'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

Just to be clear:
If there was the same amount of evidence for CD (flashes, sounds, motive, ect), yes I would need a very compelling case to convince me otherwise.

ETA: The problem with CD (among many) is there really is no proven motive.

 

[twinstead]

All asking truthers for a narrative does is force them to bring on the evidence. Nit picking the commonly-held narrative allows them to be lazy. The "OCT" evidence is substantial, and is in the public domain for all to see and scrutinize. It may not be perfect, but it is there in your face.

I submit that most rational people truly interested in reaching the truth would quit long before any rational narrative about 9-11 that contains CD is created due to a lack of evidence to support it.

 

[cooperman]

I would. I don't really like to just trust my "intuition". I have to go where the evidence leads me. So far there has been no evidence presented that supports a CD.

If you want to start, I'm all ears.

Proving a theory false does not require another theory. You know this. You are simply trying the age old disinfo tactic known as "Demand complete solutions".

Tough luck. I do not need an entirely new theory in order to show that the NIST theory is false.

Heres a stupid example to illustrate what I mean:

The NIST theory states that column 79 failed. Suppose column 79 was found at a scrapyard and examined and it revealed that column 79 showed no signs of failure. That would immediately disprove NISTs theory, but without a new theory.

Come on, are we reinventing the wheel here? You do not need a new theory to prove an existing one wrong.

 

[DGM]

Proving a theory false does not require another theory. You know this. You are simply trying the age old disinfo tactic known as "Demand complete solutions".

Tough luck. I do not need an entirely new theory in order to show that the NIST theory is false.

Heres a stupid example to illustrate what I mean:

The NIST theory states that column 79 failed. Suppose column 79 was found at a scrapyard and examined and it revealed that column 79 showed no signs of failure. That would immediately disprove NISTs theory, but without a new theory.

Come on, are we reinventing the wheel here? You do not need a new theory to prove an existing one wrong.

But, for people to actually listen you need more then made-up examples of what would work and give them something better. Do you not agree?

 

[tsig]

Proving a theory false does not require another theory. You know this. You are simply trying the aga old disinfo tactic known as "Demand complete solutions".

Tough luck. I do not need an entirely new theory in order to show that the NIST theory is false.

Heres a stupid example to illustrate what I mean:

The NIST theory states that column 79 failed. Suppose column 79 was found at a scrapyard and examined and it revealed that column 79 showed no signs of failure. That would immediately disprove NISTs theory, but without a new theory.

Come on, are we reinventing the wheel here? You do not need a new theory to disprove an existing one wrong.

What you would need would be evidence. Got any?

 

[beachnut]

Proving a theory false does not require another theory. You know this. You are simply trying the aga old disinfo tactic known as "Demand complete solutions".

Tough luck. I do not need an entirely new theory in order to show that the NIST theory is false.

Heres a stupid example to illustrate what I mean:

The NIST theory states that column 79 failed. Suppose column 79 was found at a scrapyard and examined and it revealed that column 79 showed no signs of failure. That would immediately disprove NISTs theory, but without a new theory.

Come on, are we reinventing the wheel here? You do not need a new theory to disprove an existing one wrong.

The best part about 911 truth delusions, no matter what they do, WTC 7 fell due to fire. No experts, or qualified people support 911 truth's delusions on WTC 7, only a fringe few who seem to be nuts or paranoid conspiracy theorists who quibble about nonsense.

Why can't a building fail in fire? You are spewing nonsense on fire science, zero research is your game as you post BS and don't have clue, exactly like your physics failure. 9 years of failure, and no sounds of explosives.

 

[cooperman]

All asking truthers for a narrative does is force them to bring on the evidence. Nit picking the commonly-held narrative allows them to be lazy. The "OCT" evidence is substantial, and is in the public domain for all to see and scrutinize. It may not be perfect, but it is there in your face.

I submit that most rational people truly interested in reaching the truth would quit long before any rational narrative about 9-11 that contains CD is created due to a lack of evidence to support it.

I find it quite alarming that a supposed critical thinker and skeptic would describe the close scrutiny of a theory as "nit picking".

 

[cooperman]

But, for people to actually listen you need more then made-up examples of what would work and give them something better. Do you not agree?

No I do not agree. For the purposes of this particular discussion about needing a new theory my example is quite sufficient.

Do you agree that NISTs theory could be proven wrong by a piece of evidence that does not involve a new theory?

 

[Disbelief]

WTF? Are these serious questions?

You are seriously asking me if an area cools down when the fire goes out? Umm, yes , it does.

Do all truthers totally lack reading comprehension? Did you miss the word "instantaneously?" When a fire goes out in a specific location, as you are alluding to, yet continues on the floor how quickly does the area cool down?

The "size" of the fires is a meaningless quantifier. The fires were fuelled by ordinary office contents and had a standard, expected, temperature range which the fireproofing was rated for.

Nope, size does matter.

 

[uke2se]

No I do not agree. For the purposes of this particular discussion about needing a new theory my example is quite sufficient.

That's not the scientific method.

Do you agree that NISTs theory could be proven wrong by a piece of evidence that does not involve a new theory?

That depends on what the evidence is and how well it is supported. So far, there is exactly zero evidence for any other form of collapse than fire induced collapse, while there is plenty of evidence for fire induced collapse. A minor detail, such as arguing that the column NIST identified as were the collapse initiation took place was wrong wouldn't do anything to cast doubt on the theory that fire brought the building down.

For there to be any real doubt that fire brought the building doubt, positive evidence of another cause must be presented. One cannot posit explosives without evidence of explosives. There is no such evidence.

 

[DGM]

No I do not agree. For the purposes of this particular discussion about needing a new theory my example is quite sufficient.

Do you agree that NISTs theory could be proven wrong by a piece of evidence that does not involve a new theory?

Sure why? Is that the purpose of the "truth" movement? Are you just trying to throw out as much stuff as possible and see if it sticks? Do you think then some really smart people will get together and finally put all these pieces together? If so your approach is hopelessly flawed. Your not using science your hoping for a miracle.

 

[Dave Rogers]

If the fireproofing was rated for 3 hours then it is quite important how long the fire burned for in a given location.

Saying "the building burned for 7 hours, which is longer that the fireproofing is rated for therefore it would collapse" is not honest. In fact, when taking into account the avoidance of the issue of how long the fire burned in a specific location, it is lying.

Unfortunately, both of these points of view are hopelessly oversimplified.

The fireproofing rating of a component determines how long the component will take to fail in a specific controlled test, using a particular set of experimental conditions that may or may not exist in any specific fire. It's useful in comparing one type of fireproofing installation with another, but of very little value in determining the duration of a specific, arbitrary, real-world fire that is required to cause the component to fail. Therefore, a simple-minded comparison of the duration, either of the fire overall, or of the fire in any specific location, with the rating of the fireproofing is utterly worthless in predicting component failure.

This is not, of course, what NIST did. What they did was to model the progress of the fires, determine the temperature distribution this induced as a function of time throughout the structure, determine from this the differential expansion of different parts of the structure, and determine what structural failures resulted. Their findings were that the structural failures were sufficient to cause global collapse. The structure defined for their models included fireproofing of the composition and dimensions of that of the actual building. Therefore, comparing fireproofing ratings with durations is utterly irrelevant to any assessment of the NIST investigation.

Dave

 

[cooperman]

Do all truthers totally lack reading comprehension? Did you miss the word "instantaneously?" When a fire goes out in a specific location, as you are alluding to, yet continues on the floor how quickly does the area cool down?



Nope, size does matter.

It cools down immediately. There are no flames there anymore. Stuff is no longer burning.

We really do have to walk you through kindergarten stuff. Putting a fire out in a given location will cool the area down. This isn't new, people have known about it since they discovered fire.

 

[beachnut]

It cools down immediately. There are no flames there anymore. Stuff is no longer burning.

We really do have to walk you through kindergarten stuff. Putting a fire out in a given location will cool the area down. This isn't new, people have known about it since they discovered fire.

How fast does it cool down? Got some math to go with your BS? Got some more nonsense on fire ratings? What would theauthor do?

 

[uke2se]

It cools down immediately. There are no flames there anymore. Stuff is no longer burning.

We really do have to walk you through kindergarten stuff. Putting a fire out in a given location will cool the area down. This isn't new, people have known about it since they discovered fire.

Does it attain room temperature immediately? How long would it take for temperatures to go down to a level where they are no longer weakening the structure?

Reply with math, please.

 

[DGM]

It cools down immediately. There are no flames there anymore. Stuff is no longer burning.

We really do have to walk you through kindergarten stuff. Putting a fire out in a given location will cool the area down. This isn't new, people have known about it since they discovered fire.

Did this member "push" on anything and could it be "compressed" or "deformed" by doing so?

(Remember steel expands when heated)

 

[cooperman]

Does it attain room temperature immediately? How long would it take for temperatures to go down to a level where they are no longer weakening the structure?

Reply with math, please.

No, of course it doesn't attain room temperature immediately. I never claimed that.

It will start to cool as soon as the flames are extinguished.

In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

Flames are very hot, hot air not so much. If you were trapped in a burning building and 80% of your floor was on fire and 20% wasn't. Where would you be heading? Sure, you would almost certainly die anyway, but I am happy to wager you would head for the area with no flames.

 

[Disbelief]

It cools down immediately. There are no flames there anymore. Stuff is no longer burning.

No flames means no more heat? Really? That is quite laughable.

We really do have to walk you through kindergarten stuff. Putting a fire out in a given location will cool the area down. This isn't new, people have known about it since they discovered fire.

You need to head back to kindergarten. Also, your reading comprehension still sucks.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ahem. If NIST had simply said "The building burned for seven hours and was only fireproofed for three, so obviously it fell down," then some of this might be relevant.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

No, of course it doesn't attain room temperature immediately. I never claimed that.

It will start to cool as soon as the flames are extinguished.

In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.

Flames are very hot, hot air not so much. If you were trapped in a burning building and 80% of your floor was on fire and 20% wasn't. Where would you be heading? Sure, you would almost certainly die anyway, but I am happy to wager you would head for the area with no flames.

Really, hot air is not very hot? How hot? Got numbers to go with your BS on fire? When do objects subjected to fire reach peak temperatures; include numbers and formulas? Got some math to go with your BS? Water is wet? 33 percent is better than your fire science grade. You can't get your jokes right, how can you get 911 right?

Water not wet. (steam is kind of invisible, another not wet state of water)

Sky not blue