9/11 EXPOSED
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-02-2016, 04:22 PM
WTC7 Demolished on 9/11
Well.... here I am back in this thread, and it's been about another 100 pages of back and forth Psikeybabble, misdirection and distraction since I was here last. Doesn't matter. If anyone could have found an error in the analysis they would have pointed it out by now so.... Who cares?

________________WTC7 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION________________
An Empirically Verifiable Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 04:43 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 04:22 PM)WOPR Wrote:  Well.... here I am back in this thread, and it's been about another 100 pages of back and forth Psikeybabble, misdirection and distraction since I was here last. Doesn't matter. If anyone could have found an error in the analysis they would have pointed it out by now so.... Who cares?

I pointed out your flawed assumptions. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 05:47 PM (This post was last modified: 22-02-2016 05:50 PM by WOPR.)
WTC7 Demolished on 9/11
(22-02-2016 08:37 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I must say, I'm not impressed. Gifsets?

Gifsets? Well, you can call them what you like but it won't change the fact that they're scale animated scientific visualizations formatted by a Cambridge University educated forty-five year veteran PhD reasearch physicist. He understood them, I understand them, other people understand them, so if you don't understand them and they all just appear to be nothing more than little cartoons.... Whose problem is that?

________________WTC7 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION________________
An Empirically Verifiable Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 06:05 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 05:47 PM)WOPR Wrote:  Gifsets? Well, you can call them what you like but it won't change the fact that they're scale animated scientific visualizations formatted by a Cambridge University educated forty-five year veteran PhD reasearch physicist.

Are they, now? Because what they appear to be is a series of nonsense animations shotgunned all over the internet by someone calling themselves, alternately, "Aemilius" and "IsaacNewton".

This anonymous poster doesn't seem to actually understand a damn thing about the topic of building collapse in general, or the collapse of WTC 7 in particular. They just post the same copy-pasted idiocy over and over, usually in dead threads or forums which have very little traffic, and expect people to take it at face value. When the flaws in their "empirically verifiable scientific method driven graphical method target system analysis" (and I say that with the strongest possible air quotes) are pointed out - as Chas and other posters have already done, and which takes about ten seconds' research to do - they simply leave, or babble incoherently for a while and then leave.

I don't claim to know whether or not you are the same IsaacNewton that has been roundly thrashed across two dozen different forums (though it seems likely, given your signature), and I certainly don't claim to care. But if you're going to come here and expect to change any minds, you had best bring something better than this drivel.

Until that time, get this weak-ass shit out of my kitchen.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
22-02-2016, 07:50 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 04:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I pointed out your flawed assumptions.

No.... you didn't point out anything.

(22-02-2016 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your observations, analysis, and conclusions are not consistent with either the science or the evidence.

It's a prima facie analysis, so whatever it is you're going on about there, you didn't apply it to any part of the analysis in such a way that any error or needed correction was shown.... vague blanket remarks are not a refutation.

(22-02-2016 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  The fires were burning for many hours and were widespread across the lower floors, weakening the structure across much of the width.

As clearly shown in the analysis, even a weakened steel column will not fail in a manner indistinguishable from air. With increasing temperature steel slowly gets weaker and becomes more maleable or ductile, it fails gradually, it doesn't just reach a threshold temperature and then suddenly buckle at gravitational acceleration.... there's no such thing as "natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration".

(22-02-2016 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  The collapse visibly starts near one side, but is not a point failure - it is a large internal section collapsing.

Both the NIST and independent researchers agree the upper part of the building descended as "a single unit", not a single unit that somehow magically hollowed itself out while the upper part of the building just waited around for the right conditions to emerge beneath it that would allow it to fall like a rock.

(22-02-2016 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  The progression of the collapse across the buildings visibly occurs far more rapidly than you claim, the overall collapse starts asymmetrically from the initial point.

Right.... far too rapidly to be natural progressive structural failure. In natural progressive structural failure, one column buckles causing the column next to it to buckle, then that column causes the next to buckle and so on. The one corner does begin descending a little less than a tenth of a second after the first but, sound travels about 112 feet in a tenth of a second, and the building was well over 300 feet wide, so the natural progressive structural failure you're describing would have had to occur at nearly three times the speed of sound.... Hah! If I tried that in school when I was twelve my teacher would still be paddling me today at 57!

(22-02-2016 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  When you get the facts straight, your argument fails.

When I get the facts straight? You actually believe it's possible that after getting hot the building magically hollowed itself out below while the uper part of the building just waited around for everything to get out of the way when a natural progressive structural failure suddenly occurred at nearly three times the speed of sound over an area greater than that of a football field that caused all the remaining columns to buckle at gravitational acceleration for over 100 feet in a manner indistinguisable from air.... moronic.

