DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[tsig]

At this point how New is the NWO?

I thought we were the NWO we have cookies and milk.

 

[tsig]

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.



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.

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.



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

Talking about calculations is not the same as doing the calculations.

All you need is F=ma. but you never understood that did you.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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 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

This is not a strawman, and I am not referring directly to Bazants work (though my opinion falls in line with his). It has nothing to do with 1/5 of a building vs 4/5. You're over simplifying the issue. I'm talking about how the lower section failed, the individual connections failed one by one from the top to bottom.

The entire lower structure wasn't simultaneously affected by the dropping upper building section, as your contention suggests, the entire structure works as a system and can fail at the individual level if their load capacity is overpowered. The pile driver would have been the pancaking floors hitting one ofter the other progressing the collapse and failing the connections at the collapse wave.

 

[thewholesoul]

Yes, you look silly. You could have looked at his earlier claims and seen where he did not mention the dead people. You could have tried to get corroboration from Mike Hess. You could have checked if Barry really wants to put this interview out. You could check his timeline and see how it is wrong. You could check the interview and see his incorrect claims about which tower fell first. You could have.......done lots of things apart from making false claims on an internet board.

You wont though. Sad, very sad

his interview was taken for loose change final cut. they did not include the part when he dscribed walking over dead bodies because he requested that they did not. he had two years to go before retirement and being a family man he naturally feared loosing his penison.

Hess does corroborate his story in repsect of experiencing an EXPLOSION on the lower floors.

check his timeline! i did, if i didnt have to respond to small fry like you i would have produced an argument on Bary Jennings which i do plan on doing.

"which tower fell over" - he said the EXPLOSION occured BEFORE either tower fell. let me repeat that. HE SAID that he experienced the EXPLOSION BEFORE EITHER TOWER HAD FELL.

so what is your explanation for the EXPLOSIONS and Hess experienced?

 

[applecorped]

I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.

 

[thewholesoul]

It has nothing to do with 1/5 of a building vs 4/5. You're over simplifying the issue.

i admit i am oversimplifying the issue but no matter what way you want to spin it at the end of the day we are expected to beleive that 1/5 of the sturcture fell and crushed the 4/5 below. its a simplified pobservation but a true one nonetheless that i am unable to find an example of in the natural world.

The entire lower structure wasn't simultaneously affected by the dropping upper building section, as your contention suggests,

remember the the brick-on-head experiment previously? was the descent of brick arrested by the skin on the top of my head, was it arrested by my head, or was it arrested by my entire body where my head is rested upon?

do the shock waves of the brick end at the skin or pass down my body?

The pile driver would have been the pancaking floors hitting one ofter the other progressing the collapse and failing the connections at the collapse wave.

where were the pancakes? NITS does not support the pancaking theory Grizzly. are you?

 

[applecorped]

i admit i am oversimplifying the issue but no matter what way you want to spin it at the end of the day we are expected to beleive that 1/5 of the sturcture fell and crushed the 4/5 below. its a simplified pobservation but a true one nonetheless that i am unable to find an example of in the natural world.



remember the the brick-on-head experiment previously? was the descent of brick arrested by the skin on the top of my head, was it arrested by my head, or was it arrested by my entire body where my head is rested upon?

do the shock waves of the brick end at the skin or pass down my body?



where were the pancakes? NITS does not support the pancaking theory Grizzly. are you?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

i admit i am oversimplifying the issue but no matter what way you want to spin it at the end of the day we are expected to beleive that 1/5 of the sturcture fell and crushed the 4/5 below. its a simplified pobservation but a true one nonetheless that i am unable to find an example of in the natural world.

Well that's what a progressive collapse is... There are examples, contrary to your bizarre claim... out there, and although they're built differently they show exactly what I've been trying to explain to you.
Lian Yak building

Try looking up the L'Ambiance Plaza, Civic Center of Pavia in 1989, Cathedral in Goch, Germany; Campanile in Venice, Italy in 1902.

And the Ronan Point flats, where a gas explosion on the 18th floor blew out the perimeter structural panels, resulting in the floors collapsing on top of one another.

Should the failure of only a few columns that is characteristic of those examples have led to a disproportionate magnitude of collapse in your opinion?

remember the the brick-on-head experiment previously? was the descent of brick arrested by the skin on the top of my head, was it arrested by my head, or was it arrested by my entire body where my head is rested upon?

