DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[funk de fino]

WHERES MY RED PEN

Post #907
• the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron

Failed to address the objection raised. Failed to contest the alternative explanation. Failed to acknowledge the the relevancy and implications of the objection raised.

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

Failed to contest the claim that what happened that day has a low probability. Failed to understand its implication.

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

Failed to understand the the scientific method. Failed to distinguish between the evidence observed (which by the way was minimal and inconclusive), the hypothesis intended to explain the evidence observed and the tests or experiments intended to establish the truth of a given hypothesis.

• NIST’s claim that the fire proofing was widly dislogded has not been proven by a representative experiment

Failed to understand the the scientific method. Failed to distinguish between the evidence observed, the hypothesis intended to explain the evidence observed and the tests or experiments intended to establish the truth of a given hypothesis.

•NIST's claim that the outer perimeter columns buckled as a result of floor sagging has not be proven by experimentation.
Failed to understand the scientific method. Failed to distinguish between the evidence observed, the hypothesis intended to explain the evidence observed, and the tests or experiments intended to establish the truth of a given hypothesis.


• NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the imapct zone, so

Failed to realize that the explanation in the FAQ’s is incomplete as indicated in the statement made on September 27th 2007 which states clearly that “we are unable to provide a FULL explanation of the total collapse”

• the official PRE-collapse hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven nearly 7 years after the event

Because you failed to refute any – not one – of the above premises it is hard to see how the conclusion based upon those can be rejected.

NIST found no steel core columns exposed to temperatures 250c. Steel weakens at 600c and above. There is no EVIDENCE to support your claim in respect to the towers.

Towers were designed to survive the impact of jetliners with combustible fuel load.


your grade
F

I note you missed post # 1032 which showed you to be an incompetant?

Where is your red pen and F for your mix up with FAQs WholeSoul? I predict you will run away from it as you seem to have answered one after it?

LIAR. Steel frame buildings collapse from fires and you claimed they did not.

You logic and rational thinking are hilariously twisted.

 

[thewholesoul]

All you need is F=ma. but you never understood that did you.

now now lets keep it civil shall we. i can admit maths and physics are not my strongpoint. force = mass x acceleration. so basically the larger the object (e.g. that massive upper block) the greater the force. correct? so if i drop a car it will have a force of x but if i drop a truck it will have a force of x+. but the larger the object (e.g the massive lower structure) the greater the force required to crush it? correct. so a car may crush one car beneath it but will it crush more than one?

so my simple fractions argument is saying that you cannot find just one example in natural world when 1/5 of an object, no matter how large or small, when dropped from a reasonable distance, will have enough FORCE to crush the remainder of the object.

Would an avalance or mudslide meet your criteria?

i'm afraid not amigo, an avalance or mudslide is not really an object or structure.

for example; lets say we have five minivans in a line. you reverse out the last minivan at the tail of the line, drive a hundred miles an hour and plough into the back of the line. i dont what the f=ma is but i do know it will never crush through the four minivans and then crush itself off the wall.

now place those minivans in a vertical line and instead of force from an engine the only force is gravity when you drop the fifth minivan. will it crush the bottom four, remain intact, and then become crushed itself when it hits the floor? you can replace the minivan with a bus or a train or what ever object or structure you like. spagetti etc can not be used because they cannot stand rigid.

You sound like a no-planer. Show me just one example in the natural world when a 140-ton flying object crashed into a 1600-foot tall structure at over 400mph before 9-11. When you can't, try explaining why that makes it demonstrably wrong that flights 11 and 175 hit the Twin Towers. "Never happened before" is a meaningless argument.

Mathematics is a different matter, though. A mathematical statement can be shown to be objectively true or false. When Gordon Ross calculates the kinetic energy of the falling block of WTC1 before and after impact with the next floor down, calculates the kinetic energy lost, and then claims that the remaining kinetic energy is the source for concrete pulverisation and deformation energy, he isn't making a debatable assumption, he's making an egregious mathematical error. If you can't see that, then you're not well enough educated to be in this discussion in the first place.

i apologise if i sound like a no planer Dave, that is not my intention. i merely wish point out that i cannot find any example in the natural world when 1/5 of a falling object crushed the rest. and before you start insulting my intelligence you should maybe ask yourself why it is that YOU cannot find an example to this simple request either and why is it these complicated and fantastic calculations from gordon ross you cite have not been PHYSICALLY proven? can they be physically proven Dave? if not they will remain theoretical.

i have asked this simple question on you tube and got silly answers like that from funk de fino with cards or jenga - but such examples do not crush the inact structure below. i can iagine sometimes that the towers just collapsed but 92 intact floors do not just collapse - they were destroyed either by the upper floors falling with gravity or more likely by explosives.

any examples must also have some structure or rigidity.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

I note you missed post # 1032 which showed you to be an incompetant?

