I expect you to defend your beliefs.
If Christophera makes a valid point I think you should set your bigotry aside and acknowledge it.
Ad hominem. You're falsely attributing to bigotry what is actually the rational decision not to accept a concrete core as part of the WTC.
That hardly represents capitulation. From what I've observed, you folks would argue to the ends of time before you'd concede a small point.
Sorry, but a concrete core is not a small point. It is a massive falsehood upon which Christophera bases all of his conclusions. We refuse to accept that which ammounts to the tooth fairy causing the WTC towers to collapse.
On your nemesis, the LC Forums, I see concessions made to skeptics all the time.
And yet, how many are banned for being skeptics?
A concession doesn't mean a capitulation but you folks don't seem to understand that difference.
So, if I understand your point, we should conceed arguments regardless of whether or not someone makes an accurate statement, but because we don't want to appear bigoted to the likes of conspiracy fantasists. Notice how nowhere in your statement have you claimed that Christophera made a good point, or has made an accurate analysis of the WTC collapse. If you even acknowledge that he's wrong, why should we conceed the point to him?
NIST didn't have all the data for an unquestionable computer model because they had to work with video evidence and what remained in the ruins.
Ok, how do you define an "unquestionable" computer model? The fact that people don't accept it (a small minority of people, I might add), does not mean that the model is invalid. Questioning something, whether it is relativity, evolution or the self-initiation theory has no bearing on whether or not the model is accurate or represents the truth.
If you wish to argue they were able to fully re-construct the scenario then I'll leave you to that fantasy.
That's precisely what I started this thread to argue. I believe NIST has conclusively modeled the collapse initiation state and proved how damage from the airplanes caused it. Thus far, you have failed to provide any counter-evidence other than a globalist, hand-waving criticism, parroted from David Ray Griffin.
A few steel beams extracted from the debris pile does not constitute a complete and accurate picture of what damage they sustained where and when!!
Would you care to define "few?" I suppose you won't, because you have no idea what NIST has got.
The building's steel took some damage from the aircraft most certainly.
No one was debating this fact. I'm amazed, however, that you take it upon yourself to qualify the damage as "some" without referencing your analysis, your evidence, or your facts. How do you know that the WTC towers took "some" damage?
Enough to remove almost all the fireproofing for a complete floor?
You are arguing from personal incredulity. Evidence, mathematics, rational argument, if you please.
NIST speculated yes in order to make their model work, yet how could they know since the collapse distorted the evidence?
Gee, I wonder where they addressed this. Could it be somewhere in that 10,000 page report? NIST bracketed what they though was the likely damage by assuming that very little fireproofing was actually stripped. They showed that under the conservative case, the towers would still have fallen. How does that invalidate their conclusion that if more fireproofing were displaced, the towers would still have fallen?
The steel took an enormous amount of damage from the subsequent collapse of their buildings. You expect it was easy to seperate aircraft damage from collapse damage?
You're arguing from personal incredulity again. And actually, yes you can. Metallurgists do this all the time.
NIST had fire testing by Underwriter Labs. The tests proven inconclusive!
Would you care to cite that?
Your BS about space aliens, Hopi Indians etc. is the usual crap. CD would do what was observed which makes it a relevant consideration.
Space aliens used a space laser to melt the towers. It was made to look exactly like a controlled demolition. Since the space laser would do what was observed, it, too, is a relevant considerations. And don't get me started on the Hopi Indians...
Suggesting the absurd only reveals how locked your mind is to your dogmatic beliefs.
Ad hominem.
Bracketing also reveals that NIST didn't have an absolute set of data parameters.
An absolute set of data parameters? They knew how much the plane weighed, they had video evidence of the areas of the towers damaged, they had the external properties of the building and the time from impact to collapse initiation. They also had the size, strength and locations of all columns, beams, trusses and the amount of fireproofing on all of them. How are those not absolute data parameters?
They did admit to adjusting input data and had to use an extreme case scenario with parameters adjusted to what they said was still realistically possible in order to obtain collapse initiation. If that's not guessing I don't know what is!
This is now the second time I'm going to ask you to reference this. Where does NIST claim they had to use an extreme case?
Maybe Greening can sit at home and calculate with equations exactly what occured on 9/11 but even his supreme ego could not know the precise data that related to the unseeable internal damage of the towers.
Third argument from personal incredulity.
Like NIST, he accepted the plane crash and fire as the cause and proceeded to make the math work accordingly.
Man! Thank God all the theory, the mathematics, the experiments and the computer model supported that hypothesis! You've reverted back to your first irrelevant point. NIST does not need to consider alternative hypotheses for which there is not evidence. Don't make me get the Hopi Indians on you!
Statics gave me an appreciation of force vectors. Dynamics gave me an appreciation of moving forces. Imagination, which is appallingly absent amongst JREFers allows me to see beyond the box.
So, your Statics professor would give you a problem. The first thing you did was imagine what the answer would be, right? Or did you find an answer mathematically, and then imagine a different one? At what point did you use your imagination to solve these problems?
Also, ad hominem
As a documentary video editor and a viewer, I've seen an enormous amount of footage relating to explosions as well building destruction. From footage of WWII bombings, to controlled demolitions, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, natural gas explosions etc., I've got a fairly good idea of what looks typical and what looks odd. WTC 1 & 2 didn't just gravity collapse because they were physically damaged by aircraft collision and weakening fire; they ERUPTED!
This is your 4th argument from personal incredulity. You represented yourself in another thread as having knowledge of strucural engineering, and when pressed for information, you've decided to produce nothing but arguments from personal incredulity.
I see it..you obviously don't. I can only assume you don't want to see it because you fear the conclusion you have to draw and you'll miss the comradry of the JREF gang.
You're not addressing any of my points. You've attacked me no less than three times in this response, and you've provided no evidence, no references and no facts to support your conclusions.
As an engineer, do you ever consider how unlikely it would be for a building to collapse like that without artificial assistance?
As a real engineer, unlike you, I know that the forces of fire, wind, earthquake, floods and falling debris can cause buildings to collapse and fail. The majority of unplanned, unexpected failures of structures in the world is a result of natural forces, not artificial assistance.
Buildings left to self destruct, collapse piecemeal and usually leave a shell standing.
Really? Perhaps you could cite this or provide a reference to this little factiod.
Even the extensive bombing of WWII rarely leveled a building like we saw with WTC7.
Wow! Perhaps you have statistics to back up this claim.
WTC7 was modern construction to boot.
And yet, a building fell on it, causing massive fire and structural damage. So modern buildings aren't invincible, eh?
Yet you folks can't even acknowledge a "hmmm" You are so dogmatic and blind in your beliefs.
MM
That's yet another ad hominem attack in this post.
I must say, I'm really disappointed with you. I asked for references, you reply with insults. I ask for proof, you rant about the evils of the government. I ask you for specific criticisms on the NCSTAR, you have yet to produce any. Try harder.
