• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

That video contained no "scientific proof". It was, as always seems to be the case, half-assed interpretation of video footage by someone who doesn't bother to support their claims with any actual math.

If video and photographs are so inconsequential to a scientific investigation, than why did NIST feel compelled to use so much of it?

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs
 
Look at how small and petty all of those replies were to my post. Great job, yall. All you did was attack me...and my intelligence...not surprising, since that's how you always refute my scientific data.
 
If video and photographs are so inconsequential to a scientific investigation, than why did NIST feel compelled to use so much of it?

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs
That video contained no "scientific proof". It was, as always seems to be the case, half-assed interpretation of video footage by someone who doesn't bother to support their claims with any actual math.
 
Look at how small and petty all of those replies were to my post. Great job, yall. All you did was attack me...and my intelligence...not surprising, since that's how you always refute my scientific data.
You have not presented any objective, verifiable evidence that could be construed as scientific in nature.

ETA: Oh, and your post was just another argumentum ad ignoratium.
 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Awq6q5ZZUO4

Pause at 0:25 - notice the image of WTC 2 on the left. Play, now look at the computer simulation on the right (of the upper mass' calculated path) I have talked about this in my Language Award Nominated post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2171807#post2171807

At 0:25 in, they describe how the physical proportion of the upper mass of floors on WTC 2 (shortly after collapse initiation) has shifted it's momentum away from the lower floors.

The vid goes on to discuss how it is physically impossible for this upper mass of floors to turn back around onto the lower structure....and, without this upper mass exerting force down upon the lower structure of floors, the lower floors will cease collapsing. (because if they continued to collapse without the extreme force from above, they would violate one of Newton's laws of motion) Is this not enough scientific proof for you? Isn't this scientifically proving why the collapses are impossible according to NIST? If not, please explain.

Thank you very much.

You were nominated by another not so good truther.

Your video sources are wrong again, totally debunked. No math or science to back up that stuff. Sorry wrong again.
 
That video contained no "scientific proof". It was, as always seems to be the case, half-assed interpretation of video footage by someone who doesn't bother to support their claims with any actual math.

If video and photographs are so inconsequential to a scientific investigation, than why did NIST feel compelled to use so much of it?

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs
Arkan said no such thing. In fact, you just reinforced what he said..."It was, as always seems to be the case, half-assed interpretation of video footage by someone who doesn't bother to support their claims "

Here is the difference. NIST are actually qualified to interperet what they see in the videos and can back up their observations with the necessary math and/or computer models. Here are 2 examples, which I linked earlier in response to your outrage that bowing/buckling was observed..

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister2.pdf
 
Apathoid,

I make my own claims...I present my own theories...and I back them up with evidence/facts/analysis - if someone wants to make their own claims or theories...then they can start a thread, and debate others about their claims and theories. It's not my job to prove or disprove other peoples' claims and theories....I need only back up my own claims and theories.

Thank you.


You have made ridiculous claims and back them up with doubletalk, doublespeak, and doublethink.

If there were a doubledumb method of research; you have coined it.

It would be real if you would present some fact to go with your misleading information.
 
Do you know why a full pancake collapse is impossible on the WTC Towers? Because a pancake collapse can only happen on a simple concrete structure like a parking garage. The WTC Towers were built with an extremely complex web of steel core columns, perimeter columns and an outer steel grid. It's scientifically impossible for this type of vertical steel network to collapse downward in a sequential progression - top to bottom. (floor by floor)

If the trusses were to be disconnected from the core columns and perimeter columns, than they might have some chance of pancaking down, but the core columns and perimeter columns wouldn't crumble down with them. Why? Because the columns and floors are constructed in two entirely different directions. The floors are stacked horizontal to the ground, but the columns are built vertical to the ground.

If the internal (horizontal floors) were removed with a pancaking, than at best, the core and perimeter columns, would fall over to the side...from instability...but they certainly wouldn't or couldn't collapse down upon themselves (telescoping) in a sequential progression from top to bottom without being cut with something like therma/ite.

To say that a sequential building collapse from top to bottom isn't a pancaking is to deny objective reality. The buildings came down top to bottom...so, NIST never even had a chance at a plausible collapse theory, because the only thing that could have been is a pancake collapse.

But, since we have studied the internal structure of the WTC Towers...and now know - that a full pancake collapse is scientifically impossible on the WTC Towers...NIST had no other choice but to engage in Doublethink - in order to make a possibility out of an impossibility.

You have failed to grasp the NIST report and what it means. This is due to the fact you have not read 10,000 pages yet.

Good luck, so far you have failed to understand the NIST report. Just a few pages of reading will not do it.
 
Their color illustration on page 31 of the .pdf I linked to, looks quite accurate to me. I don't agree that many core columns could have been severed with an aluminum plane, however - those steel temps, looked pretty accurate. Why don't they say in the .pdf that they didn't test all the columns, when clearly they give colors for all the core and perimeter columns? They left out the severed columns from the color chart...so why not leave out the columns they didn't get a chance to test for temps?
Here's a simple test. Take a sharpened pencil and a soda can. It doesn't matter if it's full or not. Punch the tip of the pencil into the side of the can. Surprise! Wood, which is softer than aluminium, punctures the aluminium!!!

Just because you don't agree with something, doesn't make it untrue.
 
You have not presented any objective, verifiable evidence that could be construed as scientific in nature.

ETA: Oh, and your post was just another argumentum ad ignoratium.

I want you to personally present a piece of data or evidence, that can scientifically prove NIST's theory is even in realm of physical possibilities.

Don't waste your time, cus you can't. NIST's whole report is built off of lies. They couldn't even reproduce the type of collapse/reaction they purport happened to the WTC....even though they conducted many different real-life experiments.

So what they ended up doing (because they were desperate and needed some kind of whacked out theory to release...I mean, the PET ain't gonna fly, that's why they didn't even test the steel samples for explosive residue) was creating a virtual simulation...that could just spit out the answers they needed.

Anti-science...yes, that is a good word to describe NIST's methods of investigation.
 
Last edited:
If video and photographs are so inconsequential to a scientific investigation, than why did NIST feel compelled to use so much of it?

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs

Did you notice that video and photographs were only a part of what they reviewed?

And did you notice that they reviewed thousands, tens of thousands of documents, videos and photographs? Have you reviewed that many? Do you realize they reviewed pretty much everything they could get their hands on, and not just those bits that supported their already decided on answer?

Did you know that the evidence they reviewed was only the start of the scientific process? Unlike the CT process, where video is the beginning, middle and end of the process.
 
I want you to personally present a piece of data or evidence, that can scientifically prove NIST's theory is even in realm of physical possibilities.
1) Moving the goalposts
2) Attempting to force a requirement of proving a negative. Tell you what 28th, provide one example from the NIST report that is inconsistent with physics; and show your work.

Don't waste your time, cus you can't.
Confirmational bias fallacy.

NIST's whole report is built off of lies.
Unsubstatiated claim.

They couldn't even reproduce the type of collapse/reaction they purport happened to the WTC....even though they conducted many different experiments.
Given that you have continually mispresented and/or misinterpretted their findings, I have no reason to trust your assesment of this.

So what they ended up doing
Assumption by you that you know what their reasoning was, and what they did.

(because they were desperate and needed some kind of whacked out theory to release...I mean, the PET ain't gonna fly, that's why they didn't even test the steel samples for explosive residue)
Poisoning the well.

was creating a virtual simulation...that could just spit out the answers they needed.
Substantiate this claim or retract it.

Anti-science...yes, that is a good word to describe NIST's methods of investigation.
Opinion noted; then again opinions are not evidence so we'll throw it in the bit-bucket along with the rest of your drek.
 
I want you to personally present a piece of data or evidence, that can scientifically prove NIST's theory is even in realm of physical possibilities.

Don't waste your time, cus you can't. NIST's whole report is built off of lies. They couldn't even reproduce the type of collapse/reaction they purport happened to the WTC....even though they conducted many different experiments

So what they ended up doing (because they were desperate and needed some kind of whacked out theory to release...I mean, the PET ain't gonna fly, that's why they didn't even test the steel samples for explosive residue) was creating a virtual simulation...that could just spit out the answers they needed.

Anti-science...yes, that is a good word to describe NIST's methods of investigation.

Actually, that's exactly how they constructed the WTC Towers. They built the core columns first...and then added the outer perimeter and floors. So we know the core columns can stand on their own, because they were up before the floors and outer perimeter were even added.


You continue to misrepresent NIST information with a shallow knowledge of the WTC, as shown above and your lack of formal scientific knowledge.

You refuse to correct your mistakes, nor do you see them as mistakes. You continue to mess up an scientific work with a play on words.

When will you actually finish a thread with some facts. Your other thread failed to change the way anyone looks at 9/11. This thread has no purpose but for you to make failed analogies to 1984 with your own special doublegeekspeak.
 
I want you to personally present a piece of data or evidence, that can scientifically prove NIST's theory is even in realm of physical possibilities.

Don't waste your time, cus you can't. NIST's whole report is built off of lies. They couldn't even reproduce the type of collapse/reaction they purport happened to the WTC....even though they conducted many different real-life experiments.

So what they ended up doing (because they were desperate and needed some kind of whacked out theory to release...I mean, the PET ain't gonna fly, that's why they didn't even test the steel samples for explosive residue) was creating a virtual simulation...that could just spit out the answers they needed.

Anti-science...yes, that is a good word to describe NIST's methods of investigation.

So WTF were they supposed to do, build two 110 storey buildings and fly a coupla 150 ton jets into them?

Grow up.
 

Back
Top Bottom