The brick was was an analogy in layman terms to clarify the difference between live loads and dead loads. Let's say I'm 200 pounds, and I take 1/5 of that weight (40 pounds) and drop it on my head from 7 ft. what then. The brick is useless in the context you are attempting to bring me to answer, and even the 40 lb example's not really sufficient when we're talking about the WTC.

In my example is the 40 pound object made of rubber? steel? concrete? THe materiality, density, velocity, mass, all determine the effect the impact on my body would have.

where were the pancakes? NITS does not support the pancaking theory Grizzly. are you?

The pancake theory isn't necessarily wrong, but how it is presented is.
The pancake theory is not necessarily incorrect, but how it is presented is. The NIST said that heat from the fires sagged the trusses, which bowed the columns inward, causing the building to collapse. Once the collapse initiated the pancaking was inevitable. They only modeled the collapse up to the to initiation... the pancaking happened after the initiation.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

 

[funk de fino]

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

You have the nerve to call me dishonest?

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

What are cards made of 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.

NIST say the towers progressively collapse. The house of cards collapse

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

Sorry, official theory? You are suddenly looking at somewhere other than NIST even though your claim was about NIST? Who is dishonest now?

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.

Just answer the post and admit you were wrong. NIST explained why collapse was not arrested. Therefore they explain total collapse.

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

So what? Where is it in the north tower?

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

The probability of three passenger Boeings being deliberately crashed into US buildings is very low. Your point is?

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

There is video and photographic evidence of this

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

There is video and photographic evidence of this

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

Yet they did explain it. I gave you the explanation

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

Fire weakens steel. This is proven. Planes smashed into the buildings. This is proven.

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

There is video and photographic evidence of this.

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

See above champ. You made another lie in your claims. I should not have to call you on this especially after you calling me dishonest. Are you really unwilling to just admit your original claim was incorrect? I am giving you plenty of time here?

 

[thewholesoul]

The only logical argument to prove that I am a liar is to demonstrate or establish that the statement I made was either false or untrue. What was that statement?

BEACHNUT:

Sorry, the collapse is proven. I have a video of it. Sad you have no evidence to go with your failed interpretation of NIST and what really happen on 9/11

SOUL:

So NIST have proven the total collapse but they are unable to explain it?

Funk:

This is a false statement. Please retract it. They explain the progressive collapse in the FAQs.

The reasons I made that statement are because:

(i)According to the scientific method the explanation for the observed phenomena precedes the testing and experimentation which ultimately prove or disprove the proposed explanation for that observed phenomena. So in the context of the scientific method it is impossible to claim that you have proven a given event (i.e. the observed phenomena) without first possessing a full explanation for all the observed phenomena.

(ii)The progressive collapse was a total collapse and NIST admitted on September 27th 2007 on the link provided that they were “unable to provide a FULL explanation of the total collapse.” http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf.

(iii)The Open Civil Engineering Journal, point #13 is titled ‘Total collapse explanation lacking’. Could this point have passed peer review if it was untrue?

So because the statement I made was based on true statements funky’s accusation that I am a liar is unjustified. The absurd argument then that I am lying because I quoted that NIST were “unable to provide a FULL explanation of the total collapse” is evidently untrue for the simple reason that NIST did in fact make that statement I quoted.

Next Funky believes that NIST provided a full explanation of progressive collapse in the FAQ’s. Even if this were true then logically that means that NIST are hipocrites since they produced two contradictory statements:

(a)NIST fully explains total collapse in the FAQ’s

(b)NIST later admit that they “are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”

What puzzles me is why funky believes that because NIST are hipocrites and produce two inconsistent statements that somehow I am a liar for neglecting to mention statement (a) and for quoting the more recent statement (b)? Of course funky never provides any explanation as to how this would work.

But something is wrong, can both (a) and (b) be true? Funky’s accusation that I am liar rests on the basis that the explanation in the FAQ`s fully explains the progressive collapse because if it does not fully explain the progressive collapse then it is true to say that NIST were unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse and moreover the tension between statements (a) and (b) is resolved.

The reasons why the explanation in the FAQ is not a FULL explanation are as follows:

(1)NIST’s explanation in their FAQ’s is not a FULL explanation but an incomplete explanation of the total collapse. We know this because if it were a FULL explanation of total collapse then why would NIST admit they were “unable to provide a FULL explanation of the total collapse” on September 27th 2007 sometime after their explanation in the FAQ’s?

(2)NIST’s explanation in their FAQ’s is not a FULL explanation but an incomplete explanation of the total collapse. We know this because the following could not have been published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal:

NIST mentions “energy of deformation” which for the huge core columns in the towers must be considerable, and they need to be quantified (which they were not) in order to claim that the “intact structure” below would not significantly slow the motion. Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamemtal law of physics in gliby treating the remarkable “freefall” collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

(3)If the explanation in the FAQ’s was a FULL explanation then it would have explained the essential freefall that we all observed and included the Law of Conservation of Momentumin its calculations. It did not, thus it was not a FULL explanation which is what I WAS REFERING TO in my response to Beachnut that funky unjustifiable called a FALSE STATEMENT.

The argument then that I am lying because NIST provided an explanation of progressive collapse in the FAQ’s is false because it rests on the assumption that NIST’s explanation in the FAQ’s is a FULL explanation of the total collapse which evidently it is not.

In other words, funky's whole argument is that I am a liar because I said there is no explanation for the total collapse when in fact there is an explanation for the total collapse in the FAQ. But what this oversimplified argument fails to acknowlege is that when I am stating there is no explanation for total collapse I am refering to NIST's own statement that confirms there is no "FULL explanation" of total collapse. And natually without a full explanation the official hypothesis will never be fully proven either.

Now you made it clear that you are calling me a liar:

I never called you a liar although looking at what I have posted I would probably be OK to do so.

I want to know if you going to do the right think and apologise? Do you have the character?

And one last thing; since you appear to be claiming that the explanation in the FAQ’s is a FULL explanation. That means that you are either mistaken or a liar my Scottish and Protestant friend. Unless of course you can admit that the explanation in the FAQ’s is incomplete.

peace

 

[leonAzul]

It was a room full of UPS batteries...

To be fair, your picture is not electrical sparcs, it's a guy with a cutting torch.

Ouch, you are correct, I linked to the wrong picture Too hasty, sorry.

ETA,

Yet it is at least no more a non sequitur than introducing observations of WTC2 and WTC1 into a discussion of WTC7.

 

[funk de fino]

The only logical argument to prove that I am a liar is to demonstrate or establish that the statement I made was either false or untrue. What was that statement?

You claimed that NIST did not explain the total collapse. I showed you where they did. You are now moving goalpsost with your junk post. I have never claimed it was a full explanation and you did not state this in your claim.

Next Funky believes that NIST provided a full explanation of progressive collapse in the FAQ’s. Even if this were true then logically that means that NIST are hipocrites since they produced two contradictory statements:

Liar I did not say it was a FULL explanation and you did not ask for a full explanation. It is fuller than your explanation of how the total collapse was impossible though

(a)NIST fully explains total collapse in the FAQ’s

Moving goalposts adding FULL

(b)NIST later admit that they “are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”

Important word in PROVIDE

What puzzles me is why funky believes that because NIST are hipocrites and produce two inconsistent statements that somehow I am a liar for neglecting to mention statement (a) and for quoting the more recent statement (b)? Of course funky never provides any explanation as to how this would work.

The reason you are puzzled is cause your claim is incorrect and you cannot find a way to back down now

But something is wrong, can both (a) and (b) be true? Funky’s accusation that I am liar rests on the basis that the explanation in the FAQ`s fully explains the progressive collapse because if it does not fully explain the progressive collapse then it is true to say that NIST were unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse and moreover the tension between statements (a) and (b) is resolved.

No, it does not.

The reasons why the explanation in the FAQ is not a FULL explanation are as follows:

(1)NIST’s explanation in their FAQ’s is not a FULL explanation but an incomplete explanation of the total collapse. We know this because if it were a FULL explanation of total collapse then why would NIST admit they were “unable to provide a FULL explanation of the total collapse” on September 27th 2007 sometime after their explanation in the FAQ’s?

(2)NIST’s explanation in their FAQ’s is not a FULL explanation but an incomplete explanation of the total collapse. We know this because the following could not have been published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal:

(3)If the explanation in the FAQ’s was a FULL explanation then it would have explained the essential freefall that we all observed and included the Law of Conservation of Momentumin its calculations. It did not, thus it was not a FULL explanation which is what I WAS REFERING TO in my response to Beachnut that funky unjustifiable called a FALSE STATEMENT.

Adding whistles and bells does not take away the fact your claim was wrong.

Also the explanation I gave from NIST was December 14th 2007 which is sometime after Sept 27th 2007. Unlucky.

