1647 replies to this topic

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 14 February 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

This might be a reasonable point if you ignore the way that engineers have to build in safety factors to allow for unknown variations in building materials and construction and also ignore the unknowns in the actual building damage.  The NIST calculations showed a situation where there was considerable overlap between the range of damage calculated and the conditions that would lead to collapse.  I can only marvel at your perpetual failure to grasp this point.

Not sure what point you falsely believe I fail to grasp – certainly nothing which you mention.  The absolutely reasonable point remains, that the case where NIST simulated possibility of collapse initiation (not forgetting those additional manual inputs) exceeded both the best estimates of aircraft impact and building and most importantly the damage actually observed on 9/11 (you neglect to mention that most important fact in your comment).  This is a problem because not only does it present the unfavorable odds noted for the official collapse theory, but it demonstrates that NIST based their collapse theory on a fantasy/hypothetical case, not within the boundaries of reality that were present on 9/11.  Nothing you say nor speculate can alter this.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

I was not asking skyeagle.  I was asking Stundie.

Please Little Fish, do not purposefully redirect my question.



All references to "molten steel" is based on occular observation.  Which I will repeat AGAIN for you in case you missed it, eye witness accounts are not infallible.

For it to be proved that molten steel is what was flowing underneath the rubble, the material should have undergone tests to come up with this conclusion.  Otherwise all we have are opinions.



It was not a trick question Little Fish.  Had you taken the time to read what I was referring to, you would have realized how silly your mis-interpretation of my question was.

The context by which I asked Stundie to identify the 3 different molten material is based solely on his assertion that GZ witnesses are able to discern different molten material from each other by visual observation.  Which unfortunately he was not able to.  So how are we to say whether or not those at GZ that made the "molten steel" reference are 100% accurate what they saw was molten steel?

Nobody is claiming visual observations are infallible.  But they are most helpful, especially when multiple witnesses report the same thing.

And those visual observations are corroborated by air samples taken by the DELTA Group, previously discussed here.

[Babe Ruth]

frenat, on 13 February 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

First, they were ALWAYS called victims lists.  But that is NOT the list I was talking about.
I should be a psychic.  I said I bet you wouldn't even try to prove that there were reports about hijackers being alive after the official list was released by the FBI and I was right.  All you do is continue to go off topic about the victims list which AGAIN is not the list in question.  Thanks for proving you still haven't bothered to read the link I posted.



Prove it.  I bet you can't.  Prove he did exactly as he intended.  I'll bet you can't.  Prove it was "perfect".  I'll bet you can't.

Frenat

With all due respect sir, it is impossible for a heart surgeon to explain all the nuances and details regarding surgical procedures to a layman, or for a physicist to explain such nuances to a layman.

So too it is impossible to properly explain certain aeronautical details and nuances to a person who does not fly.

Please, immerse yourself in the heroics of Hani The Magnificent.  And please enjoy that.

The lists, whatever you like to call them, were derived from what's called a passenger manifest.  The only entity aware of what passengers were on their airplanes were the airlines.  Do you want to challenge that?  If so, please tell me from where the names were derived?

[Little Fish]

Babe Ruth, on 14 February 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

Nobody is claiming visual observations are infallible.  But they are most helpful, especially when multiple witnesses report the same thing.

And those visual observations are corroborated by air samples taken by the DELTA Group, previously discussed here.

yes, the delta group had found volatilized iron and volatilized aluminium a mile away from gz, again indicating extremely high temperatures.
also little mentioned in these debates were the nano carbon tubes found in the lungs of wtc dust victims, again indicating extremely high temperatures. all the evidence wherever one looks indicates temperatures were high enough to melt steel.

[Babe Ruth]

...and way too high to be caused by jetfuel and gravity.

[flyingswan]

<p>

Little Fish, on 14 February 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

the properties of that primer are also inconsistent with the thermitic material analysed by jones and harrit, as is evident even in the comments in your above blogpost.

The primer actually gives an excellent match to the XEDS spectra of several of Harrit's samples, though it is clear that Harrit analysed more than one substance and tried to shoe them all into his "thermite" hypothesis.  It is a pity for Harrit that he failed to show that any of them actually generated energy in the way that thermite does.

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 14 February 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

Not sure what point you falsely believe I fail to grasp – certainly nothing which you mention.  The absolutely reasonable point remains, that the case where NIST simulated possibility of collapse initiation (not forgetting those additional manual inputs) exceeded both the best estimates of aircraft impact and building and most importantly the damage actually observed on 9/11 (you neglect to mention that most important fact in your comment).  This is a problem because not only does it present the unfavorable odds noted for the official collapse theory, but it demonstrates that NIST based their collapse theory on a fantasy/hypothetical case, not within the boundaries of reality that were present on 9/11.  Nothing you say nor speculate can alter this.

After some five years of me trying to explain this to you, what you fail to show any appreciation of is the probabilities involved in going from the "best estimate" to "severe" cases.  You use words like "astronomical odds" and "fantasy" and "not within the bounds of reality", when what you should be saying is "a little less probable, but well within the expected margins".

[Gummug]

coldboiled, on 14 February 2013 - 07:46 AM, said:

Hmm this is going nowhere. We know the government had some foreknowledge. Now as to involvement.  That is up for debate. For a few years now. Lets get some funding. Build a tower. Fly a plane into it. See what happens. Any volunteers? As far as I'm concerned its about the only way to see the truth now. Recreate it as accurately as possibly. SInce the facts so far have been and can be distorted to suit either sides argument.

I was going to suggest the exact same thing but you beat me to the punch. If I had a trillion dollars to waste (or whatever it would cost) I might do just that. Say, I have an idea. Let's have Mythbusters do it! I have a hunch, as deep as their pockets go, they probably don't go quite that deep.
Sorry for lurking so long, I just wanted to read all the posts. I think I pretty much read all of them except for the ones where the altercation is just repeated with little change.
I just wanted to say when I started reading I was convinced about 70% that the towers didn't just fall due to plane impact/fire, but after reading SkyEagle's posts (which I might add he has shown exemplary patience imo) I am now about 80% to 90% convinced fire (and impact) did the job. The reason at first I was hesitant to believe that is because in a related thread (911 inside job - for what), on page 16, post #232 (if memory serves), joc (I'm pretty sure it was joc please forgive if wrong) posted a link and it was about an hour and a half video, and it made me think some kind of explosives or steel melting device had to be used. Part of what made me think that is watching the towers fall, it seems counter-intuitive to think that fire alone could do that, especially when the fire is confined to two or three floors (at least that's what it appeared to me). Anyway, intuition can sure be wrong. So thanks to SkyEagle for his elucidating and patient! posting.
I just wanted to say really quickly, that whether someone is right or wrong, when they take an insulting and derogatory stance to the opposing view, imo (to me at least) it doesn't help their credibility. That's one thing that sometimes drives me to the CT side...on the whole (and there are certainly exceptions, SkyEagle being one) it seems like the OCT people (I guess O stands for opposed) seem more bullying and abusive...almost as if they're not sure of their facts or have something to hide so they need to bully the opposition into agreement, or failing that, deride them into silence or demonize them. I was having coffee with a friend of mine the other day, after having been practically convinced by SkyEagle that the buildings fell by impact/fire, and I said "if the officials were more transparent and didn't try to hinder investigation and make evidence disappear and so on, there wouldn't be so many CT's". It's like, imo, if you act like you're trying to hide something, you probably are.
Well I could say more but I've probably blithered on long enough. Thanks SkyEagle.
edited cuz the gremlins got in again (typos)

Edited by Gummug, 14 February 2013 - 03:54 PM.

[skyeagle409]

coldboiled, on 14 February 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

I didn't say anything about thermite or anything sky eagle. So why bring that up?

Because in the past, that is usually where road eventually led.

Quote

Seems to me like even a reasonable out come you will do anything to steer away from.

Actually, I want to highlight the fallacy that thermite was capable of bringing down the WTC buildings. I tend to provide hints such as why demolition companies do not use thermite for such large-scale demolition implosions. Next, I have provided hints that a large building must be structurally pre-weakened before a successful demolition operation can occur. It took many months just to prepare a bridge in Texas for demolition and yet we are being led to believe that agents of the US government transported many truckloads of thermite to the upper levels of the WTC buildings, and did so without drawing attention, which didn't make any sense considering that the demolition process first begins at the lower levels.

Others claim that bombs knocked down the WTC buildings, but apparently, they never seen photos of much smaller dwellings in Iraq that absorbed multiple strikes by cruise missiles and JDAM bombs and yet remained standing. If an explosive is not attached to a steel column, the blast wave will simply flow around the column and blow out windows and in some cases, walls. We can also examine the photo of the 1993 WTC1 bombing where not one single steel column was destroyed despite the fact the columns were sitting in the middle of a large bomb crater.

The reported buckling of the WTC buildings was another hint that fire, not explosives, was weakening the structure of those buildings. When steel is not allowed to expand during the heating process it will buckle like a strip of metal that is placed between your hands.  Apply an inward force with your hands and the strip will buckling in exactly the same manner as fire would effect a steel beam in a restricted position.

I continue to hear that no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to 911, but how many of those buildings were struck by B-767s or suffered from massive impact damage as was the case with WTC7? I do not need to reconstruct a model of the WTC buildings to understand how they collapsed because I have an understanding of structures. I have occasionally been called upon to design structural repairs for air force aircraft and if a structural repair is designed incorrectly it can redistribute stress to another location of an airframe and cause further problems down the line. I have also designed components for air force aircraft and equipment for military personnel.

It is no mystery to me how the WTC buildings collapsed, but it is amazing that there are those who think that many truckloads of thermite could have been transported to the upper levels of the WTC buildings without notice in order to bring down the WTC buildings. What that is telling me is that armchair structural experts with a Hollywood mentality who like to daydream on a constant basis tend to think they know it all, but as an old saying goes:

Those who think they know it all, are annoying to those of us who do

Quote

I've said before since those that have admitted dropping the ball have efectivly caused some part of this and should be prosecuted should they not. I'm sure you will find some way to disagree.

Before our involvement in World War 2, a warning was sent by Dušan Popov, a double agent, to FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover, of an impending Japanese attack, but Hoover didn't like Popov and distrusted him and as a result, Hoover failed to take him seriously, however, the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941, made a believer out of him but by that time it was too late. I consider that on the same level as the dismissal of warnings by Bush and those below him for ignoring many warnings flowing in from around the world of an impending terrorist attack. They had the attitude that nothing was going to happen, that is, until 09/11/2001, but by then, it was too late.

There was no 911 government conspiracy as foreign warnings of an impending terrorist attack on America and the laid-back attitude regarding those warnings of the Bush administration has shown, but those who were in charge of national security must be held accountable and anything less is unacceptable.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 February 2013 - 04:23 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 14 February 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

yes, the delta group had found volatilized iron and volatilized aluminium a mile away from gz, again indicating extremely high temperatures.
also little mentioned in these debates were the nano carbon tubes found in the lungs of wtc dust victims, again indicating extremely high temperatures. all the evidence wherever one looks indicates temperatures were high enough to melt steel.

How many welding operations took place during the construction of the WTC buildings? The residue from those operations remained within the WTC buildings after all of those years and would have been released during the 911 attacks. In addition, the torches of cleanup crews produced more residue during the clean-up process. Nothing there to indicate pre-planted explosives nor thermite, which is not an explosive.

That is just another case where people, who are unaware of the rest of he story, pulling conspiracy stories out of thin air.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 14 February 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

...and way too high to be caused by jetfuel and gravity.

Not too high for welding crews during the construction of the WTC buildings nor cleanup crews using torches during the cleanup process.

[skyeagle409]

flyingswan, on 14 February 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Depends which primer you test.  This one gives a good match:
http://oystein-debat...e-standard.html

The primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 February 2013 - 04:46 PM.

[Q24]

flyingswan, on 14 February 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

After some five years of me trying to explain this to you, what you fail to show any appreciation of is the probabilities involved in going from the "best estimate" to "severe" cases.  You use words like "astronomical odds" and "fantasy" and "not within the bounds of reality", when what you should be saying is "a little less probable, but well within the expected margins".

And after five years you still show hopeless incomprehension of such a simple argument that we have been over in excruciating detail.  Honestly, I don’t think anyone can be that stupid.  I think you are just trying to blag your way through and deliberately confuse the issue – I’m sure you take some sort of pleasure from it.

When I say “not within the bounds of reality” it is not even an argument reliant on probabilities as you seem to think.  It is simply a note that the damage sustained in NIST’s severe case model was greater than the damage seen in reality on 9/11.  It’s as simple as that.  Once the simulated level of damage exceeded the actual damage on 9/11, then the simulation becomes the realm of fantasy, not a reality of 9/11.  How do you fail to grasp such a simple argument over and over?

As for the rest, it’s not my problem that you are hopeless or deliberately feigning ignorance of probability theory.  It is not the individual variables or their parameters that are a problem or provide a great swing in probability.  No.  It is when we adjust seven, eight, or nine variables all at once, specifically in one direction to favour collapse, that the probability begins that march toward astronomical.  It’s like tossing a straight seven, eight or nine heads in a row on a coin... but I know you could not even grasp the probabilities involved at that basic level.

Ah well, I don’t think there will be any spark of comprehension in you at this stage, not from someone who has a personal preference against the conclusion.  At least I had you admit that NIST demonstrated each tower was more likely to remain standing than to collapse.  I’ll accept that's as far as I'm going to get with you, take that victory and leave it there.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 14 February 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

Of course, a correctly planned demolition setup would produce the results 100% of the time.  Indeed, even forgetting the heavily tilted odds, that is what a large body of additional evidence and circumstance indicate occurred.

In the case of 911, there is no evidence that explosives were used.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 14 February 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

At least I had you admit that NIST demonstrated each tower was more likely to remain standing than to collapse.  I’ll accept that's as far as I'm going to get with you, take that victory and leave it there.

The WTC buildings remained standing after the initial impacts, however, fire spelled disaster for WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, which resulted in the collapse of those buildings.