Originally posted by exponent
I don't understand what you are saying in this paragraph. You acknowledge that the high heat output was for calibration, but make it seem as if NIST
changed their mind?
No? They data from the "calibration" was 100% legitimate but didn't match the amount of heat they assumed had to be present across a whole floor
for a collapse to initiate. And they've also stated in their own FAQs that they disagree with pancake theory and find it unlikely that all the
trusses on a given floor would fail at the same instant. Can you show me where they reconciled either of those contradictory admissions with their
They did not, but here is the link you will need to learn about their fire simulation:
Yes, those are the same tests. Funny none of that data was evidence for their final hypothesis, but just used to calibrate further computer
simulations with elevated parameters, isn't it? Oh, no wait, you think that's a legitimate application of the scientific method.
Originally posted by bsbray11
You said you don't think NIST could have done a better job with their investigation.
All I said: prove it.
You are having such a hard time with this.
Is it surprising I am having a hard time?
You are claiming it is impossible to prove they couldn't have done a better job. I think you're right. No disagreement about that from me.
I am not even foolish enough to attempt it without pointing this out, I also have to point out the part of your quote you apparently missed:
A formal proof or derivation is
The notion of theorem is not in general effective, therefore there may be no method by which we can always find a proof of a given sentence or
determine that none exists. The concept of natural deduction is a generalization of the concept of proof.
The statement you bolded is common sense. It doesn't change whether or not you have proven anything. Only re-confirms that not everything can be
proven. I guess this is another appeal to blind faith? This isn't church.
Backing up your claims would be the sensible thing to do. Posting crap like this, like jthomas always does, is just going to result in
60 more pages of thread.
Nothing is going to resolve this thread
Couple this with your earlier admission that your answers are just speculation and I think you're finally coming to the appropriate realization.
Yes how could materials possibly come together just after the collapse of 220 acres worth of skyscraper? Why it is as if both skyscrapers
generated significant amounts of debris containing these materials!
They did, but it's completely asinine to think they collapsed into a eutectic mixture. The aluminum was in huge sheets, not powder form. The
steel/iron was also in the form of massive columns, not powder form. Unless you are saying the dust that was caked all over everything was itself
eutectic, which would be the first time anyone has ever claimed that and I would love to see your evidence, especially based on a chemical
There was also hydrogen all through those buildings, but you're not going to tell me therefore a hydrogen bomb could have formed in the debris pile,
are you? Don't be so obtuse. You have to explain how these things came together to form a eutectic reaction specifically if your own conjecture is
even going to be able to hold water. And it's still just conjecture. That is why you have no hope answering the question yourself. I am perfectly
correct in simply stating it is still an unanswered question. Making stuff up doesn't count.
Seriously, this argument is illogical to begin with and perhaps indicative of your need for more serious care.
Pointing out the massive holes in your logic means I need serious care. Gotcha. I take that to mean, it's very painful for you to see that you
have no case after all, so you are going to lash out with personal attacks? I'm hurting right there with you buddy, me and tens of thousands of
others. Line up.
How exactly do you think the materials came together?
What, are you asking me
questions about your
Drywall was probably the most abundant material in the towers, and is primarily calcium sulphate.
Good job. Now show me where in the chemical analysis it proves that the sulfur was just drywall dust in the eutectic. The link to FEMA's analysis
is on the first page of the thread. Will be waiting... again.... forever...
Of course you want me to prove it came together, which is of course impossible.
So you don't think it's reasonable for me to believe something without evidence or proof, but on the other hand, it's fine for you to believe
something unquestioningly without any evidence or proof.
Of what use is proof to you anyway if you don't even need it to have your blind faith?
More Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt from someone who doesn't seem to require any evidence at all when making
You just said you couldn't prove your claim, now you are accusing me of not accepting evidence.
You can't keep yourself straight for 2 lines of post that are right next to each other.
And having open questions can be conceived of as "uncertainty" and "doubt," but there is certainly no fear here unless YOU are afraid of
You already admitted once that your answers were just speculation. Why do you change your tune now?
Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. Some of them were speculation, some were not.
I'm going to go ahead and say anything you can't prove with evidence, is speculation. Call me what you like.
I'm sorry, but when I pointed out you invented theories that made no sense, you seem to think they require disproving, but now you
claim this of me, and that I need to prove things. Which is it?
I never claimed you had to disprove my case. I don't even have a specific case. I am only asking positive
evidence for things, to resolve
the 20 questions. Haven't gotten any of it. The fact that I'm only playing offense kills
you, doesn't it?
I believe we do know what really happened
I know what you believe
the evidence strongly favours it.
Yeah, the evidence you can never produce. Right.
If I'm a Truther, then you're a Nazi. If you get to make up your own rules, so do I.
I had no idea you were such an offensive human being. I'll be reporting this of course.
I wish I could do the same for you calling me a "truther" repeatedly, but no mods will hear it.
Right, none of that makes any sense to me either but I have no more faith in your competence just because you realize something I
figured out on my own when I was 10. No offense to Christians, believe what you want.
None of it makes any sense but you figured it out on your own? You are losing the ability to even write a coherent paragraph.
You mean you're now losing your ability to read, too? I'll let you use your "context clues" to figure this brain-stretcher out.
Derogatory is not Discrimination. They are two different words meaning two different things.
That's like saying a racist word is derogatory but doesn't discriminate.
I have never used 'twoofer' except in this context.
Then you admit you only use the term to be derogative. Just like when I call you a Nazi. But no, seriously, Nazis are good people too!... (not..)
Like I said, that's akin to someone claiming that atheists push the christian label on people who hold christian beliefs.
Not at all the same. I don't have a "belief" here. I am asking for evidence
. If that puts me in any derogative group, then you need to
reconsider where your own priorities lie. Defending your ego, or defending truth?
Who says the building is supposed to be doing work? NIST certainly doesn't, I certainly haven't, could it be you are inventing criteria for
In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance.
Thanks again for demonstrating you do not understand the basic physics we are discussing.
Now you take your inability to answer my questions as me putting on like I'm better than everybody else I guess. No, my understanding
of 9/11 is just better than yours.
I very much doubt that, why is it you are unaware of the answers to your questions if your knowledge is so vast?
I didn't say my knowledge was "vast," only that it's better than yours. The reason is because I realize these questions have not been answered.
You have blind faith in speculation and conjecture. I consider that ignorant.
So let me get this straight. You are unable to answer a simple 25 element problem to any greater accuracy than a 20% variation, but you
somehow expect NIST to be able to simulate a 47 storey office building
One is a real-life problem, the other is not. Again, you intentionally made that circuit problem with ridiculous tolerances. Setting up your own
pins to knock down. You have not shown how your example relates to the same margins of error NIST would have had to work with, going off structural
[edit on 10-11-2009 by bsbray11]