It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Video Nullfies Pancake/CD Theory

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Again. I don't have to know how it was done to see the effects.

If you see the effects but choose to ignore them because you cant explain them

But I can explain them. What we see is steel vanishing behind a cloud of dust.

When the options are
  • Unknown mystical technology violating fundamental laws
  • Dust

I know which one I would pick. Your explanation for 'debunking' dust is that it 'would have all fallen off already'. Yet this doesn't seem to be the case anywhere but in your head and you've presented nothing but your opinion to back it up.


Just because I DONT KNOW does not equate to UNKNOWN.

see how your logic falls down again.
edit on 18-5-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

Yeeaaaahh those actually do mean the same thing. You don't know and there's no knowledge of any similar effect anywhere. Pretty much both match nicely.


Yes because your magically appearing dust cloud ( that just happens to be the same color and shape as the steel beams) is a much more rational explainaion.

Let me point it how this works. So far the "os" side has come up with 3 explanations.

Dust falling off (busted)

Fireproofing falling off (busted)

Magical dust cloud ( um yea ok.)

And my story (and explanation and evidence) has never changed.

So which one of use if more likely using whatever it takes to make some kind of explainion stick.

And which one is telling the truth.

I would suggest you get your "os" side in a huddle and come back with which ever story you are going to stick with so I can show you why its wrong .

Then you can cone over without shame.

Eta what is with the terrible comprehension...again.

I do not know (I Jeremiah Taylor do not know rebuild an engine)

Unknown. ( It is unknown how to rebuild an engine)

see how you are wrong

You don't know ( you exponent do not know the mechanism of the wtc towers collapse)

Therefore the mechanism didn't exist (although you ca. See the results).

Please read before you type


edit on 18-5-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 18 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Yes because your magically appearing dust cloud ( that just happens to be the same color and shape as the steel beams) is a much more rational explainaion.

Right exactly. There was an incredible amount of dust in those buildings and even before we count in concrete, drywall alone is sufficient. You'd expect dust coating steel to be in the same shape, and the steel is silhouetted so there's no real identifiable colour.


Let me point it how this works. So far the "os" side has come up with 3 explanations.

Dust falling off (busted)

Fireproofing falling off (busted)

These are things you have decided are busted because 'it would all have fallen off'. That to me does not say 'busted'.


And my story (and explanation and evidence) has never changed.

What evidence? You don't have any, you can't even describe what you're proposing.


see how you are wrong

Considering I explained what you repeated, no.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut

Yes because your magically appearing dust cloud ( that just happens to be the same color and shape as the steel beams) is a much more rational explainaion.

Let me point it how this works. So far the "os" side has come up with 3 explanations.

Dust falling off (busted)

Fireproofing falling off (busted)

Magical dust cloud ( um yea ok.)

And my story (and explanation and evidence) has never changed.

So which one of use if more likely using whatever it takes to make some kind of explainion stick.

And which one is telling the truth.

I would suggest you get your "os" side in a huddle and come back with which ever story you are going to stick with so I can show you why its wrong .

Then you can cone over without shame.




Facts:

Almost all of the steel in WTC 1 & 2 were covered with spray on fireproofing.

After the collapse almost none of the steel was covered with spray on fireproofing.

Spray on fireproofing will turn in to white dust.

Steel will not turn into white dust.

Conclusion:

The white dust seen coming off of the core columns is most likely fireproofing dust.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Yes because your magically appearing dust cloud ( that just happens to be the same color and shape as the steel beams) is a much more rational explainaion.

Right exactly. There was an incredible amount of dust in those buildings and even before we count in concrete, drywall alone is sufficient. You'd expect dust coating steel to be in the same shape, and the steel is silhouetted so there's no real identifiable colour.


Let me point it how this works. So far the "os" side has come up with 3 explanations.

Dust falling off (busted)

Fireproofing falling off (busted)

These are things you have decided are busted because 'it would all have fallen off'. That to me does not say 'busted'.


And my story (and explanation and evidence) has never changed.

What evidence? You don't have any, you can't even describe what you're proposing.


see how you are wrong

Considering I explained what you repeated, no.



Yes now you went from dust cloud to the stuck on dust again.

Look at the videos. The wind was blowing the pulverized concrete from the towers away from the core .

That's why we get a clear shot of the "dustifying"

So we have a good cross wind.

We have clear evidence of the spire swaying many tens of feet. With no obvious dust falling.

But at the moment of most resistance all of your "dust " jumps off into the wind? As the core "falls"In On itself?

Now show me how dust sticks to swaying iron in a stiff breeze .



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by Another_Nut

Yes because your magically appearing dust cloud ( that just happens to be the same color and shape as the steel beams) is a much more rational explainaion.

Let me point it how this works. So far the "os" side has come up with 3 explanations.

Dust falling off (busted)

Fireproofing falling off (busted)

Magical dust cloud ( um yea ok.)

And my story (and explanation and evidence) has never changed.

So which one of use if more likely using whatever it takes to make some kind of explainion stick.

And which one is telling the truth.

I would suggest you get your "os" side in a huddle and come back with which ever story you are going to stick with so I can show you why its wrong .

Then you can cone over without shame.




Facts:

Almost all of the steel in WTC 1 & 2 were covered with spray on fireproofing.

After the collapse almost none of the steel was covered with spray on fireproofing.

Spray on fireproofing will turn in to white dust.

Steel will not turn into white dust.

Conclusion:

The white dust seen coming off of the core columns is most likely fireproofing dust.


I seeyou not only dont read but also don't comprehend.

in order for this brittle fireproofing to be on that steel when it falls it has to survive both the

Collapse of the building (remember brittle stuff here)

and the swaying of the spire ( being brittle)

Only to fall off when the spire falls down.

Sounds silly just saying it. And it should sound silly typing it

Eta "fact ....steel does not turn into white dust"

Link please . Otherwise I will just assume u made that up to make your conclusion seem plausable.


edit on 18-5-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut posted by Another_Nut

I seeyou not only dobt read but also don't comprehend.


Well you dobt make it easy to comprehend.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
I seeyou not only dont read but also don't comprehend.

in order for this brittle fireproofing to be on that steel when it falls it has to survive both the

Collapse of the building (remember brittle stuff here)

and the swaying of the spire ( being brittle)

Only to fall off when the spire falls down.

Sounds silly just saying it. And it should sound silly typing it

It only sounds silly to you. It doesn't sound at all silly to me that the collapse produces a bunch of dust that isn't entirely removed by swaying.

I think we've hit the root of your problem really. You believe that some mythical technology using an unknown effect is somehow more plausible than dust falling onto surfaces.

I can't continue with this conversation.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
I seeyou not only dont read but also don't comprehend.

in order for this brittle fireproofing to be on that steel when it falls it has to survive both the

Collapse of the building (remember brittle stuff here)

and the swaying of the spire ( being brittle)

Only to fall off when the spire falls down.

Sounds silly just saying it. And it should sound silly typing it

It only sounds silly to you. It doesn't sound at all silly to me that the collapse produces a bunch of dust that isn't entirely removed by swaying.

I think we've hit the root of your problem really. You believe that some mythical technology using an unknown effect is somehow more plausible than dust falling onto surfaces.

I can't continue with this conversation.


of course you cant . You have only told me its dust .

I have told you why I think that is incorrect using logic.

You have responded with ridicule and unsound reasoning and logic.

Hell you refuse to accept the fact that because I dont know that doesn't make something unknown( ty for the compliment though) and the Same for you. Because you don't know of something means nothing to the accual existence of that something.

So please before you go explain why/how you think this brittle fireproofing survived the collapse and the swaying (with no dust seen) and why it picked the exact moment to jump off.