Where is your red pen and F for your mix up with FAQs WholeSoul? I predict you will run away from it as you seem to have answered one after it?

LIAR. Steel frame buildings collapse from fires and you claimed they did not.

You logic and rational thinking are hilariously twisted.

hello again my protestant friend from the land of brave heart and hagus.

what a weak counter argument you made there above. keep up the good work. of course i will respond to post in 1032 and of course i will ask you to apologise for calling me a liar because your accusation is of course without a rational basis. sometimes i think there must be more air between those ears of yours then inside those bagpipes!

unfortunately i have a little weein to look after and i do enjoy posting to other individuals occassionally who prefer to debate real points rather than name call and fingerpointing. but thats you style and i am beginning to love you for it.

that point you made about my mistake in relation to the date of the FAQ's was a good one. but sadly it didnt make much difference my friend. here was the erroneous statement i made.

"NIST’s explanation in their FAQ’s is not a FULL explanation but an incomplete explanation of the total collapse. We know this because if it were a FULL explanation of total collapse then why would NIST admit they were “unable to provide a FULL explanation of the total collapse” on September 27th 2007 sometime after their explanation in the FAQ’s?"

i was wrong because like you say the FAQ's were posted in december sometime after the statement in september. but it makes no difference because (a) in the journal of civil engineering which was published in 2008 point 13 entitled Total Collapse Explanation Lacking. so lets just plug that fact into the paragraph above and we get

"NIST's explanation in their FAQ's is not a FULL explanation but an incomplete explanation of the total collapse. we know this because if it were a FULL explanation of total collapse then why would the peered reviewed Journal of Civil Engineering publish point #13 sometime after the NIST explanation in the FAQ's?"

and (b) you now admit that the explanation in the FAQ's is not a full explanation something of a major concession as you will read in my coming post.

so take it easy and say hi to old nessy for me.
peace

 

[funk de fino]

hello again my protestant friend from the land of brave heart and hagus.

Its haggis and I'm not protestant. Would you call me a jew if i was that way inclined? Are you a religious bigot?

what a weak counter argument you made there above. keep up the good work. of course i will respond to post in 1032 and of course i will ask you to apologise for calling me a liar because your accusation is of course without a rational basis. sometimes i think there must be more air between those ears of yours then inside those bagpipes!

Weak? I have proved you have lied and been mistaken.

unfortunately i have a little weein to look after and i do enjoy posting to other individuals occassionally who prefer to debate real points rather than name call and fingerpointing. but thats you style and i am beginning to love you for it.

You fail to address your lies and mistakes and continue with other posts, what am I suposed to think?

that point you made about my mistake in relation to the date of the FAQ's was a good one. but sadly it didnt make much difference my friend. here was the erroneous statement i made.

It made a large difference beacuse it means NIST were not contradictory as you stated. Thye gave an explanation with calculations after the statement you posted. You claimed otherwise. You are wrong.

"NIST’s explanation in their FAQ’s is not a FULL explanation but an incomplete explanation of the total collapse. We know this because if it were a FULL explanation of total collapse then why would NIST admit they were “unable to provide a FULL explanation of the total collapse” on September 27th 2007 sometime after their explanation in the FAQ’s?"

Whats the point in repeating your mistake?

i was wrong because like you say the FAQ's were posted in december sometime after the statement in september. but it makes no difference because (a) in the journal of civil engineering which was published in 2008 point 13 entitled Total Collapse Explanation Lacking. so lets just plug that fact into the paragraph above and we get

You were wrong.

"NIST's explanation in their FAQ's is not a FULL explanation but an incomplete explanation of the total collapse. we know this because if it were a FULL explanation of total collapse then why would the peered reviewed Journal of Civil Engineering publish point #13 sometime after the NIST explanation in the FAQ's?"

NIST were not contradictory as you claimed, the two statements were made in a different order to that which you claimed.

and (b) you now admit that the explanation in the FAQ's is not a full explanation something of a major concession as you will read in my coming post.

You never mentioned the word FULL, when you made your claim. I never mentioned the word FULL when I told you that you were incorrect. You have moved the goalposts cause you were caught in a lie or incorrect statement.

If you make a specific claim you should get it correct. You got it wrong. Same as your lie that steel frame buildings do not collapse from fire. This is a bare faced lie and you have run away from the thread I called you on this.

so take it easy and say hi to old nessy for me.
peace

You need to go away and get better at this.

 

[applecorped]

TWS! I hold up a mirror for you and yours!!!!!!!!!

 

[tsig]

now now lets keep it civil shall we. i can admit maths and physics are not my strongpoint. force = mass x acceleration. so basically the larger the object (e.g. that massive upper block) the greater the force. correct? so if i drop a car it will have a force of x but if i drop a truck it will have a force of x+. but the larger the object (e.g the massive lower structure) the greater the force required to crush it? correct. so a car may crush one car beneath it but will it crush more than one?

so my simple fractions argument is saying that you cannot find just one example in natural world when 1/5 of an object, no matter how large or small, when dropped from a reasonable distance, will have enough FORCE to crush the remainder of the object.



i'm afraid not amigo, an avalance or mudslide is not really an object or structure.

for example; lets say we have five minivans in a line. you reverse out the last minivan at the tail of the line, drive a hundred miles an hour and plough into the back of the line. i dont what the f=ma is but i do know it will never crush through the four minivans and then crush itself off the wall.

now place those minivans in a vertical line and instead of force from an engine the only force is gravity when you drop the fifth minivan. will it crush the bottom four, remain intact, and then become crushed itself when it hits the floor? you can replace the minivan with a bus or a train or what ever object or structure you like. spagetti etc can not be used because they cannot stand rigid.



i apologise if i sound like a no planer Dave, that is not my intention. i merely wish point out that i cannot find any example in the natural world when 1/5 of a falling object crushed the rest. and before you start insulting my intelligence you should maybe ask yourself why it is that YOU cannot find an example to this simple request either and why is it these complicated and fantastic calculations from gordon ross you cite have not been PHYSICALLY proven? can they be physically proven Dave? if not they will remain theoretical.

i have asked this simple question on you tube and got silly answers like that from funk de fino with cards or jenga - but such examples do not crush the inact structure below. i can iagine sometimes that the towers just collapsed but 92 intact floors do not just collapse - they were destroyed either by the upper floors falling with gravity or more likely by explosives.

any examples must also have some structure or rigidity.

peace

As soon as the 1/5 hits the floor below it becomes 1/5 +the floor below.

 

[TexasJack]

i dont take people with clueless as their screen name seriouly.

Yet you use as a primary source Steven Jones, a failed and disgraced scientist who thinks Jesus walked in America. So TWS, why should we take you seriously?

 

[Par]

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

That looks to be an historical copy of a different paper. That’s fine, of course, but the statement in question doesn’t appear to be in that one either.

If its your justified-true-belief then present your reasons. If its their justified-true-belief then present their reasons.

I’m not sure what you mean. You had said that I believe the eutectic reactions took place during the debris pile fires. However, as I explained in my reply, I assert no such belief or claim. Nor am I relying upon any third-party beliefs or claims. It is you and not I making specific claims as to when the eutectic reactions took place. Thus, the burden of proof, as I have explained, is on you.

[W]e 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.”

amples prior to 911 did not contain the unusual kind of metal spheres [so] we can safely assume that the vaporized metal speheres were produced only during the collapse…

[By] comparing the WTC smaples with a control sample taken prior to 911 we can surmount this problem.

I understand that World Trade Center Dust is distinctive; I further understand that the particles that render it distinctive were not airborne prior to September 11^th 2001. The problem, however, is that World Trade Center Dust is composed, in part, of particles that formed both before (for instance, during the building fires) and after (for instance, during the debris piles fires) the buildings collapsed.

You appear to be slightly confused my friend.

Slightly doesn’t come into it.

[If] temperatures exceeded 1500c during collapse then that essentially proves the case for explosives in the absence of any other alternative and plausible explanation.

Thank you, again, for clarifying. I now understand why you wish to claim high temperatures were present specifically while the buildings collapsed: it forms the foundational premise of one of your subsequent arguments for explosives. However, I have not asked you for arguments for explosives, but rather for proof of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed.

[T]rue, 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…

[H]ence the presence of metal particles within the WTC dust which exhibit evaporation overwhelmingly supports the case for extreme temperatures and explosives.

The above seems to run thusly:

• If the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed, then the following argument is sound:
  
  • The eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed.
  • While eutectic reactions can occur under lower temperatures, such lower temperature reactions take much longer than the durations of the collapses.
  • Therefore, the reactions required higher temperatures.
  • The only thing that can have caused such higher temperatures is explosives.
  • Therefore, explosives were present.

Congruently, I now understand why you wish to claim the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed: it also forms the foundational premise of one of your subsequent arguments for explosives. However, the matter at hand, again, is not that of explosives. In any event, before we could properly asses this argument, you would obviously need to provide proof of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed.

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...

[T]he vaporized dust particles… are more damning to the official hypothesis.

We could, if you like, damn the “official theory” to hell and back. Doing so, however, as I have already explained, won’t tell us when the eutectic reactions took place.

But the fact that it has never been falsified must count for something right?