The argument then that I am lying because NIST provided an explanation of progressive collapse in the FAQ’s is false because it rests on the assumption that NIST’s explanation in the FAQ’s is a FULL explanation of the total collapse which evidently it is not.

More goalpost shifting.

In other words, funky's whole argument is that I am a liar because I said there is no explanation for the total collapse when in fact there is an explanation for the total collapse in the FAQ. But what this oversimplified argument fails to acknowlege is that when I am stating there is no explanation for total collapse I am refering to NIST's own statement that confirms there is no "FULL explanation" of total collapse. And natually without a full explanation the official hypothesis will never be fully proven either.

You are either mistaken or a liar. See above.

Now you made it clear that you are calling me a liar: I want to know if you going to do the right think and apologise? Do you have the character?

See above, is Sept 2007 sometime after December 2007? NIST gave an explanation for the total collapse you said they did not. You are either mistaken or a liar. You still have a choice here champ.

And one last thing; since you appear to be claiming that the explanation in the FAQ’s is a FULL explanation. That means that you are either mistaken or a liar my Scottish and Protestant friend. Unless of course you can admit that the explanation in the FAQ’s is incomplete.

peace

I am claiming nothing of the sort. Is this a lie also?

I am Scottish but not a Protestant, is this a mistake or a lie?

 

[thewholesoul]

What are cards made of champ?

Concrete and aluminium? But you avoided to address the issue. I said provide just one example when 1/5 crushes the remainder of the structure. You failed because the fallen cards are intact and have not been crushed. Obviously you failed to go to dictionary.com to learn the meaning of words.

NIST say the towers progressively collapse. The house of cards collapse.

Exactly how did the intact structure below the impact zone collapse? Read Bazant’s paper especially the one where he mentions the CRUSH DOWN and CRUSH UP effect. I accept that the house of cards collapsed but can you accept that they remained intact? We know they were intact because you could reconstruct a the house of cards after it collapsed. Could you reconstruct the twin towers again? No, because it was CRUSHED – so instead of being obtuse just concede the very simple truth that the cards were not crushed and that you failed to find just one example.

Sorry, official theory? You are suddenly looking at somewhere other than NIST even though your claim was about NIST? Who is dishonest now?

The pile-driver theory or the idea that the falling upper section acted as a giant sledgehammer is essentially the idea contained in the paper by Bazant and Zhou which was included in the NIST final report. Now who is being ignorant?

 

[thewholesoul]

WHERES MY RED PEN

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

So what? Where is it in the north tower?

Failed to address the objection raised. Failed to contest the alternative explanation. Failed to acknowledge the the relevancy and implications of the objection raised.

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

The probability of three passenger Boeings being deliberately crashed into US buildings is very low. Your point is?

Failed to contest the claim that what happened that day has a low probability. Failed to understand its implication.

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

There is video and photographic evidence of this

Failed to understand the the scientific method. Failed to distinguish between the evidence observed (which by the way was minimal and inconclusive), the hypothesis intended to explain the evidence observed and the tests or experiments intended to establish the truth of a given hypothesis.

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

There is video and photographic evidence of this

Failed to understand the the scientific method. Failed to distinguish between the evidence observed, the hypothesis intended to explain the evidence observed and the tests or experiments intended to establish the truth of a given hypothesis.

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

There is video and photographic evidence of this.

Failed to understand the scientific method. Failed to distinguish between the evidence observed, the hypothesis intended to explain the evidence observed, and the tests or experiments intended to establish the truth of a given hypothesis.


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

Yet they did explain it. I gave you the explanation

Failed to realize that the explanation in the FAQ’s is incomplete as indicated in the statement made on September 27th 2007 which states clearly that “we are unable to provide a FULL explanation of the total collapse”

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

Fire weakens steel. This is proven. Planes smashed into the buildings. This is proven.

Because you failed to refute any – not one – of the above premises it is hard to see how the conclusion based upon those can be rejected.

NIST found no steel core columns exposed to temperatures 250c. Steel weakens at 600c and above. There is no EVIDENCE to support your claim in respect to the towers.

Towers were designed to survive the impact of jetliners with combustible fuel load.


your grade
F

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh Jeez Soul, how many times do we have to read the same incompetence over and over. No it is NOT impossible for there to have been molten aluminum. This is because the rest of the world is not using your absurd logic. The rest of the world with common sense understands that of course it's not going to be pure aluminum, but rather mixed with other materials and thus you can't go by coloration alone. And members of this forum have posted pictures of molten aluminum that indeed appears the same color as it appeared coming out of the towers. Thus proving you 100% absolutely wrong. And THAT is a fact.

