Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
Continuation: 'What about building 7?'
- Thread starter jaydeehess
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wtc7
Stifling flames and reducing heat are very different beasts, as I'm growing weary of pointing out. For the eighth time - the auto-ignition temperature of paper is ~ a mere 260°C, and we know beyond the slightest doubt that WTC7 was hit by major WTC1 debris that originated in or around the WTC1 fire zone.
That idea the WTC7 fires could only have been set by teams of arsonists is asinine in the extreme.
Belz...
Fiend God
Is there an echo in here ?
Belz...
Fiend God
You don't actually know how this stuff works, do you ?
Belz...
Fiend God
It's arsonine.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Nanoarsonists. Little midgets, or faeries, or something like that I suppose.
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Nanoo-arsonists using nanoo-thermite.
Nanoo nanoo!
(Yes, I'm old now).
Need to define those terms;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2063744#post2063744
There was another similar one, but I can't find it.
They should be merged.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108947
And maybe another one.
I think some of mine were sent on vacation in a handbasket.
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
How much fire would it suppress? Tony says 100%. How about you, and with what justification?
Reverend Chris Mohr is not merely reporting studies as a journalist, he is pretending to debunk scientific reports by truthers and NIST! A couple of days ago he was parading on this forum saying he has debunked NIST´s account of the fires in WTC7. And as we know Chris tried to debunk NIST´s free fall admition in one of the silliest YouTube videos ever made, because he could not understand a 2-d graph!
NIST and truthers happen to agree on these two points, but oh now here comes Reverend Mohr and thinks he knows better.
And if any person confronts the good Rev. about being a little bit arrogant and confused about his abilities, he gets all offended and stops talking to that person.LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Does the fact that he has revised and improved his presentation mean nothing to you, or is this all about scoring points to discredit your detractors? Why doesn't the fact that Chandler was wrong have a similar weight with you? Is it because he is not a 'reporter' or 'reverend'?Reverend Chris Mohr is not merely reporting studies as a journalist, he is pretending to debunk scientific reports by truthers and NIST! A couple of days ago he was parading on this forum saying he has debunked NIST´s account of the fires in WTC7. And as we know Chris tried to debunk NIST´s free fall admition in one of the silliest YouTube videos ever made, because he could not understand a 2-d graph!
NIST and truthers happen to agree on these two points, but oh now here comes Reverend Mohr and thinks he knows better.
David Chandler and NIST rightly agree that 7 experienced roughly 2 seconds of free fall. That is the best fit for the data, with over 99% confidence. Chris is still making the same mistake, making claims about data he does not understand. The only difference is that this time he is not relying on his own analysis, but believing the claims of an anonymous forum poster:
Every time a truther points to data of any kind that contradicts NIST, you lot refuse to accept it unless it has been published by an expert in the field in the best journals...but when it comes to people on your side contradicting NIST you accept Reverend Mohr and anonymous forum posters...and even refering to that as the "gold standard"
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Your focus on attacking the person is strong indication that you cannot or dare not address the issues of fact.Reverend Chris Mohr is not merely reporting studies as a journalist, he is pretending to debunk scientific reports by truthers and NIST! A couple of days ago he was parading on this forum saying he has debunked NIST´s account of the fires in WTC7. And as we know Chris tried to debunk NIST´s free fall admition in one of the silliest YouTube videos ever made, because he could not understand a 2-d graph!
NIST and truthers happen to agree on these two points, but oh now here comes Reverend Mohr and thinks he knows better.
Why not "put up or shut up" and address one issue of fact. Try this one:
The occurrence of free fall acceleration during a building collapse is NOT proof of CD.
Try these supporting issues of fact.
(a) Free fall of parts of a building MAY occur during a collapse.
(b) Accelerations exceeding "G" may occur during a collapse.
(c) Accelerations occurring during a collapse are features of the collapse mechanism. NOT of what initiated the collapse.
(d) CD is a process of initiating a collapse mechanism.
(e) CD is not the only way of initiating a collapse.
(f) The collapse mechanism which results from failures of certain members of a structure will be the same mechanism whether the failure was induced by CD or any other means.
(g) Therefore to "prove" CD it has to be demonstrated that CD caused the failure of the members which initiated the collapse mechanism which then followed.
(h) THEREFORE the occurrence of certain magnitudes of acceleration is not definitive in distinguishing a collapse as being initiated by CD.
AND - None of those technical facts:
P) Depends on how often or how vehemently Ziggi insults ChrisMohr;
Q) Would vary whether ChrisMohr's explanations are right or wrong.
So why not drop the personal insults and snide comments. FACT is free fall does not distinguish a CD initiated collapse. It is not proof of CD.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Every time a truther points to data of any kind that contradicts NIST, you lot refuse to accept it unless it has been published by an expert in the field in the best journals...but when it comes to people on your side contradicting NIST you accept Reverend Mohr and anonymous forum posters...and even refering to that as the "gold standard"
femr2 was considered a "truther" due to his earliest beliefs. He was actually an example of a real "truther". He was in search of the truth.
Good job "researcher"
Last edited:
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
No, Chandlers error margin does not allow him to make that claim. And I am anonymous only to you and Truthers. Others here know my identity, and my qualifications. Can you tell me what Chandler's error margin is? If not, how do YOU know if he is right. Is he right just because he is known to you? What basis is that?
Every time a truther points to data of any kind that contradicts NIST, you lot refuse to accept it unless it has been published by an expert in the field in the best journals...but when it comes to people on your side contradicting NIST you accept Reverend Mohr and anonymous forum posters...and even refering to that as the "gold standard"
That's pretty hilarious coming from someone who just invoked NIST to defend Chandler. Just showing the usual sycophantic true believer mode. Pick and chose the facts to defend your heroes and try to discredit your detractors. That's political behavior, not Truth seeking. Got a poster of Karl Rove on your wall?
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Even IF it were 100% coverage, and as you suggest, it probably isn't, Tony is saying that the dust created by the collapse would cover the burning materials in the offices in the towers as the collapse ensues. That is the same material being ejected from the towers by the collapse. So how long is that dust covering that material before its out into a region where the dust is less dense and actually being blown off of those office materials as they move through the air towards WTC 7? a few tens of milliseconds?
Furgawdssake that material reaches WTC 7 in under 8-10 seconds. (1000 foot drop at free fall) Is 8-10 seconds enough time to suppress combustion and reduce material temperature below the ignition temp of common office materials?
Last edited:
@ozeco41 - Is it right to say that faster than free-fall does not disprove controlled demolition? I read your post as basically saying that any analysis of building accelerations during collapse really tells us nothing about how the collapse was initiated - is that right?
ozeco41
Philosopher
That is both true and AFAIK not in dispute. It is valid to that level of confidence at the crude level of measurement for the modest degree of precision involved. Most of us AFAIK accept the NIST and Chandler work for what it is and accurate to the limited degree of accuracy in the methods used.
you are also partly correct on your next claim. Let me remove the false global/false exclusion aspects:
The issue is that the test of the truth of a claim is "Is it true?" and references to:
1) the number or level of degrees held by the claimant;
2) Whether or not the claim is peer reviewed published OR
3) (The Szamboti special focus) - whether or not the member posts under his own name.
Are all either irrelevant or of secondary importance.
I will accept a true claim from an anonymous internet poster who has no degrees and has not been peer reviewed or journal published in preference to a false claim from a multi-degree peer reviewed person publishing under his real name.
An example:
I have many times claimed that Professor Z Bazant is wrong when in papers following Bazant & Zhou 2002 he and other co-authors attribute 1D models and "crush down crush up" to the actual WTC Twin Towers collapses which occurred on 9/11. (And on this forum I will get less than majority support from debunkers for that repeated bit of lèse majesté.
Fortunately it is no longer a capital offence. 
)I cannot speak for "we" but I accept the true claims that ChrisMohr has made. I was one of those helping him get the physics right. And I do understand the relevant physics.but when it comes to people on your side contradicting NIST you accept Reverend Mohr and anonymous forum posters...and even refering to that as the "gold standard"
It has been assessed as "gold standard" by professional persons to standards higher than peer review. And all that review process is here for you to accept or rebut.
So drop the name calling snide comments and get serious. If you do you may find that some of us will respond in like seriousness.