• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anomolies at ground zero

Docker said:
The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.

NIST know this, which is why they have to make things up, like fireproofing being blown off and fiddling with parameters on the computer tests.
Click to expand...

Sources to substantiate these two claims?
 
firecoins said:
No it isn't correct. I went to NYU. Graduated December 2000 in Economics. I was required to take science classes. What is your backround? Why you can't you answer your backround? Is it because you have no legit backround in any type of science?
Click to expand...

I don't need a background in science if my detractors have a background in economics.

I will not be revealing my qualifications after seeing how that will be treated.

I suspect I have far more scientific knowledge than you.
 
Docker said:
Your BA in economics is perfect background for you to assess NISTs work.

I have read the threads I was pointed to regarding pdoherty. The modus operandi of people on here is just to accuse CTers of lying if they claim to have a degree. So I shall not be commenting. If I mention any qualifications I will be told i'm lying. Correct?
Click to expand...

That is not correct. pdoherty used his/her claim to a degree as an appeal to authority in substantiating his/her claims; then failed to provide evidence that such a claim had merit.
 
Docker said:
Your BA in economics is perfect background for you to assess NISTs work.

I have read the threads I was pointed to regarding pdoherty. The modus operandi of people on here is just to accuse CTers of lying if they claim to have a degree. So I shall not be commenting. If I mention any qualifications I will be told i'm lying. Correct?
Click to expand...
You don't have to mention your qualifications because it's clear based on your complete disinterest in providing intelligent debate sourced with credible analysis that you have no qualifications and are simply an anonymous no nothing internet blowhard.

Of course you could prove me wrong by

1. Making a claim
2. Provide details behind your analysis.
3. Providing source(s) for your analysis.

So far in 230+ posts, all you've done is the first one, over and over again. No details, not analysis, no sources, just diarrhea like claims.

Prove me wrong.
 
Docker said:
I don't need a background in science if my detractors have a background in economics.

I will not be revealing my qualifications after seeing how that will be treated.

I suspect I have far more scientific knowledge than you.
Click to expand...
No your making claims. you need to back them up. you havent provided any backround or backed up any claims.
 
firecoins said:
no. It was a combination of plane and fire. Neither one by themselves would have done it.
Click to expand...

Wrong. NIST claims that both together would not have done it, absent the fireproofing being removed which they have shown no evidence of.
 
Docker said:
I am not obliged to give this information. It is irrelevant here.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty relevant to me.

If you have the credentials to support your claims it will help your case. Well?
 
Docker said:
If the plane impacts are relevent they would have collapsed soon after.
Click to expand...

You don't think that physically destroying a significant percentage of the main supports of a building, thus placing a greater than normal load on the remaining supports, is relevant to why it collapsed?

This is quite possible the dumbest thing I've seen yet, and I've seen the Star Wars Death Ray thread.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom