DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[applecorped]

1000!!!!!!!
Yeah!!!!!!!!!

 

[funk de fino]

Notice again The wholesoul avoided post # 987 which proves his claim was wrong. Admittedly it is a slight derail but he was happy to go there before.

Is he incapable of conceding one small point or is he just a liar?

 

[Dave Rogers]

dave go to jones paper the photographs are provided - its a visual match!

It doesn't match at all. In all the pictures of a thermite reaction, the molten iron in the centre is white hot, and only the extreme edges of the flame have cooled to the point of yellow-orange heat. The same's true of Jones's pictures of molten iron being poured; the iron itself is white hot, and it's only the cooler objects nearby that glow orange. In contrast, the flow from the tower is clearly orange throughout. It can't possibly be molten iron with that colour.

Dave

 

[thewholesoul]

Now as you see above they did explain it and also added some calculations thus proving it was not impossible. You think they are wrong then you prove it

The fact that NIST explains “the collapse of the floors below” and then elsewhere state we are “unable to explain total collapse” doesnt make me a liar or mistaken rather it makes them hipocrites for producing contradictory statements. Are you going to apologise for calling me a liar or mistaken? I`m guessing not.

The above explanation with calculations remains unproven. That is my point. If my point is false i am confident that you can direct me to the experiment when they proved the above explanation/calculations. But you cant do that because they have not proven their explanation according to the scientific method. correct?

Now in your view these untested calculations apparently prove it wasnt impossible. So what happens when I provide the calculations of Gordon Ross which proves that it was impossible? No doubt you would discredit his calculations over NIST. But the point i am making is that calculations are essentially theoretical by nature and need to be tested and proven. No doubt you will then say but how could they possibly test anything with these massive parameters, then i will say fine you concede that they have not tested their theory thus it remains unproven.

On a closer inspection their explanation above does not explain total collapse. It states “the collapse of the floors below”. Why does it does it not state unambiguously the total collapse of ALL the floors below. Not much of an objection admittedly but i find it curious that they leave their ststament open to interpretation as “some” or “all”.

The above explanation assumes that all the energy from the upper floors is absorbed by one floor and not the entire structure. This is absurd.
The above explanation assumes that the upper floors will remain intact which is proven false by video footage
The above explanation i call the flea on the pin head hypothesis. when the flea jumps on the top of the pin head its weight crushes the first atom on the pin, then this process continues until there is no pin left.

You have not proved the NIST case is impossible.

I think the burden of proof falls on their shoulders to prove their theory – dont you agree? Why is that when i drop one brick/cardboard box/sugar cube on 4 bricks/card board box/sugar cube global collapse does not ensue? Why is it when i drop 18 bricks/card board boxes/sugar cubes on 92 bricks/card board boxes/sugar cubes global collapse does not ensue? But i am confident that you can provide me just one example in the natural world prior to 911 when 1/5 of an object when dropped crushes the remaining 4/5? Perhaps you will have the following response

probably not, but nothing as large as WTC 1 or 2 has ever collapsed before to my knowing.

Collapsed? The structure below the impact zone was ‘crushed’ and I have never before seen, and I contend nor has anyone else in this forum, seen something so large (4/5 of the structure) being crushed by something so small (1/5 of the structure). And do you know why nobody has seen it and nobody ever will funk de fino? Because it is physically impossible and i dont need some phd egg head to tell me this. But your saying it is possible – so PROVE IT.

Yours is next to impossible

it maybe nextdoor to impossible but it most definitely resides in the household of probabilities. The fireproofing on the core columns was “upgraded” right? Access and trust are the only requirements one would need to plant explosives.

Notice again The wholesoul avoided post # 987 which proves his claim was wrong. Admittedly it is a slight derail but he was happy to go there before. Is he incapable of conceding one small point or is he just a liar?

You called me a liar or mistaken for quoting what NIST actually said. Quoting another comment by NIST that explains "the collapse of the floors below" does not mean that I am mistaken or lying - only in your twisted logic.

You dispute the claim that the official hypothesis and total collapse remains unproven eventhough it is a fact that there has been no tests done to prove how 1/5 can crush 4/5. so do YOU have the character to retract your comments and apologise for calling me a liar because you have no reason to hold this view? I guess we shall see.

I have conceded on many occassions when i feel i am wrong, i have never seen any debunker ever concede a point in all the time i have been in this forum. Sometimes i wonder what it must be like to be right all the time. maybe you can explain that one to me.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

It doesn't match at all. In all the pictures of a thermite reaction, the molten iron in the centre is white hot, and only the extreme edges of the flame have cooled to the point of yellow-orange heat. The same's true of Jones's pictures of molten iron being poured; the iron itself is white hot, and it's only the cooler objects nearby that glow orange. In contrast, the flow from the tower is clearly orange throughout. It can't possibly be molten iron with that colour.

Dave

hey Dave, "it doesnt match at all?" how come that when i look at the photos i see a bright flash accompanied by white smoke and bright yellow orange reaction that matches what we seen in the south tower? in any event i also sent the followng link http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM of a thermite experiment. clearly the orange-throughout you are seeking is found here.

do you think that the molten flow was aluminium Dave? do you have any photos of aluminium flowing bright yellow orange in daylight? although you are unable to see a visual match would you concede that a thermite reaction producing molten iron is more similar to the molten flow than molten aluminium?

peace

 

[Dave Rogers]

So what happens when I provide the calculations of Gordon Ross which proves that it was impossible? No doubt you would discredit his calculations over NIST. But the point i am making is that calculations are essentially theoretical by nature and need to be tested and proven.

Not if they contain demonstrably false reasoning. Gordon Ross's calculations are simply and demonstrably wrong; even if his unreasonable starting assumptions were correct, when you correct his arithmetic his own assumptions show that collapse is expected. This has been pointed out many times here. Ross is wrong, and this is not a matter of argument.

hey Dave, "it doesnt match at all?" how come that when i look at the photos i see a bright flash accompanied by white smoke and bright yellow orange reaction that matches what we seen in the south tower? in any event i also sent the followng link http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM of a thermite experiment. clearly the orange-throughout you are seeking is found here.

Again, no, it doesn't match. All the molten iron seen in this clip is glowing white or yellow hot; it's the flames from the reaction and the heated material close to the molten iron that are orange.

do you think that the molten flow was aluminium Dave? do you have any photos of aluminium flowing bright yellow orange in daylight? although you are unable to see a visual match would you concede that a thermite reaction producing molten iron is more similar to the molten flow than molten aluminium?

"More similar" is irrelevant. A cat is more similar to a dog than an elephant. Cats and dogs are still different animals. The flow seen from the tower cannot possibly be molten iron. Whatever else you may choose to prove it isn't, is irrelevant. Your fantasy needs it to be iron, and it isn't.

Dave

 

[thewholesoul]

Not if they contain demonstrably false reasoning. Gordon Ross's calculations are simply and demonstrably wrong; even if his unreasonable starting assumptions were correct, when you correct his arithmetic his own assumptions show that collapse is expected. This has been pointed out many times here. Ross is wrong, and this is not a matter of argument.

what a predictable response.

allow me to respond in kind: NISTs calculations are simply and demonstrably wrong well. you ingnored the objections i made about their calculations. NIST is wrong and this is not a matter of argument. maybe you can show me just one example in the natural world when 1/5 of an object or structure crushed the remainder of the object/structure.

you see how fruitless this exchange is.

answer me this: do you accept the claim that total collapse remains unproven in the context of the official hypothesis. and that their claim "global collapse then ensued" has not been tested or proven? it is a yes no.

Again, no, it doesn't match.

again, yes, it does match

JREF forum where the brightest minds slug it out, rationally.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

maybe you can show me just one example in the natural world when 1/5 of an object or structure crushed the remainder of the object/structure.

