Still waiting for MIkeC to tell us what he thinks of this video. Hi Mike, I'm here till Friday - try the veal.
9-11 an INSIDE JOB?
- Thread starter Chemtrail Kook
- Start date
- Status
Still waiting for MIkeC to tell us what he thinks of this video. Hi Mike, I'm here till Friday - try the veal.
What is a 500 mph plane, if not a moving load?
You said
So I'm asking you to explain why you use that word, as I can't find any reference to columns disintegrating. What are you referring to?
I you referring to when I said:
Because if so, then I stand by that statement, but I'd take issue with your paraphrasing.
You know, for the past ten years, every time I light my wood oven, I get worried that it might explode and shower the garden with steel and concrete - you see, it goes up to 800 celsius, my little oven, and I'm worried that one day, it might, y'know, disintegrate due to the heat. Please can you give me some advice?
then all should not have disintegrated - a bit of bending and facade damage, yes - I think the key word here is 'all' - get it now? it's pretty obvious.
How many fences can you sit on at once? Your arse must hurt
What is a 500 mph plane, if not a moving load? yes, like I said, the impact was absorbed, no problem - read what you quoted.
So - do you believe the video is a true representation of what happened and that's why they produced it in that form? Yes or no? It was your evidence, after all...
Regarding the film, it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed. I think [it's quite possibly] that that is not an accurate representation of what happened. So you stand by that? I think you need to remove the wishy washy words in brackets and you're there. How do you reconcile all the different 'possibles', 'maybes' and 'seems'?
Really? and what sustained this incredibly destructive fire that a fireman said would be sorted by 'two lines', I quote. He was there, you defend the indefensible. I know what?
well?
or is your answer this: I don't know how accurate the Purdue simulation is.
or...We don't know if they were broken or not. or....
they can't tell exactly what happened.
Or: it might have happened, they just don't know exactly what happened.
Or: The point is that it actually makes physical sense.
Or: Regarding the film, it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed. I think it's quite possibly that that is not an accurate representation of what happened. ?
Do you stand by all of these?
or...We don't know if they were broken or not. or....
they can't tell exactly what happened.
Or: it might have happened, they just don't know exactly what happened.
Or: The point is that it actually makes physical sense.
Or: Regarding the film, it shows what seems to be several central columns being severed. I think it's quite possibly that that is not an accurate representation of what happened. ?
Do you stand by all of these?
and you asked me to say what I thought was wrong with it, remember? Well, I am. Keep digging.
It's very quiet in here.
MikeC, what do you think of the video?
Now you're talking it down - it's a possible of what might...it was the first piece of 'evidence' you presented. It's rubbish, admit it.
And despite all the uncertainty, you provide it as evidence? And use it to back up why the towers collapsed. Presumably you agree with the film's presentations? Why did you choose to present it?
And you keep on dodging this one....come on, what's up?
So - do you believe the video is a true representation of what happened and that's why they produced it in that form? Yes or no? It was your evidence, after all... well?
and what sustained this incredibly destructive fire that a fireman said would be sorted by 'two lines'?
I only have a limited amount of time, so I'd like to keep the discussion to the physical events.
Here's where you are getting pedantic. Of course it's not a true representation of what happened. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED.
What it is is a demonstration of what could very possibly have happened.
ok, let's try to nail it down to the one which describes best....? when you're ready...
They are physical events
building 7, torture, Bush wouldn't testify, testimony was destroyed, commission members concluded that [it] is based on government lies? crime scene[destroyed]
not physical?
not physical?
I refer you to section 8.3.4 of the NIST report:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017
Then to save time:
You will respond: "oh really, so some burning desks brought down the World Trade Center?"
And I'll say "workstations, but pretty much, they did a simulation, and that's what happened, they even burned some sample workstations to check it"
And you'll say "seriously? they toss some coke cans at a wall, and burn a desk, and you say that's your evidence"
So I'll respond "see, that's an argument from incredulity, they actually did experiments, performed calculations, worked out what would happen. But you just say it sounds wrong.
Then maybe you'll say "but what about the fireman who said it just needed two lines"?
And I'll say: "how many lines did they have?, then I'll say, "that quote was seconds before the collapse in WTC2 . The fires had nearly burnt out at that point. They had already done the damage"
Ok, I presume that's a yes, you do now think it's a fair representation of what happened. I think this 'incredulity' thing is no more than projection in a kind of reverse. You're incredulous of any alternative to the official version of events because that would be too much work; paradigm changing; Poof! there goes your view of 'how things are', and your psyche can't go there.
The fact you won't address unreg's comments reinforces what I've said here before - you don't/won't address other aspects such as political, psychological, historical (and many more)...why not? They are clearly very relevant.
Any incredulity I have with the regard to the three buildings collapsing is based on knowledge of the apparent violation of Newton's laws. If that's not about the physical, I don't know what is. That would seem like a reasonable thing to be incredulous about, don't you think? I haven't heard you mention inertia, motion etc. I haven't heard you 'debunk' Newton's theory. Why not have a go?
Incredulity?! Damn right. They did some experiments, made calculations...would they be acting under the same instructors as the EPA were when they said the air was perfectly safe despite all that asbestos floating about? Were they under the same instructors who ordered the crime scene dismantled before a proper investigation could take place? Were they acting under the auspices of the same people who, according to your version, were so incompetent that they allowed these events to happen? Were they taking instruction from the same people who allowed the President to remain in a classroom, in full public view, when the US was apparently suffering a 'surprise' attack? Were they working for the same people who fabricated 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' in Iraq? (900,000 civilians murdered, is that ok with you?). Were they appointed by the same people who appointed Zelikow as the Commission Report's editor, the friend and colleague of Condoleeza Rice - and who initially appointed Kissenger(!) to that role before he withdrew citing 'conflict of interest'? I wonder what the conflict could have been? Who were they working for? Demonstrably you fail to address any of these pertinent issues and brush them aside as not being 'physical'. Do you think they are relevant or not? Or do you choose to look the other way?
Yes, the fire had burned out because it had used all the fuel available - you got that right. They had already done the damage is where you got it all very wrong and simply are believing what you are told because you want to believe it. The alternative is too difficult to even entertain for you. Steel is a pretty good conductor of heat - and concrete isn't bad either - a lot of the heat from those short burning and not particularly intense, or hot, fires (ONE HOUR in one case and not much more in the other) would have been absorbed and distributed to other steels adjacent, the large surface area to volume ratio (scale and dimensions again) of steel columns assists with the conducting of heat out as it travels along and through. The wood-fired oven is actually quite a good example of this in action (through the concrete or bricks, depending what it's made from) and it gets up to 800 celcius - consider that it takes a couple of hours of constant feeding of fuel into an enlosed space to achieve these temperatures locally. And still the structure doesn't fail - I'm pretty sure the A393 mesh I put in the concrete of mine hasn't melted yet, and thats only 5-6mm reinforcing tied to 10mm rebar with a four inch concrete pad over (same as the floors in wtc), the concrete is a bit blackened, but you'd expect that with an 800 C fire sitting on it. There is no deformation after being used well over a hundred times at 800C for three to four to five hours each use. This intense heat in a relatively small, contained space - the towers were a different proposition altogether - takes a while to build, and the oven is designed to retain the heat as far as possible. The towers were not built to retain any heat from fires and the amount of heat being conducted along and out of the steel and concrete present in the towers would be pretty high given the huge amounts of steel and concrete available into which redistribution and release takes place.
You can 'prove' any theory if you choose the wrong parameters for your so-called experiment. Yes it is an experiment, but it's the wrong experiment. It's a shame you won't even begin to discuss the political and pychological aspects when it is clear that your position is based as much on those as it is on 'official' science.
You keep mentioning my apparent 'incredulity' and use it, trying to debase my position by repeating it is 'personal'; you are, though, unable to see the selectivity of your own credulity.
This is asymmetric collapse. How do you explain that this tilting top section of building arrested its momentum? Would that, according to Newton's inertia laws, require some other (greater) force acting upon it?
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it does. It becomes ever more clear that your position is a political one as much as any other. Your constant silent refusal to take on all aspects of the argument confirms. What do you need me to explain? Surface to volume ratio? Here's something which might help...
Surface area to volume ratio is a relatively simple property that is very important. It's why the Mrs can be cold while you're not. Why road rock doesn't break down very fast, why sand leaches and why clay doesn't let go of fertilizer.
Surface:volume ratio is often a factor in the reactivity, or the rate, at which a chemical reaction can take place.
Materials with large surface area to volume ratios (eg. very small diameter) react at much faster rates than larger materials, because more particle surface is available to react. A good example is grain dust; while grain is not typically flammable, grain dust is explosive. Another example is steel wool; steel wool will burn, but take a nail and try to set it on fire. You see the problem now? Good luck with that nail - why don't you do an experiment with a blowtorch using Mapp and a 150mmx3mm nail in a vice next to some steel wool. Put the nail in the vice sideways and clamp it so there is tension. Get the torch on it till it fails. See how hot your vice gets by the transference of heat from the small points of the nail being in contact. Are you now trying to suggest that steel doesn't really conduct heat? Do you realise how hot a piece of steel of structural dimensions needs to get before it gets weakened? How intense and focused that heat needs to be? Clearly not.
It depends on the structural integrity of what is beneath, obviously. Upward force is being applied and presumably the upper section is in motion on a fulcrum - that creates a lot of momentum. Your question seems to be asking: if, after taking away all possible forces in action, we 're-start' this image - what would happen? The answer to that question is obvious to anyone understanding one of Newton's laws, or simply from experience: it would go straight down due to gravity; it's worth noting that even if it did do that, it has shifted its mass and would be crushing down more on one side of the building than the other, until it meets so much resistance it is either arrested or more likely deflected. The problem with phrasing a question like that is that it's the wrong question seeking a desired answer; it doesn't relate to the reality of what happened. In brief: clearly gravity is not the only force at work here.
I think l've said enough about that for you to understand. Actually, it was you who brought scale into it - apparently you have experience with its problems, but you won't say what that is? It's getting interesting - why keep picking up one liners? Getting tired of avoiding questions, so start trolling?
You said something that seemed wrong. So I asked you to clarify. Obviously the beams would have a very LOW surface area to volume ration, which would tend to keep the heat in, not radiate it out. Which is the opposite of what you said. So does that change anything?
This is asymmetric collapse. How do you explain that this tilting top section of building arrested its momentum? Would that, according to Newton's inertia laws, require some other (greater) force acting upon it?
Like answering a question with a question. Why don't you answer this one before you go ignoring any more?
Last edited by a moderator:
and where have all your mates gone?
don't they want to support your film's findings?
- Status
Similar threads
