Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[pgimeno]

Wrong!
This is a denial tactic. "Tell me something you could not possibly know or I will ignore the evidence we do have."

Are you sure you know what "denial" means?

It is not a denial tactic. It is a fact-finding tactic. It's used to distinguish the unsupported assertions (which anyone can formulate without making them true) from the facts. As Hitchens said and Dave quoted, "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof". The proof is therefore a necessary step in order to not dismiss the assertion. The request of proof is just an attempt to continue the dialog instead of dismissing the assertion right away.

Actually, the words he chooses to obfuscate the facts do not change the facts. In this case "essentially in free fall" is within 0.1% or "indistinguishable from" free fall acceleration.

You have failed to provide proof of such accuracy. In the graphs you present, the accuracy is evidently much worse than 0.1%:

Therefore, you're still far, far away from proving lack of even the negligible support that NIST claims.

Now NIST is saying the exterior frame instantly stopped providing any resistance at all for ~100 feet.

Why do you make up such things? NIST never said such thing. When looking at the most recent traces currently discussed in another thread, it's evident that the acceleration increases gradually.

Those who make up their proof are called liars, you know.

There was always some resistance because the exterior frame was folding up, it was not breaking up.

Right, but at some points such resistance was negligible, therefore not measurable within the accuracy of the videos.

There was "a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

That's right. The essentially FFA period was preceded by an increasing acceleration. The deceleration was gradual too. Therefore, everything was not instantaneous. Correct.

 

[tsig]

If used in the usual manner.

We don't know how nano-thermite could have been used because it's top secret military stuff.

If it's top secret military stuff how do you know about it?

 

[pgimeno]

If it's top secret military stuff how do you know about it?

He could tell you, but then he would have to kill you.

 

[carlitos]

Circular Reasoning

Appeal to Magic

Silly poster is silly. I'm not sure why anyone bothers arguing with him.

 

[bill smith]

The fact that Flight 93 was supposed to have hit WTC7 seems to be catching on finally..

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-...ing-what-just-how-did-muslims-bring-down-wtc7

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The fact that Flight 93 was supposed to have hit WTC7 seems to be catching on finally..

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-...ing-what-just-how-did-muslims-bring-down-wtc7

If it was, you wouldn't have linked to a 9/11 quack site.

 

[bill smith]

If it was, you wouldn't have linked to a 9/11 quack site.

It's getting around as it should have long ago. I am content.

 

[Justin39640]

Chris - that's indescribably poor reasoning.

My theory that the buildings were brought down by magic pixies wielding nano-anglegrinders holds up just as well if your standards of logic are applied. Or that the buildings were made with a secret "special steel" that could be dustified just by passing a certain electric current through it.

Incidentally - have you noticed that you claim explosives when there's a need to explain the synchronised appearance of the collapse, but then
move back to therm?te when you need to explain the lack of explosions?

The two are mutually contradictory. Doesn't it worry you that you absolutely must support two opposing theories at the same time?

I'm sure his logic filter kicked in reading this. He'll ignore it along with all the other reason thrown at him in this thread.

 

[beachnut]

... I am content.

To spread lies and delusions about 911. Apologizing for terrorists, blaming people you can't define or explain.

 

[grandmastershek]

It's getting around as it should have long ago. I am content.

I bet St Paul felt the same way.

 

[dc1971]

We don't know how nano-thermite could have been used because it's top secret military stuff.

Sure. And the moon is made out of cheese.

 

[dc1971]

It's getting around as it should have long ago. I am content.

Just like you're content that the Truth movement is growing, eh??

 

[bill smith]

I bet St Paul felt the same way.

''In modern day usage, to refer to something as a ' Damascus road experience' is to refer to a profound life-changing experience, that turned one from skepticism to belief in the Jesus whom one previously mocked and rejected. ''

lol

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's getting around as it should have long ago. I am content.

It's confined to the whack-job community, not "getting around".

 

[bill smith]

It's confined to the whack-job community, not "getting around".

It's on the flux now SOT.

 

[Seymour Butz]

T

but you do need CD to have FFA, because it can't happen naturally.

Now there's a bare assertion if I ever saw one.

Tony-if an 8 story column, built of 2 story sections were to fail, there would be some period of less than ffa during the initial buckling phase.

But once they fractured, there would be zero resistance, and therefore a period of ffa.

This can happen naturally.

Please show otherwise, or admit your wrong and/or lying.

 

[bardamu]

if an 8 story column, built of 2 story sections were to fail, there would be some period of less than ffa during the initial buckling phase.

But once they fractured, there would be zero resistance, and therefore a period of ffa.

This can happen naturally.

If there were 58 columns, they'd all have to fail at the same time.

 

[Christopher7]

"Nobody here is "ignoring" thermite. Evaluating the available evidence leads most rational people to determine that thermite is clearly an extremely unlikely candidate to have been the cause of the collapse of WTC7."

Actually, given the pervasive evidence of its existence throughout the WTC dust, it is an extremely likely candidate.

It has to be proven that it can do the job first.

This is a denial tactic. "Tell me something you could not possibly know or I will ignore the evidence we do have."

It is not a denial tactic. It is a fact-finding tactic.

No, it's asking for something that is not known to the public. That's not fact finding, it's an excuse to deny what is known.

You have failed to provide proof of such accuracy. In the graphs you present, the accuracy is evidently much worse than 0.1%:

That's NIST's graph. It matches Mr. Chandlers graph. You are assuming it's wrong. That's denial.

Now NIST is saying the exterior frame instantly stopped providing any resistance at all for ~100 feet.

Why do you make up such things? NIST never said such thing.

Not in those words, but they now claim that their computer model is consistent with the graph which includes a period of FFA that occurred instantaneously. The NIST graph shows a transition from full support to no support at 1.75s.

There was always some resistance because the exterior frame was folding up, it was not breaking up.

Right, but at some points such resistance was negligible

No. There frame did NOT break apart. It was folding up asymmetrically and was always providing more than negligible [virtually no] resistance. You are going round and round on your semantics merry-go-round.

There was "a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

That's right. The essentially FFA period was preceded by an increasing acceleration. The deceleration was gradual too. Therefore, everything was not instantaneous.

The graph clearly shows an instantaneous transition into FFA and "essentially" is just more meaningless semantics.

 

[Christopher7]

Tony-if an 8 story column, built of 2 story sections were to fail, there would be some period of less than ffa during the initial buckling phase.

But once they fractured, there would be zero resistance, and therefore a period of ffa.

This can happen naturally.

No.
I have covered this many times. The moment frames [a steel belt every other floor] held the exterior columns together and kept them from breaking apart as can be seen in the video simulation and this:

 

[pgimeno]

If there were 58 columns, they'd all have to fail at the same time.

That's what happens at the point in which the overall capacity of the columns is exceeded: all fall at virtually the same time. Load redistribution is a very quick process.

I already explained it this way:

Imagine an intact building asymmetrically loaded almost to the limit of its capacity, to which you keep adding weight. Since the load is asymmetric, some columns are already over their capacity and the building stands thanks to the others. In the moment the overall capacity is exceeded, each attempt at load redistribution results in the failure of the column or columns and the building makes another attempt. That's a *very* quick process (because each load redistribution attempt implies a very tiny movement) that culminates with all columns failing basically at the same time.

In the WTC it was the same case, but instead of adding weight, the columns' capacity was reduced due to fire.

ETA: That applied to the towers. In the WTC7 case, the columns' capacity was reduced due to the failing of some of them because of the internal collapse.