The sentence to which you are referring contains the word “mere”, a word which plays an important rôle. The fact that a given theory has not been falsified is only significant if that theory has also been subjected to numerous and rigorous tests – tests that would likely falsify it, if it were untrue. Thus, the mere fact that your theory has not been falsified – something you were adducing as evidence of its truth – is scarcely compelling.

[T]he burden has been lifted…

Unfortunately, it has not. In any event, thank you for both your time thus far and your reply.

 

[gumboot]

The problem, however, is that World Trade Center Dust is composed, in part, of particles that formed both before (for instance, during the building fires) and after (for instance, during the debris piles fires) the buildings collapsed.

Not to mention during recovering operations. Steel cutting is a known source for iron microspheres, and there was a whole butt-load of steel cutting during the clean up.

The WTC dust samples were collected a long time after clean up started.

 

[e^n]

Firstly thewholesoul let me apologise for the amount of time it has taken me to reply. I wrote about 2-3 pages 2 days ago and then accidentally closed my browser when cleaning up tabs .

Anyway, since the post I've seen you have also posted several more relatively large posts and it seems a little bit pointless to go quote by quote. I do want to address everything you say though so lets try a more conversation style.

1. The composition and temperature of the molten metal flow from WTC2
I presume your bullet points to be an accurate summation of your position:

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

The problem with this position is that there's no way to determine either of these reliably. We can only look at the evidence in favour of each particular element. Furthermore we can't assume that the flow was made from only one element. You have put forward a fair point that aluminium will not glow as readily as steel but this is somewhat irrelevant to the argument. The facts we have to hand are:

• A yellow-orange emissive liquid was seen to pour out of two windows in WTC2
• Materials abundant in the building glow at temperatures expected in office fires (at absolute max, 1200C):
  • Aluminium and various alloys (which incidentally have lower reflectivity)
  • Glass
  • Lead
  • Copper
• This liquid moved between these two windows enveloping a perimeter column and the fascia of the building at its exit
• No degradation of these faces was seen

Now, you accuse me of straw-manning your position by claiming your position was that it could only be molten steel. What I don't think you realise is that this is the only point which could have some relevance. If the material flowing out of the window is molten steel then that would be evidence of fire temperatures exceeding the expected range of fires. If your position is simply that it could be steel, then there is little relevance to further discussion. Unless you can present evidence showing it to be steel rather than the variety of other options, we have no reason to conclude the temperatures involved were unexpectedly high.

You also mention unusual flame, pressure and puffs of smoke as a kind of coup de grâce I guess. I don't see what is so unexpected about these effects, the unusually bright flame seen in WTC2 is interesting but in a location absolutely packed with debris and on fire it seems a little presumptuous to be able to claim with certainty what caused it. Anyway you ask for a plausible explanation so I wouldn't be doing my NWO appointed job if I failed to provide one. I think fire is a pretty plausible explanation, it certainly creates flame, pressure and smoke and we have some pretty convincing evidence the building was on fire.

2. The issue of the probability of collapse
Again I will quote your bullet point here for completeness

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

A minor misunderstanding also needs to be corrected here, you say

(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?

Capable is not the same as designed. There is only one piece of evidence to suggest that the towers were designed with impacts of 600mph in mind, and this analysis has never been recovered. It's very hard to know for sure whether the building was designed for this impact, if it was it was done badly. It is obvious though that the building was capable of surviving the initial impact.

The rest of this section is just completely pointless, you go on about all these features you feel are relevant, but never show how probability should play any part in this. In actuality a simplistic attempt at probability analysis yields no useful information. Scientific investigation is the correct method to determine what is likely and not. Even the paper you linked just lists the author's speculations. Nothing else.

3. NISTs ability to explain the total collapse
This is an issue raised in responses to both me and others, but you seem to make some very serious mistakes. This is as a result of believing what truther sites tell you (as far as I can see). For example

they were unable to explain the total collapse?

NIST are unable to explain total collapse

elsewhere state we are “unable to explain total collapse”

The problem with this is, this is not what NIST said. What NIST actually said was

we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse

(Emphasis mine)

Now you may question what exactly that means, but NIST has also answered this in the same response.

Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the mangitude of the deflections and the number of failures occurring, the computer models are not able to converge on a solution.

Hopefully you can see how you have been taking their statement out of context, you even quoted them inaccurately. This is because you are reading false claims by people with an agenda. NIST did not state they could not explain collapse, only that they could not use their computer models to provide a full explanation of collapse. Much work has been done to model the collapses with as much detail as possible and this work clearly shows that gravitational collapse is expected.

4. NISTs fireproofing tests
Again you get things quite seriously wrong despite even pointing to a valid source of information on the subject

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.

If this were truly the case, then how is it I can show you these pictures?