You say it's not silly to assume the fireproofing would stay on through collapse and swaying . What you haven't said is why.
edit on 18-5-2013 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Adding design requirements for resisting progressive collapse has been a hot topic in the structural world since before the NIST report was released. The collapse of the WTC towers changed the way buildings were built the world over.
In which way? There are still steel frame towers being erected, tubular designs being used, floors being hung between core and perimeter. If it was a flaw unique to the WTC - and the BOK Tower, of course, everybody seems to ignore this little sibling of the Twins and my mentioning it every two or three posts - surely, there would be the ONE thing (or combination of things) every student of architecture would be warned NEVER to do. Which is it?

you do realise that a FoS > 3 would probably make your bid for the contract so expensive it would never be accepted? How could you justify it?
I heard 2-4 is standard. I heard rumors about the Twins having an FoS > 4, even a solid 10 was being quoted once somewhere, because this stuff has never been done before and they wanted to be better safe than sorry. You know, nearby airport, cold war, B-25 vs. Empire State, a century of experience in high-rise architecture and so on. I'd love to hear the opinion of an expert on this.


You say the towers were as good as a tower could get, you better get everyone out of the vicinity of any skyscraper and CD them right now
For what it's worth, as an amateur and also a 'debunker'. I don't think the towers were as good as a tower could get. If it were designed these days there are already specific improvements that could have saved large numbers of lives. Primarily a concrete armoured core to hold standpipes and stairwells.
Debunked already, in this very thread.

If sprinkler systems had worked the towers might even have survived.
Debunked already, in this very thread.


Bazant's work predates 911 by a long time. He's had a distinguished career and you can't really indict him because he disagrees with someone.
He didn't even get his math right. He's pancaking the hell out of the building by stacking the weight of three towers on top of them, mathematically. Any high school student would get an F for his "Why did the WTC collapse" and "Mechanics of progressive collapse" (Bazant/Zhou, Bazant/Verdure). If you disagree with Newton, you better have a really good reason. All he can say is "collapse was inevitable" again and again; not one word about the uniqueness of the WTC design or a flaw in the design - his calculation would apply to any structure - what kind of expert is he, and why does the NIST rely on is "inevitability" theory and skip the collapse progresse with a footnote saying it's all been proven by him? Again, this is unrefutable evidence that every attempt to explain the collapse or to pinpoint the mechanism responsible for the demise of the Twins without CD, black tech, ID4 alien energy beams or a rope ripping the telescope down is intended to result in endless arguments, vague estimations and wild assertions because the participants can't even agree on the laws of physics and basics of architectural engineering.

Now to the arguments between Another_Nut and exponent.

What is actually in dispute is the mechanism by which steel can be disintegrated. There's no way known to do this without having to input the same amount of energy as you would heating steel to boiling point.
I don't understand this sort of thinking. On the one hand, flying a plane into the tower would release the energy needed to bring the structure down. On the other hand, it is unthinkable that with some effort and latest technology steel molecules could be shaken to such a degree that their bonds break up.

And I have a objection to the argument that this black tech would be incomprehensible to our feeble minds: most of us have had a small-scale version of it in their homes for decades. They call it micro-wave oven and know under which circumstance they would want to start it while their favourite DVD is in it. They know better than to leave their spoon in the soup plate. The basics of bundling and directing a ray of electromagnetic waves aren't black magic either, cathode ray tubes (a.k.a. tv and monitors) have done this for years.

WIth this in mind, it's easy to see for anyone with all three eyes wide open the 9/11 incident as a vulgar demonstration of power by forces other than those in the White House, a message to be understood by forces other than those in front of their T.V. sets.
edit on 19-5-2013 by Akareyon because: and

edit on 19-5-2013 by Akareyon because: microwaves, electromagnetic waves and so on.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Akareyon
 


amen.

I would like to say that ,although it may have seemed that way, I think the tech used doesn't have to be incomprehensible to us.

Just that we havent seen it publicly.

I think you are spot on.

and now to go way out there and live up to my screen name.

i think 9/11 was a takeover by an a.i. (long story)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
In which way? There are still steel frame towers being erected, tubular designs being used, floors being hung between core and perimeter.

Are there floors being hung in the same way still? I'm not immediately aware of any. NIST made a number of recommendations, some of which were accepted well and some of which were somewhat contentious (designing to resist progressive collapse has sparked a lot of debate)


surely, there would be the ONE thing (or combination of things) every student of architecture would be warned NEVER to do. Which is it

The major problem with the towers was the fireproofing. This isn't really an architectural thing directly.


I heard 2-4 is standard. I heard rumors about the Twins having an FoS > 4, even a solid 10 was being quoted once somewhere, because this stuff has never been done before and they wanted to be better safe than sorry

I also 'heard' that truthers just make up numbers and spread them around to confirm their own theories. Some safety factors were quite high, such as floor live load. Column dead load though? Some were beyond their design requirements before the impact even occurred.


You know, nearby airport, cold war, B-25 vs. Empire State, a century of experience in high-rise architecture and so on. I'd love to hear the opinion of an expert on this.

There have been several experts post both here and at JREF detailing how they design and construct these buildings.



Primarily a concrete armoured core to hold standpipes and stairwells.

Debunked already, in this very thread

You didn't even read my post. How can you debunk my opinion?



If sprinkler systems had worked the towers might even have survived.

Debunked already, in this very thread.

How can you debunk a hypothetical scenario? Are you capable of time travel?


He didn't even get his math right. He's pancaking the hell out of the building by stacking the weight of three towers on top of them, mathematically

No, no he isn't. His initial mass estimates were quite high, but they have little bearing on collapse time or totality.


Any high school student would get an F for his "Why did the WTC collapse" and "Mechanics of progressive collapse" (Bazant/Zhou, Bazant/Verdure).

This is ridiculous. You're referring to peer reviewed papers, published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by an ISI Highly Cited Scientist. You're basically just slandering him here without any backing.


If you disagree with Newton, you better have a really good reason. All he can say is "collapse was inevitable" again and again; not one word about the uniqueness of the WTC design or a flaw in the design - his calculation would apply to any structure - what kind of expert is he

Nothing Bazant did or said disagrees with newton. You have been duped. Bazant is a Structural Engineering expert with decades of experience and many awards to his name. Dismissing him as an errant high school student is just wishful thinking.


why does the NIST rely on is "inevitability" theory and skip the collapse progresse with a footnote saying it's all been proven by him?

Because NISTs job is to prevent buildings collapsing, not stop them collapsing half way.


Again, this is unrefutable evidence that every attempt to explain the collapse or to pinpoint the mechanism responsible for the demise of the Twins without CD, black tech, ID4 alien energy beams or a rope ripping the telescope down is intended to result in endless arguments, vague estimations and wild assertions because the participants can't even agree on the laws of physics and basics of architectural engineering.

Indeed, because experts are thought to be useless and whatever you personally feel must be right. You're wrong.


I don't understand this sort of thinking. On the one hand, flying a plane into the tower would release the energy needed to bring the structure down. On the other hand, it is unthinkable that with some effort and latest technology steel molecules could be shaken to such a degree that their bonds break up.

We have this technology. It's called a furnace. I didn't see any steel boiling on 911 or any gigantic enclosed heater so I think we can be safe in saying the steel did not boil.


WIth this in mind, it's easy to see for anyone with all three eyes wide open the 9/11 incident as a vulgar demonstration of power by forces other than those in the White House, a message to be understood by forces other than those in front of their T.V. sets.

Except what you're talking about is science fiction. Driven by TV watching and a fear of understanding reality. The ultimate irony is that you are more brainwashed than you know and so you've lost the ability to even understand basic scientific principles.

How very sad for you.
edit on 19/5/13 by exponent because: (no reason given)

edit on 19/5/13 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by Akareyon
 
amen.
I would like to say that ,although it may have seemed that way, I think the tech used doesn't have to be incomprehensible to us.
Just that we havent seen it publicly.

You realise that the scientific method is not "speculate until you find something that personally suits you, believe that forever" right? You're literally advocating abandoning the scientific method in exchange for speculating until you agree with each other.


I think you are spot on.
and now to go way out there and live up to my screen name.
i think 9/11 was a takeover by an a.i. (long story)

I think you need to seek some help. AIs are also TV show science fiction and there's not even any evidence that such a thing is possible.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
reply to post by Akareyon
 
amen.
I would like to say that ,although it may have seemed that way, I think the tech used doesn't have to be incomprehensible to us.
Just that we havent seen it publicly.

You realise that the scientific method is not "speculate until you find something that personally suits you, believe that forever" right? You're literally advocating abandoning the scientific method in exchange for speculating until you agree with each other.


I think you are spot on.
and now to go way out there and live up to my screen name.
i think 9/11 was a takeover by an a.i. (long story)

I think you need to seek some help. AIs are also TV show science fiction and there's not even any evidence that such a thing is possible.


Are you for real?

So far all you have done is say

"your wrong"

You think that if it's unknown to you it doesn't exist.

That is extremely faulty logic.

So you know a.i. Doesn't exist? Please link that

So you know where to get some of this magic sticky dust you claim was somewhere around the spire. Link please

So you know that no mechanism exists that turn steel to dust? Link please.

See you have refuted nothing. Just your opinion that something doesn't exist because you don't know about it.

Time to wake up. and understand that YOU don't know everything.

And yes there are thing UNKNOWN to us both.

But it's easier for you to rulidicule those that dont share your ( faulty) reasoning.

So please either refute my claims that the dust (or fireproofing whichever you decide to dub it today) was not attached to the core .

Please make sure to explain how this fireproofing (or dust) stayed attached to the spire through collapse ,wind,and swaying. (please remember that this is brittle stuff that gets knocked off easily)

Now will you answer or just ridicule again



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Are you for real?

So far all you have done is say

"your wrong"

You think that if it's unknown to you it doesn't exist.

That is extremely faulty logic.

No no, I think that unless I have some evidence of something existing, it doesn't exist. That isn't faulty logic, that's called science. That's how the scientific method works.


So you know a.i. Doesn't exist? Please link that

You can't prove a negative. There's no evidence AI of any intelligent form exists in even a rudimentary state. Therefore i don't believe it exists. Evidence


So you know where to get some of this magic sticky dust you claim was somewhere around the spire. Link please

That would be dust. Doesn't need to be sticky to cover everything remotely close to Ground Zero. Happy to provide you with pictures of inch thick dust covering the ground.


So you know that no mechanism exists that turn steel to dust? Link please.

Once again, can't prove a negative. You claim it exists, but don't even know how it works and can't tell me anything about it other than 'it might exist'. That ain't science.


Time to wake up. and understand that YOU don't know everything.

And yes there are thing UNKNOWN to us both.

Except you don't know anything about what you're discussing. You can't tell me names, methods, actions, technologies, positions, anything. It's just 'I think steel disintegrated, therefore it definitely disintegrated'.

Utter nonsense. Not science.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
Are you for real?

So far all you have done is say

"your wrong"

You think that if it's unknown to you it doesn't exist.

That is extremely faulty logic.

No no, I think that unless I have some evidence of something existing, it doesn't exist. That isn't faulty logic, that's called science. That's how the scientific method works.


So you know a.i. Doesn't exist? Please link that

You can't prove a negative. There's no evidence AI of any intelligent form exists in even a rudimentary state. Therefore i don't believe it exists. Evidence


So you know where to get some of this magic sticky dust you claim was somewhere around the spire. Link please

That would be dust. Doesn't need to be sticky to cover everything remotely close to Ground Zero. Happy to provide you with pictures of inch thick dust covering the ground.


So you know that no mechanism exists that turn steel to dust? Link please.

Once again, can't prove a negative. You claim it exists, but don't even know how it works and can't tell me anything about it other than 'it might exist'. That ain't science.


Time to wake up. and understand that YOU don't know everything.

And yes there are thing UNKNOWN to us both.

Except you don't know anything about what you're discussing. You can't tell me names, methods, actions, technologies, positions, anything. It's just 'I think steel disintegrated, therefore it definitely disintegrated'.

Utter nonsense. Not science.


So I was right . You cant refute my claims ( which are backed up by the visual evidence)

Instead you come back with " im right ,your wrong"

Where is your science? Where is your evidence?

A.i. Is in the works pubilcy. So why cant it be well beyond what we know in the black world?

Same with scalar waves and frequency. Publicly working on it .but what about that black world?

Now again I ask stop with the ridicule and start with the answer.

The fact you point me to dust on the ground at ground zero shows that im right and dust falls off of things it doent stick to swaying steeel

Keep trying.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
So I was right . You cant refute my claims ( which are backed up by the visual evidence)

Instead you come back with " im right ,your wrong"

You're right, I can't refute guesses. Your 'visual evidence' is your guess. You have no actual evidence whatsoever.


Where is your science? Where is your evidence?

Where are my claims? When I make one, I back it up with evidence. In this case you're saying that evidence isn't needed, but then you complain that I am not providing it. That's pretty hypocritical.


A.i. Is in the works pubilcy. So why cant it be well beyond what we know in the black world?

Because you need evidence to make a claim like that. Teleporters are also in the works, but you wouldn't believe me if I said they teleported the WTC towers into the ocean would you? There's more evidence for that than steel disintegration.


Same with scalar waves and frequency. Publicly working on it .but what about that black world?

There's no such thing. You've been duped by pseudoscience sites.


Now again I ask stop with the ridicule and start with the answer.

The fact you point me to dust on the ground at ground zero shows that im right and dust falls off of things it doent stick to swaying steeel

Keep trying.

So let me get this right. If you have anything with dust on it, and it moves, then there's no dust on it. Is that what you're telling me? Despite inches of dust covering acres of space, somehow it couldn't possibly land on these columns.

This is what you're saying, that you know authoritatively how dust behaves after an unprecedented building collapse, because the alternative is technology you can't explain in any way whatsoever.

Absolute.
Nonsense.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
The major problem with the towers was the fireproofing. This isn't really an architectural thing directly.
Sounds reasonable: a good paint job would have saved the towers from crumbling down within seconds.

I also 'heard' that truthers just make up numbers and spread them around to confirm their own theories.
...and then they go and edit scientific Wikipedia articles just to prove their point in forum discussions because they're all banned from the official 9/11 Attacks article, right? ;-)

Some safety factors were quite high, such as floor live load. Column dead load though? Some were beyond their design requirements before the impact even occurred.
Obviously. However, when I say that I'm a paranoid lunatic conspiracy theorist.

You didn't even read my post. How can you debunk my opinion?
I've given examples for steel-frame skyscrapers built after 2001.

How can you debunk a hypothetical scenario? Are you capable of time travel?
Logical thinking is the word you were looking for.


He didn't even get his math right. He's pancaking the hell out of the building by stacking the weight of three towers on top of them, mathematically

No, no he isn't. His initial mass estimates were quite high, but they have little bearing on collapse time or totality.
I was not talking about the initial mass estimates, but his mathematical line of argument.


Any high school student would get an F for his "Why did the WTC collapse" and "Mechanics of progressive collapse" (Bazant/Zhou, Bazant/Verdure).
This is ridiculous.
If you say so.

You're referring to peer reviewed papers, published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics by an ISI Highly Cited Scientist.
Doesn't make my knees tremble or brain stop.

You're basically just slandering him here
I wouldn't if I hadn't given him the opportunity to explain what the heck he was thinking and if he hadn't answered the way he did.

without any backing.
I call to the witness stand Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei and Archimedes of Syracuse.

Nothing Bazant did or said disagrees with newton.
Except that collapse was inevitable and that the upper floors could crush one floor and free-fall one floor at the same time.

Bazant is a Structural Engineering expert with decades of experience and many awards to his name.
That's impressive!
Who am I to question his authority?

Dismissing him as an errant high school student is just wishful thinking.
And if I accused him of Lysenkoism, would that be more precise?


why does the NIST rely on is "inevitability" theory and skip the collapse progresse with a footnote saying it's all been proven by him?
Because NISTs job is to prevent buildings collapsing, not stop them collapsing half way.
Would be a good start though, leaving some time for firemen and occupants to leave the building before it sinters them in a matter of seconds.

We have this technology. It's called a furnace. I didn't see any steel boiling on 911 or any gigantic enclosed heater so I think we can be safe in saying the steel did not boil.
YOU didn't see, so WE can be safe... and YOU accuse ME of not reading your posts? You're the one who doesn't read what his fingers are typing, methinks. No, wait, you're just trying to derail the discussion. You're all upset and angry and try to provoke me, right? Don't worry, I'm fine :-)


WIth this in mind, it's easy to see for anyone with all three eyes wide open the 9/11 incident as a vulgar demonstration of power by forces other than those in the White House, a message to be understood by forces other than those in front of their T.V. sets.

Except what you're talking about is science fiction.
Sure. As are other directed energy beam weapons, microwave stunners, laser cannons, mech armor, robotic soldiers... welcome to the future :-)

Driven by TV watching
Yeah, me driven by TV watching, right...

and a fear of understanding reality.
Omnis mundi creatura quasi liber et pictura nobis est, et speculum!

The ultimate irony is that you are more brainwashed than you know
I swear my brain is soaked in the mud and dirt of cruel reality

and so you've lost the ability to even understand basic scientific principles.
I'm glad you think I once had that wonderful ability you're talking of.

Now if you would calm down and chill out a bit, we could continue this fruitful discussion without baseless accusations and continue a civilised debate about how CD, pancaking, gravity, black tech or the lack of spray paint fireproofing could be responsible for the implosion/explosion/compression/dustification of the twins.
edit on 19-5-2013 by Akareyon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by Another_Nut
So I was right . You cant refute my claims ( which are backed up by the visual evidence)

Instead you come back with " im right ,your wrong"

You're right, I can't refute guesses. Your 'visual evidence' is your guess. You have no actual evidence whatsoever.


Where is your science? Where is your evidence?

Where are my claims? When I make one, I back it up with evidence. In this case you're saying that evidence isn't needed, but then you complain that I am not providing it. That's pretty hypocritical.


A.i. Is in the works pubilcy. So why cant it be well beyond what we know in the black world?

Because you need evidence to make a claim like that. Teleporters are also in the works, but you wouldn't believe me if I said they teleported the WTC towers into the ocean would you? There's more evidence for that than steel disintegration.


Same with scalar waves and frequency. Publicly working on it .but what about that black world?

There's no such thing. You've been duped by pseudoscience sites.


Now again I ask stop with the ridicule and start with the answer.

The fact you point me to dust on the ground at ground zero shows that im right and dust falls off of things it doent stick to swaying steeel

Keep trying.

So let me get this right. If you have anything with dust on it, and it moves, then there's no dust on it. Is that what you're telling me? Despite inches of dust covering acres of space, somehow it couldn't possibly land on these columns.

This is what you're saying, that you know authoritatively how dust behaves after an unprecedented building collapse, because the alternative is technology you can't explain in any way whatsoever.

Absolute.
Nonsense.


My name is Jeremiah . Im an electrician in Oklahoma city.

I come home from work weekly covered in sheetrock and various other stuff.

I can with authority say that if you want to get sheetrock dust off of you the best way is to

Go outside into a stiff wind (not hard this is Oklahoma. You know "wind comes sweeping down the plains")

And shake.( a little more disturbing than it sounds)

Wow that just so happens to be what happened to the spire.

Funny. Dust fly's off of me .

it doesn't stick to me till I stop moving and drop to the ground

Is that how dust behaves in your mind?



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akareyon
Sounds reasonable: a good paint job would have saved the towers from crumbling down within seconds.

Well no, the towers survived more than half an hour, not 'within seconds'. But yes, superior fireproofing would certainly have helped, the core would have resulted in more survival though regardless of fireproofing.


...and then they go and edit scientific Wikipedia articles just to prove their point in forum discussions because they're all banned from the official 9/11 Attacks article, right? ;-)

Have you read the talk pages? That's exactly what is done. Quite sad really.


Obviously. However, when I say that I'm a paranoid lunatic conspiracy theorist.

Are you? None of my business. Columns were overstressed before impact, that's a fact whether people dislike it or not.


I've given examples for steel-frame skyscrapers built after 2001.

Like the new WTC7? or CCTV building? I was giving my opinion, hard to debunk that lol.


Logical thinking is the word you were looking for.

Aaah so you guess that sprinklers wouldn't put out fires, therefore they wouldn't put out fires. Nice logic there, except that it's total nonsense. Sprinklers surviving could have extinguished the fires, the fires were the cause of collapse, therefore by logical inference, working sprinklers may have prevented collapse.


I was not talking about the initial mass estimates, but his mathematical line of argument.
...
I wouldn't if I hadn't given him the opportunity to explain what the heck he was thinking and if he hadn't answered the way he did.
...
I call to the witness stand Sir Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei and Archimedes of Syracuse.

So it turns out you have no actual arguments against Bazant, you just don't understand the physics therefore you feel confident in slandering him. As you have no argument, there's nothing to address.


That's impressive! Who am I to question his authority?

Pretty much.


And if I accused him of Lysenkoism, would that be more precise?

No that is more general, you have expanded the conspiracy due to your lack of evidence. That is how all conspiratorial theories work, by generalising to the point that they can speculate freely without evidence.


Would be a good start though, leaving some time for firemen and occupants to leave the building before it sinters them in a matter of seconds.

How would that be a good start? Better to prevent collapse at all, than accept the deaths of hundreds or thousands.


YOU didn't see, so WE can be safe... and YOU accuse ME of not reading your posts? You're the one who doesn't read what his fingers are typing, methinks. No, wait, you're just trying to derail the discussion. You're all upset and angry and try to provoke me, right? Don't worry, I'm fine :-)

You change your mind within a paragraph but accuse me of not reading my own words. Irony abounds.


Sure. As are other directed energy beam weapons, microwave stunners, laser cannons, mech armor, robotic soldiers... welcome to the future :-)

So because some high tech stuff exists, you feel you can just imagine whatever you want to exist and assume it does? Welcome to delusion.


Now if you would calm down and chill out a bit, we could continue this fruitful discussion without baseless accusations and continue a civilised debate about how CD, pancaking, gravity, black tech or the lack of spray paint fireproofing could be responsible for the implosion/explosion/compression/dustification of the twins.

If you think I am driven to any emotion other than pity by my posting here you are mistaken. Occasionally it's funny, but mostly I just feel sad for people who are so convinced by such ridiculous theories as beam weapons, dustification etc.

If you're willing to discuss things from a scientific perspective then I have no complaints, but so far you've dismissed one of the most cited scientists you'll ever find because you didn't like his answer, so it's hardly a cracking start.



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Another_Nut
My name is Jeremiah . Im an electrician in Oklahoma city.

I come home from work weekly covered in sheetrock and various other stuff.

I can with authority say that if you want to get sheetrock dust off of you the best way is to

Go outside into a stiff wind (not hard this is Oklahoma. You know "wind comes sweeping down the plains")

And shake.( a little more disturbing than it sounds)

Wow that just so happens to be what happened to the spire.

Ah of course! Thanks for the amazing science there. If only real scientists could understand the 'well it seems to come off me therefore i can predict conditions hundreds of feet in the air in the middle of the two largest collapses known to man'.

Wait no once again total nonsense, you've convinced yourself that you're right, and so you've picked a ridiculous fantasy theory to explain what is trivial.


Is that how dust behaves in your mind?

How many building collapses have you been in the middle of? How many times have you taken your entire stack of sheetrock and dropped it hundreds of feet?

Oh wait no you actually have zero experience of these conditions. Seriously, your logical chain is this:
  • Dust comes off me quite easily
  • Therefore it came completely off all the spire
  • Therefore the dust we clearly see can't actually be dust
  • Therefore it's steel particles
  • Therefore some technology exists that violates fundamental laws


That is a chain of inference that a child would be embarrassed about.
edit on 19/5/13 by exponent because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join