9.11 Conpiracy Probability... The Actual Article... SCIENCE!

[JohnnyK]

Man, I've gone back to a small campfire we had 48 hours later, dug into the ashes for something, and found red hot coals.. Surprised the hell out of me.

[DiggityBiggity]

Maybe it was a thermite-powered 747 :argue:

Once again, no 747 crashed into building 7

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Read the paper, before you start arguing with FACT"Biggity

Apparently you're so high up on your soap box you can't see a joke.
Besides, the article you posted doesnt just talk about building 7. Read the paper before you start arguing

Did you read the article? It does talk about Building 7.. also, as far as me not taking a joke.. I don't find this topic very funny

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Sorry it went over my head"Biggity

Diggity, as I mentioned it doesnt just talk about building 7. It also talks about 1 and 2, which by the way, planes crashed into.

What's "read the paper, before you start arguing with FACT" supposed to mean? I haven't argued with any facts here. Was that in reference the idea of a plane hitting building 7?

I'm sorry, I thought you meant it didn't mention building 7 at all.. I mis read your statement

Your concerned leader

Diggity"My apologies"Biggity

[The Dark Side of Will]

We're not arguing with FACT. We're arguing with YOU. And with your interpretation of "fact".

[The Dark Side of Will]

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Your concerned leader

Diggity"Argue the facts... not your dumb ass fucking opinion"Biggity

Ok...

"huge" is an ambiguous term, yet used repeatedly in describing bldg 7's structure.

He's all wound up about steel that, according to his quote "appears" to have been evaporated. He bases his argument and his rebuttal of the "official theory" on something that "appears" to be so... really.

He does at least admit that the molten metal may not be molten steel. It's difficult to tell when it's liquid, you see... He calls for more analysis of it. Diggity, of course, leaves this ambiguity out of his argument.

He claims that he can verify from the videos that the upper floors have not moved when the windows blow out. Really? He can see 1 inch of movement in those videos taken from hundreds of meters away? 1 inch is all it would take to break a window. Did he even calculate how much pressure it would take to break the window?

He makes much of the fact that the antenna on top of the north tower began to drop first. So what? It's an exoskeletal structure. Of course the center is going to give way first. While there may be smaller support columns (again the use of an ambiguous qualifier--enormous) in the center of the building, it was in fact an exoskeletal structure. Of couse the center is going to collapse first. This is in fact in harmony with the idea that one floor fell upon the next, shearing its mounts, which in turn fell on the floor below, etc.

He makes much of reports of explosions... again, by people who have no demolition or explosive experience. The building is falling. It's going to make loud noises. "Flashes" can be reflections of the sun from breaking glass. Did anyone on the shadow side of the building see flashes?

He generally makes much of the testimony of eye witnesses who give lots of details. The details given by an eye witness are not necessarily reliable in all cases, as the brain can easily fabricate details where in fact there were none. (If a 1000 foot building is falling in front of you, are you going to watch it fall or run for your life?)

He thinks it's reasonable that severing columns in the basement will bring the antenna at the top of the tower down first, despite the fact that the structure in between is heavily damaged. Say what? This is just silly. He also never seems to have gotten the memo that these buildings are EXOSKELETAL. The center columns amount to a hill of beans compared to the skin.

He finally mentions the peripheral beams, but is still stuck on the core beams. If there are 240 peripheral beams and 47 core beams, which ones provide more support? His information on the construction of the towers is flawed.

He answers the idea that the burning jet fuel weakened the structure by saying "Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC."... Really? I sure am glad he wrote that sentence with NO ANALYSIS WHATSOEVER. That's almost the only sentence about the jet fuel. Clearly he has not given this much thought.

He makes much of the fact that the steel samples tested had not reached 600C... so what? Were any of them on the floors affected by the jet fuel? We have no way of knowing where they were. The girders and individual large pieces of steel used were marked with origin, location in building, etc. but he does not mention these items of information, so we must assume that he knows nothing of them.

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing"
Again, so what? Because a good bit of the exterior of the building was ripped away, the columns were exposed to CONSIDERABLY MORE than their design load.

He emphasizes the quoted material that supports his ideas, de-emphasizes the rest. For instance, why is " In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces." not in bold? It doesn't support his hypothesis. Sentences both immediately above and below this one ARE in bold, however. This sentence is effectively de-emphasized.

There's a whole lot of generally poor treatment of pretty much everything. He's making much out of little. I can see why Diggity likes this guy... they think alike... Rigorous treatment is optional. Proof is supplied by quoting everyone else...

[Series8217]

I'm sorry, I thought you meant it didn't mention building 7 at all.. I mis read your statement

Your concerned leader

Diggity"My apologies"Biggity

Ahh, I gotcha. Thanks Diggity :thumbleft: