Apparently Dave Thomas and others debating Gage, Harrit etc on Coast to Coast?

[Grizzly Bear]

A reasonable response might be (a) the physical evidence produced by centuries of study of the thermal and mechanical properties of materials, yielding a thorough understanding of their thermal expansion, elastic and plastic deformation
Dave

This... has absolutely no meaning to them unfortunately. Their mentality is the equivalent of thinking such research is fraudulent with no basis to back such a mentality up.

 

[RedIbis]

This... has absolutely no meaning to them unfortunately. Their mentality is the equivalent of thinking such research is fraudulent with no basis to back such a mentality up.

No not fraudulent, just highly speculative, without any commensurate physical evidence to support a very audacious hypothesis.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is an impressive level of semantics, but really, I said right here what is easily understood:

Yes, you asked what physical evidence did NIST rely on to support their theory. The answer is that they relied on a huge body of physical evidence, from which the physical properties of the materials were known; these physical properties were used as parameters in the modelling that resulted in their conclusions. That's a perfectly reasonable answer to the question you asked.

Apparently, you've forgotten how to frame your own misleading questions.

Dave

 

[grandmastershek]

Does anyone remember of there was a mention in the Jones NT paper, or somewhere else, about another lab conducting a parallel study of the chips? If so ask when we will see this research and if it will be published in a real journal.

Also, who will be on the debunking side? I didn't see any concrete references here or in the other thread; aside from DT.

 

[ProBonoShill]

So it looks to be more of a debate about perceived prevailing Twoofie theories, as opposed to having to debate and defend official theories, such as NIST's WTC 7 single column collapse theory.

I can understand why you would want to attack the low hanging fruit, as opposed to having to defend the indefensible, namely, hypotheticals without any physical evidence to support.

For instance, if Gage were to ask you what physical evidence did NIST rely on to support their theory that single column collapse causes global failure of WTC 7, and how reliable are theories without physical evidence, how might you respond?

So Red, do you have an alternate theory for the collapse of WTC 7?

Care to share it with the rest of us?

While you're at it, maybe you can enlighten us your version of events surrounding the Twin Towers,Pentagon and Flight 93 too.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[The Big Dog]

Does anyone remember of there was a mention in the Jones NT paper, or somewhere else, about another lab conducting a parallel study of the chips? If so ask when we will see this research and if it will be published in a real journal.

Also, who will be on the debunking side? I didn't see any concrete references here or in the other thread; aside from DT.

Yes they sent a sample to another truther in France who could not replicate the results.

He claimed that his package was tampered with... rolls eyes...

But Red would point out that is simply low hanging fruit, right Dame Red?

 

[grandmastershek]

Yes they sent a sample to another truther in France who could not replicate the results.

He claimed that his package was tampered with... rolls eyes...

But Red would point out that is simply low hanging fruit, right Dame Red?

Right, I found the quote. Apparently another guy in NH was on it as well. Similar excuse?

"Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers."

 

[bill smith]

Thanks for the tips! Keep 'em coming.

You can get an idea of my approach from the NMSR 9-11 page.

Cheers, Dave

I think you should ask Harrit if the core columns ( which were all hollow) could have had the nanothermite pumped inside them. Ask him if the many tons he posits could have been hidden in this way until ignition.

 

[GlennB]

I think you should ask Harrit if the core columns ( which were all hollow) .....

Better not. They weren't all hollow.

"Core columns were primarily rolled wide-flange shapes of grade 36 or 50 steel. As the loads increased towards the base of the building, many of these column sizes were increased through the use of built-up shapes."

 

[bill smith]

Better not. They weren't all hollow.

"Core columns were primarily rolled wide-flange shapes of grade 36 or 50 steel. As the loads increased towards the base of the building, many of these column sizes were increased through the use of built-up shapes."

The very bases were stiffened with an additional centre plate but for the rest they were hollow up to the 88th floor.

 

[GlennB]

The very bases were stiffened with an additional centre plate but for the rest they were hollow up to the 88th floor.

Ah I thought we were discussing WTC7.

Anyhoo (i) - 84th floor already mostly transitioned to flange type, and note the floor at which transition takes place.

Anyhoo (ii) - stuffing thermite down the middle of WTC1+2 core box columns wouldn't be very bright. It would all fall down to the bottom.

 

[bill smith]

Ah I thought we were discussing WTC7.

Anyhoo (i) - 84th floor already mostly transitioned to flange type, and note the floor at which transition takes place.

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/corefloorlayout.jpg[/qimg]

Anyhoo (ii) - stuffing thermite down the middle of WTC1+2 core box columns wouldn't be very bright. It would all fall down to the bottom.

True. and you could fill selected columns right up to the 88th floor if you wanted. Even if you thinned out the core columns by entirely melting say one third of the entire core column structure the building would still stand. (The core had a factor of safety of 3 or more) And if you sequenced the melt fom bottom to top the melted steel would all drain down into the basement where it would remain bubbling for say ....Oh....three or four months.

 

[GlennB]

And if you sequenced the melt fom bottom to top the melted steel would all drain down into the basement where it would remain bubbling for say ....Oh....three or four months.

Except then the building would have collapsed from the bottom. Whoops.

Why do you bother posting your nonsense?

 

[DGM]

Bill:
You do realize that the core columns were actual seen after the collapse?

 

[bill smith]

given that this thread is largely to give tips to members of the jref team in the matter of the coast-to-coast debate I think I should be allowed to pass on potential ideas to members of the other side who may well be monitoring this thread.

I think the Truth team should ask the jref members about the crumbling core- or what appeared to be the crumbling core..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1

But let's face it- massive steel columns do not collapse like that- not straight down- and neither do they crumble into dust no matter how violent the collapse. So if those standing remnants were not made of steel then what were they made of ?

There is only one possible candidate.They can only have been ossified fireprooofing. Remember the famous Dr. Astaneh-Asl who examined some of the WTC fireproofing and appeared to be quite surprised at it's glassy texture ? Nice tubes for the melted steel to flow through down into the basements no doubt.

It would be interesting to watch the debunkers answer convincingly.

 

[bill smith]

Except then the building would have collapsed from the bottom. Whoops.

Why do you bother posting your nonsense?

Sorry, no it wouldn't.This was only one third of the core columns and the other two-thirds would have held the building up satisfactorily with a factor of safety for the core of three, Then they began the top-down demolition of the rest.

 

[DGM]

But let's face it- massive steel columns do not collapse like that- straight down- and neither do they crumble into dust no matter how violent the collapse. So if they were not made of steel then what were they ?

.

I'm done.

 

[The Big Dog]

given that this thread is largely to give tips to members of the jref team in the matter of the coast-to-coast debate I think I should be allowed to pass on potential ideas to members of the other side who may well be monitoring this thread.

I think the Truth team should ask the jref members about the crumbling core- or what appeared to be the crumbling core..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&NR=1

But let's face it- massive steel columns do not collapse like that- straight down- and neither do they crumble into dust no matter how violent the collapse. So if they were not made of steel then what were they ?

They can only have been ossified fireprooofing. Remember the famous Dr. Astaneh-Asl who examined some of the WTC fireproofing and appeared to be quite surprised at it's glassy texture. Nice tubes for the melted steel to flow through down into the basements no doubt.

It would be interesting to watch the debunkers answer convincingly.

Bill, I think it is more than fair that you pass your ideas on the Truthers who will be proving the inside jobby job. In fact, we insist on it. And if they don't adopt your opinions, well god damnit, those nasty truther are in on it too.

 

[bill smith]

Bill, I think it is more than fair that you pass your ideas on the Truthers who will be proving the inside jobby job. In fact, we insist on it. And if they don't adopt your opinions, well god damnit, those nasty truther are in on it too.

Can't say fairer than that..

 

[twinstead]

It would be interesting to watch the debunkers answer convincingly.

convincingly to whom? You? Or somebody who actually matters?