Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[femr2]

You are a great foil.

How very literate of you, though your intent is more than unclear of course.

212 tons of TNT in heat energy for the combustible fuel in the WTC.

Nope, try again.

Latest number

Yes, you keep changing your numbers. Seems you really are taking my advice and learning that your oft repeated values are incorrect/misleading/meaningless.

I think I can squeeze out more energy.

And in one small sentence confirm your intent, which is to exaggerate the role of the jet fuel as much as you can. Why not simply accept that the jet fuel simply started the fires and then burned off ? It's not like there was nothing else there to burn. It's simply that what you see burning after the first few minutes...that ain't jet fuel old buddy.

Based on the 27,600 pounds of jet fuel available on the impact floors.

Making up random numbers again ? Try 25684 And I thought we were going to do this in dangerous peanut quantities.

go ahead, use the 133 tons of TNT heat energy NIST is using

ROFL. You mean 124, but it's still a completely misleading value. Folk reading it visualise >100 tons of TNT exploding, and it is OBVIOUS that the fuel did not have the same effect.

You are deliberately misleading people, and trying to deliberately increase the scale of your numbers to suit your purpose.

What was your point about air per floor with all the holes in the WTC?

Told you twice already. There are a few useful numbers in there, as you have discovered Should also open your eyes to constraints upon energy conversion efficiency too, which is a significant factor of my objection to your use of misleading TNT equivalency.

 

[000063]

Since the conspiracy alternative to plane impacts and fires causing the building collapse is some kind of explosive assistance it makes sense to use an explosive energy comparison. If people were suggesting a peanut driven collapse scenario then the peanut equivalent might be more appropriate.

I'm hungry now. I want cashews.

 

[beachnut]

... Making up random numbers again ? Try 25684 And I thought we were going to do this in dangerous peanut quantities. ...

I thought you were using 25,800 pounds, this is half the fuel on the impact zone after the fireball. I keep messing up and calling the aircraft combustibles, jet fuel. The aircraft added combustibles to their path. For 175 this was 27,600 pounds of combustibles, plus the jet fuel.

Why can we ignore the heat energy from jet fuel, equal to 124 tons (212 tons if you find the right number) of TNT in heat energy (516,000,000,000 joules). Because the fires in the WTC were 8,000 GJ and 3,000 GJ. As an engineer we can drop the 124 to 300 tons of TNT in heat energy from burning jet fuel, it is not significant. Like saying the first bullet which makes you fall down slightly wounded, is not significant when the bad guy shoots you with 7 to 10 more bullets. Engineers do this all the time, like dropping the lift due to the earths rotation from the equations of motion for flight, it only matters at speeds near MACH 3. No big deal, strike it out.

When you can ignore 124 tons of TNT, or even the 315 tons of TNT potential heat energy from jet fuel at impact, you know the fires from the office contents is massive, and destroyed the damaged towers quickly.

Fire in the WTC heat equal to 717 to 1912 tons of TNT, who needs jet fuel? Without the jet fuel the WTC would survive much longer, maybe repairable. With the jet fuel and massive impacts 7 to 11 times greater than design; towers were doomed. Features left out by Major Tom.

I keep forgetting the 27,600 pounds was combustible material from Flt 175, added to the path of destruction, extra stuff to burn, along with jet fuel.

How many more features were left out.

Nope, try again.

ROFL. You mean 124, but it's still a completely misleading value. Folk reading it visualize >100 tons of TNT exploding, and it is OBVIOUS that the fuel did not have the same effect. ...

Nothing wrong with 212 tons of TNT, you just have to find the right numbers, the right comparison. (you mean there are different values for TNT? yes, TNT ... research and learn)
You are right, TNT exploding wastes a lot of energy and is not dense enough to be efficient, why we use gasoline instead of TNT to run our cars. You mean explosives are more efficient at destroying steel buildings than fire? What are you trying to say. I am only making a comparison, because pounds of TNT mean more in visualizing the heat energy than expressing it in joules, and you can't handle things being explained, you want to hide your numbers in joules?

Why do we use gasoline if your massive explosive TNT is so scary bad? Because gasoline has more energy than TNT per kg, 10 to 15 times more. Comparing the energy in jet fuel to TNT gives a feel for how much energy is there. You don't like it, go ahead use joules.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1111tntcomparea.jpg
Quibble away, it is self-critiquing.
You have changed your web page, backdated to March 2009, you are welcome. You dont' have to use TNT, use joules.

Why is the heat of the fire not a feature? Is Major Tom ignoring 8,000 GJ and 3,000 GJ from the fires? How many more features are left out? Math?

 

[femr2]

I thought you were using 25,800 pounds

Near enough. All estimates anyway. What is 116 pounds of refined camping stove juice between friends eh

this is half the fuel on the impact zone after the fireball

Progress.

I keep messing up and calling the aircraft combustibles, jet fuel.

True.

The aircraft added combustibles to their path. For 175 this was 27,600 pounds of combustibles, plus the jet fuel.

Don't forget the peanuts, and I imagine there may well have been CCC's and possibly some butter too

Why can we ignore the heat energy from jet fuel

We don't have to ignore it. We just have to put it in its correct context, significance, period of applicability and role...which was to start the class-a fires and then rapdly burn off.

equal to 124 tons (212 tons if you find the right number) of TNT in heat energy

Either of which are misleading and inapplicable metrics. You want to nearly double the NIST *Heat of combustion for Jet Fuel A* ?!11!?

Because the fires in the WTC were 8,000 GJ and 3,000 GJ.

Pick a building. Pick a number. Then justify it. I imagine your values are a bit low.

we can drop the 124 to 300 tons of TNT in heat energy from burning jet fuel, it is not significant.

Huzzah !

Fire in the WTC heat equal to 717 to 1912 tons of TNT

Ooh, bold words widely spaced.

who needs jet fuel?

Apparently you have for nearly the last ten years, but you've also apparently learned otherwise. Well done.

Why do we use gasoline if your massive explosive TNT is so scary bad?

Why not use peanuts ? Or CCC's ? lol. (That link was funny. Blatant stage 101 investigoogling. Funny.)

Comparing the energy in jet fuel to TNT gives a feel for how much energy is there.

If you don't want to infer that the burning of the jet fuel is equivalent to exploding > 100 tons of TNT, then you really need to stop using such a misleading equivalency.

You don't like it, go ahead use joules.

No need. The jet fuel started fires, then burned off after a few minutes.

 

[beachnut]

...
Apparently you have for nearly the last ten years, but you've also apparently learned otherwise. Well done.


Why not use peanuts ? Or CCC's ? lol. (That link was funny. Blatant stage 101 investigoogling. Funny.)


If you don't want to infer that the burning of the jet fuel is equivalent to exploding > 100 tons of TNT, then you really need to stop using such a misleading equivalency.


No need. The jet fuel started fires, then burned off after a few minutes.

A few lies? I guess that is in line with backing in changes to your web pages.
Are you trying to say the jet fuel is not a factor? No
Are you trying to say the impacts are not a factor? No
No jet fuel, no fire, no impacts, no damage. Take away the jet fuel or impacts, no collapse. Or take away the office fires, no collapse. What is new?

Apparently you have for nearly the last ten years, but you've also apparently learned otherwise. Well done.

Wrong, I never have. I knew the office fires were massive. You are stating a failed 911 truth claim.

I always knew the jet fuel started the fires, I use fuel to start my fire, but the primary energy making heat is the wood, and in the WTC the office fires. You must be projecting failed ideas you have, made up claims you put on others.*

There is still the heat energy equal to 315 tons of TNT in 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. I already corrected your failed statement about this. You are the one who is obsessed with making up failed statements about jet fuel, what you think people think.
*

That was your illusion of what NIST was implying, not my illusion. The WTC towers would be standing if only jet fuel was available to burn - it takes 3 to 10 times more heat to be significant. You changed this statement, erased it, I prompted that change, you back dated 02-04-2009. Eliminated a failed number and your obsession with what NIST did not say. http://femr2.ucoz.com/forum/12-11-1

What would be the estimate of the possible fuel loads from office contents in the WTC, over 20,000 tons of TNT in heat energy (80,000 GJ)? Makes 10,000 gallon of jet fuel, 315 ton of TNT in heat energy insignificant unless you are in the fire.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...ntcomparea.jpg (...)
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/PffP_textbook_F08/
http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/PffP_textbook_F08/PffP-01-energy-F08.pdf
Physics for Future Presidents; intellectual investigoogling, 911 truth needs to turnoff their google 911 truth filter, and join the real world of science.


I never said the jet fuel did it,that is an idea you had, implying NIST was saying it; now you know that is false, and you removed that a while back, erased it. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7132029#post7132029

ROFL. As I said...

.... As I am sure you are aware, the jet fuel burned off after about 10/15 minutes, thus my comment.

I stand by the base premise...jet fuel did not cause either tower to collapse
... )

10 or 15? What is you new number for this? NIST never said jet fuel caused the collapse, it was a list of "features".
Impacts, impact damage, no water due to impact, damaged insulation due to impact, jet fuel starting fires on multiple floors (hundreds of work stations set on fire), office fires, and more doomed the towers; a system of features, many missed by Major Tom so he can back in CD with some made up anomaly from claims made from his list of features after the collapse we underway.

 

[Major_Tom]

Hey guys, just a little reminder of how much information was shoved into one thread....

I am sorry, but I think anyone can get the idea of why combining the two threads effectively kills decent detailed discussion of these important items...

The unhacked version:


WTC1

Before the Collapse
Damage to Basement and Lobby
Fire, Smoke Ejections as WTC2 is Struck
Strong Fire Ejections As WTC2 Collapses
Inward Bowing of the S Perimeter
Ejections Witnessed at 10:18
Roofline Smoke Pulses just before Collapse


Collapse Initiation Sequence
Drift and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted: Summary
Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse
Fire Flair-up along E Face 3s before Collapse
Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling
Concave Roof Deformity Measured by Drop Curves
Earliest Ejections from fl 95, W Face, S Side
Over-pressurization of fl 98 before Falling Begins
Minimal Tilt: Less than 1 Degree before Falling
Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
NW Corner: Upper Slides over N Face, Behind W Face
NE Corner: Upper Assembly Snaps Over Lower Portion
Jolts Detected in Earliest Antenna, NW Corner Drops
88th Fl S Face Light Grey Ejection
77th Fl Over-pressurization Timing Inexplicable

.
-----COLLAPSE PROGRESSION MODEL-----
West Wall Motion
North Wall Motion
South Wall Motion
East Wall Motion
Ejections Below Collapse Fronts
Mechanical Floor Ejections
Ejections Traversing E Face, Fls 50-55
Antenna Section Falls Southward
Free-fall Comparison: Tracking Earliest Falling Object
Entire E-W Width of the Core Survives Initial Collapse
Surviving Core Remnant Drops Collectively
Rubble Layout and Column Conditions Recorded


WTC2

BEFORE THE COLLAPSE---------
Pressure Bursts from E Face, Fls 77 and 80
Inward Bowing of East Perimeter
Molten Substance Seen Falling from near NW Corner
E Face Pressurized Pulse Just Before Initiation
.
------COLLAPSE INITIATION MODEL---------
First E Face Ejections Along 78th and 75 Fl Slabs
78th and 75th Rows of Ejections Sharply Discontinuous
78th fl E Face Ejections in Detail
East Perimeter Snaps Cleanly Along Bolt Seams
Flash and Destruction of NE Corner, Fl 90
Concave Roofline Deformation While Tilting
Pressure Punches along N Face as Building Tilts
Early West Face Ejections Above and Below MER Panels
W MER Perimeter w/Beam Flooring Ejected from Building
75-78th Fl W MER Panels Ripped along Failure Lines
.
-----COLLAPSE PROGRESSION MODEL-----
East Wall Motion
West Wall Motion
South Wall Motion
North Wall Motion
NE Corner Remained Standing
Ejections From Below WTC2 Collapse Front
Mechanical Floor Ejections
Free-fall Comparison: Tracking Earliest Falling Object
Portion of Core Survives Initial Collapse
Rubble Layout and Column Conditions Recorded


Aircraft Impact Features for WTC 1 and 2:

WTC2 Aircraft Impact Orientation Studies
Jet Fuel DIspersion Estimates
AA11 Strikes Exact Center of Building
WTC1 75th Fl Ejection When Airplane Strikes



I earlier called this thread a "meatball sandwich", but perhaps it is more accurate to compare it to a "Sloppy Joe", shown below for the non-american audience:

The bottom bun is like the thread on WTC1 only. The top bun and the filling are like the WTC2 thread under which all the WTC1 info is covered in a thick meat sauce.

I also threw the AIrcraft Impact Features list into the thread since it will probably be put on top if a new thread is started anyway.

........................................

At this rate, if we discuss each item on the list it should only take us until 2014 to finish.

 

[Oystein]

...
WTC1

Before the Collapse
Damage to Basement and Lobby
Fire, Smoke Ejections as WTC2 is Struck
Strong Fire Ejections As WTC2 Collapses
Inward Bowing of the S Perimeter
Ejections Witnessed at 10:18
Roofline Smoke Pulses just before Collapse
...
WTC2

BEFORE THE COLLAPSE---------
Pressure Bursts from E Face, Fls 77 and 80
Inward Bowing of East Perimeter
Molten Substance Seen Falling from near NW Corner
E Face Pressurized Pulse Just Before Initiation
...

Major_Tom, are these lists of features/observables before the collapses exhaustive?
If not, what guided your selection process when you picked those six and four features, rather than any others, or indeed all hundreds or thousands of observables?

I am asking because elsewhere you pointed out (correctly) that the best theory should ideally be consistent with all features / observables.

(The same goes, of course, for your choice of features for collapse initiation and propagation)

...
At this rate, if we discuss each item on the list it should only take us until 2014 to finish.

Well, I have asked this very basic question about the core of the topic of this thread or these threads many times, which is/are "WTC1/2 feature list...", but you never replied. At this rate, we shall never finish.

 

[Major_Tom]

Explained in the web site.....(copy-paste from the site):

This website approaches the historic question of what actually happened to the WTC towers by carefully examining the events directly.



The following approach seems quite rational:


1) Form and organize a complete visual record

2) Examine all visual evidence very carefully and list notable or suspicious details of each collapse event

3) Compare the visual record with all existing official and academic explanations by answering the following 3 questions:


* Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

* Does the visual record match any of the known "9/11 truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

And after these questions are answered honestly, the question of possible demolition is addressed:


* Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?

...................................

This is my list of notable or suspicious details just as I have always said.

Note the collected visual record is as comprehensive as possible (like...the biggest on the planet).

The feature lists are the lists I mention in step 2. They are not meant to list every freaking thing. They are the lists I feel I need to correctly answer the 3 questions posed. I need sufficient information to answer the 3 questions and that is what the lists are for.

If you want a different list for a different purpose, make your own.

 

[Oystein]

Explained in the web site.....(copy-paste from the site):

This website approaches the historic question of what actually happened to the WTC towers by carefully examining the events directly.



The following approach seems quite rational:


1) Form and organize a complete visual record

2) Examine all visual evidence very carefully and list notable or suspicious details of each collapse event

3) Compare the visual record with all existing official and academic explanations by answering the following 3 questions:


* Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

* Does the visual record match any of the known "9/11 truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

And after these questions are answered honestly, the question of possible demolition is addressed:


* Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?

...................................

This is my list of notable or suspicious details just as I have always said.

Note the collected visual record is as comprehensive as possible (like...the biggest on the planet).

The feature lists are the lists I mention in step 2. They are not meant to list every freaking thing. They are the lists I feel I need to correctly answer the 3 questions posed. I need sufficient information to answer the 3 questions and that is what the lists are for.

If you want a different list for a different purpose, make your own.

What scientific criteria make details "notable or suspicious"? Personal choice? Personal ignorance?

Is it a good approach to focus on what's untypical for the entire event, rather than what's typical?

 

[ozeco41]

What scientific criteria make details "notable or suspicious"? Personal choice? Personal ignorance?

Is it a good approach to focus on what's untypical for the entire event, rather than what's typical?

Yes but....

Don't fall for the trap of allowing yourself to be limited to the boundaries which Major_Tom is applying.

The core of the "trick" (or "trap") in Major_Tom's strategy is that he limits acceptable evidence to those factors which are visible. Thereby excluding about 80% of the factors which explain the collapse. And can do so without the need for demolition assitance.

By limiting discussion leading to demolition to the technical domain M_T implicitly bypasses the strong arguments against demolition which are not in the technical domain. Those include "Why do it?" and all the multiple aspects of "How do you do it without getting caught?" The arguments in those non technical arenas present a serious barrier to any progress down M_T's chosen technical path which, simply stated, says "If M_T cannot explain it by visible evidence == demolition". Those non-technical arguments are more than strong enough to stand alone.

Then, even if we operate solely in the technical domain, the obvious next trap down the path is a claim of "I cannot explain it therefore demolition" whereas the correct claim should be "I cannot explain it therefore I cannot explain it."

 

[Oystein]

Yes but....

Don't fall for the trap of allowing yourself to be limited to the boundaries which Major_Tom is applying.

The core of the "trick" (or "trap") in Major_Tom's strategy is that he limits acceptable evidence to those factors which are visible. Thereby excluding about 80% of the factors which explain the collapse. And can do so without the need for demolition assitance.

Don't worry. I am trying to point out that Major_Tom isn't even allowing the full body of visible evidence, but focusses on a very narrow portion thereof, namely that which is quirky instead of that which is characteristic for the entire event.

By limiting discussion leading to demolition to the technical domain M_T implicitly bypasses the strong arguments against demolition which are not in the technical domain. Those include "Why do it?" and all the multiple aspects of "How do you do it without getting caught?" The arguments in those non technical arenas present a serious barrier to any progress down M_T's chosen technical path which, simply stated, says "If M_T cannot explain it by visible evidence == demolition". Those non-technical arguments are more than strong enough to stand alone.

Then, even if we operate solely in the technical domain, the obvious next trap down the path is a claim of "I cannot explain it therefore demolition" whereas the correct claim should be "I cannot explain it therefore I cannot explain it."

I frankly haven't read anywhere if Major_Tom even goes so far as to explicitly propose CD. His entire hypothesis is stillborn if he can't make a good case for selecting its foundation. Why should I read beyond this point (the "feature list") at this point? If you go back to post #4: Seven months ago I already pointed out that, in my view, his selection of features is not authoritative, and there is no reason why just those features are relevant, and all those that he left out are not. In fact, I suspect that he picked mainly irrelevant features: Those that do not help to explain the collapse initiation and progress mechanism, but are mere random byproducts of a chaotic event.

 

[femr2]

There is still the heat energy equal to 315 tons of TNT in 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.

Which is a meaningless allegory, as the effect of the jet fuel was obviously nothing at all like 315 tons of TNT exploding, and there was not 10,000 gallons of fuel of course. More like 3778.

You do like your deliberate exaggerated numbers though, don't you beachnut. Still trying to exaggerate the effect of the jet fuel eh

Here is 50 tons of TNT exploding...


You think the fuel had the same effect as an explosion over 6 times larger than that ? That is what you imply by using misleading TNT equivalency. Nonsense.

There would have been nothing left of *the upper block* had such an explosion ocurred.

Stop making misleading statements beachnut.

20,000 tons of TNT in heat energy

TNT equivalency is misleading and exactly the kind of hype-inducing statement made by the likes of AE911T. You are just like them. Tsk, tsk, beachnut.

 

[MetalPig]

Which is a meaningless allegory, as the effect of the jet fuel was obviously nothing at all like 315 tons of TNT exploding,

Beachnut isn't talking effect, he's talking energy. That's clear to everyone but you, it seems. Why is that?

 

[NoahFence]

At this rate, if we discuss each item on the list it should only take us until 2014 to finish.

I know how to cut that down for you if you're interested.

 

[Myriad]

By insisting on using Joules, whose most closely related unit familiar in everyday life is Watts (Joules/second, familiar, of course, from light bulbs and electric appliances), femr2 is obviously trying to craftily imply that the damage to the towers was electrical. Backing in Judy Woods electromagnetic energy beam theories, perhaps?

Okay, that's silly, but no more so than femr2's objection to tons of TNT. An energy unit is an energy unit. Deal with it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Oystein]

By insisting on using Joules, whose most closely related unit familiar in everyday life is Watts (Joules/second, familiar, of course, from light bulbs and electric appliances), femr2 is obviously trying to craftily imply that the damage to the towers was electrical. Backing in Judy Woods electromagnetic energy beam theories, perhaps?

Okay, that's silly, but no more so than femr2's objection to tons of TNT. An energy unit is an energy unit. Deal with it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Nuh. Joules is a unit commonly used to describe how badly food will make you grow obese.
Femr2 insists that the towers were eaten. Or some such nonsense.

 

[Myriad]

Doesn't everyone use kilocalories (aka Calories) for that?

Anyway, if one wanted to choose a unit specifically associated (in common usage) with thermal energy, BTUs would work fine. Except then lots of people would be wondering why the towers didn't just freeze down to absolute zero, from all that air conditioning power.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tsig]

Explained in the web site.....(copy-paste from the site):

This website approaches the historic question of what actually happened to the WTC towers by carefully examining the events directly.



The following approach seems quite rational:


1) Form and organize a complete visual record
2) Examine all visual evidence very carefully and list notable or suspicious details of each collapse event

3) Compare the visual record with all existing official and academic explanations by answering the following 3 questions:


* Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

* Does the visual record match any of the known "9/11 truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

And after these questions are answered honestly, the question of possible demolition is addressed:


* Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?

...................................

This is my list of notable or suspicious details just as I have always said.

Note the collected visual record is as comprehensive as possible (like...the biggest on the planet).

The feature lists are the lists I mention in step 2. They are not meant to list every freaking thing. They are the lists I feel I need to correctly answer the 3 questions posed. I need sufficient information to answer the 3 questions and that is what the lists are for.

If you want a different list for a different purpose, make your own.

Still nothing but "looks strange to me".

You really need to get beyond the visual and try some engineering.

 

[Major_Tom]

Yes but....

Don't fall for the trap of allowing yourself to be limited to the boundaries which Major_Tom is applying.

The core of the "trick" (or "trap") in Major_Tom's strategy is that he limits acceptable evidence to those factors which are visible. Thereby excluding about 80% of the factors which explain the collapse. And can do so without the need for demolition assitance.

By limiting discussion leading to demolition to the technical domain M_T implicitly bypasses the strong arguments against demolition which are not in the technical domain. Those include "Why do it?" and all the multiple aspects of "How do you do it without getting caught?" The arguments in those non technical arenas present a serious barrier to any progress down M_T's chosen technical path which, simply stated, says "If M_T cannot explain it by visible evidence == demolition". Those non-technical arguments are more than strong enough to stand alone.

Then, even if we operate solely in the technical domain, the obvious next trap down the path is a claim of "I cannot explain it therefore demolition" whereas the correct claim should be "I cannot explain it therefore I cannot explain it."

I have no "tricks". In the most basic terms possible this is the logic I use to review the historic event of the 9-11-01 as openly and honestly as possible:

.....................................
This website approaches the historic question of what actually happened to the WTC towers by carefully examining the events directly.


The following approach seems quite rational. The reader can think of it as the "A, B, C's" of a rational approach to WTC historic review.:


A) Form and organize a complete visual record

B) Examine all visual evidence very carefully and list notable or suspicious details of each collapse event

C) Compare the visual record with all existing official and academic explanations by answering the following 3 questions in order:


1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

2) Does the visual record match any of the known "9/11 truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

And after these questions are answered honestly, the question of possible demolition is addressed:


3) Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?

Note that the "demo" question isn't addressed until the third and final question.

The first question to ask is whether the NIST correctly identified the "how and why" of the collapses like they claim. If the answer is "yes", then the demo question need not be addressed at all.

If the mechanisms the NIST claims are correct, there is no more need for any of us to debate and we can all stop inquiring.

It is because the NIST claimed collapse mechanisms do not match the visual record that the mystery continues and there is a reason to address questions 2 and 3. This is a very important part of our history that many of you prefer to ignore.

And in the case of JREF, if you cannot honestly answer the first question then your arguments against anything but the "official story" are quite cheap and superficial.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Why is re-examination of the most complete visual record possible the key element in honest historic review of 9-11-01?

Because the visual record is the best BS detector we have.

People tend to lie to each other and to themselves. The visual record doesn't lie. As explained in the web site:

"A detailed visual record can be double and triple checked, sometimes from multiple viewpoints. Without an accurate recorded history, it is impossible to verify or disprove any claim made by any agency or individual, no matter how grossly inaccurate."

 

[femr2]

What a lot of feigned interpretaions you lot seem to create all by yourselves ...

Beachnut isn't talking effect, he's talking energy. That's clear to everyone but you, it seems.

It's perfectly clear, it's simply misleading, and he's openly trying to make the numbers as big as possible to create AE911T-style hype-inducing tag-lines. Really silly. He's also switching unit type randomly, going from scaling involving a few thousand pounds, to hundreds of tons. Really rather amusing to watch.

By insisting on using Joules, whose most closely related unit familiar in everyday life is Watts (Joules/second, familiar, of course, from light bulbs and electric appliances), femr2 is obviously trying to craftily imply that the damage to the towers was electrical. Backing in Judy Woods electromagnetic energy beam theories, perhaps?

Am not insisting on Joules at all.
As you add, you're quite aware I'm not making any assertion of Watts.
I'm not trying to craftily imply the damage is electrical, as you well know.
I'm also not in the slightest implying super space beams either.

What a lot of nonsense Myriad. You know none of it is true, as you freely state immediately afterwards, so why assert it in the first place ? Nonsense.

Okay, that's silly

Yes, it is.

but no more so than femr2's objection to tons of TNT.

Surprisngly enough, I don't agree. I think suggesting damage to the towers was electrical is absolute nonsense. I think suggesting space beams is absolute nonsense. I think craftily trying to suggest I've made any such assertion is absolute nonsense.

I object to TNT equivalency as it creates a false visual image, as I've highlighted. 315 tons of TNT. Kaboom. LOL.

An energy unit is an energy unit.

0.015 kg of Uranium good for you ? LOL. Have it in peanuts ? Much less mass of peanuts is required, you know

Howabout simply stating the volume of jet fuel involved, clearly stating how long it burned for, stating what effect it had upon the subjequent fires ? Not shock-and-awe enough for you ? Join AE911T. They are great at making hype-ridden assertions. Same story, different side of the fence. You're not better than that eh ?

Femr2 insists that the towers were eaten.

Yet another ridiculous assertion.

You guys really are at the top of your game. Awesome critical thinking skills on show. <Applause>