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

You don't see the absurd flaw in this statement? Seriously? Seriously???

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

Perhaps you can show an experiment of a plane crashing into a building where the fire proofing doesn't get dislodged? Is it magical fireproofing that can withstand the impact of a jetliner while the building can't? Perhaps if they had only made the outside of the building out of fire proofing then the plane would simply have bounced off and hit the ground? Gosh I wonder why people laugh at you...

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

So the fact that this can be seen on video is unprovable? Tell us what it was that was seen then on video and by witnesses there? Was it just an optical illusion? A magic trick? Perhaps indigestion?

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

WRONG. They explained what caused the collapse. There's no point in explaining the only possible result following it. Again, you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

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

Once again completely wrong.

You little kid, get a nice big F yourself. Wow, how mature.

 

[Bananaman]

Even by troofer standards the above series of posts are remarkable in their persistent lack of logic and coherent thinking.

I think on those grounds they deserve an A+

Bananaman (The Generous).

 

[thewholesoul]

No it is NOT impossible for there to have been molten aluminum. This is because the rest of the world is not using your absurd logic. The rest of the world with common sense understands that of course it's not going to be pure aluminum, but rather mixed with other materials and thus you can't go by coloration alone. And members of this forum have posted pictures of molten aluminum that indeed appears the same color as it appeared coming out of the towers. Thus proving you 100% absolutely wrong. And THAT is a fact.

what photos i have seen NONE. on jones paper here
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

he experiments with aluminium and could not mix the organics in! and why did NIST not demonstrate their claim through experiments and published photos?

so show me the photos of aluminium mixed with organics flowing in daylight coloured bright yllow-orange in daylight because i have seen none.

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

You don't see the absurd flaw in this statement? Seriously? Seriously???

no tell me. it seems like a straightforward comment to me.

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

Perhaps you can show an experiment of a plane crashing into a building where the fire proofing doesn't get dislodged?

and how does that statement negate mine?

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

So the fact that this can be seen on video is unprovable? Tell us what it was that was seen then on video and by witnesses there? Was it just an optical illusion? A magic trick? Perhaps indigestion?

no, i saw exactly what you saw but what caused this to happen has not been proven. what if they tested to scale or half scale outer columns with twice as many sagging trusses and twice as much heat and nothing happens?

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

WRONG. They explained what caused the collapse. There's no point in explaining the only possible result following it. Again, you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

i dont take people with clueless as their screen name seriouly. if they explained what caused the collapse why did they say that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse". why does their explanation not address conservation on momentum as stated in the Journal of Civil Engineering?

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

Once again completely wrong.

only if you can point me where the pre-collapse and total collapse has been proven scientifically.

You little kid, get a nice big F yourself. Wow, how mature.

sense of humour. you should try one.

peace

 

[Jonnyclueless]

what photos i have seen NONE. on jones paper here
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

he experiments with aluminium and could not mix the organics in! and why did NIST not demonstrate their claim through experiments and published photos?

Ah a guy who's only goal is to try and find a conspiracy theory and who makes false scientific arguments in doing so can't make aluminum a certain color. Right. Gosh, what a surprise there. It's sorta like how all the pilots from PFT are unable to hit the WTC in a flight simulator despite most everyone ho has no flying experience being able to do so.

And why did NIST not test this? Because there's no need to. They are reasonable scientists who aren't on an absurd witch hunt. They didn't test for it for the same reason they didn't test for space beams and missiles.

so show me the photos of aluminium mixed with organics flowing in daylight coloured bright yllow-orange in daylight because i have seen none.

Do a search on the forum, this has been discussed to death in 100s of threads (which include pictures). Not only pictures form many experiments but pictures done by members of the forum themselves as well. This claim of yours and Jones alone proves you two are frauds.

no tell me. it seems like a straightforward comment to me.

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

Please show us the proper model to test this. Please give us the details on this one. How about showing us some testing where the fireproofing stays in tact despite steel not staying in tact. We would just LOVE to see that!!

and how does that statement negate mine?

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

hello? Is this mic on? Again, please tell us how the fact that no actual testing was done for this that it proves the evidence used to prove this is wrong. So we know for fact that the building was bowing. Not even your warped mine can contest that. But according to you, if it's not shown in a lab test, then its not true? You know JFK was never shown to have been killed in a lab test therefore he must be alive.

And you wonder why people laugh at you??

no, i saw exactly what you saw but what caused this to happen has not been proven. what if they tested to scale or half scale outer columns with twice as many sagging trusses and twice as much heat and nothing happens?

Yes it WAS. Perhaps you can provide a list of the testing facilities that could provide scale testing? Please list them now. And please show us how this can prove the smaller scale to be wrong or inconclusive.

i dont take people with clueless as their screen name seriouly. if they explained what caused the collapse why did they say that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse". why does their explanation not address conservation on momentum as stated in the Journal of Civil Engineering?

Please don't put yourself down. We all know you are not very bright, but it's no reason to be down on yourself. It's the effort that counts. You can't help if you lack reason and logic. READ THIS REALLY SLOWLY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND OK? They explained what ******CAUSED***** the collapse. They didn't explain the rest of the collapse because it would serve no purpose. The ensuing collapse was inevitable and there could be no other possible outcome. So discussing what happened post collapse initiation would be of any use.

only if you can point me where the pre-collapse and total collapse has been proven scientifically.

It's in the NIST report braniac.

sense of humour. you should try one.

peace

Oh trust me, I laugh at most all of your posts. It is a great source of humor. The more you pretend to be serious and the more you pretend your claims are not absurd, the funnier it gets. I am here to laugh at your expense.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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

No, you've made the choice to ignore the construction of the towers. I have asked you countless times to actually study it, and how the floor trusses were connected to the walls. You've refused to do that haven't you?

It's not only the sagging which affected the perimeter columns, you should know blatantly well that parts of the trusses would have undergone thermal expansion and contraction, in addition to the sagging, which both would have led to the distortion of the exterior columns. NIST has provided photographic evidence of the floor slabs sagging within the impact zones that demonstrates what already happened, there are no physical test necessary to describe it.

no, i saw exactly what you saw but what caused this to happen has not been proven. what if they tested to scale or half scale outer columns with twice as many sagging trusses and twice as much heat and nothing happens?

The scale needs to be 1:1. The length of the columns would be completely different and the cross-sectional area, as well as the maximum un-braced length. And materials would remain the same. All affect the load capacity of the scale figures. The one thing that will never be scalable is gravity. barring that, there are also no facilities available to construct a 1:1 replica of even several floors of the tower.

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

They stated quite clearly, that once the collapse initiated there was no stopping it. Respond to my earlier comment before you try to pile-drive this bizarre contention of yours, YOUR the one adding the numerical fractions to the 'unexplainable', NIST is not quantifying the collapse by proportion of undamaged building. I want your response to the question I asked about the precedents I gave you before you further mention this.

i dont take people with clueless as their screen name seriously.

Let's get rid of the ad hominems.... everybody... not just you...

no tell me. it seems like a straightforward comment to me.

What are the odds of an aircraft impact on any structure?
What are the odds of any single building being caugjt within the range of debris fallout from a building collapse?
What are the odds of either sustaining either fire, debris damage, or both?
How many buildings of the same design as the WTC have ever been hit with any kind of 100-ton projectile? What are the odds that it will happen again to any other tower?

Perhaps I should clarify your claim... it was not amongst the first steel buildings to collapse as a result of fire... it was amongst the first protected steel buildings to collapse by fire. Why do you think? HINT: fire proofing can only slow temperature increases for so long when other firefighting methods are not sufficient.

The odds you contend of a steel building collapsing from fire alone assumes that steel is immune to thermal stresses, but if that were true steel buildings would never need to be protected.

 

[applecorped]

what photos i have seen NONE. on jones paper here
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

he experiments with aluminium and could not mix the organics in! and why did NIST not demonstrate their claim through experiments and published photos?

so show me the photos of aluminium mixed with organics flowing in daylight coloured bright yllow-orange in daylight because i have seen none.



no tell me. it seems like a straightforward comment to me.

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



and how does that statement negate mine?

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



no, i saw exactly what you saw but what caused this to happen has not been proven. what if they tested to scale or half scale outer columns with twice as many sagging trusses and twice as much heat and nothing happens?

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



i dont take people with clueless as their screen name seriouly. if they explained what caused the collapse why did they say that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of total collapse". why does their explanation not address conservation on momentum as stated in the Journal of Civil Engineering?

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



only if you can point me where the pre-collapse and total collapse has been proven scientifically.



sense of humour. you should try one.

peace

Christ! Is this even English?