________________WTC7 ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION________________
An Empirically Verifiable Graphical Target System Analysis and Conclusion
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2016, 07:54 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 07:50 PM)WOPR Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 04:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  I pointed out your flawed assumptions.

No.... you didn't point out anything.

(22-02-2016 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your observations, analysis, and conclusions are not consistent with either the science or the evidence.

It's a prima facie analysis, so whatever it is you're going on about there, you didn't apply it to any part of the analysis in such a way that any error or needed correction was shown.... vague blanket remarks are not a refutation.

(22-02-2016 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  The fires were burning for many hours and were widespread across the lower floors, weakening the structure across much of the width.

As clearly shown in the analysis, even a weakened steel column will not fail in a manner indistinguishable from air. With increasing temperature steel slowly gets weaker and becomes more maleable or ductile, it fails gradually, it doesn't just reach a threshold temperature and then suddenly buckle at gravitational acceleration.... there's no such thing as "natural progressive structural gravitational acceleration".

(22-02-2016 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  The collapse visibly starts near one side, but is not a point failure - it is a large internal section collapsing.

Both the NIST and independent researchers agree the upper part of the building descended as "a single unit", not a single unit that somehow magically hollowed itself out while the upper part of the building just waited around for the right conditions to emerge beneath it that would allow it to fall like a rock.

(22-02-2016 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  The progression of the collapse across the buildings visibly occurs far more rapidly than you claim, the overall collapse starts asymmetrically from the initial point.

Right.... far too rapidly to be natural progressive structural failure. In natural progressive structural failure, one column buckles causing the column next to it to buckle, then that column causes the next to buckle and so on. The one corner does begin descending a little less than a tenth of a second after the first but, sound travels about 112 feet in a tenth of a second, and the building was well over 300 feet wide, so the natural progressive structural failure you're describing would have had to occur at nearly three times the speed of sound.... Hah! If I tried that in school when I was twelve my teacher would still be paddling me today at 57!

(22-02-2016 10:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  When you get the facts straight, your argument fails.

When I get the facts straight? You actually believe it's possible that after getting hot the building magically hollowed itself out below while the uper part of the building just waited around for everything to get out of the way when a natural progressive structural failure suddenly occurred at nearly three times the speed of sound over an area greater than that of a football field that caused all the remaining columns to buckle at gravitational acceleration for over 100 feet in a manner indistinguisable from air.... moronic.

You keep making unsupported statements that are inconsistent with the video evidence and the rate of propagation of forces.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-02-2016, 07:56 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
Why is it nobody here JAQing off on the what actually happened doesn't have the balls to bite the bullet and put forth their own explanation?

Or does aliens, secret technology, and claiming the most inept presidency in generations was somehow capable of the mother of all conspiracies, all somehow seem less plausible than the explanation they're all slagging off on. Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
22-02-2016, 08:00 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 07:56 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why is it nobody here JAQing off on the what actually happened doesn't have the balls to bite the bullet and put forth their own explanation?

Or does aliens, secret technology, and claiming the most inept presidency in generations was somehow capable of the mother of all conspiracies, all somehow seem less plausible than the explanation they're all slagging off on. Dodgy

Because they are not actually rational; they are obsessed with their misunderstandings and unwilling/unable to consider that they don't actually know much about physics or engineering.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
22-02-2016, 08:05 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 08:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-02-2016 07:56 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why is it nobody here JAQing off on the what actually happened doesn't have the balls to bite the bullet and put forth their own explanation?

Or does aliens, secret technology, and claiming the most inept presidency in generations was somehow capable of the mother of all conspiracies, all somehow seem less plausible than the explanation they're all slagging off on. Dodgy

Because they are not actually rational; they are obsessed with their misunderstandings and unwilling/unable to consider that they don't actually know much about physics or engineering.

They just remind me of Creationist. They do they're best to attempt to poke at what they perceive to be singular flaws with the theory, but none of them appear to be cognitive of the fact that the only way to replace evolutionary biology would be to propose a theory that somehow better accounts for all of the evidence and makes better predictions. Creationists cannot do this, and as of yet, none of the 9-11 'truthers' here have either. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
22-02-2016, 08:09 PM
RE: 9/11 EXPOSED
(22-02-2016 07:56 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why is it nobody here JAQing off on the what actually happened doesn't have the balls to bite the bullet and put forth their own explanation?

Oh, WOPR does. Assuming for the moment that he is actually "IsaacNewton", he claims that the only valid explanation for the collapse of the towers is that they were taken down by controlled demolition via explosives, and that the only possible culprit was the US government.

Still incredibly stupid, yes, but he does at least have a theory.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: