DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[thewholesoul]

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

Before you provide the context ask yourself does it remove or negate the content. I cannot explain X because t, u, v. But the fact remains that you cannot explain X. Its rather simple logic. But if i may caution you. If you are claiming that it is neither possible to verify or falsify total collapse then the claim “collapse then ensued” is nolonger a scientific claim but a fidelistic belief.

and if it cannot be explained within the ifficial context/hypothesis then it must be abandoned in favor for one that can explain it. correct?

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.

(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

Nothing in science is proven.

Every scientific claim must be verifiable or falsifiable in the physical world, if not, it is not a scientific claim. The reason why it is said that science is proven is because it is always open to falsification. But compared to other academic fields science is held to a higher level of “proof” through experimentation. Something noteably lacking in NIST report.

the truth reamins that my claim that;

the official hypothesis is unproven according to the scientific method is true
e.g. there is no experimnet of sagging floors buckling outer columns. as i keep stressing the only logical counter is to say sorry your wrong there Whole, because there is an experiment when the sagging floors caused buckling.

another logical counter would be to argue that computer simulation is a valid form of "proof". to which i would remind you of the alterations NIST have made to their simulations.

given that you are unable to provide these counters arguing that (a) its irrelevant (b) its costly (c) its not necessary (d) its impossible (d) nothing in science is proven (e) et cetera

does not alter my claim one iota. it is for this reason that i make the VALID claim that NIST official hypothesis remains unproven

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

i will post my reply to Par next

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I know you're already overwhelmed with fanmail as it is... i'll make this relatively brief.... and as usual take your time....

(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?

Will you stop splitting hairs with this? Why do you think the trusses didn't need to be replaced? You have been told repeatedly that the 1975 fire doesn't remotely compare to the circumstances on 911. The floors had their full integrity when that fire started, none of the fireproofing was ever removed, and I don't mean 'some', none. It was also fought for the time it burned.

Apples and oranges... Try again, KTHNX

Now if what you said was true –in all cases
- Then i would have expected the trusses to fail in the 1975 fire

False, the 1975 fire was fought and put out within the alloted life span of the fireproofing protection. None of the fireproofing was compromised to begin with either.

sooner in the wtc 7 fire, and in every steel framed skyscraper fire in history.

FAIL, reread e^n's quote and put it in context, he shouldn't have to tell you what context he was using.

It does visibly disintegrate before the intact structure below the impact zone begins to violently explode, scroll down a little and see.

So you count the structure 'disappearing in a cloud of dust' as disintegration. Brilliant...
It peels apart, yes, disintegrates, no. It's clear from watching footage of both collapses that there were significant portions peeling out as the top portion was engulfed in the dust.

1/10 of a building is never going to crush the 8/10 below and then itself. Thats the bottom line.

FAIL, you have once again asserted that the towers are solid objects, whether intentionally or not. I'll make this point in layman's terms for you one more time:

• Structure fails, top portion falls 12 ft (equivalent of 1 floor height
• The top portion of the tower hits the floor below
• The floor fails to arrest collapse
• floor + top section falls another floor height
• next floor fails to arrest collapse
• cycle repeats

Any acceleration lost as a result of resistance applied by an in-tact floor is regained with another floor height of acceleration. At this point 1/5 of a building vs, 4/5 is irrelevant. If there is sufficient mass and force to cause a floor to fail and allow the collapse to progress, it keeps adding to the momentum. We aren't talking about 5 to 8 story short buildings with a comparatively huge footprint, we're talking about extremely tall structures with a proportionally small footprint...

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.

This was debunked long ago, yes the structure provided very little resistance to the collapse, but each collapse took 50 to 100% more time to complete than free fall acceleration.

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

And where do the vast majority of professional fall in-line with? The ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers ) has done an evaluation on the buildings already, and they don't seem to have a problem with it. The AIAA, and others don't either. They're all professionals, who don't have any problems with much of the official conclusions of the events. What does that make them in your eyes, government apologists or wackos, since the thousands of m,embers in those two organizations alone far outnumber the 'professionals' who support the consensus of the truth movement?

Wait, you've answered my question already, numbers apparently don't matter in regard to the merit of the conclusions... so what if anything does the fact that tens of thousands of professionals in related fields have a general agreement on the failure method of the towers? Why aren't the ASCE articles screaming thermite incendiaries for WTC 7 or the twin towers?

 

[thewholesoul]

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

hey EM do I know you from somewhere? I mean how did you know it was my birthday?

peace

 

[Dave Rogers]

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


(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.

Given that yellow-orange indicates a temperature of about 1200ºC and that the melting temperature of iron (and steel) is in excess of 1500ºC, unless you can provide photographs of molten iron that is clearly yellow-orange I will consider your position to be comprehensively refuted.

Dave

 

[eeyore1954]

the Whole soul says

1/10 of a building is never going to crush the 8/10 below and then itself. Thats the bottom line.

this is enough to let anyone know he has little or no conception of the principles involved.

I also wonder where the other 1/10 went but I am assuming that is a typo.

 

[funk de fino]

please refrain from calling me a liar especially when you base your groundless accusation on absurdity!

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.

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?????

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.

your logic is redundant and before calling someone else a liar I suggest you be a little more "fino" and lot less "funk".

For starters mate, I did not call you a liar. I said you were either wrong or you were a liar.

If you read the answer given below by NIST in their FAQs you will see thay did explain the total collapse.

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

Now as you see above they did explain it and also added some calculations thus proving it was not impossible. You think they are wrong then you prove it.

and how dare you call me a liar when all i did was reiterate the words of NIST.

See above, I never called you a liar although looking at what I have posted I would probably be OK to do so.

for a minute there i thought you were inside the twin towers 2 months after the attack? but i get your point because you were there and i wasnt that means your right and im wrong.

So you have never been in the towers or the lifts? Just because I have been does not make me right. It helps me see your secret men in the lifts is total fairy story though.

good for you you must be a really important person. that means what you say is right and what i say is wrong

Incorrect and cherry picking. I said everyone got photographed and a security search. Not just me. How did your sneaky guys get past this? If so does this mean the security company at the WTC were in on the plan?

all is required is trust and access.

See above I guess you are accusing people at work that day?

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.

You have not proved the NIST case is impossible. Yours is next to impossible and I will take the word of all those engineers and scientists everyday before your word. What was your expertise again?

peace

p-s- i think this will be my last post to you funk. so take it easy brother.

Brave Sir Robin ran away

 

[applecorped]

Brave Sir Robin ran away

Banging two coconuts together no doubt.

 

[Norseman]

hey EM do I know you from somewhere? I mean how did you know it was my birthday?

peace

Have you not noticed that the forum software is congratulating you with your birthday by displaying a "Happy Birthday" icon in all your posts? That should not be any surprise since your profile says that your birthday is June 30th 1979. I assume you have entered that into the profile yourself, or maybe it was the all knowing NWO.

So if the above information is correct:

to you thewholesoul

Norseman

 

[applecorped]

Top notch investigative skills on display.

 

[leonAzul]

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


(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.

Given that yellow-orange indicates a temperature of about 1200ºC and that the melting temperature of iron (and steel) is in excess of 1500ºC, unless you can provide photographs of molten iron that is clearly yellow-orange I will consider your position to be comprehensively refuted.

Dave

Unless of course it's not molten metal at all, but rather a shower of electrical sparks from a conduit with partially melted insulation.

Which stor(e)y was that? Was it one of the technical floors?

ETA:

 

[phunk]

It was a room full of UPS batteries...

To be fair, your picture is not electrical sparcs, it's a guy with a cutting torch.

 

[thewholesoul]

I see. So there is no reason to think that when FEMA and NIST use the term “severe temperatures”, they necessarily mean anything over, say, 1000°C – out the outside. That is essentially all what I wanted to check.