Thewholesoul, for the love of god STOP TREATING THE STRUCTURES LIKE THEY'RE SOLID UNITS. It's no longer a matter of whether you say you are or not, you continue to do it..

I'll try to be fair and ask before I go any further on a tantrum:
Perhaps you can explain/clarify to me your premise? How are you looking at the structure and it's ability to carry loads? Please answer honestly...

JREF forum where the brightest minds slug it out, rationally

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3793568&postcount=877

In response to the Wtc 7 photo of smoke: there is no fire in the windows where the smoke is supposedly being emitted? Here is proof taht the smoke was not produced by building 7 but rather it was produced by wtc 5 and 6 http://www.infowars.net/articles/march2007/200307building7.htm

A'hem... You mean, like the claim you made to me about the smoke coming from WTC 7? You used a prison planet article that virtually claims the smoke from WTC 5 & 6 traveled UP-WIND to WTC 7... That's not particularly rational and it seriously damaged what little credibility you had with me... That comment was literally stundie worthy...

I admire you for your oratory/writing skills but not your use of logic... it'd be nice if you visited some engineering websites outside and others outside of the prisonplanet BS... and studied for yourself how building construction works. You're continuing to argue upon 1/5 of a building vs 4/5 shows an utter lack of either knowledge or ignorance in that area...

 

[eeyore1954]

But i am confident that you can provide me just one example in the natural world prior to 911 when 1/5 of an object when dropped crushes the remaining 4/5

Would an avalance or mudslide meet your criteria?

 

[Dave Rogers]

allow me to respond in kind: NISTs calculations are simply and demonstrably wrong well. you ingnored the objections i made about their calculations. NIST is wrong and this is not a matter of argument. maybe you can show me just one example in the natural world when 1/5 of an object or structure crushed the remainder of the object/structure.

You sound like a no-planer. Show me just one example in the natural world when a 140-ton flying object crashed into a 1600-foot tall structure at over 400mph before 9-11. When you can't, try explaining why that makes it demonstrably wrong that flights 11 and 175 hit the Twin Towers. "Never happened before" is a meaningless argument.

Mathematics is a different matter, though. A mathematical statement can be shown to be objectively true or false. When Gordon Ross calculates the kinetic energy of the falling block of WTC1 before and after impact with the next floor down, calculates the kinetic energy lost, and then claims that the remaining kinetic energy is the source for concrete pulverisation and deformation energy, he isn't making a debatable assumption, he's making an egregious mathematical error. If you can't see that, then you're not well enough educated to be in this discussion in the first place.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

The fact that NIST explains “the collapse of the floors below” and then elsewhere state we are “unable to explain total collapse” doesnt make me a liar or mistaken rather it makes them hipocrites for producing contradictory statements. Are you going to apologise for calling me a liar or mistaken? I`m guessing not.

Incorrect pal. Read the question and the answer again. It is explaining why the collapse was not arrested. This means it is the explanation of the total collapse that you said they did not give. They have given it, so you are wrong. It is not difficult just admit your original claim was incorrect.

The above explanation with calculations remains unproven. That is my point. If my point is false i am confident that you can direct me to the experiment when they proved the above explanation/calculations. But you cant do that because they have not proven their explanation according to the scientific method. correct?

You did not ask for proof you said explanation they gave you slightly more than an explanation. Calculations are not experiments. You must prove their calculations wrong if you think the collapse was impossible. You cannot do it because you are not intelligent enough. This is not my fault.

Now in your view these untested calculations apparently prove it wasnt impossible. So what happens when I provide the calculations of Gordon Ross which proves that it was impossible? No doubt you would discredit his calculations over NIST. But the point i am making is that calculations are essentially theoretical by nature and need to be tested and proven. No doubt you will then say but how could they possibly test anything with these massive parameters, then i will say fine you concede that they have not tested their theory thus it remains unproven.

I would say that Gordon Ross is an incompetant who is an embarrassment to his and my nation. He is wrong and has been proved wrong by others on this site. Ask Gregory Urich if the collapse is impossible. Wonder why his paper will not be published by the Journal of 911 stundies?

On a closer inspection their explanation above does not explain total collapse. It states “the collapse of the floors below”. Why does it does it not state unambiguously the total collapse of ALL the floors below. Not much of an objection admittedly but i find it curious that they leave their ststament open to interpretation as “some” or “all”.

What is the question asked and what is the answer? It explains the reason there was no collapse arrest therefore it explains the total collapse. It is not my fault if you are reading impaired. If the floors below could have resisted the collapse then what?

The above explanation assumes that all the energy from the upper floors is absorbed by one floor and not the entire structure. This is absurd.
The above explanation assumes that the upper floors will remain intact which is proven false by video footage
The above explanation i call the flea on the pin head hypothesis. when the flea jumps on the top of the pin head its weight crushes the first atom on the pin, then this process continues until there is no pin left.

The stupid in the above quote is beneath me trying to point out your stupidity

I think the burden of proof falls on their shoulders to prove their theory – dont you agree? Why is that when i drop one brick/cardboard box/sugar cube on 4 bricks/card board box/sugar cube global collapse does not ensue? Why is it when i drop 18 bricks/card board boxes/sugar cubes on 92 bricks/card board boxes/sugar cubes global collapse does not ensue? But i am confident that you can provide me just one example in the natural world prior to 911 when 1/5 of an object when dropped crushes the remaining 4/5? Perhaps you will have the following response Collapsed? The structure below the impact zone was ‘crushed’ and I have never before seen, and I contend nor has anyone else in this forum, seen something so large (4/5 of the structure) being crushed by something so small (1/5 of the structure). And do you know why nobody has seen it and nobody ever will funk de fino? Because it is physically impossible and i dont need some phd egg head to tell me this. But your saying it is possible – so PROVE IT.

Thye have proved as far as was reasonably possible. You must counter this and disprove. You wont because you cant. It is your burden and your claim.

it maybe nextdoor to impossible but it most definitely resides in the household of probabilities. The fireproofing on the core columns was “upgraded” right? Access and trust are the only requirements one would need to plant explosives.

I have already told you about the trust issue and the security. How would they get past this? How would they get past the cameras? Are you accusing the security of letting these people in for weeks to plant them and also claiming the thousands of employees using the lift did not see anything happening?

Your imaginary men with the imaginary empty lifts and the imaginary security men who let anyone past with the imaginary cameras is a more plausible story than a huge jet crashing into the tower causing huge uncontrolled fires which weakened the steel and caused collapse of the tower?

You really need to read that back and see where you have it ass about face.

There were no bombs and explosives and you have not one shred of proof there was. unlucky

You called me a liar or mistaken for quoting what NIST actually said. Quoting another comment by NIST that explains "the collapse of the floors below" does not mean that I am mistaken or lying - only in your twisted logic

I never called you a liar I said you were either mistaken or a liar. You had the chance to show you were not mistaken and were not a liar. You have yet to do so.

You dispute the claim that the official hypothesis and total collapse remains unproven eventhough it is a fact that there has been no tests done to prove how 1/5 can crush 4/5. so do YOU have the character to retract your comments and apologise for calling me a liar because you have no reason to hold this view? I guess we shall see.

I dipsute nothing about your goalpost shifting. You made a claim and it is false, and has been shown to be, either retract or you are a liar? Choice is yours.

I have conceded on many occassions when i feel i am wrong, i have never seen any debunker ever concede a point in all the time i have been in this forum. Sometimes i wonder what it must be like to be right all the time. maybe you can explain that one to me.
peace

You look like you are lying again pal?

 

[funk de fino]

But i am confident that you can provide me just one example in the natural world prior to 911 when 1/5 of an object when dropped crushes the remaining 4/5

How about stop saying natural world? What was natural about two of the largest man made structures ever? How about a man made structure which collapses when less than a 1/5th is damaged? The rest is crushed.

Take away one card from the structure near the top and global collapse ensues.

 

[thewholesoul]

How about stop saying natural world? What was natural about two of the largest man made structures ever? How about a man made structure which collapses when less than a 1/5th is damaged? The rest is crushed.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/18244486caca78d440.jpg[/qimg]

Take away one card from the structure near the top and global collapse ensues.

cards "fall" they are not "crushed". maybe you should get out the legobox next?

peace

 

[funk de fino]

cards "fall" they are not "crushed". maybe you should get out the legobox next?

peace

The towers "collapsed", the cards "collapse". NIST calls the event progressive collapse. Look up the definition. It may teach you something.

The towers crush at the bottom cause there is nowhere else to go. It is a full stop. The cards pile up at the bottom there is nowhere for them to go. Full stop.

How about you make a decent comparison for a change instead of bricks/cardboard boxes/sugar cubes etc. Hypocrite. The house of cards is as good as your joke comparisons.

No answer to post above that one yet? Care to retract your incorrect claim?

All you have to do is say that NIST gave an explanation for total collapse but did not prove it. Then we can continue.

 

[thewholesoul]

Thewholesoul, for the love of god STOP TREATING THE STRUCTURES LIKE THEY'RE SOLID UNITS. It's no longer a matter of whether you say you are or not, you continue to do it..

here Bazant defends the official PILE DRIVER HYPOTHESIS

“The collapse, in which two phases – crush down followed by crush up – must be distinguished, is discribed in each phase by a nonlnearsecond-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of a compacted block of accreting mass” “deceleration of the block” “velocity of the impacting block” “top of crushed block B” “no adjustement is needed for the crush up phase becasue block B” “due to the accretion of the mass moving block” “moving block C” “stationary block B” “Block C per unit time” “the downward velocity of block C” etc http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

i dont undertsand why you keep harping on about the BLOCK over and over again. in the OFFICIAL pile driver theory the upper section is conceived as a block!! and even tried to explain early that i dont mind if it is conceived as something other then a block

So you object when i say “block” and you object when i say “empty card board box” (eventhough you describe the towers as 90% air). So how about i just describe the upper section as 1/5 of a tube-in-tube design structure collapsing ontop of the remaining intact tube-in-tube struture below that is roughly 4 times greater in mass and stronger than the falling upper section:

so stop with the strawman already its getting boring. the upper section is conceived as a BLOCK in the OFFICIAL pile driver theory - or would you rather concieve it as a house of cards like funk de fino??

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

The towers "collapsed", the cards "collapse". NIST calls the event progressive collapse. Look up the definition. It may teach you something.

The towers crush at the bottom cause there is nowhere else to go. It is a full stop. The cards pile up at the bottom there is nowhere for them to go. Full stop.

How about you make a decent comparison for a change instead of bricks/cardboard boxes/sugar cubes etc. Hypocrite. The house of cards is as good as your joke comparisons.

No answer to post above that one yet? Care to retract your incorrect claim?

All you have to do is say that NIST gave an explanation for total collapse but did not prove it. Then we can continue.

i will answer your post in time. i love the way you omitted all the relevant parts. real honest.

towers were "crushed" by upper "block"; cards were not "crushed" by upper cards. to crush = go look it up in the dictionary champ.

the cards "collapse" sure, but they are all intact i.e. not crushed. or are you arguing the upper cards crushed the lower cards? no your not so you failed to provide just one example in the natural world, champ. and that pleases me.

the official theory is a piledriver theory. go look it up champ becuase it involves the upper block crushing the intact struture below.

i tell you what, once i answer your earlier post, why dont we just slug it out, rationally. i will present the list of claims and you try debunk them. given my obvious intellectual inferiority it should be a cake walk for you.

