Robert Walper - 04 July 2012 11:28 AM

Michael Fullerton - 04 July 2012 11:16 AM

You are making the claim that fire damage brought down the building.

Correct.

It is you that needs to provide evidence of that.

Correct.

You have evidence that WTC 7 sustained fire damage

Ta da!

but no evidence that that damage alone brought it down. All you have is a crackpot hypothesis supported by faith.

I did my part. I claimed fire damage is what brought the building down, and you admit I have presented evidence of fire damage.

Now you are making the claim fire damage is not sufficient to do so. Justify this claim.

I am not making a claim. I am stating the fact that you have no evidence that the fire damage sustained was enough to bring the building down. The burden of proof is on you, the person making the loony crackpot claim, not me.

Someone else will have to explain the burden of proof logical fallacy to him. He’ll never accept anything I say.

Michael Fullerton - 04 July 2012 11:36 AM

I am not making a claim.

I am stating the fact that you have no evidence that the fire damage sustained was enough to bring the building down.

The building sustained heavy, prolonged fire damage and it collapsed. What greater proof do you need?

The burden of proof is on you, the person making the loony crackpot claim, not me.

You just finished admitting I presented evidence the building sustained fire damage. The building collapsed due to this damage.

Someone else will have to explain the burden of proof logical fallacy to him. He’ll never accept anything I say.

I’m not going to accept your dishonest dodge of pretending you’re not asserting the fire damage wasn’t sufficient to bring ther building down.

My position:
-Building sustained heavy, prolonged fire damage.
-You admit I presented evidence of this.
-Building collapsed.
-Conclusion: building collapsed due to fire damage.

By all means, submit your arguments as to why fire wouldn’t be sufficient to bring the WTC 7 building down.

Robert is correct Michael. The evidence seems sufficient and the standard theory is the most logical explanation. The experts agree with Rober and none of us here has adequate training, knowledge or even a reason to refute that. You are the one proposing an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof falls on you at this point

Unsupported pronouncements, logical fallacies and unreplicated unverified experiments are not explanations. They are BS

No they’re not. These are the very scienitific statements, evidences and rebuttals from

a) bona fide experts which you claim you were interested in and

b) which you thought didn’t even exist.

It only took me a few seconds to find them. The CSI and the Skeptic’s Society websites are public access with search functions so you could have done the same.

You chose not to, and chose to dismiss them without even bothering to read them which tells me quite a bit about where you really stand on this question. You’re not interested in discussion or debate and you never were.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 04 July 2012 12:49 PM

Unsupported pronouncements, logical fallacies and unreplicated unverified experiments are not explanations. They are BS

No they’re not. These are the very scienitific statements, evidences and rebuttals from

a) bona fide experts which you claim you were interested in and

b) which you thought didn’t even exist.

It only took me a few seconds to find them. The CSI and the Skeptic’s Society websites are public access with search functions so you could have done the same.

You chose not to, and chose to dismiss them without even bothering to read them which tells me quite a bit about where you really stand on this question. You’re not interested in discussion or debate and you never were.

It’s not me that hasn’t read them. I dare you to present a single piece of scientific evidence from these gish gallop links that you believe supports the crackpot official explanation of how WTC 7 came down. You won’t do it because you know that no such evidence exists. If the evidence existed you’d explain it here simply instead of gish galloping away.

Michael Fullerton - 04 July 2012 01:00 PM

It’s not me that hasn’t read them. I dare you to present a single piece of scientific evidence from these gish gallop links that you believe supports the crackpot official explanation of how WTC 7 came down. You won’t do it because you know that no such evidence exists. If the evidence existed you’d explain it here simply instead of gish galloping away.

The 9/11 decade is the pinnacle of Western culture.

I don’t know why you pick on WTC7.  I don’t even find it intellectually interesting.  The building was 300 feet wide.  But except for the obvious slight crimp, the roof line gives way simultaneously and falls uniformly across the entire 300 feet.  How anyone can believe that fire or debris from a nearby fallen building could have caused that is beyond my comprehension.

The only shocking explanation which I find incomprehensible is that people find the alternative to the absurd belief in fire induced collapse, far more repugnant, so they can accept what defies physics.

At least WTC1 and WTC2 are intellectually interesting and do not look like normal controlled demolitions.

Suppose we had the north tower intact and then removed 5 stories, 91 through 95. That would leave a 60 foot gap with 15 stories in the air without support. They would fall. They would take 1.9 seconds to hit the top of the lower intact 90 stories and be traveling at 42 mph or 62 ft/sec.

Those 90 stories would be about 1080 feet tall. If the falling 15 stories could maintain a constant velocity while crushing six times as many stories as themselves even though they had to be stronger and heavier than the falling 15 stories then it would take 17.4 seconds to destroy 90 stories. This would yield a total of 19.3 seconds to destroy the north tower.

But Dr. Sunder of the NIST told NPR in a podcast the the north tower collapsed in 11 seconds.

Now why are we supposed to believe that was possible when the physics profession has not demanded and provided accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the north tower?

9/11 is the biggest farce of physics in human history.

http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html

But then we have atheists who portray themselves as intelligent, rational and scientific.  So why do they have a problem with 300 year old Newtonian Physics 43 years after the Moon landing?  And then the Empire State Building is 81 years old and designed without electronic computers because they didn’t exist in the 1920s.  So no one can claim that skyscrapers are rocket science.  But then they want to talk about climate change like that is not particularly complicated. 

When I am in the right mood it is hysterically funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdTOY-giMy4

But to change their minds some people would have to admit they have been really dumb for ten years.  At least I can say we still don’t have accurate data on the buildings.  Like how much did all of the steel trusses and corrugated pans in a floor assembly weigh?  I have never seen it.  The physics profession has not been demanding it.  Who knows? 

Happy Independence Day!  We are independent of physics.

psik

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 04 July 2012 12:49 PM

You’re not interested in discussion or debate and you never were.

This is obvious from evasive tactics like Michael not answering a straight forward question like “Why is fire bringing down a building implausible in this scenario?”

He admitted I presented evidence the building had multiple, uncontrolled and prolonged fires going on in it. Firefighters and the fire chief stated as much and we have plenty of evidence of such fires. They attempted to extinguish said fires, and then failing that, fearing the building would collapse based upon their observations of structural damage, they evacuated it and cornered it off. And then, surprise! It collapsed as they had feared it would.

I dare you to present a single piece of scientific evidence from these gish gallop links that you believe supports the crackpot official explanation of how WTC 7 came down.

Asked and answered. if you had bothered to read any of that material, you would know this.

This is obvious from evasive tactics like Michael not answering a straight forward question like “Why is fire bringing down a building implausible in this scenario?”

I don’t understand why he has a problem with grasping that. Damaged and burning buildings, particularly those which have had huge heaping chunks of other buildings fall on them, have a nasty habit of giving up the ghost.

One doesn’t have to be Jimmy Nuetron Boy Genius to recognize that.

Oh well, I’m done with this thread. He’s obviously made up his mind and won’t let anybody confuse him with the facts.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 04 July 2012 05:09 PM

One doesn’t have to be Jimmy Nuetron Boy Genius to recognize that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRk2mdsXhuw

psik

psik this is not simple physics. There are far too many factors involving the construction of the building for anyone but an expert to even attempt to say that the obvious story of what happened is not correct. This is not the proper place for such a discussion because neither you nor anyone here is qualified to have that debate. What we may be more qualified to do is look at the reasoning.

Those who believe there was an american CIA conspiracy behind 911 seem to overlook a lot of gaping holes in their conspiracy theory.

1) Why would a presumably intelligent agency take the risk of planting explosives in a building and being discovered when the crashing of two huge jets into the two building would have already caused one of the greatest tragedies in the countries history. Honestly, you don’t think that act alone was dramatic enough so the CIA spent months and took great risk planting explosives around the building hoping no one would catch on just to give this already incomprehensible disaster that extra finishing touch?

2) You claim that the CIA was expert enough to prepare this demolition but yet they were so stupid that they didn’t have the forethought to make it look more realistic? If they were going to fake it don;t you think they would have gone to just a little extra effort to make sure it didn’t look like a demolition? I guess all you conspiracy guys are just so much smarter than the CIA and all the experts they have on hand.

I think the people who have ten years invested in something they dont want to admit is wrong are the conspiracy believers.

macgyver - 04 July 2012 07:18 PM

psik this is not simple physics. There are far too many factors involving the construction of the building for anyone but an expert to even attempt to say that the obvious story of what happened is not correct. This is not the proper place for such a discussion because neither you nor anyone here is qualified to have that debate. What we may be more qualified to do is look at the reasoning.

Those who believe there was an american CIA conspiracy behind 911 seem to overlook a lot of gaping holes in their conspiracy theory.

Conspiracies are irrelevant because human beings cannot change physics.

A skyscraper must hold itself up so every level down from the top means increasing the amount of steel to increase the strength which means more weight which must be supported by levels further down.  Are you saying 7th and 8th graders cannot understand that?  You don’t need to know the temperature needed to weld steel to know the amount of steel had to increase.  People don’t need to know enough to design skyscrapers to understand the absurdities of a supposed collapse.

If so then why haven’t physicists and structural engineers been telling us the amount of steel on every level for years.  Or do we simply have EXPERTS pretending things are more difficult to understand than they actually are.  How many more computers are there than there were 20 years ago?  But they are still von Neumann machines.  Curious how I don’t hear that term mentioned much even by people who claim to advocate computer literacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dg96tefnEU

psik

*sigh*.....again???

macgyver - 04 July 2012 07:18 PM

2) You claim that the CIA was expert enough to prepare this demolition but yet they were so stupid that they didn’t have the forethought to make it look more realistic? If they were going to fake it don;t you think they would have gone to just a little extra effort to make sure it didn’t look like a demolition? I guess all you conspiracy guys are just so much smarter than the CIA and all the experts they have on hand.

I think the people who have ten years invested in something they dont want to admit is wrong are the conspiracy believers.

Let’s see you provide a link to where I said anything about the CIA.

People who think human behavior is more important than physics concentrate on conspiracies and accuse other people of doing that same idiotic nonsense.

psik

psikeyhackr - 05 July 2012 07:35 AM

People who think human behavior is more important than physics concentrate on conspiracies and accuse other people of doing that same idiotic nonsense.

psik

Do you think there is something physically impossible or implausible about WTC 7 collapsing due to extensive and prolonged fire damage?

Robert Walper - 05 July 2012 07:53 AM

Do you think there is something physically impossible or implausible about WTC 7 collapsing due to extensive and prolonged fire damage?

see post #36.