Thermate may be more effective at cutting through steel, but that does not change the mechanism it uses, which is an extremely high temperature
attack. Evidence of which was not found by FEMA or NIST. What is the lowest reaction temperature you can find for a thermate mix?
FEMA notes that the steel had only been exposed to about 1000 C, which they describe as significantly lower than what would be expected to melt that
steel. The point is to destroy the steel before it is to achieve a high temperature. The steel
was destroyed for any structural purpose.
Compared to the government reports it's a hell of a lot more convincing.
When you claim that a satirical theory is more convincing than years of research and experimentation then it is hard to take you seriously.
"Years of research and experimentation"? By who, again?..
If those columns were so destroyed, why did the acceleration take a while to reach free fall?
LaBTop just posted a thread with a theory on this actually. It's on the ATS home page at the moment, or here's a link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Either way the free-fall acceleration period is equally damning, regardless of what was before and after it. It's the instantaneous values during
that period that prove no work was being done during the same period, and therefore no "progressive collapse."
Anyway this whole paragraph can essentially be boiled down to 'There's no good evidence for individual bits but I'm so suspicious that the
suggestion of evidence is enough to convince me'.
It's not just a "suggestion of evidence" when we can offer one theory, say, for explosions, that they were caused by some kind of explosive or bomb,
and those explosions are immediately direct evidence for that, but then someone comes back with "it must have been something else causing those
explosions" with
no other credible alternative to offer. I've seen transformer excuses and people hitting the ground and the rest and they
just don't add up when you look at all the evidence of explosions. Same with the violent ejections of debris during the collapses, WTC7's free-fall
acceleration, all of those little things that are direct evidence of demolition and
not direct evidence of any other possibility.
I apologise if this is insulting, but this is my interpretation of that paragraph.
No, actually I was thinking "oh, great..." when you said you'd been drinking, but I actually think your tone is more pleasant and reasonable in this
post ironically enough. You've got me curious. Beer? Wine? Let's see, you're in the UK... New Castle?
Science is not done by aggregating suspicion, if you can't provide a unified theory (it doesn't have to fill every last detail, just any of
the major details) then you can't claim to have a more reliable theory.
I explained above why in my view demolition theory
does explain all these details much better than NIST's theory does. NIST ignores the
explosions completely and only offers and off-the-cuff explanation of the explosive ejections, not acknowledging the solid dust and debris that came
out with the air, and didn't offer any reconciliation at all for how WTC7 could have been doing work while simultaneously accelerating at
free-fall.
Haha impressive, Godwin's and FUD in the same paragraph. I guess you have realised that it's pretty hard to pay off every member of a private
company and keep them quiet!
The last emotion I feel towards all of this is fear, and it's a historical fact that the Nazis were able to do what they did very successfully on a
very large scale despite their own public, and despite Godwin's musings. You know we actually brought over Nazi propagandists after WW2, and their
rocket scientists too, and employed them. I only wish I were making this stuff up.
I know that NIST never validated their experiments to your satisfaction
Or at all, even.
but you've yet to even present the experiment they should have used
It was their theory, that the trusses sagged and pulled in the perimeter columns. If they were depending on me to come up with their experimental
setup for them, then I must have missed their phone calls and letters.
Are you saying it would have been impossible to recreate NIST's hypothesis with a single truss and perimeter column section? Do you have a reason why
this should be the case? If this is the case, then since each truss was independently connected to its respective perimeter section anyway, it would
mean NIST's entire theory is impossible right off the bat.
Again, all he was showing was how incompetent you "debunkers" are when you make up these off-the-cuff excuses with no scientific merit
whatsoever.
In that case the video is especially ironic.
I take that as a back-handed way of admitting the theory being tested wasn't even worth testing in the first place. I agree. Many JREF'ers probably
wouldn't have, and still don't.
Oh and now the goalposts shift after I show you NIST themselves admitting they never looked.
For fun, lets see if you can find and post why NIST didn't test. They do explain it 
Because a dog ate their homework?
Their pre-determined conclusion is self-obvious from the fact that they never investigated anything else, never had any interest in
investigating anything else, and said as much themselves.
So if anyone investigating starts with the most likely theory according to available evidence, then that's proof they started with no intent to ever
consider alternative theories?
No, the fact that they never
did consider other possibilities is. Especially coupled with the fact that what they
did pursue wasn't
rigorously demonstrated by any stretch of the term.
And I remind you that you still haven't shown me where they ever tested their main hypothesis, the main point of their entire
investigation. Because we both know they never did. And you, an "analyst," think this is science apparently.
Ironic is right. Actually more like depressing.
Depressing indeed, as you still have not managed to accept that calibration tests exist to calibrate models, not to try and demonstrate theories which
probably had not even been fully developed by that point.
That's not an excuse for
never testing them. Why didn't the trusses sag and pull the perimeter columns inward during their calibration?
Doesn't that say something?
Believing they already had their answers is circular logic, as they required these tests to produce the theory.
As soon as they did this "calibration test" and realizing there was no pulling the perimeter columns inward when the truss became heated, I would
imagine that's when they determined they would never embarrass themselves by trying to test their hypothesis. Nothing like creating a hypothesis only
to test it and find it dead wrong.
Oh dear, so your theory that is apparently quite convincing apparently doesn't even have a basic mechanism.
The scope of the paper I referenced wasn't to determine the mechanism, only to analyze the dust and verify that what Jones was looking at was actually
there and what he said it was.
As far as I know (I am not confident in this) the most likely source of these iron microspheres is the concrete, which is partially composed of
ash which contains these microspheres. That may have been debunked though, I have been out of touch for a while.
That doesn't sound very much better than the paper you just criticized.
edit on 17-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)