Post #907
• the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron
• the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low
• NIST’s claim that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches has not been proven by a representative experiment.
• NIST’s claim that the fire proofing was widly dislogded has not been proven by a representative experiment
• NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the imapct zone, so
• the official PRE-collapse hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven nearly 7 years after the event

and just another - NIST's claim that the outer perimeter columns buckled as a result of floor sagging has not be proven by experimentation.

now if you have a problem with ANY of the above and think they are UNTRUE then be sure to let me know champ

peace

 

[GlennB]

How about stop saying natural world? What was natural about two of the largest man made structures ever? How about a man made structure which collapses when less than a 1/5th is damaged? The rest is crushed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/18244486caca78d440.jpg

Take away one card from the structure near the top and global collapse ensues.

Wow - there I was drawing a little diagram to caculate how many cards in my 'house of cards' when I scrolled down a little further ....

Now, please don't make me construct a little Tower out of lasagne and canneloni

 

[twinstead]

the cards "collapse" sure, but they are all intact i.e. not crushed. or are you arguing the upper cards crushed the lower cards? no your not so you failed to provide just one example in the natural world, champ. and that pleases me.

Now I'm no scientist, but if a house of cards were built of heavy material like concrete or steel or glass, and it was 110 stories high, and the cards were the size of cars, my brain says there's gunna be a whole lotta crushin' goin' on.

 

[Dave Rogers]

i tell you what, once i answer your earlier post, why dont we just slug it out, rationally. i will present the list of claims and you try debunk them. given my obvious intellectual inferiority it should be a cake walk for you.

Post #907
• the molten metal pouring from south tower cannot possibly be molten aluminium but could possibly be molten iron

From the emission colour of the metal, it cannot possibly be molten iron, because the emission indicates a temperature of 1000-1200ºC and the melting point of iron is over 1500ºC. Whether or not it's aluminium is irrelevant; since it isn't iron, there's no evidence for molten iron before the collapse. The fact that you choose to disbelieve this doesn't make it untrue.

• the probabilty of three skyscrapers designed to withstand the damage they recieved all failing on same day is very low

The events were not random, they were effects of a common chain of causality, therefore such a simpleminded application of probability theory is invalid.

• NIST’s claim that the floor trusses sagged 42+ inches has not been proven by a representative experiment.

NIST's estimate that the floor trusses sagged by 42+ inches is obtained by applying known scaling laws to the results of experimental tests. The fact that you don't understand the result doesn't invalidate it.

• NIST’s claim that the fire proofing was widly dislogded has not been proven by a representative experiment

NIST carried out representative experiments by projecting metal fragments at fireproofing samples at representative velocities, and found that fireproofing was dislodged. Critics of NIST claim that fireproofing removal was not needed for collapse to occur.

• NIST admits that it was unable to explain the destruction of 4/5 intact structure below the imapct zone, so

NIST stated that it was unable to provide a full explanation of the collapse. To equate this to NIST claiming that it was unable to explain the gross features of the collapse is misrepresentation. Several papers have been published examining the collapse and have found nothing suspicious in it, including some from authors who set out to prove that the collapse was suspicious.

• the official PRE-collapse hypothesis and the Total collapse remain unproven nearly 7 years after the event

The official pre-collapse hypothesis and the total collapse hypothesis have not met the unreasonable burden of proof demanded by the truth movement. However, no alternative hypothesis has been fully developed, and the partial alternative hypotheses advanced have been trivially refuted.

and just another - NIST's claim that the outer perimeter columns buckled as a result of floor sagging has not be proven by experimentation.

Pull-in forces on the perimeter columns as a result of floor sagging have been calculated and found to be in agreement with the buckling observed. No credible alternative hypothesis to explain the floor sagging has been advanced.

now if you have a problem with ANY of the above and think they are UNTRUE then be sure to let me know champ

They are all either untrue, misleading or irrelevant, which they have in common with all the major claims of the truth movement.

Dave

 

[tsig]

the JREF forum, where the brightest minds slug it out through rational debate!

sorry Norseman, couldnt resist

You are truly delusional. Posting on the JREF says nothing about intelligence.