Well, phunk, your post is an attempt at refutation; something that adds substance to the thread. Thank you for that effort and contribution. I think the lurkers deserve more posts that seek to go in that direction.
That said, your effort at refutation has serious flaws, imho, as I will now attempt to demonstrate.
Isn't that the entire point of a debate?
No, not at all. Further, even if "right' and "wrong" is the objective, it is utterly stupid for one of the participants to claim "victory" and to say the other side has "lost."
Yet, if you'll review the posts where such claims are made, you will notice something on a near onto 100% basis:
The poster claiming "right" or "victory" is always THAT poster. And the poster who is "wrong' or who has 'lost" is always THE OTHER poster.
In fact, such claims have little or nothing to do with "debate" and are, instead, symptomatic of narcissism.
You do realize that, don't you?
No, that would not be more honest. Partially validated does not mean phony. It means there isn't enough info to validate every detail.
You do not know that to be the case with NCSTAR1. The phoniness claims remains valid and unrefuted precisely because in 10,000pgs, next to nothing is firmly established in that report. For one thing, the report excludes from its context the actual destruction of the towers on the one end; and, the context only begins "at the moment of impact" at the other end, thus excluding from its contents an actual assessment of how on earth a jetliner could do what the observable data requires it to have done.
Thus, the claim that NIST is fraudulent stands and the claim that the words "partial validation' only serve to obscure what was not actually determined also remains valid and unrefuted.
If you're modeling something as massive as the WTC collapsing, you can't see what's happening to the core columns in the videos that only see the outside of the building. So you can't know, for example, exactly what column X did at time Y, but if the details that ARE known match the model, it's partially validated.
The above is rationalization and fails to take into consideration that NCSTAR1 does not even address the time frame of what it refers to as 'collapse.' Your example presupposes a state of facts that does not even apply to the NIST study. Thus, in addition to rationalization, it is also falsely premised.
Your assertions about NIST, are therefore, woefully inadequate.
Science hasn't been bent out of shape in the slightest. Science is not a group of people, it's a process, and it hasn't been affected by the deniers.
Wait. The deniers have made valid points about the scientific flaws, errors and corrupt assumptions of the proponents. The climate change issue involves misuse of science on both sides of that issue; thus confirming the limitations of science and the dependency of science upon the motivation of those who are seeking to use it.
I know a guy with a bulldozer if you need some help shoveling that load of crap. No one except truthers has ever claimed that the buildings fell faster than freefall. Only an idiot would make a claim like that, since the videos clearly show it took twice as long as freefall.
Are you saying you actually are willing to look at video and make a determination as to what it shows? Your claim, by the way, is at odds with NIST's findings. They conclude the buildings fell at near onto free fall speed and nowhere near twice as long as freefall, which, even if true, would still be a matter of <20seconds and still absurd.
You do realize, do you not, that the steel building was made of hollow columns, and that the building itself had a lower density than the airliner.
The foregoing is the worst sort of rationalization. It seeks to establish an excuse for a hollow aluminum jetliner to have the capacity to penetrate structural steel as though structural steel were paper mache. I do wish you would consider placing less relaince upon the process of rationalization.
Not that it matters, softer materials can penetrate harder ones easily, all you need is velocity. For example water jets can cut steel.
That example is FUBAR. The point is, the jetliner is equally being adversely affected by the impact. If it were real, it would explode, degrade and deposit bits and pieces, large and small, outside the building and would not penetrate as a single entity as was seen to have happened.
Once again, as you did with the NIST example, quoted above, you give an example which completely changes the premise of what is under discussion. That sort of debating tactic is improper and almost always gets noticed by those who are seeking to make a determination as to what position they think is more valid.
That said, you are free, of course, to engage in discussion as you see fit and, presumably, as best you can.
You do also realize, do you not, that the fuel was in the wings, not the nose, and that it would not instantly explode, it would first need to disperse into the air. Liquid jet fuel is not even flammable, it needs to be a vapor to ignite. So the explosion would not be at the point of impact, it would be AFTER the wings had penetrated the building and the fuel dispersed.
Note that phrase: "...AFTER the wings had penetrated..." You really do insist on assuming things that have no valid basis in the first place. Wings of a jetliner cannot penetrate steel. They explode, they degrade, they break apart.
Yet, that is not seen to happen in re the explosion at the South Tower.
You have a video of a high enough resolution to see something like an antenna? Why are you keeping it to yourself?
You appear to intentionally misrepresent my post. No antenna of a jetliner was found, let alone identified. For that matter, of course, no part of a jetliner of any type or variety was identified by part number, was it?
You mean besides starting a fire simultaneously across several floors?
The observed fires with respect to the South Tower were negligible. In fact, so much so that the use of the word "several" by you is yet another false assumption, having the same effect as the process of rationalization.
Or, the stuff that would ignite the contents of several floors of office space?
Yet again, the premise here relies on the false claim there was widespread fire in the South Tower. That premise is false.
I'm sure you've seen the demonstration where a pool of jet fuel was lit beneath a steel beam, which promptly failed. But that doesn't even matter, because NO ONE is claiming that the jet fuel is what weakened the steel. The jet fuel started the fires and burnt up in about 10 minutes. The real damage was done by the contents of the building burning for the next hour or two.
The above is false as a premise for an explanation as to why and how a steel building could annihilate itself from very top to utter bottom in less than 11 seconds. And, there is no validly conducted study, scientifically based, publicly funded and adequately staffed that even purports to claim otherwise. Remember, the NIST study ended at the point where "collapse was initiated" not completed; or, for that matter, not even midway through.
In conclusion, while you may have sought to engage in a process of refutation, I am afraid that process placed too much reliance upon unproven assumptions and upon the process of rationalization.
