is impossiible to test. if it is impossible to verify or falsify then we all know what kind of claim "collapse then ensued" really is.

peace

peace