Those are pictures of a representative steel bar and representative debris. NIST fired representative samples at a representative structure at reasonable energies. Now I am not trying to say that their testing was beyond criticism and R Mackey among others has brought up several things they could have improved, but again you are criticising incorrectly. NIST did what you requested and even when linking to the paper you can't seem to see this?

5. Truss sagging experiments
This seems to be your major complaint, and I am quite confused by what exactly you are requesting. You say you would like to see a test of truss structures, but then talk about half scale tests. If you trust the equations to scale composite behaviour like this, why do you not trust the analysis done with these equations?

What would satisfy you to NISTs theory, you go on about experimentation repeatedly but I don't think you've laid out what exactly they need to do. The only facility you have listed for testing is one NIST used for half scale floor testing. You want them to prove 47 inch sagging at 700c, so you will need a testing area of at least double the size and with the ability to withstand the damage from a floor collapse.

If NIST or some other body were to conduct this experiment, would it then convince you their hypothesis was valid? What other issues do you have?

 

[thewholesoul]

Ah a guy who's only goal is to try and find a conspiracy theory and who makes false scientific arguments in doing so can't make aluminum a certain color. Right. Gosh, what a surprise there. It's sorta like how all the pilots from PFT are unable to hit the WTC in a flight simulator despite most everyone ho has no flying experience being able to do so.

all bark no bite, where is the photos of aluminium mixed with organics glowing and flowig bright yellow orange in daylight?

And why did NIST not test this? Because there's no need to. They are reasonable scientists who aren't on an absurd witch hunt. They didn't test for it for the same reason they didn't test for space beams and missiles.

what a pathetic apology

Do a search on the forum, this has been discussed to death in 100s of threads (which include pictures). Not only pictures form many experiments but pictures done by members of the forum themselves as well. This claim of yours and Jones alone proves you two are frauds.

all bark no bite, where are the photos?

Please show us the proper model to test this. Please give us the details on this one. How about showing us some testing where the fireproofing stays in tact despite steel not staying in tact. We would just LOVE to see that!!

do you think a jetliner turns into 15rounds of a shotgun on impact? do youn think a flat steel plate is representative of floor trusses and core columns? if not then there is no need for me to answer your question.

hello? Is this mic on? Again, please tell us how the fact that no actual testing was done for this that it proves the evidence used to prove this is wrong. So we know for fact that the building was bowing. Not even your warped mine can contest that. But according to you, if it's not shown in a lab test, then its not true? You know JFK was never shown to have been killed in a lab test therefore he must be alive.

is the mic on? hahahah

And you wonder why people laugh at you??

laugh it up. the fact remains that scale or half scale testing has not been conducted by NIST to prove their hypothesis.

the point is not that lack of testing proves it wrong, nor is the point that lack of testing proves it right, if you could manage to comprehend my very simple point - it is that lack of testing PROVES NOTHING. hence their PRE-collapse theory remains unproven. yet you beleive is true. now that's funny.

Yes it WAS. Perhaps you can provide a list of the testing facilities that could provide scale testing? Please list them now. And please show us how this can prove the smaller scale to be wrong or inconclusive.

arguing there are no facilities to test their hypothesis does not alter my point that their hypotehsis remains unproven due to no testing being done. does it?

Please don't put yourself down. We all know you are not very bright, but it's no reason to be down on yourself. It's the effort that counts. You can't help if you lack reason and logic. READ THIS REALLY SLOWLY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND OK? They explained what ******CAUSED***** the collapse. They didn't explain the rest of the collapse because it would serve no purpose. The ensuing collapse was inevitable and there could be no other possible outcome. So discussing what happened post collapse initiation would be of any use.

and that explanation has not been tested. it is an unproven explantion or should i say assumption. scientifically worthless.

another pathetic apology. total collapse remains unproven. telling me it would serve no purpose hardly refutes the fact that it remains unproven.

Oh trust me, I laugh at most all of your posts. It is a great source of humor. The more you pretend to be serious and the more you pretend your claims are not absurd, the funnier it gets. I am here to laugh at your expense.

why do you beleive the official story is true when it remains unproven?
perhaps you provide one example of 1/5 crushing the rest of the structure?
thats what pleases me the most. all you can do is bark - but never bite

believe me, when a person who calls himself clueless, conceives an unproven hypothesis as the absolute truth and cannot provide just one example in the natural world of what be believes in - when such a person just described laughs at me, i laugh right back

peace

 

[phunk]

do you think a jetliner turns into 15rounds of a shotgun on impact?

No actually it would be more like 10 million shotgun rounds.

 

[thewholesoul]

greetings again my hagUs eating, glasgow rangers supporter, lock ness monster enthusiast!! i want to go back to the root once again.

BEACHNUT:

Sorry, the collapse is proven. I have a video of it. Sad you have no evidence to go with your failed interpretation of NIST and what really happen on 9/11.

SOUL:

So NIST have proven the total collapse but they are unable to explain it?

FUNK:

This is a mistake or a lie. They have explained it.

So my statement is mistaken

(1) Because NIST have explained total collapse in their FAQ’s.

In post# 1030 I tried to explain to Funk that he was taking my comment OUT OF CONTEXT that when I made the comment I was refering to the widely known statement made by NIST, a statement I might add, that was included in the same post just sentences above the quote Funk wants us all to focus our attention on.

I’m sorry beachnut but when NIST say "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse", call me crazy but I tend to take them at their word.

Did Funk intentionally take my comment out of context just so he could make his accusations?

So when I explained that my comment was refering to total collapse not being “fully” explained, Funk claimed that I was moving the goal posts because I never included the word “fully” in my statement. So according to Funk’s impecable standards I have to type the whole sentence complete within its context just to satisfy nitpickers like himself. But does Funk hold himself to the same standards?

Recall, that when I said that NIST were unable to explain total collapse Funk responded with:

This is a mistake or a lie. They have explained it.

Such an unqualified statement, WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT provided, I thought that Funk was arguing that NIST did in fact provide a “full” explanation of total collapse in post 1030

Funky believes that NIST provided a full explanation of progressive collapse in the FAQ’s.

But in post 1032 Funk puts me straight

Liar I did not say it was a FULL explanation

I know, and that is why you are a HIPOCRITE. When I fail to state that NIST were unable to provide a full explanation I am a liar; but when you fail to state that NIST’s explanation in their FAQ’s is incomplete its ok.

But Funk’s statement :

They have explained it.(Total collapse)

is also FALSE – I could argue that he is a liar but I have decided not to lower myself to Funk's standards. If you make a mistake I will deem it as such. The reasons it is a false statement is because NIST’s FAQ does not fully explain total collapse. This fact is mentioned in the Open Civil engineering Journal point#13. The same Journal also publishes a list of “whistles and bells” that NIST’s explanation is lacking, such as their failure to explain the near-freefall-speeds, their failure to include the Law of Conservation of Momentum in their calculations et cetera. So you were simply mistaken Funk – not a liar - to imply that NIST had explained Total collapse when in fact they did not.

So here is a break down of our positions:

•“We are unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse”: (soul) they were unable to explain total collapse.
•“We are unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse”: (funk) they explained total collapse.

If a given phenomena is not fully explained then naturally some of it is explained and some of it is not. My comment gives the impression that no explanation - at all – was given for the total collapse. And Funk’s comment gives the impression that total collapse was – fully – explained. So lets see whose comment is more consistent with the lack of a full explanation.

•some of total collapse was explained [p]
•some of total collapse was not explained [q]

My comment is inconsistent with p but consistent with q
Funks comment is inconsistent with p and inconsistent with q

Now I know you are just going to brush over the above. but my point is that even if my comment was not taken out of context (which it was) it is still more consistent than your comment in relation to the fact that (i think) we both can agree on i.e. that NIST have not provided a full explanation of the total collapse.

But here are four concluding questions:
[1] Do you agree that my comment in post#928 was taken out of context, if not why not?
[2] Do you agree that your comment in post#930 was not taken out of context, if not why not?
[3] Do you accept the charge of being a hipocrite, if not why not?
[4] Do you accept the charge of being mistaken, if not why not?

Answer these four, then I will respond and hopefully we can wrap these little name calling, fingerpointing, nitpicking exchanges up. And perhaps move onto more serious questions such as why do you believe the official hypothesis is true when it remains unproven?

peace

p.s. am i going to retract my comment? no, because you took it out of context. and even taken out of its context it is still consistent with the fact that NIST has not provided a full explanation of total collapse for the simple reason that any incomplete explanation of a given phenomena must, necessarily, contain some aspect of that phenomena

they are unable to explain

and anyone that say my reasoning is bunk...provide your reasons why you arrived at this conclusion.

 

[thewholesoul]

No actually it would be more like 10 million shotgun rounds.

and would all these shotgun blasts travel in the same direction?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

In post# 1030 I tried to explain to Funk that he was taking my comment OUT OF CONTEXT that when I made the comment I was refering to the widely known statement made by NIST, a statement I might add, that was included in the same post just sentences above the quote Funk wants us all to focus our attention on. Did Funk intentionally take my comment out of context just so he could make his accusations?

You stated the following"

"• NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the impact zone..."
This is the context you put your explanation in. The context you placed your statement in implies that NIST was unable to explain the collapse propagation at all. Funk de Funo, put it back in context for you, he is not the one in error here.

You are also the one who added the quantification of the 'proportion of building' that was to be destroyed, not NIST.