True, but that is not to say that the phenomena they observed can also be produced in extreme temperatures, indeed i would guess they normally are. Because NIST, FEMA AND 911 commission (perhaps by their own volition?) decided to ignore the evidence for molten steel then it would follow that they have a vested interest in minimizing the temperatures. Whch for the record they did exceed 1500c. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3818325#post3818325

This is not as specific as it could be. In any event, the statement to which you refer doesn’t actually appear to be in the report in question. Nor does a Google search turn anything up. The only mention of it I can find is in one of Jones’ conspiracy papers.

Try the following link http://web.archive.org/web/20060114...ignature.Composition+and+Morphology.Final.pdf

I apologise for having misunderstood you. In any event, your clarified argument offers little in the way of improvement. When Jones questioned the cause of the severe temperatures, he indeed implied that such temperatures existed. However, Jones implying the existence of a given thing has no necessary connection to its objective ontological status.

True, implying that something exists does not necessarily mean that that something exists but in my opinion its more a question of cause and effect. If the metal speheres can only be caused by extreme temperatures then it follows that those extreme temperatures existed given the existence of the metal spheres. However apparently extreme temperatures are not the only cause for this effect. I am currently discussing this topic with Crazy chainsaw here post #48 . In any event I accept the point you make.

A pedant, as Bertrand Russell once said, is merely someone who prefers their statements to be true.

Nice.

I will need to stop you there. This is not my belief.

If its your justified-true-belief then present your reasons. If its their justified-true-belief then present their reasons. In any event it is rather irrelevant to my argument whether or not the steel sample was evaporated during or after the collapse because evaporated lead and other metals were discovered in the WTC dust samples discussed below.

This is a petitio princpii. The above argument (along with many similarly premised subsequent ones) relies on the notion that the dust samples taken from the site can only contain particles which formed specifically while – not before and not after – the buildings collapsed. This notion is still at issue. You do, however, address it much later in your post, and so I will bring it forward:

Its a valid question but we know that the WTC dust samples only contain vaporized particles formed during the collapse because the WTC samples were compared with samples taken prior to 911
(i.e. controls) and it was concluded that

Detailed charcaterization of WTC Dust revealed that it possessed a unique set of characteristics by which it could be identified and differentiated to a reasonable degree of scientfiic certainity from dust that had other origins.

source

The above argument is, of course, weird.
•Most Q was P: The vast majority of the volume of the dust was produced while the buildings collapsed.
•Therefore, all Q was P: Therefore, dust samples taken from the site can only contain particles which formed specifically while – not before and not after – the buildings collapsed.

Essentially you are correct, naturally some dust prior to collapse would have contaminated the WTC dust samples produced during the collapse. But because WTC dust samples prior to 911 did not contain the unusual kind of metal spheres we can safely assume that the vaporized metal speheres were produced only during the collapse, which after all is the point I wish to establish.

Dust samples taken from the site will straightforwardly be highly susceptible to containing particles which were originally produced before, during and after the collapses. This would seem to be an intractable problem.

True, but not the same kind of metal spheres found in the WTC dust which indicate extreme temperatures. So by comparing the WTC smaples with a control sample taken prior to 911 we can surmount this problem.

However, in hope of cutting a potentially long argument short, for this post at least, I will assume your claim is accurate and that dust samples taken from the site can only contain particles which formed specifically while the buildings collapsed. I will also assume that the presence of these particles genuinely requires such temperatures. However, even in light of these temporary concessions, I am still unsure of the argument you are ultimately attempting to make; it would appear to be something along the lines of the following:
•Temperatures specifically during the collapse were in excess 2,760°C.
•Therefore, the eutectic reactions took place specifically while – not before and not after – the buildings collapsed.
The problem is the usual one: non sequitur. There’s no reason to think the eutectic reactions required such temperatures. Thus, it’s quite possible that the requisite temperatures were present before, during and to some extent after the collapses.

You appear to be slightly confused my friend.

• if temperatures exceeded 1500c during collapse then that essentially proves the case for explosives in the absence of any other alternative and plausible explanation.
• true, eutectic reactions can occur over a long period of time under lower temperatures. But if eutectic reactions occured during a 10sec collapse then obviously there is not enough time to form under low temperatures; hence the presence of metal particles within the WTC dust which exhibit evaporation overwhelmingly supports the case for extreme temperatures and explosives.

We could assume that you are precisely right. We could further assume that the “official theory” is the single worst theory in the history of humanity. The problem is that even if we make those two assumptions, we are no better off when it comes to knowing when and where eutectic reactions took place. Thus, the matter is, as I said, peripherally interesting but not relevant.

We can safely assume that the evaporation of the metal particles occured during the collapse because no evaporated particles were found in the dust samples taken prior to 911.

This, again, is a petitio princpii. The question of whether or not molten steel was present is a crux point at issue. I am quite familiar with the case for molten steel. I find it – to understate – unconvincing. However, for this post at least, I will assume your claim is accurate and that molten steel was indeed present within the debris pile: Your argument seems to run thusly:
•Temperatures within the debris pile were sufficiently high as to be consistent with molten steel.
•Therefore, the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed.
It is, as ever, a non sequitur.

I love the word “thusly” but let us not get hung up on the eutectic reactions or evaporated metal samples, it is the vaporized dust particles that are more damning to the official hypothesis.

Again, I cannot. Argumentum ad ignorantiam: The mere fact that a theory has not been proven false does not provide us with any reason to think it true.

But the fact that it has never been falsified must count for something right? Perhaps it means that it is somewhere between true and false? That place where hope resides? In any case, I think the question of “when” the evaporation took place has been settled – at least in respect to the lead and metal particles in the dust.

I see. I now understand your position, if not your argument. Thank you for clarifying it for me. I’m glad to see your concession that the reactions might have taken place during the early stages of the debris pile fires. I happen to agree with you, but obviously for different reasons.

its not that much of a concession. We have (a) evaporated steel samples from wtc 7 and we have (b) evaporated lead and metal dust samples. Establishing extreme temperatures during collapse essentially debunks the official hypothesis and supports the CD hypothesis. I only require (a) or (b) not (a) and (b) to achieve this objective.

Remember, it is you and not I making specific claims as to when the eutectic reactions took place. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.

and the burden has been lifted – so its time to put on those dancing shoes my friend and provide me with a – plausible and possible – explanation. I have mine i.e. explosives, whats yours?

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Maybe the earth is flat

the JREF forum, where the brightest minds slug it out through rational debate!

sorry Norseman, couldnt resist

 

[thewholesoul]

Given that yellow-orange indicates a temperature of about 1200ºC and that the melting temperature of iron (and steel) is in excess of 1500ºC, unless you can provide photographs of molten iron that is clearly yellow-orange I will consider your position to be comprehensively refuted.

Dave

dave go to jones paper the photographs are provided - its a visual match!

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf p70-71

http://www.amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite.html

this link is very good http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

Have you not noticed that the forum software is congratulating you with your birthday by displaying a "Happy Birthday" icon in all your posts? That should not be any surprise since your profile says that your birthday is June 30th 1979. I assume you have entered that into the profile yourself, or maybe it was the all knowing NWO.

So if the above information is correct:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/userbirthday.gif[/qimg]

to you thewholesoul

Norseman

cheers norseman, i still think it was the NWO

 

[applecorped]

At this point how New is the NWO?

 

[applecorped]

the JREF forum, where the brightest minds slug it out through rational debate!

sorry Norseman, couldnt resist

Couldn't we just sit down over a beer?

 

[applecorped]

I apologize ahead of time.

 

[applecorped]

I dislike trooothers very much, tis true.