25 of 91
25
Any scientific evidence to support official WTC 7 fall theory?
Posted: 11 May 2013 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 361 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
VYAZMA - 11 May 2013 12:40 PM

I’d like to hear the ideas you OBVIOUSLY have.

My observation is the phenomenon that destroyed the towers has not been experimentally demonstrated—and my suggestion is it never will be, because it is impossible.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 01:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 362 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 11 May 2013 01:21 PM
VYAZMA - 11 May 2013 12:40 PM

I’d like to hear the ideas you OBVIOUSLY have.

My observation is the phenomenon that destroyed the towers has not been experimentally demonstrated—and my suggestion is it never will be, because it is impossible.

We don’t need to demostrate it, only explain it the best way that fits all the existing evidence. We’ve done that already, with the input of hundreds of experts, analysis of all available evidence and significant financial investment of time and resources.

So unless you are going to present us with new evidence, you have no argument. Anything else?

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 01:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 363 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 12:30 PM
psikeyhackr - 11 May 2013 12:18 PM
Robert Walper - 10 May 2013 09:18 PM
psikeyhackr - 10 May 2013 08:47 PM

Could the portion of the north tower above the impact zone fall and sequentially destroy the intact portion below making it all come down in less than 30 seconds?

Yes, it could. We have abundant video evidence right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fg1jmr3n6w

That is SO FASCINATING!  I can’t see what is happening to the core.  The NIST says it supported 53% of the weight.

psik

So between any laughable analysis you make while refusing to provide numbers for it and the NIST expert analysis that does provide numbers, math and evidence, guess which one I will favour? LOL

The 10,000 page NIST analysis which took three years and cost $20,000,000 which never specifies the total amount of concrete for the towers but does for the steel?

And yet admits in three places that they need to know the weight distribution of the towers to analyse the impacts.  Very scientific!

Then they provide a graph of the oscillation of the south tower and say the building deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor and never say how much it deflected at the 81st floor where the plane impacted.

Yeah, the NIST report is so scientific and then the physics profession has failed to discuss their ridiculous oversights.  Then Purdue has to chime in simulating the top 20 storeys of the north tower with no deflection thereby contradicting the NIST report.  Who is more stupid?

The 9/11 Affair is about way more than the physics of 9/11.  It is about this entire academic culture that has maintained confusion for 11 years.  And on a grade school physics problem.  That is what is so hysterically funny.

psik

[ Edited: 11 May 2013 03:00 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 364 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 01:27 PM

We don’t need to demostrate it

Yes, you do. In principle it’s simple, right?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 05:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 365 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 11 May 2013 04:36 PM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 01:27 PM

We don’t need to demostrate it

Yes, you do

No we don’t. We need only submit an explanation that fits the available evidence. We’ve done that and the explanation is sound, as determined by our best experts and resources applied to the problem. You’ll note neither you or psikey were called upon for this pocess. Hint: there’s a reason for that.

In principle it’s simple, right?

In principle it’s simple that loading my truck or equivalant vehicle with explosives will explode it. This does not mean I therefore need to demostrate this with a physical model or even a computer model. Especially since according to individuals such as yourself, the only purpose of doing so is to confirm that another truck loaded with explosives that exploded did in fact explode due to explosives, and isn’t in fact caused by something else you refuse to propose or submit as an alternative explanation.

In summary, two very large aircraft loaded with jet fuel slammed and exploded into the WTC towers at high speed, destroying support structures, blasting off fireproofing materials, and ignited high temperature fires that weakened and deformed structural supports and integrity of the buildings until they collapsed. This is very well documented with direct video footage of the disaster and careful examination of the evidence as done by the most qualified personnel we put on the case.

So, what’s your actual evidence this isn’t the case? Submit evidence and/or an alternative explanation that fits all the evidence we have, or you are literally accomplishing nothing other stomping your feet and proclaiming you don’t believe it.

Which is fine, you can believe whatever you want. But until you bring some actual evidence to the table, your beliefs are as persuasive as the beliefs of people who think the earth is flat and that all the current expertise and evidence saing otherwise is ‘flawed’ or ‘incomplete’. Get cracking on your evidence; until you do, no one will take you seriously.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 05:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 366 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:07 PM

We need only submit an explanation that fits the available evidence.

If you can’t demonstrate that the phenomenon you say destroyed the towers can be experimentally represented in any way at all, you are merely a fantasist—however many experts you invoke.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 05:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 367 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 11 May 2013 05:31 PM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:07 PM

We need only submit an explanation that fits the available evidence.

If you can’t demonstrate that the phenomenon you say destroyed the towers can be experimentally represented in any way at all, you are merely a fantasist—however many experts you invoke.

If you can’t submit evidence or an alternative explanation that fits it in any way at all, you are merely a fantasist—-however many times you post.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 05:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 368 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:37 PM
jomper - 11 May 2013 05:31 PM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:07 PM

We need only submit an explanation that fits the available evidence.

If you can’t demonstrate that the phenomenon you say destroyed the towers can be experimentally represented in any way at all, you are merely a fantasist—however many experts you invoke.

If you can’t submit evidence or an alternative explanation that fits it in any way at all, you are merely a fantasist—-however many times you post.

Playground stuff. That’s real debunking, folks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 May 2013 05:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 369 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 11 May 2013 05:42 PM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:37 PM
jomper - 11 May 2013 05:31 PM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:07 PM

We need only submit an explanation that fits the available evidence.

If you can’t demonstrate that the phenomenon you say destroyed the towers can be experimentally represented in any way at all, you are merely a fantasist—however many experts you invoke.

If you can’t submit evidence or an alternative explanation that fits it in any way at all, you are merely a fantasist—-however many times you post.

Playground stuff. That’s real debunking, folks.

You’re the one challenging the official conclusion. The burden of proof rests with you to demostrate its faults.

 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 12:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 370 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:44 PM

You’re the one challenging the official conclusion. The burden of proof rests with you to demostrate its faults.

Whereas it is apparently not incumbent on you to demonstrate that the phenomenon you say destroyed the towers actually occurs in the real world in any way, shape or form—except on 9/11, of course…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 05:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 371 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2012-07-02
jomper - 12 May 2013 12:32 AM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:44 PM

You’re the one challenging the official conclusion. The burden of proof rests with you to demostrate its faults.

Whereas it is apparently not incumbent on you to demonstrate that the phenomenon you say destroyed the towers actually occurs in the real world in any way, shape or form—except on 9/11, of course…

Correct. I did not create, contribute to or validate the official conclusion. I merely reviewed it and found it extensive, thorough and sound.

I’m being generously open minded here by waiting for you to present evidence and an argument for contesting the official conclusion submitted by our best experts on the subject, funded by millions and who spent years examining the case.

We’re still waiting, jomper. Where is your evidence and argument?

At this point you’re making even psikey seem intelligent, providing proof positive I can be convinced of what I used to think is impossible.. While his evidence and arguments are pure garbage and we’d have better luck squeezing blood out of a rock then getting him to admit he’s wrong, at least he submits what he thinks is evidence and makes his arguments (however shit they are) against the official conclusion. You can’t even pass that first hurdle.

If your goal is to drag the image of 9/11 truther movement though an even deeper abyss of rotting feces, you are succeeding brilliantly.

[ Edited: 12 May 2013 05:38 AM by Robert Walper ]
 Signature 

“When your arguments are…ashes. Then you have my permission to cry.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 07:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 372 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 05:28 AM
jomper - 12 May 2013 12:32 AM
Robert Walper - 11 May 2013 05:44 PM

You’re the one challenging the official conclusion. The burden of proof rests with you to demostrate its faults.

Whereas it is apparently not incumbent on you to demonstrate that the phenomenon you say destroyed the towers actually occurs in the real world in any way, shape or form—except on 9/11, of course…

Correct. I did not create, contribute to or validate the official conclusion. I merely reviewed it and found it extensive, thorough and sound.

So tell us where the NCSTAR1 report specifies the total amount of concrete in the towers.

They said there were “roughly 200,000 tons of steel” in three places in the report.  That agrees with data from before 9/11.  But that data also says there were 425,000 cubic yards of concrete.

Are you claiming to have read the entire 10,000 pages?  I have admitted many times that I have not.  But I burned it to DVD 6 years ago and have searched it hundreds of times.  You can search it for “center of mass” and “center of gravity” and there is never any mention of the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower.  When they use “center of mass” they are talking about the aircraft.  When they say “center of gravity” they are talking about the components they simulated in a computer.  But there were 2800 perimeter wall panels on each tower from the 9th floor to the top and we do not have the weights and quantity of each variation of panel.

But you found it “EXTENSIVE, THOROUGH and SOUND”.

ROFLMAO

[9045]
psik

[ Edited: 12 May 2013 08:25 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 08:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 373 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
Robert Walper - 02 July 2012 10:42 AM
Michael Fullerton - 02 July 2012 10:33 AM

The burden of proof is on those making a claim. CFI by supporting the official WTC 7 explanation is implicitly making this claim and is supposed to provide evidence of their claim. So it is actually you who is shifting the burden of proof and committing this fallacy.

I just finished pointing out that uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 for the better part of a day brought it down. This is consistent with the proven observation ‘fires destroy things, including structures’ and the observation of multiple uncontrolled fires taking place in WTC 7.

An appeal to ignorance states that there is no evidence for P therefore not P. I did not state that because there is no evidence for the official WTC 7 theory it is false. So you fabricated a position for me to knock down. You committed the straw man fallacy.

The current explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is uncontrolled fires burning for the better part of a day, causing critical support structure failure and bringing the building down.

This requires no greater understanding than ‘fires destroy things, including large structures’.

Ok, your next step is to provide evidence that multiple controlled fires were set, or that any fires were set, when and where they were set and who set them.  Hard evidence, please.  Otherwise your claim is as empty as a claim that aliens did it.  You haven’t a scrap of evidence for your claims, so why not do yourself and all of us a favor and learn how science,critical thinking and the burden of proof work. You might start with a third grade science textbook. You obviously need to start at square one.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 08:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 374 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  427
Joined  2013-02-16

Do you not find it curious that

Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 05:28 AM

our best experts on the subject, funded by millions and who spent years examining the case

could not experimentally demonstrate the principle that destroyed the towers? Wouldn’t this at least be a legitimate avenue of research in the years that have passed since?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 May 2013 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 375 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2415
Joined  2007-07-05
jomper - 12 May 2013 08:59 AM

Do you not find it curious that

Robert Walper - 12 May 2013 05:28 AM

our best experts on the subject, funded by millions and who spent years examining the case

could not experimentally demonstrate the principle that destroyed the towers? Wouldn’t this at least be a legitimate avenue of research in the years that have passed since?

That is the problem for any experts now.  How can they possibly admit to being so obviously stupid for so long?

Where has there even been discussion of how steel and concrete must be distributed down buildings over 400 meters tall in the last 11 years?

Those distributions were the primary things on my mind for two weeks after 9/11.  The worst possible case for the south tower was the airliner making the top fall down the side.  The straight down collapse is ridiculous.  Are we really supposed to believe most physicists don’t see that?  The vast majority are saying NOTHING!

psik

[ Edited: 12 May 2013 10:57 AM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
   
25 of 91
25