Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[alienentity]

In other words, NIST's simulation can have its cake and eat it.

In other words, NIST carefully explains why the model, subject to random interactions, can NEVER duplicate all the random interactions of the actual collapse.

By definition, no simulation ever will, no matter who performs it. This is an inherent truth, nothing to do with NIST.

If NIST really wanted to commit fraud, they'd just force the simulation to look exactly like the actual collapse in every detail.

So truthers are arguing both sides simultaneously, without realizing that it is completely illogical and fallacious to do so;

They're saying NIST forced the model with fake data to match the collapse; and that it doesn't match the collapse so it's irrelevant.

Which is it? You truthers can't even make a coherent critique, let alone offer a coherent alternative engineering model. This is truly pathetic.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually its very boring. They pretend it doesn't exist and quickly change the subject.

You're forgetting the entertainment value of watching them squirm to rationalize their utter hypocrisy.

 

[Christopher7]

You're forgetting the entertainment value of watching them squirm to rationalize their utter hypocrisy.

It's you guys doing the squirming in a vain attempt to deny the obvious. The model does not look anything like the videos of WTC 7. It folds up as it would do if the interior collapsed first and the exterior walls were not blown simultaneously.

 

[bardamu]

In other words, NIST carefully explains why the model, subject to random interactions, can NEVER duplicate all the random interactions of the actual collapse.

But it's accurate enough to confirm that all the random interactions of the load redistribution could lead to the simultaneous failure of 58 steel columns.

 

[BigAl]

But it's accurate enough to confirm that all the random interactions of the load redistribution could lead to the simultaneous failure of 58 steel columns.

Yes.

 

[Christopher7]

Whaaaa? If there was full support, why was the building falling? It appears to me, from those dots up there in the upper left-hand corner, that the building fell slowly at first, then gathered momentum until it was falling at FFA or close to it. Exactly what you would expect from a natural collapse. No impossible magic therm*te required.

Chandler's graph is the one saying there was a transition from full support to no support, and that claim is simply not supported (hee hee) by the evidence.

False. Both graphs shows a slight pause and then an immediate transition to FFA. That curved line superimposed on the NIST graph disregards the beginning of the FFA.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's you guys doing the squirming in a vain attempt to deny the obvious. The model does not look anything like the videos of WTC 7. It folds up as it would do if the interior collapsed first and the exterior walls were not blown simultaneously.

C7, since you like to use this line of thinking so much make the argument for thermite after you present a single example of a high rise building being demolished in a controlled fashion using it. I mean after all if fire's never done it before and it's therefore impossible, shouldn't thermite be a non-starter? I mean this is the logic you're using right? Or is it somehow different when you're arguing thermite? :rolleyes

 

[grandmastershek]

It's you guys doing the squirming in a vain attempt to deny the obvious. The model does not look anything like the videos of WTC 7. It folds up as it would do if the interior collapsed first and the exterior walls were not blown simultaneously.

See GB? Subject immediately changed.

 

[Christopher7]

There has never been a progressive collapse in a high rise building. The Windsor Tower was not a progressive collapse. It was a series of collapses that took place over the period of an hour or more.

You mistake "never been" for "impossible to happen".

Impossible because of the strength and redundancy built into modern high rise buildings. They cannot "collapse" completely - naturally.

The near simultaneous failure of multiple support columns is inevitable in a progressive collapse.

Absolutely false. A steel framed high rise is not a house of cards. The horizontal collapse across the core in a few seconds is ridiculous. It cannot happen. A steel frame cannot come apart that fast without explosives.

 

[GlennB]

False. Both graphs shows a slight pause and then an immediate transition to FFA. That curved line superimposed on the NIST graph disregards the beginning of the FFA.

The curved line is the damn graph. The linear regression is superimposed upon it, not the other way around.

Please show where, on the graph, the "immediate transition" to FFA occurs. In your opinion.

<popcorn> where's the damn popcorn smiley in the list?

 

[jhunter1163]

False. Both graphs shows a slight pause and then an immediate transition to FFA. That curved line superimposed on the NIST graph disregards the beginning of the FFA.

No, Chris. The curved line shows a gradual acceleration, just what you would expect to see in a progressive collapse. No magic therm*te needed.

And thermite burning is BRIGHT. Remember TruthBurn? That was just 70 pounds of thermite, and you could probably see it for miles.

Where are the flashes from all those thousands of thermite charges going off? WTC7 had a lot of windows; surely we'd see some flashes, no?

ETA: GlennB beat me to this one. Win some, lose some.

 

[grandmastershek]

Impossible because of the strength and redundancy built into modern high rise buildings. They cannot "collapse" completely - naturally.

Absolutely false. A steel framed high rise is not a house of cards. The horizontal collapse across the core in a few seconds is ridiculous. It cannot happen. A steel frame cannot come apart that fast without explosives.

Well you say so Chris. Another truther and his magic wand.

 

[Christopher7]

C7, since you like to use this line of thinking so much make the argument for thermite after you present a single example of a high rise building being demolished in a controlled fashion using it. I mean after all if fire's never done it before and it's therefore impossible, shouldn't thermite be a non-starter? I mean this is the logic you're using right? Or is it somehow different when you're arguing thermite? :rolleyes

It's not that it has not happened, it's the fact that fire cannot cause all the columns to fail in a manner which would bring a steel framed high rise straight down as WTC 7 did for ~100 feet.

 

[Christopher7]

No, Chris. The curved line shows a gradual acceleration, just what you would expect to see in a progressive collapse. No magic therm*te needed.

The curved line is meaningless. It does not follow the dots.

 

[grandmastershek]

Where are the flashes from all those thousands of thermite charges going off? WTC7 had a lot of windows; surely we'd see some flashes, no?

They were housed in boxes to conceal the light, which also had a self consuming thermite casing so there would be no evidence, which were also housed in more self consuming thermite casings, ad infinitum...which explains why there was still molten steel (or iron...is it an odd or even day?) found at ground zero months after the fact.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Impossible because of the strength and redundancy built into modern high rise buildings. They cannot "collapse" completely - naturally.

Shyam Sunder and John Gross have nothing to fear from you.





...And neither does Trig Palin.

 

[Christopher7]

The curved line is the damn graph. The linear regression is superimposed upon it, not the other way around.

You will say anything no matter how obviously false. The dots are the the data. The line does not follow the dots.

Please show where, on the graph, the "immediate transition" to FFA occurs. In your opinion.

 

[Disbelief]

But it's accurate enough to confirm that all the random interactions of the load redistribution could lead to the simultaneous failure of 58 steel columns.

Can you show how this is possible with thermite? Explosives? C7 has failed to do so, maybe you can. Remember, you claim it was simultaneous, so that needs to hold true for thermite or explosives.

 

[Christopher7]

Can you show how this is possible with thermite? Explosives? C7 has failed to do so, maybe you can. Remember, you claim it was simultaneous, so that needs to hold true for thermite or explosives.

Like a 3 year old you keep asking the same question over and over again. I have said many times that I don't know how they did it but there is no other possibility.

 

[dafydd]

Like a 3 year old you keep asking the same question over and over again. I have said many times that I don't know how they did it but there is no other possibility.

There are no other possibilities in Thrutherland.Over here in Realityworld we know of one.