In the grammar, the term "full" empahsizes that they were able to explain the primary elements, or the most important elements of the collapse propagation, but are unable to FULLY analyze or explain it. This is not the same as being unable to explain it

So when I explained that my comment was referring to total collapse not being “fully” explained,

Funk claimed that I was moving the goal posts because I never included the word “fully” in my statement. So according to Funk’s impecable standards I have to type the whole sentence complete within its context just to satisfy nitpickers like himself. But does Funk hold himself to the same standards?

With all do respect, it's not his fault that you've posted two variations of that statement, he was responding to a more recent one you made which I pointed out above. You're responsible for making sure your posts are consistent and coherent. If you want to avoid misunderstanding make sure you keep yourself in context.

So here is a break down of our positions:

•“We are unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse” = (soul) they were unable to explain total collapse.
•“We are unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse” = (funk) they explained total collapse.

No you've screwed up....
They were able to explain quite clearly what led to collapse initiation. NISTS's statement refers solely to the collapse progression which takes place after initiation.

Your position assumes an opposite, You've taken their statement which clearly implies that they were able to explain some or most of the key points of collapse propagation (which led to the global collapse), and then interpreted it as not being an explanation at all.

Similarly, you taken the same statement from NIST, and misstated that funk de funo was asserting that it was a full explanation of the collapse.

•some of total collapse was explained [p]
•some of total collapse was not explained [q]

My comment is inconsistent with p but consistent with q
Funks comment is inconsistent with p and inconsistent with q

Your bullet points are circular, p leads to q leads to p... by your context if some of the collapse is not explained, then some of it was... You've created a false dilemma for yourself that in end doesn't proove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[funk de fino]

greetings again my hagUs eating, glasgow rangers supporter, lock ness monster enthusiast!! i want to go back to the root once again.

Are you a racist? Please stop insulting me due to my nationality or I will report you.

So my statement is mistaken

Yes. You said.

So NIST have proven the total collapse but they are unable to explain it?

I said

This is a mistake or a lie. They have explained it.

I have now shown your claim to be false. NIST explain the collapse in the December FAQs. YOu have then shifted goalposts made false staements to try and save face. The explanation contains calculations and information that explains the collapse you have claimed was impossible yet you have shown nothing to state your case this is so.

(1) Because NIST have explained total collapse in their FAQ’s.

In post# 1030 I tried to explain to Funk that he was taking my comment OUT OF CONTEXT that when I made the comment I was refering to the widely known statement made by NIST, a statement I might add, that was included in the same post just sentences above the quote Funk wants us all to focus our attention on. Did Funk intentionally take my comment out of context just so he could make his accusations?

You are lying. You said they had not explained it. I assume this is because you did not know about the December FAQs as you continued to make false claims that they had not explained it. The context mens nothing here, you are making many errors and false claims in this forum and it always seems to end up with you crying like a little girl that you have been taken out of context. Maybe this means you are incapable of putting across a cohesive argument and need to up your game.

So when I explained that my comment was refering to total collapse not being “fully” explained, Funk claimed that I was moving the goal posts because I never included the word “fully” in my statement. So according to Funk’s impecable standards I have to type the whole sentence complete within its context just to satisfy nitpickers like himself. But does Funk hold himself to the same standards?

The scientific method is all about nit picking. You made an incorrect claim and instead of admitting and clarifying, you continued to argue the false claim.

You added fully after I proved you were wrong.

Recall, that when I said that NIST were unable to explain total collapse Funk responded with: Such an unqualified statement, WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT provided, I thought that Funk was arguing that NIST did in fact provide a “full” explanation of total collapse in post 1030 But in post 1032 Funk puts me straight

Liar. I never once claimed full explanation. They did however provide calculations to back up their claim. Something you have failed to do. This nis a prime example of you moving goalposts.

I know, and that is why you are a HIPOCRITE. When I fail to state that NIST were unable to provide a full explanation I am a liar; but when you fail to state that NIST’s explanation in their FAQ’s is incomplete its ok.

I am no hypocrite. You made a claim and I proved it wrong. I made no contradictory or hypiocritical statements.

But Funk’s statement : is also FALSE – I could argue that he is a liar but I have decided not to lower myself to Funk's standards. If you make a mistake I will deem it as such. The reasons it is a false statement is because NIST’s FAQ does not fully explain total collapse. This fact is mentioned in the Open Civil engineering Journal point#13. The same Journal also publishes a list of “whistles and bells” that NIST’s explanation is lacking, such as their failure to explain the near-freefall-speeds, their failure to include the Law of Conservation of Momentum in their calculations et cetera. So you were simply mistaken Funk – not a liar - to imply that NIST had explained Total collapse when in fact they did not.

