Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[WildCat]

Red: Let me ask you a serious questions. For the sake of this question, let's assume NIST used speculation. I know the qualifications of those doing the speculation in the NIST report. I think it's only fair, to know your qualifications so I can try and compare the value of your speculation versus the authors of the NIST report.

RedIbis will ignore this question.

Please give me an honest answer.

Sorry, RedIbis is a proven liar.

 

[thewholesoul]

I've asked you to prove this several times before. All you've done is state your incredulity that jet fuel can fall any faster than 9m/s. Please either prove the bolded statement or withdraw your objection to the hypothesis. Dave

i love the double standards Dave.

i have to prove that a droplet of fuel falls at the same speed as a droplet of water.

but you dont have to prove how fuel droplets after falling 90+ floors can deflagrate from some unknown ignition source with of course the correct fuel to air ratio. why dont you drop some kerosene down an elevator and see if it explodes or not. i bet you a shinny penny it wont.

but back to your insignificant objection.

the reason it is insignificant Dave is because even if fuel droplets could fall at TWICE the velocity of a raindrop it would still would be TOO SLOW.

the fuel began its descent from the 93rd floor
car 50 began its descent from the 18th floor

car 50 was a gearless traction freight elevator with a max speed of 10m/s. at this speed it would descend 18 floors in 7 seconds. now with its cables cut Dave it would presumably take no more than 5 seconds. do you really think that fuel droplets with a velocity of 10, 20, or even 30m/s could pass car 50? your a smart guy so you can do the calculations.

your hypothesis has been DEBUNKED - get over it already.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

No, its not and if you cared to read the thread about it you will see it has had many responses. Something can be well stated but full of nonsense. This is one such case. The fact you fail to see the nonsense speaks volumes about your knowledge and education.

well why dont you apply that critical thinking you claim to possess and tell me which one of these lines is false or untrue. you do know that if cannot you demonstrate any of these lines to be false or untrue then it would be irrational not to accept the conclusion that logically follows from them.

(1) [Upon impact] Elevator cables are severed + jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend shaft

(2) Car 50 falls approx. 17 floors taking no more than 5s to reach B1

(3) Jet fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball descend 95 floors taking approx. 30s and 15s respectively

(4) The first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached
B1

Conclusion: whatever exploded below car 50 and before it reached B1 could not POSSIBLY have been caused by fuel droplets and/or jet fuel fireball.

if you think someone has refuted this 4 line argument then please post their logical counter arguments for us all to see and i promise to address them.

now if you think this 4 line argument is non-sense then surely you can refute just one line? and then you go an insult Red Ibis. I see some things will never change with you my friend

so instead of spouting ad hominem attacks go refute just one of these non-sensical lines, or post someone elses rebuttal if you are unable to come up with your own. i come to the jref forum for rational debate, unless you take up my challenge i will start to wonder for what reasons you come here for?

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

SO now TWS is using the same debunked argument from another thread here? That's pretty dishonest. The logical counter arguments HAVE been posted. But in the CORRECT thread. Stop spamming TWS. But thanks for the giggle as you remind us of yoru brazillian rain drop theory!

 

[Norseman]

......

......

There is no need to recycle your fantasy in this thread too thewholesoul, you have repeated it more than enough in the Fireballs and Backdraft in WTC1 Basement and Lobby thread already.

Here are some links to posts debunking thewholesoul's fantasy with links to other relevant posts in the above mentioned thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4055365#post4055365
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4056125#post4056125
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4055707#post4055707

 

[thewholesoul]

We've discussed this to death in the other thread. Your counter-argument rests on the unsupported assumption that the maximum falling speed of liquid -- in this case, jet fuel -- is 9 meters per second. This simply isn't true

"we've discussed it to death", well if you call posting once and then running to the hills when i countered you "discussing it to the death" then i think we have a different understanding of the aforementioned expression.

i see you have opted for the insignificant counter argument first sugegsted by Dave Rogers. very original Mackey. (see above posts for my counter to Rogers.)

you opened this thread with "offer to the truth movement: let's settle it" are you going to respect those words because I'm still here. i do want to settle it.

bottom line Mackey is that your "droplet" fuel hypothesis has been DEBUNKED with 4 simple lines. your avoidance and unwillingness to address my 4 line argument is evidence that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

if someone challenges your beliefs and you are unable to counter or refute those challenges then the rational thing to do is to concede.

are you going to do the rational thing Mackey?

peace

 

[TexasJack]

"we've discussed it to death", well if you call posting once and then running to the hills when i countered you "discussing it to the death" then i think we have a different understanding of the aforementioned expression.

i see you have opted for the insignificant counter argument first sugegsted by Dave Rogers. very original Mackey. (see above posts for my counter to Rogers.)

you opened this thread with "offer to the truth movement: let's settle it" are you going to respect those words because I'm still here. i do want to settle it.

bottom line Mackey is that your "droplet" fuel hypothesis has been DEBUNKED with 4 simple lines. your avoidance and unwillingness to address my 4 line argument is evidence that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

if someone challenges your beliefs and you are unable to counter or refute those challenges then the rational thing to do is to concede.

are you going to do the rational thing Mackey?

peace

TWS, why the obsession with Mackey, he has you on ignore, do you know what that means? He's done with you and your nonsense, it's like swatting a dead fly; there's no point wasting his time on you.

 

[R.Mackey]

if someone challenges your beliefs and you are unable to counter or refute those challenges then the rational thing to do is to concede.

are you going to do the rational thing Mackey?

I've explained to you that your assumptions are unrealistic. The fact that you choose not to accept that explanation is your problem. There's little I can do after that.

The "rational" thing for you to do is keep carrying on in your interminable thread, rather than cross-posting here.

The "rational" thing for me to do is to ask a moderator to remove your comments from this one, and I shall if you persist. You are off-topic. You already have a thread dedicated to your silly assumptions about how the jet fuel couldn't reach the basement for over 30 seconds, and so on. This isn't it.

 

[thewholesoul]

peace

 

[Norseman]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4057965#post4057965 or just scroll up to post #1065.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

It sure is taking a whole lot of pages to settle this. How come?

 

[leonAzul]

It sure is taking a whole lot of pages to settle this. How come?

Perhaps because no one has seriously considered the OP's call to post a critical question concerning the alleged conspiracy to destroy the WTC on 11 September 2001. When and iff someone raises such a question, perhaps this can be settled.

 

[pomeroo]

It sure is taking a whole lot of pages to settle this. How come?

They're called conspiracy liars for a reason.

 

[psikeyhackr]

They're called conspiracy liars for a reason.

Yeah, they say you can analyze a supposed straight down, from the top, gravitational collapse of a very tall man made structure without knowing the distribution of steel and concrete in the structure.

Even though the NIST said that info was necessary just to analyze the airliner impact:

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74

The conservation of momentum is SO UNSCIENTIFIC.

psik

 

[CliveHill]

My critical question

Ultra short version:
If WTC7 was not a controlled demolition, why does it look like one?

Bit longer version:

The walls of WTC7 came down suddenly, simultaneously, virtually straight down and virtually in free fall.
These are all characteristic of a controlled implosion which supposedly can only be brought about with the skill of expert demolition contractors.

In order to NOT believe demolition then you have to believe in a different mechanism that can cause the walls to have come down in that way.
I'd like to know what that mechanism is.

Plus, I am sorry to say, that due to the dishonest way that the NIST report on WTC7 has dealt with the issue, I feel I would also need some kind of evidence to back up a claim that such a mechanism is what actually happened.

 

[beachnut]

Ultra short version:

If WTC7 was not a controlled demolition, why does it look like one?

It does sound like a CD. Darn, failure. Welcome to JREF, too bad you left your evidence somewhere in fantasyland.

Bit longer version:

The walls of WTC7 came down suddenly, simultaneously, virtually straight down and virtually in free fall.
These are all characteristic of a controlled implosion which supposedly can only be brought about with the skill of expert demolition contractors.

No, it did not come down suddenly, the Penthouse and interior were collapsing for 6 to 8 seconds before the facade came down all over the place.

In order to NOT believe demolition then you have to believe in a different mechanism that can cause the walls to have come down in that way.

I'd like to know what that mechanism is.

It is called Gravity. Did you forget to take physics? This is when my mom is happy I became an engineer, so I would not make massive logic errors and mock the dead of 9/11.

Plus, I am sorry to say, that due to the dishonest way that the NIST report on WTC7 has dealt with the issue, I feel I would also need some kind of evidence to back up a claim that such a mechanism is what actually happened.

Since you lack evidence to support your fantasy of CD, you should have taken the last 7 years to get a doctorate in structural engineering instead of majoring in hearsay and common sense.

So where is your paper on WTC7 failure modes? Bet you failed to read and understand the NIST report.

This is the wrong place to post this tripe, move it to where you can rant away instead of presenting zero evidence to settle your failed ideas. This is not the right thread, don't post in this thread unless you read the OP first. Can you do that? Do you understand simple instructions?

I made a mistake posting, so did you; you have nothing to settle but your own opinion, this is the wrong thread.

 

[CliveHill]

It does sound like a CD. Darn, failure. Welcome to JREF, too bad you left your evidence somewhere in fantasyland.

No, it did not come down suddenly, the Penthouse and interior were collapsing for 6 to 8 seconds before the facade came down all over the place.
It is called Gravity. Did you forget to take physics? This is when my mom is happy I became an engineer, so I would not make massive logic errors and mock the dead of 9/11.
Since you lack evidence to support your fantasy of CD, you should have taken the last 7 years to get a doctorate in structural engineering instead of majoring in hearsay and common sense.

So where is your paper on WTC7 failure modes? Bet you failed to read and understand the NIST report.

This is the wrong place to post this tripe, move it to where you can rant away instead of presenting zero evidence to settle your failed ideas. This is not the right thread, don't post in this thread unless you read the OP first. Can you do that? Do you understand simple instructions?

I made a mistake posting, so did you; you have nothing to settle but your own opinion, this is the wrong thread.

This is why JREF has such a bad reputation!
I did read the OP and I presented a simple, clear and important question.
Instead I just get abuse. Who do you think is persuaded by what you just posted? Actually, forget that, please do not reply. I have heard all I need to from you.
Perhaps R. Mackay, who made the OP, can offer me a sensible response?

 

[funk de fino]

This is why JREF has such a bad reputation!
I did read the OP and I presented a simple, clear and important question.
Instead I just get abuse. Who do you think is persuaded by what you just posted? Actually, forget that, please do not reply. I have heard all I need to from you.
Perhaps R. Mackay, who made the OP, can offer me a sensible response?

You made sveral false claims in that post.

What this thread is for is to look at the one claim, that if met with a satisfactory answer from Mackey would allay your 911 CT fears. If you get good answers from Mackey regarding WTC7 would this put to bed any CT suspicions you have?

 

[CliveHill]

Can I not treat an overall outward resemblance to CD as one claim?

Exactly which of the claims I made do you state are false and why?

beachnut tried to say my claim that the wall's collapse was sudden was false, but he does so by referring to the penthouse collapse! I was talking about the walls.

And yes, a 'good' answer, from anyone, would do.
i.e. if the answer is convincing then I would be convinced.

 

[CliveHill]

I had thought that features of the collapse of WTC7 was already well known.

For evidence I will cite a video.
Remember that as a new poster I cannot give external references.
But google the phrase "reviewing the nist report on wtc 7" and you should get to a video presented by David Chandler.

I have downloaded a video of the WTC7 collapse, and the Physics Toolkit software used in the making of that video and verified the free fall collapse for myself.