You made a false claim and I proved you wrong. Yoiu also made a false claim about the dates of the NIST staements and I proved you wrong on that. I am getting fed up proving you wrong. I did it with the steel buildings failing due to fire also and guess what? You move the goalposts and say you were taken out of context. I rpoved you wrong with the NFPA 921 code.

NIST explained total collapse in the December FAQs and you claimed they had not. FAIL

So here is a break down of our positions:

•“We are unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse”: (soul) they were unable to explain total collapse.
•“We are unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse”: (funk) they explained total collapse.

This is a lie. This is not they way it happened see above.

If a given phenomena is not fully explained then naturally some of it is explained and some of it is not. My comment gives the impression that no explanation - at all – was given for the total collapse. And Funk’s comment gives the impression that total collapse was – fully – explained. So lets see whose comment is more consistent with the lack of a full explanation.

•some of total collapse was explained [p]
•some of total collapse was not explained [q]

Irrelevant and more goalpost shifting.

My comment is inconsistent with p but consistent with q
Funks comment is inconsistent with p and inconsistent with q

Irrelevant and another attempt to shift the goalposts

Now I know you are just going to brush over the above. but my point is that even if my comment was not taken out of context (which it was) it is still more consistent than your comment in relation to the fact that (i think) we both can agree on i.e. that NIST have not provided a full explanation of the total collapse.

I have not brushed over your false claims and lies.

But here are four concluding questions:
[1] Do you agree that my comment in post#928 was taken out of context, if not why not?
[2] Do you agree that your comment in post#930 was not taken out of context, if not why not?
[3] Do you accept the charge of being a hipocrite, if not why not?
[4] Do you accept the charge of being mistaken, if not why not?

I agree you made a false claim. I agree I corrected it. I agree you tried to argue the case and move the goalposts after it became clear you were wrong. I agree you are the hypocrite and look to be a liar also.

Answer these four, then I will respond and hopefully we can wrap these little name calling, fingerpointing, nitpicking exchanges up. And perhaps move onto more serious questions such as why do you believe the official hypothesis is true when it remains unproven?

Apply these same standards to your claims in the molten steel thread you hypocrite.

peace

p.s. am i going to retract my comment? no, because you took it out of context. and even taken out of its context it is still consistent with the fact that NIST has not provided a full explanation of total collapse for the simple reason that any incomplete explanation of a given phenomena must, necessarily, contain some aspect of that phenomena

and anyone that say my reasoning is bunk...provide your reasons why you arrived at this conclusion.

I have falied to see anyone put so much effort into moving goalposts so much just so they did not have to say. "OK funk I was incorrect. What I really should have said was they have failed to prove the total collapse"

I have never once stated it was proven or that it was a full explanation. All I called you on was your incorrect claim. You should maybe get someone to peer review the work you steal from other sites.

 

[thewholesoul]

now now, you failed to answer my questions.

it appears you are running from a rational exchange.

so lets try it again shall we

[1] Do you agree that my comment in post#928 was taken out of context?

you took my comment out of context because in the very same post just sentences above the comment you have exhausted you efforts i quoted the entire statement by NIST. it was obvious, or should have been to any fair reader that my comment was in reference to this statement by NIST. the only difference was i forgot to add the word "full" infront of the explanation.

please provide your reasons why you think my comment was not taken out of context in post 928

[2] Do you agree that your comment in post#930 was not taken out of context?

here is your comment made in post #930

They have explained it (it refering to total collaspe).

it was not taken out of context because no context was given.

please provide your reasons if you disagree

[3] Do you accept the charge of being a hypocrite?

i think you are a hypocrite because you apply doublestandards. to explain: you call me a liar because when i said they "they were unable to explain total collapse" the qualifier "fully" was not inserted infront of explain but when you said "they explained total collapse" the qualifier "incompletely" was not inserted infront of explained.

please provide your reasons if you disagree

[4] Do you accept the charge of being mistaken?

you said "they explained it (total collapse)" and without a context or a qualifier provided your comment implied that they had fully explained total collapse when in fact NIST have not. so your comment was therefore mistaken.

you said it again in your most recent post

NIST explained total collapse in the December FAQs

please provide your reasons if you disagree.

you see this is how we slug it out, rationally.

you definitely have a good jab, but lets see who will have the knock out punch.
answer these questions with reasons and lets reach a conclusion to this dripple.

peace

p.s. i will nolonger send you compliments as i can see you find it upsetting.

 

[applecorped]

You are boring; your shtick is old. Take some time off to rehearse some new material.

 

[thewholesoul]

You are boring; your shtick is old. Take some time off to rehearse some new material.

i apologise apple but sometimes this is the only way when confronted with a nitpicker. he was to call me a liar he is going to have to call himself one because he did exactly the same mistake. however my comment was taken out of context - his was not.

 

[applecorped]

you changed man.